Part 30

[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.

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_.