28 BRITISH FOSSIL CRUSTACEA. 
terus Scouleri, and Limulus rotundatus, all more or less correct. He repeats most of his 
former views, and makes some critical remarks upon Mr. Salter’s restoration, as given in 
‘Siluria,’ which, however, he reproduces. 
47. At the close of 1859 Prof. James Hatu,* Geologist for the State of New York, 
in his ‘Report on the Paleontology of New York, gives a very excellent account of 
FEurypterus, with many figures of the actual fossils and restorations of the genus, also 
figures of the more rare American species of Péerygott. Frequent reference will be made 
to Prof. Hall’s work in the course of this Monograph. 
48. Mr. W. H. Bainy™ describes (1859) some new forms of Zimuli from the Coal- 
measures, for which he proposes the names Belinurus regine and B. arcuatus ; they were 
found in the Bilboa Colliery, Queen’s County, Ireland. 
49. In 1862 Mr. C. Ginpen” describes a Limulus, which he names £. Decheni, from 
the Braunkohlen-Sandstein near Teuchern, Prov. Saxony. 
50. 1862. Prof. Jamus Hai” figures the carapace of what may possibly be, as 
he suggests, the shield of a Zzmulus-like Crustacean in the Potsdam Sandstone, Black 
River, Wisconsin. It has, however, somewhat more the aspect of a crushed Trilobite 
shield than the head of a Limulus. 
51. In May, 1862, Mr. J. W. Saurer communicated to the Geological Society of 
London” descriptions and figures of some species of Hurypterus and allied forms, and 
he there makes the following remarks upon Plerygotus, &c. : 
“Since the appearance, in 1859, of the Memoir by Prof. Huxley and myself on 
Pterygotus and its allies, the great work of Prof. Hall, of Albany, has appeared (‘ Palzeon- 
tology of New York,’ vol. ii), containing the fullest material for the illustration of this 
genus ; and following, as it did, upon the very full account given by Dr. Wieskowski,* it 
has completed our knowledge of the structure of this remarkable genus. And there seems 
to be now no doubt whatever that the anomalous plates and processes,+ about the position 
of which Prof. Huxley and myself were compelled to guess, and which for many obvious 
reasons were compared with the under portion of the head, really belong to the under part 
of the thorax. All this was as satisfactorily made out by the Russian author as by 
Prof. Hall’s independent researches. We had also arrived at the same conclusion before 
Wieskowski’s* admirable paper reached us. For, previous to the Meeting of the British 
Association at Aberdeen, in 1859, I was sent by the Director-General of the Geologica 
Survey to examine the collections made by Mr. Shimon, of Lesmahago; and in that fine 
series (which was sent to the Meeting for exhibition) we found abundant proofs of the true 
position of the sternal plates, such as Wieskowski* and Hall have figured, and of the place 
of the post-oral plate, previously assigned by Prof. Huxley to the hinder margin of the 
mouth. The position of the chel in these new specimens also confirmed the Professor’s 
* For Wieskowski read Nieszkowski. See Ante, p. 26, J 43. 
+ The thoracic plate, or operculum. 
