PART III.

The phyllopods appear to feed by turning over whilst swimming and seizing with their more posterior appendages a little mud which swarms with infusoria, etc. This mud is then pushed along the ventral groove to the mouth. Casts, of the intestine of trilobites are still found filled with the mud.

CeraurusandCalymenealso must have occasionally swallowed mud in quantity, otherwise the form of the alimentary canal could not have been preserved as it is in a few of Doctor Walcott's specimens.

TRACKS AND TRAILS OF TRILOBITES.

Tracks and trails of various sorts have been ascribed by authors to trilobites since these problematic markings first began to attract attention, but as the appendages were until recently quite unknown, all the earlier references were purely speculative. The subject is a difficult one, and proof that any particular track or trail could have been made in only one way is not easily obtained. Since the appendages have actually been described, comparatively little has been done, Walcott's work onProtichnites(1912 B, p. 275) being the most important. Since the first description ofProtichnitesby Owen (Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc., London, 1852, vol. 8, p. 247), it has been thought that these trails were made by crustaceans, and the only known contemporaneous crustaceans being trilobites, these animals were naturally suggested. Dawson (Canadian Nat. Geol., vol. 7, 1862, p. 276) ascribed them, with reserve, toParadoxides, and Billings (1870, p. 484) suggestedDikelocephalusorAglaspis. Walcott secured well preserved specimens which showed trifid tracks, and these were readily explained when he found the legs ofNeolenus, which terminated with three large spines. Similar trifid terminations had already been described by Beecher, and clearly pictured in his restoration ofTriarthrus, but the spines and the tracks had somehow not previously been connected in the mind of any observer. Walcott concluded that the tracks had been madeby a species ofDikelocephalus, possibly byD. hartti, which occurs both north and south of the Adirondacks. In a recent paper, Burling (Amer. Jour. Sci., ser. 4, vol. 44, 1917, p. 387) has argued that Protichnites was not the trail of a trilobite, but of a "short, low-lying, more or less heavy set, approximately 12-legged, crab-like animal," which had an oval shape, toed in, and was either extremely flexible or else short and more or less flexible in outline. This seems to describe a trilobite.

Climactichnites, the most discussed single trail of all, has also been ascribed to trilobites,—by Dana (Manual of Geology, 1863, p. 185), Billings (1870, p. 485), and Packard (Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts and Sci., vol. 36, 1900, p. 64),—though less frequently than to other animals. The latest opinion (see paper by Burling cited above) seems to be against this theory.

Miller (1880, p. 217) described under the generic nameAsaphoidichnustwo kinds of tracks which were such as he supposed might be made by anAsaphus(Isotelus). In referring to the second of the species, he says: "Some of the toe-tracks are more or less fringed, which I attribute to the action of water, though Mr. Dyer is impressed with the idea that it may indicate hairy or spinous feet." The type of this species,A. dyeri, is in the Museum of Comparative Zoology, and while it may be the trail of a trilobite, it would be difficult to explain how it was produced.

Ringueberg (1886, p. 228) has described very briefly tracks found in the upper part of the Medina at Lockport, New York. These consisted of a regularly succeeding series of ten paired divergent indentations arranged in two diverging rows, with the trail of the pygidium showing between each series. The ten pairs of indentations he considered could have been made by ten pairs of legs like those shown by the specimen of Isotelus described by Mickleborough, and the intermittent appearance of the impression of the pygidium suggested to him that the trilobite proceeded by a series of leaps.

Walcott (1918, pp. 174-175, pl. 37-42) has recently figured a number of interesting trails as those of trilobites, and has pointed out that a large field remains open to anyone who has the patience to develop this side of the subject.

RELATIONSHIP OF THE TRILOBITES TO OTHER ARTHROPODA.

It can not be said that the new discoveries of appendagiferous trilobites have added greatly to previous knowledge of the systematic position of the group. Probably none will now deny that trilobites are Crustacea, and more primitive and generalized than any other group in that class. The chief interest at present lies in their relation to the most nearly allied groups, and to the crustacean ancestor.

Trilobites have been most often compared with Branchiopoda, Isopoda, and Merostomata, the present concensus of opinion inclining toward the notostracan branchiopods (Apodidæ in particular) as the most closely allied forms. It seems hardly worth while to burden these pages with a history of opinion on this subject, since it was not until the appendages were fully made out, from 1881 to 1895, that zoologists and palæontologists were in a position to give an intelligent judgment. The present status is due chiefly to Bernard (1894), Beecher (1897, 1900, et seq.), and Walcott (1912, et seq.).

The chief primitive characteristics of trilobites are: direct development from a protaspis common to the subclass; variability in the number of segments, position of the mouth, and type of eyes; and serially similar biramous appendages.

The recent study has modified the last statement slightly, since it appears that in some trilobites there was a modification of the appendages about the mouth, suggesting the initiation of a set of tagmata.

In comparing the trilobites with other Crustacea, the condition of the appendages must be especially borne in mind, for while these organs are those most intimately in contact with the environment, and most subject to modification and change, yet they have proved of greatest service in classification.

Appendages have been found on trilobites from only the Middle Cambrian and Middle and Upper Ordovician, but as the Ordovician was the time of maximum development of the group, it is probable that trilobites of later ages would show degradational rather than progressive changes. All the genera which are known show appendages of the same plan, and although new discoveries will doubtless reveal many modifications of that plan, general inferences may be drawn now with some assurance.

The chief characteristics of the appendages are: first, simple antennules, a primitive feature in all Crustacea, as shown by ontogeny; second, paired biramous appendages, similar to each other all along the body, the youngest and simplest in front of the anal segment, the oldest and most modified on the cephalon. The endobases are retained on all the coxopodites, except possibly, in some species, the anterior ones, and these gnathobases are modified in some genera as mouth-parts, while in others they are similar throughout the series. With these few fundamentals in mind, other Crustacea may be examined for likenesses. The differences are obvious.

BRANCHIOPODA.

The early idea that the trilobites were closely related to the Branchiopoda was rejuvenated by the work of Bernard on the Apodidæ (1892) and has since received the supportof most writers on the subject. Fundamentally, a great deal of the argument seems to be thatApuslies the nearest of any modern representative of the class to the theoretical crustacean ancestor, and as the trilobites are the oldest Crustacea, they must be closely related. Most writers state that the trilobites could not be derived from the Branchiopoda (see, however, Walcott 1912 A), nor the latter from any known trilobite, but both subclasses are believed to be close to the parent stem.

Viewed from the dorsal side, there is very little similarity between any of the branchiopods and the trilobites, and it is only in the Notostraca, with their sessile eyes and depressed form, that any comparison can be made. The chief way in which modern Branchiopoda and Trilobita agree is that both have a variable number of segments in the body, that number becoming very large inApuson the one hand andMesonacisandPædeumiason the other. In neither are the appendages, except those about the mouth, grouped in tagmata. Other likenesses are: the Branchiopoda are the only Crustacea, other than Trilobita, in which gnathobases are found on limbs far removed from the mouth; the trunk limbs are essentially leaf-like in both, though the limb of the branchiopod is not so primitive as that of the trilobite; caudal cerci occur in both groups.

If the appendages be compared in a little more detail, the differences prove more striking than the likenesses.

In the Branchiopoda, the antennules are either not segmented or only obscurely so. In trilobites they are richly segmented.

In Branchiopoda, the antennæ are variable. In the Notostraca they are vestigial, while in the males of the Anostraca they are powerful and often complexly developed claspers. Either condition might develop from the generalized biramous antennas of Trilobita, but the present evidence indicates a tendency toward obsolescence. Claus' observations indicate that the antennæ of the Anostraca are developments of the exopodites, rather than of the endopodites.

The mandibles and maxillæ of the Branchiopoda are greatly reduced, and grouped closely about the mouth. Only the coxopodites of the Trilobita are modified as oral appendages.

The trunk limbs ofApusare supposed to be the most primitive among the Branchiopoda, and comparison will be made with them. Each appendage consists of a flattened axial portion, from the inner margin of which spring six endites, and from the outer, two large flat exites (see fig. 34). This limb is not articulated with the ventral membrane, but attached to it, and, if Lankester's interpretation of the origin of schizopodal limbs be correct, then the limb ofApusbears very little relation to that of the Trilobita. InApusthere is no distinct coxopodite and the endobases which so greatly resemble the similar organs in the Trilobita are not really homologous with them, but are developments of the first endite. Beecher's comparison of the posterior thoracic and pygidial limbs ofTriarthruswith those ofApuscan not be sustained. NeitherTriarthrusnor any other trilobite shows any trace of phyllopodan limbs. Beecher figured (1894 B, pl. 7, figs. 3, 4) a series of endopodites from the pygidium of a youngTriarthrusbeside a series of limbs from a larvalApus. Superficially, they are strikingly alike, but while the endopodites ofTriarthrusare segmented, the limbs ofApusare not, and the parts which appear to be similar are really not homologous. The similarity of the thoracic limbs in the two groups is therefore a case of parallelism and does not denote relationship.

Geologically, the Branchiopoda are as old as the Trilobita, and while they did not have the development in the past that the trilobite had, they were apparently differentiated fully as early. Anostraca, Notostraca and Conchostraca, three of the four orders, are represented in the Cambrian by forms which are, except in their appendages, as highly organized as the existing species. Brief notes on the principal Middle Cambrian Branchiopoda follow:

Burgessia bellaWalcott.

Illustrated: Walcott, Smithson. Misc. Coll., vol. 57, 1912, p. 177, pl. 27, figs. 1-3; pl. 30, figs. 3, 4.

This is the most strikingly like the modern Branchiopoda of any species described by Walcott from the Middle Cambrian, and invites comparison withApus. The carapace is long, loosely attached to the body, and extends over the greater part of the thorax. The eyes are small, sessile, and close to the anterior margin.

The appendages of the head consist of two pairs of antennæ, and three pairs of slender, jointed legs. Both pairs of antennæ are slender and many-jointed, the antennules somewhat smaller than the antennæ. The exact structure of the limbs about the mouth has not yet been made out, but they are slender, tapering, endopodite-like legs, with at least three or four segments in each, and probably more.

There are eight pairs of thoracic appendages, each limb having the form of the endopodite of a trilobite and consisting of seven segments and a terminal spine. The proximal three segments of each appendage are larger than the outer ones, and have a flattened triangular expansion on the inner side. Walcott also states that "One specimen shows on seven pairs of legs, small, elongate, oval bodies attached near the first joint to the outer side of the leg. These bodies left but slight impression on the rock and are rarely seen. They appear to represent the gills." They are not figured, but taken in connection with the endopodite-like appearance of the segmented limbs, one would expect them to be vestigial exopodites.

A small hypostoma is present on the ventral side, and several of the specimens show wonderfully well the form of the alimentary canal and the hepatic cæca. The main branches of the latter enter the mesenteron just behind the fifth pair of cephalic appendages.

Behind the thorax the abdomen is long, limbless, and tapers to a point. It is said to consist of at least thirty segments.

Compared withApus,Burgessiaappears both more primitive and more specialized. The carapace and limbless abdomen areApus-like, but there are very few appendagiferous segments, and the appendages are not at all phyllopodan, but directly comparable with those of trilobites, except, of course, for the uniramous character of the cephalic limbs. A closer comparison may be made withMarrella.

Waptia fieldensisWalcott.

Illustrated: Walcott, Smithson. Misc. Coll., vol. 57, 1912, p. 181, pl. 27, figs. 4, 5.

The carapace is short, covering the head and the anterior part of the thorax. The latter consists of eight short segments with appendages, while the six abdominal segments, which are similar to those of the thorax, are without limbs except for the last, which bears a pair of broad swimmerets. The eyes are marginal and pedunculate. The antennules are imperfectly known, but apparently short, while the antennas are long and slender, with relatively few, long, segments. The mandibles appear to be like endopodites of trilobites and show at least six segments. As so often happens in these specimens from British Columbia,the preservation of the other appendages is unsatisfactory. As illustrated (Walcott, 1912 A, pl. 27, fig. 5), both endopodites and exopodites appear to be present, and the shaft of the exopodite seems to be segmented as inTriarthrus.

Walcott considersWaptiaas a transitional form between the Branchiopoda and the Malacostraca.

Yohoia tenuisWalcott.

Illustrated: Walcott, Smithson. Misc. Coll., vol. 57, 1912, p. 172, pl. 29, figs. 7-13.

This species, though incompletely known, has several interesting characteristics. The head shows, quite plainly in some specimens, the five segments of which it is composed. The eyes are small, situated in a niche between the first and second segments, and are described as being pedunculate. The eight segments of the thorax all show short triangular pleural extensions, somewhat like those ofRemopleuridesorRobergia. The abdomen consists of four cylindrical segments, the last with a pair of expanded caudal rami.

The antennules appear to be short, while the antennas are large, with several segments, ending in three spines, and apparently adapted for serving as claspers in the male. The third, fourth, and fifth pairs of cephalic appendages are short, tapering, endopodite-like legs similar to those ofBurgessia.

The appendages of the thorax are not well preserved, and there seem to be none on the abdomen.

This species is referred by Walcott to the Anostraca.

Opabina regalisWalcott.

Illustrated: Walcott, Smithson. Misc. Coll., vol. 57, 1912, p. 167, pl. 27, fig. 6; pl. 28, fig. 1.

This most remarkably specialized anostracan is not well enough known to allow comparison to be made with other contemporaneous Crustacea, but it is worthy of mention.

There is no carapace, the eyes are pedunculated, thorax and abdomen are not differentiated, and the telson is a broad, elongate, spatulate plate. There seem to be sexual differences in the form of the anterior cephalic and caudal appendages, but this is not fully established. The most remarkable feature is the long, large, median cephalic appendage which is so suggestive of the proboscis of the recentThamnocephalus platyurusPackard. The appendages are not well enough preserved to permit a determination as to whether they are schizopodal or phyllopodan.

Summary.

Walcott referredBurgessiaandWaptiato new families under the Notostraca, whileYohoiaandOpabinawere placed with the Anostraca. Except for the development of the carapace, there is a striking similarity betweenWaptiaandYohoia, serving to connect the two groups.

The Branchiopoda were very highly specialized as early as Middle Cambrian time, the carapace of the Notostraca being fully developed and the abdomen limbless. Some (Burgessia) had numerous segments, but most had relatively few. The most striking point about them, however, is that so far as is known none of them had phyllopodan limbs. While the preservation is in most cases unsatisfactory, such limbs as are preserved are trilobite-like, and in the case ofBurgessiathere can be no possible doubt of the structure. Another interesting feature is the retention byYohoiaof vestiges of pleural lobes. The MiddleCambrian Branchiopoda are more closely allied to the Trilobita than are the modern ones, but still the subclass is not so closely related to that group as has been thought. ModernApusis certainly much less like a trilobite than has been supposed, and very far from being primitive. The Branchiopoda of the Middle Cambrian could have been derived from the trilobites by the loss of the pleural lobes, the development of the posterior margin of the cephalon to form a carapace, and the loss of the appendages from the abdominal segments. Modern branchiopods can be derived from those of the Middle Cambrian by the modification of the appendages through the reduction of the endopodite and exopodite and the growth of the endites and exites from the proximal segments.

