Apocalypsis Journal of Traditional

Studies Easter Vol 1 Various

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/apocalypsis-journal-of-traditional-studies-easter-vol-1-
various/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Southern Literary Messenger Vol II No 1 December

1835 Various Various

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-southern-literary-messenger-
vol-ii-no-1-december-1835-various-various/

Flight Journal magazine Vol 28 no 1 January February

2021 1st Edition Staff

https://textbookfull.com/product/flight-journal-magazine-
vol-28-no-1-january-february-2021-1st-edition-staff/

Critical Historical Studies Vol 7 Num 1 1st Edition

Critical Historical Studies

https://textbookfull.com/product/critical-historical-studies-
vol-7-num-1-1st-edition-critical-historical-studies/

CFA 2020 Level 1 Volume 1 Ethics and Quantitative

Methods Various

https://textbookfull.com/product/cfa-2020-level-1-volume-1-
ethics-and-quantitative-methods-various/
Oxford studies in philosophy of religion (Vol.7) 1st
Edition Kvanvig

https://textbookfull.com/product/oxford-studies-in-philosophy-of-
religion-vol-7-1st-edition-kvanvig/

Assassination Classroom Vol 1 Yusei Matsui

https://textbookfull.com/product/assassination-classroom-
vol-1-yusei-matsui/

Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, Twentieth

Edition (Vol.1 & Vol.2) J. Larry Jameson Et Al.

https://textbookfull.com/product/harrisons-principles-of-
internal-medicine-twentieth-edition-vol-1-vol-2-j-larry-jameson-
et-al/

Automatic Society Vol 1 The Future of Work Bernard

Stiegler

https://textbookfull.com/product/automatic-society-vol-1-the-
future-of-work-bernard-stiegler/

Manufacturing Technology Vol 1 5th Edition Rao

https://textbookfull.com/product/manufacturing-technology-
vol-1-5th-edition-rao/
Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed Nomini tuo da gloriam

ApocalypsiS
Journal of Traditional Studies

Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed Nomini tuo da gloriam

 APOCALYPSIS

Apocalypsis is a journal for the Dark Age, reflecting the light of the
Golden Age. Apocalypsis publishes essays on symbolism, metaphysics,
and esotericism from the view of the Primordial Tradition. It also
publishes articles on what can be considered traditional studies, including
pieces on doctrine, history, and contemporary analysis. Apocalypsis
operates primarily from the perspective of the Western Tradition, within
which the Catholic holds pre-eminence.
Our intention is to provide a place for collaboration in the field of
traditional studies, furthering knowledge of the Primordial Tradition, its
expression in the Western Tradition, and the esoteric heart of Tradition.
We also seek to provide a place to publish analysis of the modern
deviation in terms of Tradition, documenting the vectors of the
Antichrist’s action and the reign of quantity.
We accept essays on those subjects that can be considered a part of
traditional studies. Authors need not be well known or published, for in
some way Apocalypsis can be considered ‘developmental’. Pseudonyms
are welcome and encouraged, as we have no pretensions of ‘originality’
or worldly import.

For enquiries and to contribute: apocalypsisjournal@protonmail.com

https://apocalypsisjournal.wordpress.com
 CONTENTS
Editorial……………………………………………………………………………………1.

Jan de Maansnijder
On the Unity of Destruction and Transformation………….………….…….…….2.

Reinhold Wölfersheim
The Origins of Innate Social Traits..………...………………………………………..8.

Dionicio Mendoza
The Woman and the Serpent..………………………………………………………...13.

Iohannes Spinell
VISITA INTERIOR TERRAE: On Alchemy and Modern Science…………..17.

Jean Borella
René Guénon and the Crisis of the Modern World. ……………………………..33.
 Editorial
Easter Issue Vol. 1
In this inaugural issue of Apocalypsis, we present essays on the general theme
of apocalypse, modernity, and transformation of the self and the world. Many things
have already been said about these things, but as we have no pretense of being
original this is of no importance. We hope that these writings will help the reader
expand their theoretical framework, so that he can be better prepared for the
performance of the spiritual work. For indeed we believe it to be a good reminder
that these words can be nothing more than preparation, and that this theoretical
knowledge is of no use on its own. These writings are then not an exercise in
creativity or a fun academic pastime, but rather true attempts at expressing profound
metaphysical truths. Let the reader take heed of this warning and proceed.

Jan de Maansnijder writes at https://esoterictraditionalism.wordpress.com/

A collection of his essays is published under the title of Noumenal Reflections.

Iohannes Spinell writes at https://sensuscatholicus.jimdofree.com/

Jean Borella is an academic and prolific traditionalist author from France.

His books can be found in some major booksellers. A small selection have been
translated into English. His essay here is previously untranslated.

1
 On the Unity of Destruction and
Transformation
Jan de Maansnijder
he concepts of ‘destruction’ and ‘transformation’ are much used throughout

T traditional literature, with connotations ranging from negative to neutral to

positive. Many confusions have arisen from a misunderstanding of these
concepts. Here we wish to dispel these confusions by giving a proper
exposition of the various meanings and significances of these concepts.

Let us begin with the concept of destruction. There are two ways to conceive
of destruction. For either we think it to be a composite thing breaking down into its
constituent parts, or we think it to be a whole thing becoming nothing. In the first
conception we consider the thing relative to its own domain, in the second
conception relative to another domain, whether higher or lower. For example, let us
consider the destruction of the human body. For we see on the one hand that at death
the body begins to decompose, and starts to become one with the earth, from which
it had come. And when the flesh is entirely gone and only the bones remain we
consider the corpse to be destroyed, although some also resort to the burning of the
bones to entirely return the corpse to dust and ash. Thus we say that the composite
body has broken down into its constituent parts. On the other hand we see that the
presence of the corpse disappearing from the corporeal domain is its return to its
principal state, which may be called ‘seed’ or ‘egg’, which is in this case present in
the psychic domain. For the psychic domain ‘surrounds’ the corporeal domain, and
thus serves as its ‘ground’ or ‘basis’. And thus the saying that things ‘return to their
elements’ may be interpreted in both of the two ways we have named. For either we
say that things return to their elements, i.e. their corporeal constituents, or we say
that elements means the incorporeal elements which combine to form corporeal
things. And it is then said that the thing returns to ‘nothing’, for the one domain
serves truly as a ‘nothing’ for another, for the thing that disappears in the one appears
in the other and vice versa. And by this consideration the saying ‘nothing comes
from nothing, nothing returns to nothing’. For by the first nothing is signified here
the corporeal, which is nothing relative to its psychic principle, and by the second
nothing is precisely signified this principle or seed, which the corporeal considers as
nothing.

To summarise then, there is a double conception of destruction, the first

considered in its own domain, the second considered in relation to another. In the
2
first the thing destroyed returns to the constituent parts of its proper domain, in the
second it returns to its seed or principle in the ‘prior’ domain. Further we might add,
somewhat needless perhaps, that we have spoken only of composite things being
destroyed, as in our interpretation simple things cannot be destroyed, as they have
neither parts out of which they are composed nor strictly speaking principles from
which they arise.

Let us then move on to the concept of transformation. There are also, perhaps
not surprisingly, two ways to conceive of transformation. For either we think it to be
a being moving from one form to another, or we think it to be a being transcending
its form altogether. Again in the first conception we consider it relative to the domain
in which the form is already present, and in the second we consider it relative to
another domain. But we have here a somewhat more limited option of domains, as
all form is properly situated in the psychic domain. For quality belongs to the
psychic, and to the corporeal belongs only quantity. And of course by ‘form’ is
nothing other meant than an assemblage of qualities. Thus in the first conception of
transformation it is always conceived of as taking place entirely in the psychic
domain (and then perhaps only in the corporeal as a derivative from this), while in
the second conception it is always a movement ‘out of’ the psychic domain, towards
the spiritual, i.e. the in- or supra-formal domain. But the first kind of transformation
is often used as a symbol of the second kind of transformation, perhaps most
famously in Apuleius’ Golden Ass. Lucius is first transformed into an ass,
representing the base, lowly human state, and is later returned to his human state by
a first initiation, by which we interpret the return to the ‘original’ human state, and
is later initiated again, by which he overcomes also this state and attains the truly
supraformal state, for he becomes a ‘shrine-bearer’, and as the shrine is considered
the house of the god, we might as well say it is equivalent to ‘god-bearer’, or the
Christopher that crosses the Waters.

To summarise this then, we have a double conception of transformation as

well. The first conception is a being first inhabiting one form, and then another, and
this takes place properly speaking in the psychic domain, while the second
conception is a being transcending form altogether, and this is properly speaking a
movement from the psychic to the spiritual.

Hoping to have given then a decent explanation of the multiple meanings of

the concepts of destruction and transformation, we shall attempt to show how they
are united and how this united concept is used throughout various traditions, both
microcosmically, i.e. concerning man, and macrocosmically, i.e. concerning the
world. First let us unite the first interpretation of the two concepts. A being can only

3
move from one form to another when its first form is broken down into its constituent
parts and then rebuilt into another form. We see then that destruction is here the one
face of the transformation, the other being the reconstruction or the rebirth (and death
is also often used as a synonym for destruction). Let us then unite the second
interpretations of the two concepts. A being can only transcend its form entirely
when its form becomes nothing (and this is also the meaning of humility). Here again
destruction is one of the faces of transformation, namely the face seen from the
viewpoint of manifestation, while the other face is only seen from the principal
viewpoint. So in both the interpretations we see that destruction becomes the face of
transformation, and then more precisely the face that we see from our conditioned
state. Thus while we are in this state, it is especially appropriate that transformation
is signified by destruction, as it is how transformation appears to us.

Now that we have shown how destruction and transformation are united, the
former being the face of the latter, we will consider some applications of this
conception, first applied to man, then applied to the world. Let us take for example
the human soul. It is a fact that some of the Fathers of the Church have used the
language of ‘destruction’ or even ‘annihilation’ to describe the movement to or even
the posthumous state itself of the damned. If we interpret these words in the sense in
which we described them in the first part of this essay, it would of course be nonsense
to ascribe to these Fathers the idiotic heresy of ‘Annihilationism’, which teaches that
the damned souls are utterly destroyed. But such a thing is idiotic, precisely because
there is no such thing as ‘utter destruction’, and this is clear when we recall the
simple truth that nothing returns to nothing. It is evident that when the Fathers use
such language they are simply referring to the ‘negative’ face of the ‘infernal
transformation’ that these souls undertake. And here we interpret transformation in
the first sense, not the sense of ‘transcendence’. For these souls in fact by this
transformation lose their opening to transcendence, and become wholly locked or
chained into their form. And we can see the reverse case also, namely where the
Fathers use the term ‘apokatastasis’, which is interpreted by some heretics as
meaning ‘universal salvation’. For indeed it is true that in the end of this world all
things will be ‘restituted’ or ‘restored’, in the sense that all things will be destroyed,
i.e. will return to nothing, or their principles. But those who have made their
principle the Devil will obviously not come to be as rational seeds in the Word of
God, but will rather serve in the infernal army. For it is the greatest freedom that is
given to man, that he is able to choose who he serves, i.e. who he makes his prince,
i.e. principle. And so some shut themselves off from the higher influences and are
transformed (in the first sense) into darkness, and some escape through the narrow
hole of their soul and are transformed (in the second sense) into light. And with this
doctrine in mind we might also properly interpret what is meant by ‘whoever loves

4
or wishes to save his soul will lose it, and whoever hates or wishes to lose his soul
(in this world) will keep it (in eternity)’. For the one that hates his soul in this world
(i.e. in its current domain, i.e. the psychic), will destroy it in that domain and thus
will be transformed into the spiritual domain, i.e. in eternity, which is above time
and thus also above form (for time is a condition only applied to the corporeal and
psychic domains). And the one that loves his soul or wishes to keep it in its current
state, i.e. in the psychic domain, will eventually lose it, i.e. close off the window of
escape into transcendence he had and be locked into the psychic, i.e. be stuck in the
mire. I suppose this is enough about the meanings of ‘destruction’ and
‘transformation’ on the human soul for now.

We will now show some macrocosmical applications of these concepts. We

have in the preceding paragraph already shortly touched on the ‘restoration of all
things’, but there it was in the connection with the individual souls of men. Now we
shall consider it in itself. All of us know that at the end of time this world will be
destroyed. And we also know that there will come a new heaven and a new earth.
From our prior considerations we now see how this all makes sense. For the
destruction or death of the old world is the one face of the transformation of the
cosmos, the other being the creation or birth of the new heaven and earth. And it is
especially proper that a transformed world is made for the inhabitation of the
transformed souls. It is furthermore no surprise that this is called a ‘restoration’,
because the world to come will be as perfect as the world which was originally
created by God, and the angelic offices now left empty by the fallen angels will be
filled with the ranks of the saints. Note also that the domain of the air, i.e. the
psychic, is not recreated, for the transformed souls have no use for this. This domain
is also called the ‘outer darkness’, which is neither destroyed nor recreated, because
it already is ‘nothing’. But lest I overstep the bounds of proper exposition I will end
this paragraph on the Apocalypse and Apocatastasis.

Let us then close our discussion by furnishing a sort of combination of the

microcosmic and macrocosmic perspectives. It is often said that the blessed are
‘dead to the world’, and in the lives of the saints we also often see that the world is
‘destroyed’ (at least, for them, in a vision or otherwise). We can easily interpret these
things from our view on the concept of destruction or death. For if the soul (indeed
it is the soul we speak of, for the body is still obviously in the world) is ‘dead to the
world’, this simply means that it is ‘destroyed in its own domain (i.e. the psychic)’,
and as this destruction is but the appearance of the transformation, we know that on
the other side it is reborn in heaven. And vice versa if the world becomes dead or
destroyed to the saint, it is because the soul has transcended it and sees it subsumed
into a single pillar of light and made into nothing. The saint and the world thus

5
become nothing for each other, because there is no longer any intercourse between
them. Of course, there still remains a great difference between these two states. For
the saint contains in himself all the lower states, and may thus choose to remain ‘in
the world’ while not being ‘of the world’, because he no longer is conditioned by it,
while the worldly man is trapped down here. May the world then be destroyed by
the consuming flames of ardent love and may our souls become wholly turned into
flame.

6
7
 The Origins of Innate Social Traits
Reinhold Wölfersheim

mong so-called ‘public intellectuals’, the view that there are certain

A inborn traits is quite prolific. This of course, is contrasted by the legion

of academics who seem to believe that man is born without any sort of
differentiation, that nearly all expressions that can be called traits are either
impressed upon the individual through immediate social factors or through their own
vague inclinations, a sort of neo-tabula rasa. To the latter, we have nothing to say,
for their confusion is complete. Regarding the former however, while we agree in
the existence in what is colloquially called inborn traits, we must quite sharply
distance ourselves from their use by these ‘public intellectuals’, especially in regards
to their origin.
To begin, it must be determined what exactly is meant by ‘inborn traits’ in the
context currently considered here. The phrase itself is extraordinarily broad and,
even from our viewpoint, can cover vast territory. In the broadest sense, it refers to
all of those characteristics of a human individual present at birth which direct the
actualization of certain potentials. This can also be applied on a larger scale to
humanity as a species. While categories of race, intelligence, and talents constitute
a form of inborn trait, we will be considering the broader social expressions of
certain traits such as the inclination towards hierarchy and roles based on sex.
It can be agreed with the ‘public intellectuals’ that man has an innate
inclination towards hierarchy, and that men and women have defined roles in any
society, especially those defined as archaic or, even more accurately, traditional. The
issue then reveals itself as being primarily in relation to the origin of these traits. The
most prominent ‘public intellectuals’ hold the view that these traits were created
through biological-evolutionary factors that have imprinted themselves on humans
as part of the practical necessities of the evolutionary process, citing the social
structures of animals claimed to be ancestors of humanity as evidence. They contend
it is primarily the genetic (which itself is mutable) that conditions the individual and
thereby society and that the genetic is derived from the process of evolution. This
accords to genetics the status of a cause in the sense of that which is the principle of
the thing, and by extension places the origin of the above-mentioned traits in the
world of becoming, specifically the bio-physiological substrate. Put summarily, the

8
thesis advanced by these evolutionist scientists views the differentiation of man and
his natural social order as arising from below.
This is clearly contrasted by the traditional perspective on the matter. From
this viewpoint, inborn social traits are derived from above. This means that social
tendencies towards, for example, hierarchy and gender roles, are both responses to
inherent differentiation of spiritual essences, as well as the reflection of principle
order in manifestation. The causes of differentiation and reflection, which
themselves are relative causes in relation to the social traits considered, find their
origin in metaphysical principles. Regarding manifestation as consisting of three
‘worlds’, the spiritual, the subtle, and the corporeal (as well as the sub-corporeal,
infra-subtle, and the infinite gradations of the psychic/subtle itself), causes can only
have their real origin in the highest world, which is spiritual, unchanging, and
metaphysical. This includes those causes behind the social expressions of hierarchy
and gender roles, which are evidently innate in the normal human state.
The traditional conception of a person is one that exceeds the current modern
understanding of what it means to be a human. The outward appearance is only the
corporeal extension of what is a psychic, and even more essentially, spiritual being.
This being, considered as a whole, is unequivocally unique and distinct, bestowed
with certain qualities derived from their spiritual nature, various factors from the
subtle and psychic domains, and the physiological conditions of their
corporeal/genetic modality (which in real ways reflect the qualities derived from the
domains above it but also can constrain the modalities of their manifestation due to
the contingency inherent in manifestation). Therefore, when two or more beings are
considered, they are by definition unequal. Beyond this, traditional doctrine asserts
the existence of castes. For each person, the caste is the outward expression of the
unique character of their spiritual essence. There are four main castes to be
considered, calling them by their functions they are: the priestly caste, the warrior
caste, the merchant-craftsman caste, and the servant/serf caste. This order reflects
how near a caste is to pure spiritual principle and means that there is a corresponding
qualification or ability inherent in the individuals that make up a caste to realize
certain knowledge. In traditional societies, caste determined one’s place in the social
hierarchy. As such, we can see how it is the differentiation of individuals based on
essentially metaphysical factors that forms the basis of hierarchy, a differentiation
based on the world of being, from above.

9
 Along with the metaphysical differentiation inherent in hierarchy, there exists
an essential difference in the principles of masculine and feminine, corresponding
quite naturally to their individual and social expression in roles based on sex. Just as
one’s inner caste is a result of the unique differentiation of their being, sex is based
on a differentiation derived from spiritual principles. These principles, that of the
masculine and the feminine, correspond to the distinction between the active and the
passive. This subject can be developed to an exceptionally detailed degree and we
will refrain from doing so here.1 We will, however, mention that the passive, the
feminine, correspond most naturally to the forces of life-giving. Hence, motherhood
and the symbolic extension of the womb as the home (which begets the traditional
expression of “the heart of the home”) color all of the various traditional feminine
roles. The active, on the other hand, corresponds to masculinity. This can be seen in
any number of the traditional views of masculine roles being those of leadership,
initiative, and action in general, be it spiritual in nature or action upon manifestation.
Briefly returning to the subject of hierarchy, the hermetic axiom of “As above
so below” expresses an important principle, especially when considering the
reflection of hierarchy in nature. This is that, the world below, that of corporeal
manifestation, takes as its originator the world above, that of metaphysical
principles. In the Western tradition, the world of spirit is comprised of angels
arranged in hierarchal form. Due to the principle of analogy, the terrestrial world
cannot help but be made in the image of that angelic hierarchy. It is inherent in the
nature of reality. This is part of why animals arrange themselves in hierarchal form,
the passive nature of the substance of manifestation responds to the active
impression of the world of spirit, which itself is hierarchy. This is in no way
contradicted by the empirical observations of both animal and human hierarchies,
which see in them dynamics of power, strength, and competence. Rather, the inequal
distribution of qualities, be they strength or competence, follows the hierarchal
pattern and can be said to be a mode in which the principle of hierarchy is expressed
in the world below. We see then that, to a degree, inequality is a necessary aspect of
manifested existence, and this means that it is inevitable in the social organization
of human society.
Though inadequate in mode of expression, eloquence, and clarity, we hope to
have succeeded in presenting a traditional response to the contention that inborn

1
Refer to René Guénon’s Reign of Quantity for an explanation of the distinction between essence and
substance, as well as Julius Evola’s Revolt Against the Modern World for a treatment of the relation
between man and woman.

10
traits are a result of evolutionary factors and are derived wholly from biology. Our
conclusion is that, instead, inborn traits derive principally from spiritual
differentiation2 and that the social expressions of hierarchy and gender roles are a
result of said spiritual differentiation, as well as being expressions of the principles
of hierarchy and active/passive duality, due to the law of analogy between the
corporeal, psychic and spiritual worlds. It is rather unsurprising that the former view
is so prevalent and is a result of these ‘public intellectuals’ denial of all that exceeds
the grasp of their experimentation, much of their theories on the self being based on
the psychic as opposed to the spiritual. Of course, in these times, closing off oneself
from influences from above will near certainly result in those from below swelling
up instead. We can only hope that our crude essay may contribute in some way to a
revival of Tradition and the traditional perspective of man’s relation to himself and
the universe.

2
Of course, much can be said about the role psychic elements play in determining the various expressions
of a being. That being said, before and above all other additions, a spiritual source determines the
innermost essence.

11
12
 The Woman and the Serpent
Dionicio Mendoza

Liber Genesis Cap. III, 14-15

A nd our Lord God said to the serpent: because thou hast done this thing, accursed art
thou among all animals and beasts of the earth: upon thy breast shalt thou go, & earth
shalt thou eat al the days of thy life. I will put enmities between thee & the woman, &
thy seed and the seed of her: she shall bruise thy head in pieces, and thou shalt lie in wait of her
heel.
Prime matter is figured as a serpent coiled around a sphere. Originally the serpent
and the dragon are the same figure; he is cursed to creep upon his belly only after
causing the fall of Adam. His embrace of the sphere shows that he is the prince of
this world, that the flesh dominates the spirit and imprisons it within itself. He is the
inverse of the woman, and he lies in wait for her heel because his reign will not be
forever. The father of lies, in himself he has no truth and therefore no being, but he
can only inhere rather in that which is. Therefore he eats the earth all the days of his
life, corrupting all changeable substance into his own body.
Apocalypsis B. Joannis Cap. XII, 1-6
And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her
feet, & on her head a crown of twelve stars: & being with child, she cried also traveling, and is in
anguish to be delivered. And there was seen an other sign in heaven, and behold, a great red dragon
having seven heads, & ten horns: and on his heads seven diadems, & his tail drew the third part of
the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth, and the dragon stood before the woman which was
ready to be delivered: that when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. And she brought
forth a man child, who was to govern all nations in an iron rod: & her son was taken up to God
and to his throne, & the woman fled into the wilderness where she had a place prepared of God,
that there they might feed her a thousand two hundred sixty days.
Prime matter is the first mother, prima mater, thus the enmity between the woman
and the serpent is from the beginning. She is the Ark, the container of the universe,
a cosmic expanse from the first creation to the last judgment. She is B’nai Israel, the
Church, the assembled people of God. She is the shekinah, Malkuth, the City of God,
the cloud of glory, full of grace, and the God-bearer, wherefore she is clothed with
the sun. As the coiled serpent signifies matter as dominating and imprisoning the
spirit, so the woman signifies matter as justly ruled by the spirit. She is therefore
spotless, having never for an instant been an enemy of her Creator. She stands upon
the moon because she is above the corruptible sublunar realm which is coiled by the

13
serpent. Her crown of twelve stars stands for the twelve Apostles, for she is their
queen. The stars in heaven are the pontifices, the bridges to God (for they shine with
the light of the Empyrean), and the episcopi, the overseers of the world. Her man-
child, destined to rule them with a rod of iron, is the Supreme Pontiff, or Him of
whom he is a figure-head. Her birth pangs are the sorrows of his passion. The death
of Christ is signified in some way by the martyrdom of a pope, but it is more
perfectly symbolized by the destruction of the papacy itself. For at the martyrdom
of any saint the Church rejoices, but in losing the ordinary and temporal means of
governing her members she grieves at a loss that she cannot herself restore. The
dragon seeks to devour her child, that is, to add the High Priest’s chair to his own
kingdom. And his tail, that is, his deception, drags a third of the stars to earth, that
is, they are no longer numbered among the successors of the Apostles, for they no
longer confess the true faith but die under his tyranny. The subtraction of one third
signifies the occultation of the mark of unity, for the two pillars of the temple are
deprived of the third, the altar that joins them. The tabernacle is removed from the
center and the head, and this makes of the temple of God a desolation. But the dragon
does not succeed in devouring the man-child. He is borne up to heaven and the throne
of God, that is, the spiritual authority of the visible head is as it were suspended
above the world of manifestation and reunited to its invisible source, where the devil
and his agents cannot reach it. The voice of the shepherd is now heard only in silence.
The woman is not to be found in the cities of men, but she flees into the wilderness,
the place of fasting and contemplation, and she is nourished alone by God. Therefore
none of the temporal powers of men assist her at this time, and she is not with them.
Although Queen, she exercises no ordinary jurisdiction; by her placement in
solitude, some hermits and religious communities may remain her obedient
company. Visible she remains, but actually unseen, hidden from the eyes of the
mundane by the blindness of their own vanity. All nations have become the enemies
of God. The heads and diadems of the dragon are seven, signifying the deadly sins
and the perfection of quality, and his horns are ten, signifying the stupendous
magnitude of his false promises and completeness of extent. By this and his pursuit
of the woman and her child we see that his arrogant claim is to universal empire over
things spiritual as well as temporal. His color is red as the night sky of January 25,
1938.
7-12
And there was made a great battle in heaven, Michael and his Angels fought with the
dragon, and the dragon fought and his Angels: and they prevailed not, neither was their place
found any more in heaven. And that great dragon was cast forth, the old serpent, which is called
the Devil and Satan, which seduces the whole world: and he was cast into the earth, & his
Angels were thrown down with him. And I hear a great voice in heaven saying: Now is there
made salvation and force, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: because

14
 the accuser of our brethren is cast forth, who accused them before the fight of our God day and
night. And they overcame him by th blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony,
and the loved not their lives even unto death. Therefore rejoice O heavens, and you that dwell
therein. Woe to the earth and to the sea, because the Devil is descended to you, having great
wrath, knowing that he hath a little time.
Here we see the image of the serpent coiled about the sphere, as to seduce it. The
crudeness and heaviness of the material world, in a word, the reign of quantity, is a
consequence of the fall of Lucifer from heaven and the gradual taint of his embrace.
Woe therefore to the earth and the sea. But may heaven rejoice at the everlasting
victory and reign of Christ our Lord established hereby.
13-18
And after the dragon saw that he was thrown into the earth, he persecuted the woman which
brought forth the man-child: and there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle,
that she might flee into the desert unto her place, where she is nourished for a time & times &
half a time, from the face of the serpent. And the serpent cast out of his mouth after the woman,
water as it were a flood: that he might make her to be carried away with the flood. And the earth
helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the
dragon cast out of his mouth. And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make
battle with the rest of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony
of Jesus Christ. And he stood upon the sand of the sea.
The two wings of an eagle given to the Mother of God against the persecutions of
the devil are an infused science of divine mysteries and surpassing humility. Her
devoted children also escape, preventing the total destruction of the Church, on these
same wings. Were they not preserved by these special graces, the children of Mary
would believe the lying wonders of the devil, either through ignorance or through
pride, and follow him to his end. The desert is the land of temptation. Here the devil
tempted our Lord with all his works, pomps, and false promises. Here too the sheep
of His flock must pray and do penance, consecrating themselves to His Mother’s
Immaculate Heart and remaining ever sensitive to Its pleas, despite the
unprecedented allurements of an apostate world and its illicit pleasures. Ascending
Carmel in reparation for the descent of the Watchers from Hermon, they live by the
Rosary and the Scapular. The desert is also the place of lawlessness, for in time of
persecution saints appear to be outlaws. The connection between Hermon and
Carmel is confirmed by the identity of the two witnesses of the Apocalypse, Henoch
and Elias. In the final confrontation with Antichrist these two prophets, not the
Bishop of Rome, will lead the Church, converting the Jews, uniting all men of good
will under one standard, and working miracles superior to the sorceries of Antichrist.
Henoch, or Hermes, is the last living initiate of the primordial Tradition to which all
living traditions must answer. Elias is the last living member of the prophets of
Israel, superior in authority to the High Priest of Jerusalem the Vicar of Christ on

15
Earth. Their appearance during a time, times, and half a time implies that the Church
has entered its third status, the Age of the Holy Ghost, the seeds of which can be
observed in the contemplative orders. This state is above the distinction between the
secular and the religious, above the external institutions of the Church. Its initiatic
jurisdiction is over the internal forum, that is, the hearts of men, which the prophets
rule by their wisdom, confirming them in infused knowledge and humility. Here the
devil has no power; here his attack, which has ultimately only served to purify the
children of God, is constrained to cease. Thus pursuing the woman, the serpent
spews forth the waters of chaos, but they cannot overcome her immaculate flesh or
the Heart that beats within it. For she is the true Ark of salvation, and the great eagle
that assists her is as it were the Seer of the Apocalypse whose consecrated hands
brought her divine Son to nourish her one thousand two hundred sixty days. And he
is Prester John, the bishop-king of the forbidden mountain of the prophets, that
terrestrial paradise where other sheep who are not of this flock hope to dwell in
eternity, at whose altar the witnesses sleep the sleep of contemplation until their
appointed time. The dragon stands upon the sands of the sea, for none may pass,
neither from the sea to the land, nor from the land to the sea, without his resistance
or his aid. In contrast to heaven, the earth is the place of punishment, wherefore all
who dwell upon it must endure his temptations. In contrast to the sea, the land is the
place of form and fixity, perfection and blessedness. But the soul in the state of
mortal sin is shipwrecked and adrift, thus the dragon guards the way to sanctifying
grace, discouraging the unfortunate soul from repentance by every possible means.
And those who live in grace may suffer violent temptations whenever they come
near this sea, wherefore they are counseled to avoid the near occasions of sin. For
man is frail, and the dragon’s power is greater where he stands. But to flee the
moisture of the shore for the dryness of the desert is not to escape temptation, as
already stated. Yet this holy aridity, which is called the dark night, expels all
sentimentality and fickleness from the soul and causes it to depend on God alone for
her spiritual nourishment, and for this reason it is farther from the dragon’s power
than the damp places in which men on the purgative way are accustomed to dwell.
We therefore must attend to our Lady there in the desert, as far from the passing
distractions of the world and the pleasures of the flesh as possible. And suffer that
wretched serpent to come in the night, but let him find us armed and watching.

16
 VISITA INTERIOR TERRAE
On Alchemy and Modern Science
Iohannes Spinell
And Satan said: ‘A portion of Thy servants will I surely take, and will lead them astray, and will
stir false desires within them; and I will command them and they shall alter the creation of God.’

The Quran (4:118)

I t has often been proposed that modern science (through figures like Bacon and
Newton) can trace its roots back to the alchemists of old, and while from a
purely genealogical standpoint this assertion can hardly be contested, we have
to be adamant that the spirit that enlivens the sacra scientia of authentic alchemy
could hardly be more opposed to any form of the “science” that we moderns have
come to know.
The rise of both alchemy and science is most commonly located in the
Renaissance and it’s certainly true that this period (for example through the
translation of the Hermetic Corpus and other ancient texts by Ficino, which even
lead to some attempts at a revival of neo-Platonic theurgy)1 saw an unprecedented
exposal of doctrines that are stricto sensu ‘esoteric’.
Thinking that such teachings had hitherto been completely absent from the West
and were only rediscovered (or “invented” even) by the Renaissance humanists is
simply a modernist prejudice however. Such esoteric knowledge had surely not been
lacking in earlier times but remained ‘hidden’ and thus presents itself not as readily
to the gaze of the historians which is by its very nature always limited to the most
‘exoteric’ of appearances.
In fact it is no coincidence that the sudden emergence of the alchemical teachings
and other more or less esoteric doctrines (recall in this context also Agrippa’s
Occulta philosophia) coincides with the decline of traditional medieval culture. As
soon as the exterior form of a culture dies, its esoteric ‘underbelly’ must perish as
well, and just as the psyche (or the ‘astral body’) may still linger around for a time
even after the physical body has ceased its vital functions, so too can the ‘ghosts’ of

1
Cf. in this context what Guénon says about the ‘psychic residues’ that haunt the remains of dead traditions
(Reign of Quantity, XXVII). The case of Platonism is certainly a peculiar one, because it presents a
metaphysical tradition without an indigenous revelatum (even the Platonic theurgists of antiquity called
unto the gods in their Egyptian, i.e. ‘barbarian’, names); its ‘providential role’ can only be understood with
regards to its adoption by early Christianity and divorced from it (as in the neo-pagan revivalisms both old
and new) it must necessarily manifest as a malefic influence.

17
former esoteric traditions come to haunt the ruins of a culture in decay. The
appearance of such doctrines at the end of the Middle Ages is thus not so much a
“rediscovery” but rather resembles the corpses of dead fish floating to the surface
after their water had been poisoned.2

The Renaissance was the period when western culture ‘rid’ itself of its ‘esoteric impurities’,
and therefore when these, like weeping sores on a face, appeared most visibly (Borella, Crisis
of Religious Symbolism, II).

In sum: the Renaissance marks not the “birth” of alchemy but its swan song, the final
stages of its degeneration, and its causa mortis was nothing else than its detachment
from the spiritual core of Christianity.
As Titus Burckhardt laid out in his seminal work on Alchemy (Science of the
Cosmos, Science of the Soul), the alchemical doctrines and other ‘sacred sciences’
pertain primarily to the cosmological order and are in no way ‘self-sufficient’ on
their own. They need the ambience of a holistic traditional culture (the reductione
artium ad theologiam), like a fish needs waters to breath and to distance themselves
from this ‘spiritual climate’ amounts to cutting of the proverbial branch on which
they sit, i.e. to suicide: “There can be no ‘freethinking’ alchemy hostile to the
Church” (Burckhardt, ibid. I).
However, the general decline of Christendom in the Renaissance (helped, in large
parts, by the humanist themselves) and the adoption of these sacred sciences by
factions often inimical to the Church lead to an ever greater distancing from true
spirituality which “caused them to lose, in part, their supernatural character, and
risked allowing them to imbued with the ambient vitalist naturalism, so that the
hermetic, alchemical, kabbalistic, astrological, etc. doctrines were degraded into a
common magia naturalis” (Borella, Op. cit.). And it is precisely this degeneration
of the alchemical tradition into the lowest forms of ‘magic’ that led to the birth of
modern science. As another Christian hermeticist likewise observed:

Contemporary technological science is the direct continuation of the ceremonial magic …

which flourished from the time of the Renaissance until the seventeenth century. It was
parexcellence the magic of the humanists, i.e. it was no longer ‘divine magic’, but human
magic. It no longer served God, but man. Its ideal became the power of man over visible and
invisible Nature. Later, invisible Nature was also forgotten. Visible Nature was concentrated
upon alone, with the aim of subjugating it to the human will. It is in this way that technological
and industrial science originated. It is the continuation of the ceremonial magic of the
humanists, stripped of its occult element, just as the former is the continuation of sacred magic,
but deprived of its gnostic and mystical element (Meditations on the Tarot, III).

2
Perhaps the best analogy is found in the ‘unveiling’ of the Platonic doctrines by Proclus and Plotinus at
the end of the Greco-Roman world.

18
Thus, modern science starts with the perversion of the ‘divine magic’ of alchemy;
corrupted by their ‘will-to-power’, the Renaissance magi desired to bind the spirits
of nature, but before long even the spirits were forgotten, leaving them to fix their
gaze on the material world alone (the Anti-Christ has but one eye, says a Muslim
tradition).
True alchemy can only thrive in a cosmos that is pulsating with essences, a living
cosmos in which reigns the law of universal sympathy, and it is to be counted among
the great ironies of history that the demise of this Weltanschauung, which had
blossomed to such heights under the medieval genius, was finally sealed by a man
who called himself an “alchemist”.
Newton’s ‘de-essentialized’ clock-work universe is radically closed to all
verticality, a pure mechanism ruled by the iron fist of necessity and mathematical
law. This closing off to the vertical dimension means also that God Himself is
banished from His own creation and demoted to the position of a Deist law-giver:
the God of the machine.
Nature had turned from a theophany, a “book of sign and symbols” (liber naturae)
revealing the Creator, to a mute res extensa, a life-less ‘mass’ that could be
manipulated and altered at will. What was left of the cosmological icon of the middle
ages was merely its material shell which presented truly not much more than “a kind
of decorated corpse” (Plotinus); that itself an ‘alchemical’ – or rather magical –
operation.
The spirits of nature had been transmuted into Newtonian ‘force’ and modern
technology, with its desire to “conquer the purposeless powers of the unyielding
elements” (Zwecklose Kraft unbändiger Elemente) in order to gain “dominion and
property” (Herrschaft gewinn’ ich, Eigentum!), as Faust – another ‘alchemist-
turned-scientist’ – proclaims, is thus not much more than the continuation of
Renaissance magic on the material plane.
Like Wagner’s Alberich, the humanist magi had renounced all love to
‘alchemically’ transmute the gold they had wrested from the Rhine-maidens into the
‘Ring of Power’ (“Ein Runenzauber zwingt das Gold zum Reif”); an exploit that
ends, as we know very well, with the ‘Twilight of the Gods’ itself
(Göttderdämmerung).3

Nur wer der Minne Macht entsagt,

nur wer der Liebe Lust verjagt,
nur der erzielt sich den Zauber,
zum Reif zu zwingen das Gold.

3
Recall here also the breaking of Wotan’s spear, symbolizing the break-down of divine order and a
‘flooding’ of the vertical axis.

19
 (Only he who has renounced love’s sway,
Only he who has spurned the sweet joy of love,
That man alone may attain the necessary magic
to turn the gold into a ring)

The renouncement of love is also the divorce of the ‘heart’ and reason, of intellectus
and the cold ratio, which was now enthroned as the sole sovereign and ruler of
human affairs.4
Surely, reason in itself is of course not necessarily malefic; being the uniquely
human mode of cognition (animal rationale) and ultimately a reflection of the
intellectual light itself it might even be called ‘divine’. But reason is essentially
‘lunar’ (manas, mens, mind, moon) and always in need of illumination by intellect,
lest it become cold and barren. It has to humble itself under the supra-rational light
and closed off from this light it can also quickly reveal a dark, ‘demonic’ side,
capable of enormous destruction.
The pride of reason is the illusion to encompass everything, the false totality of
the merely-human, hence why it necessarily tends to deny all that which it
“comprehendeth not”, i.e. everything that is ‘above’ it (and thus also all intellect as
such). In its Luciferian self-absolutizing it inevitably turns against the Only
Absolute, but its denial of God must also end in an denial of nature and ultimately
of man as well (for the culte de la raison always ends in human sacrifice).

It seems thus as if here we are contemplating the archetypical representatives of

modern science as such: the alchemist Faust who, after his failure to summon the
‘Earth-spirit’ (i.e. spiritus mundi) by means of his magic arts, turns to the Devil
instead and goes on to become the first ‘engineer’ (a character trait also shared with
Milton’s Satan, another haunting personification of rebellious reason), and the
Nibelung Alberich who ‘rapes’ the spirits of virgin nature to gain dominion over
gods and men.
From just these few examples we already see that the scientific revolution marks
a turn to the ‘infernal pole’ of the being (as shown by Faust’s dealings with the Devil
and Alberich’s subterranean kingdom of Nibelheim), i.e. a movement to the ‘sub-
corporeal’ (recall in this context also Alberich’s Tarnhelm, the ‘helmet that makes
him who wears it invisible’, i.e. that ‘de-manifests’ his wearer; an attribute likewise

4
We are obviously far beyond anything that Wagner himself intended to say in his work; however, when
we can use modern artists like Wagner, Goethe, Tolkien etc., in the present context to elaborate on
metaphysical ideas, this is because they worked off of classical sources (Norse mythology, the medieval
Faust-myth, etc.) and thus what Guénon says about folklore also applies to them, namely that they often,
even unknowingly, preserve “elements that are traditional in the true sense of the word, however deformed,
diminished and fragmentary they may be sometimes, and of things that have a real symbolic value” (The
Holy Grail).

20
shared by Tolkien’s Ring).
Once the esprit de géométrie becomes divorced from the ‘reason of the heart’
(espirt de finesse) it is drawn to dissection, domination, and abstraction; it turns
‘downwards’, from the synthetic realities of essence and form, the pulsating life of
the cosmic dance, to the analytic grasp for the ‘unnatural’, the cold stars in the
infinite space above and the lonely atoms below. And it is this cold, ‘Saturnalian’
reason which also gives birth to the “devilish Enginrie” (Milton) of the machine.

It is as if there had developed in man new organs and cognitive powers which set him in an
almost magical rapport with inanimate nature and on which also his domination of it is founded.
With a nigh magnetic power, man is drawn to the amorphous ‘elements’: metal, air, fire,
electricity; a tendency that is also immediately observable in the products of modern art [for
example in the dominance of ‘artificial’ and ‘unnatural’ building materials in modern
architecture, such as steel, glass, and concrete]. On this magical rapport are based in the last
consequence all the triumphs of modern science and technology … The subordination of man
under these new powers, which he summoned from inorganic nature and which resemble it in
almost all regards [the machine being itself lifeless]5, end up making man himself ever more
‘inorganic’ and ‘amorphous’6; he becomes enslaved to his own creation, to the machine, which
is itself but the creation of an intelligence that is turned to the inorganic with every fiber of its
being (Sedlmayr, Verlust der Mitte, VII).

Not only is God cut off from the cosmos at large, but (in the Galileo-Cartesian
method which serves as the basis for all of modern science) even nature is cut in
two, such that the world of phenomena is more and more disparaged in favor of the
(supposed) “true nature”, the abstract realm of equations and geometry. The
scientific modus operandi is exactly this inexhaustible grasp for the indefinite (a
literal ‘decomposition’), which we have identifies above as the movement of
rebellious reason, the stirring in the dark mute foundation of the world in search of
the ‘gold’ hidden there, like Alberich descending to Nibelheim to forge the Ring of
Power in its infernal fires. And thus the scientist trying to harness the powers of the
‘below’ appears also as the ‘smith’ who works the subterranean forges.
The figure of the smith is traditionally depicted as a ‘peripheral’ creature (the

5
We should however remark that there is a decisive difference between the artificial materials like steel
and glass (both of which are ‘forged’ in fire) and the inorganic (mineral) life that grows in nature. Every
stone is a theophany in the way a steam engine isn’t; a stone reveals some imitable aspect of the Divine
Essence itself, the machine is first and foremost a manifestation of the discursive and rebellious reason of
man; “even the stones cry out” and they proclaim the glory of their Maker, but the machine is condemned
to silence (this failure to link back to a definitive archetype is also what characterizes the ‘monster’ – the
demons that haunt the paintings of Hieronymus Bosh – as the ‘confusion’ of many different forms).
6
It may be interesting to note in this context that the first major influx of women into the workforce took
place during the industrialization. The machine is the great equalizer, it ‘machinifies’ man himself,
removing all qualitative distinctions and turning him into a mere quantum; what was once man and women
becomes, in the industrial society (as well as in the Marxian utopia): the faceless “worker”.

21
dwarf Alberich or the giant Hephaistos, the ‘deformed god’), he is the ‘monster’
guarding the edge of the world (“hic sunt dragones”), i.e. that which indicates
(monstrare) the ultimate limits of manifestation; and like the magician who handles
the subtle (and often malefic) influences on the ‘edge’ of being, so the scientist tries
to control the peripheral powers of the ‘outer darkness’ (a fact that becomes most
apparent in the atom-bomb which can summon immense destructive powers by a
simple manipulation of the subcorporeal realm).
In fact upon closer inspection modern technology reveals a truly demonic aspect.
To quote once more from the Meditations:

The practical aspect of the scientific ideal is revealed in the progress of modern science from
the eighteenth century to the present day. Its essential stages are the discoveries and putting into
man's service, successively, steam, electricity and atomic energy. But as different as these
appear to be, these discoveries are based only on a single principle, namely the principle of the
destruction of matter, by which energy is freed in order to be captured anew by man so as to be
put at his service. It is so with the little tegular explosions of petrol which produce the energy
to drive a car. And it is so with the destruction of atoms, by means of the technique of neutron
bombardment, which produces atomic energy. That it is a matter of coal, petrol, or hydrogen
atoms, is not important; it is always a case of the production of energy as a consequence of the
destruction of matter, for the practical aspect of the scientific ideal is the domination of Nature
by means of putting into play the principle of destruction or death.

At the heart of technology there’s a true ‘satanic sacrifice’, a literal holocaust where
nature is sacrificed in order to gain ‘super-natural’ powers (i.e. the powers to
transcend natural limitations).
This Faustian bargain is of course the opposite of the benefic ‘Faustianism’ of the
saints, the struggle against the flesh, to “batter the body and bring it into subjection”
(1. Cor. 9:27). Here too the ultimate goal is the domination and even ‘destruction’
of nature (“that our old man might be destroyed”, Rom. 6:6), but this ‘sacrifice’ of
(fallen) nature does not aim at its exploitation but rather, a contrario, at its
glorification (sacrificere – sacrum facere) and it is here where the ‘divine magic’ of
the saints parts decisively from that of the Renaissance magi.

For Albert the Great, only the deified man, the one who ‘lives according to the divine Intellect
… as Hermes testifies’, through a lengthy ascesis that leads to the culminating point of the spirit
(perseverante homine in mentis culmine), becomes master of the world (gubernator),
transmutes bodies (agit ad corporum mundi transmutationem) and accomplishes, so to say,
prodigies (ita ut miracula facere dicatur). Of all that the Renaissance would often retain only
recipes for increasing one’s power, and would occasionally end up in the lowest kind of sorcery
(Borella, Op. cit.).

By ruling nature in himself, the saint attains mastery over all of creation, becoming

22
the ‘ruler at the centre of the wheel’ (chakravartin) and this ‘subjection’ of nature is
also its ‘rectification’, the restoration to its primordial state. Thus the great vision of
alchemy is the Heavenly Jerusalem: not the destruction but the transfiguration of
matter, its ‘deification’. Every saint is an alchemist, most scientists are just devils.

The whole (alchemical) Work consists in two things, heavenly and earthly: the heavenly must
make the earthly in it to a heavenly: The Eternity must make time in it to Eternity: The artist
seeks Paradise; if he finds it, he has the great treasure upon the earth (Böhme, De Signatura,
VII.73).

But the way to Heaven always leads through Hell and as such the alchemist too
descends into the ‘interior cave’ (V.I.T.R.I.O.L) to recover the ‘gold’ hidden there;
however, he does so not for his own material gain (viz. to forge the Ring of Power)
but rather to ‘unearth’ what is precious and pure in nature and to bring it to the
surface. His descent is not a ‘rape’ or a ‘robbery’, but a ‘birthing’, delivering nature
from her birth pangs in which she labours in “groaning and travailing” (Rom. 8:22).
Alchemy thus pursues the complete inverse movement as that of science; rather
than analytical decomposition, the alchemist ‘raises up’ nature, like Adam ‘naming
the animals’ (i.e. assigning intelligible meaning to unintelligent creature) or
Abraham ‘hosting the angels’ (preparing material food for immaterial guests, i.e.
‘spiritualizing’ matter).7 Only God can ‘look down’ the vertical axis without falling,
man’s job is that of unification, to raise up earth into Heaven and to bind back the
horizontal to its supernal Source (which is also why Böhme says that Adam’s Fall
already began when he ‘imagined’ into animal nature, i.e. when he turned to the
indefinite pole of multiplicity and forgot the ‘divine names’ above).
It is God who descends into the waters to “crush the head of Leviathan” (Ps.
74:14), He is the “Lamb slain from the beginning” (Rev. 13:8) who sacrifices
Himself to the demiurgic powers, but the task of man is one of ‘recollection’, to fight
the Titans, not to make common cause them.
However, to slay the dragon one has to descend into its cave, and only he can
“vanquish the serpent that is in the sea” (Is. 27:1) who has the Lord on his side; only
the man who “walks with God” can descend into the underworld without perishing:
“I will go down with thee into Egypt; and I will surely bring thee up again” (Gen.
46:4).
When Joseph went down to Egypt “the Lord was with him” (Gen. 39:2) and thus
he was “exalted over all” (Gen. 41:41); he wins the “golden ring” of Pharaoh (Gen.
41:42) and the land prospers under him, because the blessing of the Lord rested on

7
This idea of ‘raising up’ matter is also found in the Biblical sacrifice, for ‘sacrifice’ (“korban” in Hebrew)
means literally “to bring close (to God)”; the (quadrupedal) animal represents the totality of universal
extension and its ‘raising up’ via the axis of the sacrificial altar signifies the reunion of ‘heaven and earth’.

23
all the works of his hands. But he who has not the “Spirit of God in him” (Gen.
41:42) but rather “hardens his heart” will surely perish, and those who settle in Egypt
are made slaves; they do not bring good fruit, but all their children are “cast into the
waters” (Ex. 1:22).8
Whereas the Solar Hero Siegfried goes down into the ‘cave’ to slay the ‘old
Dragon’ lurking there (upon which he learns the ‘language of the birds’)9, the
scientist, like the greedy dwarves in Tolkien’s Hobbit, wakes up the dragon who
guard the subterranean treasures, leading to the Weltenbrand, the setting ablaze of
the whole face of the world (and what is the industrialization ultimately other than
such an unleashing of the infernal powers hidden in the ‘earth’?).10
The ‘people of God’ (Israel) can pass through the ‘bitter waters’ into Paradise, but
those who makes themselves henchmen of Pharaoh will surely be drowned in the
sea, and it is because of this ambiguous nature of the ‘underworld’ that it was also
said that Egypt (Kêmet, the ‘black earth’, from which later also the Arabic al-Kimiyâ,
‘alchemy’) was “the land of dung and gold”.
The alchemist is the “philosophical midwife” (cf. Plato, Theaet. 148E-151D) who
delivers the ‘golden child’ (filius philosophorum) out of the lower waters and this is
also why (as even Renaissance alchemist like Paracelsus and others still knew) the
‘outer Work’ cannot be accomplished without the ‘inner Alchemy’ of the spiritual
birth, for “even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption”
(Rom. 8:23). “One dead man does not raise another”, says Böhme, “the artist must
be living, if he will say to the mountain, arise, and cast thyself into the sea!” and
“therefore if the magus will seek Paradise in the curse of the earth, and find it, he
must first walk in Christ and God must be manifest in him” (De Signatura, VII.79).

8
As such the Rabbis tell us that Israel’s slavery in Egypt (mizrayim) was really the enslavement to this
world, to the samsaric ‘waters’ (mayim) of becoming, and in a similar manner the 430 years of the Egyptian
exile are also interpreted as an enslavement to the lower ‘animal soul’ (NePheSh: 50-80-300 = 430). This
symbolism is also taken up by Origen in his Genesis commentaries where he often distinguishes between
the ‘settler’ (károikos) and the ‘guest’ (pároikos): “Abraham (representing the just man) did not dwell
(katoikein) in Egypt, but only stayed as guest (paroikein), whereas the Canaanites (representing the wicked
men) ‘made their dwelling place’ (katókoun) on the ‘earth’” (cf. Fragments, E30-31).
9
The archetypical figure of the dragon-slayer (the Germanic Siegfried, St. George in Christianity, etc.) is
represented in the Arabic world by the mysterious character of Al-Khidr, who (as we might point out in this
context) is also said to be the original alchemist.
10
Recall also the Balrog, representing the ‘infernal powers’ that lie dormant in the heart of the mountain,
and who is slain by Gandalf upon which he becomes ‘Gandalf the White’ (the colour of resurrection): “The
Dwarves delved deep at that time, seeking beneath Barazinbar for mithril, the metal beyond price that was
becoming yearly ever harder to win. Thus they roused from sleep a thing of terror that, flying from
Thangorodrim, had lain hidden at the foundations of the earth since the coming of the Host of the West: a
Balrog of Morgoth. Durin was slain by it, and the year after Náin I, his son; and then the glory of Moria
passed, and its people were destroyed or fled far away” (Tolkien, Lord of the Rings, Appendix A).

24
 Let this be plain to you, ye seekers of the metalline tincture: If you would find the Lapis
philosophorum, set yourselves to attain the new birth in Christ, else it will be difficult for you
to apprehend it. For it has great affinity with the heavenly substantiality (Wesenheit), which
would be well seen if it were freed from the fierce wrath. Its lustre indicates something which
we should certainly recognize, if we had paradisaic eyes. The mind (Gemüth) shows us that
indeed, but our reason and understanding are dead as to Paradise. And because we use what is
noble to the dishonour of God and to our own perdition, and honour not God thereby, and enter
not with our spirit into the Spirit of God, but abandon the spirit and cleave to the substance (of
this world), the metalline tincture has become a mystery to us, for we have become alienated
from it (De Incarnatione, I.4.10)

We see that alchemy is the exact anti-thesis to modern science/technology; the

former wants to restore nature, to liberate it from its “bondage to corruption” (Rom.
8:21), and bring out the best in it (the alchemical ‘gold’ hidden in all things as a
vestige of their Edenic beauty), the latter wants to dominate and exploit it: the one
seeks Paradise, the other profit.

The Alchemist is the true Philosopher (hence why his ultimate prize is the
‘Philosopher’s Stone’), for as Hermes Trismegistus, the mythical founder of all
western alchemy, himself defines: “Philosophy is nothing else than striving through
constant contemplation and saintly piety to attain knowledge of God”. 11 A
philosophy that refuses to be “ancilla theologiae”12 by separating itself from God
(viz. from the divine Sophia) suffers the same fate as modern science and is doomed
to lose itself in the indefinite spiraling of dianoia. It is of this philosophy that St.
Gregory says that “it is always in labour but never giving birth” and that it hides
itself “in the womb of barren wisdom”, never coming to the light of the knowledge
of God (De vita Moy. II.11).

11
In fact the words of the ‘Thrice-great’ have proven in many ways prophetic: “I tell you that in after times
none will pursue philosophy in singleness of heart … but there will be many who will make philosophy
hard to understand, and corrupt it with manifold speculations … Philosophy will be mixed with diverse and
unintelligible sciences, such as arithmetic, music and geometry. Whereas the student of philosophy
undefiled, which is dependent on devotion to God, and on that alone, ought to direct his attention to the
other sciences only so far as he may. .. be led to revere, adore, and praise God's skill and wisdom … For to
worship God in thought and spirit with singleness of heart, to revere God in all his works, and to give thanks
to God, whose will, and his alone, is wholly filled with goodness – this is philosophy unsullied by intrusive
cravings for unprofitable knowledge” (Ascelpius, I).
12
We take ‘theology’ here in the most elevated sense of the word, namely as it was understood by many of
the Fathers, for whom theologia denoted the highest state of mystical contemplation, the direct ‘science of
God’ (logia tou Theou). Thus for St. Gregory of Nyssa the archetypical theologian is Moses, spiritually
ascending the Holy Mountain to the ‘dazzling obscurity’ of Divinity, and Evagrius famously states that “he
who prays truly is a theologian”, ‘true prayer’ being “the peak of intellection” and “the ascension to God”,
“the naked intellect contemplating the light of the Holy Trinity” etc. – “The intellect prays through
knowledge and knows through prayer”; thus knowledge is the prayer of the intellect and this prayer
constitutes the true theology (cf. De Oratione).

25
 For the true philosopher dialectical (self-)analysis or ‘separation’ (diairetike) is
always directed at ‘re-collection’ (anamnesis), the ‘re-union’ (henôsis) with the
supreme Good itself, to “leave behind the world and become like God” (Thaetet.
176A). As such it is a necessary step in the philosophical ‘realization’ but not an end
itself.
For “except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (Joh. 3:3),
but to be ‘reborn’ in this life requires also to ‘die before you die’ and thus it is rightly
said that “philosophy is the practice of death” (Phaedo, 46A), a descend into the
cave of the heart and “laying there in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in
you” (Gal. 4:19) – “Keep your soul in hell, and don’t despair” (St. Silouan the
Athonite).

I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the Lord, and he heard me;
Out of the belly of the beast cried I, and thou heardest my voice.
For thou hadst cast me into the deep, in the midst of the seas;
And the floods compassed me about:
All Thy billows and Thy waves passed over me.
The waters compassed me about, even to the soul:
The depth closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head.
I went down to the bottoms of the mountains;
The earth with her bars was about me for ever:
Yet hast Thou brought up my life from corruption, O Lord my God!

“To cleanse the soul of every taint of generation, this is the chief function of
philosophy”, says Iamblichus, and thus the true philosopher goes down into the
furnace (Athanor) of the subterranean fires, rising from it like the Phoenix (the
‘golden bird’) from the ashes.13

When the clay of our flesh has been cooked by the fire into a vessel, so that this flesh, previously
pressed down to the earth by a heavy burden, may with the aid of angels fly away towards
heaven after receiving the wings of spiritual grace, it soars to eternity (St. Ambrose, In Apoc.
XI).

The goal of philosophy (i.e. of alchemy) is nothing else but “regrowing the wings of
the soul” (cf. Phaedrus, 250E ff.) and ascending to the Highest God (“phygi monou

13
Cf. in this context also the traditional account of the martyrdom of St. Polykarp: “When Polykarp had
launched this Amen heavenward in completing his prayer, the pyre-men lighted the fire. A great flame burst
out, sparkling. Then we saw a miracle; and we, to whom was granted the sight, have been spared so as to
relate to others what happened. The fire, taking the shape of a vault, like a ship’s sail bellied out by the
wind, surrounded the martyr’s body in a circle. And the martyr was in the midst, not like a body being
burned, but like a loaf being baked, or like gold and silver that is purified in the furnace. As for us, indeed,
there was wafted a delicious perfume, as strong as that of incense or some other of the precious aromatics”.

26
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 END OF VOL. IV

Printed by R. & R. Clark, Limited, Edinburgh.

1. The muscles are to a certain extent segmented in correspondence with the

limbs; and the heart, in Phyllopoda and Stomatopoda, may have segmentally
arranged ostia.
2. Herbst, Arch. Entwick. Mech. ii., 1905, p. 544.
3. Quart. J. Micr. Sci. xlix., 1906, p. 469.
4. Present in Nebalia.
5. As many as 37 ambulatory appendages may be present.
6. Quart. J. Micr. Sci. xxi., 1881, p. 343.
7. Abhandl. Senckenberg. Nat. Gesellsch. xiv., 1886.
8. The Cumacea, Anaspidacea, and certain Isopods possess a maxillary gland
only.
9. Quart. J. Micr. Sci. xxxii., 1891, p. 279.
10. Arch. Zool. Exp. (2) x., 1892, p. 57.
11. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. Harvard, xxxv., 1899, p. 152.
12. Arch. f. mikr. Anat. lxvii., 1906, p. 364.
13. Vol. x., 1897, pp. 97, 264.
14. For this use of the term Branchiopoda, cf. Boas, Morph. Jahrb. viii., 1883,
p. 519.
15. Bernard, “The Apodidae,” Nature Series, 1892.
16. Arb. Zool. Inst. Wien, vi., 1886, p. 267.
17. I do not understand Packard’s account of the telson in Thamnocephalus.
18. The nomenclature here adopted is not that of Lankester.
19. [The red pigment in Lernanthropus, see p. 68, has been shown to be not
haemoglobin, so that the presence of this substance in Phyllopod blood becomes
doubtful.—G.S.]
20. Zeitschr. wiss. Zool. lxxi., 1902, p. 508.
21. Cf. Gaskell, Journ. Anat. Physiol. x., 1876, p. 153.
22. Bernard’s statement that Apus is hermaphrodite seems based on
insufficient evidence.
 23. Sayce has since described it, Proc. Roy. Soc. Victoria, xv., 1903, p. 229.
24. A. cancriformis had been supposed to have disappeared from the British
fauna for many years, but it was found in Scotland in 1907. See R. Gurney, Nature,
lxxvi., 1907, p. 589.
25. Branchipodides has been described by H. Woodward, from Tertiary strata.
26. Consult Baird, “Monograph of the Branchiopodidae,” Proc. Zool. Soc.
1852, p. 18. Packard, 12th Ann. Rep. U.S. Geol. Survey, part i., 1879.
27. Arch. f. Math. og Naturvidensk. xx., 1898, Nos. 4 and 6. Thiele, Zool.
Jahrb. System. xiii., 1900, p. 563.
28. Bernard, loc. cit. p. 19; Baird, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1852, p. 1; Sayce, Proc. Roy.
Soc. Victoria, xv., 1903, p. 224.
29. Sars, Arch. f. Math. og Naturvidensk. xx., 1898, Nos. 4 and 6.
30. Sars, Christiania Vidensk. Forhand. 1887. For Australian Phyllopods, see
Sars, Arch. f. Math. og Naturvid. xvii., 1895, No. 7, and Sayce, loc. cit. p. 36.
31. Simocephalus vetulus anchors itself to weeds, etc., by a modified seta on
the exopodite of the second antenna. It does not employ a dorsal organ for
purposes of fixation. [G. S.]
32. Zeitschr. wiss. Zool. xxiv., 1874, p. 1.
33. Zeitschr. wiss. Zool. xxvii., xxxiii., 1876, 1879.
34. Consult Lilljeborg, Nov. Acta Reg. Soc. Upsalensis, 1901; Scourfield, J.
Quekett Micr. Club, 1903–4.
35. More properly Chydoridae, but the universally known name Lynceidae is
convenient.
36. Grundzüge der Zoologie, 4. Aufl. 1880, p. 543.
37. Fauna and Flora G. v. Neapel, Monograph 19, 1892.
38. Ibid. Monograph 25, 1899.
39. Norwegian North Polar Exp. Sci. Results, vol. i. part v., 1900.
40. They may assist the animal by retarding its sinking. Cf. Chun, “Aus den
Tiefen des Weltmeeres,” 1905.
41. Schmeil, Bibliotheca Zoologica, Hefte 11, 15, and 21.
42. Giesbrecht, Mitth. Zool. Stat. Neap. xi., 1895, p. 648.
43. Loc. cit. p. 59.
44. Claus, Copepodenstudien, 1. Heft, Vienna, 1889.
45. Malaquin, Arch. Zool. Exp. (3), ix., 1901, p. 81.
46. Canu, Trav. Inst. Zool. Litte. vi., 1892.
 47. Giesbrecht, Fauna and Flora G. v. Neapel, Monogr. 25, 1899.
48. Arb. Zool. Inst. Wien, ii. 1879, p. 268.
49. Ibid. xv., 1905, p. 1.
50. Heller, Reise der Novara, vol. iii., 1868.
51. For fish-parasites in British waters consult Scott, Fishery Board for
Scotland, Scientific Investigations, xix., 1900 et seq.
52. Canu, loc. cit. p. 66.
53. The Cambridge Museum possesses two specimens of Philichthys xiphiae,
from the frontal bones of a Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) taken off Lowestoft in
1892.
54. Claus, Arb. Zool. Inst. Wien, vii., 1888, p. 281.
55. Proc. Biol. Soc. Liverpool, i., 1887.
56. Zeitschr. wiss. Zool. xlix., 1890, p. 71.
57. The genus Pennella also includes parasites on the whales Hyperoodon and
Balaenoptera.
58. Claus, Schriften d. Gesellsch. Marburg. Suppl. 1868.
59. Claus, Zeitschr. wiss. Zool. xi., 1861, p. 287.
60. Hansen, “The Choniostomatidae,” Copenhagen.
61. Claus, Zeitschr. wiss. Zool. xxv., 1875, p. 217.
62. C. B. Wilson, Proc. U.S. Nat. Museum, xxv., 1902, p. 635.
63. Max Müller (Science of Language, 2nd series, p. 534) gives references to a
number of old authors who vouch for the truth of this legend, going back as far as
Giraldus Cambrensis in the twelfth century. The legend appears to be of Scotch or
Irish origin. Giraldus complains of the clergy in Ireland eating Barnacle geese at
the time of fasting under the pretext that they are not flesh, but born of fish living
in the sea. The form of the legend varies, certain authors alleging that the geese are
produced from the fruits of a tree which drop into the water, others that they grow
in shells (Barnacles) attached to floating logs. Aldrovandus (De Avibus, T. iii.,
1603, p. 174) ingeniously combines both versions in a woodcut representing
undoubted Barnacles growing on a tree with luxuriant foliage at the water’s edge,
below which a number of liberated geese are swimming. Müller ascribes an
etymological origin to the legend, the Barnacle goose (deriv. Hibernicula,
bernicula = Irish goose) being confounded with pernacula, bernacula, a little shell.
64. “A Monograph of the Cirripedia,” vols. i. and ii., Ray Society, 1851, 1853.
65. “Rep. on the Cirripedia, H.M.S. ‘Challenger,’” vols. viii. and x., 1883.
66. “Monographie des Cirrhipèdes,” Paris, 1905, in which will be found full
references to literature.
 67. Arch. Biol. xvi., 1899, p 27.
68. Berndt, Sitzb. Ges. Naturfr. Berlin, 1903, p. 436.
69. Arch. Zool. Exp. viii., 1880, p. 537.
70. Quart. J. Micr. Sci. xxx., 1890, p. 107.
71. Plankton Expedition, ii. G. d. 1899.
72. Y. Delage, Arch. Zool. Exp. (2), ii., 1884, p. 417; G. Smith, Fauna u. Flora
G. von Neapel, Monogr. 29, 1906.
73. G. Smith, Fauna u. Flora d. Golfes v. Neapel, Monogr. xxix., 1906, pp. 60–
64, 119–121.
74. Bull. Sc. Dép. Nord (2), 10 Ann. xviii., 1887, p. 1. Ibid. (3), i., 1888, p. 12;
and other papers.
75. G. Smith, loc. cit. chap. v. I. scorpio should be I. mauritanicus throughout
this Monograph.
76. F. A. Potts, Quart. J. Micr. Sci. l., 1906, p. 599.
77. Faxon, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (5), xiii., 1884, p. 147.
78. G. Smith, Mitth. Zool. Stat. Neapel, xvii., 1905, p. 312.
79. C. L. Boulenger, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1908, p. 42.
80. Garnier, C. R. Soc. Biol. liii., 1901, p. 38.
81. Gruvel, Monographie des Cirrhipèdes, 1905, p. 152.
82. Claus, Untersuchungen zur Erforschung des Crustaceensystems, Wien,
1876. Brady and Norman, “Monograph of the Marine and Fresh-Water Ostracoda
of the N. Atlantic,” Trans. R. Dublin Soc. (2) iv., 1889, p. 63. Müller, Fauna und
Flora G. von Neapel, Monogr. xxi., 1894; “Deutschlands Süsswasser-Ostracoden,”
Chun’s Zoologica, xii., 1900.
83. “The Germ Plasm,” Contemp. Science Series, 1893, p. 345.
84. The term pereiopod is applied to those thoracic limbs which are used in
locomotion, and are not specially differentiated for any other purpose.
85. Claus, Arb. Inst. Wien, viii., 1889, p. 1.
86. Robinson, Quart. J. Micr. Sci. 1., 1906, p. 383.
87. Morphol. Jahrb. viii., 1883, p. 485.
88. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (7), xiii., 1904, p. 144.
89. The lacinia mobilis is a movable tooth-like structure jointed on to the
biting face of the mandible.
90. Trans. Linn. Soc. (2), vi., 1894–1897, p. 285.
 91. Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, xxxviii., 1897, p. 787.
92. G. Smith, Proc. Roy. Soc. 1908.
93. This characteristic is found in the Crustacea elsewhere only in the
Argulidae and certain Euphausiidae.
94. The Victorian Naturalist, xxiv., 1907, p. 117.
95. Challenger Reports, vol. xiii., 1885, p. 55.
96. Sars, “Crustacea of Norway,” iii., 1900.
97. Sars, “Crustacea Caspia,” Bull. Acad. Imp. Sci. St. Pétersbourg, series 4,
xxxvi., 1894, and “Crustacea of Norway,” iii., 1900, p. 120.
98. “Crustacea of Norway,” vol. ii., Isopoda, 1899, in which many references to
literature will be found.
99. Smith, Mitth. Zool. Stat. Neapel, xvii., 1905, p. 312.
100. G. Smith, Mitth. Zool. Stat. Neapel, xvi., 1903, p. 469.
101. Mayer, Mitth. Zool. Stat. Neapel, i., 1879, p. 165.
102. Beddard, Challenger Reports, vol. xi., 1884.
103. Hansen, Quart. J. Micr. Sci. xlix., 1906, p. 69.
104. A useful little book on British Woodlice by Webb and Sillem (1906) may
be profitably consulted. Budde Lund’s Isopoda Terrestria, 1900, is useful to the
specialist.
105. The pleopods are traversed by a system of minute tubes called
pseudotracheae, somewhat resembling the tracheae of Insects.
106. Bonnier, Trans. Inst. Zool. Lille, viii., 1900.
107. G. Smith, Fauna and Flora Neapel, Monograph 29, chap. vi.; M. Caullery,
Mitth. Zool. Stat. Neapel, xviii., 1908, p. 583.
108. M. Caullery (loc. cit. p. 130) questions the truth of this observation, but I
am convinced of its accuracy.
109. Trav. Inst. Lille, v., 1887.
110. Chilton, Trans. Linn. Soc. vi., 1894, p. 185.
111. Spenser and Hall, Proc. Roy. Soc. Victoria, ix. p. 12.
112. “Das Tierreich,” 21, Amphipoda Gammaridea, 1906.
113. Cf. P. Mayer, Fauna u. Flora G. von Neapel, Monogr. vi., 1882; xvii.,
1890.
114. Abhandl. königl. Gesellsch. Göttingen, xvi., 1871.
115. Mem. Nat. Acad. Sci. v., 1891.
 116. Sars, Challenger Reports, xiii., 1885; Chun, Bibliotheca Zoologica, xix.,
1896, p. 139.
117. Die Physiologie der facettierten Augen von Krebsen und Insecten.
Leipzig, Wien, 1891.
118. Valdivia Expedition, vol. vi., 1904.
119. Ann. Sci. Nat. (Zool.) (7), xiii., 1892, p. 185.
120. A Naturalist in Indian Seas, 1902.
121. “Atlantis,” Bibliotheca Zoologica, Heft 19, 1896, p. 193.
122. Loc. cit. p. 150.
123. Bell, A History of the British Stalk-eyed Crustacea, 1853; Heller, Die
Crustaceen des Südlichen Europa, 1863.
124. Cf. Claus, Würzburger Naturwiss. Zeitschr. ii., 1861, p. 23.
125. Arch. f. Naturg. vi., 1840, p. 241.
126. Spence Bate’s Challenger Reports.
127. Some of the pereiopods remain biramous in certain Peneidea and Caridea
(see p. 163).
128. Bull. U.S. Fish Commission, xv., 1895.
129. Zool. Bulletin, i., 1898, p. 287.
