468 Prot. C. Claus's Reply to Prof. LanJcester^s ^^ Rejoinder. ^^ 



expressed the opinion (p. 112) tliat the latter had been deve- 

 loped out of the former ? If I previously ascribed the com- 

 plete ignoring of this work in Lankester's article on Limulus 

 to his want of acquaintance with it, I must now, after my 

 reference to it in my reply (July 1886, p. 56), recognize in 

 the fact of its being again ignored a determination to suppress 

 it, which can have no other purpose than to make it appear 

 plausible to the reader that the above-mentioned passage in 

 my text-book demonstrates only an acquaintance with 

 Huxley's views, but not agreement with them. And in proof 

 of my being of the opposite opinion it is added by a truly 

 sophistical trick : — " The fact remains that he classified the 

 Gigantostraca under the Crustacea, and in his description * 

 of that group said nothing of their affinities with the Arach- 

 nida." Here, no doubt intentionally, nothing is said to remind 

 the reader that I adopted the idea of Crustacea in the broader 

 sense as equivalent to gill-breathing Arthropoda, and within 

 the group placed the Gigantostraca in contrast with the 

 Crustacea sens. str. with Nauplius-development, the Eucrus- 

 tacea. Even now I would maintain this grouping as not in 

 the least contradictory to the opinions recently expressed ; for 

 while the Gigantostraca and Limulus belong genetically to 

 the same series as the Scorpions and Spiders, they have not 

 therefore ceased to be branchiferous Arthropoda or Branchiata 

 any more than their Arachnoid nature is proved by this 

 relationship. In Ray Lankester's opinion, indeed, Limulus is 

 an Arachnid, but not in mine ; and upon this, as I have 

 already shown, rests one of the numerous differences which 

 separate my views and Kay Lankester's. If the English 

 author will not or cannot understand this, I have nothing- 

 further to add, and can only appeal to the sound common 

 sense of those who are capable of judging. 



Upon all other points I may be very brief, as they are 

 quite of secondary importance in comparison with the main 

 question which has just been discussed. In order to lessen 

 the value of my criticism all sorts of blunders are ascribed to 

 me — in the first place, in connexion with Packard's criticism, 

 which requires no refutation, the erroneous notion that E.ay 

 Lankester had wished to demonstrate twelve segments in the 

 abdominal shield of Limulus, and further the opinion that he 

 had supposed the formation of a new mouth in the Arthropoda 

 in comparison with the Chaitopoda. Upon all this I shall 



* It can hardly be necessary to explain that a single statement of this 

 relationship in the general section is sufficient, especially in a condensed 

 couipeudiuni, and tbat a second reference to it in the descriptive part 

 must have seemed superfluous. 



