and Ælian 1400 years rolled away, in which scarcely any thing was
done or attempted for Entomology or Natural History in general.
During that long night the glimmer of only one faint luminary
appeared to make a short and feeble twilight. In the middle of the
thirteenth century Albertus Magnus (so called from his family name
of Groot, and justly, if incredible labour could entitle a man to
the appellation), devoted _one_ out of _twenty-one_ folio volumes
to Natural History. In this work he professes not so much to give
his own opinions, as those of the Peripatetic philosophers[1346].
He occasionally, however, relates the result of observations made
by himself, which prove him to have been no inattentive student
of nature. He mentions a voyage that he made for the purpose of
collecting marine animals, and that he found of them ten different
tribes or genera, and several species of each. Amongst these he
particularizes the _Cephalopoda_, the _Crustacea_, the testaceous
_Mollusca_, and some of the _Radiata_ and _Acrita_, &c.[1347] He
gives a very correct account of the pitfalls of _Myrmeleon_. Insects
he distinguishes, excluding the _Crustacea_, by the denomination
of _Anulosa_ (_Annulosa_), which he appears to employ as a _known_
term[1348]. He also calls them _worms_, describing butterflies as
_flying worms_, flies as _fly-worms_, spiders as _spider-worms_; and
what is still more extraordinary, the _toad_ and the _frog_, which he
includes amongst his _Anulosa_, he calls _quadruped-worms_[1349]!!
Though it may appear so absurd to speak of these animals as insects,
yet he had perhaps a deeper and more philosophical reason for this
than we may at first be disposed to give him credit for. This would
be the case if he separated these from the other reptiles and placed
them amongst insects on account of their _metamorphoses_, mistaking
perhaps an analogical character for one of affinity[1350]. Some of
the _Annelida_, as _Filaria_ and _Lumbricus_[1351], he also regarded
as insects. I cannot gather from his desultory pages that he had any
notion of a systematical arrangement of his _Anulosa_.
After the taking of Constantinople by the Turks in the middle of the
fifteenth century, the light of learning, kindled by those of its
professors who escaped from that ruin, appeared again in the West.
The Greek language then began to be studied universally; and in
consequence of the coeval invention of the art of printing, various
editions of the great works of the ancients were published: amongst
the rest those of the fathers of Natural History. From the perusal
of these, the love of the sciences of which they treated revived in
the West, and the attention of scientific men began to direct itself
to the consideration and study of the works of their CREATOR. In the
latter part of that century, a work entitled the _Book of Nature_
appeared in the German language, in which animals and plants were
treated of and rudely figured; as they were likewise most miserably
in Cuba's _Ortus Sanitatis_, published in 1485, in which insects and
_Crustacea_ were described under the three different denominations of
Animals, Birds, and Fishes; so that but little profit was at first
derived from the writings of Aristotle, Invertebrate animals not
being then even honoured with
"A local habitation and a name."
This unpromising and apparently hopeless state of the science proved,
however, the dawn of its present meridian brightness.
The first attempt at a separate and systematical arrangement of
insects subsequent to the times of Aristotle, was made in the
ponderous volumes of Ulysses Aldrovandus, who, disregarding the
Stagyrite, arranged insects according to the medium they inhabit, as
you will see in the subjoined table:
{Membranacea {Favifica.
{Anelytra { {Non Favifica.
{Alata {Elytrota. {Farinosa.
{
{Pedata {
{ {Aptera {Paucipeda.
_I_ {Terrestria { { {Multipeda.
_n_ { {Apoda
_s_ {
_e_ { {Pedata {Paucipeda.
_c_ { { {Multipeda
_t_ {Aquatica {
_a_ {Apoda
This artificial and meager system, which mixed insects with
_Annelida_, was adopted by Charlton and other authors; and even
in the eighteenth century had a patron of great eminence, who,
endeavouring to improve upon it, has rendered it still more
at variance with nature and Aristotle: I mean the celebrated
Vallisnieri, to whom in other respects, though in this he fell behind
his age, the science was under great obligations. He divides insects
into, 1. Those that inhabit _vegetable_ substances living or dead.