130. Archiv für Entw. Mech. xi., 1901, p. 321.
131. Challenger Reports, xxiv., 1888.
132. Loc. cit. p. 150.
133. Keeble and Gamble, Phil. Trans., Ser. B, cxcvi., 1904, p. 295. The
chromatophores are also directly responsive to light, but the lasting adaptations to
colour-backgrounds are brought about indirectly, the stimulus being transmitted
through the eyes and nervous system. The influence of light may also affect the
metabolism of the animal, the chromatophores being accompanied by a ramifying
fatty tissue, which disappears if the animal is kept in the dark.
134. Challenger Reports, xxiv., 1881.
135. Borradaile’s useful paper on the classification of the Decapoda (Ann.
Mag. Nat. Hist. (7), xix., 1907, p. 457) should be consulted for this and other
Decapod groups. Also Alcock’s Cat. of the Indian Mus., “Decapod Crustacea.”
136. Giard and Bonnier, Compt. Rend. Soc. Biol. 1892.
137. Coutière, Fauna and Geogr. Maldive and Laccadive Archipelagos, ii.,
1905, p. 852.
 138. Keeble and Gamble, Phil. Trans. Ser. B., cxcvi., 1904, p. 295. In the young
a constant and very simple chromatophore-system is present, but in the adult a
barred, lined, or monochrome colour-pattern may be present, which is ultimately
induced by the nature of the environment, and does not subsequently change. In
other species of Hippolyte, and in Palaemon and Crangon, only one adult colour-
pattern occurs. Thus H. varians, besides reacting to light by its chromatophores,
possesses a permanent colour-pattern, which is also determined by environment.
139. Claus, Unt. z. Erforschung d. genealog. Grundlage d.
Crustaceensystems. Vienna, 1876.
140. Milne Edwards and Bouvier, Ann. Sci. Nat. (7), xvi., 1894, p. 91.
141. Garstang, Quart. J. Micr. Sci. xl., 1897, p. 211.
142. Milne Edwards and Bouvier, Bull. Soc. Philomath. Paris (8), ii., 1889;
and Expédition du Talisman, “Crustacés Décapodes,” 1900.
143. Alcock, loc. cit.; Borradaile, op. cit. p. 162; i. p. 64.
144. Brandt, Bull. Phys. Math. Acad. St. Pétersbourg, i. p. 171, and viii. p. 54;
Boas, K. Dansk. Vidensk. Selskab. Skrift. Naturvid. og Math. Afd. 6, Bd. 2, 1880;
Bouvier, Ann. Sci. Nat. (Zool.) (7) xviii. p. 157.
145. Vol. xxvii. p. 81.
146. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., xxxi., 1904, p. 147.
147. For general literature consult Ortmann in Bronn’s Tier-Reich, v. 2, 1901,
p. 778. See also Reports of Challenger, Valdivia, and Talisman Expeditions, etc.
148. Gurney, Quart. J. Micr. Sci. xlvi., 1902, p. 461.
149. Bouvier, Bull. Soc. Philomath. Paris, (8) viii., 1896.
150. Loc. cit. p. 183.
151. M‘Culloch, Rec. Australian Mus. vi. part 5, 1907, p. 353.
152. Lankester, Quart. J. Micr. Sci. xlvii., 1903, p. 439.
153. Garstang, Quart. J. Micr. Sci. xl., 1897, p. 211, and Journ. Mar. Biol. Ass.
iv., 1895–97, p. 396.
154. Loc. cit. p. 181.
155. Rep. Brit. Ass. for 1898, p. 887.
156. Naturalist in Indian Seas, 1902.
157. There appears to be some doubt on this point, as Westwood (see p. 153)
described direct development in a Gecarcinus. Possibly different species behave
variously.
158. Kingsley, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 1880, p. 187.
159. American Naturalist, xxxiii., 1899, p. 583.
 160. Planktonstudien, Jena, 1890.
161. “Report on the Plankton,” Internat. Inst. Marine Biol. 1903.
162. Internat. Inst. Mar. Biol. 1903.
163. A Naturalist in Indian Seas.
164. Scourfield, J. Quekett Micr. Club, 1903–4, gives a useful list of British
Fresh-water Entomostraca. For the identification of fresh-water Cladocera,
Lilljeborg’s “Cladocera Sueciae,” Nov. Act. Reg. Soc. Upsalensis, 1901; for
Copepoda, Schmeil’s “Süsswasser Copepoden,” in Bibliotheca Zoologica, iv., v.,
and viii., 1892, 1893, and 1895 are recommended.
165. Trans. Norfolk and Norwich Nat. Soc. vii.
166. Le Lac Leman, 3 vols., Lausanne, 1892.
167. Consult Apstein, “Das Süsswasserplankton,” Kiel and Leipzig, 1896; and
Arch. f. Hydrobiologie u. Planktonkunde, numerous papers.
168. Mr. C. H. Martin points out to me that in the Scottish lochs, which from
their geological nature are evidently not connected with subterranean waters, none
of them nor similar forms occur; nor do they in the Tasmanian lakes which are on
igneous diabase, so that Forel’s conclusion would seem to be of wide application.
169. See Chilton, Trans. Linn. Soc. (2) vi., 1894, p. 163, with review of
literature.
170. S. F. Harmer, Trans. Norfolk and Norwich Nat. Soc. ii., 1899, p. 489.
171. Mem. Nat. Acad. Washington, iii., 1886, p. 1.
172. Arch. Zool. Exp. (4), ii., 1904, p. 1.
173. See Calman, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1906, p. 187.
174. The Crayfish, Internat. Scient. Series.
175. Mem. Harvard. Mus. x., 1885.
176. Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc. xli., 1902, p. 267, and xliv., 1905, p. 91.
177. G. O. Sars, “Crustacea Caspia,” Bull. Acad. Imp. Sc. St. Pétersbourg (4),
xxxvi., 1893–4, pp. 51 and 297; (5) i., 1894, pp. 179 and 243; also Crustacea of
Norway, vol. ii. Isopoda, 1900, p. 73.
178. Daday, Termés Füzetek, xxv., 1902, pp. 101 and 436.
179. Daday, Bibliotheca Zoologica, Heft 44, 1905.
180. On the cheek the furrow represents a pleural groove, and does not form
the limit of the posterior cephalic segment.
181. M‘Coy, Synop. Sil. Foss. Ireland, 1846, p. 56, and Brit. Pal. Foss., 1851, p.
146, pl. 1 E, fig. 16; Salter, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. iii., 1847, p. 251.
 182. Figures showing this suture are given by Oehlert, Bull. Soc. géol. de
France (3), xxiii., 1895, pl. 1, figs. 9, 12, 15.
183. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (2) iv., 1849, p. 396.
184. Lindström, “Visual Organs of Trilobites,” Svenska Vet. Akad. Handl.
xxxiv., 1903. Exner, Physiol. d. facett. Augen v. Krebsen u. Insecten, 1891, p. 34, pl.
ii. figs. 18, 19.
185. Journ. Morphol. ii., 1889, p. 253, pl. 21.
186. Watase, Johns Hopkins Univ. Studies, Biol. Lab. iv., 1890, p. 290.
Lindström, op. cit. p. 27.
187. A suture is said to be present at the external margin of the flattened
cephalic border.
188. Goldfuss, “Beitr. zur Petrefaktenkunde,” 1839, p. 359, pl. 33, fig. 2d.
189. Spencer, Geol. Mag. 1903, p. 489.
190. For an example of this see Salter, Mon. Brit. Trilobites, 1864–83, pls. 15,
16.
191. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. Harvard, viii., 1881, p. 191.
192. Studies in Evolution, 1901, pp. 197–225; Geol. Mag. 1902, p. 152.
Walcott, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, ix., 1894, p. 89.
193. Syst. Sil. Bohême, i., 1852, pp. 257–276.
194. American Geologist, xx., 1897, p. 34.
195. Proc. R. Irish Acad. xxiv., 1903, p. 332, and Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci. xlix.,
1906, p. 469.
196. This has received some support from H. Milne Edwards, Ann. Sci. Nat.
Zool. (6), xii., 1881, p. 33; H. Woodward, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. xxvi., 1870, p.
487, and vol. 1., 1894, p. 433; Bernard, ibid. vol. 1. p. 432.
197. Kingsley does not admit this relationship, and regards the Trilobita as a
group quite distinct from all other Crustacea. See American Naturalist, xxviii.,
1894, p. 118, and American Geologist, xx., 1897, p. 33.
198. Zittel states that Apus appears first in the Trias.
199. Monogr. Brit. Trilobites, 1864, p. 2.
200. “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.
201. Neues Jahrb. für Min. Geol. u. Pal. 1898, i. p. 187.
 202. Lake, Brit. Cambrian Tril. 1907, p. 45.
203. The British Carboniferous Proëtidae are described by H. Woodward,
Monogr. Brit. Carb. Trilobites, Palaeont. Soc. 1883–84.
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).
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.
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.
207. Quart. J. Micr. Sci. xlviii., 1905, p. 165.
208. μηρός = a thigh.
209. This segment, though present in embryo Scorpions, has disappeared in
the adults of those animals.
210. Quart. J. Micr. Sci. xlix., 1906, p. 469.
211. Zool. Anz. xiv., 1891, pp. 164, 173.
212. Zeitschr. wiss. Zool. lix., 1895, p. 351.
213. They are described in great detail in Lankester’s article, “Limulus an
Arachnid,” Quart. J. Micr. Sci. xxi., 1881, p. 504.
214. Tr. Linn. Soc. xxviii., 1872, p. 471.
215. Tr. Linn. Soc. xxviii., 1872, p. 472.
216. A rudimentary ninth pair of ostia are described anteriorly.
217. J. Morph. vii., 1892, p. 35.
218. Kingsley, loc. cit.
219. J. Coll. Tokyo, v., 1893, p. 53.
220. Lockwood, Amer. Nat. iv., 1870–71, p. 261.
 221. For a diagnosis of the species and a list of synonyms, see Pocock, Ann.
Mag. Nat. Hist. (7), ix., 1902, p. 256.
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.
223. Quart. J. Micr. Sci. xxxi., 1890, p. 317.
224. I am indebted to Mr. Henry Woods for these paragraphs on fossil
Xiphosura.
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.
226. Packard, “Carb. Xiphos. N. America,” Mem. Nat. Acad. Sci. Washington,
iii., 1885, p. 146, pl. vi. fig. 1a, pl. v. fig. 3a (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.
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).
228. Walcott, Amer. Jour. Sci. (3), xxiii., 1882, p. 213.
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.
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.
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).
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.
 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.
234. Sarle, New York State Museum, Bulletin 69, Palaeont. 9, 1903, p. 1087.
235. Beecher, Geol. Mag. 1901, p. 561.
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.
237. Peach, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb. xxx., 1882, p. 516.
238. Cf. p. 258.
239. Nature, xlviii., 1893, p. 104.
240. Souvenirs entomologiques, Sér. 9, 1907, p. 229.
241. Brauer, Zeitschr. wiss. Zool. lix., 1895, p. 355.
242. Das Tierreich, 8. Lief., 1899, p. 4.
243. Arachnides de France, vii., 1879, p. 84.
244. Fauna of British India, “Arachnida,” 1900, p. 8.
245. Tr. Zool. Soc. xi. part x., 1885, p. 373.
246. Zeitschr. wiss. Zool. lix., 1895, p. 351.
247. Das Tierreich, 8. Lief., 1899.
248. Pocock, Fauna of British India, “Arachnida.” London, 1900.
249. Laurie, J. Linn. Soc. Zool. xxv., 1894, p. 30.
250. See M. Laurie in J. Linn. Soc. Zool. xxv., 1894, p. 20.
251. Tr. Linn. Soc. (2) vi., 1896, p. 344.
252. Bernard, loc. cit. p. 366.
253. J. Linn. Soc. xxv., 1894, p. 29.
254. See Pocock, Ann. Nat. Hist. (6), xiv., 1894, p. 120.
255. Kraepelin, Das Tierreich, Berlin, 8. Lief., 1899, p. 234.
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).
