364 Prof. E. Ray Lankester on the 



XXXI. — Professor Claus and the Classification of the Ai-thro- 

 poda. By E. Ray Lankester, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S., 



Jodrell Professor of Zoology in University College, 

 London. 



A TRANSLATION appeared in the Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist, for 

 February 1886, p. 168, of a note published by Prof. Claus of 

 Vienna, in the ' Anzeiger ' of the Imperial Academy of Sciences 

 of Vienna, December 17, 1885. 



The article in question astonished me, since I found that it 

 consisted chiefly of an exposition by Prof. Claus of those 

 views on the classification of the Arthropoda, and especially 

 on the relationship of the Eurypterina and Liniuliis to the 

 Arachnida, which I formulated in 1881, and have for nearly 

 five years defended single-handed. My astonishment was 

 due to the fact that Prof. Claus makes no allusion whatever 

 to my writings on the subject, but puts my views forward 

 as his own. I have in consequence addressed to the Secretary 

 of the " Mathem.-naturwiss. Klasse " of the Imperial Aca- 

 demy of Sciences of Vienna a communication which I wish 

 to place before English readers, inasmuch as Prof. Claus's 

 statement, to which it refers, has been translated and pub- 

 lished in this Magazine, The communication is as follows : — 



My attention has been called by my colleague Prof. 

 Moseley, of the University of Oxford, to a note by Prof. 

 Claus, of Vienna, published in the ' Anzeiger der kais, Akad. 

 d. Wiss. in Wien ' of Dec. 17, 1885, p. 250. 



In this communication (as Prof. Moseley has pointed out 

 to me) the views which I published in 1881, in my memoir 

 " Limulus an Arachnid," as to (1) the relationship of the 

 Arachnida to the Gigantostraca and to the Xiphosura, and 

 as to (2) the classification of the Arthropoda, also as to 

 (3) the unnatural character of the divisions Branchiata and 

 Tracheata, and (4) the nature of the antennse of Hexapoda, 

 Myriapoda, and Peripatus, and the absence of corresponding 

 organs in Arachnida, are adopted and reasserted by Professor 

 Claus. 



Professor Claus makes use of the facts adduced by me in 

 order to sustain the theoretical conclusions which he has also 

 taken from me, and he does not add any argument to those 

 which he has thus appropriated. Nevertheless Professor 

 Claus does not mention my nmie in connexion with this 

 matter, and appears to put forward these views as originating 

 with himself. 



I am gratified to find that my learned colleague of the 



