H. I. Pocock — On Eophrynus and Allied Arachnida. 489 



and seventh, and a narrow transverse depression, identified by the 

 describers as a stigma, on the posterior border of the lateral portion 

 of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh somites. The lateral 

 laminas and the sides of the last somite are conspicuously pitted. 



The type-specimen of Brachypyge carhonis was originally described, 

 in 1878, by Dr. Woodward as the abdomenof a Brachyurous Decapod 

 Crustacean, to which in a general way it certainly bears a resemblance. 

 Geinitz, and independently Scudder, were the first to suggest its 

 probable Arachnid nature. This suggestion was subsequently 

 adopted by Dr. Woodward.' Haase, however, who in 1896 published 

 his critical revision of the Carboniferous Arachnida, rejected the 

 later view, and, readopting in substance Dr. Woodward's original 

 supposition, held the specimen to be the abdomen of an Anomurous 

 Crustacean allied to Lithodes. That Geinitz and Scudder were right, 

 is shown, I think, by the discovery by Howard & Thomas of the 

 species here named Brachypyge celtica, which is certainly referable 

 to the same section of the animal kingdom as Anihracomartus 

 and Eophrynus, and at the same time shows great similarity to 

 B. carhonis. 



The fossil described as Kreischeria iviedei by Geinitz ^ is obviously 

 nearly related to Eophrynus, as has been insisted upon by Scudder^ 

 and Haase. 



Although the tubercles are fewer in number and restricted to 

 the median portion of the terga, the opisthosoma is in a general 

 way practically identical structurally with that of Eophrynus, even 

 to the presence of a spiniform process upon the posterior angle 

 of the lateral lamina of the seventh and eighth terga. The question 

 of the homology of the anterior terga has been already discussed. 

 It may be added, however, that although the second tergum is longer 

 than the first or third, its median tubercles are absent instead of 

 enlarged as in the third tergum of Eophrynus. The carapace, too, is 

 very similar to that oi Eophnjnus, though less corrugated. Its median 

 area is elevated, and its lateral area transversely grooved and hori- 

 zontal. There is this difference, however, between the two. In 

 Kreischeria the posterior horizontal area is considerably longer than 

 in JEophrynus ; the central fovea extends forwards as a long and deep 

 groove past the middle of the elevated area, which is sharply con- 

 stricted in its anterior portion. The area in front of the constriction 

 is about as wide as long, and bears a pair of large eyes in its centre. 

 Movably attached to its fore margin, there is said by Haase to be 

 a separate transverse skeletal piece. The presence of this frontal 

 sclerite in Kreischeria and its apparent absence in Eophrynus were the 

 main characters upon which Haase relied in referring these genera to 

 different families, the Kreischeriidee and Eophrynidas. Considering, 

 however, how closely related the two are in other respects, I cannot, 

 without further evidence, believe in the reality of this difference, 



^ See H. "Woodward, Presidential Address to the Geological Society, 1896, vol. lii, 

 p. cix. 

 2 Zeitschr. deutsch. geol. Ges., vol. xxxiv (1882), p. 238, pi. xiv. 

 ^ Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts and Sei., vol. xx (1885), p. 17. 



