attention. M. Latreille in his last arrangement of _Annulose_ animals
has divided his Orders into _Sections_; _Families_; _Tribes_; and
_Genera_: his tribes he has often further subdivided into lesser
sections, represented by capital and small letters, &c.[1262].
Mr. MacLeay, discarding the term section, has _Tribes_; _Races_
(_Stirps_); _Families_; _Genera_, and _Subgenera_[1263]. But as in
descending from the _Order_ to the lowest term, or the _species_,
a series of groups gradually diminishing in value, which require
a greater number of denominations than have yet been employed by
Entomologists, often occur, I think we may with benefit to the
science add to the list. I would therefore propose the following
primary and subordinate divisions of an Order: 1. _Suborder_; 2.
_Section_; 3. _Subsection_; 4. _Tribe_; 5. _Subtribe_; 6. _Stirps_;
7. _Family_; 8. _Genus_; 9. _Subgenus_. I would further propose that
each of these successive groups should have a name always terminating
alike, so that the value of the group when spoken of might always
be known by the termination:--thus if a subclass end in _ata_, a
suborder might end in _ita_; a section in _ana_, a subsection in
_ena_; a tribe in _ina_, a subtribe in _ona_; a stirps in _una_; and
a family in _idæ_; the genera being left free.
With regard to their _characters_, we are not to place our groups
upon Procrustes' bed, and lop or torture them to accommodate them
to every standard we may have fixed for them: assuming one set of
characters for suborders, another for tribes, and so for every other
group; for the value of characters varies,--those that in some cases
are common to an _Order_, in others indicate only _sections_, or
_tribes_, or _genera_ and _species_, or sometimes even _sexes_. What
is constant in one group is not so in another, and _vice versâ_; so
that it is a vain labour to search for a _universal_ character. If
it is our wish really to trace the labyrinth of nature, we can only
accomplish it by a careful perusal and examination of her various
groups. It is singular how much and how far various Entomologists,
and those of the very highest class, have been misled by a kind of
_favouritism_ to give too universal a currency to certain characters
for which they have conceived a predilection. Some have been the
champions of the _antennæ_; others of the _trophi_; others again
of the _wings_; and others of the _metamorphosis_. These are all
characters which within certain limits lead us right, and are an
index to a natural group; but if we follow them further, we leave the
system of nature, and are perplexed in the mazes of a _method_[1264].
Let us now see whether we can pitch upon any suborder which will
afford an example of every group that we have lately named. Mr.
MacLeay, from a consideration of the larvæ of that Order, has divided
the _Coleoptera_ into five primary groups that may be denominated
_Suborders_. Whether these are all natural groups has not yet been
made sufficiently evident. It answers my present purpose, however,
to assume it as proved. I select therefore his _Chilopodimorpha_
for my suborder, altering the name as above proposed to
_Chilopodimorph_it_a_: for my _Section_ I take the Predaceous
beetles, or _Adephaga_ of M. Clairville, distinguished by having
the upper lobe of their maxillæ biarticulate and palpiform;--these
I would denominate _Adephag_an_a_, or devourers. They consist of
two groups forming two subsections, the one _terrestrial_ and
the other _aquatic_; which I would name, following Mr. MacLeay,
_Geodephag_en_a_ and _Hydrodephag_en_a_. These two subsections are
each resolvable into two _Tribes_ constituted by Linné's four genera
_Cicindela_ and _Carabus_; _Dytiscus_ and _Gyrinus_. The first
tribe, remarkable for the swiftness of their _flight_, I would name
_Eupter_in_a_, or fliers; the second, equally noted for _running_,
_Eutrech_in_a_, or runners; the third _Eunech_in_a_, or swimmers;
and the fourth _Gyronech_in_a_, or swimmers in a circle. The second
of these groups, the _Eutrech_in_a_, are resolvable into two other
groups or _Subtribes_; one distinguished by having the cubit or
anterior tibia _notched_, (which, from their being in general not
very brilliant in colour, I would call _Amaur_on_a_, or obscure); the
other having the cubit without a notch, (which, from the brilliancy
of many of them, I would name _Lampr_on_a_, or splendid). These
subtribes are both further resolvable into two or more _races_
(_Stirpes_). I select that to which the _crepitant_ _Eutrech_in_a_
belong, containing those which from their usually truncated elytra
MM. Latreille and Dejean have named _Truncatipennes_[1265]: these, to
shorten the name, I call _Truncipenn_un_a_. This brings us down to
the lowest group formed out of genera and subgenera: or the _family_,
which from its principal genus is named _Brachinidæ_, and which leads
us to the _genus Brachinus_, and the _subgenus Aptini_. Thus we get
the following scale, expressing every division of an Order, till we
arrive at its lowest term, or the _species_ that compose it.
SUBORDER
_Chilopodimorph_it_a_ M^cL.
SECTION
_Adephag_an_a_ Clairv.
SUBSECTION
_Geodephag_en_a_ M^cL.
TRIBE
_Eutrech_in_a_
SUBTRIBE
_Amaur_on_a_
STIRPS
_Truncipenn_un_a_ Latr.
FAMILY
_Brachinidæ_
GENUS
_Brachinus_
SUBGENUS
_Aptini_.
In the construction of this scale I have endeavoured to steer
clear of being led by any system, but, with the exception of the
_Suborder_, which I assume, to resolve it into natural groups
gradually decreasing in value, or tending to the lowest term, which
appear all of them to have been considered as such by preceding
Entomologists. The four _Tribes_ into which the two subsections
_Geodephag_en_a_ and _Hydradephag_en_a_ appear resolvable, are not
only distinguished by the characters of the perfect insect, but
likewise by those of their larvæ, which are constructed on four
distinct types; those of the _Gyronech_in_a_ being the most perfectly
Chilopodimorphous of the whole, and those of the _Eunech_in_a_ the
least so[1266]. The former appear rather to form an osculant tribe,
or one without the circle, than one within it; and to be going off
towards another section, including _Hydrophilus_, _Sphæridium_, &c.
I must observe, that between _Dytiscus_ and _Hydrophilus_ there is a
striking agreement both in their form and habits in the larvæ[1266],
and even in several characters in the perfect insect; so as in many
respects to generate a doubt whether they ought not to enter the same
circle and to follow each other. Yet the change of habits in the
latter, which from a carnivorous larva becomes a herbivorous beetle;
the consequent change of structure in their oral organs, their
antennæ, and other striking differences; and the evident intervention
of the _Gyronech_in_a_ and some other osculant tribes between the
two, forbid their union in one and the same circle.
vi. I need not say more on those larger groups of an Order which
conduct us to what are denominated its _genera_; but upon these last
it will not be a waste of your time to enlarge a little. In the last
edition of the _Systema Naturæ_, and in its appendixes, Linné has
described 2840 species of _Insecta_ and _Arachnida_, which he divided
into 83 genera, allowing upon an average nearly 35 species to each
genus. From the paucity of the materials, therefore, of which his
system was constructed, there was no loud call upon him for numerous
genera. But now more than thirty times that number are said to have
found a place in the cabinets of collectors[1267], and there is good
reason for thinking that perhaps half that are in existence are as
yet undiscovered;--this makes it a matter of absolute necessity to
subdivide the Linnean genera, which in fact, with regard to the
majority of them, were the _primary_ groups of his Orders, rather
than an approximation to the _ultimate_. But this principle may
be carried too far: for it is the nature of man to pass from one
extreme to the other: and this seems to me to be the case when it is
proposed to make genera the _extreme_ term of subdivision before you
arrive at species. But it is argued by a very acute Zoologist, that
simplicity, perspicuity, and room for necessary variations are best
preserved by distinguishing these subdivisions each by an appropriate
name[1268]:--Granted. But still it is only a choice of evils. It
would require probably more than 10,000 names to designate them, were
every extreme group distinguished by a name: but if Mr. MacLeay's
admirable pattern exhibited in his genus _Phanæus_[1269] were
followed, it would not call for more than 2000--could the trifling
difficulty occasioned sometimes by the discovery of a new group, be
set against the advantage of having only 2000 names to commit to
memory instead of 10,000[1270]? But if, after all, it is judged best
to name subgenera, M. Savigny's excellent plan of distinguishing
them by a plural termination would diminish the weight of the above
objection, and might be used with advantage.
