Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:35:48.153Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XII.—The Scottish Carboniferous Eurypterida*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2012

Charles D. Waterston
Charles D. Waterston
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Royal Scottish Museum.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Synopsis

Lower Carboniferous eurypterids are rare, and consequently the Scottish eurypterid fauna is of importance, in a world setting, because of the number of species of that age which it contains. Since the Scottish forms were originally described, great advances have been made in our knowledge of the Eurypterida which have made necessary the present critical re-examination of all available Scottish Carboniferous eurypterid specimens. Five species, belonging to four genera, are described and illustrated. Fresh evidence of the anatomy of Campylocephalus scouleri (Hibbert) is presented and the wider issues of eurypterid morphology raised by homology with this specialised species are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 63 , Issue 2 , 1958 , pp. 265 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1958

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References to Literature

Caster, K. E., and Brooks, H. K., 1956. “New Fossils from the Canadian Chazyan (Ordovician) Hiatus in Tennessee”, Bull. Amer. Palæont., 36, No. 157.Google Scholar
Clarke, J. M., and Ruedemann, R., 1912. “The Eurypterida of New York”, Mem. N.Y. St. Mus., 14, pts. 1 and 2.Google Scholar
Cope, E. D., 1886. “An interesting connecting genus of Chordata (Mycterops)”, Amer. Nat., 20, 1027–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cope, E. D., 1888. “The pineal eye in extinct vertebrates”, Amer. Nat., 22, 914–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diener, C., 1924. Fossilium Catalogus, I: Pars. 25: Eurypterida. Berlin.Google Scholar
D'Eichwald, E., 1860. Lethœa rossica I. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Etheridge, R. jun., 1877. “On the remains of a large Crustacean, probably indicative of a New Species of Eurypterus, or allied Genus (Eurypterus? Stevensoni), from the lower Carboniferous Series (Cementstone Group), of Berwickshire”, Quart. J. Geol. Soc Lond., 33, 223–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaskell, W. H., 1908. The Origin of Vertebrates. London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geikie, A., 1861. “The Geology of the Neighbourhood of Edinburgh”, Geol. Surv. Mem.Google Scholar
Hibbert, S., 1836. “On the Freshwater Limestone of Burdiehouse in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh, belonging to the Carboniferous group of rocks. With supplementary notes on other freshwater limestones”, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., 13, 169–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, G., 1898. “Uber die Organisation von Eurypterus Fischeri d'Eichwald”, Mém. Acad. Sci. St. Pétersb., 8e sér., 8, 2.Google Scholar
Huxley, T. H., 1859. “On the Anatomy and Affinities of the Genus Pterygotus”, Mem. Geol. Surv. Monogr. 1.Google Scholar
Ivanov, P. P., 1933. “Die embryonale Entwicklung von Limulus moluccanus”, Zool. Jb. (Abt. Anat.), 56.Google Scholar
Kästner, A., 1925. “Vergleichend-morphologische Untersuchungen der Gnathocoxen der Araneen”, Z. Morph. Ökol. Tiere, 4, 711–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N., 1948. “The Mazon Creek Eurypterid. A revision of the genus Lepidoderma”, Illinois Sci. Pap., 3, No. 4.Google Scholar
Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N., 1951. “Downtonian (Silurian) Eurypterida from Perton, near Stoke Edith, Herefordshire”, Geol. Mag., 88, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kutorga, S., 1838. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der organischen Überreste des Kupfersandsteins. St. Petersburg.Google Scholar
Lankester, E. R., Benham, W. B. S., and Beck, E. J., 1885. “On the Muscular and Endoskeletal Systems of Limulus and Scorpio: with some Notes on the Anatomy and Generic Characters of Scorpions”, Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond., 11, 311–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connell, M., 1916. “The habitat of the Eurypterida”, Bull. Buffalo Soc. Nat. Hist., 11, 1–277.Google Scholar
Page, D., 1867. “Notes on some New Fossils (Eurypterus Scouleri?) from the Tuedian of Passage Beds of Berwickshire”, Trans. Edin. Geol. Soc., 1, 57.Google Scholar
Peach, B. N., 1882. “Further Researches among Crustacea and Arachnida”, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., 30, 511–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peach, B. N., 1907. “Note on a Specimen of ‘Glyptoscorpius” from the Coal Measures of Airdrie, the property of Robert Dunlop, of Baillieston”, Trans. Geol. Soc. Glasg., 13, 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pringle, J., 1948. British Regional Geology: The South of Scotland. 2nd Ed. Geol. Surv. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Pruvost, P., 1923. “Un Eurypteride nouveau du Terrain houillier de Charleroi”, Ann. Soc. Géol. Nord., 48, 143–151.Google Scholar
Pruvost, P., 1930. “La Faune continentale du terrain houillier de la Belgique”, Mém. Mus. Roy. Hist. Nat. Belg., 44, 191–196.Google Scholar
Ruedemann, R., 1924. “Recent publications on the origin and habitat of the Eurypterida”, Amer. J. Sci., 207, 227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salter, J. W., 1863. “On some Species of Eurypterus and Allied Forms”, Quart. J. Geol. Soc., 19, 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, F., 1883. “Die Crustaceenfauna der Eurypterenschichten von Rootziküll auf Oesel”, Mém. Acad. Sci. St Pétersb., 7e sér., 31.Google Scholar
Scouler, J., 1831. “Description of a Fossil Crustaceous animal”, Cheek's Edin. J. Nat. Geogr. Sci., 3, 352–354.Google Scholar
Størmer, L., 1934. “Merostomata from the Downtonian Sandstone of Ringerike, Norway”, Skr. Norske Vidensk Akad., I. M.-N. Kl. 1933, No. X.Google Scholar
Størmer, L., 1936. “Eurypteriden aus dem rheinischen Unterdevon”, Abh. Preuss. Geol. Landesanst., N.F., h. 175.Google Scholar
Størmer, L., 1942. “Studies in Trilobite Morphology II. The Larval Development, the Segmentation and the Sutures, and their Bearing on Trilobite Classification”, Norsk. Geol. Tidsskr., 10.Google Scholar
Størmer, L., 1944. “On the Relationships and Phylogeny of Fossil and Recent Arachnomorpha”, Skr. Norske Vidensk Akad., I. M.-N-Kl. 1944. No. V.Google Scholar
Størmer, L., 1951. “A New Eurypterid from the Ordovician of Montgomeryshire, Wales”, Geol. Mag., 88, 409–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Størmer, L., 1955. “Chelicerata”, Treat. Invert. Paleont. Part P, Arthropoda 2, Kansas.Google Scholar
Waterlot, G., 1953. “Classe des Mérostomes”, in Piveteau J. Traité de Paléontologie, 3, 529–554. Paris.Google Scholar
Woodward, H., 1866–1878. “A Monograph of the British Fossil Crustacea belonging to the order Merostomata”, Palæontogr. Soc. Monogr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, H., 1887. “On a new species of Eurypterus from the Lower Carboniferous shales of Glencartholm, Eskdale, Scotland”, Geol. Mag., N.S., 4, 481–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar