18 NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM 
account of the chelicera and first endognathite, as well as the coxae 
of other legs of this Stylonurus, which were discovered and worked out 
by the junior author of that volume from the underside of the fragmentary 
carapace that served for Claypole’s description of the species. There 
was further described a species of Eurypterus (E. prominens) 
from the Clinton beds of New York, one from the Waverly beds 
near the boundary of Pennsylvania and New York (E. approxi- 
matus); and a tubular body from the Portage beds of Yates county, 
which Dawson had described as Equisetides wrightianus, 
and Jones & Woodward regarded as probably a phyllocarid (Echino- 
caris), was provisionally referred to Stylonurus. | 
Two years later (1890) Claypole announced the occurrence of euryp- 
terids in the waterlime of Kokomo, Indiana, and he described therefrom 
a large Eusarcus, for which he first proposed the generic name Eurysoma 
and later Carcinosoma. <A species of Eurypterus from the same locality 
was described in 1896 by Miller and Gurley. 
While thus in the last decades of the preceding century on this side 
of the Atlantic, the fragments of the eurypterids scattered in the forma- 
tions of New York, Ohio and Illinois were brought together and published, 
important work on the organization of the eurypterids was done in Europe. 
We refer here to Laurie’s paper on the Anatomy and Relations of the 
Euryptertda [1893] and to Holm’s new investigation of Eurypterus 
fischeri [1896]. Laurie had already added considerably to our knowl- 
edge of the Scottish species by descriptions of new forms from the Pentland 
Hills [1892], among them the new genera Drepanopterus and Bemby- 
cosoma, and had discovered the epicoxite and gillplates in Slimonia; 
he now took up the discussion of the anatomy of the genera Slimonia, 
Pterygotus, Eurypterus and Stylonurus, the relations of the eurypterids 
among themselves, to the trilobites and crustaceans, to Limulus, the scorpion 
and other arachnids... We have given full appreciation of this work in 
1The arachnidan affinities of Limulus had been for some time the subject of dis- 
cussion among zoologists, especially in Lankester’s paper: Limulus an Arachnid ? [188r]. 
