LETTER XLVIII.

_HISTORY OF ENTOMOLOGY._

After the very general idea that I have attempted to embody for you of the _System of Insects_; of the groups in which nature has arranged them, and their mutual relations; it will not be out of place, if I next state to you what has been effected by Entomologists towards reducing them to order: or, in other words, if I give you some account of the various _Methods_ and _Systems_[1316], beginning with the earliest, that have appeared and had their day, which will include a _history_ of the progress of our science from its commencement to its present era.

In writing the history of any science, two modes present themselves. We may either give a chronological review of all the circumstances and publications connected with it; or content ourselves with a rapid survey, dwelling only on the principal epochs, and those lights of the science who by their immortal labours gave birth to them. The _latter_ is that on every account best suited to our present purpose, which I shall therefore here adopt.

There seem to me to be _seven_ principal epochs into which the History of Entomology may be divided: viz. 1. The Era of the _Ancients_. 2. The Era of the _revival_ of the science after the darkness of the middle ages. 3. The Era of Swammerdam and Ray, or of the _Metamorphotic System_. 4. The Era of Linné, or of the _Alary System_. 5. The Era of Fabricius, or of the _Maxillary System_. 6. The Era of Latreille, or of the _Eclectic System_. And 7. The Era of MacLeay, or of the _Quinary System_. All of these appear to form important points, or resting-places, in the progress of the science towards its acme; and of each of these I shall now proceed to give you a brief account.

1. _The Era of the Ancients._ To ascertain what attention was paid to insects in the earliest ages, we must have recourse to the most ancient of records, the Old Testament. In this sacred volume we are informed that after the Creation GOD brought the creatures to Adam that he might name them[1317]. Now the first man, in his unimpaired state of corporeal, mental, and spiritual soundness, under the divine guidance, doubtless imposed upon them names significant of their qualities or structure; which according to Plato was a work above human wisdom, and on account of which the ancient Hebrews deduced that Adam was a philosopher of the highest endowments[1318]. Whether on this great and interesting occasion he gave names to individual species, or only to natural groups, does not clearly appear. But probably as they were created, so were they brought before him "According to their kinds[1319]."

Subsequently Moses will be thought to have possessed no ordinary knowledge of insects, if we suppose, as the ingenious remarks of Professor Lichtenstein[1320] render probable, that he distinguishes as clean insects the Fabrician genera _Gryllus_, _Locusta_, _Truxalis_, and _Acheta_, which a person unobservant of these animals would have confounded together. This discrimination presupposes this knowledge of their general characters, not only in the Jewish lawgiver, but also in the people themselves to whom the precept was addressed, to whom it would otherwise have been _de ignotis_.

Allusion is made in Holy Writ to insects of almost every one of the modern Orders[1321]. They are represented as employed _divinitùs_ sometimes to annoy the enemies of the Israelites, and at others to punish that people themselves when they apostatized from their God. The prophets frequently introduce them as symbols of enemies that lay waste or oppress the church: as the _fly_ of the Ethiopians or Egyptians; the _bee_ of the Assyrians; and the _locust_ of the followers of Mahomet and other similar destroyers[1322]. That Solomon, amongst other objects to the investigation of which his divinely inspired wisdom directed him, did not deem insects, those "Little things upon the earth[1323]," unworthy of his attention, we know from Scripture[1324]; but as his physical writings are lost, we are ignorant whether he treated of their natural arrangement, their economy and history, or of the instruction they afford _analogically_ considered. Where he has referred to them incidentally, it is generally with this latter view.

If we turn from the word and people of GOD to the _Lovers of Wisdom_ (as they modestly styled themselves) of the heathen world, and their writings; we shall discern amongst them a great light shining, the beams of which illuminate even our own times. In the illustrious Stagyrite we recognize--"The father of philosophy, at least of our philosophy, who, rising superior to the darkness in which he lived, darted his penetrating glance through all nature, and established principles which a long course of ages of inquiry have but confirmed. With Aristotle begins the real History of science: and how much soever he may have erred upon particular points, the greatness of his conceptions and the justness of his ideas, on the whole entitle him to our high veneration. His labours in the investigation of the Animal Kingdom have laid the foundation of the knowledge we now possess[1325]." This language of the lamented and learned President of the Linnean Society is particularly applicable to what this great and original genius has effected in _Entomology_. We have seen upon a former occasion[1326], that Linné himself had not those precise ideas of the limits of the Class _Insecta_, which Aristotle so many centuries before him had adopted. In stating the obligations of Entomology to this true _sçavant_, I shall begin by laying before you a tabular view of what may be called his system, as far as I have been able to collect it from his works, especially his _History of Animals_.

{ Coleoptera[1327]. { Pedetica = _Orthoptera saltatoria_ { Latr.[1328] { Astomata = _Hemiptera_ Latr.[1329] { Psychæ = _Lepidoptera_[1330]. { { Pterota vel { { majora = _Neuroptera_ { Ptilota[1331] { Tetraptera { L. _Orthoptera { { { cursoria_ Latr.[1332]? { { { Opisthocentra = { { { _Hymenoptera_[1333]. { { { { { Diptera[1334] { minora = _Musca_, { { { _Tipula_, &c. _Insecta_ { { { Emprosthocentra = { { { _Culex_, { { { _Stomoxys_, { { { _Tabanus_, &c. { { { Pterota simul { Myrmex = _Formica_ L. { et Aptera[1335] { Pygolampis = _Lampyris_ L. { { Aptera[1336].

It may be further stated, that Aristotle perceived also the distinction between the _Mandibulata_ and _Haustellata_ of modern authors: for he observes, that some insects having teeth are omnivorous; while others, that have only a tongue, are supported by liquid food[1337]. He appears to have regarded the _Hymenoptera_, or some of them, as forming a _third_ subclass; since he clearly alludes to them, when he says that many have teeth, not for feeding, but to help them in fulfilling their instincts[1338].

From the above statement it will appear that this great philosopher had no contemptible notion,--though he has only distinguished three of them as larger groups by appropriate names,--of the majority of the Orders of Insects at present admitted. His _Coleoptera_, _Psychæ_, and _Diptera_ are evidently such. His idea of _Hemiptera_ seems taken solely from the _Cicada_ or _Tettix_: but the manner in which he expresses himself concerning it, as having no mouth, but furnished instead with a linguiform organ resembling the proboscis of _Diptera_[1339], proves that he regarded it as the type of a distinct group. Since he considers the saltatorious _Orthoptera_ as forming such a group, it is probable that he included the cursorious ones with the _Neuroptera_ in his _majora_ section of _Tetraptera_; and the resemblance of many of the _Mantidæ_ to the _Neuroptera_ is so great, that this mistake would not be wonderful. His division of the _Diptera_ is quite artificial.

How far Aristotle's ideas with regard to genera and species attained to any degree of precision, is not easily ascertained: in other respects his knowledge of insects was more evident. As to their _anatomy_, he observes that their body is usually divided into _three_ primary segments,--_head_, _trunk_, and _abdomen_; that they have an _intestinal canal_,--in some straight and simple, in others contorted,--extending from the mouth to the anus; that the _Orthoptera_ have a _ventricle_ or gizzard[1340]. He had noticed the _drums_ of _Cicada_, and that the _males_ only are vocal. Other instances of the accurate observation of this great man might be adduced, but enough has been said to justify the above encomiums. His principal error was that of equivocal generation.

Little is known with regard to the progress of other Greek Naturalists in entomological science. It appears probable, from an epithet by which Hesiod distinguishes the spider--_air-flying_[1341], that the fact of these insects traversing the air was at that time no secret. Apollodorus, as we learn from Pliny[1342], was the first _monographer_ of insects, since he wrote a treatise upon scorpions, and described nine species. But like many other Zoologists, by mistaking analogy for affinity, he has included a _winged_ insect, probably a _Panorpa_, amongst his scorpions. From the time of Aristotle, however, to Pliny, no writer is recorded, with the exception of those before alluded to[1343], that appears to have attended much to insects. They are indeed incidentally noticed by Theophrastus, Dioscorides, Virgil, Ovid, &c., but without any material addition to the stock of entomological knowledge bequeathed to us by the Stagyrite. Even Pliny's vast compendium, as it professed to be, of the natural history of the globe, was in many respects little more than a compilation from that great philosopher. Still, however, though he does not appear to have paid much practical attention to insects,--which indeed, considering the extent of his views, was scarcely to be expected,--yet as a guide to the then state of entomological knowledge, and as an advocate for the study, which in the exordium of his eleventh book he has so eloquently and with so much animation defended from the misrepresentations of ignorance, Pliny has conferred a lasting obligation on the science. The last zoological writer of note was Ælian, who amongst other animals often mentions insects. He has, however, few original observations. One was, that scorpions are viviparous[1344]. From him we learn incidentally that artificial flies were sometimes used by Grecian anglers[1345].

2. _The Era of the Revival of the Science._ From the time of Pliny and Ælian 1400 years rolled away, in which scarcely any thing was done or attempted for Entomology or Natural History in general. During that long night the glimmer of only one faint luminary appeared to make a short and feeble twilight. In the middle of the thirteenth century Albertus Magnus (so called from his family name of Groot, and justly, if incredible labour could entitle a man to the appellation), devoted _one_ out of _twenty-one_ folio volumes to Natural History. In this work he professes not so much to give his own opinions, as those of the Peripatetic philosophers[1346]. He occasionally, however, relates the result of observations made by himself, which prove him to have been no inattentive student of nature. He mentions a voyage that he made for the purpose of collecting marine animals, and that he found of them ten different tribes or genera, and several species of each. Amongst these he particularizes the _Cephalopoda_, the _Crustacea_, the testaceous _Mollusca_, and some of the _Radiata_ and _Acrita_, &c.[1347] He gives a very correct account of the pitfalls of _Myrmeleon_. Insects he distinguishes, excluding the _Crustacea_, by the denomination of _Anulosa_ (_Annulosa_), which he appears to employ as a _known_ term[1348]. He also calls them _worms_, describing butterflies as _flying worms_, flies as _fly-worms_, spiders as _spider-worms_; and what is still more extraordinary, the _toad_ and the _frog_, which he includes amongst his _Anulosa_, he calls _quadruped-worms_[1349]!! Though it may appear so absurd to speak of these animals as insects, yet he had perhaps a deeper and more philosophical reason for this than we may at first be disposed to give him credit for. This would be the case if he separated these from the other reptiles and placed them amongst insects on account of their _metamorphoses_, mistaking perhaps an analogical character for one of affinity[1350]. Some of the _Annelida_, as _Filaria_ and _Lumbricus_[1351], he also regarded as insects. I cannot gather from his desultory pages that he had any notion of a systematical arrangement of his _Anulosa_.

After the taking of Constantinople by the Turks in the middle of the fifteenth century, the light of learning, kindled by those of its professors who escaped from that ruin, appeared again in the West. The Greek language then began to be studied universally; and in consequence of the coeval invention of the art of printing, various editions of the great works of the ancients were published: amongst the rest those of the fathers of Natural History. From the perusal of these, the love of the sciences of which they treated revived in the West, and the attention of scientific men began to direct itself to the consideration and study of the works of their CREATOR. In the latter part of that century, a work entitled the _Book of Nature_ appeared in the German language, in which animals and plants were treated of and rudely figured; as they were likewise most miserably in Cuba's _Ortus Sanitatis_, published in 1485, in which insects and _Crustacea_ were described under the three different denominations of Animals, Birds, and Fishes; so that but little profit was at first derived from the writings of Aristotle, Invertebrate animals not being then even honoured with

"A local habitation and a name."

This unpromising and apparently hopeless state of the science proved, however, the dawn of its present meridian brightness.

The first attempt at a separate and systematical arrangement of insects subsequent to the times of Aristotle, was made in the ponderous volumes of Ulysses Aldrovandus, who, disregarding the Stagyrite, arranged insects according to the medium they inhabit, as you will see in the subjoined table:

{Membranacea {Favifica. {Anelytra { {Non Favifica. {Alata {Elytrota. {Farinosa. { {Pedata { { {Aptera {Paucipeda. _I_ {Terrestria { { {Multipeda. _n_ { {Apoda _s_ { _e_ { {Pedata {Paucipeda. _c_ { { {Multipeda _t_ {Aquatica { _a_ {Apoda

This artificial and meager system, which mixed insects with _Annelida_, was adopted by Charlton and other authors; and even in the eighteenth century had a patron of great eminence, who, endeavouring to improve upon it, has rendered it still more at variance with nature and Aristotle: I mean the celebrated Vallisnieri, to whom in other respects, though in this he fell behind his age, the science was under great obligations. He divides insects into, 1. Those that inhabit _vegetable_ substances living or dead. 2. Those that inhabit any kind of _fluid_ and in any state. 3. Those that inhabit any _earthy_ or _mineral_ substances, _dead bones_, or _shells_. And 4. Those that inhabit _living animals_[1352].

The work that is usually called Mouffet's _Theatrum Insectorum_ was produced in the present era, and was the fruit of the successive labours of several men of talent. Dr. Edward Wotton and the celebrated Conrade Gesner laid the foundation; whose manuscripts falling into the hands of Dr. Thomas Penny,--an eminent physician and botanist of the Elizabethan age[1353], much devoted to the study of insect,--he upon this foundation meditated raising a superstructure which should include a complete history of these animals; and with this view he devoted the leisure hours of fifteen years of his life to the study of every book then extant that treated of the science either expressly or incidentally, and to the description and figuring of such insects as he could procure; but before he had reduced his materials to order, in 1589 he was snatched away by an untimely death. His unfinished manuscripts were purchased at a considerable price by Mouffet, a contemporary physician of singular learning[1354], who reduced them to order, improved the style, added new matter, and not less than 150 additional figures; and thus having prepared the work for the press, intended to dedicate it to queen Elizabeth[1355]. Fate, however, seemed still to frown upon the undertaking, for before he could commit his labours to the press he also died, and his book remained buried in dust and obscurity till it fell into the hands of Sir Theodore Mayerne, baron d'Aubone, one of the court physicians in the time of Charles I., who at length published it, prefixing a Dedication to Sir William Paddy, baronet, M.D., in 1634; and it was so well received that an English translation appeared twenty-four years afterwards. The work thus repeatedly rescued from destruction was indisputably the most complete entomological treatise that had then appeared. And though the arrangement (in which there is scarcely any attempt at system) is extremely defective, the figures very rude, often incorrect, and sometimes altogether false,--yet as an introduction to the study of insects its value at that day must have been very considerable; and as a copious storehouse of ancient entomological lore, it has not even at present lost its utility.

One of the most remarkable works of the era we are upon was published at Lignitz in the year 1603, by Caspar Schwenckfeeld, a physician of Hirschberg, under the title of _Theriotrophium Silesiæ_. This was probably the first attempt at a Fauna that ever was made. In it animals are divided into quadrupeds, reptiles, birds, fishes, and insects. The _Crustacea_, _Mollusca_, and _Zoophytes_, are included under fishes. He says of the _Spongiæ_ that they are _moved_ by animalcula which inhabit them[1356]. Did he borrow this observation from Aristotle, or was it made by himself[1357]? It is singular that Linné should never allude to this work. Goedart, who belongs also to this era, is stated to have spent forty years of his life in attending to the proceedings of insects[1358]. But after this long study, his principal use to the science was the improvement he effected in the drawing and engraving of them,--for his figures, though sometimes incorrect and sometimes fabulous, were far superior to those of his predecessors.

3. _The Era of Swammerdam and Ray, or of the_ Metamorphotic _System_. The great men whose names are here united, as they were cotemporary, so they agreed in founding their respective systems of insects on the same basis. To the former, however, is due the merit of being the first who assumed the _metamorphoses_ of these animals as the basis of a natural arrangement of them; upon which the latter, in conjunction with his lamented friend Willughby, erected that superstructure which opened the door for the present improved state of the science. Swammerdam's system may be thus expressed in modern language:

{Class i. Metamorphosis complete[1359] = _Aptera_ L.[1360] { { ii. ------ semicomplete {_Orthoptera_, { { _Hemiptera_. { {_Libellulina_, { { _Ephemerina_[1361]. { _Insects_ { { {_Coleoptera_, { { { _Hymenoptera_, part of { { incomplete { _Neuroptera_ and { iii. -----{ { _Diptera_[1362]. { { { { obtected _Lepidoptera_[1363]. { { iv. ---- coarctate {_Ichneumones_ { { _minuti_ L.[1364] { {_Muscidæ_, &c[1365].

It was a great point gained in the science to introduce the consideration of the metamorphosis, and to employ it in the extrication of the natural system: for though when taken by itself it will, as in the table just given, lead to an artificial arrangement, it furnishes a very useful clue when the consideration of insects in their perfect state is added to it. The tables contained in the _Prolegomena_ to Ray's _Historia Insectorum_ divide insects into those which undergo no change of form, and those which change their form. The arrangement of the former Αμεταμορφωτα was made by Willughby, who subdivided them into _Apoda_ and _Pedata_. As the only insects included in the former section were the grubs of _Œstri_, the remainder being _Annelida_, they need not be included in our table. I have endeavoured to compress these tables into as small a space as possible, by using the Linnean terms for metamorphosis, and reducing Ray's tribes of _Orthoptera_, _Hemiptera_, and _Neuroptera_ to their modern denominations.

Ray details at considerable length the various tribes belonging to the four classes of metamorphosis established by Swammerdam[1366]. Most of his tribes indicate natural groups of greater or less value: but some of his larger groups are artificial, as you will see by the mere inspection of the table.

INSECTA

_Ametamorphota_

Apoda _Terrestia_[1367]. _Aquatica_.

Pedata

_Hexapoda_

_Terrestia_[1368] _Majora_[1368]. _Minora_[1369].

_Aquatica_[1370].

_Octopoda_ Caudata[1371]. Non caudata[1372].

14-_poda_.

24-_poda_.

30-_poda_.

_Polypoda_

Terrestia _Cylindrica_[1373]. _Compressa_[1374].

Aquatica[1375] _Corpore tereti_. ------ _plano_. _Bicaudata_.

_Metamorphumena_

Metamorphosis semicompleta[1376] _Orthoptera_. _Heteroptera_. _Homoptera_. _Libellulina_. _Ephemerina_.

Metamorphosis incompleta vel obtecta

_Coleoptera_.

_Anelytra_

Alis farinaceis[1377].

Alis membranaceis

_Diptera_.

_Tetrapter_

Gregaria et Favifica _Mellifica_[1378]. _Non Mellifica_[1379].

Solitaria non Gregaria et Favifica

_Apiformia_[1380].

_Vespiformia_ Breviora[1381]. Augustiora[1382].

_Papilioniformia_[1383].

_Seticaudæ_, seu _Tripilia_[1384].

Metamorphosis coarctata _Muscidæ_ et _Ichneumones minuti_ L.[1385]

This era produced several great and original geniuses, who enriched the science with a vast increment of real knowledge. The illustrious Zoologists whose names it bears,--the one by his dissections and anatomical researches, and the other by his concise and well drawn descriptions of numerous insects, by various interesting observations on their manners and characters, and by the purity of his latinity,--contributed greatly to its progress towards perfection. Leeuwenhoek also, the compatriot of Swammerdam, and Hooke of Ray, amongst other objects submitted to their powerful microscopes, did not neglect insects.--To the former we are indebted for the remarkable discovery that the flea belongs to those that undergo a metamorphosis. Ray had besides two coadjutors whose names ought not to be forgotten,--Willughby and Dr. Martin Lister. The former is characterized by his lamenting friend as one of the profoundest of naturalists, as well as one of the most amiable and virtuous of men. What advantage Entomology would have reaped from his labours may be inferred from the eminent services that he rendered that science, amongst other branches of Zoology, during his short life. It appears from Ray's Letters[1386], that he drew up a history of insects and _exsanguia_, which probably formed the groundwork of the posthumous _Historia Insectorum_ of that author; concerning which he says, "The work which I have now entered upon is indeed too great a task for me: I rely chiefly on Mr. Willughby's discoveries and the contributions of friends[1387]." And indeed Willughby's name and initials occur so frequently in that work, that it may be esteemed their joint production. Lister by his various writings elucidated many points relating to insects; and he may be regarded as the first modern who observed that spiders can sail in the air. But the most important of his works, and that on which his fame as an Entomologist is principally founded, is his admirable treatise _De Araneis_; in which his systematic arrangement of these animals leaves far behind all former attempts, and rivals that of the best modern Arachnologists. His specific descriptions are drawn with a precision till then unknown; and each is headed by a short definition of the species, which he calls the _Titulus_, synonymous with the _Nomen specificum_ of Linné, whose canon of twelve words it rarely exceeds.

One of the most important events of this era was the complete exposure and refutation of the absurd doctrine of _equivocal generation_, which had maintained its ground in the schools of philosophy from the time of Aristotle. Our own immortal Harvey was the first who dared to controvert this irrational theory: and his _dictum_--_Omnia ex ovo_--was copiously discussed and completely established by two of the ablest physiologists that Italy has produced, Redi and Malpighi.

Previously to the publication of the _Historia Insectorum_, no other works of eminence, with the exception of Madam Merian's beautiful illustration of the metamorphosis of the insects of Surinam, made their appearance: but in the interval of twenty-five years, which elapsed between the publication of that work and of Linné's first outline of his _Systema Naturæ_, Entomologists became more numerous and active. In England the pious and learned author of the _Physico_ and _Astro-Theology_ was celebrated for the assiduity with which he studied insects; and in the former of these works has concentrated a vast number of interesting observations connected with their anatomy and history. No Englishman contributed more to the progress of Natural History, both as a writer and collector, than that disinterested physician and naturalist Sir Hans Sloane, whose extensive and valuable library and well-stored cabinets formed the original nucleus of the present vast collection of the British Museum. Amongst other departments, that of insects was not overlooked by him; and it is to be regretted that those which he had accumulated have either perished from neglect or are not accessible. Other Entomologists were eminent at this period in Britain. The principal of these were Petiver, Dale (to whom Ray bequeathed his collection of insects), Bobart, Bradley, and Dandridge; the last of whom, as Bradley tells us, delineated and described 140 species of spiders.

