PY< DA. 



:nl and slender, and the second, or outermost, joint is always still thinner, mosl 

 I, .mil of about the same length as the preceding joint; sometimes, however, this 

 to a long, thin thread more than twice the length of the body, as for inst 

 . p] I. Kg |. The growth of the embryonal legs soon and even if 



ften the re kept in the following larval stages, the) show no alteration. 



The pr< like the embryonal legs, begins a> a low protuberance, soon growing im<> 



•cess with tnon > tapering sides, but without trace of any inner or outer division, 



ilescing "I" constituent parts. The pharynx, however, is early developed, already in 

 ad it is seen as a dark hue stretching from the point of the proboscis towards its 

 tphofi longitarse y pL II, fig. 20, and in Nymphon macronyx y pi. II, fig. 9. The chitinous 

 serving for the insertion of the Musculi retractores of the pharynx, arc also early developed. 

 With regard to the interpretation of the proboscis I shall take the liberty to state my opinion 

 ady in this place, although my interpretation is chit-fly due to the structure of this organ found 

 in a much more advanced stage of development and especially in the imago. It is the unhapp) note 

 Uatreille to his description of the Pycnogonida, Regne animal, cd. II. Tom IV (1829) which is 

 found again and again The note. I.e. p. 276, note 3, runs thus: I„c siphon . . . m'a offert des sutures 

 ,itudinales, de maniere qu'il me parait compost du labre, de la languette et de deux machoires, le 

 de ensemble . It was to be thought thai Dohm 1 ) had succeeded in demolishing this notion, 

 and I can with all my heart agree with him, when in Pantopoden des Golfes von Neapel (1881) he 

 5: W'ir wurden . . . keinenfalls aber an eine Verschmelzung von extremitatenartigen Mnndtheilen 

 zu denken haben , I.e. p. 109. We find nevertheless that Adlerz in his fine little essay, Contributions 

 be Morpholog) of the Pantopoda 1 Bidrag till Pantopodernes Morfologi (1888)) tries to maintain 

 the old view of I.atreille. Adlerz founds his arguments especially on the fact that the two low- 

 ermost antimeres (Dohrn) of the proboscis receive nerves from special centra in the first abdominal 

 glion, comp. his fig. 2 on pi. I, and the letters a and ug in this figure. For these two foremost 

 centra with their fibrillous punctuous mass (Leydig: Punktmasse) in connection with the two 

 centra behind them in the same ganglion should show, how this ganglion is composed of 

 three original pairs of ganglia, but it is well known that to each pair of ganglia belongs a metainere 

 with a pair of limbs, which metamere could not then lie anything but the two lowermost antimeres 

 I.e. p. id. To this is to be answered that, as qo trace oi limbs has ever been seen that might corre- 

 be merged in the two antimeres, as little has any trace been found of a pair of foremost, 

 - it has to be remembered that the supply of nerves for tin- two lowermost meta- 

 llic:' perly must be said to arise from the foremost oik- of the two, originall) separated, 



of ganglia, in which, but not until a later stage, the corresponding foremost 



ped This view would also agree with my examinations, as I have also 



riginally uniform, and not until later showing distinct centra with their 



punctuous mass running into or stretching into the nerves of the Limbs. I think upon 



■ the morpholog) t< 1 stress is at present laid upon the ganglia, and mj 



leer in Untersuchungeti Qber <li<- Pycnogoniden (1852) has | cted the supposition of 



• 1 i.f tin iin proboscis in the young larva. 



