Ly, Hhiedene A At
by te ee

[From THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, VoL. XVII, June, 1904.]

¥
>
en

[FRoM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ScreNcE, VoL. XVII, June, 1904.]

CHARLES EMERSON BEECHER.

One of America’s leading paleontologists, in the fullness of
intellectual power, suddenly passed away on February 14, 1904,
in the midst of his family and work. Few men were better
prepared and more promising of great results for the next
twenty years than Charles EK. Beecher. “There is no doubt
that in the death of Professor Beecher, not only has Yale sus-
tained a serious loss and paleontology a severe blow, but the
ranks of those capabie of bringing to the study of fossils keen
insight and a philosophical spirit of enquiry, guided by prin-
ciples whose value can hardly be exaggerated, are diminished
by one whom science could ill afford to lose, and to whom,
humanly speaking, there should have remained many years of
industry and fruitful research.” (W. H. Dall, Science, March
18, 1904.)

Like most successful students of organic life, Beecher was
a born naturalist. As a boy of twelve years he began to make
a collection of recent shells and fossils, continuing to add to
this for the next thirty years, when, in 1899, he presented
Yale University, “unconditionally,” with upwards of 100,000
fossils. In the field few excelled Beecher as a collector.
When twenty years of age he published his first paper—a list
of the land and fresh-water shells of Ann Arbor, Michigan.
For the next eight years he published nothing, his second
paper appearing in 1884, and in 1888, when he left Albany,

412 Charles Emerson Beecher.

there were but twelve papers to his credit. Since that time,
during the years spent at New Haven, he has written fifty-
eight articles, making a total of seventy numbers in his bibli-
ography. Asa paleontologist he began by describing species
and genera, but later he took almost no interest in this kind of
work. Often he told the writer that he wished all our fossils
were named. Of faunal and stratigraphic papers he has five,
and of new species he described but thirty-six. He defined
nine new genera and seven new orders. During the past fif-
teen years his mind was absorbed in working out the ontoge-
netic stages in fossil species and in tracing their genetic sequence
through the geological formations. To Beecher we owe the
first natural classification of the Brachiopoda and Trilobita,
based on the law of recapitulation and on chronogenesis. He
also gave a very philosophic account as to the origin and sig-
nificance of spines in plants and animals. On these works his
reputation in days to come will chiefly rest. .

Beecher was not only a born naturalist but also had much
mechanical ability. Nothing pleased him more than to free
fossils from the surrounding matrix, and his unexcelled talent
in this direction is shown in the preparations of Zrzarthrus
and Zrinucleus in the Yale University museum. More than
500 specimens have been prepared by him and this work has
required peculiar skill, patience, ingenuity, and a great deal of
time. Few can appreciate Beecher’s remarkable talent in
cleaning the adhering black shale from these small specimens,
and it will be a long time before another will be found who
can equal him in this respect. It is very unfortunate that he
did not live to complete his studies on the trilobites, but he ,
left all the better specimens completely worked out, and of
most of these he had made photographs and drawings. His
mechanical bent was also evidenced at his home, where he had a
bench and a large kit of tools. Here his diversion consisted in
making brass scrolls, shelves, and delicately carved boxes and
chests. His preparations for the microscope, also, are of the
best, and much time in his earlier years was spent in freeing and
mounting the lingual dentition in small species of living gas-
tropods. He likewise modeled and made a life-size restoration
of the Devonian giant Stylonurus.

Charles Emerson Beecher. AR

After Beecher’s appointment as Curator of the geological
collections at Yale, he also undertook to arrange, develop, and
place on exhibition the large Marsh collection of vertebrates.
His work in this connection, however, was chiefly directive,
although he assisted considerably in the mechanical work of
the large mounts of Claosaurus annectens and Brontosaurus.
The life-like poses selected for these specimens are evidences
of his artistic perception. The former he has described at
length in the Transactions of the Connecticut Academy.

