168 S. H. SCUDDER ON SPINED MYRIAPODS 



arched transverse ridge, undoubtedly that bearing the spines, the posterior flat; as a whole, 

 the segments are about twice as long as broad ; nothing is said by Woodward about the sur- 

 face sculpture. Of the spines Woodward says "there are indications of pores and also of 

 tubercles or spines along the dorsal line, but the latter less perfectly preserved." His 

 enlarged drawing (PI. 12, fig. 7), shows a single row of marks of spine insertions (?) along the 

 middle line of the body, on the depressed portion. To judge from the cast, they seem to be 

 arranged in distant subdorsal and lateral rows, and those of the subdorsal row, as seen be- 

 yond the body, to be mammiform at base, beyond tapering, curved, pointed, and as long as 

 the segments, apparently simple, and originating from the arched part of the segments ; 

 the pits figured by Woodward should probably originate from the other half of the seg- 

 ments and represent the lateral rows. The legs (PI. 12, fig. 8) are represented as being as 

 long as the width of the body and as composed of three joints, the first and last of equal 

 length and the second as long as the others together ; this can hardly be correct. 



The only American species with which this can be compared is the one to which Meek 

 and Worthen's name of E. armigera is here retained. I have given under that species the 

 reasons for believing that it is distinct, but this cannot be considered as conclusive until a 

 further study of the Scotch sjjecimen is undertaken. 



The specimen was found in a nodule of clay ironstone from Kilimaurs, Scotland, by Mr. 

 Thomas Brown. 



Euphoberia granosa, nov. sp. 



PI. 12, figs. 22, 24, 25, 26 ; pi. 13, fig. 13. 



Euphoberia armigera Meek and Worthen, Amer. Journ. Sc. Arts, [2], XLVI, p. 25-26 

 (pars) (1868).— lb., Geol. Surv. 111., Ill, 556-558 (pars), figs. A. B. on p. 556 (1868).- Roemer 

 Leth. geogn., pi. 47, fig. 19 (1876). 



The study of the series of specimens that have been intrusted to me, and of the figures 

 and descriptions given by Meek and Worthen, lead me to separate one (A) of those figured 

 by them as distinct from the others, and to place with it some others, for the opportunity of 

 examining which I am indebted to Messrs. Worthen, Carr and Armstrong. 



The specimen figured in the Illinois report, and which is reproduced in the accompanying 

 wood cut kindly furnished by Mr. Worthen, presents a dorsal view, with a trace also of the 



ventral plates of one side of the body in a curved position, 

 neither end preserved, and showing spines upon one side and 

 |P legs on the other. The body is of nearly uniform size through- 

 out, but tapers a very little posteriorly. It is not so large as 

 any of the previously mentioned species, the fragment being 

 about 54 mm. long, and averaging about 5 mm. broad. The 

 Fig. 8. Euphoberia gmnosa. segments preserved are twenty -three in number, each nearly 



three times as broad as long, the anterior portion transversely 

 ridged and bearing the spines of both rows, and the narrower posterior portion depressed. 

 The description of the surface sculpture given by Messrs. Meek and Worthen for their 

 species E. armigera seems to me to apply only to this specimen, which they have chosen 

 to represent it (in fig. B) ; they say " Under a magnifier, the surface . . . shows a minutely 

 granular appearance . . . ; as these granules are seen on the surface of moulds or impres- 

 sions left in the matrix, they indicate the presence of a minutely pitted marking on the 

 fossil itself." The subdorsal series of spines, as indicated by the pits on the surface of the 



