Classification of the Arthropoda. 63 



and it is admitted to be possible that the antennse of Peripatus 

 as also of the Hexapoda and Myriapoda, are true appendages 

 of the ])rostoraium, as in the Chtetopoda ! 



On the other hand, for my own part, even in my earlier 

 writings, 1 have regarded the anterior antennse of the Crus- 

 tacea as prostomial appendages equivalent to the antennge of 

 Insects, Myriapoda, and of PeriimtuSj and subsequently, in 

 agreement with Hatschek, as derived from the frontal ten- 

 tacles of the Annelida, but have attached to the second pair 

 of antennre of the Crustacea the significance of a pair of body- 

 appendages only secondarily shifted in front of the mouth ; 

 and this since I ascertained in many Entomostraca the origin 

 of the nerves of the second antennae far av/ay from the cere- 

 brum upon ganglia of the oesophageal ring, and at the same 

 time took into consideration the paraoral position of these 

 appendages in the Nauplius-larvaj. Not a change in the 

 position of the mouth, as supposed by Ray Lankester, but an 

 upward movement of the appendages performed in the course 

 of development, with a corresponding displacement of the 

 place of origin of the nerves belonging to them, was recog- 

 nized as the argument for the preoral shifting of the second 

 antenna and the origin of its nerve on the cerebrum. 



When Ray Lankester states that he has not hitherto found 

 this doctrine of an upward movement clearly formulated in 

 ray writings, this only proves once more that he does not 

 know them very well. In the ' Grundziige ' indeed, in which 

 the whole domain of zoology is treated in the most condensed 

 form, no discussion of such a point is to be expected ; but 

 Ray Lankester might have expected to find something of the 

 kind in the " Beitriige zur Kenntniss des feineren Baues der 

 Daphniden &c.," Zeitsch. f. wiss. Zool. xxvii. (1876), and 

 would have found it had he looked (pp. 377-379). Instead 

 of this he comes forward at once with the charge : — " He 

 has adopted my theory of 1873 in so far only as the second 

 pair of antennae are concerned ; " nay, more, he does not 

 shrink from the really enormous logical contradiction of charac- 

 terizing my views as to the Arthropod antennas ('' as to the 

 contrasted and totally distinct origin of the Crustacean an- 

 tennse ") as adopted from his writings ! 



How is it possible, moreover, that, considering the contra- 

 diction in the interpretation of the Crustacean antennas and 

 the anterior limbs of the Gigantostraca and Arachnoidea, 

 Ray Lankester should be unable to comprehend that my 

 explanation is quite different from iiis, and tiierefore even for 

 that reason alone cannot be borrowed from him ? While he 

 interprets the falces (or so-called "jaw-antennas") of the 



