identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
2A228784FFABFFB4FF15FCB6FD98C7BA.text	2A228784FFABFFB4FF15FCB6FD98C7BA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Megalocnus Leidy 1868	<div><p>Megalocnus Leidy, 1868</p> <p>Classically, Megalocnus is distinguished from all other phyllophagans by its specialized maxillary incisiform teeth (Matthew and Paula Couto, 1959). However, it also exhibits highly distinctive postcranial elements (White, 1993a; see also White and MacPhee, in press), exhibiting a number of hitherto unrecognized or underappreciated skeletal apomorphies. Megalocnus is also the only Antillean sloth taxon other than Parocnus that can be justifiably called megafaunal. (M. rodens was estimated by Paula Couto [1979] to have weighed ± 270 kg, but it would be useful to check this guess against results using cortical cross­sectional areas [Biknevicius et al., 1993] or other modern methods.) Megalocnus rodens, the first Antillean sloth to be identified as such (Leidy, 1868), is known from a large number of sites on the mainland of Cuba as well as Isla de Pinos (= I. de la Juventud) (Matthew and Paula Couto, 1959). A large number of species— and even subspecies—of Cuban Megalocnus have been named over the years; all are synonymized (as M. rodens) by White and MacPhee (in press), obviating the need for separate comparisons here.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS OF GENUS: Differs from Parocnus (= Mesocnus) 4 (the only valid genus</p> <p>4 Taxa conventionally grouped under Mesocnus and Parocnus are considered congeneric by White and MacPhee (in press); Parocnus (Miller, 1929) has priority over Mesocnus (latter not validly named until Matthew’s [1931] publication).</p> <p>with which it might be confused on the basis of size) in many details of cranial and postcranial construction, as follows: maxillary teeth pseudorodentiform or incisiform rather than caniniform (i.e., broad and anteroposteriorly compressed); femoral and humeral heads more convex; acetabular rim with large gap. In the case of the scapula (see fig. 2A–F), differences include: fossa for teres major is more developed; (2) post­ and prescapular fossae are unequal (prescapular fossa much larger); (3) rostral and caudal borders of scapular spine are divergent (not parallel); (4) second scapular spine is more prominent at inferior angle; (5) anterior scapular border is smoothly curved (border damaged in UF 169977, but shape discernible in other specimens); and (6) glenoid fossa is more concave. Differs from M. rodens from Cuba in that fossa for teres major is much more capacious and expands abruptly beneath secondary scapular spine. These illustrations should be compared to the right scapula of M. rodens (AMNH 49968) depicted by Matthew and Paula Couto (1959: pl. 13). Although much reconstructed, the caudal border of AMNH 49968 is intact and shows only a comparatively small fossa for teres major (cf. Parocnus).</p> <p>major much larger, expanded into a blade; pre­ and postscapular (i.e., supra­ and infraspinous) fossae unequal, with prescapular fossa being much the larger; rostral and caudal borders of scapular spine divergent (rath­ er than parallel); second scapular spine more prominent; anterior scapular border smoothly curved (rather than sinusoidal); glenoid fossa strongly anteroposteriorly concave.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2A228784FFABFFB4FF15FCB6FD98C7BA	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	R D E Macphee;Jennifer L White;Charles A Woods	R D E Macphee, Jennifer L White, Charles A Woods (2000): New Megalonychid Sloths (Phyllophaga, Xenarthra) from the Quaternary of Hispaniola. American Museum Novitates 3303: 1-32
2A228784FFA8FFB8FCF2FBBDFF4FC427.text	2A228784FFA8FFB8FCF2FBBDFF4FC427.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Megalocnus zile R D E Macphee & Jennifer L White & Charles A Woods 2000	<div><p>Megalocnus zile, new species</p> <p>HOLOTYPE: Scapula (left side, UF 169930; fig. 2), found 20 March 1979 by C. A. Woods and party. No unambiguous association at type locality with other bones referred to same species.</p> <p>TYPE LOCALITY AND AGE: Trou Gallery, Île de la Tortue, Département du Nord­Ouest, Haiti; late Quaternary (see appendix 1).</p> <p>SYNONYMS: None (but see below).</p> <p>REFERRED SPECIMENS: Several molariforms (UF 170490–170492; see fig. 3), acetabular fragment (UF 169931), femoral head (UF 169932), several patellae (UF 169924– 169928), distal and proximal fibulae (UF 169929 and 169933), and partial scapula (UF 169934), all from Trou Gallery. Also includ­ ed in the hypodigm is a fragmentary scapula from an unnamed locality near the town of Bayaguana, Prov. San Cristobal, Dominican Republic, from the Marcano collection (#318/325) and currently housed at UF (see appendix 1).</p> <p>ETYMOLOGY: Haitian Creole noun (in apposition) meaning ‘‘island,’’ pronounced ap­ proximately [zee­leh]; reference is to species’ presence on Île de la Tortue as well as Hispaniolan mainland. Recommended common name: Hispaniolan megalocnus.</p> <p>DISTRIBUTION: Haiti (including Île de la Tortue) and Dominican Republic.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS OF NEW SPECIES: With respect to known elements, agrees with features that define the genus as given above. The new species can be distinguished from M. rodens by reference to the fossa for teres major on the caudal border of the scapula, which is notably expanded beneath the secondary scapular spine (cf. fig. 2 and Matthew and Paula Couto, 1959: pl. 13). Parocnus contrasts with M. zile in the same regard, indi­ cating that an expanded teres major fossa is a derived feature within megalocnines. Also, the femoral head of M. zile is more spherical than that of M. rodens, nearly to the degree seen in the subfamily Choloepodinae.</p> <p>DISCUSSION: The possibility that Megalocnus or a close relative lived in Hispaniola or one of its satellite islands has been raised repeatedly but inconclusively. Originally, Mill­ er (1922) tentatively proposed that certain fragmentary postcranial remains from a cave near St.­Michel­de­l’Atalaye (Département de L’Artibonite) belonged to ‘‘ Megalocuus?’’ [lapsus calami]), there being at this time no other place for their reception. Some years later he moved the St.­Michel material to a new genus, Parocnus (Miller, 1929). Hoffstetter (1955) challenged this maneuver, contending that Miller’s sloth was indeed a member of Megalocnus and should therefore be designated M. serus. Most authors have recognized Parocnus and retained serus therein (e.g., Matthew and Paula Couto, 1959; Varona, 1974; White and MacPhee, in press; but see Hooijer and Ray, 1964, who retained M. serus without comment).</p> <p>Although it has long been known that Cuban Megalocnus is distinctive in possessing incisiform maxillary front teeth, no similar teeth have as yet been found in Hispaniola. However, large molariforms, very like those of Cuban Megalocnus, have been recovered at Trou Gallery (fig. 3). It is possible that the highly specialized upper front teeth of M. rodens are autapomorphic, but this possibility cannot be evaluated in the absence of relevant remains of the Hispaniolan species. The postcranial material of M. zile, although limited, is distinctive of this genus and strongly corroborates the conclusion that Megalocnus was represented on both sides of the Windward Passage in the late Cenozoic. As far as we can ascertain, none of the material originally referred to Megalocnus sp. by Miller (1922, 1929) actually belongs to that taxon (i.e., all of it belongs to Parocnus serus as here delimited.)</p> <p>Until sample sizes for this species are improved, we resist making any deeper inferences about the distribution of Megalocnus zile in Hispaniola. At least in comparison to M. rodens in Cuba, whose remains are frequently encountered in Quaternary localities (Matthew and Paula Couto, 1959), it seems that M. zile may have been relatively rare (or rarely preserved in the usual fossil locales). Whether it actually was or not can be determined only by additional discoveries and relevant analyses.