"Derivation" of Gihocelhim. On the Clossification 75 



Joseph had committed the insignificant error, in examining his first specimen of Siro 

 (Ci/phophtlialntus) duricorius, of believing that he saw a small pointed hook (" Hackchen ") on 

 either side of the point of the palpns. This led to the equipping of Gibocellum with a thick 

 blunt hook ("Hackchen") at the point of the palpus; whereby the latter, which is figured in 

 b, PI. XVII., fig. 5, is made to look not a little like the terminal part of the palpus in 

 Cryptostemma. 



It is not to be denied that Croneberg is right in a certain sense — though not in the 

 sense intended b}' him — when he concludes his paper on the anatomy of Chelonethi with 

 these words : " But Gibbocellum is also the only one amongst the divergent Arachnidans lately 

 described, which seems really to approach to the Pseudoscorpions, and it is probably to be 

 deHved from them, not vice versa ; it seems to have only a superficiaV similarity to the Sironoidas." 

 But we believe that we have shown that Gibocellum is to a still larger extent " derived " 

 from Opiliones {Siro and Phalangium). 



We confess that we do not highly value phantasy in Natural Science ; but in the esti- 

 mation of those who consider it great praise, in writing of a naturalist, to extol " that com- 

 bination of knowledge and phantasy which was among the prominent gifts of our investigator," 

 as we read not long ago in an obituary .sketch, Stecker's treatises must occupy a very high 

 rank, because they give evidence both of much reading and of creative phantasy. As, 

 however, Gibocellum sudeticum Stecker has no claim to a place in the System of Nature, we 

 have thought it to be in the interest of Science to remove it, and it is in order to 

 prevent its reappearance that we have devoted more space to it than it might otherwise 

 deserve. 



C. Systematic Part. 



In the preceding part of our paper we have treated of the anatomical structure of Cyphoph- 

 thalmi with constant reference to that of the two other sub-orders of Opiliones, such as we 

 have found the latter to be by our own investigations or by reliance in a very few cases on 

 the statements of others. Our readers, we venture to think, will agree that Cyphophthalmi 

 offer characters so important, and at the same time so distinctive, that the group is 

 fully entitled to rank as an independent sub-order of Opiliones. It is indeed so entirely 

 distinct, that we are unable to decide to which of the two other sub-orders it approaches 

 more nearly. We trust that the full characterizations of the three sub-orders, which we are 

 about to offer, will clearly show their peculiarities. We propose also to give the characters 

 of the families of Palpatores, because we assume that .students of these animals will appreciate 

 a collected statement of such alterations in the characters as our investigations have shown 

 to be necessary. In this jilace we shall only point out that amongst the four families of 

 Palpatores, Phalangioida- is the one which deviates most from the common type, at any rate 

 in the structure of the mouth and the body generally. We are so much the more inclined 

 to emphasize this, because authors of zoological manuals, for instance, in their account of the 

 order Opiliones, are accustomed to give a characterization of the family Phalangioidae as if 

 these latter animals were the tj^e general. But this mode of proceeding rests on no better 

 foundation than that the authors in question are usually acquainted only with certain species 

 of large size, most common in Europe, which, as it happens, all belong to that family. 



' The italics are ours. 



10—2 



