This   level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Palaeontology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Arthropods Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Eurypterus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 May 2011 ( check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that a fossil of the extinct sea scorpion Eurypterus (restoration pictured) was once thought to be a catfish? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/May.

I would think it was more likely to deter predators than serve as a weapon.-- Digthepast ( talk) 01:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply

...so I'm changing the text to reflect its likely defensive nature.-- Digthepast ( talk) 20:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply

It is more likely among Mixopteracea whose body and telsons were curved making it more apparent they were defensive. In Eurypteracea and others they probably served more like rudders. The 'tapering' seems more to be a result of streamlining (see Horseshoe Crab).-- Obsidi♠n ^Soul 00:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Carcinosoma trigona Ruedemann, 1916 is listed as a subspecies of Eurypterus remipes DeKay, 1825 in the species list. As Carcinosoma is regarded as a distinct genus, I would be inclined to remove it here, and move it there.-- Digthepast ( talk) 20:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eurypterus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718202232/http://fossilinsects.net/pdfs/tetlie_2007_PX3_DistribDispersalEurypterida.pdf to http://fossilinsects.net/pdfs/tetlie_2007_PX3_DistribDispersalEurypterida.pdf
• Added {{ dead link}} tag to http://homepage.mac.com/paulselden/Sites/Website/Palaeophysiology.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Reference 15 This link does not send you to the relevant information. In addition the referred specimen is not Eurypterus remipes, its a specimen of Acutiramus. There is no record in either linked collection of any Eurypterus in excess of 30 cm and nothing close to 4 feet in length. There are reports of a YPM specimen that suggests a animals almost 2 feet long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.173.24 ( talk) 02:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC) reply

The large 1.3m eurypterid referred to seems to have been indeterminate from the mentioned source. I reached to Director of Collections at the PRI, Dr. Gregory Dietl, inquiring what species it was. His response:

“Thank you for your message. The specimen we have on display is Acutiramus macrophthalmus. You can see an image of our specimen in an article that Derek Briggs wrote about it (the counterpart of the specimen is actually held at the Yale Peabody Museum). The PRI specimen on display that you referred to is illustrated as Fig. 9 in the attached paper.

Best wishes,

Greg Dietl“

Attached is a paper with images of the specimen described as an Acutiramus, a larger eurypterid species which could grow over 6 ft. long. Therefore this specimen would not be in the running for largest Eurypterus. 2601:444:482:7F50:D0D:382B:F334:4700 ( talk) 16:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, this cannot be independently verified by users. We need a source that can be accessed for this information to be added. Super Ψ Dro 16:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Yeah, best would be to state what paper that's actually being referred to. FunkMonk ( talk) 17:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply