folded.
[1169] PLATE X. FIG. 4.
[1170] From σρεψις, _a turning or twisting_, and πτερον.
[1171] VOL. III. p. 589. note^c.
[1172] _Hor. Entomolog._ 371--.
[1173] _Linn. Trans._ xi. 96--.
[1174] _Ibid._ _t._ ix. _f._ 1. d.
[1175] PLATE II. FIG. 1.
[1176] _Linn. Trans._ Ibid. _f._ 15. b.
[1177] From δερμα, _a skin_.
[1178] PLATE X. FIG. 5.
[1179] From ορθος, _straight_.
[1180] _Fn. Suec._
[1181] From δικτυον, _a net_.
[1182] See above, p. 266.
[1183] From νευρον, _a nerve_.
[1184] _Her. Entomolog._ 433.
[1185] VOL. III. p. 563.
[1186] Ibid. p. 125--.
[1187] Ibid. p. 423, 441--, 451, 454--.
[1188] Ibid. p. 656.
[1189] See above, p. 186--.
[1190] _N. Dict, d'Hist. Nat._ x. 344.
[1191] The ovipositor of _Raphidia_ seems merely calculated to
introduce its eggs under bark; it seems incapable of boring.
[1192] From ὑμην, _a membrane_.
[1193] De Geer ii. 1035.
[1194] Since this was written, Mr. Stephens has showed me a remarkable
Hymenopterous insect taken by him in Hertfordshire, which appears to
have the antennæ of one of the _Ichneumonidæ_ and the wings and abdomen
of a _Tenthredo_ L., so as to form a link connecting the two tribes or
suborders. This may probably have a vermiform larva.
[1195] _Hor. Entomolog._ 431.
[1196] _Hor. Entomolog._ 429.
[1197] VOL. III. p. 67. See above, p. 160.
[1198] Whoever consults De Geer ii. 941--. _t._ xxxiii. _f._ 14, 15.
_t._ xxxvi. _f._ 27. and _t._ xxxix. _f._ 7, 8, will be convinced
that the metamorphosis of _Tenthredo_ L. is _incomplete_ rather than
_obtected_.
[1199] The _Hymenoptera_, though they have all the usual oral organs,
cannot be denominated masticators generally; these organs, especially
the mandibles, being chiefly used in their economy.
[1200] See above, p. 350.
[1201] VOL. III. p. 417.
[1202] From ἡμισυ, _the half_.
[1203] VOL. III. p. 463--. Linn. _Syst. Nat._ Ord. II.
[1204] If considered as _suborders_, their denomination should not
terminate precisely as that of _Orders_. Perhaps _Hemipter_it_a_ and
_Heteropter_it_a_ might be an improvement.
[1205] _Hor. Entomolog._ 374--.
[1206] VOL. III. p. 554.
[1207] See above, p. 159--.
[1208] VOL. III. p. 463.
[1209] VOL. III. p. 611--. 604--.
[1210] Ibid. p. 684--.
[1211] From θριξ, τριχος, _hair_. Mr. MacLeay, thinking it
indisputable that the _Perlidæ_ should be included in this Order,
suggests the propriety of changing its name, both as inapplicable,
and as being preoccupied by a Dipterous genus. As I do not think
the _Perlidæ_ belong to the Order, and as the great body of the
_Trichoptera_ are distinguished by _hairy_ upper wings, I cannot
think the name improper: but to apply a name to a _Genus_ which
terminates like the denominations of _Orders_, I think leads to
mistakes, and should not be tolerated.--K.
[1212] _Hor. Entomolog._ 430--.
[1213] VOL. III. p. 546--.
[1214] The location of the legs together, their long coxæ, and their
calcaria, are analogous also to those of the _Lepidoptera_.
[1215] Reaum. vi. Mem. x. _t._ xxxii. _f._ 13. _t._ xxxiv. _f._ 1-6.
De Geer vi. 169--. _t._ x. _f._ 7, 8.
[1216] _N. Dict. d'Hist. Nat._ xxv. 286.
[1217] De Geer ii. 511--. He however observes, that they often attack
other insects: but the form of their mandibulæ, like that of the
caterpillars of _Lepidoptera_, which also on some occasions become
carnivorous (VOL. I. p. 386), is fitted for a vegetable diet. De
Geer, _Ibid._ 505.
[1218] This is evident from De Geer's account. _Ibid._ 516. _t._ xii.
_f._ 14. _t._ xv. _f._ 4.
[1219] PLATE XX. FIG. 25.
[1220] From λεπις, _a scale_.
[1221] VOL. III. p. 537. PLATE IX. FIG. 4.
[1222] Ibid. FIG. 5.
[1223] VOL. I. p. 65--.
[1224] VOL. III. p. 468.
[1225] From δις _twice_, or _double_.
[1226] _Hist. Animal._ l. iv. c. 1, 27.
[1227] VOL. II. p. 354--.
[1228] Ibid. p. 355.
[1229] VOL. III. p. 465--.
[1230] Ibid. p. 552--.
[1231] Ibid. p. 632.
