WuiGiiT — Liinnostherid : A New Conchoslracnn Genmt. ISO 



cimaiiieiitiitimi ilisiiliiycil dislinclivc ciusliiicaii diaracters. I'.y lliis piece of 

 Work he uiuliiulilrilly diil a Nury great scrviue In '^coloify in reiulciiiig possible 

 a iiioie exact rccoiistnuliuii of tlic (.•oiulilidii.s mulcr wiiicli llie Vieils con- 

 taining these fossils were deposited, and in setting free stratigiaphers from' 

 the apparent necessity of regarding such beds as marine or estiiarine. None 

 of his material, however, gave any liint of tlie liody-characters of the animals 

 whose remains he was studying, and it was not until 191-1 tliat an advance was 

 made in this direction. In this year I'h. 0. liilU described some impressions 

 of an Estherian animal found by him in association with other crusta- 

 cean remains in the Buntor of Alsace. These impressions appear to liave 

 been ratlier indelinite, and the figure given is certainly lacking in detail. 

 The head-parts with the fornix, antennules, antennae and mandibles are 

 shown, also the very simple telson and portion of the outline of the shell. 

 The trunk and associated appendages are only vaguely suggested. Bill 

 refers these appendages to Estheria minida on the ground of association with 



^^*^" 



X5 



A 



X6 



B 



Fio. 1. — A. Specimen 11, sliowing antennae and valves of carapace spread apart. 



B. Specimen S, showing claspers ciisplaced from normal posilion, ,iiid also, more lli;m 

 usually well preserved, ihe spine-lil;e dorsal prolongations of tlie hodv segments in 

 tlie posterior legion. 



the fossil shell to which that name has been given, but it is to be noted 

 that he did not regard the evidence as entirely satisfactory. The shell 

 impressions of the actual fossils do not show the concentric rings character- 

 istic of Estheria viinuta, but as he also found shells, one end of which showed 

 the rings while the other was quite smooth, he considers that the gap is to 

 a certain extent bridged, although he expressly states that the meaning of 

 the phenomenon is not clear to him. Neither these composite specimens 

 nor the normal specimens of Esther ia minula found in the same beds are 

 figured, so that it is impossible to make any comparison of the outline of the 

 shell with that clearly attached to the appendages. 



' Ph. C. Bill; Mitt, der Geol. Laiidesaiisl alt vmi Els.iss-Lothriiigen. Bil. \'ltl, 

 p. 326, l'.>14. 



