118 G. HERBERT FOWLER. 
Ostracoda. Phyllopoda. Argulide. Copepoda. Cirrhipedia. 
| 
Protostraca. 
With regard to the supposed close relationship between 
Cirrhipedia and Copepoda, so clearly indicated by Claus in this 
table, I again quote from Balfour a passage which, I believe, 
expresses the views of most zoologists on the matter: ‘The 
Cirrhipedia are believed by Claus to belong to the same phylum 
as the Copepoda. This view does not appear to be completely 
borne out by their larval history. The Nauplius differs very 
markedly from that of the Copepoda, and this is still more true 
of the Cypris stage. The Copepod-like appendages of this stage 
are chiefly relied upon to support the above view, but that form 
of appendage was probably very primitive and general, and 
the number . . . does not correspond to that in Cope- 
poda. On the other hand, the paired eyes and the bivalve 
shell form great difficulties in the way of Claus’s view” 
(Comp. Embryol.,’ i, p.423). The appendages on which Claus 
relies consist of protopodite, exopodite, and endopodite, and 
are of the primitive and widely-spread type on which Milne- 
Edwards and Huxley first laid insistance, and which Ray 
Lankester has shown to have been derived at an early period 
of biological time from the yet more primitive Protophyllopodan 
(Protostracan) limb. 
While both Claus and Balfour regard the Ostracoda as 
having originated independently of other phyla from the 
Protostracan stem, I would submit that the remarkable organi- 
sation of the Ascothoracida and the existence of the other- 
