Index to N. P. Angelin's Palseontologia Scandinavica, with notes 



29 



Notes 



jCompare Moberg and Segerberg 1906, p. 84. 



As to the diagnosis of the genus compare Persson 1904, p. 524. 

 Compare Persson 1904, p. 517. 



I According to Persson 1904, p. 516, this species is based on fullgrown specimens of E. latum. Compare 

 I also Brögger 1882, p. 118. 



I Compare Persson 1904, p. 513. See the preceding note. 



J This name was rejected by later authors and the species ascribed to Forbesia were referred to the genus 

 1 Proetus Stein. Compare Schmidt 1894, p. 38. 



= Proetus hrevifrons. Compare Linnarsson 1869, p. 72. 



= » concinnus. » Lindström 1885, p. 78, and Schmidt 1894, p. 41. 



= » conspersus. » » ' P- 79, » » ' P' 46, and, as to the hypo- 



stoma, Lindström 1901, pl. 6, fig. 25. 

 J This genus, erected in 1847 by Corda for only one species G. (Proetus) elegantulus, is according to Bar- 

 l rande 1856, p. 22, and later authors synonymous with Cyphaspis BuRM. 



= Cyphaspis elegantula. See the preceding note. On page 21' referred to the genus Proetus Stein. — As 



to the hypostoma compare Lindsteöm 1901, pl. 8, flg. 24, 25. 

 NovlK (Studien an Hypostomen böhmischer Trilobiten. N;o II. Sitz.-Ber. Kgl. Böhm. Ges. d. Wiss. Prag 



1884) proposed to separate the ordovician species from this genus and to bring them together to a 



new genus Harpinn. 

 See Arr aphus corniculatus. 



J According to Grönwali. 1902, p. 97, this species belongs to the genus Conocoryphe. See also the note 

 I to Elyx laticeps. 



(Compare Moberg and Segerberg 1906, p. 85. 



Brogger 1882, p. 128, gave a fuller description and more perfect figure, and, recognising that this species 

 did not belong to Holometopus, he 1896, p. 68, note, proposed for it the generic name Oroiiietopus. 

 Lake 1907, p. 45, stated that the tail, doubtfully ascribed to this species by Moberg and Seger- 

 berg, does not belong to Holometopus. Compare Lake, 1. c. 



