38 The American Geologist. July. i897 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
1885. Avers, H., On the carapax and sternum of Decapod Crustacea. 
Bulletin Essex Institute, xvii, 1885. 
1895. Beecher, C. E., The larval stages of Trilobites. Amer. Geo)., 
XVI, pp. 1G6-197. 
1894. Beecher, C. E., The appendages of the pygidium of Triarthrus. 
Amer. Jour. Sci. and Arts, III series, vol. xlvii, 1894. 
1897. Beecher, C. E., Outlines of a natural classification of the Tri- 
lobites. Amer. Jour. Sci. and Arts, IV series, vol. iii, pp. 89-lOG: 181- 
207, 1897. 
1895. Bernard, H. M., The zoological position of the trilobites. Sci- 
ence Progress, vol. iv., Sept., 1895. 
1891. Bumpus, H. C, The embryology of the American lobster. 
Jour. Morphol., v., 1891. 
1888. Clarke, J. M., The structure and developiiient of the visual 
area in the trilobite, Phacops rana. Jour. Morphol., ii, pp. 253-270, 
1888. 
1886. Glaus, 0. Untersuchungen iiber die Organization und Ent- 
wickelung von Bracnhipus und Artemia. Art.Zool. Inst. Wien., vi, pp. 
267-370, 1886. 
1894. Kingsley, J. S. The classification of the Arthropoda. Amer. 
Naturalist, xxviii, 1894; Tufts College Studies, No. i, 1894. 
1881. Lankester, E. R. Observations and reflections on the appen- 
dages and on the nervous system of Apus cancriformis. Quart. Jour. 
Micros. Sci., xxi, pp. 343-376, 1881. 
1895. McMurrich, J. P. Embryology of the Isopod Cru.stacea. Jour. 
Morphol., XI, pp. 63-154, 1895. 
1880. Packard, A. S. The structure of the eyes of Trilobites. Amer. 
Naturalist, xiv, pp. 503-508, 1880. 
1883. Packard, A. S. A monograph of the Phyllopod Crustacea of 
North America, with remarks on the order Phyllocarida. 12th Ann. 
Rept. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Survey of the Territories (Hayden's), for 
1878, pp. 295-592, 1883. 
Other references will be found in Beecher (1897) and in Kingsley (1894). 
Only those directly quoted are given above. 
REMARKS BY C. E BEECHER. 
As a preface to these remarks, it may be stated that there 
is no intention on the part of either writer of indulging in a 
controversy regarding trilobite affinities. Prof. Kingslej'-, as 
a biologist and authority on living arthropods, naturally ap- 
proaches the subject from a standpoint nearly opposite to that 
of a trilobite investigator or paleontologist. The differences 
of opinion or interpretation held by each are generally more 
apparent than real, and, as stated, depend mainly upon the 