I must not omit here to observe that our ROYAL SOCIETY, the origin of which took place in this era, communicated a new and powerful impulse to the public mind in favour of Physical Science, and greatly accelerated the progress of Natural History. It acted not only as a centre of excitement which stimulated to exertion, but also as a focus to collect the scattered rays of light before they were dissipated. Insulated observations in every department of nature were thus preserved; and communications from the most eminent naturalists in various parts of Europe ornamented its _Transactions_. So that from the establishment of this illustrious Society, the triumphant march of Physical Science of every kind towards its acme may be dated.

4. _Era of Linné, or of the_ Alary _System._ We are now arrived at that period in the history of Natural Knowledge, especially of Entomology, in which it received that form, with respect to its general outline, which, amidst many lesser mutations, has been preserved ever since. Swammerdam had altogether deserted the system of Aristotle, and Ray mixed it with that of his predecessor. But a brilliant star soon appeared in the North[1388], which was destined to be the harbinger of a brighter day than had ever before illuminated the path of the student of the works of God. The illustrious philosopher whose name distinguishes this new era, imbibed a taste for Entomology almost as early as for Botany[1389]; and though the latter became his favourite, and absorbed his principal attention, he did not altogether neglect the former. In the first edition of his _Systema Naturæ_, published in 1735, and contained in only _fourteen_ folio pages[1390], he began to arrange the three kingdoms of nature after his own conceptions. But this initiatory sketch, as might be expected, was very imperfect; and with respect to insects, instead of an improvement upon his predecessors, was extremely inferior to what Ray had effected; for he puts into one Order (to which he gives the name of _Angioptera_) the _Lepidoptera_, _Neuroptera_, _Hymenoptera_, and _Diptera_. In this work, however, Generic Characters were first given. In successive editions he continued to improve upon this outline: in the _fourth_ he finally settled the _number_ and _denominations_ of his Orders; and in the twelfth (uniting the _Orthoptera_, which he had at first considered as of a _Coleopterous_ type, to the _Hemiptera_) also their _limits_. His system, being founded upon the absence or presence and characters of the organs for flight, is in some degree a republication of the Aristotelian, and may be called the _Alary_ System.

{ { Superior { crustaceous with a straight _Coleoptera_ 1. { { { suture { { { semicrustaceous, incumbent _Hemiptera_ 2. { 4.{ { imbricated with _Lepidoptera_ 3. { { { scales Wings { { All { membranous-- { unarmed } _Neuroptera_ 4. { { Anus { aculeate } _Hymenoptera_ 5. { 2. Poisers in the place of the _Diptera_ 6. { posterior pair { 0. Or without either wings or _Aptera_ 7. { elytra

In considering this table, it must strike every one acquainted with the subject, that although the assumption of a single set of organs whereon to build a system can scarcely be expected to lead to one perfectly natural, yet that the majority of the groups here given as Orders merit that character. The _second_ indeed and the _last_ require further subdivision, and concerning the _fourth_ no satisfactory conclusion has yet been drawn. With regard to his _series_ of the Orders, it is mostly artificial. Linné has the advantage of all his predecessors in giving clearer definitions of his Orders, and in their nomenclature; in which he has followed the path first trodden by Aristotle.

One of his most prominent excellencies, which led the way more than any thing else to a distinct knowledge of natural objects, was his giving definitions of his genera, or the groups that he distinguished by that name, since all preceding writers had merely made them known by the imposition of a _name_. His generic characters of insects were of _two_ kinds: A shorter, containing the supposed _essential_ distinction of the genus, given at the head of the _Class_; and another, generally longer, and including _non-essentials_, given at the head of the _Genus_. The first he denominated the _essential_, and the latter the _factitious_ or _artificial_ character. He did not do for insects what he did for Botany,--draw up what he has called the _natural_ character of a genus, which included both the others, and noticed every other generic distinction[1391].

The older Naturalists used to treasure in their memories a short description of each species, by which when they wished to speak or write of it they made it known. Thus, in speaking of the common lady-bird they would call it "the _Coccinella_ with red _coleoptra_[1392] having seven black dots." This enunciation of any object was at first called its Title (_Titulus_), and afterwards its Specific Name (_Nomen specificum_), and by Linné was restricted to _twelve_ words[1393]. But as the number of species increased to remember each definition was no easy task; that he might remedy this inconvenience, he invented what is called the Trivial Name (_Nomen triviale_), which expressed any species by a single term added to its generic appellation, as _Coccinella septem-punctata_; and thereby conferred a lasting benefit on Natural History. This convenient invention has rendered it less necessary to restrict the _Nomen specificum_ to twelve words: it is desirable, however, that the definition of a species should be as short as possible, and contain only its _distinctive_ characters. In his definitions and descriptions Linné was often very happy; but sometimes, in studying to avoid prolixity, he forgets Horace's hint,

... "Brevis esse laboro Obscurus fio--"

and makes his definitions of species, without adding a description, so extremely short as to suit equally well perhaps a dozen different insects. The minor groups into which he has divided some of his Orders and Genera are sometimes natural, sometimes artificial. Those of the _Coleoptera_, from characters drawn from their antennæ (as is evident from his arrangement of the genera in that Order), are of the latter description; while those of his _Aptera_ are more natural. The genera that he has most happily laboured in this respect are his Hemipterous ones of _Gryllus_, _Cicada_, and _Cimex_, and all his _Lepidoptera_. He had such a tact for discovering natural groups in general, that in him it seems almost to have been intuitive.

But in no respect were the labours of Linné more beneficial to the science and to Zoology in general, than when he undertook to describe the animals of his own country. His _Fauna Suecica_ is an admirable exemplar, which ought to stimulate the Zoologists of every country to make it one of their first objects that its animal productions shall no longer remain unregistered and undescribed. Botanists have almost every where been diligent in effecting this with respect to plants, but other branches of Natural History have been more neglected. In his _Systema Naturæ_ Linné attempted this for all the productions of our globe. The idea was a vast one; and the execution, though necessarily falling far short of it, did him infinite honour: and in it he has laid a foundation for his successors to build upon till time shall be no more.

Such were the services rendered to Entomology by the labours of the immortal Swede; services so extensive as well as eminent, that had they been the fruit of a whole life devoted to this single object, they would have entitled him to a high rank amongst the heroes of the science. But how much more astonishing are they when considered but as gleanings from his hours of relaxation, snatched from labours infinitely greater, the produce, as he himself tells us, of moments consumed by others in "venationibus, confabulationibus, tesseris, chartis, lusibus, compotationibus[1394]." It is not so much in original discovery that the merits of Linné lie,--though considered in this view they are pre-eminent,--as in the unrivalled skill with which he sifted the observations of his predecessors, separating the ore from the dross, and concentrating scattered rays of light into one focus.

This era produced other systematists who adopted various methods, but none that merit particular notice except Geoffroy and De Geer. The former in this view is principally celebrated as the author of the method generally adopted by modern Entomologists, of dividing the _Coleoptera_ into primary sections, according to the number of the joints of their tarsi. This method, though in many instances, as was formerly observed[1395], it leads to artificial results, in others affords a clue to natural groups; it can only therefore be applied subject to frequent exceptions. Geoffroy's work[1396], which was published in 1764, was further serviceable by indicating many genera not defined by Linné.

GENERAL ORDERS. CLASSES. CLASSES. {I. _Wings_ covered { with scales. _Tongue_ { spiral. { LEPIDOPTERA. { {II. _Wings_ membranous, { naked. _Mouth_ { without teeth or tongue. { TRICHOPTERA. { EPHEMERINA. { {III. _Wings_ membranous, {I. Four Wings { equal, reticulated. { without { _Mouth_ with teeth. { wing-cases { Rest of { { NEUROPTERA. { { { {IV. _Wings_ membranous { { unequal, nervures mostly { { longitudinal. _Mouth_ { { with teeth. A _sting_ { { or _borer_ in the { { female. { { HYMENOPTERA. { { { {V. _Wings_ membranous. { { _Tongue_ bent under { { the breast. { { HOMOPTERA Leach. { { {VI. _Elytra_ half { { coriaceous and half { { membranous, crossed. A pair { { of membranous _wings_. { { _Tongue_ bent under the { { breast. HEMIPTERA {II. Two Wings { Leach. { covered by { {I. Having { two {VII. _Elytra_ coriaceous { wings { wing-cases { or semicrustaceous, { { { aliform. A pair of { { { membranous _wings_. { { { _Mouth_ with teeth. { { { ORTHOPTERA. { { { { { {VIII. _Elytra_ hard and { { { crustaceous. A pair of { { { membranous _wings_. { { { _Mouth_ with teeth. { { { COLEOPTERA. { { { { {IX. A pair of membranous INSECTS { { { wings. A pair of { { { _poisers_. _Mouth_ { { { with a tongue without { { { teeth. DIPTERA. { { { { {III. Two Wings {X. A pair of membranous { { uncovered { _wings_. No { { _poisers_, _tongue_, { { or _teeth_ in the _male_. { { No _wings_ but a _tongue_ { { in the breast of the { { _female_. COCCUS L. { { {IV. Undergoing {XI. No _wings_. Six _legs_. { { a { _Mouth_ with a tongue. { { metamorphosis { APHANIPTERA. { { {II. Without { {XII. No _wings_. Six _legs_. { wings { { _Head_ and _Trunk_ { { distinct. HEXAPOD { { APTERA, TERMES, { { PSOCUS. { { { {XIII. No _wings_. 8 or {V. Undergoing { 10 _legs_. _Head_ { no { united to the _trunk_. { metamorphosis { OCTOPOD APTERA, { ARACHNIDA, { CRUSTACEA. { {XIV. No _wings_. 14 { _Legs_ or more. _Head_ { separated from the trunk. { POLYPOD APTERA. { CRUSTACEA.

We next come to one of the greatest names in Entomology, the celebrated De Geer, who united in himself the highest merit of almost every department of that science. Both as a systematist, anatomist, and physiologist, and as the observant historian of the manners and economy of insects, his _Mémoires pour servir à l'Histoire des Insectes_ are above all praise. His system[1397] is contained in a posthumous volume published in 1778[1398].

This system, though built upon the instruments of flight; in its ternary groups, equivalent to the Orders of Linné, adds likewise the instruments of manducation, and is thus intermediate between that of Linné and Fabricius, who perhaps from the consideration of it might derive the first idea of assuming the last-mentioned organs as the basis of a new method. But, though partaking of both, it is nearer to nature than either; and had its illustrious author laid less stress upon the number and substance of the organs of flight, it would probably have been as near perfection in this respect as most that have succeeded it. But following too strictly these characters, he has been led to place in different Classes, or rather Orders, insects that ought not to have been so separated,--as in the case of the two sections of the _Hemiptera_, and the _Coccidæ_. In other respects the whole of De Geer's _Mémoires_ are a storehouse of valuable observations, in which he has furnished many a clue for threading the labyrinth of nature, and given most complete and interesting histories of the whole economy and habits of many tribes and genera,--as of the _Trichoptera_, _Aphides_, _Ephemerina_, &c.