Carpenter (1903, p. 334), from his study of recent crustaceans, has already come to the conclusion that the Branchiopoda are not the most primitive subclass, and this opinion is strengthened by evidence derived from the Trilobita and from the Branchiopoda of the Middle Cambrian.

COPEPODA.

The non-parasitic Eucopepoda are in many ways much nearer to the trilobites than any other Crustacea. These little animals lack the carapace, and the body is short, with typically ten free segments and a telson bearing caudal furcæ. The head is composed of five segments (if the first thoracic segment is really the fused first and second), is often flattened, and lacks compound eyes. Pleural lobes are well developed, but instead of being flattened as in the trilobite, they are turned down at the sides or even incurved. A labrum is present.

The antennules, antennæ, and mandibles are quite like those of trilobites. The antennules are very long and made up of numerous segments. The antennæ are biramous, the junction between the coxopodite and basipodite is well marked, and the endopodite consists of only two segments.

The mandibles are said to "retain more completely than in any other Crustacea the form of biramous swimming limbs which they possess in the nauplius." The coxopodites form jaws, while both the reduced endopodite and exopodite are furnished with long setæ. The maxillulæ are also biramous, but very different in form from those of the trilobite, and the maxillæ are phyllopodan.

The first thoracic limb is uniramous and similar to the maxillæ, but the five following pairs are biramous swimming legs with coxopodite, basipodite, exopodite, and endopodite. Both the exopodite and endopodite are shorter than in the trilobites, but bear setæ and spines.

The last pair of thoracic limbs are usually modified in the male into copulatory organs. In some females they are enlarged to form plates for the protection of the eggs, in others they are unmodified. In still others they are much reduced or disappear. The abdomen is without appendages.

The development in Copepoda is direct, by the addition posteriorly to the larval form (nauplius) of segments, and the appendages remain nearly unmodified in the adult.

Altogether, the primitive Copepoda seem much more closely allied to the Trilobita than any other modern Crustacea, but unfortunately no fossil representative of the subclass has been found. This is not so surprising when one considers the habits and the habitat of most of the existing species. Many are parasitic, many pelagic in both fresh and marine waters, and many of those living on the bottom belong to the deep sea or fresh water. Most free-living forms are minute, and all have thin tests.

The eyes of copepods are of interest, in that they suggest the paired ocelli of the Harpedidæ and Trinucleidæ. In the Copepoda there are, in the simplest and typical form of these organs, three ocelli, each supplied with its own nerve from the brain. Two of these are dorsal and look upward, while the third is ventral. In some forms the dorsal ocelli are doubled, so that five in all are present (cf. some species of Harpes with three ocelli on each mound). In some, the cuticle over the dorsal eyes is thickened so as to form a lens, as appears to be the case in the trilobites. These peculiar eyes may be a direct inheritance from the Hypoparia.

ARCHICOPEPODA.

Professor Schuchert has called my attention to the exceedingly curious little crustacean which Handlirsch (1914) has described from the Triassic of the Vosges. Handlirsch erected a new species, genus, family, and order for this animal, which he considered most closely allied to the copepods, hence the ordinal name.Euthycarcinus kessleri, the species in question, was found in a clayey lens in the Voltzia sandstone (Upper Bunter). Associated with the new crustacean were specimens ofEstheriaonly, but in the Voltzia sandstone itself land plants, fresh and brackish water animals, and occasionally, marine animals are found. The clayey lens seems to have been of fresh or brackish water origin.

All of the specimens (three were found) are small, about 35 mm. long without including the caudal rami, crushed flat, and not very well preserved. The head is short, not so wide as the succeeding segments, and apparently has large compound eyes at the posterior lateral angles. The thorax consists of six segments which are broader than the head or abdomen. The abdomen, which is not quite complete in any one specimen, is interpreted by Handlirsch as having four segments in the female and five in the male. Least satisfactory of all are traces of what are interpreted by the describer as a pair of long stiff unsegmented cerci or stylets on the last segment.

The ventral side of one head shield shows faint traces of several appendages which must have presented great difficulty in their interpretation. A pair of antennules appear to spring from near the front of the lower surface, and the remainder of the organs are grouped about the mouth, which is on the median line back of the center. Handlirsch sees in these somewhat obscure appendages four pairs of biramous limbs, antennæ, mandibles, maxillulæ, and maxillæ, both branches of each consisting of short similar segments, endopodites and exopodites being alike pediform.

Each segment of the thorax has a pair of appendages, and those on the first two are clearly biramous. The endopodites are walking legs made up of numerous short segments (twelve or thirteen according to Handlirsch's drawing), while the exopodite is a long breathing and rowing limb, evidently of great flexibility and curiously like the antennules of the same animal. The individual segments are narrow at the proximal end, expand greatly at the sides, and have a concave distal profile. A limb reminds one of a stipe ofDiplograptus. Both branches are spiniferous.

