^{page 361 note 1} See Trans. Geol. Soc., 1840, vol. v.Google Scholar

^{page 361 note 2} See Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., vol. xvii, p. 530, 1861.Google Scholar

^{page 362 note 1} Dr. Peach, B. N., Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb., vol. xxx, p. 73, 1882; p. 511, 1883.Google Scholar

^{page 362 note 2} Without in any way desiring to detract from the great value and importance of Dr. Peach's monograph, it may be well to bear in mind the caution expressed by Dr. W. T. Caiman in his review of Dr. Peach's memoir in the Geological Magazine for 1909 (pp. 76–8)Google Scholar as regards the reference of all these forms to the Schizopoda, some of which at least had been believed to belong to the Decapoda. Dr. Caiman also expressed a doubt as to the determination of some of the species referred to Crangopsis and to the Euphausidse; but space does not permit us to deal with these divisions satisfactorily here.

^{page 363 note 1} See Geol. Surv. Hem., Palæontology, Higher Crustacea of Carboniferous Rocks of Scotland, 1908, Stanford, E., London, 4to, p. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 363 note 2} The pages given here refer to Dr. Peach's memoir.

^{page 363 note 3} Anthrapalæmon Grossarti, Salter, was published in 1861 (see Q. J. G. S., vol. xvii, p. 528, with woodcut), Palæocarabus Russellianus, Salter, in 1863 (Q. J. G. S., vol. xix, p. 520, figs. 1 and 2). I pointed out in 1866 (Trans. Glasgow Geol. Soc, vol. ii, p. 246) that A. Grossarti and P. Russellianus were identical species, and as the former had two years priority over the latter, the name P. Russellianus must disappear and become a synonym of A. Grossarti, Salter; see also Brit. Mus. Cat. of Brit. Foss. Crustacea, 1877, p. 8.

^{page 365 note 1} See Mem. Geol. Surv. Great Britain, Palæontology, 4to, Glasgow, 1908, in which his previous memoirs (Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb., 1882 and 1883) are incorporated (pp. 82, pls. i–xii).