XXIV.—The Anatomy and Relations of the Eurypteridæ

Malcolm Laurie

doi:10.1017/S0080456800032713

XXIV.—The Anatomy and Relations of the Eurypteridæ

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 July 2012

Malcolm Laurie

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

Though a great deal has been written on the Eurypteridæ, and many points of their anatomy elucidated in the brilliant memoirs of Huxley and Salter, Hall, Woodward, Schmidt, &c, nevertheless many points of morphological importance remain obscure. This is perhaps to be attributed to the fact that nearly all the writers on this group have treated them rather from the systematic than the morphological standpoint. In dealing with remains so fragmentary and obscure as the majority of these fossils are, the value of some theory as to their relations among recent forms is enormous, both as suggesting points to be looked for and aiding in the interpretation of structures observed. The greater part of the work on this group was done before the arachnid relationship of Limulus was fully appreciated, and it is in the light of a possible relationship to this form, and also to the lower orders of terrestrial Arachnida, that it seemed to me to be worth while to revise the anatomy of the group. It has been necessary to include a certain amount of what is already well known in the description of the different genera, and I have taken special care to confirm, as far as possible, points which seemed to me to rest on insufficient grounds.

Type: Research Article
Information: Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , 1895 , pp. 509 - 528

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0080456800032713 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1895

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

^{page 509 note *} Huxley, and Salter, , Mem. Geol. Surv., Mon. i.Google Scholar; Hall, , Nat. Hist, of New York, vol. iii.Google Scholar; Woodward, , Monograph of Merostomata. Palæontograph. Soc., 1866–1878Google Scholar; Schmidt, , Mem. Acad. Imp. St Petersb., vol. xxxiGoogle Scholar.

^{page 510 note *} Mem. Geol. Surv., Mon. i. pl. xi. fig. iv.

^{page 510 note *} Tr. Ed. Geol. Soc., iii.

^{page 513 note *} Loc. cit., p. 116.

^{page 515 note *} Pohlmann, , Bull. Buff. Soc. Nat. Sci., vol. ivGoogle Scholar.

^{page 515 note †} Pohlmann, loc. cit.

^{page 515 note ‡} Grote, , Bull. Buff. Soc. Nat. Sci., vol. iiiGoogle Scholar.

^{page 516 note *} Mem. Geol. Surv., Mon. i. pl. i. fig. i.

^{page 516 note †} Mem. Acad. St Petersb., vol. xxxi. p. 71.

^{page 516 note ‡} Ibid., i. pl. vii. fig. 9.

^{page 516 note §} Ibid., pl. iv. fig. 7.

^{page 517 note *} Loc. cit., pl. xii. fig. 1, d.

^{page 517 note †} Bull. Buff. Soc. Nat. Sci., vol. v. pl. iii.

^{page 517 note ‡} Loc. cit., p. 73.

^{page 518 note *} Loc. cit., p. 396, footnote.

^{page 518 note †} Loc. cit., pl. iii. figs. 1 and la.

^{page 518 note ‡} Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. xxxvi.

^{page 519 note *} Loc. cit., p. 131.

^{page 519 note †} Hall, and Clarke, , Geol. Surv. New York, Palæontology, vol. viiGoogle Scholar.

^{page 520 note *} Hall, loc. cit., 414.

^{page 520 note †} Laurie, loc. cit.

^{page 520 note ‡} Peach, , Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. xxxGoogle Scholar.

^{page 520 note §} Such forms as E. mansfieldi, E. mazonensis, and E. stylus, from the carboniferous rocks of Pennsylvania (Hall, Second Geol. Surv., Pennslyvania, vol. PPP), are undoubtedly true Eurypterids. E. Scabrosus (Woodward, , Geol. Mag., Dec. 3, vol. iv. p. 481Google Scholar) seems less certain, as the limbs are very different from the normal Eurypterid type.

^{page 521 note *} Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. xxxvi.

^{page 521 note †} Pohlmann, , Bull. Buff. Soc. Nat Sci., vol. iv.Google Scholar; and Grote, ibid., vol. iii.

^{page 522 note *} Lankester; Packard; Woodward, &C.

^{page 523 note *} Olenellus Callavei, Lapworth, Geol Mag., III. viii., pl. xv.

^{page 523 note †} Geol. Mag., 1883.

^{page 523 note ‡} Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc., vol. xxvi., 1870Google Scholar.

^{page 523 note §} Billings, Palæozoic Fossils of Canada.

^{page 523 note ∥} Walcott, , Bul. Mus. Comp. Zool., Harvard, 1881Google Scholar.

^{page 523 note ¶} Ibid.

^{page 524 note *} Quar. Jour. Micr. Sci., vol. xxi.

^{page 524 note †} Lankester, and Bourne, , Quar. Jour. Micr. sci., vol. xxiiiGoogle Scholar.

^{page 525 note *} Zool. Anz., No. 386, 1892.

^{page 525 note †} Arch, de Biol., vol. v.

^{page 525 note ‡} Q. J. M. S., vol. xxv.

^{page 526 note *} Since the above was written, Mr R. I. Pocock has published a paper on the “Morphology of the Arachnida” (Ann. and Mag., vol. xi.), in which he advocates the division of the Arachnida into two sub-classes, one which he terms Ctenophora containing the Scorpiones, and the other—the Lipoctena—containing the rest of the class. This division entirely agrees with my views, but it is unfortunate that he should have chosen Ctenophora as the name of a subclass, as it is already accepted as the name for a class of the Cœlenterata.

^{page 527 note *} Ann. and Mag., ser. 2, vol. iv., 1849Google Scholar.

Article contents

XXIV.—The Anatomy and Relations of the Eurypteridæ

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests