Leaving that question for consideration in connexion with the systematic statement of the characters of the various groups of Arachnida which follows on p. 299, it is well now to consider the following question, viz., seeing that Limulus and Scorpio are such highly developed and specialized forms, and that they seem to constitute as it were the first and second steps in the series of recognized Arachnida—what do we know, or what are we led to suppose with regard to the more primitive Arachnida from which the Eurypterines and Limulus and Scorpio have sprung? Do we know in the recent or fossil condition any such primitive Arachnids? Such a question is not only legitimate, but prompted by the analogy of at least one other great class of Arthropods. The great Arthropod class, the Crustacea, presents to the zoologist at the present day an immense range of forms,comprising the primitive phyllopods, the minute copepods, the parasitic cirrhipedes and the powerful crabs and lobsters, and the highly elaborated sand-hoppers and slaters. It has been insisted, by those who accepted Lankester’s original doctrine of the direct or genetic affinity of the Chaetopoda and Arthropoda, that Apus and Branchipus really come very near to the ancestral forms which connected those two great branches of Appendiculate (Parapodiate) animals. On the other hand, the land crabs are at an immense distance from these simple forms. The record of the Crustacean family-tree is, in fact, a fairly complete one—the lower primitive members of the group are still represented by living forms in great abundance. In the case of the Arachnida, if we have to start their genealogical history with Limulus and Scorpio, we are much in the same position as we should be in dealing with the Crustacea, were the whole of the Entomostraca and the whole of the Arthrostraca wiped out of existence and record. There is no possibility of doubt that the series of forms corresponding in the Arachnidan line of descent, to the forms distinguished in the Crustacean line of descent as the lower grade—the Entomostraca—have ceased to exist, and not only so, but have left little evidence in the form of fossils as to their former existence and nature. It must, however, be admitted as probable that we should find some evidence, in ancient rocks or in the deep sea, of the early more primitive Arachnids. And it must be remembered that such forms must be expected to exhibit, when found, differences from Limulus and Scorpio as great as those which separate Apus and Cancer. The existing Arachnida, like the higher Crustacea, are “nomomeristic,” that is to say, have a fixed typical number of somites to the body. Further, they are like the higher Crustacea, “somatotagmic,” that is to say, they have this limited set of somites grouped in three (or more) “tagmata” or regions of a fixed number of similarly modified somites—each tagma differing in the modification of its fixed number of somites from that characterizing a neighbouring “tagma.” The most primitive among the lower Crustacea, on the other hand, for example, the Phyllopoda, have not a fixed number of somites, some genera—even allied species—have more, some less, within wide limits; they are “anomomeristic.” They also, as is generally the case with anomomeristic animals, do not exhibit any conformity to a fixed plan of “tagmatism” or division of the somites of the body into regions sharply marked off from one another; the head or prosomatic tagma is followed by a trunk consisting of somites which either graduate in character as we pass along the series or exhibit a large variety in different genera, families and orders, of grouping of the somites. They are anomotagmic, as well as anomomeristic.
When it is admitted—as seems to be reasonable—that the primitive Arachnida would, like the primitive Crustacea, be anomomeristic and anomotagmic, we shall not demand of claimants for the rank of primitive Arachnids agreement with Limulus and Scorpio in respect of the exact number of their somites and the exact grouping of those somites; and when we see how diverse are the modifications of the branches of the appendages both in Arachnida and in other classes of Arthropoda (q.v.), we shall not over-estimate a difference in the form of this or that appendage exhibited by the claimant as compared with the higher Arachnids. With those considerations in mind, the claim of the extinct group of the trilobites to be considered as representatives of the lower and more primitive steps in the Arachnidan genealogy must, it seems, receive a favourable judgment. They differ from the Crustacea in that they have only a single pair of prae-oral appendages, the second pair being definitely developed as mandibles. This fact renders their association with the Crustacea impossible, if classification is to be the expression of genetic affinity inferred from structural coincidence. On the contrary, this particular point is one in which they agree with the higher Arachnida. But little is known of the structure of these extinct animals; we are therefore compelled to deal with such special points of resemblance and difference as their remains still exhibit. They had lateral eyes5which resemble no known eyes so closely as the lateral eyes of Limulus. The general form and structure of their prosomatic carapace are in many striking features identical with that of Limulus. The trilobation of the head and body—due to the expansion and flattening of the sides or “pleura” of the tegumentary skeleton—is so closely repeated in the young of Limulus that the latter has been called “the trilobite stage” of Limulus (fig. 42 compared with fig. 41). No Crustacean exhibits this trilobite form. But most important of the evidences presented by the trilobites of affinity with Limulus, and therefore with the Arachnida, is the tendency less marked in some, strongly carried out in others, to form a pygidial or telsonic shield—a fusion of the posterior somites of the body, which is precisely identical in character with the metasomatic carapace of Limulus. When to this is added the fact that a post-anal spine is developed to a large size in some trilobites (fig. 38), like that of Limulus and Scorpio, and that lateral spines on the pleura of the somites are frequent as in Limulus, and that neither metasomatic fusion of somites nor post-anal spine, nor lateral pleural spines are found in any Crustacean, nor all three together in any Arthropod besides the trilobites and Limulus—the claim of the trilobites to be considered as representing one order of a lower grade of Arachnida, comparable to the grade Entomostraca of the Crustacea, seems to be established.
