[222]. Quart. J. Micr. Sci. xxxi., 1890, p. 379; Proc. Cambr. Phil. Soc. ix., 1895–1898, p. 19; J. Anat. Physiol. xxxiii., 1899, p. 154.
[223]. Quart. J. Micr. Sci. xxxi., 1890, p. 317.
[224]. I am indebted to Mr. Henry Woods for these paragraphs on fossil Xiphosura.
[225]. The British fossil forms of this group are described and figured by H. Woodward, “Monograph of the Merostomata,” Palaeontogr. Soc. 1866–78, and Geol. Mag. 1907, p. 539.
[226]. Packard, “Carb. Xiphos. N. America,” Mem. Nat. Acad. Sci. Washington, iii., 1885, p. 146, pl. vi. fig. 1a, pl. v. fig. 3a (restoration). Williams, Amer. Journ. Sci. (3), xxx., 1885, p. 45. Fritsch, Fauna d. Gaskohle, iv., 1901, p. 64, pl. 155, figs. 1–3, and text-figures, 369, 370.
[227]. Walcott has described, under the generic name Beltina, imperfect specimens from the Algonkian (pre-Cambrian) of Montana, which he thinks may be the remains of Eurypterids (Bull. Geol. Soc. America, x., 1899, p. 238).
[228]. Walcott, Amer. Jour. Sci. (3), xxiii., 1882, p. 213.
[229]. Descriptions and figures of British Eurypterids are given in the following works:—Huxley and Salter, “Pterygotus,” Mem. Geol. Survey, Brit. Org. Remains, i., 1859; H. Woodward, “Monograph of the Merostomata,” Palaeont. Soc. 1866–78, and Geol. Mag. 1879, p. 196; 1887, p. 481; 1888, p. 419; 1907, p. 277; Peach, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb. xxx., 1882, p. 511; Laurie, ibid. xxxvii., 1892, p. 151; xxxvii., 1893, p. 509; and xxxix., 1899, p. 575.
[230]. A detailed account of Eurypterus fischeri has been given by G. Holm, Mém. Acad. Impér. Sci. St. Pétersbourg (8), viii. 2, 1898. See also F. Schmidt, ibid. (7), xxxi. 5, 1883. Descriptions of American forms of Eurypterus are given by Hall, “Nat. Hist. New York,” Palaeont. iii., 1859, p. 395; ibid. vii., 1888, p, 156; and Second Geol. Survey Pennsylvania, “Report of Progress,” PPP., 1884; Whiteaves, Geol. and Nat. Hist. Surv. Canada, “Palaeozoic Foss.,” iii., 1884, p. 42.
[231]. It was this ornamentation found on fragments of Pterygotus anglicus which led the Scotch quarrymen to apply the name “Seraphim” to that Eurypterid. On this subject Hugh Miller writes: “The workmen in the quarries in which they occur, finding form without body, and struck by the resemblance which the delicately waved scales bear to the sculptured markings on the wings of cherubs—of all subjects of the chisel the most common—fancifully termed them ‘Seraphim’” (The Old Red Sandstone, ed. 6, 1855, p. 180).