Charles Emerson Beecher, son of Moses and Emily D.
Beecher, was born in Dunkirk, New York, October 9, 1856.
Not long after this date, his parents removed to Warren, Penn-
sylvania, where he prepared for college at the High School, and
was graduated from the University of Michigan, receiving the
degree of B.S. in 1878. The ten succeeding years he served
as an assistant to Professor James Hall, and in 1888 removed
to New Haven to take charge of the collections of invertebrate
fossils in the Peabody Museum. His career as a teacher of
geology began in 1891 when for two years he took charge of
Dana’s classes at Yale, and in 1892 he was made Assistant
Professor of Historical Geology in the Sheffield Scientific
School, serving in this capacity until 1897 when he became
Professor of Historical Geology and a member of the Govern-
ing Board in the Sheffield Scientific School. In 1899 he sue-
ceeded the late Professor Marsh as Curator of the geological
collections, and was made a member of, and secretary to, the
Board of Trustees of the Museum. In 1902 his title was
changed to that of University Professor of Paleontology. He
was eminently successful as a teacher both with undergraduates
and with advanced students, his enthusiasm and kindliness of
character arousing at once their interest and devotion.

Professor Chittenden, director of the Sheffield Scientific
School, has said of Beecher: “ Quiet and unassuming he never
sought adulation, but where there was earnest work to be done,
requiring skill, patience and good judgment, he would labor
quietly and industriously, bringing to bear upon the problem
such a measure of common sense and of thoughtfulness that
confidence and respect for his conclusions were inevitable.

414 Charles Emerson Beecher.

Pepe iain ater Asa friend he was loyal and trustworthy, and
his memory will always be cherished by his associates in the
Sheffield Scientific School with a full realization of the great
loss they have sustained in his removal from their midst, and
with an equal realization of the great loss to the institution to
which he was so ardently devoted and in the future of which
he had such great confidence.”

Beecher received the degree of Ph.D. from Yale in 1889,
his thesis being a memoir on the Ordovician Brachiospongide.
In 1899 he was elected a member of the National Academy of
Sciences, a foreign correspondent of the Geological Society of
London, and a fellow of the Geological Society of America.
In 1900 he was elected President of the Connecticut Academy
of Arts and Sciences, and filled this office for two years. He
was also a member of the American Association of Concholo-
gists, Geological Society of Washington, Boston Society of
Natural History, and Malacological Society of London.

Beecher’s first paleontologic paper was published by the
Geological Survey of Pennsylvania in 1884, when he was
twenty-eight years old. It treated of new genera and species
of Phyllocarida from the Devonian, a group of rare Crustacea,
most of which he had found about his home. He was always
on the lookout for these rare fossils, and after securing many
hundred additional specimens, he again returned to the subject,
and in 1902, in a paper published by the Geological Society of
London, embodied all that is known of the Upper Deyonian
Phyllocarida of Pennsylvania.

If, during the past ten years, Beecher’s time had not been so
much taken up with trilobites, he probably would have worked
out a phylogenetic classification of the corals. In 1891 he pub-
lished two important papers on paleozoic corals, one based on
Pleurodictyum lenticulare and the other on MWichelinia con-
vera. He concluded that poriferous corals begin with a simple
cyathiform corallite, without mural pores, and with septa first
appearing toward the end of this stage. These features “ indi-
cate a primitive, simple, and imperforate ancestry for the Per-
forata.” The next stage is suggestive of Awlopora, and the
final stage in P. lenticulare has at least seven mural pores open-

Charles Emerson Beecher. 415

ing into the primary calyx. In regard to the mural pores, he
concluded from astudy of them in /avosttes, Striatopora, Pleu-
rodictyum, and Michelinia, that they “are ineffectual attempts
at budding, resulting only in the perforation of the cell walls.”

In his third paper on corals he states that a specimen of
Romingeria umbellifera measuring 100200" has approxi-
mately 1500 corallites on each zone, or 4500 on the three zones.
In 85 per cent of individuals each corallite gives rise to twelve
buds, so that if each of the 1500 corallites of the basal zone
give rise to twelve buds, there should be on the third zone
253,500 corallites. However, as there are only 4500 in the
specimen in the three zones, “this shows a suppression of
243,000 corallites on two zones.”

Beecher’s first turn from stratigraphic paloentology to pure
paleo-biology and correlation had its origin in the brachiopods.
While at Albany he became acquainted with Hyatt’s principles,
although it was not until he had been some years at New
Haven that he fully appreciated their application to fossils.
Hall had made large collections of the Silurian fossils at
Waldron, Indiana. This collection contained many slabs, and,
as much loose clay adhered to them, Beecher saved the wash-
ings and out of these he and Clarke obtained about 50,000
specimens of young brachiopods. Their results were published
in 1889 in a well-illustrated paper entitled ‘‘ Development of
some Silurian Brachiopods.” In summing up the developmen-
tal changes, they made the following very significant state-
ment: “In nearly every species the inceptive state is repre-
sented by a shell haying a subcircular outline, with valves of
sight convexity. This phase usually disappears before the
individual reaches a length of 1™, after which the specific
characters are assumed.” Widely differing species “are alike
in form, contour, convexity, beaks, and cardinal area, and the
only marked differences are to be found in the faint indications
of plications, strize, folds and sinuses.”

