Chapter XXI: Pycnogonida393 (4)

“A Natural Classification of Trilobites,” _Amer. Jour. Sci._ (4),
iii., 1897, pp. 89–106, 181–207. Reprinted in Beecher’s _Studies in
Evolution_, 1901, p. 109. A classification based on the character of
the pygidium has been proposed by Gürich, _Centralbl. für Min. Geol.
u. Pal._ 1907, p. 129. A classification based on the minute structure
of the test has been given by Lorenz, _Zeitschr. d. deutsch. geol.
Gesellsch._ lviii., 1906, p. 56.

Footnote 201:

_Neues Jahrb. für Min. Geol. u. Pal._ 1898, i. p. 187.

Footnote 202:

Lake, _Brit. Cambrian Tril._ 1907, p. 45.

Footnote 203:

The British Carboniferous Proëtidae are described by H. Woodward,
_Monogr. Brit. Carb. Trilobites_, Palaeont. Soc. 1883–84.

Footnote 204:

This can be maintained in the Crustacea by counting the seventh
abdominal segment, which appears in _Gnathophausia_; but this is not
universally regarded as a true segment. See also _Nebalia_ (p. 111).

Footnote 205:

This and the following Sub-class correspond with Lankester’s Sub-class
Euarachnida. The Delobranchiata have gills patent and exposed, and
adapted for breathing oxygen dissolved in water. The Embolobranchiata
have either the gill-books (now termed lung-books) sunk into their
body, or the gill-books are wholly or partially replaced by tracheae.
In either case the members of this Sub-class breathe atmospheric
oxygen.

Footnote 206:

Woodward, “On some Points in the Structure of the Xiphosura, having
reference to their relationship with the Eurypteridae,” _Quart. J.
Geol. Soc._ xxiii., 1867, p. 28, and xxviii., 1871, p. 46. Milne
Edwards, A., “Recherches sur l’anat. des Limules,” _Ann. Sci. Nat._
(5), xvii., 1873, Art. 4. Lankester, E. R., “Limulus an Arachnid,”
_Quart. J. Micr. Sci._ xxi., 1881, p. 504. Kingsley, J. S., “The
Embryology of _Limulus_,” _Journ. Morph._ vii. p. 35, and viii. p.
195, 1892–3. Kishinouye, “On the Development of _Limulus longispina_,”
_Journ. Coll. Sci. Japan_, v., 1892, p. 53. Patten, W., and
Redenbaugh, W. A., “Studies on _Limulus_,” _Journ. Morph._ xvi., 1900,
pp. 1, 91.

Footnote 207:

_Quart. J. Micr. Sci._ xlviii., 1905, p. 165.

Footnote 208:

μηρός = a thigh.

Footnote 209:

This segment, though present in embryo Scorpions, has disappeared in
the adults of those animals.

Footnote 210:

_Quart. J. Micr. Sci._ xlix., 1906, p. 469.

Footnote 211:

_Zool. Anz._ xiv., 1891, pp. 164, 173.

Footnote 212:

_Zeitschr. wiss. Zool._ lix., 1895, p. 351.

Footnote 213:

They are described in great detail in Lankester’s article, “_Limulus_
an _Arachnid_,” _Quart. J. Micr. Sci._ xxi., 1881, p. 504.

Footnote 214:

_Tr. Linn. Soc._ xxviii., 1872, p. 471.

Footnote 215:

_Tr. Linn. Soc._ xxviii., 1872, p. 472.

Footnote 216:

A rudimentary ninth pair of ostia are described anteriorly.

Footnote 217:

_J. Morph._ vii., 1892, p. 35.

Footnote 218:

Kingsley, _loc. cit._

Footnote 219:

_J. Coll. Tokyo_, v., 1893, p. 53.

Footnote 220:

Lockwood, _Amer. Nat._ iv., 1870–71, p. 261.

Footnote 221:

For a diagnosis of the species and a list of synonyms, see Pocock,
_Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist._ (7), ix., 1902, p. 256.

Footnote 222:

_Quart. J. Micr. Sci._ xxxi., 1890, p. 379; _Proc. Cambr. Phil. Soc._
ix., 1895–1898, p. 19; _J. Anat. Physiol._ xxxiii., 1899, p. 154.

Footnote 223:

_Quart. J. Micr. Sci._ xxxi., 1890, p. 317.

Footnote 224:

I am indebted to Mr. Henry Woods for these paragraphs on fossil
Xiphosura.

Footnote 225:

The British fossil forms of this group are described and figured by H.
Woodward, “Monograph of the Merostomata,” _Palaeontogr. Soc._ 1866–78,
and _Geol. Mag._ 1907, p. 539.

Footnote 226:

Packard, “Carb. Xiphos. N. America,” _Mem. Nat. Acad. Sci.
Washington_, iii., 1885, p. 146, pl. vi. fig. 1_a_, pl. v. fig. 3_a_
(restoration). Williams, _Amer. Journ. Sci._ (3), xxx., 1885, p. 45.
Fritsch, _Fauna d. Gaskohle_, iv., 1901, p. 64, pl. 155, figs. 1–3,
and text-figures, 369, 370.

Footnote 227:

Walcott has described, under the generic name _Beltina_, imperfect
specimens from the Algonkian (pre-Cambrian) of Montana, which he
thinks may be the remains of Eurypterids (_Bull. Geol. Soc. America_,
x., 1899, p. 238).

Footnote 228:

Walcott, _Amer. Jour. Sci._ (3), xxiii., 1882, p. 213.

Footnote 229:

Descriptions and figures of British Eurypterids are given in the
following works:—Huxley and Salter, “Pterygotus,” _Mem. Geol. Survey,
Brit. Org. Remains_, i., 1859; H. Woodward, “Monograph of the
Merostomata,” _Palaeont. Soc._ 1866–78, and _Geol. Mag._ 1879, p. 196;
1887, p. 481; 1888, p. 419; 1907, p. 277; Peach, _Trans. Roy. Soc.
Edinb._ xxx., 1882, p. 511; Laurie, _ibid._ xxxvii., 1892, p. 151;
xxxvii., 1893, p. 509; and xxxix., 1899, p. 575.

Footnote 230:

A detailed account of _Eurypterus fischeri_ has been given by G. Holm,
_Mém. Acad. Impér. Sci. St. Pétersbourg_ (8), viii. 2, 1898. See also
F. Schmidt, _ibid._ (7), xxxi. 5, 1883. Descriptions of American forms
of _Eurypterus_ are given by Hall, “Nat. Hist. New York,” _Palaeont._
iii., 1859, p. 395; _ibid._ vii., 1888, p, 156; and _Second Geol.
Survey Pennsylvania_, “Report of Progress,” PPP., 1884; Whiteaves,
_Geol. and Nat. Hist. Surv. Canada_, “Palaeozoic Foss.,” iii., 1884,
p. 42.

Footnote 231:

It was this ornamentation found on fragments of _Pterygotus anglicus_
which led the Scotch quarrymen to apply the name “Seraphim” to that
Eurypterid. On this subject Hugh Miller writes: “The workmen in the
quarries in which they occur, finding form without body, and struck by
the resemblance which the delicately waved scales bear to the
sculptured markings on the wings of cherubs—of all subjects of the
chisel the most common—fancifully termed them ‘Seraphim’” (_The Old
Red Sandstone_, ed. 6, 1855, p. 180).

Footnote 232:

The third leg in the male possesses on the fifth joint a curved
appendage which extends backwards to the proximal end of the second
joint. This structure may have been a clasping organ.

Footnote 233:

It has been suggested that the metastoma really belongs to a
pregenital segment of the mesosoma which is absent in the adult, but
has been found in the embryo of Scorpions.

Footnote 234:

Sarle, _New York State Museum, Bulletin_ 69, Palaeont. 9, 1903, p.
1087.

Footnote 235:

Beecher, _Geol. Mag._ 1901, p. 561.

Footnote 236:

Peach, _Nature_, xxxi., 1885, p. 295; Pocock, _Quart. Journ. Micr.
Sci._ xliv., 1901, p. 291; Laurie, _Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb._ xxxix.,
1899, p. 575.

Footnote 237:

Peach, _Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb._ xxx., 1882, p. 516.

Footnote 238:

Cf. p. 258.

Footnote 239:

_Nature_, xlviii., 1893, p. 104.

Footnote 240:

_Souvenirs entomologiques_, Sér. 9, 1907, p. 229.

Footnote 241:

Brauer, _Zeitschr. wiss. Zool._ lix., 1895, p. 355.

Footnote 242:

_Das Tierreich_, 8. Lief., 1899, p. 4.

Footnote 243:

_Arachnides de France_, vii., 1879, p. 84.

Footnote 244:

_Fauna of British India_, “Arachnida,” 1900, p. 8.

Footnote 245:

_Tr. Zool. Soc._ xi. part x., 1885, p. 373.

Footnote 246:

_Zeitschr. wiss. Zool._ lix., 1895, p. 351.

Footnote 247:

_Das Tierreich_, 8. Lief., 1899.

Footnote 248:

Pocock, _Fauna of British India_, “Arachnida.” London, 1900.

Footnote 249:

Laurie, _J. Linn. Soc. Zool._ xxv., 1894, p. 30.

Footnote 250:

_See_ M. Laurie in _J. Linn. Soc. Zool._ xxv., 1894, p. 20.

Footnote 251:

_Tr. Linn. Soc._ (2) vi., 1896, p. 344.

Footnote 252:

Bernard, _loc. cit._ p. 366.

Footnote 253:

_J. Linn. Soc._ xxv., 1894, p. 29.

Footnote 254:

See Pocock, _Ann. Nat. Hist._ (6), xiv., 1894, p. 120.

Footnote 255:

Kraepelin, _Das Tierreich_, Berlin, 8. Lief., 1899, p. 234.

Footnote 256:

The term mostly in use is Araneida, which should mean Araneus-like
animals. This is clearly not allowable, unless there is a genus
_Araneus_ or _Aranea_. For many years there has been no such genus
recognised, but Simon now attempts to re-establish it, inadmissibly,
as it appears to us. (See note, p. 408).

Footnote 257:

_Mém. Mus. d’Hist. Nat._ xviii., 1829, p. 377.

Footnote 258:

Pickard-Cambridge (_Spiders of Dorset_, 1879–1881) omits the coxal
joint, which, with its lobe, he calls the maxilla, and therefore gives
only five joints, which he names _axillary_, _humeral_, _cubital_,
_radial_, and _digital_.

Footnote 259:

Pickard-Cambridge, in his _Spiders of Dorset_, names them
_exinguinal_, _coxal_, _femoral_, _genual_, _tibial_, _metatarsal_,
and _tarsal_.

Footnote 260:

_Nat. Hist. Tidsskr._ iv., 1843, p. 349.

Footnote 261:

_J. Linn. Soc._ xv., 1881, p. 155.

Footnote 262:

_Proc. Asiat. Soc. Beng._ 1875, p. 197.

Footnote 263:

_Tijdschr. v. d. Nederl. Dierkundige Ver._ (2), i., 1885–1887, p. 109.

Footnote 264:

_Études sur la circulation du sang chez les Aranées du genre Lycose._
Utrecht, 1862.

Footnote 265:

_Recherches sur l’appareil circulatoire des Aranéides._ Lille, 1896.

Footnote 266:

_Arch. f. Naturg._ 55 Jahrg., i., 1889, p. 29.

Footnote 267:

M‘Leod, _Bull. Ac. Belg._ (3), iii., 1882, p. 779.

Footnote 268:

_American Spiders and their Spinning Work_, ii., 1890, p. 208.

