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



Notes 



(.According to LINNARSSON 1879, p. 6, and 1882, p. 10, these two varieties ought to be brought together 

 with P. Tessini BRONGN. This variety oelandicus is. not to be confounded with P. oelandicus SJOGREN. 



According to GRONWALL 1902, p. 113, presumably identical with P. rugulosus CORDA. 



Compare LINNARSSON 1880, p. 4, BROGGER 1882, p. 107, and, as to the hypostoma, LINDSTROM 1901, pi. 

 3, fig. 42. See also the note to Anopocare pusillum. 



Compare LINDSTROM 1885, p. 42. Belongs probably to the subgenus Chasmops M'CoY. 



According to LINDSTROM 1885, p. 42, identical with Ph. (Acaste) Doumingioe MURCH. 



Compare SCHMIDT 1881, p. 105. Belongs to the subgenus Chasmops. 



[Identical with Ph. vulgaris SALT.; compare LINDSTROM 1885, p. 38, and 1901, pi. 3, fig. 51. Fig. 2 c belongs 

 | to a Lichas. 



iBelongs to the subgenus Chasmops M'CoY. 



See Ph. breviceps. 



This species has often been confounded with Ph. mucronata BRONGN. Compare OLIN 1906, p. 41. 



By LINDSTROM 1888, p. 16, recorded from the Trinucleus shales. 



Compare LINDSTROM 1885, p. 40. 



Belongs to the subgenus Chasmops. 



This species has often been confounded with Ph. elliptifrons ESM. Compare LINDSTROM 1885, p. 43. 



Compare SCHMIDT 1881, p. 77. Belongs to the subgenus Pterygometopus SCHMIDT. See also LINDSTROM 

 1901, p. 54. 



Belongs to the subgenus Chasmops M'CoY. 

 See Ph. caudata. 



By ANGELIN at first (page 210 called Proetus Stokesi. As to the hypostoma compare LINDSTROM 1901, 

 pi. 6, fig. 11. 



According to TULLBERG 1882, p. 234, belonging to the Chasmops beds. 



According to SCHMIDT 1885, p. 29, 1907, p. 25, and other authors a subgenus of Lichas. LINDSTROM 

 (1901, p. 67), however, looked upon Platymetopus as a genus of its own. 



