226 
Arachnides, bien que presentant en general le méme 
nombre d’articles, ceux-ci ne sont pas homologues, å 
l'exception des deux premiers.« I look upon this state- 
ment as very meritorious indeed, but I think that 
thereby the reasonableness for using these names has 
been strongly reduced. In fact the names are in succes- 
sion used for the joints in Arane@; but according to 
Gaubert himself they cannot be used in the same way 
for most of the joints in Scorpiones. We are lacking 
every evidence of that the joints in Aranece and Deca- 
poda, supplied with the same names, are homologous, 
and it will always be impossible to prove this homology, 
but why making use of just these names in Aranece 
and not rather in Scorpiones, for if they cannot 
at the same time be used according to the number of 
the joints in both these orders and thus mark homolo- 
gous portions, it appears to me that it would be more 
correct to use them in the Scorpiones which, in conse- 
quence of their whole structure and extraordinary early 
appearance in the development of the earth, are much 
more primitive than Aranece and must on the whole 
be looked upon as being closer connected with Cru- 
stacea. If these names shall mark homologous joints, 
it would be impossible to use them in Aranece and 
Decapoda after number with an arbitrary omission of 
ischiopodite, and beginning by this false starting-point 
we should be forced to mark the 4th joint in the legs 
of the Scorpiones as answering to carpopodite and pro- 
podite (patella and tibia) in Araneæ (op. cit. p. 148), and 
then the 3 last joints in the leg of Scorpio must answer 
to the Ist and 2d dactylopodite in Aranece, an inter- 
pretation the uncorrectness of which may easily be seen 
by means of an examination of some of the forms. 
These names ought to be rejected as being both super- 
fluous and misleading, if they not always shall indicate 
