Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 May 2009
By the courtesy of my friend Mr. Herbert Bolton, the Curator and Secretary of the Bristol Museum, several specimens have been placed in my hands for examination. They were collected by Mr. Peter Whalley from the ‘Soapstone bed,’ a little distance above the ‘Bullion Mine’ (or ‘Mountain Four Feet’) on the hill near Colne, Lancashire, and he permits me to figure and describe them.
All the specimens are enclosed in small, elliptical nodules of clayironstone, evidently formed around the organisms by a process of concretionary action at the time of their embedment in the sediment forming the layer in which the nodules occur, the fossils being, as usual in such cases, exposed by splitting the concretions open along their periphery
page 437 note 1 The type-specimen was obtained by the late Mr. Thomas Brown, of Glasgow, in a clay-ironstone nodule from the Coal-measures of Kilmaurs.
page 437 note 2 Described as a Eurypterus by Salter, , Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc, 1863, vol. xix, p. 86Google Scholar, really a spined Myriopod; see H. Woodward, “Myriopods of the Coal Period,” GEOL. MAG., 1887, pp. 1–10 and 116–117 (figs, in text).
page 437 note 3 A. Chilognathous Myriopod from the hollow trunk of an erect Sigillaria in the South Joggins Coalfield, Nova Scotia. This genus was first found in Scotland by Mr. Thomas Brown in the Coal-measures of Kilmaurs, and described by Woodward, Dr. H. in Trans. Geol. Soc. Glasgow, 1866, vol. ii, p. 234, pi. iii, fig. 11.Google Scholar A second specimen from the clay-ironstone band, Cooper's Bridge, was obtained by Mr. Joseph Tindall, of Huddersneld, and figured on the same plate (op. cit.), figs. 13 and 13a. Noticed by Mr. Edward, Binney, F.R.S., Trans. Lit. and Phil. Soc. Manchester, Jan. 8th, 1867; see Geol. Mag., 1867, Vol. IV, p. 132.Google Scholar
page 438 note 1 Trans. E. S. Edinb., 1880, vol. xxx, pp. 76–78, pi. viii, figs. 3a–g.
page 439 note 1 Produced at antero-lateral angles into a spine (see Fig. 2 above)
page 440 note 1 The presence of a rostrum is not confirmed by Mr. Whalley's specimen, and I am doubtful whether this species had a prominent rostrum.
page 440 note 2 The pleurae cannot be seen in Mr. Whalley's specimen.
page 442 note 1 Not Clearly shown in the figure.
page 443 note 1 See Trans. Lit. and Phil. Soc. Manchester, January 8th, 1867; GEOL. MAG., 1867, Vol. IV, p. 132; and Trans. Glasgow Geol. Soc, 1866, vol. ii, p. 236, pi. iii, figs. 13 and 13