257. Mém. Mus. d’Hist. Nat. xviii., 1829, p. 377.
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.
 259. Pickard-Cambridge, in his Spiders of Dorset, names them exinguinal,
coxal, femoral, genual, tibial, metatarsal, and tarsal.
260. Nat. Hist. Tidsskr. iv., 1843, p. 349.
261. J. Linn. Soc. xv., 1881, p. 155.
262. Proc. Asiat. Soc. Beng. 1875, p. 197.
263. Tijdschr. v. d. Nederl. Dierkundige Ver. (2), i., 1885–1887, p. 109.
264. Études sur la circulation du sang chez les Aranées du genre Lycose.
Utrecht, 1862.
265. Recherches sur l’appareil circulatoire des Aranéides. Lille, 1896.
266. Arch. f. Naturg. 55 Jahrg., i., 1889, p. 29.
267. M‘Leod, Bull. Ac. Belg. (3), iii., 1882, p. 779.
268. American Spiders and their Spinning Work, ii., 1890, p. 208.
269. Ann. Nat. Hist. (3), xv., 1865, p. 459.
270. Voyage of the Beagle.
271. Correspondence of John Ray, p. 77.
272. Warburton, Q. J. Micr. Sci. xxi., 1890, p. 29.
273. Rep. Brit. Ass. 1844, p. 77.
274. Nature, xl., 1889, p. 250.
275. See Warburton, Quart. J. Micr. Sci. xxi., 1890, p. 29.
276. Aranéides de la Réunion, Maurice et Madagascar, Paris, 1863, p. 238.
277. M‘Cook, American Spiders and their Spinning Work, i., 1889, p. 351; F.
O. Pickard-Cambridge, J. Micr. and Nat. Sci. July 1890.
278. Moggridge, Harvesting Ants and Trap-door Spiders. London, 1873, p.
120.
279. Verh. Ges. Wien, xviii., 1868, p. 905 (Abstract in Zool. Rec. v., 1868, p.
175).
280. The figure of this cocoon has been accidentally inverted in the works of
both Blackwall and Pickard-Cambridge.
281. Fabre, Nouveaux souvenirs entomologiques, ch. xi.
282. Aranéides de la Réunior, Maurice et Madagascar, Paris, 1863, p. xlvi.
283. Hist. de la grande île de Madagascar, 1658, p. 156.
284. Science Gossip, 1877, p. 46.
285. Insect Life, i., 1889, p. 205.
 286. Ann. Soc. ent. France, xi., 1842, p. 205. Translated from the Spanish by
L. Fairmaire.
287. M‘Cook, American Spiders and their Spinning Work, ii., 1890, p. 188.
288. M‘Cook, t.c. p. 389.
289. British Spiders, 1861, p. 102.
290. Ann. Nat. Hist. (1), xi., 1843, p. 1.
291. Naturalist in Nicaragua, 2nd ed., 1888, p. 134.
292. Nouveaux souvenirs entomologiques, ch. xii.
293. M‘Cook, t.c. p. 384.
294. The Naturalist in Nicaragua, p. 19.
295. Spiders of Dorset, 1879–1881, p. 292.
296. Ibid. p. 360.
297. Naturalist on the Amazon, 1873, p. 54.
298. Protective Resemblances and Mimicry in Animals, 1873, p. 4.
299. Nature, lxviii., 1908, p. 631.
300. J. Morph. (Boston, U.S.A.) i., 1887, p. 403.
301. Nature, xxiii., 1880, p. 149.
302. Warburton, Ann. Nat. Hist. (6), viii., 1891, p. 113.
303. Spiders of Dorset, 1879–1881, p. xxvii.
304. Spiders, their Structure and Habits, 1883, p. 98.
305. Sexual Selection in Spiders, p. 37. (Occasional Papers of the Nat. Hist.
Soc. of Wisconsin, I., 1889.)
306. Arachnides de France (vol. i., published 1874). Histoire naturelle des
araignées (2nd ed. vol i., published 1892).
307. Simon’s Cribellatae comprise Hypochilidae, Uloboridae, Psechridae,
Zoropsidae, Dictynidae, Oecobiidae, Eresidae, Filistatidae.
308. The Spider genus Mygale was established by Walckenaer in 1802, but the
name was preoccupied, having been used by Cuvier (Mammalia) in 1800.
309. Hist. Nat. des Araignées (2nd ed.), i., 1892, p. 76.
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.
 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.
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.
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.
314. Hist. Nat. des Ar. i. p. 416.
315. Pickard-Cambridge, Spiders of Dorset, p. 77.
316. Hist. Nat. des Ar. i. p. 594.
317. Hist. Nat. des Ar. i. p. 692.
318. The Erigoninae, Formicinae, and Linyphiinae, together with the
Epeiridae, form Simon’s family of Argiopidae.
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.
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.
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.
322. Ent. Tidsskr. xviii., 1897, p. 223, pl. iv.
323. Zool. Anz. xxiv., 1901, p. 537.
 324. Quart. J. Micr. Sci. xlvii., 1904, p. 215.
325. Trans. Linn. Soc. (2), vi., 1896, p. 323.
326. Nature, xlvi., 1892, p. 247.
327. Ann. Nat. Hist. (1), xii., 1843, p. 81.
328. Pocock, Nature, lvii., 1897, p. 618.
329. Cook, Nature, lviii., 1898, p. 247.
330. Öfv. Ak. Förh. lvi., 1899, p. 977.
331. Trans. Linn. Soc. (2), vi., 1896, p. 310.
332. Das Tierreich, Berlin, 12. Lief., Arachnoidea, 1901, p. 4.
333. Arachnides de France, vii., 1879, p. 2.
334. Arachnides de France, vii., 1879, p. 5.
335. See Bernard, J. Linn. Soc. xxiv. (Zool.), 1893, p. 410.
336. See Bernard, J. Linn. Soc. xxiv. (Zool.), 1893, p. 422.
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.
338. Monograph of the British Species of Chernetidea, Dorchester, 1892.
339. Revue Zoologique par la Société Cuvierienne, p. 10.
340. Arachnides de France, vii., 1879, p. 122.
341. On two Orders of Arachnida, Cambridge University Press, 1904.
342. Mag. Nat. Hist. (i.), xii., 1843, p. 325.
343. Zool. Jahrb. iii., 1888, p. 319.
344. T. C. pp. 67–75.
345. Long sternum (μῆκος = length; στῆθος = breast).
346. Arachnides de France, vii., 1879.
347. Transverse sternum (πλάγιος = transverse).
348. Monograph of the British Phalangidea, Dorchester, 1890.
349. The single exception is Opilioacarus, see p. 473.
350. C. R. Ac. Sci. cxxv., 1897, p. 879.
351. “The Biology of the Cattle Tick,” Journ. Compar. Med. and Vet. Archives,
1891, p. 313.
352. Entomological News (Philadelphia), vol. xi., Jan. 1900.
 353. For the Protozoa to which these and similar diseases are due, cf. vol. i. pp.
120 f.
354. C. R. Soc. Biol. Paris (7), iv., 1882, p. 305.
355. Ann. Soc. Linn. Lyon, xxii., 1876, p. 29.
356. Bull. Soc. Nat. de Moscou, liv. 1879, pt. i. p. 234.
357. Z. wiss. Zool. xxxvii., 1882, p. 553.
358. P. Z. S., 1895, p. 174.
359. Arch. f. Naturg. i., 1876, p. 65.
360. Tr. Linn. Soc. (2), v. Zool., 1890, p. 281.
361. See account given by Tulk in Mag. Nat. Hist. xviii., 1846, p. 160.
362. Entomological News (Philadelphia), vol. xi., Jan. 1900.
363. Michael, British Oribatidae (Ray Soc.), i., 1883, p. 176.
364. Loc. cit. p. 168.
365. Claparède, Z. wiss. Zool. xviii., 1868, p. 455. Michael, British Oribatidae,
i., 1883, p. 73, writes it “Deutovium.”
366. Atti Ist. Veneto, ii., 1891, p. 699.
367. Rev. Sci. Nat. Ouest, ii., 1892, p. 20.
368. Eriophyes, v. Siebold, Jahresber. Schles. Ges. xxviii., 1850, p. 89;
Phytoptus, Dujardin, Ann. Sci. Nat. (3), xv., 1851, p. 166.
369. See Michael, British Tyroglyphidae, published by the Ray Society, 1901–
2.
370. The first paper appeared in Mém. Soc. Zool. ix., 1896, pp. 1–44.
371. “Ticks, a Monograph of the Ixodoidea.” Part I. Argasidae, 1908.
372. With, Vid. Medd. 1904, p. 137.
373. Silvestri, Redia, ii., 1904, fasc. 2, p. 257.
374. Arch. mikr. Anat. Bd. i., 1865, p. 428.
375. A. Basse, Zeitschr. wiss. Zool. lxxx., 1906, p. 259.
376. Ann. Sci. nat. (2), xiv., 1840, p. 269, and xvii., 1842, p. 193.
377. Zool. Jahrb. Anat. iii., 1889. This paper contains a bibliography.
378. Morph. Jahrb. xxii., 1895, p. 491.
379. C. R. Ac. Sci. cxviii., 1894, p. 817.
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.
381. P. Zool. Soc. 1897, p. 790.
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.
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.
384. This description is mainly based on the account of P. teretiusculus given
by Spencer, Quart. J. Micr. Sci. xxxiv., 1893, p. 1.
385. Zeitschr. wiss. Zool. lii., 1891, p. 85. This contains a very full
bibliography, of 143 entries.
386. Centrbl. Bakter. xl., 1906, p. 368; v. also Thiroux, C. R. Soc. Biol. lix.,
1905, p. 78.
387. Shipley, Arch. parasit. i., 1898, p. 52. This contains lists of synonyms and
of memoirs published since Stiles’ paper, etc.
388. H. B. Ward, P. Amer. Ass. 1899, p. 254.
389. Nouv. Dict. de méd., de chir. et d’hyg. vétérinaires, xii. 1883.
390. Tr. R. Soc. Edinb. xxxii., 1884, p. 165.
391. Lohrmann, Arch. Naturg. Jahrg. 55, i., 1889, p. 303.
392. Von Linstow, J. R. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, ii., 1906, p. 270.
393. Pycnogonides, Latreille, 1804; Podosomata, Leach, 1815; Pychnogonides
ou Crustacés aranéiformes, Milne-Edwards, 1834; Crustacea Haustellata,
Johnston, 1837; Pantopoda, Gerstaecker, 1863.
394. Syst. Nat. ed. xii. 1767, vol. ii. p. 1027.
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.
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.”
397. As a rare exception, Hoek has found the eggs carried on the ovigerous
legs in a single female of Nymphon brevicaudatum, Miers.
398. Meisenheimer (Zeitsch. wiss. Zool. lxxii., 1902, p. 235) compares these
with certain glands described in Branchipus by Spangenberg and by Claus.
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.
400. Mém. Acad. Sci. St-Pétersb. (vii.), xxxviii., 1892.
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.
402. The dorsal lobe is absent in Rhynchothorax.
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).
404. Dohrn, t. cit. p. 55.
405. Biol. Stud. Johns Hopkins Univ. v., 1891, p. 49.
406. Vergl. Entwickl. d. wirbellosen Tiere, Jena, 1893, p. 664.
407. In the second joint in Ascorhynchus abyssi, Sars, and A. tridens,
Meinert.
408. Biol. Bulletin Woods Holl, vol. ii., Feb. 1901, p. 196.
 409. Studi e ricerche sui Picnogonidi, Firenze, 1876.
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).
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.
412. A slightly different account is given of the Australian P. plumulariae by v.
Lendenfeld (Zeitschr. wiss. Zool. xxxviii., 1883, pp. 323–329).
413. Zur Lehre vom Generationswechsel und Fortpflanzung bei Medusen und
Polypen, 1854.
414. Rep. Brit. Ass. 1859; cf. “Gymnoblastic Hydroids,” Ray Soc. pl. vi. fig. 6.
415. Trans. Tyneside Field Club, v. (1862–3), 1864, pp. 124–136, pls. vi., vii.;
Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (3), ix., 1862, p. 33.
416. See also Hallez, Arch. Zool. Exp. (4), v., 1905, p. 3; Loman, Tijdschr. Ned.
Dierk. Ver. (2), x., 1906, p. 271, etc.
417. “On Hydroid and other Corals,” 1881, p. 78.
418. Hugo Mertens, Mitth. Zool. Stat. Neapel, xviii., 1906, pp. 136–141.
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.
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.
421. Loeb (Arch. Entw. Mech. v. 2, 1897, p. 250) also says that the Pycnogons
are positively heliotropic.
422. See also P. Gaubert, “Autotomie chez les Pycnogonides,” Bull. Soc. Zool.
Fr. xvii., 1892, p. 224.
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.