</p> <p>SUBFAMILY CHOLOEPODINAE GRAY, 1871 TRIBE ACRATOCNINI VARONA, 1974 Acratocnus Anthony, 1916 At one time or another, the name Acratocnus has been entered into the faunal lists of</p> <p>each of the three northern Greater Antilles (cf. Miller, 1929; Matthew and Paula Couto, 1959; Arredondo, 1961). Unfortunately, concepts and content of this taxon have differed greatly from author to author, making it quite uncertain whether, in fact, Acratocnus in any phylogenetically meaningful sense enjoyed the wide distribution claimed. Cladistic evaluation of the available character evidence, however, makes it abundantly clear that this taxon had a multi­island distribution with representatives in Puerto Rico, Cuba, and Hispaniola (White and MacPhee, in press). Additionally, in all probability Paulocnus petrifactus from Curaçao (Hooijer, 1962) is closely related to Acratocnus from the Great­ er Antilles, as is the unnamed sloth from Grenada described by MacPhee et al. (2000). In short, it is now evident that acratocnin sloths enjoyed a wide distribution in the West Indies—indeed, larger than that of any other Antillean land­mammal group except Capromyidae.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS OF GENUS: Cranium relatively tall and domed, with prominent postorbital constriction, sagittal crest, pronounced rostral mediolateral flare; symphyseal spout pointed and short; first maxillary tooth spikeshaped, trigonal, anteriorly projecting, and curved (i.e., caniniform); last maxillary molariform convex and narrowest lingually; first mandibular tooth straight, trigonal, and lacking posterointernal groove; last mandibular molariform convex lingually; femoral shaft cylindrical; tibial surface of astragalus parallel­sided, not divided, and posteriorly squared; fibular facet on astragalus deeply concave and funnel­shaped; radius with long, well­developed, abrupt pronator quadratus flange.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2A228784FFA8FFB8FCF2FBBDFF4FC427	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	R D E Macphee;Jennifer L White;Charles A Woods	R D E Macphee, Jennifer L White, Charles A Woods (2000): New Megalonychid Sloths (Phyllophaga, Xenarthra) from the Quaternary of Hispaniola. American Museum Novitates 3303: 1-32
2A228784FFA4FFBEFF3FFB0DFDD5C4B3.text	2A228784FFA4FFBEFF3FFB0DFDD5C4B3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Acratocnus Anthony 1916	<div><p>Acratocnus ye, new species</p> <p>HOLOTYPE: Skull and mandible (UF 170533; fig. 4, 5) in unambiguous association (same individual), collected 26 January 1984 by C. A. Woods and party.</p> <p>TYPE LOCALITY AND AGE: Trouing Vapè Deron, Plain Formon, Département du Sud, Haiti; late Quaternary (see appendix 1).</p> <p>SYNONYMS: None.</p> <p>REFERRED SPECIMENS: Hypodigm also includes several sets of associated postcranial</p> <p>elements from other localities (a sample of which are illustrated in fig. 6): left tibia (UF 75434), left scapula (UF 169985), and associated right femur (UF 76283), right and left fibulae (UF 75486, 75487), right astragalus and right and left calcanei (all numbered UF 170270), and right and left pelves (UF 170276), from Trujin Bridge, Morne la Visite; associated left humerus, ulna, radius (UF 169822) from Trouing Jérémie #3, Plain Formon. Other material: from Trujin Bridge, mandible (UF 76796), right tibia (UF 170271), right astragalus and left calcaneus (UF 170269), right humerus (UF 75528), right radius (UF 75579/80); from Trouing Jeremie #3, right fibula (UF 170453); from Trouing Bois Formon #1, Plain Formon, left ulna (UF 170089).</p> <p>ETYMOLOGY: Haitian Creole noun (in apposition) meaning ‘‘yesterday,’’ pronounced approximately [yeh]; reference is to this species being part of Hispaniola’s extinct fauna. Recommended common name: Yesterday’s acratocnus.</p> <p>DISTRIBUTION: Currently known only from Haiti, but presumed to have had a wider distribution in Hispaniola.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS OF NEW SPECIES: Agrees with A. odontrigonus (Puerto Rico) and A. antillensis (Cuba) in features that define the genus (see Anthony, 1918). Differs from these species in the following features: Skull markedly domed along sagittal crest in many individuals, forming a significant angle with rostrum; postorbital constriction not extreme; palatine foramina consistently prominent and abundant; symphyseal spout relatively short and pointed, laterally pinched and not smoothly conical, extremely ventrally pinched on either side of ventral keel, and projecting anteriorly at an angle significantly different from that of anterior border of mandible; rectus tubercle of pelvis very prominent and laterally projecting, creating a right angle in posterior view; acetabular rim nearly closed and pit (fossa) partly or completely filled in; femoral neck and head projecting anteriorly at an extreme angle; femoral head extremely large, globular, and afoveate; femoral shaft with great torsion and reduced third trochanter; tibial shaft with prominent anteromedial muscle scar; tibia with posterolaterally projecting proximal fibular articu­ lation; distinct ridge separating cuboid and sustentacular facets of calcaneus; calcaneal tuberosity waisted and relatively symmetrical; humeral head extremely large; humeral trochlea mediolaterally flat with reduced distal flare; bridge over entepicondylar foramen bears distinct eminence; entepicondylar foramen slightly visible posteriorly; pectoral crest markedly projecting medially; forelimb greatly elongated (brachial indices of 0.97 and 0.96 on two associated skeletons, as compared to a mean of 0.90 for A. odontrigonus [White, 1993a]); ulnar shaft with prominent anterolateral ridge.</p> <p>DISCUSSION: This species is very similar to Acratocnus odontrigonus in cranial, mandib­ ular, femoral, humeral, ulnar, calcaneal, and pelvic features, and virtually identical in scapular, radial, tibial, fibular, and astragalar features. However, thanks to large sample sizes, we have been able to assess, both qualitatively and quantitatively, this species’ normal range of individual variation for virtually all elements and thereby assess its differentiae from A. odontrigonus with some confidence.</p> <p>As far as can be determined, published referrals to Acratocnus in the older literature seem in most cases to involve misallocations of specimens properly placed in a different taxon, Neocnus (see below), and are therefore not cladistically supportable. Although all choloepodines possess trenchant first maxillary teeth that are triangular in crosssection (see above), they can be distinguished by the diagnostic cranial and postcranial traits cited here.</p> <p>TRIBE CUBANOCNINI VARONA, 19745</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2A228784FFA4FFBEFF3FFB0DFDD5C4B3	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	R D E Macphee;Jennifer L White;Charles A Woods	R D E Macphee, Jennifer L White, Charles A Woods (2000): New Megalonychid Sloths (Phyllophaga, Xenarthra) from the Quaternary of Hispaniola. American Museum Novitates 3303: 1-32
2A228784FFA2FFBCFF09FBA9FBA6C4DF.text	2A228784FFA2FFBCFF09FBA9FBA6C4DF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neocnus Arredondo 1961	<div><p>Neocnus Arredondo, 1961</p> <p>Neocnus is one of several Antillean sloth genera with a complicated systematic past,</p> <p>5 Although Neocnus (Arredondo, 1961) has priority over Cubanocnus (Kretzoi, 1968) at the genus level (operation of ICZN art. 40 [a][i]), Cubanocnini (Varona, 1974) was the first suprageneric nomen given to this group. It therefore has priority at the tribal level.</p> <p>which witnessed taxa being multiply synonymized and specimens being reassigned with apparent abandon. Here it is sufficient to note that Neocnus as currently constituted by White and MacPhee (in press) is a relatively large but logically bounded genus, with two species in Cuba (N. major, N. [= Microcnus] gliriformis) and three in Hispaniola (N. [= Synocnus] comes 6, plus two new species diagnosed here). Ascertaining species limits in a group of highly variable but not necessarily well sampled taxa is challenging, and some of the Neocnus species listed here may require further systematic treatment. As a group, the outstanding features of neocnuses are their small body sizes and skeletal indications of great arboreal agility. Osteologically, it is of some interest that none of the Hispaniolan specimens was found with jugals attached; nor have any isolated jugals been recognized in the collections made thus far. Unlike other megalonychids, which exhibit a broad sutural attachment area for the jugal, Neocnus has an attachment area that is no more than a raised dimple or shallow pocket on the maxilla, suggesting that this element (and related masseteric musculature?) may have been highly reduced (see fig. 12).</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS OF GENUS: Small body size; cranial flexion absent; postorbital constriction weak; mandibular caniniform grooved posterointernally; last mandibular molariform with deep lingual groove; femoral shaft anteroposteriorly flat and medially bowed with prong on anterior aspect (except for N. toupiti; see below); fibular facet of astragalus truncated and crescent­shaped; humerus short and slender but with prominent and squared supracondylar ridge; pronator quadratus flange confined distally.</p> <p>Neocnus dousman, new species HOLOTYPE: Skull (UF 76363; fig. 7) without clear associations, found 21–22 September 1983 by D. Cordier and party.</p> <p>6 Inclusion of Synocnus within Neocnus may seem controversial in that Synocnus is usually considered an ally of Acratocnus. However, this move is warranted because Paula Couto’s (1967) hypodigm is mixed (includes elements that actually belong to Parocnus) and his taxon definition is therefore unworkable. Absent the Parocnus specimens, it is evident that the remaining hypodigm represents a species that is phylogenetically Neocnus, not Acratocnus (White and MacPhee, in press).</p> <p>TYPE LOCALITY AND AGE: Trouing de la Scierie, Morne la Visite, Département del’Ouest, Haiti; late Quaternary (see appendix 1 for additional details).</p> <p>SYNONYMS: None.</p> <p>REFERRED SPECIMENS: Hypodigm also includes a mandible (UF 76370; see fig. 8)</p> <p>from the same locality and a number of postcranial elements from other localities (see fig. 11). From Trouing Deron #1, Plain Formon: right femur (UF 76204), right tibia (UF 170207), left humerus (UF 170105), left ulna (UF 170106), and right radius (UF 170107); from Trujin Bridge, Morne la Visite: right</p> <p>Fig. 7.</p> <p>femur (UF 76270/285), left humerus (UF 75575), left ulna (UF 75634), right astragalus (UF 170240), and right tibia (UF 75469); from Trouing Jérémie #5, Plain Formon: right calcaneus (UF 170291); from Trou Diable, St.­Michel: right calcaneus (UF 170205).</p> <p>ETYMOLOGY: Haitian Creole adjective meaning ‘‘slow,’’ pronounced approximately [doos­manh]; reference is to the classic behavioral characteristic of sloths. Recommended common name: Lesser neocnus.</p> <p>DISTRIBUTION: Haiti and Dominican Republic.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS OF NEW SPECIES: With regard to known elements, agrees with features that define the genus. Differs from other Neocnus species in having sagittal crest consistently present; cranium flattened; lateral groove of pterygoid present; symphyseal spout long, Continued.</p> <p>narrow, and untapered (relative to N. comes); proximal fibular facet of tibia oval, robust, and posteriorly oriented; femoral shaft with slight anterior prong; quadriceps femoris tubercle (= tibial tuberosity) forming hook with groove; pronator quadratus flange forming abrupt lateral crest; bicipital tuberosity anteriorly placed.</p> <p>DISCUSSION: See next entry.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2A228784FFA2FFBCFF09FBA9FBA6C4DF	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	R D E Macphee;Jennifer L White;Charles A Woods	R D E Macphee, Jennifer L White, Charles A Woods (2000): New Megalonychid Sloths (Phyllophaga, Xenarthra) from the Quaternary of Hispaniola. American Museum Novitates 3303: 1-32
2A228784FFA0FFA6FCF5FBA5FE46C7BA.text	2A228784FFA0FFA6FCF5FBA5FE46C7BA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neocnus toupiti R D E Macphee & Jennifer L White & Charles A Woods 2000	<div><p>Neocnus toupiti, new species</p> <p>HOLOTYPE: This species is founded on a partial associated skeleton collected at the type locality on 3 June 1984 by D. Cordier and party. In addition to the skull (UF 156892), chosen for illustration here (fig. 9), the Jérémie #5 holotypic skeleton includes the following separately numbered elements (fig. 11): right humerus, right and left radii and ulnae (all numbered UF 170073); right and left femora (UF 76235, 76236); right and left tibia, and right calcaneus (all numbered UF 170281); and left scapula (UF 170072).</p> <p>TYPE LOCALITY AND AGE: Trouing Jérémie #5, Plain Formon, Département du Sud, Hai­ ti; late Quaternary (see appendix 1 for additional details).