When the component parts of any minor group differ from another,--for
the most part in important characters, indicating some tangible
difference in their habits and economy, and confirmed by peculiarities
in their larvæ; and these differences run through the whole, except
that as usual they grow weaker as it is passing off to another;
especially where they are striking in the centre or type of the
group,--this is always a legitimate genus: but where the characters
assumed are very slight, and nothing peculiar in its habits, economy or
larva, warrant such distinction, it ought not to be conferred.
vii. I must next say a word concerning species and varieties. A
_species_ is a natural object whose differences from those most
nearly related to it had their origin when it came from the hands
of its CREATOR; while those that characterize a _variety_, have
been produced since that event. As we do not know the value and
weight of the momenta by which climate, food, and other supposed
fortuitous circumstances operate upon animal forms, we cannot point
out any certain diagnostic by which in all cases a species may be
distinguished from a variety;--for those characters that in some are
constant, in others vary. In general, where there is no difference
in _form_, _appendages_ and _organs_, _sculpture_, _proportions_
and _larvæ_,--_colour_ alone, especially in insects inhabiting the
same district, only indicates a casual variety. Thus _Aphodius
luridus_ has sometimes pale elytra with the striæ black (_Scarabæus
nigro-sulcatus_ Marsh.): at others it has black spots between the
striæ, as in the type: in a third variety the elytra are black at the
base and pale at the apex (_Sc. varius_ Marsh.); and lastly, in a
fourth they are intirely black (_Sc. gagates_ Marsh.);--yet all these
in every other respect precisely correspond. But the converse of this
will scarcely hold good; for doubtless minor differences of structure
are sometimes produced by a different food and climate: which may
probably account for some variations observable in the individuals
apparently of the same species obtained from different countries.
* * * * *
Having considered the kind and value of the groups into which
_Annulose_ animals, and more especially insects, may be divided, I
shall next call your attention to their _composition_. There are
_five_ numbers and their multiples which seem more particularly
to prevail in nature: namely, _Two_--_Three_--_Four_--_Five_ and
_Seven_. But though these numbers are _prevalent_, no one of them
can be deemed _universal_. The _binary_ number, which affords the
most simple, and for that reason perhaps not the least valuable, mode
of arrangement, we see exemplified when two branches, so to speak,
diverge from a common stem,--as in the _Vegetable_ and _Animal_
kingdoms; the _terrestrial_ and _aquatic_ Predaceous beetles;
in the _thalerophagous_ and _saprophagous Lamellicorn_ ones; in
the _Anoplura_ and _Thysanura_; the _Chilopoda_ and _Chilognatha_
amongst _Apterous_ insects; in the _Scorpionidea_ and _Aranidea_
amongst the _Arachnida_; and in the _Macrura_ and _Brachyura_
amongst the Decapod _Crustacea_. Again, in other cases _three_ seems
to be the most prominent number: this takes place sometimes with
regard to the _primary_ groups of an Order, or what I denominate
the _Suborders_. Thus we have the _Diurnal_, _Crepuscular_, and
_Nocturnal Lepidoptera_[1271]; the Linnean genera _Blatta_, _Mantis_,
and _Gryllus_ constitute the _Orthoptera_; and other instances of
this number might be produced in some minor groups. But that which
appears to prevail most widely in nature is what may be called
the _quaterno-quinary_; according to which, groups consist of four
minor ones; one of which is excessively capacious in comparison
of the other three, and is always divisible into two; which gives
_five_ of the same degree, but of which, two have a greater affinity
to each other than they have to the other three[1272]. Mr. W. S.
