^{page 206 note 1} Reed, Geol. Mag., 12. IV, Vol. III (1896), pp. 117 and 161.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 2} Barrande, , Syst. Sil. Boh., vol. i (1852), pp. 330 and 766.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 1} Salter, , Mon. Brit. Trilob. Palicont. Soc. (1864), p. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 2} Handbuch der Paläontologie (1885), vol. ii, p. 616.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 3} In Zittels, “ Grundziige der Palaontologie ” (1895), this genus is omitted from the Cheiruridæ.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 4} Amer. Journ. Sci., vol. iii (1897), p. 89.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 5} Mem. Acad. Imp. Sci. St. Petersb., vol. xxx, No. 1 (1881) : Eev. ostbalt. Tril., Abth. i, pp. 190, 195.

^{page 209 note 1} Mem. Acad. Imp. Sci. St. Petersb., vol. xxx, No. 1 (1881): Rev. ostbalt. Tril., Atth. i, p. 195.

^{page 210 note 1} Salter, (Mon. Brit. Trilob., p. 78) says there are eleven segments, but only figures ten.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 2} Barrande, , Syst. Sil. Boh., vol. i, Suppl., p. 113, pi. ix, fig. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 3} Ibid., p. 112, pi. vii, figs. 5, 6.

^{page 211 note 1} Geol. Mag., 12. IV, Vol. III (1896), p. 118.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 2} Salter says (Mon. Brit. Trilob., p. 88) that the pleurae are ungroored, but iu his figures of the species (Ibid., pi. vii, figs. 1–12) furrows are shown. Barrande both describes and figures the furrows (Syst. Sil. Boh., vol. i, Suppl., p. 115, pi. ii, figs. 19, 20). Perhaps, as Barrande suggests, for this and other reasons the Bohemian and English species are not identical.

^{page 211 note 3} Beecher, , Amer. Geol., vol. xvi (1895), p. 177, and references.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 1} Amer. Journ. Sci., vol. iii (1897), p. 201.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 2} Otver. Koiigl. Vet. Akad. Forliandl., 1885, Ko. 6, pp. 49–51, T. xiii, fins. 11, 12.

^{page 212 note 3} Bernard, , G. P. G. S., vol. L (1894), pp. 422–4.Google Scholar