From a study of the nature of the pedicle opening they con-
cluded that the “phylogenetic development tended in two
main channels—one leading through Strophomena, Scenidium,
Orthisina, Leptena, Chonetes, Productus, and Strophalosia,
and the other in the direction of Rhynchonella, Spirifer,

416 Charles Emerson Beecher.

Atrypa, fetzia, and Terebratula.’ It will be noticed that
this arrangement of widely differing genera foreshadows
two orders of brachiopods for which Beecher later proposed
Neotremata and Telotremata. .

My acquaintance with Beecher began in 1889, and at that
time it was evident that the paper just referred to was being
considered with a better understanding of what Hyatt’s prin-
ciples meant when applied to Brachiopoda. The very fact that
nearly all the Waldron, Indiana, brachiopods began with
smooth shells having a subcircular outline, led him to look for
this early stage in other genera, but as no other young shells
were at hand, he resorted to a study of the beaks in well-pre-
served examples of mature shells. During the fall of 1890 he
spent nearly a week going through my collection, and with
studies made on other collections he was able to announce in
the spring of 1891 that he had seen the initial shell in fifteen
families as recognized by Cihlert in Fischer’s “Manuel de
Conchyliologie,” these being represented by forty genera.

At this time he made the important announcement “ that all
brachiopods, so far as studied by the writer, have a common
form of embryonic shell, which may be termed the protegulum.”
The protegulum is the phylembryonic stage of Brachiopoda.
A prototype preserving throughout its development the main
features of the protegulum was at first supposed to exist in the
Lower Cambrian Paterina, but as this proved to be identical
in structure with /phidea, the conclusion had to be abandoned.
However, at maturity this genus is so closely related in general
form with the protegulum, that we may hope at any time to
find the prototype.

A study of the stages of growth in many brachiopods, from
the Cambrian to the living forms, enabled Beecher to show
that the old classifications based upon the presence or absence
of hinge teeth, the nature of the intestinal canal, etc., were not
expressive of genetic relationship. He demonstrated that on
the basis of types of pedicle openings all brachiopods are natu-
rally grouped into four orders, of which two are without and
two possess hinge teeth. The most primitive order (Lingula,
ete.) he named Atremata, and this gave rise directly to the
Telotremata (Rhynchonella, Terebratula, etc.). The Neotre-
mata (Crania, Discina, etc.) also originated in the Atremata,

Charles Emerson Beecher. 417

and from the former descended the Protremata (Strophomena,
Productus, etc.).

One of theclearest cases of parallelism between the ontogeny
and phylogeny in a group of invertebrates was described by
Beecher. Living species of the family Terebratellidee have
a very wide distribution, and he showed that the highest genera
of the austral forms “pass through stages corellated with the
adult structure in the genera Gwynia, Cistella, Bourchardia,
Megerlina, Magas, Magasella, and Terebratella, and reach
their final development in Jagellania.” In the forms having
a boreal distribution the metamorphoses corellate “ with adult
structures of Gwynia, Cistella, Platidia, Ismenia, Mihl-
feldtia, Terebratalia, and Dallina. The first two stages in
both subfamilies are related in the same manner to Gwynia and
Cistella. The subsequent stages are different except thé last
two, so that the Magellania structure is similar in all respects
to the Dallina structure, and Terebratella is like Terebratala.
Therefore MJagellania and Terebratella are respectively the
exact morphological equivalents to, or are in exact parallelism
with Dallina and Terebratalia.

“In each line of progression in the Terebratellide, the
acceleration of the period of reproduction, by the influence of
environment, threw off genera which did not go through the
complete series of metamorphoses, but are otherwise fully
adult, and even may show reversional tendencies due to old
age; so that nearly every stage passed through by the higher
genera has a fixed representative ina lower genus. Moreover,
the lower genera are not merely equivalent to, or in exact par-
allelism with, the early stages of the higher, but they express
a permanent type of structure, as far as these genera are con-
cerned, and after reaching maturity do not show a tendency to
attain higher phases of development, but thicken the shell and
cardinal process, absorb the deltidial plates, and exhibit all the
evidences of senility.”

