Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 May 2009
More than fifty years since a great impulse was given to the study of a new and strange group of Palæozoic Arthropoda whose remains were almost simultaneously brought to light in New York, in England, Scotland, and in the Baltic island of Oesel, and attracted the attention of numerous palæontologists both in this country and in America. Among others may be cited Hugh Miller and the elder Agassiz, who at first believed them to be fish (1844), but the latter afterwards was convinced that they were in reality the remains of an enormous Crustacean.
page 293 note 1 Thirty quarto volumes have been published by the New York State Museum, fourteen of which, on Geology and Palæontology, are by James Hall.
page 296 note 1 “Ueber eine neue Bearbeitung des Eurypterus Fischeri, Eichw.”: Acad. Imp. Sei. Bull. St. Pétersbourg, sér. v, iv, 369, 1896Google Scholar; Geol. For. i Stockholm For., Bd. xxi, p. 83, 1899.Google Scholar
page 298 note 1 “Limulus an Arachnid?”: Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci., N.S., xxi, p. 609.Google Scholar
page 299 note 1 See Packard, A. S., “Development of Limulus polyphemus” (Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., 1870, p. 154)Google Scholar; Dohrn, Anton, Zeitsch, Jenaische., v, p. 6, 1871Google Scholar; Agassiz, A., Amer. Journ. Sci., ser. III, xv, 75, 1878.Google Scholar