Comment by dash2

Just the abstract is the stuff of nightmares:

> Originally described as an isopod in the nineteenth century, and subsequently compared to various arthropod groups, it was re-described with limited illustration as a gigantic scorpion in the 1980s.

“We reopened Pandora’s box”

> Illustrating P. gigas with camera lucida drawings, light photography and tomographic data,

No why would you do this

> and assign several other specimens from the same formation to this taxon,

Nooo

> Several characters supporting a scorpion affinity are present in P. gigas, including large pedipalps with a fixed and movable finger, a stridulatory surface on one of the coxae, and an elongate subtriangular sternum morphology … Uniquely among scorpions, P. gigas has lateral epimera on the mesosomal tergites,

I don’t know what any of that means but it all sounds absolutely horrible

> and combined with the fluvial environment in which the fossils are preserved, we suggest that P. gigas may have been aquatic or amphibious.

OH GOD IT’S UNDER THE WATER

I WILL NEVER GO WILD SWIMMING AGAIN

And in the article the cherry on the cake: it was OR IS from Herefordshire. Where I will shortly be moving.