On the same principle the stigmata of any insect are the homo- 

 logues of its legs. What will Mr. Lankester do with the gill-plates 

 of the Eurypterida, which are not arranged, according to Wood- 

 ward, like those of Limulus, but are placed like the teeth of a 

 rake? 



Another surprise is added to the already long list, by Mr. Lan- 

 kester's discovery (of which he makes great account), of what he 

 calls " parabranchial stigmata" in Limulus. He places them on 

 the "sternal area of the segments," but his statements on the suc- 

 ceeding page, and his figures plainly show that these little mus- 

 cular pits are situated at the base of the biramous abdominal 

 legs. Is there an instance in nature of stigmata being borne on 

 the legs ? Is there the slightest possible reason for regarding 

 these pits as stigmata ? We are then treated to a long series of 

 suppositions accompanied by a series of elaborate hypothetical 

 lithographic drawings designed tq " illustrate the hypothesis as to 

 the derivation of the lamelliferous appendages of Limulus and 

 Scorpio from a common ancestral form." The late appearance of 

 the lamellae on the feet of the embryo Limulus, should teach any 

 naturalist of sound judgment that they are most probably very 

 special and late differentiations of the appendages. Besides this, 

 palaeontology shows that in the Carboniferous period there were 

 scorpions almost generically the same as the existing ones, and 

 with them Bellinurus, closely resembling the Mesozoic and recent 

 Limuli, which indicates that the latter type has always been a 

 marine one, without any possible use for stigmata. Moreover, 

 the Eurypterine Merostomata, with crustacean gills, flourished as 

 early as the Lower Silurian period. 



Passing over for want of space and time, the three or four pages 

 of trivial criticisms of our own views by Professor Lankester, we 

 are thus brought to the close of Mr. Lankester's article, and to 

 his tabular view of his new classification of the Arachnida, one 

 which is calculated at least to. take away the breath of the ordi- 

 nary systematist. 



Any attempt at reasoning with our author, whose methods are 

 so opposed to the inductive mode of scientific reasoning, and 

 whose views are often founded on baseless hypotheses, would 

 probably be fruitless. He is " surprised " that we should persist 

 in believing that Limulus is a Crustacean. 



We will in reply and to close this criticism, simply quote some 



