120 APPENDIX. 



5. Cd. Sclmsteri, p. 38, Tab. XII, Fig. 42. The caudal sliield of a small individual of 

 Phacops latifrons. 



6. Cal. subornata, ibid. Figs. 40, 41. It can hardly be that both these fragments belong 

 to the same species. The species cannot be recognized from these figures. 



7. Cal. hi/drocephala, ibid. Tab. XI, Fig. 7. Beyond a doubt the central piece of a 

 cephalic shield of Ci/phaspis ceratopJMalma. (See p. 98.) 



8. Asaphus Zinkenii, ibid. Fig. 8. The central piece, ■without a shell, of the cephalic 

 shield of Ph. latifrons. 



9. Paradoxides Grotei, ibid. p. 39, Tab. XI, Fig. \\,a,b. Distinct fragments of P//acops 

 araclinoides. 



10. Homalonotus Ahrendii, ibid. Fig. 5, a, h. Certainly not different from Horn. Knightii, 

 Murch. ; for the distinctions enumerated originate from the changeable cur\'ature of the rings 

 towards each other, and merely relate to individual peculiarities. 



11. Horn, pundatus, ibid. Fig. 9, and Horn, y ig as. Fig. 10, are probably only fragments 

 of other individuals of the same species; the punctation distinctly indicates the granulation 

 originally present. 



A notice of rather older date, which I have just received, occurs in SilJim. Americ. 

 Journ. of Sciences and Arts, vol. xlii, p. 366. 1842. Mr. J. Locke describes there a new 

 species of Trilobite as — 



Isofeles meffistos (there is a figure in Plate III of the same work). This drawing, nearly 

 a foot in length, is nevertheless very imperfect, since no oblique transverse furrows are 

 indicated on the lateral lobes of the rings of the body, and all positive characters are wanting 

 on the posterior half of the cephalic shield. In addition to this, the figure has exactly the 

 proportions of Asaph. plati/cepJialns {Isot.giyas), but has short, terminating spines at the lateral 

 ano-les of the cephalic shield. From this it certainly seems to be a distinct species, 

 distinguished from As. plafi/ceplialm by the last-mentioned character, from As. ajir/iisfifrons by 

 its broad forehead, if transverse furrows exist on the lateral lobes; it would, however, 

 belong to Nileus if the latter are wanting, which I doubt. The anterior extremity of 

 the facial suture describes an angle, and indicates a similarity with the division B ä of 

 Asaphis. 



M. de Castelnau has communicated to the French Institute (1842, p. 74) some observa- 

 tions respecting the feet of Trilobites, which he states he has observed in rolled-up indi\'iduals 

 in North America. As his statements coincide entirely with the results which I have arrived 

 at from analogy, his observations seem to deserve every credit; but nevertheless I can 

 scarcely help doubting their correctness. 