Footnote 269:

_Ann. Nat. Hist._ (3), xv., 1865, p. 459.

Footnote 270:

_Voyage of the Beagle._

Footnote 271:

_Correspondence of John Ray_, p. 77.

Footnote 272:

Warburton, _Q. J. Micr. Sci._ xxi., 1890, p. 29.

Footnote 273:

_Rep. Brit. Ass._ 1844, p. 77.

Footnote 274:

_Nature_, xl., 1889, p. 250.

Footnote 275:

See Warburton, _Quart. J. Micr. Sci._ xxi., 1890, p. 29.

Footnote 276:

_Aranéides de la Réunion, Maurice et Madagascar_, Paris, 1863, p. 238.

Footnote 277:

M‘Cook, _American Spiders and their Spinning Work_, i., 1889, p. 351;
F. O. Pickard-Cambridge, _J. Micr. and Nat. Sci._ July 1890.

Footnote 278:

Moggridge, _Harvesting Ants and Trap-door Spiders_. London, 1873, p.
120.

Footnote 279:

_Verh. Ges. Wien_, xviii., 1868, p. 905 (Abstract in _Zool. Rec._ v.,
1868, p. 175).

Footnote 280:

The figure of this cocoon has been accidentally inverted in the works
of both Blackwall and Pickard-Cambridge.

Footnote 281:

Fabre, _Nouveaux souvenirs entomologiques_, ch. xi.

Footnote 282:

_Aranéides de la Réunior, Maurice et Madagascar_, Paris, 1863, p.
xlvi.

Footnote 283:

_Hist. de la grande île de Madagascar_, 1658, p. 156.

Footnote 284:

_Science Gossip_, 1877, p. 46.

Footnote 285:

_Insect Life_, i., 1889, p. 205.

Footnote 286:

_Ann. Soc. ent. France_, xi., 1842, p. 205. Translated from the
Spanish by L. Fairmaire.

Footnote 287:

M‘Cook, _American Spiders and their Spinning Work_, ii., 1890, p. 188.

Footnote 288:

M‘Cook, _t.c._ p. 389.

Footnote 289:

_British Spiders_, 1861, p. 102.

Footnote 290:

_Ann. Nat. Hist._ (1), xi., 1843, p. 1.

Footnote 291:

_Naturalist in Nicaragua_, 2nd ed., 1888, p. 134.

Footnote 292:

_Nouveaux souvenirs entomologiques_, ch. xii.

Footnote 293:

M‘Cook, _t.c._ p. 384.

Footnote 294:

_The Naturalist in Nicaragua_, p. 19.

Footnote 295:

_Spiders of Dorset_, 1879–1881, p. 292.

Footnote 296:

_Ibid._ p. 360.

Footnote 297:

_Naturalist on the Amazon_, 1873, p. 54.

Footnote 298:

_Protective Resemblances and Mimicry in Animals_, 1873, p. 4.

Footnote 299:

_Nature_, lxviii., 1908, p. 631.

Footnote 300:

_J. Morph._ (Boston, U.S.A.) i., 1887, p. 403.

Footnote 301:

_Nature_, xxiii., 1880, p. 149.

Footnote 302:

Warburton, _Ann. Nat. Hist._ (6), viii., 1891, p. 113.

Footnote 303:

_Spiders of Dorset_, 1879–1881, p. xxvii.

Footnote 304:

_Spiders, their Structure and Habits_, 1883, p. 98.

Footnote 305:

_Sexual Selection in Spiders_, p. 37. (Occasional Papers of the Nat.
Hist. Soc. of Wisconsin, I., 1889.)

Footnote 306:

_Arachnides de France_ (vol. i., published 1874). _Histoire naturelle
des araignées_ (2nd ed. vol i., published 1892).

Footnote 307:

Simon’s Cribellatae comprise Hypochilidae, Uloboridae, Psechridae,
Zoropsidae, Dictynidae, Oecobiidae, Eresidae, Filistatidae.

Footnote 308:

The Spider genus _Mygale_ was established by Walckenaer in 1802, but
the name was preoccupied, having been used by Cuvier (Mammalia) in
1800.

Footnote 309:

_Hist. Nat. des Araignées_ (2nd ed.), i., 1892, p. 76.

Footnote 310:

The “scopula” is the pad of close-set thick hairs which covers the
under surface of the tarsus and often of the metatarsus. The
“claw-tufts” are groups of longer hairs, often extending beyond the
claws, and giving the foot a bifid appearance.

Footnote 311:

The three families mentioned above constitute the “Araneae
Theraphosae” of Simon, the remaining families being distinguished as
“Araneae Verae.” The Aviculariidae and the Atypidae are united by some
authors to form the Theraphosidae.

Footnote 312:

According to Bertkau (in a letter to Simon, cited in _Hist. Nat. des
Ar._ i. p. 327), two pairs of linear stigmata under the anterior part
of the abdomen lead, to pulmonary sacs, but to tracheae.

Footnote 313:

L. Koch replaced _Melanophora_ by _Prosthesima_, believing the former
to be preoccupied, but according to Simon (_Hist. Nat. des Ar._ i. p.
341) C. Koch’s use of _Melanophora_ for an Arachnid was antecedent
(1833) to Meigen’s employment of it for Diptera, 1838.

Footnote 314:

_Hist. Nat. des Ar._ i. p. 416.

Footnote 315:

Pickard-Cambridge, _Spiders of Dorset_, p. 77.

Footnote 316:

_Hist. Nat. des Ar._ i. p. 594.

Footnote 317:

_Hist. Nat. des Ar._ i. p. 692.

Footnote 318:

The Erigoninae, Formicinae, and Linyphiinae, together with the
Epeiridae, form Simon’s family of Argiopidae.

Footnote 319:

_I.e._ as developed in the course of the work, not as set forth on p.
594 of vol. i., where five sub-families are established
(Theridiosomatinae, Arciinae, Eurycorminae, Amazulinae, Poltyinae),
which are afterwards merged in the Argiopinae.

