vi. I need not say more on those larger groups of an Order which

conduct us to what are denominated its _genera_; but upon these last it will not be a waste of your time to enlarge a little. In the last edition of the _Systema Naturæ_, and in its appendixes, Linné has described 2840 species of _Insecta_ and _Arachnida_, which he divided into 83 genera, allowing upon an average nearly 35 species to each genus. From the paucity of the materials, therefore, of which his system was constructed, there was no loud call upon him for numerous genera. But now more than thirty times that number are said to have found a place in the cabinets of collectors[1267], and there is good reason for thinking that perhaps half that are in existence are as yet undiscovered;--this makes it a matter of absolute necessity to subdivide the Linnean genera, which in fact, with regard to the majority of them, were the _primary_ groups of his Orders, rather than an approximation to the _ultimate_. But this principle may be carried too far: for it is the nature of man to pass from one extreme to the other: and this seems to me to be the case when it is proposed to make genera the _extreme_ term of subdivision before you arrive at species. But it is argued by a very acute Zoologist, that simplicity, perspicuity, and room for necessary variations are best preserved by distinguishing these subdivisions each by an appropriate name[1268]:--Granted. But still it is only a choice of evils. It would require probably more than 10,000 names to designate them, were every extreme group distinguished by a name: but if Mr. MacLeay's admirable pattern exhibited in his genus _Phanæus_[1269] were followed, it would not call for more than 2000--could the trifling difficulty occasioned sometimes by the discovery of a new group, be set against the advantage of having only 2000 names to commit to memory instead of 10,000[1270]? But if, after all, it is judged best to name subgenera, M. Savigny's excellent plan of distinguishing them by a plural termination would diminish the weight of the above objection, and might be used with advantage.

When the component parts of any minor group differ from another,--for the most part in important characters, indicating some tangible difference in their habits and economy, and confirmed by peculiarities in their larvæ; and these differences run through the whole, except that as usual they grow weaker as it is passing off to another; especially where they are striking in the centre or type of the group,--this is always a legitimate genus: but where the characters assumed are very slight, and nothing peculiar in its habits, economy or larva, warrant such distinction, it ought not to be conferred.

vii. I must next say a word concerning species and varieties. A _species_ is a natural object whose differences from those most nearly related to it had their origin when it came from the hands of its CREATOR; while those that characterize a _variety_, have been produced since that event. As we do not know the value and weight of the momenta by which climate, food, and other supposed fortuitous circumstances operate upon animal forms, we cannot point out any certain diagnostic by which in all cases a species may be distinguished from a variety;--for those characters that in some are constant, in others vary. In general, where there is no difference in _form_, _appendages_ and _organs_, _sculpture_, _proportions_ and _larvæ_,--_colour_ alone, especially in insects inhabiting the same district, only indicates a casual variety. Thus _Aphodius luridus_ has sometimes pale elytra with the striæ black (_Scarabæus nigro-sulcatus_ Marsh.): at others it has black spots between the striæ, as in the type: in a third variety the elytra are black at the base and pale at the apex (_Sc. varius_ Marsh.); and lastly, in a fourth they are intirely black (_Sc. gagates_ Marsh.);--yet all these in every other respect precisely correspond. But the converse of this will scarcely hold good; for doubtless minor differences of structure are sometimes produced by a different food and climate: which may probably account for some variations observable in the individuals apparently of the same species obtained from different countries.

* * * * *

Having considered the kind and value of the groups into which _Annulose_ animals, and more especially insects, may be divided, I shall next call your attention to their _composition_. There are _five_ numbers and their multiples which seem more particularly to prevail in nature: namely, _Two_--_Three_--_Four_--_Five_ and _Seven_. But though these numbers are _prevalent_, no one of them can be deemed _universal_. The _binary_ number, which affords the most simple, and for that reason perhaps not the least valuable, mode of arrangement, we see exemplified when two branches, so to speak, diverge from a common stem,--as in the _Vegetable_ and _Animal_ kingdoms; the _terrestrial_ and _aquatic_ Predaceous beetles; in the _thalerophagous_ and _saprophagous Lamellicorn_ ones; in the _Anoplura_ and _Thysanura_; the _Chilopoda_ and _Chilognatha_ amongst _Apterous_ insects; in the _Scorpionidea_ and _Aranidea_ amongst the _Arachnida_; and in the _Macrura_ and _Brachyura_ amongst the Decapod _Crustacea_. Again, in other cases _three_ seems to be the most prominent number: this takes place sometimes with regard to the _primary_ groups of an Order, or what I denominate the _Suborders_. Thus we have the _Diurnal_, _Crepuscular_, and _Nocturnal Lepidoptera_[1271]; the Linnean genera _Blatta_, _Mantis_, and _Gryllus_ constitute the _Orthoptera_; and other instances of this number might be produced in some minor groups. But that which appears to prevail most widely in nature is what may be called the _quaterno-quinary_; according to which, groups consist of four minor ones; one of which is excessively capacious in comparison of the other three, and is always divisible into two; which gives _five_ of the same degree, but of which, two have a greater affinity to each other than they have to the other three[1272]. Mr. W. S. MacLeay, in the progress of his inquiries to ascertain the station of _Scarabæus sacer_, discovered that the thalerophagous and saprophagous Petalocerous beetles resolved themselves each into a circle containing _five_ such groups. And having got this principle, and finding that this number and its multiples prevailed much in nature, he next applied it to the Animal Kingdom in general: and from the result of this investigation, it appeared to him that it was nearly, if not altogether, universal[1273]. Nearly at the same time a discovery almost parallel was made and recorded by three eminent Botanists, MM. Decandolle, Agardh, and Fries, with regard to some groups of the Vegetable Kingdom[1274]; and more recently Mr. Vigors thinks he has discovered the same quinary arrangement in various groups of birds[1275]. This is a most remarkable coincidence, and seems a strong argument in favour of Mr. MacLeay's system. I should observe, however, that according to that system, as stated in his _Horæ Entomologicæ_, if the osculant or transition groups are included, the total number is _seven_[1276]:--these are groups small in number both of genera and species, that intervene between and connect the larger ones. Each of these osculant groups may be regarded as divided into _two_ parts, the one belonging to the _upper_ circle and the other to the _lower_; so that each circle or larger group is resolvable into five _interior_ and two _exterior_ ones, thus making up the number _seven_. Though Mr. MacLeay regards this quinary arrangement of natural objects as very general, it does not appear that he looks upon it as absolutely universal,--since he states organized matter to begin in a dichotomy[1277]: and he does not resolve its ultimate groups into five species; nor am I certain that he regards the penultimate groups as invariably consisting of five ultimate ones. In _Copris_ I seem in my own cabinet to possess ten or twelve distinct types[1278]; and in _Phanæus_, the fifth type, which Mr. MacLeay regards as containing insects resembling all the other types[1279], appears to me rather divided into _two_; one formed by _P. carnifex_, _Vindex_, _igneus_, &c., and the other by _P. splendidulus_, _floriger_, _Kirbii_, &c.