In 1893 there was discovered in the Utica formation near
Rome, New York, a thin band not more than one-fourth of an
inch thick, in which nearly all the fossils preserved (Z7riarthrus.
and Trimucleus) occur as pseudomorphs in iron pyrite, and
retain antennz and legs. Specimens of trilobites with legs
had been known before in two specimens, and in four genera

418 Charles baencan Beecher.

the legs had been determined by slicing enrolled individuals.
Antenne, however, had not been clearly made out until 1893,
when their presence was announced in the August number of
this Journal. This discovery was of great value and promised
much toward a better understanding of the ventral anatomy of
trilobites and their systematic position among the Crustacea.
This led to Beechevr’s visiting the locality in 1893 to take out
several tons of the shale. Even as late as last fall he developed
from this material specimens of Z7¢nwclews showing the ven-
tral appendages in the greatest detail. Since 1898 Beecher
has published fifteen papers on the trilobites. Of these three are
devoted to the larval stages, seven to the ventral anatomy, and
five to classification and the systematic position of these forms.

The ventral anatomy is most completely known in 7riarthrus,
“an active creature” belonging to an ancient Cambrian family.
Beecher showed that in this genus the entire series of thoracic
legs are biramous, one of them setee-bearing and used for
swimming (expodite), and the other without setee and used for
crawling (endopodite). The limbs of the pygidium overlap
each other, are much crowded, and are adapted for swimming
or guiding the animal, although they may also have served as
ege carriers. The individual segments “are considerably
expanded transversely, thus making a paddle-like organ.” The
head has five pairs of appendages as follows: Anterior anten-
ne or uniramous antennules attached at the side of the hypos-
toma, followed by tour pairs of biramous appendages closely
resembling the thoracic legs. These are (1) posterior antenne,
(2) mandibles, (8 and 4) maxille. The ventral membrane of
Triarthrus “is of extreme tenuity” and is an “ unealcified, chi-
tinous, flexible pellicle, and thus was in strong contrast with
the much thicker and calcified dorsal test.”

The larval stages he studied in nine genera ranging from
the Cambrian to the Lower Devonian. He concluded that
“all the facts in the ontogeny of the trilobites poimt to one
type of larval structure.’ This larva, not more than one milli-
meter in length, is “characteristic of all trilobites, and among
different genera, varying only in features of secondary impor-
tance. This stage may therefore be called the protaspis.”
He found that Barrande’s four orders of trilobite development
are but stages of his first order, and that Agnostus is “neither

Charles Emerson Beecher. | 419

the phylo-typembryo nor the phylo-phylembryo, but is really
the adult equivalent to an early segmented stage of the higher
genera.” Beecher divided the early stages of development in
trilobites as follows: “ Nauplius (Cephalon predominating,
other parts not separated from it), Phylembryonic (Cephalon
distinet, thorax nothing, pygidium distinct), Nepionic with as
many stages as there are normal thoracic segments (Cephalon
distinct, thorax incomplete, pygidium distinct), Neanic (Cepha-
lon, thorax and pygidium all distinct and complete; growth
incomplete), Ephebic (all parts complete and full size attained).”

The protaspis is homologous to the crustacean nauplius,
which had * potentially five cephalic segments bearing append-
ages, which should therefore be taken as characteristic of a
protonauplus. The nauplius is a modified crustacean larva.
The protaspis more nearly represents the primitive ancestral
larval form for the class, and approximates the protonauplius.”

The basis for Beecher’s classification of the trilobites is the
application, for the first time, of the law of morphogenesis, or
the recapitulation theory. He observed that in the first or
unsegmented stage of the most primitive trilobites there are
neither dorsal free cheeks nor eyes, but that in some of the
later forms both the eyes and free cheeks have migrated to the
anterior margin or may even have progressed a little posteriorly
down the dorsal side of the protaspis. This led him to under-
take a study of all trilobite genera, more than two hundred in
number, and it was seen that these could be arranged in three
groups on the basis of the nature and position of the free
cheeks. In the most primitive order, or the Hypoparia, there
are “‘ free cheeks forming a continuous marginal ventral plate
of the cephalon, and in some forms also extending over the
dorsal side at the genal angles.” In the Opisthoparia the
dorsal “free cheeks include the genal angles, thus cutting off
more or less of the pleura of the occipital segment ;” while in
the Proparia, or the last order to arise, “the pleura of the
occipital segment extend the full width of the base of the
cephalon, embracing the genal angles.”