Footnote 320:

Simon’s treatment of this group in his _Hist. Nat. Ar._ does not
appear to us satisfactory. He revives the name _Araneus_ as a generic
term, a proceeding to which there are very valid objections, and
merges in it, in whole or in part, about twenty-five generally
received genera, including 800 species. He then proceeds to break up
the genus _Araneus_ into six entirely artificial “series,” according
to the eyes. However unsatisfactory the merged genera may be, nothing
seems to be gained by this proceeding. The facts about “Araneus” are
these. Clerck and Linnaeus used the name “_Araneus_” for every member
of the order. Latreille, in subdividing the order, retained the name
for _A._ (_Epeira_) _diademata_ (1804), but later (1827) transferred
it to _A._ (_Tegenaria_) _domestica_. Walckenaer, seeing the
impropriety of using _Araneus_ as a generic term, discarded it,
establishing _Epeira_, which has since obtained universal recognition.

Footnote 321:

Simon, in his _Histoire naturelle des araignées_, removes the
Sparassinae and the Selenopinae to the Clubionidae, considering that,
notwithstanding the direction of their legs, they have a greater
affinity with that group than with the other Thomisidae.

Footnote 322:

_Ent. Tidsskr._ xviii., 1897, p. 223, pl. iv.

Footnote 323:

_Zool. Anz._ xxiv., 1901, p. 537.

Footnote 324:

_Quart. J. Micr. Sci._ xlvii., 1904, p. 215.

Footnote 325:

_Trans. Linn. Soc._ (2), vi., 1896, p. 323.

Footnote 326:

_Nature_, xlvi., 1892, p. 247.

Footnote 327:

_Ann. Nat. Hist._ (1), xii., 1843, p. 81.

Footnote 328:

Pocock, _Nature_, lvii., 1897, p. 618.

Footnote 329:

Cook, _Nature_, lviii., 1898, p. 247.

Footnote 330:

_Öfv. Ak. Förh._ lvi., 1899, p. 977.

Footnote 331:

_Trans. Linn. Soc._ (2), vi., 1896, p. 310.

Footnote 332:

_Das Tierreich_, Berlin, 12. Lief., Arachnoidea, 1901, p. 4.

Footnote 333:

_Arachnides de France_, vii., 1879, p. 2.

Footnote 334:

_Arachnides de France_, vii., 1879, p. 5.

Footnote 335:

See Bernard, _J. Linn. Soc._ xxiv. (Zool.), 1893, p. 410.

Footnote 336:

See Bernard, _J. Linn. Soc._ xxiv. (Zool.), 1893, p. 422.

Footnote 337:

For the embryology of Chernetidea, see J. Barrois, “Mém. sur le
développement des Chélifers,” _Rev. Suisse de Zool._ iii., 1896.
Metschnikoff, _Zeitschr. wiss. Zool._ xxi., 1876, p. 514; and
Vejdovský, _Congrès zool. international de Moscou_, 1892, p. 120, may
also be consulted.

Footnote 338:

_Monograph of the British Species of Chernetidea_, Dorchester, 1892.

Footnote 339:

_Revue Zoologique par la Société Cuvierienne_, p. 10.

Footnote 340:

_Arachnides de France_, vii., 1879, p. 122.

Footnote 341:

_On two Orders of Arachnida_, Cambridge University Press, 1904.

Footnote 342:

_Mag. Nat. Hist._ (i.), xii., 1843, p. 325.

Footnote 343:

_Zool. Jahrb._ iii., 1888, p. 319.

Footnote 344:

_T. C._ pp. 67–75.

Footnote 345:

Long sternum (μῆκος = length; στῆθος = breast).

Footnote 346:

_Arachnides de France_, vii., 1879.

Footnote 347:

Transverse sternum (πλάγιος = transverse).

Footnote 348:

_Monograph of the British Phalangidea_, Dorchester, 1890.

Footnote 349:

The single exception is _Opilioacarus_, see p. 473.

Footnote 350:

_C. R. Ac. Sci._ cxxv., 1897, p. 879.

Footnote 351:

“The Biology of the Cattle Tick,” _Journ. Compar. Med. and Vet.
Archives_, 1891, p. 313.

Footnote 352:

_Entomological News_ (Philadelphia), vol. xi., Jan. 1900.

Footnote 353:

For the Protozoa to which these and similar diseases are due, cf. vol.
i. pp. 120 f.

Footnote 354:

_C. R. Soc. Biol. Paris_ (7), iv., 1882, p. 305.

Footnote 355:

_Ann. Soc. Linn. Lyon_, xxii., 1876, p. 29.

Footnote 356:

_Bull. Soc. Nat. de Moscou_, liv. 1879, pt. i. p. 234.

Footnote 357:

_Z. wiss. Zool._ xxxvii., 1882, p. 553.

Footnote 358:

_P. Z. S._, 1895, p. 174.

Footnote 359:

_Arch. f. Naturg._ i., 1876, p. 65.

Footnote 360:

_Tr. Linn. Soc._ (2), v. Zool., 1890, p. 281.

Footnote 361:

See account given by Tulk in _Mag. Nat. Hist._ xviii., 1846, p. 160.

Footnote 362:

_Entomological News_ (Philadelphia), vol. xi., Jan. 1900.

Footnote 363:

Michael, _British Oribatidae_ (Ray Soc.), i., 1883, p. 176.

Footnote 364:

_Loc. cit._ p. 168.

Footnote 365:

Claparède, _Z. wiss. Zool._ xviii., 1868, p. 455. Michael, _British
Oribatidae_, i., 1883, p. 73, writes it “Deutovium.”

Footnote 366:

_Atti Ist. Veneto_, ii., 1891, p. 699.

Footnote 367:

_Rev. Sci. Nat. Ouest_, ii., 1892, p. 20.

