XOTES AND QUERIES. 
393 
fresh place of discovery. His description of the animals named by him Glyphea 
Leachii, is confined to the cephalatliorax 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 (New 
Species of Fossil Crabs, 1S40). This relationship was acknowledged by me still 
more fully in my " 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 
Cli/tia Leachii. I discovered it in the chalk of Kutschlin, near Bilin, and of 
Huudorf, near Toplitz, and also in the sandstone of Hradek and Tribitz. 
Those parts dra\vn 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 remain-:! from the White 
^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 (1849, p. 7), 
names also the upper Quader-marls of Quedlinberg, as the place where the 
Cli/tia 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 Osterfcld and 
Diilmen. 
Lastly, McCoy "On the Classification of some British Fossil Crustacea" in the 
Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 1849, p. 93, elevates the crustacean 
iu question to the rank of an independent genus, distinguished from Meyer's 
Cli/tia 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 Enoplocli/tia, and mentions two other kinds 
belonging to the same species, E. Imagei, McCoy, from the white chalk of 
Burvvell and Maidstone ; and brevimani, McCoy, from the lower chalk of 
Cherry Hinton in Cambridge. 
In iiis short description of the characteristics of the species Enoploclytia 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. Ijcachii, however, he seems to know no other parts than those 
already described by Mantell. At any rate he does not mention any, and the 
cliaracter 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 Enoplocli/tia 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. 1 will after- 
wards more clearly prove this from given descriptions. My description treats 
VOL. IV. 2 T 
