account of the chelicera and first endognathite, as well as the coxae of other legs of this Stylonurus, which were discovered and worked out by the junior author of that volume from the underside of the fragmentary carapace that served for Claypole's description of the species. There was further described a species of Eurypterus (E. prominens) from the Clinton beds of New York, one from the Waverly beds near the boundary of Pennsylvania and New York (E. approximatus); and a tubular body from the Portage beds of Yates county, which Dawson had described as Equisetides wrightianus, and Jones & Woodward regarded as probably a phyllocarid (Echinocaris), was provisionally referred to Stylonurus.
Two years later (1890) Claypole announced the occurrence of eurypterids in the waterlime of Kokomo, Indiana, and he described therefrom a large Eusarcus, for which he first proposed the generic name Eurysoma and later Carcinosoma. A species of Eurypterus from the same locality was described in 1896 by Miller and Gurley.
While thus in the last decades of the preceding century on this side of the Atlantic, the fragments of the eurypterids scattered in the formations of New York, Ohio and Illinois were brought together and published, important work on the organization of the eurypterids was done in Europe. We refer here to Laurie's paper on the Anatomy and Relations of the Eurypterida [1893] and to Holm's new investigation of Eurypterus fischeri [1896]. Laurie had already added considerably to our knowledge of the Scottish species by descriptions of new forms from the Pentland Hills [1892], among them the new genera Drepanopterus and Bembycosoma, and had discovered the epicoxite and gillplates in Slimonia; he now took up the discussion of the anatomy of the genera Slimonia, Pterygotus, Eurypterus and Stylonurus, the relations of the eurypterids among themselves, to the trilobites and crustaceans, to Limulus, the scorpion and other arachnids.[1] We have given full appreciation of this work in
- ↑ The arachnidan affinities of Limulus had been for some time the subject of discussion among zoologists, especially in Lankester's paper: Limulus an Arachnid? [1881].