The great point which demands our attention in considering a numerical arrangement of the Kingdoms of Nature is the _value_ of the component members of each group. It is by no means difficult to divide a _Kingdom_, a _Class_, or an _Order_ into two, or three, or five, or seven or more groups, according to any system we may be inclined to favour; but it is not so easy to do this so that the groups shall be of equal rank. Yet it seems requisite that in grouping our objects, as we descend towards the lowest term we should resolve each only into its primary elements, and of them form the next group; and so on till we come to species. When I say of _equal rank_, I do not mean an exact parity between the members into which a group is primarily resolvable,--because there will always be a degradation _in descensu_ from the perfection of the type; but merely that parity (to use a metaphor) that there is between children of the same mother, differing in their relative ages and approach to the perfection of their nature. Perhaps it may be observed with respect to the quinary system, that this condition is not complied with, since two of the groups taken _per se_ appear really to form one group; or to be much nearer to each other than to the remaining groups. But when it is taken into consideration that this great group, always resolvable into two, is the typical group, and that the two are really equal, or rather superior in value to the three others, the objection seems to vanish.

With regard to all numerical systems we may observe, that since variation is certainly one of the most universal laws of nature, we may conclude that different numbers prevail in different departments, and that all the numbers above stated as prevalent are often resolvable or reducible into each other. So that where Physiologists appear to differ, or think they differ, they frequently really agree.

II. The ALMIGHTY CREATOR, when he clothed the world that he had made with _plants_, and peopled it with _animals_, besides the manifestation of his own glory, appears to have had _two_ most important purposes in view;--the one to provide a supply for the mutual wants of the various living objects he had created, for the continuance of the species, and for the maintenance of a due proportion, as to numbers, of each kind, so that all might subserve to the good of the whole; and the other, that by them he might _instruct_ his creature man in such civil, physical, moral and spiritual truths, as were calculated to fit him for his station in the visible world, and gradually prepare him to become an inhabitant of that invisible one for which he was destined. The first of these purposes was best promoted by creating things "according to their kind," with sexes monœcious or diœcious; that groups of beings related to each other, and agreeing in their general structure, might discharge a common function. This we see to be the case generally in nature; for where there is an affinity in the _structure_, there is usually an affinity in the _function_. The last,--or the instruction of man in his primeval state of integrity and purity,--was best secured by placing before him for his scrutiny a book of emblems or symbols, in which one thing either by its form or qualities, or both, might represent another. If he was informed by his Creator that the works of creation constituted such a book, by the right interpretation of which he might arrive at spiritual verities as well as natural knowledge, curiosity and the desire of information concerning these high and important subjects would stimulate him to the study of the mystic volume placed before him; in the progress of which he would doubtless be assisted by that DIVINE guidance, which even now is with those who honestly seek the truth. Both divines and philosophers have embraced this opinion, which is built upon the word of GOD itself[1280].

This last purpose of the Creator was the root of the analogies, connecting different objects with each other that have no real affinity, observable in the works of creation: so that from the bottom to the top of the scale of being, there is many a series of analogous forms, as well as of concatenated ones; and the intire system of nature is _representative_, as well as operative: it is a kind of _Janus bifrons_, which requires to be studied in two aspects looking different ways. To what degree of knowledge the primeval races of men attained after the fall, by the contemplation and study of this book of nature, we are no where informed; but we learn from the highest authority that the revelation that GOD thus made of himself was in time corrupted, by those that _professing_ themselves to be _wise_ became _fools_, to the grossest idolatry, which sunk men in the lowest depths of sensuality, vice, and wickedness[1281].

In no country was this effect more lamentably striking than in Egypt, whose gods were all selected from the animal and vegetable kingdoms.

"Who knows not to what monstrous gods, my friend, The mad inhabitants of Egypt bend? The snake-devouring ibis these inshrine, Those think the crocodile alone divine; Others where Thebes' vast ruins strew the ground, And shatter'd Memnon yields a magic sound, Set up a glittering brute of uncouth shape, And bow before the image of an ape! Thousands regard the hound with holy fear, Not one Diana:--and 'tis dangerous here To violate an onion, or to stain The sanctity of leeks with tooth profane. O holy nations, in whose gardens grow Such deities!" JUV.

This species of idolatry doubtless originally resulted from their having been taught that things _in_ nature were symbols of things _above_ nature, and of the attributes and glory of the Godhead. In process of time, while the corruption _remained_, the knowledge which had been thus abused was _lost_ or dimly seen. The Egyptian priesthood perhaps retained some remains of it; but by them it was made an esoteric doctrine, not to be communicated to the profane vulgar, who were suffered to regard the various objects of their superstitious veneration, not as _symbols_, but as possessed of an _inherent_ divinity: and probably the mysteries of Isis in Egypt, and of Ceres at Eleusis, were instituted, that this esoteric doctrine, which was to be kept secret and sacred from the common people, might not be lost.

But this kind of analogy is of a higher order than that of which I am here principally to speak,--that, namely, which the various objects of nature bear to each other. This, however, though of a lower rank, is essentially connected with the other, and leads to it; for it establishes the principle, that created things are representative or symbolical: and we find, when we view them in this light, that as we ascend from the lowest beings in the scale of creation, we are led from one to another till we reach the summit or centre of the whole, and are thus conducted to the boundaries of this visible and material system; from whence we may conclude that we ought not here to stop, but go on to something invisible and extra-mundane, as the ultimate object intended to be reflected from this great speculum of creation--the CREATOR himself, and all those spirits, virtues, and powers that have emanated from him.

