Palaeontologie, p. 739] not only accepted this conception but even created a new subfamily, Proscorpionini, which was not brought under the Siluric Palaeophonidae, but under the Carbonic Eoscorpionidae, chiefly because of the supposed existence of double terminal claws on the walking legs.
A year later there appeared in the American Naturalist a critical review by Thorell, of Whitfield's interpretation of certain points in the organization of the scorpion and Whitfield soon after published in Science a general denial of all these points.
When describing the Scottish Siluric scorpion, Pocock in 1901, also discussed Proscorpius osborni, obviously unaware of the criticism by Thorell and of Whitfield's rejoinder, and raised some of the identical points as Thorell, especially in regard to the supposed double claws of the walking leg; and subsequently Fritsch published somewhat fuller notes from excellent photographs made by Dr E. O. Hovey. Fritsch, too, was unaware of Thorell's paper, but he fully verifies Thorell's criticisms. As even the best photograph is misleading through the projection of all parts into one plane and the appearance of deceptive shadows, a close investigation of the specimen itself is essential in order to settle the many debated points and by the courtesy of Dr Hovey we have had full opportunity to study the specimen and to compare it with his photograph. In consequence we have added a third figure and a restoration to illustrate our conception of the fossil.
Carapace. This is subquadrate in outline, a little wider than long. Its front margin is straight and faintly emarginate, appearing trilobed through the projection of the eye lobe in the middle and that of the frontal lobes at the antelateral angles. The eyelobe is relatively large, roundish pentagonal. The frontal lobes are well rounded and project slightly beyond the frontal margin. The left lateral margin is distinctly broken and incomplete, and the right one largely covered by the matrix; nevertheless the anterior portion of the right margin can be distinctly seen to bulge out directly behind the eye lobe, and we have no doubt that the carapace was broader in the middle than in front [see restoration, text fig. 83]. The posterior margin is slightly concave. The surface of the carapace is rather even and smooth and a great number of bristles
