The organization of Trilobites, deduced from their living affinities. With a systematic review of the species hitherto described / By Hermann Burmeister ... Ed. from the German by Professor Bell ... and Professor E. Forbes.

  • Burmeister, Hermann, 1807-1892.
Date:
1846
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The organization of Trilobites, deduced from their living affinities. With a systematic review of the species hitherto described / By Hermann Burmeister ... Ed. from the German by Professor Bell ... and Professor E. Forbes. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    28/168 (page 12)
    rally correct basis which Quenstedt exhibits in this respect. The group of the large-eyed species, furnished with eleven articulations, which was first recognized by the latter, was named Phacops by Emmerich, and appears as a genus, besides eight others, of which the second (Odontopleura) is also new and well-founded, but cannot be satisfactorily recognized by the very defective illustrative figure. Emmerich has also followed his predecessor in this respect, that he extends the identity of Homalonotus and Trimerus, first announced by Murchison (and to which Bronn subsequently—1840—also added Dipleurd), to Calymene, considering the group merely as a subdivision of it. He unquestionably, however, goes too far in this respect, especially when he separates from it Dipleura, which of all the three forms is most nearly related to Calymene. Next to this work there follows a brief but sound and valuable account of the Russian Trilobites by L. v. Buch (1840), containing a correct view of all essential characters, namely, a comparative study of the relative proportions of the head, trunk, and tail, and the relation of the separate parts to the whole. “ By proceeding in this manner only can we expect real natural historical classifications, such as rise above the poor purpose of serving as con¬ venient indices to collections and catalogues.” This is perfectly true, but the contemporary works of the Count v. Münster (1840 and 1842) unfortunately do not soar beyond that purpose, for they scarcely furnish a single perfect description of the many new species exhibited, and only indicate obscurely in the illustrative plates the real forms to which they probably belong. The paradoxical forms which Goldfuss has published (1841) offer, both in perfection of representation and description, a magnificent conUast to the last work, and cannot be too strongly recommended as a pattern to those who henceforth wish to describe Trilobites from fragmentary specimens. The newest work on this subject, one recently published by Milne Edwards, in the third volume of his ‘ Histoire Naturelle des Crustaces,’ tom iii, 1841, embraces indeed everything connected with the subject, but, on the other hand, is by no means worthy of the name which this distinguished French naturalist has procured for himself by many excellent works. The arrangement of the Trilobites between Isopodes and Phyllopodes, which the author follows, does homage to all the different views hitherto pro¬ posed on the subject, and therefore does not bring the matter to a decision ; but in this case the truth lies by no means, as it often does in other cases, in the middle. Among the assumed twelve genera, several, as Pleur acanthus, Peltura, and Otarion, are founded on mis¬ understood fragments, and the same may be said of many species which the author copies from his predecessors without any further investigation. It is to be regretted that so pro¬ found a zoologist, who may justly be considered by the many as a distinguished authority, has paid so little attention to this part of his otherwise very meritorious volume, and has thus furnished a work which can only be considered valuable as a mere compilation. It certainly has not advanced us one step in our knowledge of the structure of these animals.