The _analogies_ which the various objects of the animal kingdom mutually exhibit, have for the most part been either overlooked by modern Physiologists, or have been mistaken for characters that indicate _affinity_; a circumstance that has often perplexed or disrupted their systems. Dr. Virey appears to have been one of the first who obtained a general idea of the parallelism of animals in this respect[1282]; and M. Savigny has contrasted the _Mandibulata_ and _Haustellata_ of the insect tribes as presenting analogies to each other[1283]. But a countryman of our own (often mentioned with honour in the course of our correspondence), peculiarly gifted by nature, and qualified by education and his line of study for such speculations, and possessing moreover the invaluable opportunity of consulting at his ease one of the first Entomological cabinets in Europe, in a work that will for ever couple his name with the science that he cultivates[1284],--has first taught the Naturalist the respective value and real distinctions of the two kinds of relationship that I am now discussing. He has opened to the philosopher, the moralist and the divine, that hitherto closed door by which our first parents and their immediate descendants entered the temple of nature, and studied the symbols of knowledge that were there presented to them: and in addition to his labours (in numerous respects successful), in endeavouring to trace out the natural groups of beings connected by _affinity_, has pointed out how they illustrate each other by _analogy_; thus affording, as was before observed[1285], a most triumphant reply to the arguments of those modern sophists, who, from the graduated scale of affinities observable in creation, were endeavouring to prove that animals, in the lapse of ages, were in fact their own creators[1286].

For the more satisfactory elucidation of the subject before us, I shall consider, first, how we are to distinguish affinities from analogies; and then mention some of the various instances of the latter that occur between insects and other animals, and between different tribes of insects themselves.

To know what characters denote affinity and what are merely analogical, it must be kept in mind that the former being predicated of beings in a _series_ (whether that series has its gyrations that return into themselves, or proceeds in a right line, or assumes any other intermediate direction, it matters not), it cannot be satisfactorily ascertained but by considering attentively the gradual approximation or recession of the structure to or from a certain type in any point of such series. If, therefore, you wish to ascertain whether the characters, in which any given object resembles other objects in certain groups, indicate affinity or only analogy, you must first make yourself acquainted with the common features which distinguish the animals known to belong to that group,--either those relating to their structure, or to their habits and economy. If the object under your eye partakes in these characters more or less, in proportion as it approaches the type or recedes from it, the relation it exhibits is that of _affinity_; but if, though it resembles some members of it in several points of its structure, it differs from the whole group in the general features and characteristic marks that distinguish it, the relation it bears to those members is merely that of _analogy_. Thus, for instance, _Ascalaphus italicus_ in its antennæ, the colouring of its wings, and its general aspect, exhibits a striking resemblance to a _butterfly_; yet a closer examination of its characters will satisfy any one that it is in quite a different series, and has no _affinity_ whatever to that genus. A departure, however, in only one respect from what may be called the _normal_ characters of its group, does not annul the claim of any tribe of insects to remain in it; since this very often only indicates a retrocession from the type, and not a disruption of its ties of affinity. Thus the saw-flies (_Serrifera_) differ from the other _Hymenoptera_, though not in their pupæ, yet more or less in their larvæ; but this alone cannot countervail their agreement with that Order in their organs of manducation and motion, in their ovipositor, and in the other details of their structure[1287].

I have on a former occasion pointed out many of the analogies which take place between insects and other parts of the animal kingdom, and even between insects and the mineral and vegetable kingdoms[1288]: I shall now resume the subject more at large, but without recurring to those last mentioned. In considering the analogies which connect insects with other animals, or which they exhibit with respect to each other, we may have recourse to _two_ methods. We may either consider them as placed somewhere between the two extremes of a convolving series, from which station we may trace these analogies _upwards_ and _downwards_ towards each limit; or we may conceive them and other animals in this respect arranged in a number of series that are _parallel_ to each other, in which the opposite points are analogous. The first mode will perhaps best explain the analogies that exist between insects and other animals, and the last those between different groups of insects themselves. I shall give an example or two of each method, beginning with the first.

There are two tribes in the animal kingdom that seem placed in contrast to each other, both by their habits and by their structure. One of these is carnivorous, living by rapine and bloodshed, and can seldom be rendered subservient to our domestic purposes; while the other is herbivorous or granivorous, is quiet in its habits, and easily domesticated. Amongst insects we find the representatives of both: those of the first tribe are distinguished by their predaceous habits, by the open attacks, or by the various snares and artifices which they employ to entrap and destroy other insects. They may usually be known by their powerful jaws or instruments of suction; by their prominent or ferocious eyes; by the swiftness of their motions, either on the earth, in the air, or in the water; by their fraud and artifice in lying in wait for their prey. Amongst the _Coleoptera_, the Predaceous beetles,--including the Linnean genera _Cicindela_, _Carabus_[1289], _Dytiscus_, and _Gyrinus_,--are of this description; and they symbolize those higher animals that by open violence attack and devour their prey:--for instance, the sharks, pikes, &c., amongst the fishes; the eagles, hawks, &c., amongst the birds; and the whole feline genus amongst the beasts. Similar characters give a similar relation of analogy to the _Mantidæ_ and _Libellulina_ amongst the _Orthoptera_ and _Neuroptera_. The whole family of _Arachne_, the larvæ of the _Myrmeleonina_, &c., portray those animals that to ferocity add cunning and stratagem, or suck the blood of their victims. The _Myriapods_ symbolize in a striking manner the Ophidian reptiles. Look at an _Iulus_, and both in its motions and form you will acknowledge that it represents a _living_ serpent; next turn your eyes to a centipede or _Scolopendra_, and you will find it nearly an exact model of the skeleton of a _dead_ one, the flat segments of its body resembling the vertebræ, its curving legs the ribs, and its venomous maxillæ the poison-fangs. The great body of the _Orthoptera_, the _Homopterous Hemiptera_, the _Lepidoptera_, and _Trichoptera_, afford no example of Predaceous insects. All the analogies I have here particularized, ascending from the insect, terminate in races of a corresponding character and aspect amongst the _Mammalia_, and thus lead us towards _man_ himself, or rather to men in whose minds those bad and malignant qualities prevail, which, when accompanied by power, harass and lay waste mankind; and thus ascending from symbol to symbol, we arrive at an animal who in his own person unites both matter and spirit, and is thus the member both of a visible and invisible world: and we are further instructed by these symbols,--perpetually recurring under different forms,--in the existence of evil and malignant spirits, whose object and delight is the corporeal and spiritual ruin of the noble creature who is placed at the head of the visible works of GOD.

