A Monograph of the Trilobites of North America: with Coloured Models of the Species

by Jacob Green

Others, again, contend that there is often a wide and palpable discrepancy between the nature of the rock, and the fossils which it contains, and, therefore, that such inquiries afford no clue, whatever, to the order of creation.[1] We propose not to enter the field of controversy. Fossils are undoubtedly historic medallions of remote periods in the natural history of our earth, and our design is, merely to illustrate with them a neglected department of ancient zoology, by describing a few which have recently fallen under our own observation.

[1] Nothing can be more opposed to true science, than to pronounce on the priority of formation, or the comparative age of rocks, from either their structure, or the organic remains they present. M. Alexandre Brongniart thus propounds his opinion: "In those cases where characters derived from the nature of the rocks are opposed to those which we derive from organic remains, I should give the preponderance to the latter." This seems to us to imply an admission, that nothing definite can be inferred from the nature of the rocks; moreover, that between the nature of the rock, and the organic remains, there may be a palpable discrepancy; and that these may be even at complete antipodes with each other. The event has proved, from what we have already mentioned, that no evidence as to priority can be obtained from the nature of the fossil remains displayed in particular strata. In addition to what has been said on this subject, we may further state, that encrinites, entrochites, and pentacrinites are found in clay slate, grauwacke, transition limestone, alpine limestone, lias, muschelkalk, and chalk. It may be reasonably asked how these three species of fossils could indicate any particular formation, when they are found in so many types and structures of rocks altogether different? If they would go to prove any thing at all, it would be that of a contemporaneous formation; but certainly not distinct epochas. See Eclectic Review, July, 1832.

In some varieties of rocks there is often found the fossil remains of an animal which bears some resemblance to certain species of the crab. The back of this organic relic is commonly divided by two deep grooves or furrows, into three longitudinal lobes, and from this circumstance, the term Trilobite has been applied as a family name to distinguish this whole race of beings. This general appellation, however, though in most of the species, highly appropriate, is by no means applicable to all.

The individuals which compose the family of the trilobites resemble each other in many important particulars, and form together an exceedingly natural group. The body, with but few exceptions, is divided transversely into three parts. The anterior portion or head often resembles the buckler of the horse foot or king crab (limulus polyphemus), so common on our sea coast. The middle portion is the abdomen, and is always separated transversely into a number of segments or articulations, generally diminishing in breadth as they recede from the head. The posterior end is the tail, which, though in some species, a mere prolongation of the abdomen, that can scarcely be distinguished from it, yet in others it assumes a genuine caudal appendage.

The head of the trilobite is also generally divided into three parts: the middle is called the front, or forehead; and the lateral portions the cheeks. In most cases, a projecting tubercle, or knob, is observable on the anterior surface of each cheek, which has much the appearance of an eye. Its reticulated structure is in many instances so analogous to that of the eyes of some crustaceous animals, and also of some species of insects, that there can be but little doubt that these tubercular projections, were true organs of vision.

Some of the genera which belong to this remarkable race of fossil animals, possessed the power of rolling or coiling themselves up into a kind of ball, like certain species of insects, or like the armadillo; and they are always found embedded in the rocks in this attitude.

Such are the general characters by which these petrifactions may be known, and they will be found illustrated in a manner more or less striking, in most of the species. The exceptions, which rarely occur, will be distinctly marked, when the species are described.

The superior covering, or upper shell of the trilobite is the only part of the animal, concerning which we have any satisfactory knowledge. It is conjectured that it was furnished with articulated feet, but no traces of any organs of progressive motion have hitherto been fairly discovered.[2] Hence, it may be reasonably supposed, that the structure of the lower portions of the animal were so soft and delicate, as to render them incapable of sustaining the process of mineralization, which the hard crustaceous covering of the back so successfully undergoes.

[2] Mr. Parkinson states, that in a trilobite which he possessed he thought he perceived the points of the feet; but on endeavouring to detach the piece of rock in which it was embedded, the specimen was entirely shivered, though he worked at it with the utmost care. A portion of the underside of a trilobite (Isotelus gigas) near the anterior edge of the head, was distinctly ascertained, by Dr. Dekay, but only enough to convince him of its analogy in this part with that of the limulus polyphemus no organs of locomotion could be seen. Mr. Stokes, the distinguished fossilist of London, has confirmed the observation of Dr. Dekay, by some dissections of his own.

That these petrifactions were once marine animals there can be little doubt, for they are always found associated in the same rocks with shells, and other productions peculiar to the sea.