Footnote 368:

_Eriophyes_, v. Siebold, _Jahresber. Schles. Ges._ xxviii., 1850, p.
89; _Phytoptus_, Dujardin, _Ann. Sci. Nat._ (3), xv., 1851, p. 166.

Footnote 369:

See Michael, _British Tyroglyphidae_, published by the _Ray Society_,
1901–2.

Footnote 370:

The first paper appeared in _Mém. Soc. Zool._ ix., 1896, pp. 1–44.

Footnote 371:

“Ticks, a Monograph of the Ixodoidea.” Part I. Argasidae, 1908.

Footnote 372:

With, _Vid. Medd._ 1904, p. 137.

Footnote 373:

Silvestri, _Redia_, ii., 1904, fasc. 2, p. 257.

Footnote 374:

_Arch. mikr. Anat._ Bd. i., 1865, p. 428.

Footnote 375:

A. Basse, _Zeitschr. wiss. Zool._ lxxx., 1906, p. 259.

Footnote 376:

_Ann. Sci. nat._ (2), xiv., 1840, p. 269, and xvii., 1842, p. 193.

Footnote 377:

_Zool. Jahrb. Anat._ iii., 1889. This paper contains a bibliography.

Footnote 378:

_Morph. Jahrb._ xxii., 1895, p. 491.

Footnote 379:

_C. R. Ac. Sci._ cxviii., 1894, p. 817.

Footnote 380:

_Tr. R. Soc. Edinb._ xlv., 1908, p. 641. This contains a Bibliography
of recent literature. See also Richters, _Zool. Anz._ xxx., 1906, p.
125, and Heinis, _Zool. Anz._ xxxiii., 1908, p. 69.

Footnote 381:

_P. Zool. Soc._ 1897, p. 790.

Footnote 382:

Hay, in _P. Biol. Soc. Washington_, xix., 1906, p. 46, states that the
name _Lydella_, Dujardin, is preoccupied, and suggests as a substitute
_Microlyda_.

Footnote 383:

The animals included in this group are usually called Linguatulidae or
Pentastomidae after the two genera or sub-genera _Linguatula_ and
_Pentastoma_. But the animal which Rudolphi in 1819 (_Synopsis
Entozoorum_) named _Pentastoma_ had been described, figured, and named
_Porocephalus_ by Humboldt (_Recueil d’observations de zoologie et
anatomie comparee_, i. p. 298, pl. xxvi.) in 1811. The familiar name
_Pentastoma_ may, however, be preserved by incorporating it in the
designation of the group.

Footnote 384:

This description is mainly based on the account of _P. teretiusculus_
given by Spencer, _Quart. J. Micr. Sci._ xxxiv., 1893, p. 1.

Footnote 385:

_Zeitschr. wiss. Zool._ lii., 1891, p. 85. This contains a very full
bibliography, of 143 entries.

Footnote 386:

_Centrbl. Bakter._ xl., 1906, p. 368; v. also Thiroux, _C. R. Soc.
Biol._ lix., 1905, p. 78.

Footnote 387:

Shipley, _Arch. parasit._ i., 1898, p. 52. This contains lists of
synonyms and of memoirs published since Stiles’ paper, etc.

Footnote 388:

H. B. Ward, _P. Amer. Ass._ 1899, p. 254.

Footnote 389:

_Nouv. Dict. de méd., de chir. et d’hyg. vétérinaires_, xii. 1883.

Footnote 390:

_Tr. R. Soc. Edinb._ xxxii., 1884, p. 165.

Footnote 391:

Lohrmann, _Arch. Naturg. Jahrg._ 55, i., 1889, p. 303.

Footnote 392:

Von Linstow, _J. R. Asiat. Soc. Bengal_, ii., 1906, p. 270.

Footnote 393:

_Pycnogonides_, Latreille, 1804; _Podosomata_, Leach, 1815;
_Pychnogonides ou Crustacés aranéiformes_, Milne-Edwards, 1834;
_Crustacea Haustellata_, Johnston, 1837; _Pantopoda_, Gerstaecker,
1863.

Footnote 394:

_Syst. Nat._ ed. xii. 1767, vol. ii. p. 1027.

Footnote 395:

Brünnich’s description (“Entomologia,” 1764), is still more accurate,
and is worthy of transcription as an excellent example of early work.
“Fig. iv. Novum genus, a R[ev.] D[on.] Ström inter _phalangiis_
relatum, _Söndm._ Tom. i. p. 209, t. 1, f. 17. Exemplar hujus insecti,
quod munificentia R. Autoris possideo, ita describo; Caput cum thorace
unitum, tubo _b_ excavato cylindrico, antice angustiore, postice in
thoracem recepto, prominens; Oculi iv. dorsales, _a_, in gibbositate
thoracis positi; _c_, Antennae 2 tubo breviores moniliformes, subtus
in segmento thoracis, cui oculi insident, radicatae; segmenta
corporis, excepto tubo, iv., cum tuberculo e medio singuli segmenti
prominulo. Pedes viii., singuli ex articulis vii. brevissimis
compositi, ungue valido terminati. Ex descriptione patet insectum hoc
a generibus antea notis omnino differre, ideoque novum genus, quod e
crebris articulationibus Pycnogonum dico, constituit.” The confusion
between _Cyamus_ and _Pycnogonum_ seems to have arisen with Job
Baster, 1765; cf. Stebbing, _Knowledge_, February 1902, and
_Challenger Reports_, “Amphipods,” 1888, pp. 28, 30, etc.

Footnote 396:

Hoek, _Chall. Rep._ p. 15, mentions a specimen of _Colossendeis
gracilis_, Hoek, “furnished with a pair of distinctly three-jointed
mandibles; and the specimen was the largest of the three obtained.”

Footnote 397:

As a rare exception, Hoek has found the eggs carried on the ovigerous
legs in a single female of _Nymphon brevicaudatum_, Miers.