In this latter department of the science a light shone during part of the era we are now considering, which eclipsed every one that appeared before it, and has scarcely been equalled by any one that succeeded it. The date of its first appearance, indeed, was a year before that of Linné's first outline of his _Systema Naturæ_ before alluded to; but it may properly be regarded as belonging to his era, since it did not disappear till some years after that had begun. A volume indeed would scarcely suffice to do justice to the preeminent merits of Reaumur, as exhibited in his admirable _Mémoires pour l'Histoire des Insectes_[1399]: I must therefore content myself with observing, that in judgement and ingenuity in planning his experiments; in patient assiduity in watching their progress; in the elegance of his language, and the felicity of his illustrations, he has rarely, if ever, been equalled. Every subject that he undertook was thoroughly investigated, and in the true spirit of philosophical inquiry. Every where you see him the same unprejudiced and profound observer, attached to no system, anxious only for truth and the advancement of science. If he has any fault, it is, perhaps, that of being sometimes too prolix; but we must recollect that from the nature of his subject much diffuseness was often necessary to render his meaning clear. A greater objection is his total inattention to all system, except with regard to _Lepidoptera_ and their larvæ[1400], so that it is often difficult to ascertain the insects whose history he gives. But with these exceptions, no observer of nature, who wishes his discoveries to be at once profound and interesting, can copy a better model or one nearer to perfection.

Next to that of Reaumur, the name of his admiring correspondent Bonnet may be mentioned. This great physiologist, though still more deficient in systematical knowledge[1401], was also an admirable observer of the economy and manners of insects. In this sense he became an Entomologist before he was seventeen years of age, in consequence of an impression made upon him by the account of the Antlion in that attractive work the _Spectacle de la Nature_. From verifying its wonderful history with his own eyes, he entered with enthusiasm upon the study of other insects, his observations on which he regularly communicated to Reaumur. Amongst other interesting inquiries, his experiments on that singular anomaly in nature the generation of _Aphides_[1402] do him the highest credit, and have set that question perfectly at rest[1403].

In another department of the science this period was distinguished by a work which may almost be deemed a prodigy. I am speaking of Lyonet's admirable treatise on the anatomy of the caterpillar of the Cossus,--a work which will uphold his reputation as long as Entomology shall be cultivated as a science, or the comparative Anatomist be delighted to trace the footsteps of Divine Wisdom in the gradually varying structure of animals. The plates to this publication, executed by the hand of its excellent author, are as wonderful as the work itself; and together, to use Bonnet's words, form a _demonstration_ of the existence of GOD. It is infinitely to be regretted that the author of this incomparable monument of scientific ardour and patient industry should have died before the full completion of his anatomical description of the _pupa_ and _imago_ of the same insect; of which he had prepared a considerable portion of the manuscript, and engraved upwards of twenty of the plates[1404].

Numerous other writers in various departments of the science appeared during this era; but it would be useless to enter into a particular detail of their works and merits. I cannot however omit noticing, on account of his inimitably accurate and chastely coloured representations of _Lepidoptera_, Sepp's beautiful _Nederlandsche Insecten_, in which the whole history of these animals, from the egg to the fly, is described and portrayed. In our own country this era was distinguished by no entomological work of any great eminence. Albin, Wilks, and Harris produced the principal. Gould, however, without having any thing of system, gave an admirable account of English ants, which I formerly noticed[1405].

One of our first poets, the celebrated Gray, was also much devoted to Entomology. From his interleaved copy of the _Systema Naturæ_, that venerable and able naturalist, Sir T. G. Cullum, Bart. copied the following characters of the genera of insects of Linné, drawn up in Latin Hexameters, which he kindly communicated to me.

COLEOPTERA.

_Alas lorica tectas_ Coleoptera _jactant_.

*

Serra pedum prodit _Scarabæum_ et fissile cornu. _Dermesti_ antennæ circum ambit lamina caulem Qui caput incurvum timidus sub corpore celat. In pectus retrahens caput abdit claviger _Hister_. Occiput _Attelabi_ in posticum vergit acumen. _Curculio_ ingenti protendit cornua rostro. _Silpha_ læves peltæ atque elytrorum exporrigit oras. Truncus apex clavæ, atque antennulæ _Coccionellæ_.

**

_Cassida_ sub clypei totam se margine condit. _Chrysomela_ inflexa loricæ stringitur ora. Gibba caput _Meloë_ incurvat thorace rotundo. Oblongus frontem et tenues clypei exerit oras _Tenebrio_. Abdomen _Mordellæ_ lamina vestit. Curta elytra ostentat _Staphylis_ caudamque recurvam.

***

Tubere cervicis valet, antennisque _Cerambyx_. Pectore _Leptura_ est tereti corpusque coarctat. Flexile _Cantharidis_ tegmen, laterumque papillæ. Ast _Elater_ resilit sterni mucrone supinus. Maxillâ exsertâ est oculoque _Cicindela_ grandi. _Bupresti_ antennæ graciles, cervice retractâ. Nec _Dytiscus_ iners setosâ remige plantâ. Effigiem cordis _Carabus_ dat pectore trunco. _Necydalis_ curto ex elytro nudam explicat alam. Curtum, at _Forficulæ_ tegit hanc, cum forcipe cauda.

HEMIPTERA.

_Dimidiam rostrata gerunt_ Hemiptera _crustam Fœmina serpit humi interdum, volat æthera conjux._

Depressum _Blattæ_ corpus venterque bicornis. Dente vorax _Gryllus_ deflexis saltitat alis. Rostro _Nepa_ rapax pollet chelisque. _Cicada_ Fastigio alarum, et rostrato pectore saltat. Tela _Cimex_ inflexa gerit, cruce complicat alas. _Notonecta_ crucem quoque fert remosque pedales. Cornua _Aphis_ caudæ et rostrum, sæpe erigit alas. Deprimit has _Chermes_, dum saltat pectore gibbo. _Coccus_ iners caudæ setas, volitante marito. _Thrips_ alas angusta gerit, caudamque recurvam.

LEPIDOPTERA.

_Squamam alæ, linguæ spiram_ Lepidoptera _jactant_.

_Papilio_ clavam, et squamosas subrigit alas. Prismaticas _Sphinx_ antennas, medioque tumentes: At conicas gravis extendit sub nocte _Phalæna_.

NEUROPTERA.

_Rete alæ nudum atque hamos_ Neuroptera _caudæ_.

Dente alisque potens secat æthera longa _Libella_. Caudâ setigerâ erectis stat _Ephemera_ pennis. _Phryganea_ elinguis rugosas deprimit alas. _Hemerinus_que bidens planas tamen explicat ille. Et rostro longo et caudâ _Panorpa_ minatur. _Raphidia_ extento collo setam trahit unam.

HYMENOPTERA.

_At vitreas alas, jaculumque_ Hymenoptera _caudæ. Fœmineo data tela gregi, maribusque negata._

Telum abdit spirale _Cynips_, morsuque minatur. Maxillas _Tenthredo_ movet, serramque bivalvem. _Ichneumon_ gracili triplex abdomine telum: Et valde aurato resplendet corpore _Chrysis_. Haurit _Apis_ linguâ incurvâ, quod vindicat ense. _Sphex_ alam expandit lævem, gladiumque recondit. Alæ ruga notat _Vespam_, caudæque venenum. Squamula _Formicam_ tergi, telumque pedestrem, Dum minor alata volitat cum conjuge conjux. _Mutilla_ impennis, sed cauda spicula vibrat.

DIPTERA.

Diptera _sub geminis alis se pondere librant_.

Os _Œstro_ nullum, caudâque timetur inermi. Longa caput _Tipula_ est, labiisque et prædita palpis. Palpis _Musca_ caret, retrahitque proboscida labris. Qua _Tabanus_ gaudet pariter, palpis subacutis. Os _Culicis_ molli e pharetrâ sua spicula vibrat. Rostrum _Empis_ durum et longum sub pectore curvat. Porrigit articuli de cardine noxia _Conops_. Porrigit at rectum et conicum sitibundus _Asilus_. Longum et _Bombylius_ qui sugit mella volando. Unguibus _Hippobosca_ valet, vibrat breve telum.

APTERA.

Aptera _se pedibus pennarum nescia jactant_.

Exit tres setas cauda extendente _Lepisma_. Saltatrix est cauda _Poduræ_ inflexa bifurca. Armantur _Termis_ maxillis ora duabus. Fert telum quod ab ore _Pediculus_ edat acutum. _Pulicis_ inflexum rostrum est, telumque recondit. Octo _Acarus_ pedibus duplicique instructus ocello est. Lumina bis bina _octipedata Phalangia_ gestant. Octo oculis totidem pedibusque se _Aranea_ jactat. His etiam adjungit chelatos _Scorpio_ palpos. Dena pedum natura dedit fulcimina _Cancro_. _Unoculo_ bissena (duosque ambobus ocellos). Quorum his chelatos gerit, ille gemellos. Ovalis pedibus bis septem incedit _Oniscus_. Innumeris pedibus _Scolopendra_ angusta movetur. Secernit reliquis structura cylindrica _Iulum_.

During this era, and by the influence of Linné, in the year 1739 the Royal Academy of Sciences at Stockholm was established, which did for Natural History in Sweden what our own Royal Society had done for it in England. Other societies, with a similar object, were formed in different parts of Europe, and were attended by similar good effects. At Paris, at Berlin, at St. Petersburg, at Moscow, at Turin, at Lisbon, &c., the lovers of Nature, at that time and subsequently, have associated for this purpose; and I may mention here, that I may not revert to the subject, the great Natural History association of our own country, THE LINNEAN SOCIETY, named after the illustrious Swede, which was first instituted in 1788, and incorporated by royal charter in 1802. In the _Transactions_ of this learned body, the Zoologist in general, and particularly the Entomologist, will find much useful information and many interesting observations connected with his science. This flourishing society consists at this time of above 600 members, of whom more than 500 are Fellows;--a gratifying proof how widely Natural History is cultivated in the British Empire[1406].

5. _Era of Fabricius, or of the_ Maxillary _System_.--We are now arrived, if its consequences be considered, at one of the most important epochs of the science. Fabricius, a pupil of Linné, who highly estimated his entomological acquirements[1407], thinking that the system of his master was not built upon a foundation sufficiently fixed and restricted[1408], conceived the idea of doing for Entomology what the latter had done for Botany. As the learned and illustrious Swede had assumed the _Fructification_ for the basis of his system in that science, so the emulous and highly-gifted Dane, observing how happily those organs were employed as characters in extricating the genera of Vertebrate animals, assumed the _instruments_ of _manducation_, far more numerous and various in insects, for the basis of a new system of Entomology; which, from the _maxillæ_ being principally employed to characterize the _Classes_ or rather _Orders_, may be called the _Maxillary_ System. De Geer, indeed, as we have seen above, had, in the majority of his Classes, to the organs of flight added the parts of the _mouth_: but Fabricius pursued the idea much further, and made the _Trophi_[1409], or _Instrumenta Cibaria_ as he called them, the sole corner-stone of his whole superstructure. Though nothing seems to have been further from his intention than to follow _Nature_, since he complains that Linné by following her too closely had lost the Ariadnean thread of system[1410], yet it is singular that, by building upon this seemingly narrow foundation, he has furnished a clue, by the due use of which, instead of deserting her, his successors have been enabled with more certainty to extricate her groups: since the parts in question being intimately connected with the functions and economy of these animals, where they differ materially, indicate a corresponding difference in their character and station.