The other tribe of animals that I mentioned of a milder character, may be looked upon as represented by many herbivorous, or not carnivorous, insects; amongst others, the Lamellicorn beetles imitate them by their remarkable horns, so that they wear the aspect of miniature bulls, or deer, or antelopes[1290], or rams, or goats, whether these horns are processes of the head or of the upper jaws. The gregarious _Hymenoptera_, some of which form part of our domestic treasures, may be regarded in some degree as belonging to this department. From insects the ascent upwards, with regard to _form_, is by some of the branchiostegous fishes, which symbolize the horns of cattle; with regard to _character_, by the various species of _Cyprinus_ and other similar genera.--Whether any of the _reptiles_ may be looked upon as falling into this division, I am not sufficiently conversant with them to assert; but if any, the _Chelonians_, or tortoise and turtle tribes, are entitled to that distinction. Amongst the birds, the _Gallinæ_ and _Anseres_,--from which Orders we derive our domestic poultry, whether terrestrial or aquatic,--and our game, form the step next below the ruminants, or cattle: and we are thus again led towards man, and are symbolically instructed in those domestic and social qualities which endear us to each other, best promote the general welfare, and render us most like good spirits and the Divinity himself; of whom the perpetual recurrence of animals exhibiting these amiable and useful qualities is calculated to impress upon us some notion. I might mention many more instances of ascending analogies; as from some of the _Diptera_ by the parrots, to the _Quadrumanes_ or monkey tribes--or from some of the _Iulidæ_ that roll themselves into a ball, to the _Armadillo_; but these are sufficient to set your mind at work upon the subject, so that you may trace them for yourself. Nor shall I occupy your time by pointing out how analogies may be traced from insects downwards towards the lowest term in the scale of animal life, but proceed to consider the analogies observable between insects themselves; in which I shall follow the _second_ method lately mentioned, and consider them as arranged in parallel series.

In studying the analogies that take place between insects themselves, we should always bear in mind that our inquiry is not concerning an _affinity_ which demands a correspondence in various particulars that are not necessary to constitute an analogy; as, for instance, that there should be a mutual imitation in all the states of any two insects. Wherever we discover a marked resemblance between two _perfect_ insects, there is a true analogy, though their metamorphosis may differ; and where there is _not_ that resemblance, though the metamorphosis may agree, there is no analogy. In fact, insects are sometimes analogous in their _first_ state and _not_ in their _last_; and at other times analogous in their _last_ and _not_ in their _first_; but the analogy is most perfect when it holds in _all_ their states: it then, indeed, almost approaches to an affinity. They may also be analogous to each other in their _habits_ and _economy_, when there is little or no resemblance in their _form_; and, _vice versa_, be analogous in their _form_ and not in their _habits_. So that different sets of analogies may be assumed as foundations for different systems. Thus Mr. MacLeay assumes the _metamorphosis_ as the basis of analogy between the corresponding Orders of _Mandibulata_ and _Haustellata_[1291], while M. Savigny compares the _perfect_ insects[1292]: the result therefore differs in some instances. I shall now lay before you in a tabular view their plans and my own.

SAVIGNY.

MANDIBULATA. HAUSTELLATA.

Neuroptera } { Lepidoptera _Ascalaphus_ } { _Papilio_

Hymenoptera } { Diptera _Eucera_ } { _Tabanus_

Orthoptera } { Homoptera _Locusta_ L. } { _Cicada_

Aptera } { Aphaniptera _Nirmus_ } { _Pulex_.

MACLEAY.

MANDIBULATA. HAUSTELLATA.

Trichoptera Lepidoptera Hymenoptera Diptera Coleoptera Aptera Orthoptera Hemiptera Neuroptera Homoptera.

K. AND S.

Coleoptera Hemiptera _Leach_ Orthoptera Homoptera _Leach_ Neuroptera Lepidoptera Hymenoptera Diptera.

In these two last columns, you see, I differ little from M. Savigny: I merely exclude the _Aphaniptera_ as forming an osculant Order, and I have added the _Coleoptera_ and Heteropterous _Hemiptera_ for reasons I shall soon assign. From Mr. MacLeay I differ more widely, which has resulted from our different ideas as to the mode of tracing analogies; his theory leading him to the _metamorphosis_, and mine leading me[1293] to the _perfect_ insect, for the foundation of our several systems. It remains that I show how each of the pairs in my columns represent each other: but I must observe, that the analogies exhibited by insects in the corresponding Orders of these columns are not equally striking in all their respective members; but only in certain individual species or genera, more or less numerous, by which the nearest approach is made to the contrasted forms.

