Acratocnus
genus of sloths
Acratocnus is an extinct genus of Caribbean sloths that were found on Cuba, Hispaniola (today the Dominican Republic and Haiti), and Puerto Rico during the Late Pleistocene and early-mid Holocene.
Taxonomy
The genus was first described by American paleontologist Harold Elmer Anthony in 1916 based on the species A. odontrigonus, which was found in cave deposits in Puerto Rico. Acratocnus antillensis was first described by William Diller Matthew in 1931. The species was identified based on fossil remains found in various locations in Cuba, including the paleontological deposit Las Llanadas, Sancti Spíritus Province. Acratocnus ye was first described by Ross D. E. MacPhee, Jennifer L. White, and Charles A. Woods in 2000. The species was identified based on fossil remains found in various locations in Haiti, including the type locality at Trouing Vape`Deron, Plain Formon, Département du Sud. The holotype specimen, UF170533, consists of a skull and mandible. Acratocnus simorhynchus was first described in 2002. The species was identified based on fossil remains found in Cueva del Perezoso, located in Jaragua National Park, Pedernales Province, Dominican Republic. The holotype, catalogued as ALF 7194, includes an unusually well-preserved skull, mandible, and post-cranial elements.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Acratocnus” as genus of sloths. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the science & nature register because the source frames it as genus of sloths. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
The date and method of observation matter as much as the stated conclusion, especially where classification or consensus has changed. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 11, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q965019. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1916, 1931, 2000 and 2002.
A general summary may omit uncertainty, sample limits or methodological disagreement that is explicit in the technical record. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Check terminology, classification and the date of the cited evidence. Scientific names and technical consensus can change while older records retain historical value.
- Current terminology
- Classification context
- Finding cited technical literature
Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Acratocnus”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Acratocnus primary sources, Acratocnus archive and Acratocnus research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Acratocnus”?
- Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
- Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Acratocnus” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.