The _first_ outline of his System, I believe, appeared in his _Systema Entomologiæ_ published in 1775; and the _last_, in his _Supplement_ to his _Entomologia Systematica_ in 1798. In this the series and characters of his Classes (for so, after De Geer, he denominates his primary groups) were as follows:--

*

1. ELEUTHERATA[1411]. (_Coleoptera_ L.) _Maxilla_ naked, free, palpigerous.

2. ULONATA[1412]. (_Orthoptera_ Oliv.) _Maxilla_ covered by an obtuse galea or lobe.

3. SYNISTATA[1413]. (_Neuroptera_ L., excluding the _Libellulina_, and taking in _Termes_ L. and _Thysanura_ Latr.) _Maxilla_ geniculate at the base and connate with the labium.

4. PIEZATA[1414]. (_Hymenoptera_ L.) _Maxilla_ corneous, compressed, often elongate.

5. ODONATA[1415]. (_Libellulina_ M^cL.) _Maxilla_ corneous, toothed, two palpi.

6. MITOSATA[1416]. (_Myriapoda_ Leach.) _Maxilla_ corneous, vaulted, not palpigerous.

**

7. UNOGATA[1417]. (_Pulmonary Arachnida_ Latr.) _Maxilla_ corneous, armed with a claw.

***

8. POLYGONATA[1418]. (_Isopod_ and _Branchiopod Crustacea_ Latr.) _Palpi_ mostly six; _Maxillæ_ many _within_ the labium.

9. KLEISTOGNATHA[1419]. (_Brachyurous Decapod Crustacea_ Latr.) Many _Maxillæ without_ the labium, closing the mouth.

10. EXOCHNATA[1420]. (_Macrurous Decapod Crustacea_ Latr.) _Maxillæ_ many _without_ the labium, covered by palpi.

****

11. GLOSSATA[1421]. (_Lepidoptera_ L.) _Mouth_ with a spiral tongue between reflexed palpi.

12. RYNGOTA[1422]. (_Hemiptera_ Latr.) _Mouth_ with a rostrum, having a jointed sheath.

13. ANTLIATA[1423]. (_Diptera_ L., _Anoplura_ Leach., _Trachean Arachnida_ Latr. &c.) _Mouth_ with a haustellum without joints.

The _Orders_ of Fabricius are equivalent usually to the _primary_ groups of the Linnean Orders, and are regulated chiefly by the _antennæ_.

In estimating the value of the above system, we must bear in mind that, according to the statement of its author, it was intended to be partly artificial and partly natural: artificial as to its _Classes_ and _Orders_; natural as to its _genera_, _species_, and _varieties_[1424]. He admitted, however, that natural Classes, &c. do exist; but he contended that artificial ones should be substituted for them, till further discoveries had cleared the way for their satisfactory development[1425]. As therefore his system, in its primary and secondary groups, was confessedly artificial, and the only use of an _artificial_ system being to facilitate the study of any department of Natural History, its value must be estimated by the facilities it affords to the entomological student. But here, it must be allowed, that instead of enlarging the entrance to the temple of his science, it has made it narrower, and has placed most discouraging impediments in his way.

If you examine the definitions of his Classes, you will find them in a variety of cases calculated rather to mislead than to instruct a learner. Thus that of the _Eleutherata_ would equally well suit the _Piezata_ and several others: that of the _Piezata_ is scarcely to be found in it; since in this the maxilla, instead of being _corneous_, is usually _coriaceous_[1426], and its lobe sometimes nearly membranous. In the _Unogata_ he even mistakes the mandibles for maxillæ. Let any young Entomologist endeavour to make out the Fabrician class of a _Cicindela_ for instance; and finding its maxillæ corneous and armed with a claw, he would conclude that it belonged to the _Unogata_ rather than to the _Eleutherata_. Besides all this, the necessity of examining minute parts not easily come at without dissection, is very discouraging to a beginner.

From hence it is evident, that the system of Fabricius, considered as an _artificial_ one or a _method_, was no improvement upon the classification of his master Linné, but rather a retrograde movement in the science.

As to that part of his system in which he professes to take _nature_ for his guide, his _genera_,--though even with respect to them he seems fearful of following her too closely[1427],--he certainly has rendered most essential services to Entomology, and laid the foundation of all that has since been done for its improvement. But it must be observed, that the series of his genera is often altogether artificial; as where he separates and places far asunder the Saprophagous and Thalerophagous Petalocerous beetles.

Entomology, however, in other respects was deeply indebted to this great man. He first, as was lately observed, directed the attention of her votaries to parts which enabled them better to follow the chain of affinities, and to trace out natural groups. In his _Philosophia Entomologica_, drawn up on the plan of Linné's _Philosophia Botanica_, he bequeathed to the science a standard work that ought to be studied by every Entomologist. His incredible labours in defining new genera and describing new species, with which view he travelled into various parts of Europe, and _seven_ times into Britain, have been of infinite service[1428], and placed the science upon a footing much nearer to that of Botany than it had ever before attained.

6. _Era of Latreille, or of the_ Eclectic _System_. The system of Fabricius, though generally adopted in Germany and Switzerland, did not meet with a _universal_ reception. It seems to have gained no permanent footing in the North of Europe, Britain, or France. In the latter country the Linnean phraseology and characters of the Orders were retained by the celebrated Olivier; while at the same time his definitions of genera were constructed, after the Fabrician model, upon the antennæ and the oral organs. But a new and brilliant genius had now appeared in France, whose indefatigable labours and singular talents have thrown more light over entomological science than those of all his predecessors. In 1796, about two years after Fabricius had completed his _Entomologia Systematica emendata et aucta_, M. Latreille published his _Précis de Caractères Génériques des Insectes_; in which important work, walking in the steps of his great compatriot Bernard de Jussieu, he disregarded all _artificial_ systems of Entomology, and attempted to construct one upon a _natural_ basis: and to this end, uniting the consideration of the instruments of manducation with that of the organs for flight and motion, and of other external characters,--or the system of Linné with that of Fabricius,--he became the founder of the modern or _Eclectic_ system[1429]; for he judiciously adopted that sensible _dictum_ of Scopoli, "Classes et Genera naturalia, non sola _instrumenta cibaria_, non solæ _alæ_, nec solæ _antennæ_ constituunt, sed structura _totius_, ac cujusque vel minimi discriminis diligentissima observatio[1430]." His object has been in the above and subsequent works, by dividing his Classes into _natural_ Groups, from the Order to the Genus, to trace out in all its windings, to its inmost recesses, the perplexing labyrinth of the true system of the CREATOR:--of what he has effected, the subjoined tables will give you a sufficient idea[1431].

1817.

_Entoma_

CLASS: I. Crustacea.

CLASS: II. Arachnida

ORDER: Pulmonariæ

FAMILY: Araneides

Sedintariæ TRIBE: Territelæ. TRIBE: Tubitelæ. TRIBE: Inequitelæ. TRIBE: Orbitelæ. TRIBE: Laterigradæ.

Vagantes TRIBE: Citigradæ. TRIBE: Saltigradæ.

FAMILY: Pedipalpæ.

FAMILY: Scorpioides.

ORDER: Tracheariæ

FAMILY: Pseudoscorpiones.

FAMILY: Holetra

TRIBE: Phalangita.

TRIBE: Acaridia SUBTRIBE: Trombidites. SUBTRIBE: Riciniæ. SUBTRIBE: Hydrachnellæ. SUBTRIBE: Microphthiræ.

CLASS: III. Insecta

ORDER: 1. Myriapoda FAMILY: Chilognatha. FAMILY: Chilopoda.

ORDER: 2. Thysanura FAMILY: Lepismenæ. FAMILY: Podurellæ.

ORDER: 3. Parasita FAMILY: Mandibulata. FAMILY: Edentula.

ORDER: 4. Suctoria.

ORDER: 5. Coleoptera.

ORDER: 6. Orthoptera.

ORDER: 7. Hemiptera.

ORDER: 8. Neuroptera.

ORDER: 9. Hymenoptera.

ORDER: 10. Lepidoptera.

ORDER: 11. Rhiphiptera.

ORDER: 12. Diptera.

1825

_Hyperhexapi._

CLASS: I. Crustacea.

CLASS: II. Arachnides.

ORDER: Pulmonariæ

FAMILY: Pedipalpi TRIBE: Scorpionides. TRIBE: Tarentulæ.

FAMILY: Araneides

SECTION: Tetrapneumones.

SECTION: Dipneumones. TRIBE: Tubitelæ. TRIBE: Inæquitelæ. TRIBE: Orbitelæ. TRIBE: Laterigradæ. TRIBE: Citigradæ. TRIBE: Saltigradæ.

ORDER: Tracheariæ FAMILY: Pycnogonides. FAMILY: Pseudoscorpiones. FAMILY: Phalangita. FAMILY: Acarides. FAMILY: Hydrachnellæ. FAMILY: Riciniæ. FAMILY: Microphthira.

CONDYLOPA.

CLASS: III. Myriapoda.

ORDER: Chilognatha FAMILY: Anguiformia. FAMILY: Penicillata.

ORDER: Chilopoda FAMILY: Inæquipedes. FAMILY: Æquipedes.

CLASS: _Aptera._

ORDER: Thysanoura FAMILY: Lepismenæ. FAMILY: Podurellæ.

ORDER: Parasita FAMILY: Mandibulata. FAMILY: Siphunculata.

ORDER: Siphonaptera.

_Hexapoda._

CLASS: IV. Insecta.

CLASS: _Alata_ ORDER: Coleoptera } ORDER: Orthoptera }FAMILY:_Elytroptera_. ORDER: Hemiptera }

ORDER: Neuroptera } ORDER: Hymenoptera }FAMILY:_Anelytra_ _quadripennia_. ORDER: Lepidoptera }

ORDER: Rhiphiptera }FAMILY:---------- _bipennia_. ORDER: Diptera }

Having given you these tables of the _Orders_, from a comparison of which you will be able to trace the improvements in his system made by this learned Entomologist in the interval of eight years, I shall proceed to give those of his subordinate groups arranged under each. This I have already done, to save space, in the _Arachnida_ and _Insecta aptera_.

Column Key: A = ORDER. B = SECTION. C = FAMILY. D = SUBFAMILY. E = TRIBE. F = SUBTRIBE.

