226 Prof. E. Ray Lankester '5 Z,as< Words on Prof. Glaus. 



aud deliberately omit to cite and acknowledge the works of a 

 predecessor which he ought to have cited and acknowledged, 

 and that his articles in this magazine are, at the best, but 

 lame excuses for a proceeding which is reprehensible. 



When the facts stated by Prof. Glaus are dissected out from 

 the mass of misleading sneers and accusations with which he 

 surrounds them, it is established : — 



1st. That Prof. Glaus, in his article in the * Anzeiger ' of 

 the Vienna Academy, announced (a) as a " hitherto unre- 

 cognized " fact that the Acarina are degraded members of the 

 class Arachnoidea ; [h) that " hitherto " the Gigantostraca 

 were regarded as Grustacea; (c) that " hitherto " an erroneous 

 division of the Arthropoda into Branchiata and Tracheata had 

 prevailed, which should be abandoned ; {d) that " hitherto " 

 it has been overlooked that the Hexapoda, Myriapoda, and 

 Peripatus are united by the fact that they retain the prosto- 

 mial antenna found also in Ghsetopod worms, which are alto- 

 gether absent in the Arachnida ; (e) that " hitherto " a single 

 origin had been assigned to tracheae, whereas it was probable 

 that they had originated independently in Arachnida and the 

 other Tracheates. 



2. That, contrary to the statements and pretensions of 

 Professor Glaus, these identical conclusions in their entirety 

 and as related one to another had been previously formulated 

 by me as the result of special studies, and published several 

 years (1881) before the date of Prof. Glaus's communication 

 to the Vienna Academy (1886). 



3. That the fundamental theory of a backward movement 

 of the oral aperture in the Grustacea, and the consequent 

 relative forward movement of primarily postoral appendages, 

 so as to become secondarily pra^oral, was published by me in 

 1873 and adopted by Glaus in 1876, who added nothing to the 



facts as to nerve-sujjpJy in relation to this matter, already 

 established by Zaddach. 



Professor Glaus has endeavoured to justify himself by 

 declaring that some of these views may be read between the 

 lines here and there in his ' Grundzuge ' and in his ' Grusta- 

 ceensystem.' On the other hand, it is not possible for him 

 to deny that the prominent and explicit statements on these 

 points made in those publications are contrary to the views 

 enunciated in his note in the Vienna ' Anzeiger,' and that 

 were this not so he could not have brought these views before 

 the Academy as novelties. 



Whether the suggestion of such views may be obscurely 

 visible in some isolated passages of Prof. Glaus's previous 

 writings or not, is not a matter which has any bearing on the 