There is much diversity of opinion regarding the rank of
trilobites in a classification of the Crustacea. Beecher regarded
them as a sub-class and as equal in rank to the Entomostraca
and Malacostraca. “In nearly every particular the trilobite is
very primitive, and closely agrees with the theoretical crusta-

490 Charles Emerson Beecher.

cean ancestor. Its affinities are with both the other sub-classes,
especially their lower orders, but its position is not interme-
diate.”

In 1892 Beecher became greatly interested in the significance
of spines, accumulating data until 1898, when he presented his
studies in a paper entitled “The origin and significance of
spines.” This paper Beecher regarded as his best and most
philosophic work. In the opening paragraph he states “the
presence of spines in various plants and animals is, at times,
most obvious to all mankind, and not unnaturally they have
come to be regarded almost wholly in the light of defensive
weapons.” ‘Their importance lies not in what they are, but
in what they represent. They are simply prickles, thorns,
spines, or horns; they represent, as will be shown, a stage of
evolution, a degree of differentiation in the organism, a ratio
of its adaptability to the environment, a result of selective
forces, and a measure of vital power.”

“In tracing the ontogeny of a spinose form, it has been
found that each species at the beginning was plain and simple,
and at some later period, spines were gradually developed
according to a definite sequence of stages. Usnally after the
maturity of the organism, the spines reach their greatest per-
fection, and in old age, there is first an over-production or
extravagant differentiation followed by a decline of spinous
growth, and ending in extreme senility with their total absence.”

He found that all kinds of spines in plants and animals can
be arranged into eleven distinct categories. Further, that two
generalizations result as follows: ‘ That spinosity represents
the limit of morphological variation, and second, it indicates
the decline or paracme of vitality.” “Finally it is evident
that, after attaming the limit of spine differentiation, spinose
organisms leave no descendants, and also that out of spinose
types no new types are developed.”

Beecher’s standing among biologists and paleontologists was
high; he was a leader among students of Brachiopoda and
Trilobita. His paleontologic work at Yale was essentially of a
biologic and philosophic character. He had the artist’s gift,
nearly all the drawings illustrating his various papers being
made by himself and exhibiting a high order of merit. He

Charles Emerson Beecher. 491

was a slow and very careful worker. Those who knew him
well saw in him an enthusiast, but his exuberance was always
held in check by his judicial qualities, which also made him an
excellent counselor. He was orderly in his work, and, as he
had the “museum instinct” well developed, he made one of
the best of museum curators.

In 1894, Beecher married Mary Salome Galligan of Warren,
Pennsylvania, who, with two daughters, survives him. He
died very suddenly of heart disease at his home, shortly after
one o’clock on Sunday afternoon, February 14. Up to about
eleven o’clock of the same day, he was in his usual health.
He lies in Grove Street Cemetery; in the shadow of the
Sheffield Scientific School.

CHARLES SCHUCHERT.

Bibliography of the more important papers of Charles Emerson
Beecher.

1. List of land and fresh-water shells found within a circuit of four miles
about Ann Arbor, Mich. [Walker and Beecher.] Proc. Ann. Arbor.
Sci. Assoc., pp. 43-46. 1876.

2. Ceratiocaride from the Chemung and Waverly groups of Pennsylvania.
2d Geol. Surv. Pa., Rep’t, pp. 1-22, pls. i, ii. 1884.

3. Some abnormal and pathologic forms of fresh-water shells from the
vicinity of Albany, N. Y. 36th Ann. Rep’t N. Y. State Mus. Nat.
Hist., pp. 51-55, pls. i, ii. 1884.

8. A spiral bivalve shell from the Waverly group of Pennsylvania. 39th
Ann, Rep’t N. Y. State Mus. Nat. Hist., pp. 161-164, pl! xii. 1886.

12. Method of preparing for microscopical study the radulae of small species
of Gasteropoda. Jour. N. Y. Mic. Soc., pp. 7-11. 1888.

14. Brachiospongidae: A memoir on a group of Silurian sponges. Mem.
Peabody Mus., Yale Univ., vol. ii, I, 4to, pp. 1-28, pls. i-iv. 1889.

15. The development of some Silurian Brachiopoda (with eight plates).
[Beecher and Clarke.] Mem. N. Y. State Mus., vol. i, 4to, pp. 1-95,
pls. i-viii. 1889.

18. On the development of the shell in the genus Tornoceras Hyatt. This
Journal (3), vol. xl, pp. 71-75, pl. i. 1890.

19. Koninckina and related genera. Ibid., vol. xl, pp. 211-219, pl. ii. 1890.

22. The development of a paleozoic poriferous coral. Trans. Conn. Acad.
Sci., vol. viii, pp. 207-214, pls. ix-xiii. 1891.