MacLeay, in the progress of his inquiries to ascertain the station
of _Scarabæus sacer_, discovered that the thalerophagous and
saprophagous Petalocerous beetles resolved themselves each into a
circle containing _five_ such groups. And having got this principle,
and finding that this number and its multiples prevailed much in
nature, he next applied it to the Animal Kingdom in general: and from
the result of this investigation, it appeared to him that it was
nearly, if not altogether, universal[1273]. Nearly at the same time
a discovery almost parallel was made and recorded by three eminent
Botanists, MM. Decandolle, Agardh, and Fries, with regard to some
groups of the Vegetable Kingdom[1274]; and more recently Mr. Vigors
thinks he has discovered the same quinary arrangement in various
groups of birds[1275]. This is a most remarkable coincidence,
and seems a strong argument in favour of Mr. MacLeay's system. I
should observe, however, that according to that system, as stated
in his _Horæ Entomologicæ_, if the osculant or transition groups
are included, the total number is _seven_[1276]:--these are groups
small in number both of genera and species, that intervene between
and connect the larger ones. Each of these osculant groups may be
regarded as divided into _two_ parts, the one belonging to the
_upper_ circle and the other to the _lower_; so that each circle or
larger group is resolvable into five _interior_ and two _exterior_
ones, thus making up the number _seven_. Though Mr. MacLeay regards
this quinary arrangement of natural objects as very general, it does
not appear that he looks upon it as absolutely universal,--since he
states organized matter to begin in a dichotomy[1277]: and he does
not resolve its ultimate groups into five species; nor am I certain
that he regards the penultimate groups as invariably consisting of
five ultimate ones. In _Copris_ I seem in my own cabinet to possess
ten or twelve distinct types[1278]; and in _Phanæus_, the fifth
type, which Mr. MacLeay regards as containing insects resembling all
the other types[1279], appears to me rather divided into _two_; one
formed by _P. carnifex_, _Vindex_, _igneus_, &c., and the other by
_P. splendidulus_, _floriger_, _Kirbii_, &c.
The great point which demands our attention in considering a
numerical arrangement of the Kingdoms of Nature is the _value_ of
the component members of each group. It is by no means difficult to
divide a _Kingdom_, a _Class_, or an _Order_ into two, or three,
or five, or seven or more groups, according to any system we may
be inclined to favour; but it is not so easy to do this so that
the groups shall be of equal rank. Yet it seems requisite that in
grouping our objects, as we descend towards the lowest term we should
resolve each only into its primary elements, and of them form the
next group; and so on till we come to species. When I say of _equal
rank_, I do not mean an exact parity between the members into which
a group is primarily resolvable,--because there will always be a
degradation _in descensu_ from the perfection of the type; but merely
that parity (to use a metaphor) that there is between children of
the same mother, differing in their relative ages and approach to
the perfection of their nature. Perhaps it may be observed with
respect to the quinary system, that this condition is not complied
with, since two of the groups taken _per se_ appear really to form
one group; or to be much nearer to each other than to the remaining
groups. But when it is taken into consideration that this great
group, always resolvable into two, is the typical group, and that
the two are really equal, or rather superior in value to the three
others, the objection seems to vanish.
With regard to all numerical systems we may observe, that since
variation is certainly one of the most universal laws of nature, we
may conclude that different numbers prevail in different departments,
and that all the numbers above stated as prevalent are often
resolvable or reducible into each other. So that where Physiologists
appear to differ, or think they differ, they frequently really agree.
II. The ALMIGHTY CREATOR, when he clothed the world that he had made
with _plants_, and peopled it with _animals_, besides the manifestation
of his own glory, appears to have had _two_ most important purposes in
view;--the one to provide a supply for the mutual wants of the various
living objects he had created, for the continuance of the species,
and for the maintenance of a due proportion, as to numbers, of each
kind, so that all might subserve to the good of the whole; and the
other, that by them he might _instruct_ his creature man in such civil,
physical, moral and spiritual truths, as were calculated to fit him for
his station in the visible world, and gradually prepare him to become
an inhabitant of that invisible one for which he was destined. The
first of these purposes was best promoted by creating things "according
to their kind," with sexes monœcious or diœcious; that groups of beings
related to each other, and agreeing in their general structure, might
discharge a common function. This we see to be the case generally in
nature; for where there is an affinity in the _structure_, there is
usually an affinity in the _function_. The last,--or the instruction of
man in his primeval state of integrity and purity,--was best secured
by placing before him for his scrutiny a book of emblems or symbols,
in which one thing either by its form or qualities, or both, might
represent another. If he was informed by his Creator that the works of
creation constituted such a book, by the right interpretation of which
he might arrive at spiritual verities as well as natural knowledge,
curiosity and the desire of information concerning these high and
important subjects would stimulate him to the study of the mystic
volume placed before him; in the progress of which he would doubtless
be assisted by that DIVINE guidance, which even now is with those who
honestly seek the truth. Both divines and philosophers have embraced
this opinion, which is built upon the word of GOD itself[1280].
