C7G Palseomaclius angllcus and Palasophonus caledonicus. 



'iffering from all other scorj)ioiis recent or extinct. Two 

 jtlier 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, 

 that \\hile the trochanter, humerus, and braciiium retained 

 iheir natural positions, tlie hand was twisted round on its 

 wrist-joint. This last hj^pothesis, Mr. Pucock 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. 



Kevertiiig to the generic diagnosi?, 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. VV. 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. PaJceophonus caledonicus, J. Hunter. 



"When writing the 'Guide to tlie Fossil Invertebrate 

 Animals in the British Museum' (1007), I came to the con- 

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

 j)lwnus hunteri (Quart. Joiirn. Micr. Sci. 1901, p. 291) was 

 more properly to be called Pahvophoniis 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. 8. Hunter discovered the specimen in 

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

 LindstriJm's publication of Pahvophonus nuncius to announce 

 his discovery to the Edinburgh Geological Society; but the 

 ])apcr in which the name Pahvophonxis caledonicus first 

 appeared wiis one read by him to the Geological Socitty of 

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

 Geol. Soc. Glasgow, vol. viii. pp. lt)9-170). Meanwhile, 

 on 29th January, 1885, ^Ir. B. N. Peach had published a 

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

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

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

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

 objection was removed m 1887 by the publication ot Hunter's 



