86 PROCEEDINGS OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 



" tear-drop " ornaments characteristic of Eurypterus. Such have 

 been figured in my monograph of the genus, Quart. Journ. Geol. 

 Soc. 1859, vol. xv. p. 229, pi. 10. figs. 3, 11, 12. 



The remaining pieces are evidently parts of a great Crustacean, 

 and almost certainly belong to this one; for they have the same 

 ornaments on the hinder edge ; but they differ remarkably by having 

 a curious set of short, wavy, interrupted ridges (or furrows, — it is 

 impossible to say which), lying transversely to the length, and which 

 are equally distributed over the whole segment. They are not all 

 of the same size, small rounded ridges being mixed with those of a 

 more linear shape. On some of these body-segments (figs. 4 & 5) 

 large spines occur on the hinder edges ; and these I suppose to have 

 been the rings nearest the head. On others a large spine is rare, as 

 fig. 6 ; and on fig. 7, which was probably nearer the middle of the 

 body, only the linear " tear-drop " ornaments are present. 



Locality. Pendleton Colliery, near Manchester. In the " Ferny 

 Metal," beneath the " Seven-foot Coal " or " Earns Mine." 



Although I have supposed figs. 1 and 2 to belong to the head, 

 I have really little else to recommend this view than the great com- 

 parative size and breadth, and the general form, which is like 

 that of the hinder angles of the head of the Scotch Eurypterus. If 

 the original figure, given by M. Jordan (' Palaeontographica,' vol. iv. 

 pi. 2. figs. 4 & 5, p. 13), of the Arthropleura armata be consulted, a 

 somewhat similar piece, having a similar arrangement of tubercles, 

 will be seen to occur in contact (not joined) with a fragment, which 

 would make the pointed portion more like the pleuron of a trilobed 

 segment. I do not believe this is the case, but still it is worth while 

 to call attention to the circumstance. M. Jordan evidently does not 

 know to what part of the animal he is to refer this plate ; and as it is 

 not certain, according to his own showing, that the two portions of 

 his fig. 5 * belong to the same piece, while in his fig. 4 there is a 

 large plate like a carapace connected with tubercular body-rings, I 

 think we may interpret our own fragments without reference to the 

 Saarbruck fossil, except to identify the genus. The authors von 

 Meyer and Jordan have failed to give a generic character, and, in 

 the absence of any proof that it is distinct from Eurypterus, I do 

 not feel justified in referring the British fossil to any other genus. 



The fragment next described carries still further the strange 

 ornamentation with spines and tubercles, and may belong to a 

 distinct genus. 



Eurypterus ? (Arthropleura) ferox, sp. nov. Fig. 8. 



A fortunate blow of Mr. Charles Ketley's hammer has yielded one 

 of the most curious Crustacean fragments on record. He found it 

 in the Staffordshire Coal-measures, at Tipton, and states that it 

 came from the shale over the " Thick Coal." Abundance of coal- 

 plants were with it. 



At first sight, it would strike an entomologist as a fossil caterpillar 

 of the Saturnia genus, so strong is its resemblance in size, form, and 