This last purpose of the Creator was the root of the analogies,
connecting different objects with each other that have no real
affinity, observable in the works of creation: so that from the
bottom to the top of the scale of being, there is many a series of
analogous forms, as well as of concatenated ones; and the intire
system of nature is _representative_, as well as operative: it is a
kind of _Janus bifrons_, which requires to be studied in two aspects
looking different ways. To what degree of knowledge the primeval
races of men attained after the fall, by the contemplation and study
of this book of nature, we are no where informed; but we learn from
the highest authority that the revelation that GOD thus made of
himself was in time corrupted, by those that _professing_ themselves
to be _wise_ became _fools_, to the grossest idolatry, which sunk men
in the lowest depths of sensuality, vice, and wickedness[1281].
In no country was this effect more lamentably striking than in Egypt,
whose gods were all selected from the animal and vegetable kingdoms.
"Who knows not to what monstrous gods, my friend,
The mad inhabitants of Egypt bend?
The snake-devouring ibis these inshrine,
Those think the crocodile alone divine;
Others where Thebes' vast ruins strew the ground,
And shatter'd Memnon yields a magic sound,
Set up a glittering brute of uncouth shape,
And bow before the image of an ape!
Thousands regard the hound with holy fear,
Not one Diana:--and 'tis dangerous here
To violate an onion, or to stain
The sanctity of leeks with tooth profane.
O holy nations, in whose gardens grow
Such deities!"
JUV.
This species of idolatry doubtless originally resulted from their
having been taught that things _in_ nature were symbols of things
_above_ nature, and of the attributes and glory of the Godhead. In
process of time, while the corruption _remained_, the knowledge which
had been thus abused was _lost_ or dimly seen. The Egyptian priesthood
perhaps retained some remains of it; but by them it was made an
esoteric doctrine, not to be communicated to the profane vulgar, who
were suffered to regard the various objects of their superstitious
veneration, not as _symbols_, but as possessed of an _inherent_
divinity: and probably the mysteries of Isis in Egypt, and of Ceres at
Eleusis, were instituted, that this esoteric doctrine, which was to be
kept secret and sacred from the common people, might not be lost.
But this kind of analogy is of a higher order than that of which I am
here principally to speak,--that, namely, which the various objects
of nature bear to each other. This, however, though of a lower rank,
is essentially connected with the other, and leads to it; for it
establishes the principle, that created things are representative or
symbolical: and we find, when we view them in this light, that as
we ascend from the lowest beings in the scale of creation, we are
led from one to another till we reach the summit or centre of the
whole, and are thus conducted to the boundaries of this visible and
material system; from whence we may conclude that we ought not here
to stop, but go on to something invisible and extra-mundane, as the
ultimate object intended to be reflected from this great speculum of
creation--the CREATOR himself, and all those spirits, virtues, and
powers that have emanated from him.
The _analogies_ which the various objects of the animal kingdom
mutually exhibit, have for the most part been either overlooked by
modern Physiologists, or have been mistaken for characters that
indicate _affinity_; a circumstance that has often perplexed or
disrupted their systems. Dr. Virey appears to have been one of the
first who obtained a general idea of the parallelism of animals in
this respect[1282]; and M. Savigny has contrasted the _Mandibulata_
and _Haustellata_ of the insect tribes as presenting analogies to
each other[1283]. But a countryman of our own (often mentioned with
honour in the course of our correspondence), peculiarly gifted by
nature, and qualified by education and his line of study for such
speculations, and possessing moreover the invaluable opportunity
of consulting at his ease one of the first Entomological cabinets
in Europe, in a work that will for ever couple his name with the
science that he cultivates[1284],--has first taught the Naturalist
the respective value and real distinctions of the two kinds of
relationship that I am now discussing. He has opened to the
philosopher, the moralist and the divine, that hitherto closed door
by which our first parents and their immediate descendants entered
the temple of nature, and studied the symbols of knowledge that
were there presented to them: and in addition to his labours (in
numerous respects successful), in endeavouring to trace out the
natural groups of beings connected by _affinity_, has pointed out
how they illustrate each other by _analogy_; thus affording, as was
before observed[1285], a most triumphant reply to the arguments of
those modern sophists, who, from the graduated scale of affinities
observable in creation, were endeavouring to prove that animals, in
the lapse of ages, were in fact their own creators[1286].