X0TE5 AXD QUESIE3. 



3?3 



fresh place of discovery. His description of the animals named by him Glyphea 

 Leachii, is confined to the cephalathorax and the chelate limbs. He 

 conjectures, however, that though the second pair of feet may have been 

 provided with claws, the other three pair were not so. He moreover renders 

 prominent the relationship between this animal and the Clytia of Meyer (jNew 

 Species of Fossil Crabs, 1S40). This relationship was acknowledged by me still 

 more fully in iny "Fossils of the Chalk Formation of Bohemia," so that I have 

 found myself induced to connect this fossil with Meyer's species, under the name 

 Clytia Leachii. I discovered it in the chalk of Kutschlin, near Bilin, and of 

 Hundorf, near Toplitz, and also in the sandstone of Hradek and Tribitz. 

 Those parts drawn and described by me (pi. vi., fig. 1 and pi. xlii., fig. 3), are 

 the breast-shield (incomplete), feet with the great claws, fragments of walking 

 feet, of masticators and a part of the edge of an outside feeler, the last three 

 body-rings, and lastly some fragments of the tail. 



I afterwards became acquainted with numerous fine remains from the TVhite 

 Mountains, near Prague, and the description of them forms the principal 

 motive of this treatise. 



Geinitz, in his work on the Quader-formation of Germany (1S49, p. 7), 

 names aLso the upper Quader-marls of Quedlinberg, as the place where the 

 Clytia Leachii was found. As, however, I do not recognize by their appearance 

 those remains as coming from the salt mines of that place, I am not convinced 

 that they really belong to the species, and feel • the less inclined to do 

 so from the fact of Quenstedt in his Handbook of Paleontology 

 giving a representation of a claw named by him as belonging to the 

 Astacus Leachii, which does not in any way belong to the species, even if it 

 belongs to an Astacide at all. Moreover, through the kindness of Dr. Geinitz 

 I have received the claw of a real Clytia Leachii, from the Quader-marl, for 

 examination. I learnt nothing more from the fact of its having been discovered, 

 as Geinitz says in his work on the Quader of Germany, near Osterfeld and 

 Diilmen. 



Lastly, McCoy "On the Classification of some British Fossil Crustacea" in the 

 Annals and Magazine of Xatural History, 1S49, p. 93, elevates the crustacean 

 in question to the rank of an independent genus, distinguished from Meyer's 

 Clytia by the superior size, the long spike of the breast-shield, toothed at the 

 side, and with bunches of spines thereon, and on the claw-feet. From this 

 character of the shell he names it Enoploclytia, and mentions two other kinds 

 belonging to the same species, E. Imagei, McCoy, from the white chalk of 

 Burweli and Maidstone ; and E. brevimani, McCoy, from the lower chalk of 

 Cherry Hinton in Cambridge. 



In Ids short description of the characteristics of the species Euoploclytia he 

 describes all the parts of the animal, with the exception of the claw-feet, feelers, 

 and incomplete walking feet. These last gave rise to an erroneous conjecture 

 on his part that all four pairs of feet end in a single claw. 



Of the E. Leachii, however, he seems to know no other parts than those 

 already described by Mantell. At any rate he does not mention any, and the 

 character of the species seems to be only copied (as regards the after-part of 

 the body) from the two other species, as it little accords with our species. But 

 how McCoy could regard the Enoploclytia Leachii, except in relationship to 

 the living species, the Galathea, is incomprehensible. He seems to have been 

 misled in this case by the strong tooth-spike, the small hinder part of the body 

 (which is not correct as regards the E. Leachii^) and the undivided outside 

 lappets of the tail, without duly taking into consideration the other very different 

 parts represented. Our species approaches much nearer to the Stomarus and 

 Nephrops families, without entirely resembling either of them. I will after- 

 wards more clearly prove this from given descriptions. My description treats 



YOL. TV. 2 T 



