Henry Woodtvard — On British Fossil Artkropoda. Ill 



named E. armigera was found in the Coal-measures of Grundy County, 

 Illinois, and is described in the same work by Messrs. Meek and 

 Worthen. A specimen equalling in size their E. armigera was 

 figured and described by the writer in the Geological Magazine, 

 1871, Vol. VIII. PL III. Fig. 6, p. 97, from the Coal-measiu'es near 

 Glasgow, under the name of E. JBrownii. 



Messrs. Meek and Worthen write as follows respecting their 

 specimen of Euphoberia? major (see Woodcut, Fig. 11) : 



" We unfortunately yet know it only from fragments, one of the 

 best of which is represented by the annexed cut. If as long in pro- 



FiG. 11. — Euphoheria? major, from the Coal-measures, Grundy Co., Illinois, U.S.A. 

 [See Messrs. Meek and Worthen's ' Palaeontology of Illinois,' 1868, vol. iii. p. 558. 

 One dorsal spine {s) still i-emains in situ; the nodes [n) are evidently the bases of spines. 

 Several pairs of the legs are seen below.] 



portion as the other species, it probably attained a length of twelve 

 to fifteen inches, and must have presented a formidable appearance. 

 The node-like prominences marked (n) in the figure are evidently the 

 bases of spines that have been broken away. One of these, however, 

 is seen lying in the matrix at the point marked (s). Another specimen 

 shows a direct view of the dorsal side compressed flat. In this 

 traces of two rows of these node-like prominences are seen along the 

 middle, while a row of spines can be seen projecting out into the 

 matrix on each side. This latter specimen so nearly resembles a 

 fossil figured by Mr. Salter, in the Quarterly Journal of the 

 Geological Society of London, vol. xix, p. 84, fig. 8, from the Staf- 

 fordshire Coal-measures, under the name of Eurypterus (Arthropleura) 

 ferox, that we can scarcely entertain a doubt that they are congeneric. 

 Indeed, if it were not for the fact that the species ferox has its spines 

 provided with three instead of two prongs, we would even suspect 

 that our specimens might possibly belong to the same species. 



'•■ Mr. Salter thought his specimen probably a part of the central 

 lobe of a trilobate Eurypterus or some allied genus, an opinion he 

 "vs^ould not have entertained for a moment, provided we are right in 

 our suggestion respecting its relations to our fossil, if he had seen a 

 specimen showing a side-view of even a few of the segments with 