No appendages are actually present on the abdomen, but each segment has a pair of scars showing the points of attachment. From the small size of these, it is inferred that the limbs were poorly developed.

This species is described in so much detail because, if it is a primitive copepod, it has a very important bearing on the ancestry of that group and is the only related form that has been found fossil.

The non-parasitic copepods have typically ten (eleven) free segments, including the telson, and the four abdominal segments are much more slender than the six in front of them. In this respect the agreement is striking, and the presence of five pairs of appendages in the head and six free segments in the thorax is a more primitive condition than in modern forms where the first two thoracic segments are apparently fused (Calman, 1909, p. 73).

The large compound eyes of this animal are of course not present in the copepods, but as vestiges of eyes have been found in the young ofCalanus, it is possible that the ancestral forms had eyes.

The greatest difficulty is in finding a satisfactory explanation of the appendages. The general condition is somewhat more primitive than in the copepods, for all the appendages are biramous, while in the modern forms the maxillipeds are uniramous and the sixth pair of thoracic appendages are usually modified in the male as copulatory organs. In the copepods the modification is in the direction of reduction, both endopodites and exopodites usually possessing fewer segments than the corresponding branches in the trilobites. The endopodite ofEuthycarcinus, on the contrary, possesses, if Handlirsch's interpretation is correct, twice as many segments as the endopodite of a trilobite. If the Copepoda are descended from the trilobites, as everything tends to indicate, thenEuthycarcinusis certainly not a connecting link. The only truly copepodan characteristic of this genus is the agreement in number and disposition of free segments. The division into three regions instead of two, the compound eyes, and the structure of the appendages are all foreign to that group.

With the Limulava fresh in mind, one is tempted to compareEuthycarcinuswith that ancient type. The short head and large marginal eyes recallSidneyia, and the grouping of the appendages about the mouth also suggests that genus andEmeraldella. In the Limulava likewise there is a contraction of the posterior segments, although it is behind the ninth instead of the sixth. There is no likeness in detail between the appendages of the Limulava and those ofEuthycarcinus, but the composite claws ofSidneyiashow that in this group there was a tendency toward the formation of extra segments.

If this fossil had been found in the Cambrian instead of the Triassic, it would probably have been referred to the Limulava, and is not at all impossible that it is a descendant from that group. As a connecting link between the Trilobita and Copepoda it is, however, quite unsatisfactory.

OSTRACODA.

The bivalved shell of the Ostracoda gives to this group of animals an external appearance very different from that of the trilobites, but the few appendages, though highly modified, are directly comparable. The development, although modified by the early appearance of the bivalved shell within which the nauplius lies, is direct. Imperfect compound eyes are present in one family.

The antennules are short and much modified by functioning as swimming, creeping, or digging organs. They consist of eight or less segments. The antennas are also locomotor organs, and in most orders are biramous. The mandibles are biramous and usually with, but sometimes without, a gnathobase. The maxillulæ are likewise biramous but much modified.

The homology of the third post-oral limb is in question, some considering it a maxilla and others a maxilliped. It has various forms in different genera. It is always much modified,but exopodite and endopodite are generally represented at least by rudiments. The fourth post-oral limb is a lobed plate, usually not distinctly segmented, and the fifth a uniramous pediform leg. The sixth, if present at all, is vestigial.

Very little comparison can be made between the Ostracoda and Trilobita, other than in the ground-plan of the limbs, but the presence of biramous antennæ is a primitive characteristic.

CIRRIPEDIA.

Like the ostracod, the adult cirriped bears little external resemblance to the trilobite. The form of the nauplius is somewhat peculiar, but it has the typical three pairs of appendages, to which are added in the later metanauplius stages the maxillæ and six pairs of thoracic appendages. In the adult, the antennules, which serve for attachment of the larva, usually persist in a functionless condition, while the antennas disappear. The mandibles, maxillulæ, and maxillæ are simple and much modified to form mouth parts, and the six pairs of thoracic appendages are developed into long, multisegmented, biramous appendages bearing numerous setæ which serve for catching prey. Paired eyes are present in later metanauplius stages, but lost early in the development. The relationship to the trilobite evidently is not close.

MALACOSTRACA.

1. Phyllocarida.

The oldest malacostracans whose appendages are known are species ofHymenocaris. One, described as long ago as 1866 by Salter, has what seem to be a pair of antennæ and a pair of jaw-like mouth-parts. Another more completely known species has recently been reported by Walcott (1912 A, p. 183, pl. 31, figs. 1-6). This latter form is described as having five pairs of cephalic appendages: a pair of minute antennules beside the small pedunculated eyes, a pair of large uniramous antennæ, slender mandibles and maxillulæ, and large maxillæ composed of short stout segments. There are eight pairs of biramous thoracic limbs, the exopodites setiferous, the endopodites composed of short wide segments and ending in terminal claw-like spines. These appendages are like those of trilobites.

Hymcnocarisbelongs to the great group of extinct ceratocarid Crustacea which are admitted to the lowest of the malacostracan orders, Phyllocarida, because of their resemblance toNebalia,Paranebalia,Nebaliopsis, andNebaliella, the four genera which are at present living. The general form of the recent and fossil representatives of the order is strikingly similar. The chief outward difference is that in many of the fossils the telson is accompanied by two furcal rami, while in the modern genera it is simple. It now becomes possible to make some comparison between the appendages ofHymcnocarisof the Middle Cambrian and the Nebaliidæ of modern seas.

In both there are five pairs of cephalic and eight of thoracic appendages, while those of the abdomen of Hymenocaris are not known.

In both, the antennules are less developed than the antennæ. In the Nebaliidæ the antennules show evidence of having been originally double (they are obviously so in the embryo), while they are single inHymcnocaris. In both, the antennæ are simple. The remaining cephalic organs are too little shown by the specimen from the Middle Cambrian to allow detailed comparison. The mandibles, maxillulæ, and maxillæ ofNebaliaare, however, of types which could be derived from the trilobite.

In three of the genera of the Nebaliidæ, the eight pairs of thoracic limbs are all similar to one another, though those of the genera differ. All are biramous. The limbs ofHymcnocariscan apparently be most closely correlated with those ofNebalia antarctica, in which the endopodite consists of short flattened segments, and the exopodite is a long setiferous plate. Epipodites are present in bothNebaliaandHymcnocaris.

So far as the appendages ofHymenocarisare known, they agree very well with those of the Nebaliidæ, and since they are of the trilobite type, it may safely be stated that the Trilobita and Malacostraca are closely related.

2. Syncarida.

Walcott (1918, p. 170) has compared the limbs ofNeolenuswith those of the syncarid generaAnaspidesandKoonunga. These are primitive Malacostraca without a carapace, but as they have a compressed test andAnaspideshas stalked eyes, their gross anatomy does not suggest the trilobite. The thoracic appendages are very trilobite-like, since the endopodite has six segments (inAnaspides) and a multisegmented setiferous exopodite. The coxopodites, except of the first thoracic segment, do not, however, show endobases, and those which are present are peculiar articulated ones. The cephalic appendages are specialized, and the antennules double as in most of the Malacostraca. External epipodites are very numerous on the anterior limbs.

This group extends back as far as the Pennsylvanian and had then probably already become adapted to fresh-water life. It may be significant that the Palæozoic syncarids appear to have lacked epipodites. While differing very considerably from the Trilobita, the Syncarida could have been derived from them.

3. Isopoda.

Since the earliest times there has been a constant temptation to compare the depressed shields of the trilobites with the similar ones of isopods. Indeed, whenScrollswith its Lichadian body was first discovered about a hundred years ago, it was thought that living trilobites had been found at last. The trilobate body, cephalic shield, sessile eyes, abdominal shield, and pleural extensions make a wonderful parallel. This similarity is, however, somewhat superficial. The appendages are very definitely segregated in groups on the various regions of the body, and while the pleopods are biramous, the thoracic legs are without exopodites (except in very early stages of development of one genus). The Isopoda arose just at the time of the disappearance of the Trilobita, and there seems a possibility of a direct derivation of the one group from the other. It should be pointed out that while the differences of Isopoda from Trilobita are important, they are all of a kind which could have been produced by the development from a trilobite-like stock. For example:

Isopoda have a definite number of segments. There is less variation in the number of segments among the later than the earlier trilobites.

Isopoda have no facial suture. In at least three genera of trilobites the cheeks become fused to the cranidium and the sutures obliterated.

Isopoda have one or two segments of the thorax annexed to the head. While this is not known to occur in trilobites, it is possible that it did.

Most Isopoda have a fairly stiff ventral test. The ventral membrane of trilobites would probably have become stiffened by impregnation of lime if the habit of enrollment had been given up.

In Isopoda the antennæ are practically uniramous sensory organs. The second cephalic appendages of trilobites are capable of such development through reduction of the exopodite.

In the Isopoda the coxopodites are usually fused with the body, remaining as free, movably articulated segments only in a part of the thoracic legs of one suborder, the Asellota. Endobases are entirely absent. This is of course entirely unlike the condition in Trilobita, but a probable modification.

In Isopoda there is a distinct grouping of the appendages, with specialization of function. The trilobites show a beginning of tagmata, and such development would be expected if evolution were progressive.

In both groups, development from the embryo is direct. Rudiments of exopodites of thoracic legs have been seen in the young of one genus.

The oldest known isopod isOxyuropoda ligioidesCarpenter and Swain (Proc. Royal Irish Acad., vol. 27, sect. B, 1908, p. 63, fig. 1), found in the Upper Devonian of County Kilkenny, Ireland. The appendages are not known, but the test is in some ways like that of a trilobite. The thorax, abdomen, and pygidium are especially like those of certain trilobites, and there is no greater differentiation between thorax and abdomen than there is between the regions before and behind the fifteenth segment of aPædeumiasorMesonacis. The anal segment is directly comparable to the pygidium of aCeraurus, the stiff unsegmented uropods being like the great lateral spines of that genus.

