Prof. C. Claus's Reply to Prof. Lankester's "Bejoinder.^^ 467 



XLIII. — Reply to Prof. E. Ray Lankester^s " Rejoinder^ 

 By Prof. C. Glaus. 



The " Rejoinder " with wliicli Prof. Eay Lankester tliinks 

 he can get over my contradiction of the accusations brought 

 by him against me (Ann. &;Mag. Nat. Hist. September 1886, 

 p. 179) unfortunately renders it necessary for me to furnish a 

 reply, as that author, instead of the revocation called for by 

 me, has answered with fresh charges. Being unable to 

 refute the proofs which I brought forward as citations, he 

 does not hesitate to resort to the contemptible expedient of 

 insinuations, by a reference to some past discussions between 

 myself and other authors, in order that, being to some extent 

 screened by suspicions deduced from them, he may commence 

 his retreat behind the shield of " certain discussions " * — a 

 retreat in which, by misrepresentation and falsification of the 

 state of the case, and by new charges, the revocation is evaded. 

 Or is it not a misrepresentation and falsification of the points at 

 issue, counting upon want of knowledge in the reader, that 

 Eay Lankester (sub 1) recognizes, in the circumstance that in 

 my ' Grundziige ' of 1880 I have enunciated the genetic relation 

 oiLimulus to the Arachnoidea, only my acquaintance with the 

 " general vievv^s of Huxley " and others, although, as he must 

 know very well, I had already, in my ' Untersuchungen 

 liber das Crustaceensystem ' (1876), in agreement with 

 Strauss-Diirckheim and Huxley, thoroughly and indepen- 

 dently discussed the genetic relations of the Gigantostraca, 

 including Limulus, to the air-breathing Arachnoidea, and 



* As I cannot suppose that tlie reader is familiar witli the nature of 

 the " certain disrussions " referred to, I may state, as a brief exposition of 

 them, that ten years ago I was reproached by Weismann with havino- 

 made and published researches upon the Daphuidse and Polyphemid^e, 

 although I was aware that he was also engaged upon the same subjects. 

 The articles in question are : — Weismann's memoir " Ueber EibikUuig 

 der Daphuideu " (preface), in Zeitschr. f . wiss. Zool. Bd. xxxiii. ; C'laus, 

 " Berichtigung uud Abwehr," ibid. ; Weismann's " Eechtfertigung," op. 

 cit. Bd. XXX. ; and Claus, " Anlass und Entstehung meiner Untersuch- 

 ungen auf dem Daphnidengebiete," in Sitzungsb. der k.-k. zool. -hot. 

 Gesellsch. in Wien, Bd. xxviii. 



With regard to Seison, Edouard van Beneden stated, four years after 

 the pubUcation of my paper on Seison, thaX I had not mentioned his name 

 in it, although he had told me in conversation in a coffee-house in Trieste 

 that he had also examined Seison, and regarded it as a Rotifer. The 

 articles relating to this are as follows : — E. van Beneden, " De I'existence 

 d'un appareil vasculaire a sang rouge dans quelques Crustacees," in Zool. 

 Anzeiger, 1880; Claus, " Erklarung in Betreff der Priori tatsreclame des 

 Harm Ed. van Beneden," ibid. ; Dr. Karl Heider, " Abwehr," t'JeV^. 



