To trace nature from the trivial differences which may disti_Sphinx Vespiformis: An Essay

Transcriber's Note: Minor typographical errors have been corrected

without note. Irregularities and inconsistencies in the text have

been retained as printed. Words printed in italics are noted with

underscores: _italics_. The cover of this ebook was created by the

transcriber and is hereby placed in the public domain.

SPHINX VESPIFORMIS:

AN ESSAY

EDWARD NEWMAN.

"All are but parts of one stupendous whole,

Whose body Nature is, and GOD the soul."

LONDON:

FREDERICK WESTLEY & A. H. DAVIS,

STATIONERS' HALL COURT.

1832.

LONDON:

PRINTED BY R. CLAY, BREAD STREET HILL,

CHEAPSIDE.

HIS HIGHLY-ESTEEMED FRIEND,

BRACY CLARK, ESQ.

FELLOW OF THE LINNÆAN SOCIETY OF LONDON,

MEMBER OF THE ROYAL INSTITUTE

OF FRANCE,

&c. &c.

_THIS LITTLE ESSAY_

DEDICATED

THE AUTHOR.

PREFACE.

The question--What was the Sphinx Vespiformis of Linnæus?--is one that

has occurred to almost every entomologist. It seemed rather strange

that Linnæus should have described, in all his works, an insect which

had no existence; yet that really appeared to be the case. Laspeyres,

the clever monographer of the _Europæan Sesiæ_, previously to the

appearance of that work, wrote to my highly valued and ingenious

friend, Mr. Clark, requesting that he would investigate and describe

for him the real Linnæan specimen of Vespiformis which was in the

Linnæan cabinet, at that time in the possession of the late Sir J. E.

Smith. Mr. Clark not only described the specimen in question, but

employed that excellent artist, Sydenham Edwards, to make a drawing of

it, which was forthwith forwarded to Berlin. Laspeyres exclaims--"_Sed

quod spectaculum!_--_Sesia asiliformis erat_."[1] This was too much to

believe; the search was given up as hopeless, and the existence of the

Linnæan Vespiformis was pretty much considered a fable. On making some

inquiries, a few months back, about the species of Ægeria, the total

loss of one out of the three Linnæan species appeared a little

unaccountable; and seeing the name of my friend in Laspeyres' work, in

the note above referred to, I determined to have recourse to him, as

the best authority on the subject. Mr. Clark, with the greatest

kindness, at once accompanied me to pay a visit to the said Sphinx,

now in possession of the Linnæan Society: we instantly, on seeing it,

fell in with the decision of Laspeyres--"_Sesia asiliformis erat_;"

yet it agreed excellently with the character which Linnæus had

assigned to Vespiformis: "_Alis fenestratis; abdomine barbato nigro;

incisuris tribus posterioribus margine flavis: capite annulo

flavo_."[2]--No character could be more correct; the specimen was

labelled in the handwriting of Linnæus, and the fenestrated wings

merely arose from the specimen being exceedingly wasted. The fact was

decided: the proof is open to all; and the existence of Sphinx

Vespiformis must henceforth cease to be a fable.

[1] Sesiæ Europeæ, p. 18. Obser.

[2] Linn. Syst. Nat. T. I. Pars. II. p. 804.

To ascertain the place among insects, or even animated beings, which

this Sphinx Vespiformis naturally occupies, I have attempted in the

following pages.

The SYSTEMA NATURÆ has for years been the object of my most diligent

search; but the idea which I have here taken of the subject is

scarcely a month old. An anxiety to hear the opinions of others has

urged me to scribble these few pages, with, I fear, far more haste

than good speed; for it has happened that other engagements have

prevented my affording them any time but that usually devoted to

repose: so that the rapid and careless manner in which the sketch has

been drawn, must be my apology for the very imperfect state in which I

now offer it to the public. I feel, however, a firm conviction that my

theory is too near an approach to truth, to suffer from any garb,

however slovenly, in which I may have dressed it.

I must for the same reason here observe, that I will in no way pledge

myself to the infallibility of the precise points of contact hereafter

proposed, nor shall I notice any attempts which may be made to

invalidate the principle of my theory, by appealing to such trivial

inaccuracies. Feeble efforts of this kind are naturally and very

excusably called forth by a feeling of disappointment at the sudden

destruction of favourite and long-cherished theories: skilfully

managed, they often throw a momentary shade over truth, but never can

extinguish it; he, therefore, who is confident in having truth on his

side, would be acting ungenerously to quarrel with them.

To conclude--for many excellent suggestions, and the kind and

continued interest which he has taken in the progress of this little

Essay, I embrace this opportunity of publicly acknowledging my sincere

thanks to my esteemed friend, Mr. Edward Doubleday; feeling, however,

that such thanks are a very inadequate return for his invaluable

assistance.

DEPTFORD, _January 25, 1832_.

ERRATA.

Page 14, line 27, _for_ I will suppose them, _read_ I will suppose, then,

41, 6, _for_ Lasciocampa, _read_ Lasiocampa

41, 23, _for_ of each, _read_ on each

42, 4, _dele_ previously

44, _note_, _for_ Lithosia, _read_ Lithosiæ

52, line 33, _for_ Phalænæ, _read_ Phalæna

52, 38, _for_ kaned, _read_ naked

SPHINX VESPIFORMIS.

_&c._

ON THE PRIMARY DIVISION OF NATURE.

Any attempt to overthrow existing systems, originally devised and

unanimously approved by men of superior talents and great acquirements,

should not only be made but received with the greatest possible

caution; but when, as in the arrangement of the objects of natural

history, there exists no universally received plan, but each

systematist has, for a few months, or at most, years, his little circle

of immediate followers and admirers, one thing must be obvious,--that

the true system is yet undiscovered; and, therefore, surely it is

competent to every one, however unqualified, to try his hand at the

task: that the true system has not been discovered, is admitted by Mr.

MacLeay, the only individual who has made any thing like an approach to

it; for, in the preface to the _Annulosa Javanica_, which appeared

subsequently to the _Horæ Entomologicæ_, in which his circular and

quinary system is proposed, he acknowledges, that, "as yet, we have not

even arrived at the threshold of nature's temple."

Some individuals would, I believe, argue that no fixed system or plan

prevails in nature, but that each individual species exists quite

independently of, and unconnected with all the rest; others, again,

allow that there is a system, but without any other division than that

of species; thus theoretically disallowing those plain and universally

intelligible groups, which we term beasts, birds, fishes, and insects.

It seems to me highly improbable that a Creator, who has, with such

unerring wisdom, adapted means to their destined ends, should have

performed any part of the mighty work of creation without a fixed and

perfect design. If we consider that no muscle, tendon, or vein,

however minute, whether in man, the highest, or in those animals which

may be reckoned the lowest grade among created beings, but has

functions appointed for it regularly to perform, and that no single

portion of our frame can be parted with, without occasioning us

inconvenience, it seems fair to infer, that no single atom, or no one

created thing, exists without filling some appointed place in a great

and perfectly organized and arranged whole; however far that whole

may, and must be, above our limited understandings. To doubt the

existence of a natural system appears to me to be precisely equivalent

to doubting a creation; for one cannot conceive the various tribes of

animals to have received their being at the hands of an Omnipotent

Creator, and yet to be indebted, at the same time, to chance for those

gradual shades of difference from each other, which are found so

harmoniously blending group into group, that the practised naturalist

may follow up the same peculiarity of habit or structure, however

varied in its development, from one to the other of the most opposite

beings which you can place before him. Infinitely varied, however, as

the course of such a peculiarity must be, the naturalist never finds

those sudden departures from the regular flow of variation, which all

systems, even the most approved, are constantly exhibiting; the reason

of which is, that, in thus tracing approaches in his mind, he will

continually discover an individual completely surrounded by others,

each of which partakes of its peculiarities, not only in a different

degree, but in a different mode; and thus he will perceive the

character on which his attention has been fixed, ramifying in all

directions. Now no system, hitherto suggested, will at all cope with

this; it has been the plan, and I imagine the fault of all our

systems, that they are so constructed as to be incapable of receiving

a character from, or imparting it to, more than a single individual:

hence they never can possess capacity sufficient to exhibit those

endless chains of relation which the mind so luxuriates in tracing.

The want of such a system has been, I believe, universally

acknowledged, and should my humble endeavour even prepare the way for

its establishment, and act the mere part of a herald to proclaim its

approach, I shall not only be satisfied, but delighted.

I cannot here plough my toilsome track through the wild waste of

systems and speculations, which have embarrassed, rather than

assisted, natural history during the last hundred years; my aim will

be more to make myself understood than comment on the merits of

others, except as I can lay them under contribution to enhance my own.

Previously to the publication of Mr. MacLeay's _Horæ Entomologicæ_, it

appears to have been an opinion universally prevalent, that there

existed in nature a regularly graduated scale of beings, beginning with

man as the most perfect, and terminating in the least perfect creature

known to possess life. One ingenious author had varied a little from

this theory by allowing a double series to nature's works, which

commencing on a level with the most perfect animal and most perfect

plant, descended gradually and approached as they descended, until they

met in those jelly-like substances which seem yet to hover between the

two kingdoms, puzzling naturalists by their proximity to both--the

system thus assuming the shape of the letter V.[3]

[3] The system of Lamarck.

However convenient for the formation of a catalogue, or the

arrangement of a cabinet, such a system may be; and however

inconvenient or impracticable any other conceivable plan may appear, I

think few will concur in imagining man capable of, or warranted in,

thus setting up limits and boundary-marks to the works and power of

his Maker; for the next step, as a matter of course, would be the

application of similar restrictions to infinite space, which he might

as reasonably expect to bring under his sapient admeasurement.

Our country has the credit of having first sapped the foundation of a

building, which, though by its founder[4] termed a commodious and well

covered house, could not retain religion or reason among its inmates;

indeed, the illustrious Swede was himself the first to see and to know

that his mansion, however commodious, was built but on the sand; but

knowing its imperfections, he cared not to alter them: he thought it

enough to acknowledge without striving to amend them; in fact, he

really seems to have considered the natural system, like the

philosopher's stone, a mere _ens imaginationis_, the pursuit of

which would be but a waste of time: he doubted not its existence, but

he doubted man's ability to discover it.

[4] Linnæus.

Such was natural history when Mr. MacLeay's immortal work first

diffused its splendour over the world. The power of thought, the

profound research which he there exhibited, and the confession that

"he was one of those who preferred an imperfect transitory glimpse of

nature pure and unveiled, to a full view of the most commodious and

ostentatious mantle that could be employed to conceal her features

from the gaze,"[5] were such novelties in the science, that men

scarcely credited their understandings: they began thinking, and have

continued to think until the term naturalist is not, as it was but a

short time back, immeasurably separated from that of philosopher. The

extraordinary merit of the _Horæ Entomologicæ_ consists, not merely in

disclosing and elucidating the invaluable fact, that a series of

affinities, naturally arranged, has a constant tendency to describe a

circle which eventually returns into itself: a still more important

feature of the work is, that unceasing and determined endeavour

evinced by its learned author to seek after, weigh, and examine facts,

and to employ these alone in the support of his theories,--an

endeavour indicative of that only true spirit of philosophy which has

and can have no other end in view than the establishment of truth.

[5] Horæ Entomologicæ, preface, p. xxiv.

That I suppose Mr. MacLeay to have mistaken the number which nature

has adopted in the combination and distribution of her various

tribes--that I totally dissent from his idea of analogies and

affinities, and from his division or rather adoption of Clairville's

division of insects into mandibulate and haustellate, will be

sufficiently evident from the contents of this little Essay; but in

these and all other instances, in which I feel myself bound to

disclose any difference of opinion which may tend to reveal or

establish truth, I hope I shall always be found urging my objections

with the deference due to an author from whose works I have extracted

many important facts, and the still more important discovery which

forms the ground-work of my own theory.

That nature has a decided tendency to the formation of circles, I

cannot for one moment doubt. If there be yet doubters on that

subject,--if there be yet those who deem the discovery of Mr. MacLeay

a mere invention of his own, let them consider the plan of the

universe, as established by the celebrated Newton,--let them behold

the glorious sun, a circular centre of light and life; let them

observe the circular attendant worlds, which revolve in circles about

him, and which are themselves attended by circular moons, whose

progression is still in circles: the very days of the year, a varied

effect of the same universally operating cause, proclaim the existence

of a circle, by lengthening and shortening until they arrive at the

very day from which our observations began. These facts, these

unquestionable facts, while they beautifully illustrate the existence

of circles in the grand primary distribution of nature, point quite as

decidedly to another conclusion, which it is my aim also to

establish--that there is a tendency universally developed, in a

greater or less degree, in all minor or less important circles to

arrange themselves round major or more important ones. Systematists,

although fully allowing the existence of this tendency in this the

primary or highest system of nature which human intellect has hitherto

been able to grasp; yet its application in detail to the systematic

arrangement of the numerous objects of natural history has hitherto

been totally neglected. It can hardly be supposed that the idea has

never occurred to any of the illustrious writers who have devoted

their time and talents to this interesting subject: it has most

probably occurred, and been rejected as insupportable. It may perhaps

be, that the apparent difficulty of arranging the objects of natural

history thus, as it were, in a mass, has operated somewhat against the

proposal or adoption of a plan like the present; but if we come to

consider the question with the cool deliberation which an inquiry of

this kind requires, I trust it will be generally considered that our

first object is to discover, if possible, nature's plan; our second to

adapt it to our own artificial ideas. Should the present, or any

future scheme, prove incontrovertible,--and incontrovertible the real

system of nature must be, whenever discovered,--it will then be high

time to meditate on the best plan of rendering it serviceable to

ourselves, and available to science; and objectors on this score must

please to recollect that the calculations for eclipses, and other

important astronomical phenomena, experienced any thing but delay or

difficulty from Newton's development of the true solar system. Be the

system of nature discovered when it may, it will never be found that

_Appia Via_ which Linnæus has made it out to be, but rather like the

Cretan labyrinth, and whoever may happen to be the fortunate Theseus,

must undertake the task of showing the way to his competitors, until

it becomes so well known, that a map of the road[6] may be drawn for

the use of all.

[6] A systematic catalogue.

It being then incontrovertibly established, that nature possesses, on

the grand scale, two tendencies; one, the formation of globes or

circles, the other, the disposition of inferior creations to cluster

round superior ones, is it too great a presumption to imagine

tendencies thus exhibited in the creation and government of worlds, as

in some degree typical of the design from which universal nature has

been modelled? Is there the least violation of probability in supposing

the great and beneficent CREATOR the centre of HIS works, and from the

centre pervading and upholding HIS wonderful and stupendous creation?

And again, may not minor centres typify those beings on whom HE has

been pleased to bestow a marked superiority over those around them?

Such an one is man, of whom it is said, "In His own image created he

him."[7]

[7] Genesis i. 27.

I will suppose them a system composed of an immense multitude of

material beings, organic and inorganic, animate and inanimate,

revolving in circles around the central, everlasting abode of that

Providence who created, pervades, and upholds them, and can, by the act

of HIS will, either annihilate or create anew,--a supposition much more

readily admitted than rejected; and, although not positively proved,

yet incapable of disproof from man's researches. I will further suppose

the minor circles occasionally clustering round major ones; yet I am

still in want of some number by which to allot to these circles their

respective stations, and give something like a primary arrangement to a

multitude that would be, without such an assistance to man's capacity,

an utter wilderness of beings; and here it will be perfectly useless to

devise or invent: the only right plan is carefully to examine all

authority within our reach, and steadfastly endeavour to discover

truth.

No authority on this subject can be equal to the Scriptures; and there

we find the number seven always used as a number of greater importance

than any other;--the six days of creation, and the seventh day of

rest, from that time more or less observed as a holy or superior day,

by divine command,[8] is the first and one of the most remarkable

instances: I need merely mention the seven clean animals which Noah

was commanded to take into the ark, the seven plagues, seven years of

famine and of plenty, and that more than two hundred other instances

occur in the Old Testament. In the New the number seven occurs still

more remarkably: as seven golden candlesticks, seven churches, seven

angels, and seven spirits of God. I need scarcely go further; but

being able to adduce the opinions which have been avowed by the

greatest naturalists that have ever lived, I rejoice to strengthen my

own opinion by such high authorities. M. le Baron Cuvier, in a paper

published in 1795, divided all invertebrate animals into six groups,

the vertebrates forming the seventh.[9] Our eminent countryman, Mr.

Kirby, observes: "The number five, which Mr. MacLeay assumes for one

basis of his system, as consecrated in nature, seems to me to yield to

the number seven, which is consecrated both in nature and in

Scripture. Metaphysicians reckon seven principal operations of the

mind; musicians seven primary musical notes; and opticians seven

primary colours. In Scripture the abstract idea of this number is

fulness, completeness, perfection. I have a notion, though not yet

sufficiently matured, that Mr. MacLeay's quinaries are resolvable into

septenaries."[10] Our own observation will speedily convince us, that

most groups of animals with which we are tolerably well acquainted are

divisible into seven; we shall never find the number greater, and when

less, we shall invariably perceive that the deficiency exists in

groups of which our knowledge is particularly limited, for the

perfection of a septenary distribution of any particular group will

depend entirely on our acquaintance with that group: thus the groups

at present known by the names Mammalia, Aves, and Insecta, resolve

themselves instantly into sevens. No ingenuity can frame eight good

groups of either, and no scheme, however plausible, can reduce the

number to sixes or fives. An attempt to reduce birds into five groups

has been made in this country; I cannot do better than refer the

reader to it as a triumphant confirmation of the predominance of the

number seven.[11] The great Linnæus assigned to Mammalia seven orders,

to Aves six, and to Insecta seven, in a system which, though capable

of improvement in many of the orders, evidently points to the truth,

and considering his limited means of reference, compared with what the

naturalist now possesses, was a remarkable and magnificent monument of

human talent.[12]

[8] Genesis ii. 3.

[9] Translation of Cuvier by Griffith, Vol. I. p. 64, note.

Cuvier has since adopted the number four.

[10] Introduction to Entomology, Vol. III. p. 15, note.

[11] By Mr. Vigors. Linnæan Transactions.

[12] It will be observed that in the Mollusca, Radiata, and

Acrita of MacLeay, all attempts to employ a particular

number in grouping will be found futile, a circumstance

obviously attributable to our ignorance; and the only

conclusion to be drawn from it is this: that, as these

tribes can never be rendered available for any numerical

distribution, so they can never be fairly and satisfactorily

adduced in refutation of such a distribution.

To go back two thousand years before the birth of Linnæus, may be

thought rather an unlikely mode of obtaining proof of the value of a

modern theory in natural history; yet at that time we find a system of

insects[13] divided so accurately into seven groups, that every attempt

to improve it has, as far as regards these great groups, proved an

utter fallacy. Now this array of names, Aristotle, Linnæus, Cuvier and

Kirby, thus corroborating Holy Writ, even in direct opposition to our

own observations, is entitled to a good degree of confidence; but how

much more cheerfully is that confidence given when our own unbiassed

judgment must thoroughly coincide!

[13] That of Aristotle.

Presuming, therefore, that a septenary and circular arrangement, with

one seventh superior to the others, does exist in nature, its first

application must necessarily be made to the result of the six days'

creation, which I consider as typifying six grand groups of matter,

and the seventh--the day of rest, emphatically commanded to be kept

holy--that Omnipotence who created and presides over the stupendous

work.[14]

[14] I am fully aware that this part of the subject is far

above the comprehension of man, and felt exceedingly

reluctant to carry system farther than the two great

groups--animals and vegetables; but alluding, as I am

compelled to do so frequently, to the works of Mr. MacLeay,

I was fearful lest my silence on this particular subject

should be construed into consent. See _Horæ Entomologicæ_,

p. 179.

To trace nature from the trivial differences which may distinguish

between two kindred mosses--differences scarcely to be detected by the

practised eye of the botanist--upwards to the grand grouping of

organized matter, into kingdoms containing myriads of such

species,--to define accurately major and minor divisions, and assign

to each division, and each individual, its appropriate place in an

enduring system, is a task, in all probability, far beyond the mental

powers of any single individual, especially when we consider the

interesting facts and fresh objects which are daily added to our store

in such number as must convince the student that as yet he scarcely

possesses a knowledge of one hundredth part of nature's works;[15] but,

to pencil a dim and dubious outline,--to suggest whether nature has

not aimed at such and such conclusions,--whether she has not chosen

such and such paths, without making the slightest attempt to bend or

turn her aside from her course where it does not precisely coincide

with his own artificial schemes, may be fairly claimed as the

privilege of any of her students, and ought to be freely granted to

him by his fellow-labourers.

[15] In Britain we labour under another difficulty in this

respect, a difficulty which has proved beyond measure

mortifying during the progress of the present essay,--the

want of a national museum.--A private individual cannot be

expected to sacrifice all his time and money in procuring,

preparing, and arranging, a tolerably perfect collection; a

writer on natural history is, therefore, compelled to travel

round to two or three hundred private collections, and

solicit leave to make his memoranda. Few men of taste can

regret the purchase of the ancient works of art now open to

the public at the British Museum; but the immense sums of

public money granted to that institution should insure the

naturalist a similar treat with the artist. A collection of

vertebrate and annulose animals should be immediately

formed, arranged, and named after Cuvier, Latreille, or the

most approved authority of the day. Among the insecta, I

have no doubt a tolerably perfect--certainly, a very

useful--collection might with little trouble be made from

the specimens already in the Museum.

In looking for a centre around which to arrange the almost infinite

hosts of the animal kingdom, the vanity of man naturally enough

suggests himself; but to gratify this vanity, he must submit to the

somewhat mortifying necessity of admitting six families of apes and

monkies to his immediate company, and the tribe thus constituted may

be termed Primates,--a name originally conferred on it by Linnæus.

Anatomy, as well as external appearances, prove the propriety of this

arrangement, however repulsive the idea may be to our false feelings

of exclusiveness. Primates thus constituted, will be found to be the

central seventh of a larger group, termed Mammalia by Linnæus; a

group, which includes all the truly viviparous and mammiferous

animals. Amongst the outermost of these, as we retrograde gradually

from the type, man, we shall find a bird typified in the bat; a shark

in the seal; many other fish in the whale; a tortoise, crocodile, and

slender lizards, in the armadillos, ant-eaters, &c., all thus

exhibiting a tendency to borrow characters from other approaching

groups. Mammalia, thus surrounded, must of necessity be the central of

seven groups, within the compass of which will be found all animals

which possess a frame of connected bones and a spinal marrow; these

are termed Vertebrata, and, I think, will be found to constitute a

central seventh of all animated nature.

From this it will be apparent, that there are in nature forty-nine

groups of animals, each of about the same value as Mammalia, as far as

regards their relation to a whole. Distrustful of my own very limited

knowledge of the subject, and fearful of encumbering science with

crude theories and ill-defined divisions and characters which future

discoveries may hereafter totally subvert, I shall content myself with

observing, that I believe in the existence of such groups, and shall

not presume to give them, at present, definitions or even names: the

charge of ignorance is merited and easy to be borne, but the charge of

attempting to establish divisions, in order to secure the paltry fame

of naming them, I hope not to deserve.

In some instances, these tribes or sub-kingdoms seem pointed out by

nature's self in so decided a manner, that the lisping infant will at

once recognise them. Where this is the case, what can definition

avail? Let us refer to birds as one of these clearly marked divisions.

I single it out as better understood than either of the others. Let us

ask, To what does all the arrangement tend which has here been so

lavishly bestowed? To utter confusion, volume after volume, essay

after essay, open their yawning leaves, and repeat, again and again,

one and all, utter hopeless, unintelligible confusion. But if,

neglecting the high authorities on the subject _in toto_, we

condescend to consult nature, we shall soon perceive that birds

readily range themselves in seven good and clearly defined groups; one

of which is preeminently distinguished from the rest, and yet partakes

in some one or other of its component genera of the characters of all

the other groups; such a sub-class must, therefore, be central; and,

by a little care in availing himself of the most obvious approaches,

the naturalist will find every other sub-class, and order, and genus,

beautifully filling up their appropriate situations, without causing

any of those distortions which so disfigure every existing arrangement

of this interesting tribe. Syrrhaptes, Serpentarius, and all those

hitherto parodoxical creatures which seem to have frightened our

ornithologists out of their wits, are now not only admissible, but

absolutely necessary to connect tribes which no one had previously

supposed in the least degree related;--but I will not here forestall,

as an attempt to point out the numerous and unlooked-for relations

existing among the genera of birds, which the present plan has served

to develop, forms the subject of a separate essay, already in a state

of forwardness; and the more immediate object of my present inquiry,

although a tenant of the air, is not to be sought for among its

feathered tribes. I will, therefore, leave these for the present,

fully intending that the ornithologist as well as the entomologist

shall have an opportunity of examining whether my theory has truth and

reason to support it, or whether he must condemn it as an _ignis

fatuus_ of the brain.

The law that rules animal rules also vegetable nature: the phænogamous

plants present a centre very nearly corresponding, in relative value,

to vertebrates among animals; these, again, offer equal scope for

subdivision; and the surrounding vegetations must be those at present

termed cryptogamous, which vary as greatly among themselves as they

collectively do from the more perfect and central ones: the various

tribes of Fungi, Algæ, Filices, Musci, &c., possessing wonderfully

varied forms and characters, and assuming every size from the gigantic

fern of the tropical islands to that almost invisible Mucor, which

seems, by its instantaneous appearance, to be for ever floating in the

air, prepared to vegetate wherever it may chance to fall, and has

often afforded arguments to those who deny the dictum of _omnia ex

ovo_, and support that of spontaneous reproduction; thus ennobling

these almost nonentities, by assigning to them properties which man

might pine for in vain, and which cannot be the attributes of dust.

The centre for each particular group will not always derive that mark

of superiority from its size, or intelligence, or beauty, or

complicated structure, but from a combination of these qualities, and

more particularly from uniting in itself the principal and more

decidedly distinguishing characters of the group of which it forms the

nucleus, and the gradation will by no means be found to be regular,

from the most perfect in the centre to the least perfect on the

circumference of minor groups, although I imagine this relative

position to obtain in the extremes: on the contrary, the approaches

towards perfection or imperfection will be infinitely varied,

presenting the most complete labyrinth of intricacies that imagination

can conceive, yet all disposed with that beautiful and wonderful

regularity which proclaims more loudly than words, that "the natural

system is the plan of creation itself, the work of an ALL-WISE

ALL-POWERFUL DEITY."[16]

[16] Horæ Entomologicæ, preface, p. xiii.

ON THE CLASSES OF INSECTA.

Many theories, which read plausibly enough, we find, on attempting to

apply them, totally at variance with facts: I will, therefore, not

content myself with making unsupported assertions, but endeavour to

summon to my aid fragments of the great whole, and array them before

the reader, in what I consider order, asking of him, as an especial

favour, that he will examine and compare the genera and species which

I shall mention as related to each other in corroboration of my

scheme; for much as I could wish by argument to convince him that a

system of circles, grouped in sevens, exists universally throughout

nature, yet I should much prefer that, by actual experiment, he should

convince himself. With this view I will take a rapid survey of the

central class[17] of Insecta, observing in what particulars it is

related to those which surround it. I have selected insecta first

because I already possessed a slight knowledge of its contents;

secondly, because there exists little difference of opinion as to

those contents;[18] and, thirdly, because Mr. MacLeay has given it as

his opinion "that it is among insects above all other groups of

animals, that owing to their myriads of species, the mode in which

nature's chain is linked--a mode, the knowledge of which comprises all

knowledge in natural history, will be most evident, and therefore most

easily detected."[19]

[17] I have invariably used the term class, to designate the

orders of Linnæus, and sub-class, for the next division, of

which seven are supposed to exist in every class: these

sub-classes may sometimes constitute natural orders, in

which case a plural termination is given; thus, Blatta

constitutes in itself a sub-class Blatta, a natural order

Blattæ, and a genus Blatta; but generally a sub-class will

contain seven natural orders; as sub-class Scarabæus

contains natural orders--Lucani, Coprides, Scarabæi,

Histeres, &c.

[18] The only question as to the contents of insecta, is,

whether the pediculi are true insects or not; the class

Hemiptera is so closely related to them, that I cannot think

it a great violation to place them in the outermost circle

of that class; the acari may be supposed meeting them in an

adjoining circle, but I have no desire to provoke

controversy on this minor point.

[19] Annulosa Javanica, preface, p. xi.

[Illustration: THE CLASSES OF INSECTA.]

It is somewhat remarkable that, although considerably upwards of two

thousand years have elapsed since the first system of insects was

promulged, at least the first of which we have any knowledge, yet no

attempt has hitherto been successfully made to improve it; from this

perfection I think we may fairly conclude, that the philosopher of

Stagira was not merely a man of extraordinary talent, but that he had

made himself the repository of what had previously been saved of the

learning of his forefathers, in a day when it will be recollected the

printing press had no existence; and we have nothing to prove that

entomology had not degenerated through the two thousand years previous

to Aristotle, as it unquestionably did during the two thousand years

subsequent to the time of that philosopher, when our own immortal

countryman, Ray, revived the science, and laid the foundation of a

regenerated lustre, which, perhaps, may eventually rival that diffused

by the great Stagirite himself. Be this as it may, the systematist has

no choice but to go back two thousand years for the primary outline,

or classification of insects; and, I may add, nothing but a desire to

make myself clearly understood, prevents my adopting the nomenclature,

as well as the division of Aristotle. I shall, however, employ the

more modern and less appropriate names for the present, hoping that at

a future day an opportunity may occur of doing justice to the merits

of that writer, whom we are all compelled to follow, or to forsake the

path of truth.[20]

[20] The learned authors of the _Introduction to Entomology_

have inserted a sketch of the Aristotelian system in that

work, a reference to which will convince the reader that it

is next to impossible for the entomologist to over-rate him.

See _Introduction to Entomology_, Vol. IV. p. 433.

The reader who does not understand exactly what animals constitute the

sub-kingdom Insecta, may refer to the _Introduction to Entomology_,

where he will find the subject fully and accurately investigated.[21]

It would be a needless incumbrance of my subject to repeat these

definitions here, but as I am unable to meet with any characters

for classes, by which relations and differences can readily and

conveniently be traced, I have been induced to add a few definitions

to those already in use, which I am the more willing to do because

they will be useful here without ever perplexing science by forsaking

the pages of this essay.

[21] Introduction to Entomology, Vol. III. pp. 1-51.

Column headings legend:

G: General character.

R: Resemblance to Imago.

+---------------------+------------+----------+-----------+---------------+

| CLASSES |

| LARVE | PUPA | IMAGO |

| G | R | G | R | Wings. | Mouth. |

|----------+----------+------------+----------+-----------+---------------|

| I. LEPIDOPTERA. |

|----------+----------+------------+----------+-----------+---------------|

| II. DIPTERA, _Arist._ |

|----------+----------+------------+----------+-----------+---------------|

| III. HYMENOPTERA. |

|----------+----------+------------+----------+-----------+---------------|

| IV. COLEOPTERA, _Arist._ |

| | | | | and | |

| | | | | two | |

|----------+----------+------------+----------+-----------+---------------|

| V. ORTHOPTERA. |

| | in | | in | various. | |

|----------+----------+------------+----------+-----------+---------------|

| VI. HEMIPTERA. |

| | in | | in | various. | |

|----------+----------+------------+----------+-----------+---------------|

| VII. NEUROPTERA. |

+----------+----------+------------+----------+-----------+---------------+

The very imperfection of this table will constitute its principal

utility, because, instead of acknowledging variety as a suitable

definition of any particular part or state, the differences of which

in respective classes, entomologists have been accustomed to consider

characteristic, we find authors labouring to confine a group by what

they would wish to consider good and solid characters, which

characters they often at last leave so comprehensive, as not only to

include the class which they had originally intended to define, but

also a majority of those other classes which they had supposed

previously disposed of. If, in reply, my reader should tell me that my

seventh class was somewhat of this too comprehensive kind, I should

simply reply that I intended it to be so; and if my reader happen to

know a better, he can interline it in his copy. A space would then be

occupied, which has hitherto in all such definitions been really,

although not verbally, vacant.

It is hard to break through the trammels of habit; it is hard to give

up what one has for a long time taken for granted; it is hard to

relinquish favourite schemes, however untenable: an innovator,

however, is bound to deliberate well and coolly,--is bound to try all

the various schemes before him with the test of reason. If the

entomologist do this he will find his positive knowledge much less

than he expected,--he will perceive that he is book-wise and

fact-foolish; if, therefore, he would wish to arrive at truth, he must

strip himself of his borrowed garments and all the theoretical dogmas

he may have, however incautiously, imbibed, and trust entirely to what

he has discovered himself, or what has been discovered by those who

had no theory to support but truth,--no end to answer but amusement;

for your theoretical writers, if they meet with a fact which militates

against a favourite theory, will too often suppress it entirely, and

on the same principle are ever anxious to magnify to an unnatural

size, any slight, and often imaginary, circumstance, which they

consider may tell in their favour. Among theories that have been thus

established on very weak and insufficient foundations are all

dichotomous divisions, especially those in which one group is defined

as possessing and the other as wanting any fixed and peculiar

character; a definition, by the by, applicable to nearly all

dichotomies: the dichotomy to which I have here to allude is the

division of insects into Mandibulata and Haustellata. Now every

division founded on the presence or absence of a particular character

should be received with the greatest caution, because the second group

in which the character is absent[22] is sure to be too comprehensive.