The fact that the single pair of prae-oral appendages of trilobites, known only as yet in one genus, is in that particular case a pair of uni-ramose antennae—does not render the association of trilobites and Arachnids improbable. Although the prae-oral pair of appendages in the higher Arachnida is usually chelate, it is not always so; in spiders it is not so; nor in many Acari. The bi-ramose structure of the post-oral limbs, demonstrated by Beecher in the trilobite Triarthrus, is no more inconsistent with its claim to be a primitive Arachnid than is the foliaceous modification of the limbs in Phyllopods inconsistent with their relationship to the Arthrostracous Crustaceans such as Gammarus and Oniscus.
Thus, then, it seems that we have in the trilobites the representatives of the lower phases of the Arachnidan pedigree. The simple anomomeristic trilobite, with its equi-formal somites and equi-formal appendages, is one term of the series which ends in the even more simple but degenerate Acari. Between the two and at the highest point of the arc, so far as morphological differentiation is concerned, stands the scorpion; near to it in the trilobite’s direction (that is, on the ascending side) are Limulus and the Eurypterines—with a long gap, due to obliteration of the record, separating them from the trilobite. On theother side—tending downwards from the scorpion towards the Acari—are the Pedipalpi, the spiders, the book-scorpions, the harvest-men and the water-mites.
The strange nobody-crabs or Pycnogonids occupy a place on the ascending half of the arc below the Eurypterines and Limulus. They are strangely modified and degenerate, but seem to be (as explained in the systematic review) the remnant of an Arachnidan group holding the same relation to the scorpions which the Laemodipoda hold to the Podophthalmate Crustacea.
We have now to offer a classification of the Arachnida and to pass in review the larger groups, with a brief statement of their structural characteristics.
In the bibliography at the close of this article (referred to by leaded arabic numerals in brackets throughout these pages), the titles of works are given which contain detailed information as to the genera and species of each order or sub-order, their geographical distribution and their habits and economy so far as they have been ascertained. The limits of space do not permit of a fuller treatment of those matters here.
Tabular Classification6of the Arachnida.
Class. ARACHNIDA.
Grade A. ANOMOMERISTICA.Sub-Class. TRILOBITAE.Orders. Not satisfactorily determined.Grade B. NOMOMERISTICA.Sub-Class I. PANTOPODA.Order 1. Nymphonomorpha.Order 2. Ascorhynchomorpha.Order 3. Pycnogonomorpha.Sub-Class II. EU-ARACHNIDA.Gradea.delobranchia, Lankester (velhydropneustea, Pocock).Order 1. Xiphosura.Order 2. Gigantostraca.Gradeb.embolobranchia, Lankester (velaeropneustea, Pocock).Section α. Pectinifera.Order 1. Scorpionidea.Sub-ordera.Apoxypoda.Sub-orderb.Dionychopoda.Section β. Epectinata.Order 2. Pedipalpi.Sub-ordera.Uropygi.Tribe 1. Urotricha.Tribe 2. Tartarides.Sub-orderb.Amblypygi.Order 3. Araneae.Sub-ordera.Mesothelae.Sub-orderb.Opisthothelae.Tribe 1. Mygalomorphae.Tribe 2. Arachnomorphae.Order 4. Palpigradi (= Microthelyphonidae).Order 5. Solifugae (= Mycetophorae).Order 6. Pseudoscorpiones (= Chelonethi).Sub-ordera.Panctenodactyli.Sub-orderb.Hemirtenodactyli.Order 7. Podogona (= Ricinulel).Order 8. Opiliones.Sub-ordera.Laniatores.Sub-orderb.Palpatores.Sub-orderc.Anepignathi.Order 9. Rhynchostomi (= Acari).Sub-ordera.Notostigmata.Sub-orderb.Cryptostigmata.Sub-orderc.Metastigmata.Sub-orderd.Prostigmata.Sub-ordere.Astigmata.Sub-orderf.Vermiformia.Sub-orderg.Tetrapoda.
Grade A. ANOMOMERISTICA.
Sub-Class. TRILOBITAE.
Orders. Not satisfactorily determined.
Grade B. NOMOMERISTICA.
Sub-Class I. PANTOPODA.
Order 1. Nymphonomorpha.
Order 2. Ascorhynchomorpha.
Order 3. Pycnogonomorpha.
Sub-Class II. EU-ARACHNIDA.
Gradea.delobranchia, Lankester (velhydropneustea, Pocock).
Order 1. Xiphosura.
Order 2. Gigantostraca.
Gradeb.embolobranchia, Lankester (velaeropneustea, Pocock).
Section α. Pectinifera.
Order 1. Scorpionidea.
Sub-ordera.Apoxypoda.
Sub-orderb.Dionychopoda.
Section β. Epectinata.
Order 2. Pedipalpi.
Sub-ordera.Uropygi.
Tribe 1. Urotricha.
Tribe 2. Tartarides.
Sub-orderb.Amblypygi.
Order 3. Araneae.
Sub-ordera.Mesothelae.
Sub-orderb.Opisthothelae.
Tribe 1. Mygalomorphae.
Tribe 2. Arachnomorphae.
Order 4. Palpigradi (= Microthelyphonidae).
Order 5. Solifugae (= Mycetophorae).
Order 6. Pseudoscorpiones (= Chelonethi).
Sub-ordera.Panctenodactyli.
Sub-orderb.Hemirtenodactyli.
Order 7. Podogona (= Ricinulel).
Order 8. Opiliones.
Sub-ordera.Laniatores.
Sub-orderb.Palpatores.
Sub-orderc.Anepignathi.
Order 9. Rhynchostomi (= Acari).
Sub-ordera.Notostigmata.
Sub-orderb.Cryptostigmata.
Sub-orderc.Metastigmata.
Sub-orderd.Prostigmata.
Sub-ordere.Astigmata.
Sub-orderf.Vermiformia.
Sub-orderg.Tetrapoda.