A. B. C. D. E. F.

{Cicindeletæ. {Terrestres { {Truncatipennes. { { {Bipartiti. {Adephagi { {Carabici {Thoracici. { { {Abdominales. { { {Subulipalpi. { {Aquatica {Hydrocanthari. { {Gyrinites. { { {Fissilabres. {Brachyptera {Longipalpi. { {Depressi. { {Microcephali. { { {Sternoxi {Buprestides. {Serricornes{ {Elaterides. {Pentamera { { { { { {Cebrionites. { { { {Lampyrides. { { {Malacodermi{Melyrides. { { {Clerii. { { {Xylotragi. { { {Ptiniores. { { { { {Histeroida. { { {Peltoides. { { {Palpatores. { {Clavicornes {Dermestini. { { {Byrrhii. { { {Macrodactyli. { { { {Palpicornes {Hydrophilii. Coleo-{ { {Sphæridiota. ptera.{ { {Coprophagi. { { {Arenicolæ. { { {Xylophili. { { {Scarabæides {Phyllophagi. { {Lamellicornes { {Anthobii. { { {Melitophili. { {Lucanides. { { {Pimeliariæ. { {Melasoma {Blapsides. { { {Tenebrionites. { { { { {Dioperiales. { {Taxicornes {Cossyphenes. { { {Crassicornes. {Heteromera{ { {Helopii. { {Cistelides. {Stenelytra {Securipalpi. { {Œdemerites. { {Rhyncostoma. { { {Lagriariæ. { {Pyrochroides. {Trachelides {Mordellonæ. {Anthicides. {Horiales. {Cantharidiæ.

ORDER. SECTION. FAMILY. TRIBE.

{Bruchelæ. {Anthribides. {Rhynchophora {Altelabides. { {Brentides. { {Curculionites. { { {Scolitarii. {Xylophagi {Bostrichini. { {Paussili. { {Trogossitarii. {Platysoma. {Tetramera { {Prionii. { { {Cerambycini. { {Longicornes {Necydalides. { { {Lamiariæ. { { {Lepturetæ. { { { {Eupoda {Sagrides. Coleoptera { { {Criocerides. { { { { {Cassidariæ. { {Cyclica {Chrysomelinæ. { {Galerucidæ. { {Clavipalpi. {Trimera {Aphidiphagi. { {Fungicolæ. { {Pselaphii. {Monomera. {Forficularia. {Blattariæ. { I. {Mantides. { {Spectra. Orthoptera { { II. {Gryllides. { {Locustariæ. { { III. {Acridites. {Longilabra. {Membranaceæ. {Geocorisæ {Nudicolles. { {Oculatæ. {Heteroptera { {Ploteres. { { { {Hydrocorisæ {Nepides. { {Notonectides. Hemiptera { { {Stridulantes. { {Cicadariæ {Fulgorellæ. { { {Membracides. { { {Cicadellæ. { { {Homoptera { {Psyllides. {Hymenelytra {Physapi. { {Aphidii. {Gallinsecta.

ORDER. SECTION. FAMILY. TRIBE. SUBTRIBE.

{Subulicornes {Libellulina. { {Ephemerina. {Panorpatæ. Neuroptera { {Myrmeleonides. { {Hemerobini. { {Planipennes {Psoquillæ. {Filicornes { {Termitinæ. { {Raphidinæ. {Plicipennes. {Semblides. {Perlides.

{Securifera {Tenthredinetæ. { {Urocerata. { {Terebrantia { {Evaniales. { { {Ichneumonides. { { {Gallicolæ. { {Pupivora {Chalcidites. { {Chrysides. { {Oxyuri. { { {Heterogyna {Formicariæ. Hymenoptera { { {Mutillariæ. { { { { {Scolietæ. { { {Sapygites. { { {Pompilii. { {Fossores {Sphegides. { { {Bembecides. { { {Larratæ. {Aculeata { {Nyssonii. { {Crabronites. { {Diploptera {Vespariæ. { {Masarides. { { {Andrenetæ. { { {Solitariæ. {Mellifica { {Andrenoides. { {Dasygastræ. {Apiariæ {Cuculinæ. {Scobulipedes. {Sociales.

{Hexapoda. {Papilionides{Perlata. {Diurna { {Argus. { {Hesperides. { { {Hesper-sphinges. {Crepuscularia {Sphingides. Lepidoptera { {Zygænides. { { {Bombycites. { {Pseudo-Bombyces. { {Tineites. { {Noctuælites. {Nocturna {Tortrices. {Phalænites. {Crambites. {Pterophorites.

ORDER. SECTION. FAMILY. TRIBE. SUBTRIBE.

{Culicides. {Culiciformes. {Nemocera { {Gallicolæ. { {Tipulariæ {Terricolæ. { {Fungivoræ. { {Tabanii. {Florales. { {Sicarii. { {Mydasi. { {Leptides. { {Dolichopoda. { I. {Tanystoma {Asilici. { { {Hybotina. { { {Empides. { { {Anthracii. { { {Bombyliarii. { { {Vesiculosa. { { Diptera { {Notacantha {Xylophagei. { { {Stratyomides. { { { { {Syrphiæ. { { {Conopsariæ. { {Athericera {Œstrides. { { {Cryptogastræ. { { {Creophilæ. { { {Carpomyzæ. { {Muscides {Dolichoceræ. { {Gonocephalæ. { {Scathophilæ. { {Apteræ. { II. {Pupiparæ {Coriaceæ. {Phthiromyiæ[1432].

If you examine the _Orders_ as here given, you will find that they mostly represent _natural primary_ groups of his Classes, though with regard to their _distribution_ you may perhaps feel disposed to differ from him. You will also think that his _secondary_ and _minor_ groups[1433], with the exception of some of his sections, merit the same character. Indeed, he has left far behind all his predecessors in the progress that he has made towards extricating the true system. Setting out from a common centre he holds on his unwearied course, endeavouring to trace every set of objects that branches from it to its extreme term. But though he studied insects _analytically_ with unrivalled success, he was not always equally happy in his _synthetical_ arrangement of them. I do not here so much speak of the result which must necessarily follow from any arrangement in a _series_, and which cannot well be avoided; but I allude particularly to his intire adoption of the Geoffroyan system in the _Coleoptera_, which has prevented him in many instances from seeing the natural distribution of his groups.

In 1798, two years after the publication of Latreille's first enunciation of his system, M. Clairville, a very acute and learned Swiss Entomologist, drew up the following analytical table of insects.

SECTIONS.

{ 1. Elytroptera { (_Coleoptera_). { 2. Deratoptera { Mandibulata { (_Orthoptera_). { { 3. Dictyoptera { { (_Neuroptera_). { Pterophora { { 4. Phleboptera { { { (_Hymenoptera_). { { { { { 5. Halteriptera { { { (_Diptera_). Insecta { { Haustellata { 6. Lepidioptera { { (_Lepidoptera_). { { 7. Hemimeroptera { { (_Hemiptera_). { Aptera {Haustellata 8. Rophoteira. {Mandibulata 9. Pododunera.

Every one will think that the change of the received names of the Orders, here denominated Sections, is perfectly needless. The principal merit of this system is the division of insects, tacitly pointed out by Fabricius, into two groups or subclasses, from the mode in which they take their food.

Lamarck,--whose merits as a Zoologist, except in one point[1434], are of the highest order,--in his _Système des Animaux sans Vertèbres_, which was published in 1801, adopts the above division of insects; but, after Aristotle[1435], he makes the _Hymenoptera_ an intermediate Order between the masticators and those that take their food by suction; he places the _Lepidoptera_ at the head of the latter, and the _Aphaniptera_, which he denominates _Aptera_, at the end[1436]: the Hexapod, Octopod, and Polypod _Aptera_ he considers as _Arachnida_[1437]. In his last great work (_Histoire Naturelle des Animaux sans Vertèbres_) he includes the _Hymenoptera_ amongst the masticators, and reverses the disposition of his Orders, beginning with his _Aptera_ and ending with the _Coleoptera_[1438].

M. Le Baron Cuvier, in his _Anatomie Comparée_ (1805) divided _Insecta_ into two subclasses, from the presence or absence of _maxillæ_: thus--

_With Maxillæ._ _Without Maxillæ._

1. Gnathaptera. 1. Hemiptera.

2. Neuroptera. 2. Lepidoptera.

3. Hymenoptera. 3. Diptera.

4. Coleoptera. 4. Aptera.

5. Orthoptera.

His _Gnathaptera_ include the Isopod _Crustacea_, the _Arachnida_, the Polypod, and some of the Octopod and Hexapod _Aptera_; and his _Aptera_--_Pulex_, _Pediculus_, and the _Acarina_, with the exclusion of _Hydrachna_[1439]. It is remarkable enough that his Class as it stands, with a slight alteration, returns into itself, thus forming a circle; for his first Order (_Gnathaptera_) contains _Hydrachna_ and the _Thysanura_, and his last (_Aptera_) ends with the _Anoplura_, and _Acarina_.

All the French Entomologists have followed Olivier and Latreille in adopting, with some variation, Geoffroy's system with regard to the _Coleoptera_, which has rendered them all more or less artificial. Dumeril has constructed a table of the Order, arranged differently from that above given[1440] of Latreille; but not more natural, for the very same reason.

Our learned countryman, Dr. Leach, by his zoological labours has thrown much light on the natural distribution of the Animal Kingdom, and no department of that kingdom is more indebted to him than the _Annulosa_; of which I have before stated to you his _Classes_[1441]. I shall now give a table of his _Orders_ of _Arachnida_ and _Insecta_ Latr. and also his families, &c. of his Classes _Myriapoda_ and _Arachnides_[1442].

CLASS. ORDER. FAMILY.

{ Glomerides. { Chilognatha { Iulides. { { Polydesmides. Myriapoda { { { Cermatides. { Syngnatha { Scolopendrides. { Geophilides.

{ Podosomata { Pycnogonides. { { Nymphonides. { { { Sironides. { Polymerosomata { Scorpionides. { { Tarantulides. { { { Solpugides. Arachnides { Dimerosomata { Phalangides. { { Araneïdes. { { { Trombidides. { { Gammasides. { Monomerosomata { Acarides. { Cheyletides. { Eylaïdes. { Hydrachnides.

{Ametabolia { Thysanura. { { Anoplura. { { { Coleoptera. { { Dermaptera. Insecta { { Orthoptera. { { Dictyoptera. { { Hemiptera. { { Omoptera. {Metabolia { Aptera. { Lepidoptera. { Trichoptera. { Neuroptera. { Hymenoptera. { Rhiphiptera. { Diptera. { Omaloptera.

I have before expressed my sentiments upon several of these Orders[1443]: I shall not here repeat them, but shall merely observe, with respect to those I have not adopted, that, though perhaps not entitled to rank as _Orders_, most of them form natural groups. His Orders, however, of _Arachnida_ must be excepted from this remark, since they are evidently artificial. His analyses of his Orders, though in general they give natural groups, are usually not carried so far as those of M. Latreille, so as seldom to indicate what may properly be denominated _families_. He has made his nomenclature for his so-called families more uniform and satisfactory than that of the French Entomologist: and we may say, with respect to the extent and effect of his zoological labours,--_Nihil non tetigit, et omnia quæ tetigit ornavit_.