Footnote 398:

Meisenheimer (_Zeitsch. wiss. Zool._ lxxii., 1902, p. 235) compares
these with certain glands described in _Branchipus_ by Spangenberg and
by Claus.

Footnote 399:

Ortmann, who would unite _Barana_ with _Ascorhynchus_, observes: “Bei
dieser Gattung [_Ascorhynchus_] konnte ich die Kittdrüsen beobachten,
die bei _A. ramipes_ mit dem von _Barana castelnaudi_ [_castelli_]
Dohrn, bei _A. cryptopygius_ mit _Barana arenicola_ übereinstimmen und
also die primitivsten Formen der Ausbildung zeigen.”—_Zool. Jahrb.
Syst._ v., 1891, p. 159.

Footnote 400:

_Mém. Acad. Sci. St-Pétersb._ (vii.), xxxviii., 1892.

Footnote 401:

_Fauna und Flora G. von Neapel_, iii. Monogr. 1881, p. 46; see also
Loman, J. C. C., _Tijdschr. D. Ned. Dierk. Ver._ (2), viii., 1907, p.
259.

Footnote 402:

The dorsal lobe is absent in _Rhynchothorax_.

Footnote 403:

For a very detailed account of this mechanism, here epitomised in the
merest outline, and for an account of its modifications in diverse
forms, the student must consult Dohrn’s Monograph (_t. cit._ pp.
46–53).

Footnote 404:

Dohrn, _t. cit._ p. 55.

Footnote 405:

_Biol. Stud. Johns Hopkins Univ._ v., 1891, p. 49.

Footnote 406:

_Vergl. Entwickl. d. wirbellosen Tiere_, Jena, 1893, p. 664.

Footnote 407:

In the second joint in _Ascorhynchus abyssi_, Sars, and _A. tridens_,
Meinert.

Footnote 408:

_Biol. Bulletin Woods Holl_, vol. ii., Feb. 1901, p. 196.

Footnote 409:

_Studi e ricerche sui Picnogonidi_, Firenze, 1876.

Footnote 410:

Semper came near to discovering the fact when he saw, at Heligoland,
ripe eggs in a _Phoxichilidium_ that was, nevertheless, totally
destitute of ovigerous legs. The animal, he says, was adult and
sexually mature: “Trotzdem fehlen dem Tiere die Eierträger
vollständig; es muss sich also das Tier noch mindestens ein Mal häuten
vor der Eierablag, und dabei müssen die Eierträger gebildet werden.”
(_Arb. Inst. Würzburg_, 1874, p. 273).

Footnote 411:

The correspondence is not universally admitted. Meinert (Ingolf
Expedition, 1899) believes that the second and third appendages of the
larva disappear, and that the palps and ovigerous legs are new
developments; so giving to the normal Pycnogon nine instead of seven
appendages. See also Carpenter “On the Relationship between the
Classes of the Arthropoda,” _Proc. R. Irish Acad._ xxiv., 1903, pp.
320–360. The latest observer (Loman) inclines to the older view.

Footnote 412:

A slightly different account is given of the Australian _P.
plumulariae_ by v. Lendenfeld (_Zeitschr. wiss. Zool._ xxxviii., 1883,
pp. 323–329).

Footnote 413:

_Zur Lehre vom Generationswechsel und Fortpflanzung bei Medusen und
Polypen_, 1854.

Footnote 414:

_Rep. Brit. Ass._ 1859; cf. “Gymnoblastic Hydroids,” _Ray Soc._ pl.
vi. fig. 6.

Footnote 415:

_Trans. Tyneside Field Club_, v. (1862–3), 1864, pp. 124–136, pls.
vi., vii.; _Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist._ (3), ix., 1862, p. 33.

Footnote 416:

See also Hallez, _Arch. Zool. Exp._ (4), v., 1905, p. 3; Loman,
_Tijdschr. Ned. Dierk. Ver._ (2), x., 1906, p. 271, etc.

Footnote 417:

“On Hydroid and other Corals,” 1881, p. 78.

Footnote 418:

Hugo Mertens, _Mitth. Zool. Stat. Neapel_, xviii., 1906, pp. 136–141.

Footnote 419:

One is tempted to explain such cases as the above of harmonious or
identical coloration by the simple passage of pigments unchanged from
the food.

Footnote 420:

Fabricius says of his _Pycnogonum_ (_Nymphon_) _grossipes_, “Vescitur
insectis et vermibus marinis minutis; quod autem testas mytilorum
exhauriat mihi ignotum est, dum nunquam intra testam mytili illud
inveni, licet sit verisimile satis,” _Fauna Groenlandica_, p. 231.

Footnote 421:

Loeb (_Arch. Entw. Mech._ v. 2, 1897, p. 250) also says that the
Pycnogons are positively heliotropic.

Footnote 422:

See also P. Gaubert, “Autotomie chez les Pycnogonides,” _Bull. Soc.
Zool. Fr._ xvii., 1892, p. 224.

Footnote 423:

Cf. Carpenter, _Proc. R. Irish Acad._ xxiv., 1903, p. 320; Lankester,
_Quart. J. Micr. Sci._ xlviii., 1904, p. 223; Bouvier, _Exp. Antarct.
Fr._, “Pycnogonides,” 1907, p. 7, etc.

Footnote 424:

“Nous ne les plaçons ici qu’avec doute,” _Règne Anim._ éd. 3, tom. vi.
p. 298.

Footnote 425:

Cf. also J. E. W. Ihle, “Phylogenie und systematische Stellung der
Pantopoden,” _Biol. Centralbl._, Bd. xviii., 1898, pp. 603–609;
Meisenheimer, _Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien_, xii., 1902, pp. 57–64;
also Stebbing, in _Knowledge_, 1902.

