No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
II.—Notes on the Affinities of the Genera of the Cheiruridæ
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 May 2009
Extract
In a former number of this Magazine the evolution of the subgenera of the single genus Cheirurus has been discussed, andit is now proposed to examine the mutual relations of the other genera of the Cheiruridæ. Some diversity of opinion has existed as to the genera which may be grouped together to form this family.
- Type
- Original Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1898
References
page 206 note 1 Reed, Geol. Mag., 12. IV, Vol. III (1896), pp. 117 and 161.Google Scholar
page 206 note 2 Barrande, , Syst. Sil. Boh., vol. i (1852), pp. 330 and 766.Google Scholar
page 207 note 1 Salter, , Mon. Brit. Trilob. Palicont. Soc. (1864), p. 2.Google Scholar
page 207 note 2 Handbuch der Paläontologie (1885), vol. ii, p. 616.Google Scholar
page 207 note 3 In Zittels, “ Grundziige der Palaontologie ” (1895), this genus is omitted from the Cheiruridæ.Google Scholar
page 207 note 4 Amer. Journ. Sci., vol. iii (1897), p. 89.Google Scholar
page 207 note 5 Mem. Acad. Imp. Sci. St. Petersb., vol. xxx, No. 1 (1881) : Eev. ostbalt. Tril., Abth. i, pp. 190, 195.
page 209 note 1 Mem. Acad. Imp. Sci. St. Petersb., vol. xxx, No. 1 (1881): Rev. ostbalt. Tril., Atth. i, p. 195.
page 210 note 1 Salter, (Mon. Brit. Trilob., p. 78) says there are eleven segments, but only figures ten.Google Scholar
page 210 note 2 Barrande, , Syst. Sil. Boh., vol. i, Suppl., p. 113, pi. ix, fig. 3.Google Scholar
page 210 note 3 Ibid., p. 112, pi. vii, figs. 5, 6.
page 211 note 1 Geol. Mag., 12. IV, Vol. III (1896), p. 118.Google Scholar
page 211 note 2 Salter says (Mon. Brit. Trilob., p. 88) that the pleurae are ungroored, but iu his figures of the species (Ibid., pi. vii, figs. 1–12) furrows are shown. Barrande both describes and figures the furrows (Syst. Sil. Boh., vol. i, Suppl., p. 115, pi. ii, figs. 19, 20). Perhaps, as Barrande suggests, for this and other reasons the Bohemian and English species are not identical.
page 211 note 3 Beecher, , Amer. Geol., vol. xvi (1895), p. 177, and references.Google Scholar
page 212 note 1 Amer. Journ. Sci., vol. iii (1897), p. 201.Google Scholar
page 212 note 2 Otver. Koiigl. Vet. Akad. Forliandl., 1885, Ko. 6, pp. 49–51, T. xiii, fins. 11, 12.
page 212 note 3 Bernard, , G. P. G. S., vol. L (1894), pp. 422–4.Google Scholar