To begin with the _Coleoptera_ and Heteropterous _Hemiptera_.--Both are distinguished by having an ample _prothorax_, a conspicuous _scutellum_, the neuration of their wings, the substance of the hard part of their _hemelytra_, which, as in _Coleoptera_, sometimes imitates horn and sometimes leather, and is occasionally, like elytra, lined with a _hypoderma_[1294]; the articulation of the head with the trunk is likewise the same in both[1295]: and some Heteropterous species so strikingly resemble beetles (_Lygæus_, _brevipennis_ &c.), having little or no membrane at the end of their hemelytra, that they might easily be mistaken for them. These circumstances prove, I think, that this suborder is more analogous to the _Coleoptera_ than to the _Orthoptera_, with which it agrees in scarcely any respect but its metamorphosis. The counterparts of this last Order indeed, instead of the _Heteropterous_, are to be sought for amongst the _Homopterous Hemiptera_, various species of which exhibit a most marked and multifarious analogy with numerous _Orthoptera_. Many of both Orders (_Cicada_, _Locusta_), as you have heard long since, are signalized by possessing the same powers of song, and produced by an analogous organ[1296]: a large proportion also of both are endued with wonderful saltatorious powers, and their posterior tibiæ are similarly armed; their legs in general likewise are longitudinally angular, and the head in both articulates with the trunk in the same manner[1297]. In both Orders too, the upper organs of flight are most commonly _tegmina_, but sometimes in both they are nearly membranous, like _wings_. In _Centrotus_ and _Acrydium_, the one _Homopterous_ and the other _Orthopterous_, the front is bilobed, the eyes are small; there are only two stemmata between the eyes; the prothorax is conspicuous, and behind is producted into a long scutelliform process, under which all the parts also are analogous; the abdomen articulates with the trunk in the same way, is similar in shape in both, and consists of short inosculating segments. Some _Fulgoridæ_ and _Truxalides_ agree also in their producted front. Other analogous characters might be named between these tribes, but these are sufficient to confirm M. Savigny's opinion. That the _Neuroptera_ present analogies to the _Lepidoptera_, though they differ so widely from them in their metamorphosis and habits, is evident from the instance lately adduced of _Ascalaphus italicus_, which was described as a butterfly by Scopoli[1298]; and many of the _Libellulina_, by their wings, partly transparent and partly opaque, and by the shape of those organs and of their bodies, imitate the Heliconian butterflies: and this resemblance is much more striking than any that occurs between the perfect insects in the _Neuroptera_ and Homopterous _Hemiptera_. With regard to the _Hymenoptera_ and _Diptera_ the analogy is undisputed, and must strike every beholder; and one would almost say it was a real affinity, were it not that the resemblance is not only general between Order and Order, but that almost every Hymenopterous tribe has its counterpart amongst the _Diptera_; the saw-flies[1299] for instance, the ichneumons, the various false-wasps[1300], the false-bees[1301], the bees, the humble-bees, the ants, &c., severally find there a representative that wears its livery and general aspect: a circumstance which evidently proves that it was part of the plan of the CREATOR to place them in contrast with each other. Were I to pursue this subject further, it might not be difficult to show that were the _tribes_ of _Mandibulata_ or of _Haustellata_ also arranged in columns, analogies would be discoverable between their corresponding points: this seems to be Mr. MacLeay's opinion[1302]; and it is worth your pursuing the subject further, which cannot but prove very interesting.

But though the general analogy of these columns is that of Order to Order, yet individual species in each Order sometimes find their representatives in a different one from that with which they generally are contrasted;--thus some _Diptera_, as _Culex_, by the scales on the veins and other parts of their wings, are analogous to _Lepidoptera_ rather than _Hymenoptera_[1303]; as is also the genus _Psychoda_ by its form.

* * * * *

We come now to the consideration of a question not easy to be decided,--I mean, which Order of insects is to have the _precedency_, and which is the connecting link that unites them to Vertebrate animals.

Linné (and Mr. MacLeay seems in this to coincide with him) considered the _Coleoptera_ as at the head of the Class of insects; De Geer thought the _Lepidoptera_ entitled to that honour; Latreille and Cuvier begin with the _Aptera_: Marcel de Serres favours the _Orthoptera_[1304]; and others, on account of their admirable economy, have made the _Hymenoptera_ the princes of the insect world[1305]. If the claim to priority was to be decided by the exquisiteness of instincts and the benefits conferred upon the human race, doubtless it would be in favour of the last-mentioned insects. If the power to do mischief carried it, and to lay waste the earth, the _Orthoptera_ would be entitled as much as any to the bad pre-eminence. If beauty, and grace, and gaiety, and splendour of colours were the great requisite, and the law enjoined, _Detur pulchriori_,--the _Lepidoptera_ would doubtless win the throne. But if perfection and solidity of structure, as they ought, are to regulate this point; we must, I think, with the illustrious Swede, assign the palm to the _Coleoptera_. If we consider these in all their parts, the organs for flight only excepted, they seem more perfectly formed and finished than the insects of any other order. But which of the Coleopterous tribes are entitled to the precedency? Linné placed the Lamellicorn beetles at the head of the order, beginning with the _Dynastidæ_, probably led by some characters which seem to connect these with the Branchiostegous fishes. In this he was followed by Fabricius. But Latreille and most modern Entomologists have begun with _Cicindela_ and the other Predaceous beetles. I am not certain what are Mr. MacLeay's sentiments on this subject; but from what he says in the _Annulosa Javanica_[1306], it does not appear that he is a convert to the latter opinion. Bulk and strength seem the most striking characteristics of the former tribe, which represent the cattle or ruminants amongst Vertebrate animals.--Strength united with agility and a considerable portion of grace and symmetry evidently confers a degree of pre-eminence upon the latter, symbolizing the feline race, which seems to throw no small weight into their scale.

There are two Classes of Vertebrate animals with which insects may appear to claim kindred. The _fishes_, and the _reptiles_. _Fishes_ in their fins exhibit no small resemblance to insects; the pectoral and ventral ones representing their arms and legs, and the dorsal ones their wings: _Pegasus Draco_ in this last respect is not unlike a butterfly[1307]. In some genera (_Ostracion_, _Pegasus_, &c.), like insects the animal is covered with a hard shell or crust, formed by the union of its scales. The oral _cirrhi_ of many fishes seem analogous to the _palpi_ of insects; and in some a pair longer than the rest represent their _antennæ_[1308]. Another circumstance in which insects and fishes correspond, is the wonderful variety of forms, often in the greatest degree eccentric, that occurs in both Classes. Some of the cyclostomous fishes, as _Ammocœtus_, _Gastrobranchus_, are supposed to connect the fishes with the _Annulosa_, by means of the _Annelida_ as an osculant Class[1309], which Mr. MacLeay regards as the passage to the _Chilopoda_[1310]: his _Mandibulata_ he considers as passing into the _Anoplura_ by means of some osculant Order as yet unknown[1311]. But I must confess I can see no good ground for this last transition:--the _Anoplura_ appear much more nearly related to the _Psocidæ_, especially by the apterous _Atropos pulsatoria_[1312] than to any _Coleopterous_ insect. But having stated these opinions, I shall leave you to draw your own conclusions, as the question is still perplexed with many difficulties. I am ready to admit that some Vertebrates approach near to the _Annelida_; but that it is through them alone that they are connected with insects, is not at present clear.

With regard to _reptiles_, they seem to be connected with insects by several characters. In the _Chelonians_, the skeleton merges in the external carapace or shell; the _Ophidians_ change their skin like larvæ; the _Batrachians_ undergo metamorphoses; some of the _Saurians_ also have their changes: and the _Draco volans_ has wings somewhat analogous to those of insects[1313]. Were I to be asked what Order of insects could connect with reptiles, I should point to the _Orthoptera_, especially _Gryllus_ L., which by their noise and saltatorious powers not a little resemble frogs; and the larvæ of some strikingly imitate their form[1314]: and of others even that of a lizard[1315]. But these resemblances, after all, may only indicate analogies.

FOOTNOTES:

[1126] _Philos. Botan._ 97. n. 153.

[1127] _Ibid._ 98. n. 155, &c.

[1128] Μεθοδος is rendered "An _artificial_ and compendious mode of doing any thing; a mode of _teaching_ or _learning_:" Μεθοδευω is "To overcome by _artifice_." Συσεμα applied to music is "A _full_ and _harmonious_ assemblage of tones." So that in fact, _System_ should express the actual disposition of objects, or a _Natural_ arrangement; and _Method_, an _Artificial_ one.

[1129] Wisdom. xi. 20.

[1130] Genes. i. 31.

[1131] W. S. MacLeay in _Linn. Trans._ xiv. 54.

[1132] Linn. _Syst. Nat._ i. 11.

[1133] Qu. Whether every real species or group has not some one or more _peculiar_ characters which it neither derives from its predecessor nor imparts to its successor in a series?

[1134] _Œuvres_ vii. 51--.

[1135] _N. Dict. d'Hist. Nat._ xx. 485.

[1136] VOL. III. p. 11--.

[1137] W. S. MacLeay. _Hor. Entomolog._ passim; and in _Linn. Trans._ ubi supr. 53--.

[1138] _N. Dict. d'Hist. Nat._ xx. 485.

[1139] The idea of a continuous _series_ militates somewhat against that of a circle returning into itself. The progression of the series may be in a circle; but at the point of contact where the second circle meets the first, the lines must cut each other; and at this point of intersection of the two circles are of course the osculant groups constituting the first and the last of each circle, which in their intervention come in contact with each other, or rather forming _transition_ groups. If each circle is regarded as _absolute_, the _series_ is broken, though the osculant groups connect the circular ones.

[1140] Mr. MacLeay almost admits that there are _natural_ genera. _Hor. Ent._ 492.

[1141] _Œuvr._ vii. 52.

[1142] _N. Dict. d'Hist. Nat._ ii. 34--.

[1143] Even those animals that like the _Spongiæ_ and _Alcyonia_ are aggregate, and fixed by a common base, have a partial degree of voluntary locomotion in their cells.

[1144] VOL. III. p. 10.

[1145] Cuv. _Anat. Comp._ i. 173.

[1146] _N. Dict. d'Hist. Nat._ ii. 25.

[1147] _Ibid._ 26--.

[1148] VOL. III. p. 12--.

[1149] _Hor. Entomolog._ 200--. See above, p. 3--.

[1150] Savigny _Mém. sur les Anim. sans Vertèbr._ II. i. 3.

[1151] MacLeay _Hor. Ent._ 204.

[1152] VOL. III. p. 46--, See above, p. 247.

[1153] See above, p. 195--.

[1154] VOL. II. p. 306--.

[1155] In this respect insects excel many reptiles, which can reproduce some of their parts.

[1156] See MacLeay _Hor. Entomolog._ 203, 206--. 298--.

[1157] Linn. _Philos. Botan._ n. 155, 160.

[1158] VOL. III. LETTER XXVIII.

[1159] Scias Characterem non constituere Genus, sed Genus Characterem; Characterem fluere e Genere, non Genus e Charactere; Characterem non esse ut Genus fiat, sed ut Genus noscatur. _Philos. Botan._ m. 169.

[1160] VOL. I. p. 66. note^a.

[1161] VOL. III. p. 417.

[1162] Derived from κολεος, _a sheath_, and πτερον, _a wing_.

[1163] _Hist. Animal._ l. iv. c. 7. l. v. c. 20.

[1164] Ὁσα το πτερον εχει εν κολεῳ.

[1165] Latr. _Gen. Crust. et Ins._ i. 169. Oliv. _Ins._ i. Introd. v.

[1166] VOL. I. p. 65.

[1167] In some genera, as _Molorchus_, &c., they do not completely cover the wings. PLATE X. FIG. 1. PLATE I. FIG. 4, 5.

[1168] In _Buprestis_, _Molorchus_, &c., they are only longitudinally folded.

[1169] PLATE X. FIG. 4.

[1170] From σρεψις, _a turning or twisting_, and πτερον.

[1171] VOL. III. p. 589. note^c.

[1172] _Hor. Entomolog._ 371--.

[1173] _Linn. Trans._ xi. 96--.

[1174] _Ibid._ _t._ ix. _f._ 1. d.

[1175] PLATE II. FIG. 1.

[1176] _Linn. Trans._ Ibid. _f._ 15. b.

[1177] From δερμα, _a skin_.

[1178] PLATE X. FIG. 5.

[1179] From ορθος, _straight_.

[1180] _Fn. Suec._

[1181] From δικτυον, _a net_.

[1182] See above, p. 266.

[1183] From νευρον, _a nerve_.

[1184] _Her. Entomolog._ 433.

[1185] VOL. III. p. 563.

[1186] Ibid. p. 125--.

[1187] Ibid. p. 423, 441--, 451, 454--.

[1188] Ibid. p. 656.

[1189] See above, p. 186--.

[1190] _N. Dict, d'Hist. Nat._ x. 344.

[1191] The ovipositor of _Raphidia_ seems merely calculated to introduce its eggs under bark; it seems incapable of boring.

[1192] From ὑμην, _a membrane_.

[1193] De Geer ii. 1035.

[1194] Since this was written, Mr. Stephens has showed me a remarkable Hymenopterous insect taken by him in Hertfordshire, which appears to have the antennæ of one of the _Ichneumonidæ_ and the wings and abdomen of a _Tenthredo_ L., so as to form a link connecting the two tribes or suborders. This may probably have a vermiform larva.

[1195] _Hor. Entomolog._ 431.

[1196] _Hor. Entomolog._ 429.

[1197] VOL. III. p. 67. See above, p. 160.

[1198] Whoever consults De Geer ii. 941--. _t._ xxxiii. _f._ 14, 15. _t._ xxxvi. _f._ 27. and _t._ xxxix. _f._ 7, 8, will be convinced that the metamorphosis of _Tenthredo_ L. is _incomplete_ rather than _obtected_.