[1232] See above, p. 163.
[1233] From αφανης; _inconspicuous_; so named because something like
_elytra_ appear.
[1234] VOL. III. p. 470.
[1235] Ibid. p. 23.
[1236] From α, _priv._ and πτερον.
[1237] VOL. III. p. 221--.
[1238] VOL. III. p. 22.
[1239] Ibid. p. 471.
[1240] _Hor. Entomolog._ 381.
[1241] VOL. III. p. 22. note^a.
[1242] Ibid. p. 471--.
[1243] Ibid. p. 653.
[1244] See above, p. 236.
[1245] _Hor. Entomolog._ 286.
[1246] The number of segments and legs acquired by these insects in
their progress to their last state, distinguishes their metamorphosis
from that of other _Aptera_, and requires a distinct name.
[1247] VOL. III. p. 417.
[1248] When I said (VOL. III. p. 31.) that _Phrynus_ probably
belonged to the true _Arachnida_, it escaped my recollection that
Latreille had placed that genus there.
[1249] L. Dufour _Six Nouvell. Arachnid._ &c. _Ann. Gen. des Scienc.
Physiq._ IV. iii. 17. _t._ lxix. _f._ 7, _b_.
[1250] _Mém. sur les Anim. sans Vertèbr._ I. i. 57--.
[1251] PLATE XXIX. FIG. 1.
[1252] PLATE XV. FIG. 10. _T´´_. Plate XXIII. FIG. 15. 17. _T´´_.
[1253] PLATE XV. FIG. 7.
[1254] PLATE XXVII. FIG. 50.
[1255] Called the _Centris_. VOL. III. p. 388, 716.
[1256] M. Latreille thinks that in _Galeodes_ the prothorax is
coalite with the head (_N. Dict. d'Hist. Nat._ xii. 370.); but that
it is not so, is evident from the six real legs being affixed to the
pieces behind it. See also VOL. III. p. 23. note^d.
[1257] L. Dufour _ubi supr._ IV. iii. 18.
[1258] _Ibid._ 19.
[1259] _Ibid._ _t._ lxix. _f._ 7. _d._
[1260] When the characters of the Class _Arachnida_ were drawn up (VOL.
III. p. 30.) I had not seen a _Galeodes_: they should be thus amended:
_Palpi_ four: anterior pair pediform, cheliform, or
unguiculate; posterior pediform.
_Trunk_ Legs six, &c.
[1261] PLATE XIII. FIG. 1.
[1262] _Familles Naturelles du Règne Animal._
[1263] _Annulosa Javanica._ 5.
[1264] See above, p. 365.
[1265] _Coléopt. d'Europe_ i. 75.
[1266] VOL. III. p. 167--. I formerly hinted (_Ibid._ p. 163.) that
the larva of _Cicindela_ may be regarded as _Araneidiform_: this
is further confirmed by its having _eight_ eyes, (and not _six_,)
as I have since discovered, and by the aspect of its large head
and prothorax. The other larvæ of the _Adephag_an_a_ have _twelve_
eyes.--Mr. Stephens (_Illustrations of British Entomology_, n^o. xv.
p. 175.) has confirmed the above statement, as to the number of eyes
of the larva of _Cicindela_.
[1267] Mr. MacLeay says that more than 100,000 _Annulosa_ exist in
collections.--_Hor. Ent._ 469.
[1268] Vigors in _Zoolog. Journ._ I. ii. 188.
[1269] _Hor. Entomolog._ 125--.
[1270] See Bicheno in _Linn. Trans._ xv. 491.
[1271] Dr. Horsfield, in his very ingenious and generally admirable
_Descriptive Catalogue_ of the Javanese Lepidoptera in the Museum of
the Honourable East India Company, has divided that Order into _five_
primary groups, apparently to accommodate it to Mr. W. S. MacLeay's
quinary system. I trust he will pardon me for observing, that in this
arrangement he seems to me rather to _force_ than to _follow_ nature;
and that though he adheres to the above system as to the _number_, he
forsakes it in the _construction_ of his groups.
The obvious primary sections of the Lepidoptera, which have been
evident to almost every one who has at all studied the Order, are
the _three_ named in the text, corresponding with Linné's genera
_Papilio_, _Sphinx_, and _Phalæna_. The groups of the last or
nocturnal section, which Dr. Horsfield has elevated to the same rank
with the two first, are evidently not of equal value, nor to be
placed upon the same platform; for the _Bombycidæ_, _Noctuidæ_, and
_Phalænidæ_, are clearly of a _secondary_ rank. Indeed this section
is resolvable into _more_ groups of _equal_ value than the learned
Doctor has assigned to it; for the _Tortricidæ_, _Tineidæ_, &c. are
not so united to the Geometers, or genuine _Phalænidæ_, as to form
with them a _primary_ group of the _Nocturnal Lepidoptera_, but are
themselves entitled _separately_ to that distinction. This will be
evident to every one who will take the trouble to compare the larvæ
and their habits, of the two tribes, as well as the perfect insects.
