70 Gihocellum unknown in Bohemia 



that highly interesting animal, it is impossible to decide with certainty as to its true sys- 

 tematic affinities." This observation of Thorell's is unquestionably correct, but a trustworthy 

 description of Gihocellum is just what will never see the light. 



On account of the great interest attaching to the questions raised by Stecker's description 

 of his Gibocelium, both authors of this present paper have several times attempted to obtain 

 a sight of the animal, once on the occasion of a personal visit to the Bohemian National Museum 

 at Prague, at other times by means of written requests addressed to their friends amongst 

 Bohemian zoologists ; but all in vain. Mr Joseph Rehak at Prague stated to one of us in 

 letters written in 1898, that the opinion was general amongst Bohemian zoologists, that the animal 

 does not exist, for the following reasons. 1°. The Director of the National Museum, Dr Fri^', 

 had in vain offered a large sum for a specimen. . 2°. Some Bohemian naturalists, for 

 instance, Mr Babor Schulz, had in all seasons, spring, summer, autumn, and winter, .searched 

 for the animal with the greatest energy on the Riesengrund itself (the locality where Stecker 

 stated that he had obtained his twelve specimens) but " of Gihocellum no trace." 3°. Nobody 

 in Bohemia had ever seen Gibocelium, or any preparations of it, either in Stecker's lifetime 

 or after his death in 1888. 



Considering that 80 years elapsed after Latreille's first discovery of Siro ruhens, before it 

 was found again in France, the two first reasons did not appear to us to carry great weight ; 

 and although the third of these reasons certainl}- was not without importance we would not 

 for a long time look upon the opinion held in Bohemia as j^istified. But after having 

 finished our studies of Cyphophthalmi, and after having again critically examined Stecker's 

 papers, we cannot otherwise than fully acknowledge the correctness of the view, which is 

 prevalent in Bohemia, to the effect that Gibocelium has no existence in reality. Our pi'incipal 

 reasons are the following. In considering this question we may proceed on either of two 

 different suppositions. 



I. Supposing first that Gihocellum really were an animal nearly related to Opiliones, and 

 especially to Cyphophthalmi, as Stecker declares, we would draiv attention to four points. 



V. Stecker states that he found in Gibocelium the same glands secreting stinking matter 

 which occur in Opiliones (" the cephalothoracic glands of Krohn "), and he devotes nearly 

 four pages (6, pp. 333 — 337) to the description and discussion of them. In the course of this 

 he states that their orifices are situated close to and above the bases of the antennae 

 (PL XVIIL, fig. 1); but according to our own investigation it is certain that in Cyph- 

 ophthalmi the openings of these glands are situated much farther back. Even if we would 

 suppose that this erroneous statement of Stecker might be due to faulty preparation and 

 examination, there are still three points as to which that possibility is quite excluded. 



2°. Spines of the kind which, according to PI. XVIIL, figs. 1 and 3, occur on the 

 legs of Gibocelium, are not found in Opiliones, least of all in Cyphophthalmi. (Nor, for the 

 matter of that, do they occur in Chelonethi.) 



3°. Dr. Stecker did not profess to be able to say much on the subject of the sexual 

 organs, but yet he states (b, p. 341): "In the male a fairly long penis comparable to that 

 described by Dr. Joseph (l. c, p. 270) in Cyphophthalmus, or the one noticed by Tulk (I.e., p. 250) 

 in Phalangium, is seen to protrude from this orifice." The penis being according to this 

 statement exserted in the specimen in question, no preparation of it was necessary, and as it 



