. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Geology. 20 GAUDANT & QUAYLE Discussion. H. Woodward (1903) stated 'the bifid flagella of the inner antennae are preserved in fig. 1 and fig. 2'. These are possibly the inner and outer flagella while the shorter median one is hidden between them. In the new material this smaller flagellum is present on two specimens (, : Fig. 2A, B) which are preserved crushed in a dorsoventral position rather than in the more customary lateral attitude. It is possible that only specimens in the latter position were available to H. Woodwar
. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Geology. 20 GAUDANT & QUAYLE Discussion. H. Woodward (1903) stated 'the bifid flagella of the inner antennae are preserved in fig. 1 and fig. 2'. These are possibly the inner and outer flagella while the shorter median one is hidden between them. In the new material this smaller flagellum is present on two specimens (, : Fig. 2A, B) which are preserved crushed in a dorsoventral position rather than in the more customary lateral attitude. It is possible that only specimens in the latter position were available to H. Woodward. It appears that the carapace size quoted by H. Woodward included the rostrum (1903: fig. 1, carapace 20 mm). In the above description the carapace length was measured from the hinder margin of the orbit to the posterior margin. Relationships. Housa (1956) described a new genus, Bechleja, but no doubt owing to the state of preservation of available material much information appears to be lacking from the compari- sons he made with other known fossil palaemonid prawns. Feldmann et al. (1981) described Bechleja rostrata from the Green River Formation, ; this and the present redescription of Propalaemon should help to fill in some of the missing information. The following are the main differences between these two genera. Bechleja, according to Housa (1956), has a single filament antennule; Feldmann et al, however, suggest there are two, whereas Propalaemon has three filaments. The main differences according to Housa (1956) are that the telson and uropods of Propalaemon are proportionately larger. Housa (1956) also states that Palaemon exul Fric should not be included in the genus Palaemon, 'because it differs from it by several important characters' which he did not clarify. According to Glaessner (1969) the generic diagnosis for Palaemon is: 'carapace with antennal and branchiostegal spines; no hepatic spines; antennules three flagellate; telson with four apical spines'.
Size: 1903px × 1313px
Photo credit: © Book Worm / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookauthorbritishmuseumnaturalhistory, bookcentury1900, bookcoll
