March 5, 1886.] 



SCIENCE. 



217 



with its tail curved under its body." I never inti- 

 mated that it walked with its tail curved under its 

 body ; this is his own suggestion : but I cannot see 

 why the animal might not walk with its tail straight- 

 ened out behind, as well as to curve it over the 

 back ; in fact, the latter position seems much the 

 more awkward of the two. As to stinging its prey 

 after having caught it between the hands of its 

 palpi, it might experience a little trouble : hence the 

 necessity of the development of a more elevated 

 feature by way of adaptation of parts to purposes. 

 There must be a period in the life of a scorpion when 

 the tail first assumes this elevated feature ; for as 

 Professor Thorell admits, just before birth in the 

 living forms, the tail is curved downward. If the 

 bend is downward then, when is it turned upward ? 

 and why, in these early forms, might not this em- 

 bryonic feature be prolonged to a later or more 

 advanced age ! Wasps and similar insects bend 

 their bodies downward in stinging their prey, and 

 are not particularly awkward, as I have often ex- 

 perienced. The ridges on the upper and lower sur- 

 faces of the tail-joints differ in all Jiving scorpions 

 which I have examined, and readily show which is 

 dorsal, and which is ventral. Those seen on this 

 specimen have the character of the ventral or lower 

 side (inside as to curvature), and not ''the same 

 form and sculpture of the dorsal plates, or parts of 

 these segments or joints in ordinary scorpions," as 

 Professor Thorell wrongly asserts. They diverge at 

 the anterior end. and converge at the posterior end. 

 The very slight displacement of the tail segments is 

 not sufficient to warrant the assumption that the 

 entire tail has been turned over, although such may 

 possibly be the case, but is not at all probable. I 

 stated the fact of displacement in my description, 

 and based my reasoning upon the improbability of 

 its having been turned over. Of course, if it is turned 

 over, my inferences are faulty. But has it been '. 

 I think not. 



Professor Thorell next attacks the two poor little 

 claws in the most pitiless manner, notwithstanding' 

 the animal has but one foot to show. This he holds 

 out in the most appealing manner to the observer, 

 entirely distinct, and free from interference by the 

 other limbs, and with the two claws widely spread, 

 as if in an effort to prevent disputation. Professor 

 Thorell's remarks, in his effort to reason away one of 

 these claws upon an assumption as to what a Silurian 

 scorpion ought to be, partake so much of the charac- 

 ter of ' special pleading,' that I do not feel called 

 upon to make a very extended attempt at refutation. 

 The specimen is so very distinct and positive in this 

 respect, that I shall only say, in reply to Professor 

 Thorell, that he can rest assured the specimen is not 

 broken, or in any way mutilated in this part ; that 

 there are certainly two processes of almost equal 

 size, the longer being only perceptibly narrower at its 

 base, under a high magnification, than its mate ; that 

 the two processes are situated on the end of the 

 joint behind, and not on the side of the end, in 

 the position of a spine. Now. these processes he 

 can call spines, or parts of a broken limb, or by any 

 other name : they still remain claws to every appear- 

 ance, are in the right position, and were undoubtedly 

 used as such by the animal. In my examination of 

 the specimen, I have made no assumption and manu- 

 factured no feature, simply taking the specimen as 

 it is, without tinkering or dressing. I have had, in 

 the matter of the double claw, the opinion, after 



examination, of many good observers, only one of 

 whom failed to assert positively the existence of a 

 double claw. That one exception, after a very cur- 

 sory examination of only a very few minutes, gave 

 no direct opinion. 



After speaking of the transverse furrow across the 

 base of the cephalothorax, Professor Thorell men- 

 tions ' the small size of the eyes 1 as a feature in 

 which this specimen differs from the Eoscorpionidae. 

 and states that *'in this particular it more resembles 

 Dr. Hunter's and Mr. Peach's Scotch Paleophonus " 

 I am not aware that the eyes of Dr. Hunter's and 

 Mr. Peach's Scotch Palaeophonus have been actually 

 observed so as to know their exact size. The speci- 

 men lies with the ventral side up, the eyes being 

 embedded in the rock below, but. according to Mr. 

 Peach, "are seen pressed up through the cuticle of 

 the gullet," and would naturally appear somewhat 

 larger than they really were in life, owing to the lift- 

 ing of the cuticle over them. Consequently I do not 

 see the force of the comparison. 



Professor Thorell believes Proscorpius forms a 

 ; good peculiar genus,' as "characterized by the 

 somewhat tnlobed anterior margin of the cephalo- 

 thorax," — a feature which I should not consider as 

 of more than specific value, — " and more especially by 

 the shape of the fingers of the mandibles, which, if 

 they really had such a form in the living animal as 

 they, from Mr. Whitfield's figures, appear to have, 

 differ materially from those of Palaeophonus and 

 all other known scorpions." I am sorry Professor 

 Thorell has not told us how they differ ; then we 

 should have had a basis of comparison. My figures 

 of the mandible, three of which I gave, besides that 

 in place on the enlarged figure in plate 19 (which, by 

 the way, is not a drawing, but a print direct from a 

 photograph of the specimen), were given to show the 

 uncertainty of this part. They can be verified, how- 

 ever, by reference to that figure. 



As to Professor Thorell's opinion of the systematic 

 position and relation of this American fossil scorpion, 

 which he has based upon a lack of knowledge of the 

 specimen, and the assumption of characters and 

 faults which it does not possess, I shall say nothing, 

 as it rests entirely on the existence of a single or 

 double claw. But as to his " additional reason to 

 those given above for removing Proscorpius from the 

 carboniferous Eoscorpionidae, and for referring this 

 genus to the Apoxypodes, fam. Palaeophonidae," 

 which he says " may be found in its being, geologi- 

 cally speaking, almost contemporary with the Palaeo- 

 phoni," I should object to make geological position 

 even an ' additional reason ' for zoological classifi- 

 cation. 



Regarding the aquatic nature of the animal, there 

 can be no certainty. The apparent total absence of 

 stigmata, yet unexplained, leads one to inquire how 

 they breathed, even if aquatic. The same may be 

 asked of its aquatic associates in the rock, Euryp- 

 terus and Pterygotus, which show neither stigmata 

 nor branchiae ; but their aquatic character is not 

 questioned. That it should be any thing so ' very 

 strange,' that a connecting-link between a small and 

 a large form, like the scorpion on the one hand, and 

 the Pterygoti on the other, should be found in " such 

 a little creature as the Proscorpius Osbornii," I 

 think few will admit ; nor are all the Eurypteri and 

 Pterygoti so very ' gigantic ' as his language would 

 indicate. R. P. Whitfield. 



Amer. mus. nat. hist., New York City. 



