1896.] Recent Literature. 655 
the origin of tracheæ from lung books (p. 375) and accepts the view 
that the former were the more primitive, the latter secondary, and rein- 
forces it with the remark that this view “arrived at by comparative 
morphology, has recently been confirmed by embryology. | Janorowski 
has discovered that the tracheal invaginations of Spiders first from 
branched tracheal tubes and that the lung books are a secondary 
specialization.” And this without the slightest reference to the results 
of Simmons (since amply confirmed by Purcell and Brauer) which are 
directly the reverse. It is to be said in passing that the thoracic 
stigmata of the Solpugide, like those of the Acarina, are the greatest 
difficulty presented to those who believe in the Limulus-Arachnid 
theory, but the author dismisses the results of Wagner in this connec- 
tion with the remark “that all conclusions based upon transitional 
phenomena of single specialized types will have ultimately to be tested 
by a profounder and more extended comparative study of existing 
forms.” 
The coxal glands, naturally have much attention. The external 
opening occurs between legs 3 and 4, the duct is long and convoluted 
while the gland itself is described as a great mass of tubules. These 
organs he is still inclined to think the derivatives of setipareus sacs, a 
view which “has hitherto met with no fayor.” Regarding the fact that 
they may be ccelomic in character he merely refers to Lauries observa- 
tions on the scorpion and says that until this be confirmed the bulk of 
evidence seems to point to the coxal glands as a blind ending tube. 
And again (p. 381). “I freely admit that these arguments would have 
but little weight as against direct embryological evidence, if that evi- 
dence were really satisfactory.” Certainly the results of Grobben, 
Kishenonyi, Lebinsky, Kingsley and especially those of Brauer are 
confirmative of those of Laurie, all showing the coxal glands are 
derived from the coelomic wall and are the purest of mesoderm (if 
there be such a layer) and that their external opening is a subsequent 
formation. For the opposite view, held by Bernard, there seems not 
the slightest evidence. 
After a few remarks upon the genital organs the author presents an 
attempt to elucidate the phylogeny of the Arachnida, and itis here that 
we are most at variance with him. It is impossible to go into his argu- 
ment in detail. It all rests upon the attempt to derive every existing 
Arthropod structure from structures already present in the annelid 
ancestor, setiparous sacs apparently | playing the ee be descr point. 
These coxal glands, trachex, 
cement glands, maxillary glands, salivary glands, etc., are all referred 