In the construction of his groups, he seems not to have discovered
in the _Lepidoptera_ a great typical group resolvable into _two_,
or at least he has not built his system on this foundation, which
appears an essential part of the quinary arrangement. (See Mr.
W. S. MacLeay in _Linn. Trans._ xiv. 56--.) As to _value_, the
_Papilionidæ_ constitute the typical group or centre of the Order,
though the _Phalænidæ_ prevail as to _numbers_: but neither of these
are resolvable into two primary groups.
[1272] _Linn. Trans._ xiv. 56--. It is to be observed, however,
that what Mr. MacLeay calls the _aberrant groups_ are usually also
resolvable into two.
[1273] _Hor. Entomolog._ 318, _et passim._
[1274] _Linn. Trans._ ubi supr. Mr. W. S. MacLeay informs me that M.
Agardh has found that the distribution of _Fuci_ is regulated by the
same law.
[1275] _Zool. Journ._ iii. 312--.
[1276] VOL. III. p. 15. note^a.
[1277] _Hor. Entomolog._ 199.
[1278] Viz. 1. _Copris Hesperus_; 2. _C. reflexa_; 3. _C. Sabæus_; 4.
_C. lunaris_; 5. _C. Carolina_; 6. _C. Œdipus_; 7. _C. Midas_; 8. _C.
capucina_; 9. _C. Bucephalus_; 10. _C. Molossus_; 11. _C. Eridanus_;
12. _C. sexdentata_ K.
[1279] _Hor. Entomolog._ 518.
[1280] The most natural and consistent interpretation of 1 Cor. xiii.
12, Βλεπομεν γαρ αρτι δι' εσοπτρου εν αινιγματι, is, that "we see now
as it were in a mirror the glory of God reflected enigmatically by
the things that he has made." Comp. Rom. i. 20--. Our Saviour (Luke
x. 19.) calls _serpents_ and _scorpions_ the power of the _enemy_;
which can only mean that they are _figures_ or _symbols_ of the enemy.
[1281] Rom. i. 20, to the end of the chapter.
[1282] _N. Dict. d'Hist. Nat._ xx. 484. comp. ii. 30--.
[1283] _Mém. sur les Anim. sans Vertèbr._ I. i. 20--.
[1284] _Horæ Entomologicæ._
[1285] VOL. III. p. 173--.
[1286] Ibid. p. 348. note^c.
[1287] See above, p. 382--.
[1288] VOL. I. p. 7--.
[1289] A most singular insect belonging to this tribe, and
which seems to form a link, having a notched cubit, between the
_Amaur_on_a_ and the _Lampr_on_a_, has been described and figured by
Hagenbach under the name of _Mormolyce phyllodes_. It exhibits such
a striking resemblance to a _Mantis_ or _Phasma_, that it might be
mistaken for one. It was found on the western side of the island of
Java. Mr. Samouelle showed me a second species of this genus from
China, belonging to a lady, who put it into his hands, it being
broken, to put together.
[1290] A remarkable imitation of an antelope's horn, a process of the
mandible of an insect, in the possession of R. D. Alexander, Esq.
F.L.S., is figured in the fifth Number of the _Zoological Journal_.
[1291] _Hor. Entomolog._ 456. Comp. _Linn. Trans._ xiv. 67--.
[1292] _Mém. sur les Anim. sans Vertèbr._ I. i. 20--.
[1293] See above, p. 382.
[1294] VOL. III. pp. 372, 598.
[1295] Ibid. p. 412.
[1296] VOL. II. p. 397--.
[1297] VOL. III. p. 413.
[1298] _Ent. Carn._ 168. n. 446.
[1299] Meigen has figured a Dipterous insect exactly resembling a
_Cimbex_, which he calls _Aspistes berolinensis_ (_Dipt._ i. 319.
_t._ xi. _f._ 16, 17.)
[1300] _Prædones_ Latr., &c.
[1301] _Andrena_ F., &c.
[1302] _Hor. Entomolog._ 437.
[1303] VOL. III. p. 644.
[1304] _Mém. du Mus._ 1819. 136.
[1305] Rifferschw. _de Ins. Genital._ 9.
[1306] _Annulos. Javan._ i. 1.
[1307] _N. Dict. d'Hist. Nat._ xxv. 115--. xxvii. _t._ M. 8. _f._ 1.
[1308] Piso _Hist. Nat._ 63. _Curui_ 1. _Jundia_ v.
[1309] _N. Dict. d'Hist. Nat._ xxvii. 235. _Hor. Entomolog._ 203.
[1310] _Ibid._ 281--.
[1311] _Ibid._ 354, 390, 397.
[1312] This insect, except in its antennæ, so nearly resembles a
_Nirmus_, that it might be mistaken for one. See Coquebert _Illustr.
Icon._ i. _t._ ii. _f._ 14.
[1313] VOL. III. p. 590.
[1314] Fuessl. _Archiv._ _t._ lii. _f._ 5.
[1315] Stoll _Saut. de Pass._ _t._ xx. _b._ _f._ 79.
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].