[1199] The _Hymenoptera_, though they have all the usual oral organs, cannot be denominated masticators generally; these organs, especially the mandibles, being chiefly used in their economy.

[1200] See above, p. 350.

[1201] VOL. III. p. 417.

[1202] From ἡμισυ, _the half_.

[1203] VOL. III. p. 463--. Linn. _Syst. Nat._ Ord. II.

[1204] If considered as _suborders_, their denomination should not terminate precisely as that of _Orders_. Perhaps _Hemipter_it_a_ and _Heteropter_it_a_ might be an improvement.

[1205] _Hor. Entomolog._ 374--.

[1206] VOL. III. p. 554.

[1207] See above, p. 159--.

[1208] VOL. III. p. 463.

[1209] VOL. III. p. 611--. 604--.

[1210] Ibid. p. 684--.

[1211] From θριξ, τριχος, _hair_. Mr. MacLeay, thinking it indisputable that the _Perlidæ_ should be included in this Order, suggests the propriety of changing its name, both as inapplicable, and as being preoccupied by a Dipterous genus. As I do not think the _Perlidæ_ belong to the Order, and as the great body of the _Trichoptera_ are distinguished by _hairy_ upper wings, I cannot think the name improper: but to apply a name to a _Genus_ which terminates like the denominations of _Orders_, I think leads to mistakes, and should not be tolerated.--K.

[1212] _Hor. Entomolog._ 430--.

[1213] VOL. III. p. 546--.

[1214] The location of the legs together, their long coxæ, and their calcaria, are analogous also to those of the _Lepidoptera_.

[1215] Reaum. vi. Mem. x. _t._ xxxii. _f._ 13. _t._ xxxiv. _f._ 1-6. De Geer vi. 169--. _t._ x. _f._ 7, 8.

[1216] _N. Dict. d'Hist. Nat._ xxv. 286.

[1217] De Geer ii. 511--. He however observes, that they often attack other insects: but the form of their mandibulæ, like that of the caterpillars of _Lepidoptera_, which also on some occasions become carnivorous (VOL. I. p. 386), is fitted for a vegetable diet. De Geer, _Ibid._ 505.

[1218] This is evident from De Geer's account. _Ibid._ 516. _t._ xii. _f._ 14. _t._ xv. _f._ 4.

[1219] PLATE XX. FIG. 25.

[1220] From λεπις, _a scale_.

[1221] VOL. III. p. 537. PLATE IX. FIG. 4.

[1222] Ibid. FIG. 5.

[1223] VOL. I. p. 65--.

[1224] VOL. III. p. 468.

[1225] From δις _twice_, or _double_.

[1226] _Hist. Animal._ l. iv. c. 1, 27.

[1227] VOL. II. p. 354--.

[1228] Ibid. p. 355.

[1229] VOL. III. p. 465--.

[1230] Ibid. p. 552--.

[1231] Ibid. p. 632.

[1232] See above, p. 163.

[1233] From αφανης; _inconspicuous_; so named because something like _elytra_ appear.

[1234] VOL. III. p. 470.

[1235] Ibid. p. 23.

[1236] From α, _priv._ and πτερον.

[1237] VOL. III. p. 221--.

[1238] VOL. III. p. 22.

[1239] Ibid. p. 471.

[1240] _Hor. Entomolog._ 381.

[1241] VOL. III. p. 22. note^a.

[1242] Ibid. p. 471--.

[1243] Ibid. p. 653.

[1244] See above, p. 236.

[1245] _Hor. Entomolog._ 286.

[1246] The number of segments and legs acquired by these insects in their progress to their last state, distinguishes their metamorphosis from that of other _Aptera_, and requires a distinct name.

[1247] VOL. III. p. 417.

[1248] When I said (VOL. III. p. 31.) that _Phrynus_ probably belonged to the true _Arachnida_, it escaped my recollection that Latreille had placed that genus there.

[1249] L. Dufour _Six Nouvell. Arachnid._ &c. _Ann. Gen. des Scienc. Physiq._ IV. iii. 17. _t._ lxix. _f._ 7, _b_.

[1250] _Mém. sur les Anim. sans Vertèbr._ I. i. 57--.

[1251] PLATE XXIX. FIG. 1.

[1252] PLATE XV. FIG. 10. _T´´_. Plate XXIII. FIG. 15. 17. _T´´_.

[1253] PLATE XV. FIG. 7.

[1254] PLATE XXVII. FIG. 50.

[1255] Called the _Centris_. VOL. III. p. 388, 716.

[1256] M. Latreille thinks that in _Galeodes_ the prothorax is coalite with the head (_N. Dict. d'Hist. Nat._ xii. 370.); but that it is not so, is evident from the six real legs being affixed to the pieces behind it. See also VOL. III. p. 23. note^d.

[1257] L. Dufour _ubi supr._ IV. iii. 18.

[1258] _Ibid._ 19.

[1259] _Ibid._ _t._ lxix. _f._ 7. _d._

[1260] When the characters of the Class _Arachnida_ were drawn up (VOL. III. p. 30.) I had not seen a _Galeodes_: they should be thus amended:

_Palpi_ four: anterior pair pediform, cheliform, or unguiculate; posterior pediform.

_Trunk_ Legs six, &c.

[1261] PLATE XIII. FIG. 1.

[1262] _Familles Naturelles du Règne Animal._

[1263] _Annulosa Javanica._ 5.

[1264] See above, p. 365.

[1265] _Coléopt. d'Europe_ i. 75.

[1266] VOL. III. p. 167--. I formerly hinted (_Ibid._ p. 163.) that the larva of _Cicindela_ may be regarded as _Araneidiform_: this is further confirmed by its having _eight_ eyes, (and not _six_,) as I have since discovered, and by the aspect of its large head and prothorax. The other larvæ of the _Adephag_an_a_ have _twelve_ eyes.--Mr. Stephens (_Illustrations of British Entomology_, n^o. xv. p. 175.) has confirmed the above statement, as to the number of eyes of the larva of _Cicindela_.

[1267] Mr. MacLeay says that more than 100,000 _Annulosa_ exist in collections.--_Hor. Ent._ 469.

[1268] Vigors in _Zoolog. Journ._ I. ii. 188.

[1269] _Hor. Entomolog._ 125--.

[1270] See Bicheno in _Linn. Trans._ xv. 491.