Footnote 426:

The chelate form of the foremost appendages is of little moment. A
chela consists merely of a more or less mobile terminal joint flexing
on a more or less protuberant penultimate one, and in the Scorpions,
in _Limulus_, throughout the Crustacea, and even in Insects (cf. vol.
vi. p. 554), we see such a structure arising independently on very
diverse appendages.

Footnote 427:

Cf. Oudemans, _Tijdschr. d. Ned. Dierk. Ver._ (2), i., 1886, p. 41:
“Jedermann weiss nun, dass diese Tiere eine ganz besondere Urgruppe
bilden, ohne alle Verwandschaft mit irgend einer anderen
Arthropodengruppe.”

Footnote 428:

Cole (_Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist._ (7), xv., 1905, pp. 405–415) has
attempted such a phylogenetic classification, starting with
_Decolopoda_, and leading in two divergent lines, through _Nymphon_
and _Pallene_ to the Pycnogonidae, and through _Eurycide_ and
_Ammothea_ to _Colossendeis_. This hint is in part adopted in the
subjoined classification. Bouvier, in his recent Report on the
Pycnogons of the French Antarctic Expedition (_t. cit._), gives
reasons for separating the Decolopodidae and Colossendeidae from all
the rest. Loman, in _Die Pantopoden der Siboga Expedition_, 1908, has
recently suggested another, and in many respects novel, classification
of the whole group.

Footnote 429:

See (_inter alia_) Dohrn, _l.c._; E. B. Wilson, _Rep. U.S. Fish.
Comm._ (1878), 1880; Hoek, _Chall. Report_, 1881; G. O. Sars, _Norw.
N. Atl. Exp._ 1891; Meinert, _Ingolf Exped._ 1899; Möbius, _Fauna
Arctica_, 1901, _Valdivia Exped._ 1902; Cole, _Harriman Alaska Exped._
1904; Hodgson, _Discovery Exped._ 1907; Bouvier, _Exp. Antarct. Fr._
1907.

Footnote 430:

_Boston Journ. Nat. Hist._ i., 1834, p. 203; Cf. Hodgson, _Pr. R.
Phys. Soc. Edinburgh_, xvi., 1905, p. 35; _Zool. Anz._ xxv., 1905, p.
254; _Discovery Exp._, “Pycnogonida,” 1907; Bouvier, _Exp. Antarct.
Fr._ 1907.

Footnote 431:

See pp. 535, 541. Cf. Dohrn (_t. cit._), p. 228.

Footnote 432:

The first known species was described as _Phoxichilus proboscideus_,
Sabine, from the shores of the North Georgian Islands (1821).

Footnote 433:

Pocock (_Encycl. Brit._, 10th ed., Art. “Arachnida”) makes _Hannonia_
the solitary type of a family. Cf. Loman, _Zool. Jahrb._, Syst., xx.,
1904, p. 385.

Footnote 434:

Loman conjoins all these genera, and also _Lecythorhynchus_, with
_Nymphopsis_, as a sub-family Nymphopsinae of Ammotheidae.

Footnote 435:

_Edinb. New Phil. Journal_, Oct. 1842, p. 367 (_P. capillata_ on
Plate).

Footnote 436:

_Proc. Boston Nat. Hist. Society_, vol. i., 1841–44, p. 92.

Footnote 437:

Found by Sir John Ross’s expedition in 1840, and subsequently by the
_Challenger_ expedition and other visitors.

Footnote 438:

Stebbing has recently shown (_Knowledge_, Aug. 1902, p. 157) that the
genus _Phoxichilus_ was instituted by Latreille (_Nouv. Dict. d’hist.
nat._ 1804) for the _Pycnogonum spinipes_ of Fabricius, now
_Pseudopallene spinipes_, auctt. Hence he changes _Pseudopallene_ to
_Phoxichilus_, Latr., and Phoxichilidae and _Phoxichilus_, auctt., to
Chilophoxidae, etc.; it also follows that the family known to all
naturalists as Pallenidae should, according to the letter of the law
of priority, be henceforth known as the Phoxichilidae. In my opinion
this is a case where strict adherence to priority would serve no good
end, but would only lead to great and lasting confusion (cf. Norman,
_J. Linn. Soc._ xxx., 1908, p. 231).

Footnote 439:

_Vide_ note 2, p. 537.

Footnote 440:

_Mag. Nat. Hist._ vi., 1838, p. 42; _Mag. Zool. and Bot._ i., 1837, p.
368.

Footnote 441:

_Edinb. New Phil. Journ._ xxxii., 1842, p. 136; xxxiii., 1842, p. 367;
_Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist._ (1), xiv., 1844, p. 4.

Footnote 442:

_Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist._ (3), xiii., 1864, p. 113.

Footnote 443:

_Proc. R. Dublin Soc._ (N.S.), viii., 1893, p. 195; _Fisheries,
Ireland, Sci. Invest._ 1904, No. iv. (1905).

Footnote 444:

Cf. A. M. Norman, _J. Linn. Soc._ xxx., 1908, pp. 198–238.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE CAMBRIDGE NATURAL HISTORY

Edited by S. F. HARMER, Sc.D., F.R.S., and A. E. SHIPLEY, M.A., F.R.S.

In Ten Volumes. Fully Illustrated. Medium 8vo.

17s. net each.

_FIELD._—“The Cambridge Natural History series of volumes is one of
very great value to all students of biological science. The books are
not intended for popular reading, but for utilisation by those who are
desirous of making themselves thoroughly acquainted with the branches
of zoology of which they treat.”

VOLUME I.

=Protozoa=, by MARCUS HARTOG, M.A., D.Sc.; =Porifera=
(=Sponges=), by IGERNA B. J. SOLLAS, B.Sc.; =Coelenterata
and Ctenophora=, by S. J. HICKSON, M.A., F.R.S.;
=Echinodermata=, by E. W. MACBRIDE, M.A., F.R.S.