</p> <p>SYNONYMS: None.</p> <p>REFERRED SPECIMENS: Hypodigm also includes a referred skull (UF 156894) from Trou Wòch Dadier, Étang de Miragôane; mandible (UF 171296; fig. 10) from Trou Ni­ colas, Morne la Visite; scapula (UF 170005) from Trujin Bridge, Morne la Visite; astragalus (UF 170286) from Trouing Jérémie #5; calcaneus (UF 170443) from Trouing Jérémie #3.</p> <p>ETYMOLOGY: Haitian Creole adjective meaning ‘‘tiny,’’ pronounced approximately [too­pitee]; reference is to the very small body size of this species. Recommended common name: Least neocnus.</p> <p>DISTRIBUTION: Haiti and Dominican Republic.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS OF NEW SPECIES: With respect to known elements, agrees with features that define the genus. Differs from other Neocnus species in having very small, extremely gracile skeleton; upper caniniform with very deep lingual groove; symphyseal spout long, narrow, and untapered (partly broken on holotype); femur lacking third trochanter; fem­ oral shaft cylindrical with reduced anterior prong; femoral head tiny; distal tibial articular surface very narrow and divided only at anterior edge; astragalus tiny with relatively long neck; ectal and sustentacular facets very close together; calcaneal tuberosity triangular and L­shaped (rather than J­shaped); ectal facet distinctly humped; most anterior aspect of glenoid fossa of scapula pointed; supracondylar ridge reduced; pronator quadratus flange gentle and reduced; ulnar shaft extremely laterally compressed; sigmoid notch of ulna unsegmented and shallow; proximal fibular facet of tibia round, reduced, and posteriorly oriented.</p> <p>DISCUSSION: Neocnus toupiti is the smallest known Antillean sloth, being significantly smaller in linear dimensions and long­bone cortical cross­sectional thickness than either of the extant tree sloths, Bradypus and Choloepus (3–4 kg body mass; Silva and Downing, 1995). Neocnus comes, not otherwise discussed here, is larger and differs in a number of cranial and postcranial features; its inclusion within Neocnus is discussed elsewhere (see fn. 6; White and MacPhee, in press).</p> <p>Species of Hispaniolan Neocnus can be distinguished from each other and from Cuban Neocnus by unique discrete traits as well as morphometric analyses (White, 1993a; White and MacPhee, in prep.). Whereas some discrete features are found in more than one Neocnus species, the sum total of all differentiae for each species serves to distinguish them from one another. Table 1 presents a sample of morphometric measurements that distinguish the two new species of Neocnus diagnosed here. The chosen measurements are all taken on elements that are also distinguished by discrete traits, to demonstrate that size is not the primary criterion for taxonomic assignment. Coefficients of variation (table 2) computed for some representative measurements also support the occurrence of two separate species; in most cases, coefficients of variation for each species alone fall within the normal range of mammalian variation, whereas coefficients of variation for the combined samples are higher than one would expect from a single species (Simpson et al., 1960).</p> <p>Further evidence for the distinctiveness of Neocnus species comes from articulating elements (fig. 11). For example, N. toupiti humeral heads are all too small for N. dousman glenoid fossae, and all N. toupiti glen­ oid fossae are too small for N. dousman humeral heads. The collection also revealed some immature bones of larger Neocnus species that are the same size as, or larger than, adult examples of smaller Neocnus species. For example, UF 76292 is an immature femur that lacks epiphyses yet exhibits a third trochanter. On size alone it evidently belonged to either N. dousman or N. comes, yet it is the same size as fully adult femora of N. toupiti.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2A228784FFA0FFA6FCF5FBA5FE46C7BA	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	R D E Macphee;Jennifer L White;Charles A Woods	R D E Macphee, Jennifer L White, Charles A Woods (2000): New Megalonychid Sloths (Phyllophaga, Xenarthra) from the Quaternary of Hispaniola. American Museum Novitates 3303: 1-32
