676 Palseomachus angllcus and Palseoplionus caledonicus. 



differing from all other scorpions recent or extinct. Two 

 other interpretations, however, are conceivable : first, that 

 every segment of the limb was bent backwards into an 

 unnatural position so as to form a reversed curve ; or, secondly, 

 tliat while the trochanter, humerus, and brachium retained 

 their natural positions, the hand was twisted round on its 

 wrist-joint. This last hypothesis, Mr. Pocock tells me, was 

 the one that came naturally to him. Fortunately neither 

 of these rather violent assumptions is now necessary. The 

 chela lies with all its segments in a natural position, and its 

 fingers are perfectly normal. 



Keverting to the generic diagnosis, we find that the only 

 diagnostic character unaltered is the relative width of the 

 hand. Whether this possibly sexual character is alone enough 

 to substantiate an independent genus must be left to Mr. 

 Pocock to decide, for on these fossils I cannot speak as one 

 having authority. Indeed, had not Dr. W. T. Caiman 

 brought his knowledge to check and confirm these observa- 

 tions and interpretations (a friendly help for which my hearty 

 thanks are tendered), 1 should scarcely have ventured on 

 publication. 



2. PalcBophonus caledonicus, J. Hunter. 



When writing the ' Guide to the Fossil Invertebrate 

 Animals in the British Museum^ (1907), I came to the con- 

 clusion that the fossil described by Mr. Pocock as Palceo- 

 phonus kunferi (Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci. 1901, p. 291) was 

 more properly to be called Pala^ojjJionus caledonicus, and 

 that name was used on page 90 of the ' Guide.' Mr. Pocock, 

 in his Monograph (p. 10), says he does " not know where 

 Mr. Peach described it under that name.'^ The facts are 

 these : — Dr. John K. S. Hunter discovered the specimen in 

 June 1883. In December 1884 he was led by Thorell and 

 Lindslrom's publication of Falceophonus nuncius to announce 

 his discovery to the Edinburgh Geological Society ; but the 

 paper in which the name Pala^ophonus caledonicus first 

 appeared was one read by him to the Geological Society of 

 Glasgow in May 1885, but not published till 1886 (Trans. 

 Geol. Soc. Glasgow, vol. viii. pp. 1(59-170). Meanwhile, 

 en 29th January, 1885, Mr. B. N. Peach had published a 

 figure and description of the fossil in ' Nature,' though 

 without a name. Since the specimen was unique, there could 

 be no question but that Hunter's name and Peach's descrip- 

 tion referred to the same species. But any possible doubt or 

 objection was removed in 1887 by the publication of Hunter's 



