Erik Norman Kjellesvig-Waering

Summary

Erik Norman Kjellesvig-Waering Pennsylvanian invertebrates of the Mazon Creek Area… (1963)

Nowhere is a highly specialized form such as an eurypterid known to encompass such a long range. Van Oyen completely disregards obvious morphological differences, as, for example, the under side of well-known forms such as A. mazonensis and A. mansfieldi, and both are included under A. imhofi. In order to reveal the fallacy of the conclusions advocated by Van Oyen, it might be permissible to compare the holotype of A. imhofi, which has a telson barely as long as the carapace, with an individual of A. mansfieldi of approximately the same size
Source: Wikisource

Erik Norman Kjellesvig-Waering Pennsylvanian invertebrates of the Mazon Creek Area… (1963)

The large, highly arcuate eyes, with disc-like palpebral lobes, are located on the anterior of the carapace, close together, and intramarginally. There is no trace of any ocelli or ocellar mound and enough of the carapace is present to assure their preservation if they were present. The surface is smooth.
At the anterior of the carapace, the ventral shield is faintly preserved as an impression reflected through the carapace. The holotype previously had been carelessly excavated with a sharp instrument toward the anterior, but part of the doublure can still be discerned.
Source: Wikisource

Erik Norman Kjellesvig-Waering Pennsylvanian invertebrates of the Mazon Creek Area… (1963)

Nevertheless, Van Oyen groups both as the same species. Morphologically, I know of no two eurypterids that can be so different and still be of the same genus. On the other hand, Van Oyen (1956, pp. 60, 61) recognizes species and subspecies which easily can be demonstrated to be growth stages ("E. stylus Hall") or caused by poor preservation ("E. derbiensis Woodward") .
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature