Index to N. P. Angelin's Palseontologia Scandinavica, with notes 29 



Notes 



(Compare MOBERG and SEGERBERG 1906, p. 84. 



As to the diagnosis of the genus compare PERSSON 1904, p. 524. 

 Compare PERSSON 1904, p. 517. 



J According to PERSSON 1904, p. 516, this species is based on fullgrown specimens of E. latum. Compare 

 I also BROGGER 1882, p. 118. 



[Compare PERSSON 1904, p. 513. See the preceding note. - 



j This name was rejected by later authors and the species ascribed to Forbesia were referred to the genus 

 1 Proetus STEIN. Compare SCHMIDT 1894, p. 38. 



= Proetus brevifrons. Compare LINNARSSON 1869, p. 72. 



concinnus. LINDSTROM 1885, p. 78, and SCHMIDT 1894, p. 41. 



conspersus. > > p. 79, > p. 46, and, as to the hypo- 



stoma, LINDSTROM 1901, pi. 6, fig. 25. 



I This genus, erected in 1847 by CORDA for only one species G. (Proetus) elegantulus, is according to BAR- 

 l RANDE 1856, p. 22, and later authors synonymous with Gyphaspis BURM. 



= Cyphaspis elegantula. See the preceding note. On page 21' referred to the genus Proetus STEIN. As 



to the hypostoma compare LINDSTROM 1901, pi. 3, fig. 24, 25. 



NOVAK (Studien an Hypostomen bohmischer Trilobiten. N:o II. Sitz.-Ber. Kgl. Bohm. Ges. d. Wiss. Prag 

 1884) proposed to separate the ordovician species from this genus and to bring them together to a 

 new genus Harpina. 

 See Arraphus corniculatus. 



l According to GRONWALL, 1902, p. 97, this species belongs to the genus Conocoryphe. See also the note 

 to Elyx laticeps, 



[Compare MOBERG and SEGERBERG 1906, p. 85. 



BROGGER 1882, p. 128, gave a fuller description and more perfect figure, and, recognising that this species 

 did not belong to Holometopus, he 1896, p. 68, note, proposed for it the generic name Orometopus. 

 LAKE 1907, p. 45, stated that the tail, doubtfully ascribed to this species by MOBERG and SEGER- 

 BERG, does not belong to Holometopus. Compare LAKE, 1. c. 