_FIELD._—“The book can be in the strongest manner recommended to those
for whose benefit it has been written. We know of no work from which a
more truly scientific account of the Protozoa, Echinodermata, and
other lower forms of animal life could be gained.”

VOLUME II.

=Flatworms and Mesozoa=, by F. W. GAMBLE, D.Sc.;
=Nemertines=, by Miss L. SHELDON; =Threadworms and
Sagitta=, by A. E. SHIPLEY, M.A., F.R.S.; =Rotifers=, by
MARCUS HARTOG, M.A., D.Sc.; =Polychaet Worms=, by W. BLAXLAND
BENHAM, D.Sc., M.A.; =Earthworms and Leeches=, by F. E.
BEDDARD, M.A., F.R.S.; =Gephyrea and Phoronis=, by A. E.
SHIPLEY, M.A., F.R.S.; =Polyzoa=, by S. F. HARMER, Sc.D.,
F.R.S.

_CAMBRIDGE REVIEW._—“Most of the articles are of a very high order of
merit—taken as a whole, it may be said that they are by far the best
which have as yet been published.... We may say with confidence that
the same amount of information, within the same compass, is to be had
in no other zoological work.”

VOLUME III.

=Molluscs=, by the Rev. A. H. COOKE, M.A.; =Brachiopods=
(=Recent=), by A. E. SHIPLEY, M.A., F.R.S.; =Brachiopods=
(=Fossil=), by F. R. C. REED, M.A.

_TIMES._—“There are very many, not only among educated people who take
an interest in science, but even among specialists, who will welcome a
work of reasonable compass and handy form containing a trustworthy
treatment of the various departments of Natural History by men who are
familiar with, and competent to deal with, the latest results of
scientific research. Altogether, to judge from this first volume, the
Cambridge Natural History promises to fulfil all the expectations that
its prospectus holds out.”

VOLUME IV.

=Crustacea=, by GEOFFREY W. SMITH, M.A., and the late W. F. R.
WELDON, M.A.; =Trilobites=, by HENRY WOODS, M.A.;
=Introduction to Arachnida, and King-Crabs=, by A. E. SHIPLEY,
M.A., F.R.S.; =Eurypterida=, by HENRY WOODS, M.A.;
=Scorpions, Spiders, Mites, Ticks, etc.=, by CECIL WARBURTON,
M.A.; =Tardigrada= (=Water-Bears=), by A. E. SHIPLEY,
M.A., F.R.S.; =Pentastomida=, by A. E. SHIPLEY, M.A., F.R.S.;
=Pycnogonida=, by D’ARCY W. THOMPSON, C.B., M.A.

VOLUME V.

=Peripatus=, by ADAM SEDGWICK, M.A., F.R.S.; =Myriapods=, by
F. G. SINCLAIR, M.A.; =Insects=, Part I., =Introduction,
Aptera, Orthoptera, Neuroptera, and a portion of Hymenoptera=
(=Sessiliventres and Parasitica=), by DAVID SHARP, M.A., M.B.,
F.R.S.

_Prof. RAPHAEL MELDOLA, F.R.S., F.C.S., in his Presidential Address to
the Entomological Society of London, said_:—“The authors of this
volume are certainly to be congratulated upon having furnished such a
valuable contribution to our literature. When its successor appears,
and I will venture to express the hope that this will be at no very
distant period, we shall be in possession of a treatise on the natural
history of insects which, from the point of view of the general
reader, will compare most favourably with any similar work that has
been published in the English language.”

VOLUME VI.

=Hymenoptera= (_continued_) (=Tubulifera and Aculeata=),
=Coleoptera, Strepsiptera, Lepidoptera, Diptera, Aphaniptera,
Thysanoptera, Hemiptera, Anoplura=, by DAVID SHARP, M.A., M.B.,
F.R.S.

_SATURDAY REVIEW._—“Dr. Sharp’s treatment is altogether worthy of the
series and of his own high scientific reputation.... Certainly this is
a book that should be in every entomologist’s library.”

VOLUME VII.

=Hemichordata=, by S. F. HARMER, Sc.D., F.R.S.; =Ascidians and
Amphioxus=, by W. A. HERDMAN, D.Sc., F.R.S.; =Fishes=
(=exclusive of the Systematic Account of Teleostei=), by T. W.
BRIDGE, Sc.D., F.R.S.; =Fishes= (=Systematic Account of
Teleostei=), by G. A. BOULENGER, F.R.S.

_ATHENÆUM._—“All who take a serious interest in the advance of
ichthyology will find this a fascinating book.”

VOLUME VIII.

=Amphibia and Reptiles=, by HANS GADOW, M.A., F.R.S.

_NATURE._—“In concluding the review we would express the opinion that
by this handsome volume a very important addition to science has been
made; that the beautiful illustrations, together with the clear and
charming accounts of the life-histories which it contains, will do
much to popularise the study of a rather neglected section of zoology;
and that lovers of Reptiles, of which there are more than one
generally thinks, will feel that the new knowledge imparted to them
emanates from one who is thoroughly in sympathy with their
enthusiasm.”

VOLUME IX.

=Birds=, by A. H. EVANS, M.A.

_IBIS._—“Mr. Evans has produced a book full of concentrated essence of
information on birds, especially as regards their outer structure and
habits, and one that we can cordially recommend as a work of reference
to all students of ornithology.”

VOLUME X.

=Mammalia=, by FRANK EVERS BEDDARD, M.A., F.R.S.

_NATURE._—“Cannot fail to be of very high value to all students of the
Mammalia, especially from the standpoints of morphology and
palæontology.”

LONDON: MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

1. Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and variations in spelling. 2. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed. 3. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_. 4. Enclosed bold or blackletter font in =equals=. 5. Denoted superscripts by a caret before a single superscript character or a series of superscripted characters enclosed in curly braces, e.g. M^r. or M^{ister}. 6. Denoted subscripts by an underscore before a series of subscripted characters enclosed in curly braces, e.g. H_{2}O.