498 F. R. Coiqjer Reed— Blind TrihUtes. 



the eyes is always spoken of as non-reticulate. Eafinesque^ puts 

 JParadoxides in the group Anopsites, the members of which possess 

 no eyes. Green, ^ in describing Paradoxides Sarlani, says that 

 " the organs of vision appear entirely wanting." Milne Edwards ^ 

 states that there are no reticulate eyes visible in this genus but 

 that sometimes there exists in their place a fairly distinct scutiform 

 elevation. Goldfuss,* however, includes Paradoxides amongst those 

 trilobites possessing smooth or finely reticulate eyes, which, he says, 

 are only indicated as cracks in the casts. 



After enumerating the genera in which the visual surface is 

 unknown, Barrande ^ says that it is due to the imperfect state of 

 preservation in which the Bohemian trilobites of this group occur, 

 but that this fact does not hinder one from recognizing in the 

 general form of the eyes that they have the closest analogy v^ith 

 the reticulate eyes of other genera in which the visual surface has 

 been observed. He further remarks that Paradoxides, Olenus, etc., 

 were considered blind by the older paleeontologists, doubtless 

 because the eyes of these genera have usually less prominence, which 

 is owing perhaps to their natural conformation or the effects of com- 

 pression. The eyes of Paradoxides are described by Barrande as 

 belonging to the annuloid type. Subsequently he speaks^ of the 

 genus as provided with large eyes in contradistinction to its blind 

 contemporai'ies. 



Emmrich^ had previously argued for the existence of eyes in 

 Paradoxides, and thought the reticulation of the surface might 

 be microscopic. 



Steinraann and Doderlein ^ apparently accept the view that the 

 eyes were functionless. 



Matthew," however, in his long description of various species of 

 Paradoxides from the St. John group, makes no remarks which would 

 lead one to imagine that the eyes were absent or functionless. 

 Nicholson, in his "Manual of Palaeontology" (p. 519), describes 

 the eyes as long, reniforin, and smooth, and does not hint at the 

 genus being blind. Suess ^^ and Neumayr^^ argue in favour of 

 Paradoxides being blind because of its association with blind forms. 



It should be remembered that some genera (Arionellus, Sao, 

 EllipsocepJialus) have the visual surface of their eyes so rarely or so 

 badly preserved, that for a long time they were held to be blind. ^^ 

 If the eye of Paradoxides be holochroal and the cornea smooth, thick, 

 and continuous, so as to be practically indistinguishable from the 



^ Atlantic Journ. and Friend of Knowledge, vol. i (1832), p. 71. 



- Amer. Journ. Sci., ser. i, vol. xxsv (1834), p. 336. 



3 Hist. Nat. Crust., vol. iii (1840), p. 339. 



* Leonh. and Bronn, Jahrb. f. Min., 1843, p. 546. 



6 Syst. Sil. Boh., vol. i, pp. 131, 145. 



6 Ibid., Suppl., vol. i, p. 161. 



7 Jahrb. f. Min., 1845, p. 18. 



8 Elemente d. Palteont., 1890, p. 490. 



3 Trans. Eoy. Soc. Canada, vol.^i (1884), sect. iv. 

 1" Das Antlitz der Erde, vol. ii, p. 274. 



11 Erdgeschicbte, vol. ii, p. 52. 



12 Zittel, Handb. Palaeont., vol. ii, p. 572. 



"^Bj 