23. Symmetrical cell development in the Favositidae. Ibid., pp. 215-220,
pls. xiv-xv. 1891.

24, Development of the Brachiopoda. I. Introduction. This Journal (8),
vol. xli, pp. 343-457, pl. xvii. 1891.

25. Development of the Brachiopoda. II. Classification of the stages .of
growth and decline. Ibid., vol. xliv, pp. 133-155, pl. i. 1892.

30. Revision of the families of loop-bearing Brachiopoda. Trans. Conn.
Acad. Sci., vol. ix, pp. 376-391, pls. i, ii. 1893.

499 Charles Emerson Beecher.

él.

30.

34.

The development of Terebratalia obsoleta Dall. Ibid., vol. ix, pp. 392-
399, pls. ii, iii. 1898. p

Development of the brachial supports in Dielasma and Zygospira.
[Beecher and Schuchert.] Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, vol. viii,
DOTS) pla x1 S93)

Larval forms of Trilobites from the Lower Helderberg group. This
Journal (8), vol. xlvi, pp. 142-147, pl. ii. 1898.

. On the thoracic legs of Triarthrus. Ibid., vol. xlvi, pp. 3867-3870. 1893.
. On the mode of occurrence, and the structure and development of

Triarthrus Becki. Amer. Geologist, vol. xiii, pp. 38-48, pl. iii. 1894.

. The appendages of the pygidium of Triarthrus. This Journal (8), vol.

xlvii, pp. 298-800, pl. vii. 1894.

. Further observations on the ventral structure of Triarthrus. American

Geologist, vol. xv, pp. 91-100, pls. iv, v. 1895.

. Structure and appendages of Trinucleus. This Journal (8), vol. xlix,

pp. 307-811, pl. iii, 1895.

. The larval stages of Trilobites. American Geologist, vol. xvi, pp. 166-

197, pls. viii-x. 1895.

. James Dwight Dana. Ibid., vol. xvii, pp. 1-16, portrait, pl. i. 1896.
. The morphology of Triarthrus. This Journal (4), vol. i, pp. 251-256,

pl. viii. 1896.
Reprinted in Geological Magazine (London), dec. IV, vol. iii, pp. 193-
197, pl. ix. 1896.

. Outline of a natural classification of the Trilobites. This Journal (4),

vol. iii, pp. 86-106, 181-207, pl. iii, 1897.

. The systematic position of the Trilobites. [Kingsley and Beecher, ]

American Geologist, vol. xx, pp. 33-40. 1897.

. Development of the Brachiopoda. III. Morphology of the Brachia.

Bulletin 87, U. S. Geol. Surv., chapter iv, pp. 105-112. 1897.

. Origin and significance of spines. This Journal (4), vol. vi, pp. 1-20,

125-136, 249-268, 529-359, pl. i. 1898.

. Othniel Charles Marsh. Ibid., vol. vii, pp. 403-428. 1899.

The same, abridged, with alterations. Bull. Geol. Soc. America, vol. ‘xi,
pp. 521-537, and American Geologist, vol. xxiv, pp. 135-157. 1899.

. Trilobita. In Textbook of Paleontology, by Karl A. von Zittel. Trans-

lated and edited by Charles R. Eastman. Vol. I, pp. 607-688. 1900.

. Studies in evolution: mainly reprints of occasional papers selected from

the publications of the Laboratory of Invertebrate Paleontology, Pea-
body Museum, Yale University. Pp. xxiii and 638, 34 plates. New
York, 1901.

. Discovery of Eurypterid remains in the Cambrian of Missouri. This

Journal (4), vol. xii, pp. 364-366, pl. vii. 1901.

. The ventral integument of Trilobites. This Journal (4), vol. xiii, pp.

165-174, pls. ii-vy. 1902.

. Palaeozoic Phyllocarida from Pennsylvania. Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc.

Loudon, vol. lviii, pp. 441-449, pls. xvii-xix. 1902.

. Observations on the genus Romingeria. This Journal (4), vol. xvi, pp.

1-11, pls. i-v. 1903.

. Extinction of species. Encyclopedia Americana, vol, ivy. (In press.)

_) a
t aylord —
‘ PAMPHLET BINDER
—— Syracuse, N. Y.

; <= _ Stockton, Calif.

—_—_— Es

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION LIBRARIES

“iia