7. _Era of MacLeay, or of the_ Quinary _System._ I have more than once stated to you in my former letters the bases upon which the system which I am in the last place to explain to you is built. You know the Sub-kingdoms and Classes into which its learned and ingenious author, upon a novel and most remarkable plan, has divided the Animal Kingdom[1444]. I shall now copy for you his diagram of the _Annulosa_.

I have before sufficiently noticed these Classes, or _Orders_ as Mr. MacLeay terms them, of the Sub-kingdom _Annulosa_: I shall here therefore only throw out a few remarks on their composition. With regard to their _circular_ distribution in the _Crustacea_, Mr. MacLeay thinks the series runs from the Branchiopods or _Monoculus_ L. to the Decapods or _Cancer_ L.; and so on, till by means perhaps of the genus _Bopyrus_, which Fabricius regards as a _Monoculus_, it returns to the Branchiopods again. This circle, through _Porcellio_, a kind of wood-louse, &c., which has only a pair of antennæ and at first but six legs, is connected with the _Ametabola_ Class, which beginning with _Glomeris_ goes by the other _Chilognatha_ (_Iulus_ L.), having also six legs at first, and certain _Vermes_ to the _Anoplura_, and terminates in the _Chilopoda_ (_Scolopendra_ L.) their cognate tribe[1445]. From the _Ametabola_ Mr. MacLeay proceeds to the _Mandibulata_, between which two groups he has discovered no osculant one, but he takes the _Anoplura_ of the former as the transit to the _Coleoptera_ in the latter; from whence passing to the _Orthoptera_, &c., he finally returns by the _Hymenoptera_. Between the _Mandibulata_ likewise and _Haustellata_ he finds no osculant class: but as the affinity between the _Trichoptera_ and _Lepidoptera_ is evident, proceeding by the _Homoptera_ he returns to the _Lepidoptera_ by certain _Diptera_, as _Psychoda_, &c. From the _Aptera_ Lam. or _Pulex_ L. he passes by the osculant class _Nycteribida_ to the _Arachnida_; and beginning with the _Acaridea_, he goes to the _Scorpionidea_, and so to the _Aranidea_ or spiders, which he connects with the Decapod _Crustacea_;--thus forming his great circle of _five_ smaller ones, each of which, as well as that which they form, returns into itself[1446].

We next take his Circles of _Mandibulata_: thus--

In this arrangement of the _tribes_, as he calls them, of _Mandibulata_, Mr. MacLeay sets out from the _Coleoptera_, which he distributes, according to the supposed typical forms of their _larvæ_, into five minor groups, sufficiently noticed on a former occasion[1447]. From this tribe or Order he proposes to pass by _Atractocerus_ to the osculant Order _Strepsiptera_, and from thence by _Myrmecodes_ and the Ants to the _Hymenoptera_. From hence he next proceeds to his _Trichoptera_; in which, as we have seen[1447], he places not only _Phryganea_ L., but also _Tenthredo_ L. and _Perla_ Geoffr., making his transit by _Sirex_ L.; forming an osculant Order which he denominates _Bomboptera_. From this his way to the _Neuroptera_ is by the _Perlides_, with _Sialis_ as an osculant Order under the name of _Megaloptera_: he enters by _Chauliodes_, and leaves it by _Panorpa_ or _Raphidia_ by means of _Boreus_, forming also an osculant Order (_Raphioptera_) for the _Orthoptera_; which he enters by _Phasma_, _Mantis_, &c., and leaves by _Gryllus_, entering the _Coleoptera_ again by the osculant Order _Dermaptera_ formed of _Forficula_ L.: and thus returning to the point from which he set out[1448]. He has not, however, made this return of the series into itself so clear in each order, excepting in the _Orthoptera_, as he has done in the whole Class or Sub-class. Thus in the _Coleoptera_ there appears no particular affinity between the Predaceous and Vesicant beetles, his first and fifth forms[1449], or his Chilopodimorphous _Coleoptera_, and his Thysanurimorphous.

To enter fully into his doctrine of Analogies would lead us into a very wide field, and occupy a larger space than I can afford; I must therefore refer you to his work for more particular and detailed information on that subject. With regard to the analogy between opposite points of contiguous circles, you may get a very good idea of it from his diagram of Saprophagous and Thalerophagous Petalocerous beetles, which I here subjoin.

It is a very singular circumstance that in these two circles we have two sets of insects,--one _impure_ in its habits and feeding upon _putrescent_ food, and the other _clean_ and nourished by food that has suffered no _decay_,--set in contrast with each other, and that in each of the opposite groups, the one has its counterpart in some respect in the other. In none is this more striking than the _Scarabæidæ_ and _Cetoniadæ_, both remarkable for having soft membranous mandibles unfit for mastication, and both living upon juices, the one in a putrescent and the other in an undecayed state[1450].

Our learned author in subsequent works has stated every circle to be resolvable into _two_ superior groups, which he denominates _normal_ or typical, and _three_ inferior ones, which he calls _aberrant_ or annectent[1451].

Before I conclude this account of the various _general_ systems that have distinguished the different entomological eras, i must say a few words on those _partial_ ones which have been founded on the _neuration_ of the _wings_ of insects. Frisch, who died in 1743, attempted something in this way[1452]: Harris, in his _Exposition of English Insects_ published in 1782, had arranged his _Hymenoptera_ and _Diptera_ according to characters derived from this same circumstance[1453]: Mr. Jones in the _Linnean Transactions_ had made good use of it in dividing the _Diurnal Lepidoptera_ into groups[1454]: and in the _Monographia Apum Angliæ_, the characters exhibited by the various groups into which Linné's genus _Apis_ was resolvable, as to the neuration of their wings, were described[1455]. But M. Jurine was the first Entomologist who made that circumstance the keystone of a system; which indeed he restricted to Hymenopterous and Dipterous insects, but which might be extended much further. As this system has been before sufficiently enlarged upon[1456], I need here only mention it.

* * * * *

To particularize the various entomological works in every department of the science, that have appeared since the commencement of the era of Fabricius, would require a volume. Such was its progress and spread, that in every corner of Europe the pens and pencils of able and eminent men, whose works have almost all been quoted in the course of our correspondence, have been employed to illustrate it[1457].

I may observe, however, that the _Internal Anatomy_ of Insects, a branch of Entomology which on account of its difficulty, from the extreme nicety required in dissecting them, had before been cultivated by scarcely more than a single student in an age, has now attracted numerous votaries. In Germany--Carus, Gaede, Herold, Posselt, Ramdohr, Rifferschweils, Sprengel, and others, have distinguished themselves in this arena: and in France, besides the illustrious Baron Cuvier (himself a host), Marcel de Serres, Leon Dufour, and very recently, by his elaborate essays _On the Flight of Insects_ and its wonderful apparatus, one of the most acute of anatomical physiologists, M. Chabrier,--have all contributed greatly to the elucidation of this interesting part of the science. In our own country very little has hitherto been effected in this line; but a learned Oxford Professor (Kidd) has presented to the Royal Society an account of the anatomy of the Mole-cricket, which entitles him to an eminent station amongst the above worthies.

I may likewise further observe, that the _pictorial_ department of Entomology was, during the period I am speaking of, carried to its greatest perfection. Painters of insects formerly were satisfied with giving a representation generally correct, without attempting a faithful delineation of all the minor parts, particularly as to _number_;--for instance, the joints of the antennæ and tarsi, the areolets of the wings, &c.: but now no one gives satisfaction as an entomological artist unless he is accurate in these respects.

I am, &c.

FOOTNOTES:

[1316] See above, p. 364--.

[1317] _Genes._, ii. 19--.

[1318] _Pol. Synops._ on _Genes._ ii.

[1319] _Genes._ i. 25.

[1320] _Linn. Trans._ iv. 51--. See _Levit._ xi. 20--.

[1321] The _Neuroptera_ appears to be the only Order not so signalized. It is worthy of notice that insects are usually noticed _generically_ and not _specifically_ in Scripture. On the insects of Scripture see Bochart _Hierozoic._ ii. 1. iv.

[1322] _Isai._ vii. 18. _Joel_ ii. _Rev._ ix. 3.

[1323] _Prov._ xxx. 24--.

[1324] 1 _Kings_ iv. 33.

[1325] _Linn. Trans._ i. 5.

[1326] VOL. III. p. 6.

[1327] _Ibid._ l. i. c. 5.

[1328] _Ibid._ l. iv. c. 7.

[1329] _Ibid._

[1330] _Ibid._ l. v. c. 19.

[1331] Aristotle calls winged insects _Pterota_ when he would distinguish them from those that are apterous, and _Ptilota_ when he contrasts them with birds. (Comp. _Hist. Anim._ l. iv. c. 1. with l. i. c. 5.) Sometimes he calls birds thus contrasted _Schizoptera_, and insects _Holoptera_. _De Anim. Incess._ c. 10.

[1332] _Ibid._ l. i. c. 5.

[1333] _Ibid._ and l. iv. c. 7.

[1334] _Ibid._

[1335] _Hist. Anim._ l. iv. c. 1.

[1336] _Ibid._

[1337] _Ibid._ l. viii. c. 11.

[1338] Gr. Ον τροφης χαριν εχει οδοντας αλλ' αλκης. Αλκη means _Strength of mind_, _Fortitude_, _Strenuousness_, also _Help_:--it here probably signifies their strenuous use of their oral organs in fulfilling their instincts. _De Partib. Anim._ l. iv. c. 5.

[1339] _Hist. Anim._ l. iv. c. 7.

[1340] _Ibid._

[1341] Gr. Αερσιποτητος αραχνη. _Dies._ lin. 13.

[1342] _Hist. Nat._ l. xi. c. 25.

[1343] VOL. I. p. 481. VOL. II. p. 121--.

[1344] _De Natur. Animal._ l. vi. c. 20.

[1345] _Ibid._ l. xv. c. 1.

[1346] _Opera_ vi. 683.

[1347] _Ibid._ 153--.

[1348] _Ibid._ 154, 233, 265, &c.

[1349] _Opera_ vi. 676, 679, 680.

[1350] See above, p. 428.

[1351] _Opera_ vi. 682--.

[1352] _Esperienz. ed Osserv._ i. 42--.

[1353] Pultency's _Sketches of Botany in England_, i. 86.

[1354] _Theatr. Insect. Epist. Ded._ i.

[1355] _Theatr. Insect. Epist. Ded._ i.

[1356] _Theriotroph. Siles._ 455.

[1357] Aristotle (_Hist. Anim._ l. i. c. 1.) says, "The sponge seems to have some sensation: as a proof, it is not easily plucked up, unless, so they say, the attempt is concealed."

[1358] Lister's Goedart, _Præf._ ii.

[1359] See VOL. I. p. 65--, where these terms are explained.

[1360] Swamm. _Bibl. Nat._ i. 38--.

[1361] _Ibid._ 92--.

[1362] _Ibid._ 119--.

[1363] _Ibid._ ii. 1--.

[1364] _Ibid._ 31--.

[1365] _Ibid._ 30.

[1366] _Hist. Ins._ Prolegom. ix.--

[1367] These are all _Annelida_.

[1368] Larvæ.

[1369] Various _Aptera_ and the Bed Bug.

[1370] _Nymphon._

[1371] _Scorpio._

[1372] Spiders, _Phalangia_, and Mites.

[1373] _Iulus._

[1374] _Scolopendra._

[1375] _Annelida._

[1376] This section is divided by the author into thirteen tribes.

[1377] _Lepidoptera._

[1378] _Apis_, _Bombus_, &c.

[1379] _Vespidæ._

[1380] _Andrena_, _Halictus_, _Nomada_, &c.

[1381] _Crabro_, _Philanthus_, _Cerceris_, &c.

[1382] _Serifera_? _Ichneumon_, &c.

[1383] _Trichoptera._

[1384] _Pimpla Manifestator_, and other _Ichneumonidæ_, with a long ovipositor.

[1385] Our author has followed Swammerdam in this unnatural separation of those _Diptera_ whose metamorphosis is coarctate from the rest; and in associating with them the _Chalcidites_, whose metamorphosis is really different. Into this error both were led by system.

[1386] _Philos. Lett._ &c. 141.

[1387] _Ibid._ 343.

[1388] Ray died in 1705, and Linné was born in 1707.

[1389] When a boy he attempted to introduce wasps and bees into his father's garden, to the great annoyance of the old gentleman.--Stœver's _Life of Linnæus_, 4.

[1390] _Ibid._ 75.

[1391] Linn. _Philos. Botan._ n. 87, 188, 189.

[1392] See above, p. 342, n. 5.

[1393] Linn. n. 291.

[1394] _Fn. Suec._ Præf.

[1395] VOL. III. p. 681--.

[1396] _Histoire abrégée des Insectes._

[1397] See the opposite page.

[1398] The first volume of his _Mémoires_ was published in 1752.

[1399] The first volume of this work was published in 1734, the sixth and last in 1742.

[1400] Reaum. i. Mém. vi. vii. and Mém. ii. 68--.

[1401] Smith's _Tour_, iii. 150.

[1402] VOL. I. p. 175. Also see above, p. 166--.

[1403] Bonnet i. 19--.

[1404] We have been informed that these valuable remains are at length likely to be rescued from oblivion, and given to the public.

[1405] VOL. II. p. 48, note^a.

[1406] Since the former edition of these volumes was published, another and most important association has been formed, having for its object the Animal Kingdom solely; which not only has a museum to receive specimens of dead animals (by the liberal donation of its present learned secretary, of his own rich collection, and from other sources, already most interesting both as a spectacle and to the student), but also a Vivarium, in which a considerable and curious assemblage of living animals may be seen. This association, which is named THE ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY, is principally indebted for its formation to the efforts of a great, amiable, and lamented character, the late Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles, whose merits were equally conspicuous both as a Politician and a Naturalist, and who was its first President.

[1407] Linné is recorded to have said, "Si Dominus Fabricius venit cum aliquo _Insecto_, et Dominus Zoega cum aliquo _Musco_, tunc ego pileum detraho et dico: Estote doctores mei." Stœver's _Life of Linnæus_. 186.

[1408] Fab. _Philos. Entomolog._ Præf.

[1409] VOL. III. p. 416.

[1410] _Philos. Entomolog._ vi. §. 2. _Syst. Ent._ Prolegom.

[1411] From Ελευθερος, Free.

[1412] Derivation uncertain. Perhaps Αυλων, A long and narrow space or tract.

[1413] Συνιστημι, To stand together.

[1414] Πιεζω, To press.

[1415] Οδους, A tooth.

[1416] Μιτος, A thread.

[1417] _Unogata_ is probably a mistake for _Onychata_; from Ονυξ, A claw.

[1418] Doubtless for _Polygnatha_; from Πολυς, Many, and Γναθος, A jaw.

[1419] Κλειστος, Closed, and Γναθος.

[1420] Εξω, Without, and Γναθος.

[1421] Γλώσσα, A tongue.

[1422] Ῥυγχος, A rostrum.

[1423] Αντλια, A pump.

[1424] Dispositio insectorum sistit divisiones s. conjunctiones eorum, et est _artificialis_ quæ _Classes_ et _Ordines_, et _naturalis_ quæ _genera_, _species_, et _varietates_ docet. _Philos. Entomol._ vi. §. 2.

[1425] _Ibid._ §. 7.

[1426] Latreille _Gen. Crust. et Ins._ iii. 214.

[1427] With respect to Natural Genera he says--"Cavendum tamen ne nimis imitando _naturam_ systematis amittamus filum Ariadneum." _Ibid._ § 6.

[1428] Fab. _Entomolog. Syst. em. et auct._ i. Præf. iv.

[1429] Fabricius calls this a chaos, and threatens to prove it, but he never fulfilled his threat. See Fab. _Supplem._ Præf. i.

[1430] _Introd. ad Hist. Nat._ 401.

[1431] See _N. Dict. d'Hist. Nat._ x. article _Entomologie_; and _Familles Naturelles du Règne Animal_ 262--.

[1432] These tables, except the first, are taken from the _Familles Naturelles du Règne Animal_. As a new edition of M. Le Baron Cuvier's _Règne Animal_ is preparing, M. Latreille will doubtless give in it a still more improved arrangement of the _Crustacea_, _Arachnida_, and _Insecta_.

[1433] Several of the minor groups given in the table he has further resolved before he arrives at his genera.

[1434] VOL. III. p. 348, note^c.

[1435] See above, p. 433.

[1436] _Syst. des Anim. sans Vertèbr._ 185.

[1437] _Ibid._ 171.

[1438] _Anim. sans Vertèbr._ iii. 332--.

[1439] _Anat. Comp._ i. _t._ viii.

[1440] _Expos. d'une Meth. Nat._ 17.

[1441] VOL. III. p. 19.

[1442] _Linn. Trans._ xi. 376. N. B. I have transferred from the _Arachnida_ his suborder _Notostomata_, as he subsequently placed it at the end of _Insecta_, under the _Omaloptera_.

[1443] See above, pp. 378, 380, 385, 390.

[1444] VOL. III. p. 14.

[1445] See VOL. III. p. 25--. and above, p. 394--.

[1446] _Hor. Entomolog._ _c._ vi.

[1447] See above, p. 382.

[1448] _Hor. Entomolog._ 420--.

[1449] _Ibid._ 422.

[1450] Other systems or methods have been promulgated by various authors, as by Schæffer, Scopoli, Geoffroy, &c. Walckenaer and Blainville have proposed one founded on the number of the _legs_ of insects; but those in the text are the principal and best known.--_N. Dict. d'Hist. Nat._ xvi. 277.

[1451] _Linn. Trans._ xiv. 59--. _Annulos. Javan._ 6. See above, p. 408.

[1452] Latreille _Gen. Crust. et Ins._ iii. 226. note 1.

[1453] _Præf._ ii.

[1454] _Linn. Trans._ ii. 63--.

[1455] _Mon. Ap. Angl._ i. 211--.

[1456] VOL. III. p. 620. n. 3.

[1457] It may not be unprofitable here to mention those works which the Entomologist may find it most useful to consult in various departments of the science. For descriptions of the _Genera_ and _Species_ of insects in general, he must have recourse to the _Entomologia Systematica emendata et aucta_ of Fabricius, and its _Supplement_; to the volumes he subsequently published under the titles _Systema Eleutheratorum_, _Rhyngotorum_, _Glossatorum_, _Piezatorum_, and _Antliatorum_; to the _Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum_ of Latreille; to the same department of the _Règne Animal_ of Cuvier; and to the _Animaux sans Vertèbres_ of Lamarck. He will find the genera of Linné and Fabricius illustrated by _figures_, in Rœmer's _Genera_; and many of the species described by the latter in Coquebert's _Illustratio Iconographica_. In our countryman Drury's beautiful _Illustrations of Natural History_, a large number of new and rare insects are depicted; and in Mr. Donovan's _Insects of China, India, and New Holland_, some of the most brilliant and interesting that have been imported from those countries. Panzer's _Faunæ Insectorum Germanicæ Initia_ has little short of 3000 figures of insects of every Order (a considerable number of which are found to inhabit Britain), by the celebrated Sturm; and the latter, in his _Deutschlands Fauna_, has illustrated many Coleopterous genera analytically (as has also M. Clairville the weevils and Predaceous beetles of Switzerland in his _Entomologie Helvétique_) by his admirable pencil. Beetles in general are well figured and described in Olivier's splendid _Entomologie_; as are those of Europe in a beautiful work now in course of publication, under the title of _Coleoptères d'Europe_, by MM. Latreille and Dejean. The latter author has also begun a work on this Order under the title of _Species général des Coléoptères de la Collection de M. Le Comte Dejean_; two volumes of which have appeared, containing part of the _Carabici_ Latr. but I fear it has stopped for want of encouragement. Had the descriptions been less verbose it would have had a better chance of success. For the _Orthoptera_ and _Hemiptera_, the student must have recourse to Stoll's _Spectres_, _Mantes_, _Sauterelles_, _Grillons_, _Blattes_, _Cigales_, and _Punaises_. To a knowledge of the species of _Lepidoptera_, the admirable figures of Cramer (_Papillons Exotiques de trois Parties_ _du Monde_), Esper (_Schmetterlinge_, _Tagschmetterlinge_), Hübner (_Schmetterlinge_, &c.), and Ochsenheimer's valuable _Schmetterlinge von Europa_, with the continuation by Treitschke, will afford a useful avenue. Meigen also, author of a most valuable work on the Europæan _Diptera_, is publishing at this time a work on _Lepidoptera_ under the title of _Europäische Schmetterlinge_. To the _Hymenoptera_ Jurine and Christian are the best guides, and to the _Diptera_ Meigen.

With regard to works in British Entomology in general--Donovan's _Natural History of British Insects_, and Samouelle's _Entomologist's Useful Compendium_, will be found very excellent helps to the student. For the British Genera, the most important work that has yet appeared is Mr. John Curtis's _British Entomology_, in which not only are the insects admirably represented, but their trophi correctly delineated, accompanied by able descriptions. For the _Coleoptera_ of our country, Mr. Marsham's _Entomologia Britannica_ should be consulted: for the _Lepidoptera_, the _Butterflies_ of Lewin, Mr. Haworth's useful _Lepidoptera Britannica_, and Miss Jermyn's _Butterfly-Collector's Vade Mecum_; and for the English species of Linné's genus _Apis_, the _Monographia Apum Angliæ_. A British _Fauna Insectorum_, under the title of _Illustrations of British Entomology_, has at length been happily begun by a gentleman (J. F. Stephens, Esq.) who both by his accurate knowledge of the subject, and the extent of his collection of British Insects, is best qualified to undertake it. As far as it has proceeded, it is ably executed, and possesses this advantage, (an advantage seldom to be obtained in works published periodically,) that it finishes, as far as possible, as it goes.