The interpretation of the head offered by Carpenter and Swain is very difficult to understand, as their description and figure do not seem to agree. What they consider the first thoracic segment (fused with the head) seems to me to be the posterior part of the cephalon. and it shows at the back a narrow transverse area which is at least analogous to the nuchal segment of the trilobite. If this interpretation can be sustained,Oxyuropodawould be a very primitive isopod in which the first thoracic segment (second of Carpenter and Swain) is still free. According to the interpretation of the original authors, the species is more specialized than recent Isopoda, as they claim that two thoracic segments are fused in the head. The second interpretation was perhaps made on the basis of the number of segments (nineteen) in a recent isopod.

Marrella splendensWalcott.

Illustrated: Walcott, Smithson. Misc. Coll., vol. 57, 1912, p. 192, pls. 25, 26.

Among the most wonderful of the specimens described by Doctor Walcott is the "lace crab." While the systematic position was not satisfactorily determined by the describer, it has been aptly compared to a trilobite. The great nuchal and genal spines and the large marginal sessile eyes, coupled with the almost total lack of thoracic and abdominal test, give it a bizarre appearance which may obscure its real relationships.

The cephalon appears to bear five pairs of appendages, antennules, and antennæ, both tactile organs with numerous short segments, mandibles, and first and second maxillæ. The last three pairs are elongate, very spinose limbs, of peculiar appearance. They seem to have seven segments, but are not well preserved. These organs are attached near the posterior end of the labrum.

There are twenty-four pairs of biramous thoracic appendages, which lack endobases. The endopodites are long and slender, with numerous spines; the exopodites have narrow, thin shafts, with long, forward pointed setæ. The anal segment consists of a single plate.

Further information about this fossil will be eagerly awaited. None of the illustrations so far published shows biramous appendages on the cephalon. This, coupled with the presence of tactile antennæ, makes its reference to the Trilobita impossible, but the present interpretation indicates that it was closely allied to them.

Fig. 32.Marrella splendensWalcott. Restoration of the ventral surface, based upon the photographs and descriptions published by Walcott. Although all the limbs of the trunk appear to be biramous, only endopodites are placed on one side and exopodites on the other, for the sake of greater clearness in the illustration. Drawn by Doctor Elvira Wood, under the supervision of the writer. × about 6.

Restoration of Marrella.

(Textfig. 32.)

The accompanying restoration of the ventral surface ofMarrellais a tentative one, based on Doctor Walcott's description and figures. The outline is taken from his plate 26, figure 1; the appendages of the head from plate 26, figures 1-3, 5, and plate 25, figures 2, 3; the endopodites, shown on the left side only, from figures 3 and 6, plate 25. I have not studied actual specimens, and the original description is very incomplete. The restoration is therefore subject to revision as the species becomes better known.

No attempt will be made to pass in review all of the subclasses of the arachnids. Some of the Merostomata are so obviously trilobite-like that it would seem that their relationship could easily be proved. The task has not yet been satisfactorily accomplished, however, and new information seems only to add to the difficulties.

So far as I know, the Araneæ have not previously been compared directly with trilobites, although such treatment consists merely in calling attention to their crustacean affinities, as has often been done.

Carpenter's excellent summary (1903, p. 347) of the relationship of the Arachnida to the trilobites may well be quoted at this point:

The discussion in a former section of this essay on the relationship between the various orders of Arachnida led to the conclusion that the primitive arachnids were aquatic animals, breathing by means of appendicular gills. Naturally, therefore, we compare the arachnids with the Crustacea rather than with the Insecta. The immediate progenitors of the Arachnida appear to have possessed a head with four pairs of limbs, a thorax with three segments, and an abdomen with thirteen segments and' a telson, only six of which can be clearly shown by comparative morphology to have carried appendicular gills. But embryological evidence enables us to postulate with confidence still more remote ancestors in which the head carried well developed compound eyes and five pairs of appendages, while it may be supposed that all the abdominal segments, except the anal, bore limbs. In these very ancient arthropods, all the limbs, except the feelers, had ambulatory and branchial branches; and one important feature in the evolution of the Arachnida must have been the division of labour between the anterior and posterior limbs, the former becoming specialized for locomotion, the latter for breathing. Another was the loss of feelers and the degeneration of the compound eyes. Thus we are led to trace the Arachnida (including the Merostomata and Xiphosura) back to ancestors which can not be regarded as arachnids, but which were identical with the primitive trilobites, and near the ancestral stock of the whole crustacean class.

TRILOBITES NOT ARACHNIDA.

While no one having any real knowledge of the Trilobita has adopted Lankester's scheme of the inclusion of the group as the primitive grade in the Arachnida, reference to it may not be amiss. This theory is best set forth in the Encyclopædia Britannica, Eleventh Edition, under the article on Arachnida. It is there pointed out that the primitive arachnid, like the primitive crustacean, should be an animal without a fixed number of somites, and without definitely grouped tagmata. As Lankester words it, they should be anomomeristic and anomotagmatic. The trilobites are such animals, and he considers them Arachnida and not Crustacea for the following reasons:

Firstly and chiefly, because they have only one pair (apart from the eyes) of pre-oral appendages. "This fact renders their association with the Crustacea impossible, if classification is to be the expression of genetic affinity inferred from structural coincidence."

