Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 May 2009
In a paper which I communicated to the Geological Society of London, Nov. 21, 1866, (“On some points in the structure of the Xiphosura, having reference to their relationship with the Eurypterida”) I have recorded all the then known genera both of Xiphosura and of Eurypterida, and in the tables which accompany the first part of my Monograph on the Merostomata, I have given both the genera and species with their range in time and space.
page 1 note 1 See Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. 02. 1867. Vol. xxiii. p. 28. Pl. I. and II.Google Scholar
page 1 note 2 Palæontographical Society, vol. xix. 12 1866.Google Scholar
page 1 note 3 Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxiii. p. 31. Pl. I. figs. 3–6.Google Scholar
page 2 note 1 Geological Survey of Illinois, 1866, vol. ii; Palæontology, p. 395, Pl. 32, fig. 2.Google Scholar
page 2 note 2 Geol. Mag. 1867, Vol. IV. p. 320.Google Scholar
page 2 note 3 Having, through the kindness of Mr. Prestwich, F.R.S., the type-specimens of his Limulus (Prestwichia) anthrax in my possession, I am the more able to appreciate Mr. Meek's comparison of Euproops Danœ with that species. It seems hardly possible to do more than separate them specifically: of their generic identity, I think there can be no donbt.
page 3 note 1 νέοѕ, young, in allusion to its size, and also its early appearance in time (and limulus); and falcatus from the sickle-like form of the body-segment.