Mr. MacLeay,[23] himself no great friend to dichotomies in general, is

completely led away by this particular one. He considers the classes

I. II. and VI. of the foregoing table to constitute one grand order,

and the classes III. IV. V. and VII. to constitute another; and, after

Clairville, he calls the former order, Haustellata, and the latter,

Mandibulata. Mr. MacLeay's name is a tower of strength to any theory;

and his authority, added to the plausibility of the idea, has really

given such a truth-like appearance to this division, that we see it

now universally adopted. Let us examine its worth. First, I would ask,

Can distinctive characters, thus drawn from part only of the external

anatomy of insects, be sound, when to enforce them we are compelled to

neglect various other characters which we have been accustomed to

consider all important? Scopoli has said, "_Classes et genera

naturalia non sola instrumenta cibaria, non solæ antennæ nec solæ alæ

constituunt_;" but our dichotomizing entomologists tell us, that

neither antennæ, nor wings, nor habit, nor metamorphosis, are to be

regarded at all, but "_sola instrumenta cibaria_;" at least, they

infer this by separating Orthoptera and Hemiptera, by the intervention

of several orders totally unrelated to either of them, a disruption

which no nature-loving naturalist could for a moment admit. The truth

is, there are seven kinds of mouth in insects, so distinct that good

classes could be built on them,[24]--classes which would confirm those

which Aristotle appears to have derived chiefly from other characters:

of these seven, three are mandibulate, three are haustellate, and one

without the rudiments of mandible or haustellum. The three which are

mandibulate are somewhat similar, the three which are haustellate bear

no more resemblance to each other than that which they all may be said

to bear to that haustellated quadruped an elephant; and the tie which

holds Haustellata together as a group is about as strong as one formed

to bend in a genus Blaps mortisaga, Acrida aptera, Cimex lectularius,

and the female of Bombyx antiquus, with the one sole character of

being destitute of wings.

[22] And, be it observed, Haustellata merely means _not

mandibulate_; it does not propose to assert that the

contents of the tribe so named need have a particular kind

of haustellate mouth, or any mouth at all.

[23] Mr. MacLeay has written a little pamphlet on the

impropriety of the dichotomous system, which I recollect

reading, when published, with considerable pleasure. I

forget its title.

[24] If the reader happen to be unacquainted with the terms

which I have used in characterizing the mouth, he will find

them accurately and elaborately described in _Ind. to Ent._

Vol. III. p. 393, _et seq._ The orders of Fabricius depend

entirely on the formation of the mouth. See _Systema

Entomologiæ_.

A second fancy which I wish to combat is, that of analogy and affinity;

and as Mr. MacLeay is by far the most learned and competent advocate of

these distinct descriptions of resemblance, and as I cannot pretend to

refer to or cope with the voluminous writings extant on this subject, I

am necessitated to allude to his work alone. It will be seen by the

_Horæ Entomologicæ_, (a work which I have already spoken of with

unfeigned admiration,) that Mr. MacLeay considers that relation

observable in the general appearance, habit, food, metamorphosis, &c.

of insects, a relation of analogy, while that dependent solely on a

fancied resemblance in the mouth he considers a relation of affinity:

thus classes V. and VI., which, in five characters out of six, agree as

closely as such comprehensive classes can do, he considers related by

analogy, and classes I. and VI., which, in five characters out of six,

are as unlike as insects can be, he considers related by affinity;[25]

so Dr. Johnson, when he calls affinity "resemblance," must have made

a capital blunder, for Mr. MacLeay proves clearly that it means

dissimilarity. Classes I. and VI. however, I find will meet as the line

becomes bent into a circle, and therefore we must conclude it to be a

hidden affinity, for it certainly is not apparent; and moreover it must

be remarked, that the relation between classes is but little apparent

generally, except they are taken in pairs: thus, between I. and II.,

between III. and IV., and between V. and VI., the relation is real and

readily ascertained, although distant; while between II. and III.,

between IV. and V., and between VI. and I., it becomes scarcely

traceable. It is also worthy of notice, that the contents of either

pair of classes, with the addition of class VII., may be formed into a

tolerably perfect chain of genera, indeed with much less appearance of

disconnexion than is observable on passing from either pair into the

next pair,--a fact which attaches a degree of importance to the number

three, on which, perhaps, at a future time, more may be said,--and thus

a chain of relation would be established in each instance, leaving four

whole classes entirely out of the question;--a chain which would

steadily pursue its way, regardless and in open violation of all

established laws of analogy, affinity and dichotomy; laws which I hope

ere long to see pining away like Echo, until they also are really what

I now fully believe them to be, _vox et præterea nihil_.

[25] Horæ Entomologicæ, p. 367.