Shipley’s (1905) use and justification of the crustacean subclass name Pentastomida now in common use was not the first usage of this name, as I stated in my recent paper (Poore, 2012). The name Pentastomida can be traced back at least to Huxley (1869) by searching the Biodiversity Heritage Library (http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/). Huxley listed the name as a member of Arachnida in his book ‘An introduction to the classification of animals’ without giving its derivation or referring to earlier literature. In a later work, he (Huxley, 1878) included two generic names, Linguatula Frölich, 1789 and Pentastoma Rudolphi, 1812, as synonyms. Huxley’s name was used later in the 19th Century in general texts (for example, Kingsley, 1884; Sedgwick & Heathcote, 1884) and in a comparative embryology textbook (Balfour, 1880). The order Linguatulida Claus, 1872 is a synonym no longer in use. Curiously, no-one describing species of this taxon during the 18th or 19th Centuries (see references to Frölich, Humboldt, Diesing, Wyman, Haldeman, Baird, Leuckart, Wedl and Lohrmann in my 2012 paper) used either higher taxon name. Diesing (1836), who has been commonly but wrongly credited with authorship of the name Pentastomida, discussed only the genus Pentastoma, placing it alone in a new order, Acanthotheca.