[1271] Dr. Horsfield, in his very ingenious and generally admirable _Descriptive Catalogue_ of the Javanese Lepidoptera in the Museum of the Honourable East India Company, has divided that Order into _five_ primary groups, apparently to accommodate it to Mr. W. S. MacLeay's quinary system. I trust he will pardon me for observing, that in this arrangement he seems to me rather to _force_ than to _follow_ nature; and that though he adheres to the above system as to the _number_, he forsakes it in the _construction_ of his groups.

The obvious primary sections of the Lepidoptera, which have been evident to almost every one who has at all studied the Order, are the _three_ named in the text, corresponding with Linné's genera _Papilio_, _Sphinx_, and _Phalæna_. The groups of the last or nocturnal section, which Dr. Horsfield has elevated to the same rank with the two first, are evidently not of equal value, nor to be placed upon the same platform; for the _Bombycidæ_, _Noctuidæ_, and _Phalænidæ_, are clearly of a _secondary_ rank. Indeed this section is resolvable into _more_ groups of _equal_ value than the learned Doctor has assigned to it; for the _Tortricidæ_, _Tineidæ_, &c. are not so united to the Geometers, or genuine _Phalænidæ_, as to form with them a _primary_ group of the _Nocturnal Lepidoptera_, but are themselves entitled _separately_ to that distinction. This will be evident to every one who will take the trouble to compare the larvæ and their habits, of the two tribes, as well as the perfect insects.

In the construction of his groups, he seems not to have discovered in the _Lepidoptera_ a great typical group resolvable into _two_, or at least he has not built his system on this foundation, which appears an essential part of the quinary arrangement. (See Mr. W. S. MacLeay in _Linn. Trans._ xiv. 56--.) As to _value_, the _Papilionidæ_ constitute the typical group or centre of the Order, though the _Phalænidæ_ prevail as to _numbers_: but neither of these are resolvable into two primary groups.

[1272] _Linn. Trans._ xiv. 56--. It is to be observed, however, that what Mr. MacLeay calls the _aberrant groups_ are usually also resolvable into two.

[1273] _Hor. Entomolog._ 318, _et passim._

[1274] _Linn. Trans._ ubi supr. Mr. W. S. MacLeay informs me that M. Agardh has found that the distribution of _Fuci_ is regulated by the same law.

[1275] _Zool. Journ._ iii. 312--.

[1276] VOL. III. p. 15. note^a.

[1277] _Hor. Entomolog._ 199.

[1278] Viz. 1. _Copris Hesperus_; 2. _C. reflexa_; 3. _C. Sabæus_; 4. _C. lunaris_; 5. _C. Carolina_; 6. _C. Œdipus_; 7. _C. Midas_; 8. _C. capucina_; 9. _C. Bucephalus_; 10. _C. Molossus_; 11. _C. Eridanus_; 12. _C. sexdentata_ K.

[1279] _Hor. Entomolog._ 518.

[1280] The most natural and consistent interpretation of 1 Cor. xiii. 12, Βλεπομεν γαρ αρτι δι' εσοπτρου εν αινιγματι, is, that "we see now as it were in a mirror the glory of God reflected enigmatically by the things that he has made." Comp. Rom. i. 20--. Our Saviour (Luke x. 19.) calls _serpents_ and _scorpions_ the power of the _enemy_; which can only mean that they are _figures_ or _symbols_ of the enemy.

[1281] Rom. i. 20, to the end of the chapter.

[1282] _N. Dict. d'Hist. Nat._ xx. 484. comp. ii. 30--.

[1283] _Mém. sur les Anim. sans Vertèbr._ I. i. 20--.

[1284] _Horæ Entomologicæ._

[1285] VOL. III. p. 173--.

[1286] Ibid. p. 348. note^c.

[1287] See above, p. 382--.

[1288] VOL. I. p. 7--.

[1289] A most singular insect belonging to this tribe, and which seems to form a link, having a notched cubit, between the _Amaur_on_a_ and the _Lampr_on_a_, has been described and figured by Hagenbach under the name of _Mormolyce phyllodes_. It exhibits such a striking resemblance to a _Mantis_ or _Phasma_, that it might be mistaken for one. It was found on the western side of the island of Java. Mr. Samouelle showed me a second species of this genus from China, belonging to a lady, who put it into his hands, it being broken, to put together.

[1290] A remarkable imitation of an antelope's horn, a process of the mandible of an insect, in the possession of R. D. Alexander, Esq. F.L.S., is figured in the fifth Number of the _Zoological Journal_.

[1291] _Hor. Entomolog._ 456. Comp. _Linn. Trans._ xiv. 67--.

[1292] _Mém. sur les Anim. sans Vertèbr._ I. i. 20--.

[1293] See above, p. 382.

[1294] VOL. III. pp. 372, 598.

[1295] Ibid. p. 412.

[1296] VOL. II. p. 397--.

[1297] VOL. III. p. 413.

[1298] _Ent. Carn._ 168. n. 446.

[1299] Meigen has figured a Dipterous insect exactly resembling a _Cimbex_, which he calls _Aspistes berolinensis_ (_Dipt._ i. 319. _t._ xi. _f._ 16, 17.)

[1300] _Prædones_ Latr., &c.

[1301] _Andrena_ F., &c.

[1302] _Hor. Entomolog._ 437.

[1303] VOL. III. p. 644.

[1304] _Mém. du Mus._ 1819. 136.

[1305] Rifferschw. _de Ins. Genital._ 9.

[1306] _Annulos. Javan._ i. 1.

[1307] _N. Dict. d'Hist. Nat._ xxv. 115--. xxvii. _t._ M. 8. _f._ 1.

[1308] Piso _Hist. Nat._ 63. _Curui_ 1. _Jundia_ v.

[1309] _N. Dict. d'Hist. Nat._ xxvii. 235. _Hor. Entomolog._ 203.

[1310] _Ibid._ 281--.

[1311] _Ibid._ 354, 390, 397.

[1312] This insect, except in its antennæ, so nearly resembles a _Nirmus_, that it might be mistaken for one. See Coquebert _Illustr. Icon._ i. _t._ ii. _f._ 14.

[1313] VOL. III. p. 590.

[1314] Fuessl. _Archiv._ _t._ lii. _f._ 5.

[1315] Stoll _Saut. de Pass._ _t._ xx. _b._ _f._ 79.