Secondly, the lateral eyes resemble no known eyes so closely as the lateral eyes ofLimulus.

Thirdly, the trilobation of the head and body, due to the expansion and flattening of the sides or pleura, is like that ofLimulus, but "no crustacean exhibits this trilobite form."

Fourthly, there is a tendency to form a pygidial or telsonic shield, "a fusion of the posterior somites of the body, which is precisely identical in character with the metasomatic carapace ofLimulus." No crustacean shows metasomatic fusion of segments.

Fifthly, a large post-anal spine is developed "in some trilobites" (he refers to a figure ofDalmanites).

Sixthly, there are frequently lateral spines on the pleura as inLimulus. No crustacean has lateral pleural spines.

These points may be taken up in order.

1. If trilobites have one appendage-bearing segment in front of the mouth, they are Arachnida; if two, Crustacea. This is based on the idea that in the course of evolution of the Arthropoda, the mouth has shifted backward from a terminal position, and that as a pair of appendages is passed, they lose their function as mouth-parts and eventually become simple tactile organs. Thus arise the cheliceræ of most arachnids, and the two pairs of tactile antennæ of most Crustacea. This theory is excellent, and the rule holds well for modern forms, but as shown by the varying length of the hypostoma in different trilobites, the position of the mouth had not become fixed in that group. In some trilobites, likeTriarthrus, the gnathobases of the second pair of appendages still function, but in all, so far as known, the mouth was back of the points of attachment of at least two pairs of appendages, and in some at least, back of the points of attachment of four pairs. As pointed out in the case ofCalymeneandCeraurus, the trilobites show a tendency toward the degeneration of the first and second pairs of biramous appendages, particularly of the gnathobases. They are in just that stage of the backward movement of the mouth when the function of the antennæ as mandibles has not yet been lost. If the presence of functional gnathobases back of the mouth, rather than the points of attachment in front of the mouth, is to be the guide, then Triarthrus might be classed as an arachnid andCalymeneandIsotelusas crustaceans. In other words, the rule breaks down in this primitive group.

2. Superficially, the eyes of some trilobites do look like those ofLimulus, but how close the similarity really was it is impossible to say. The schizochroal eyes were certainly very different, and Watase and Exner both found the structure of the eye of the trilobite unlike that ofLimulus.

3. The importance of the trilobate form of the trilobite is very much overestimated. It and the pygidium are due solely to functional requirements. The axial lobe contained practically all the vital organs and the side lobes were mechanical in origin and secondarily protective. That the crustacean is not trilobate is frequently asserted by zoologists, yet every text-book contains a picture of a segment of a lobster with its axial and pleural lobes. It is a fundamental structure among the Crustacea, obscured because most of them are compressed rather than depressed.

4. The pygidium of trilobites is compared with the metasomatic shield ofLimulus. No homology, if homology is intended, could be more erroneous. The metasomatic shield ofLimulusis, as shown by ontogeny and phylogeny, formed by the fusion of segments formerly free, and includes the segments between the cephalic and anal shields, or what would be known as the thorax of a trilobite. No trilobite has a metasomatic shield. The pygidium of a trilobite, as shown by ontogeny, is built up by growth in front of the anal region, and since the segments were never free, it can not strictly be said to be composed of fused segments. Some Crustacea do form a pygidial shield, as in certain orders of the Isopoda.

5. The post-anal spine of Dalmanites and some other trilobites is similar to that ofLimulus, but this seems a point of no especial significance. That a similar spine has not been developed in the Crustacea is probably due to the fact that they do not have the broad depressed shape which makes it so difficult for aLimulusto right itself when once turned on its back. Relatively few trilobites have it, and it is probably correlated with some special adaptation.

6. There is nothing among the trilobites comparable to the movable lateral spines of the metasoma ofLimulus.

While, as classifications are made up, the Trilobita must be placed in the Crustacea rather than the Arachnida, there is no reason why both the modern Crustacea and the Arachnida should not be derived from the trilobites.

MEROSTOMATA.

It has been a custom of long standing to compare the trilobite withLimulus. Packard (1872) gave great vitality to the theory of the close affinity of the two when he described the so called trilobite-stage in the development ofLimulus polyphemus. His influence on Walcott's ideas (1881) is obvious. Lankester has gone still further, and associated the Trilobita with the Merostomata in the Arachnida.

The absence of antennules at any stage in development alliesLimulusso closely with the Arachnida and separates it so far from the Trilobita that in recent years there has been a tendency to give up the attempt to prove a relationship between the merostomes and trilobites, especially since Clarke and Ruedemann, in their extensive study of the Eurypterida, found nothing to indicate the crustacean nature of that group. A new point of view is, however, presented by the curiousSidneyia inexpectansandEmeraldella brockidescribed by Walcott from the Middle Cambrian.

Sidneyia inexpectansWalcott.

Back to Index Next