2. Those that inhabit any kind of _fluid_ and in any state. 3. Those
that inhabit any _earthy_ or _mineral_ substances, _dead bones_, or
_shells_. And 4. Those that inhabit _living animals_[1352].
The work that is usually called Mouffet's _Theatrum Insectorum_ was
produced in the present era, and was the fruit of the successive
labours of several men of talent. Dr. Edward Wotton and the
celebrated Conrade Gesner laid the foundation; whose manuscripts
falling into the hands of Dr. Thomas Penny,--an eminent physician and
botanist of the Elizabethan age[1353], much devoted to the study of
insect,--he upon this foundation meditated raising a superstructure
which should include a complete history of these animals; and with
this view he devoted the leisure hours of fifteen years of his
life to the study of every book then extant that treated of the
science either expressly or incidentally, and to the description
and figuring of such insects as he could procure; but before he had
reduced his materials to order, in 1589 he was snatched away by
an untimely death. His unfinished manuscripts were purchased at a
considerable price by Mouffet, a contemporary physician of singular
learning[1354], who reduced them to order, improved the style,
added new matter, and not less than 150 additional figures; and
thus having prepared the work for the press, intended to dedicate
it to queen Elizabeth[1355]. Fate, however, seemed still to frown
upon the undertaking, for before he could commit his labours to
the press he also died, and his book remained buried in dust and
obscurity till it fell into the hands of Sir Theodore Mayerne, baron
d'Aubone, one of the court physicians in the time of Charles I.,
who at length published it, prefixing a Dedication to Sir William
Paddy, baronet, M.D., in 1634; and it was so well received that an
English translation appeared twenty-four years afterwards. The work
thus repeatedly rescued from destruction was indisputably the most
complete entomological treatise that had then appeared. And though
the arrangement (in which there is scarcely any attempt at system)
is extremely defective, the figures very rude, often incorrect, and
sometimes altogether false,--yet as an introduction to the study of
insects its value at that day must have been very considerable; and
as a copious storehouse of ancient entomological lore, it has not
even at present lost its utility.
One of the most remarkable works of the era we are upon was published
at Lignitz in the year 1603, by Caspar Schwenckfeeld, a physician
of Hirschberg, under the title of _Theriotrophium Silesiæ_. This
was probably the first attempt at a Fauna that ever was made. In it
animals are divided into quadrupeds, reptiles, birds, fishes, and
insects. The _Crustacea_, _Mollusca_, and _Zoophytes_, are included
under fishes. He says of the _Spongiæ_ that they are _moved_ by
animalcula which inhabit them[1356]. Did he borrow this observation
from Aristotle, or was it made by himself[1357]? It is singular
that Linné should never allude to this work. Goedart, who belongs
also to this era, is stated to have spent forty years of his life
in attending to the proceedings of insects[1358]. But after this
long study, his principal use to the science was the improvement he
effected in the drawing and engraving of them,--for his figures,
though sometimes incorrect and sometimes fabulous, were far superior
to those of his predecessors.
3. _The Era of Swammerdam and Ray, or of the_ Metamorphotic _System_.
The great men whose names are here united, as they were cotemporary, so
they agreed in founding their respective systems of insects on the same
basis. To the former, however, is due the merit of being the first who
assumed the _metamorphoses_ of these animals as the basis of a natural
arrangement of them; upon which the latter, in conjunction with his
lamented friend Willughby, erected that superstructure which opened the
door for the present improved state of the science. Swammerdam's system
may be thus expressed in modern language:
{Class i. Metamorphosis complete[1359] = _Aptera_ L.[1360]
{
{ ii. ------ semicomplete {_Orthoptera_,
{ { _Hemiptera_.
{ {_Libellulina_,
{ { _Ephemerina_[1361].
{
_Insects_ { { {_Coleoptera_,
{ { { _Hymenoptera_, part of
{ { incomplete { _Neuroptera_ and
{ iii. -----{ { _Diptera_[1362].
{ {
{ { obtected _Lepidoptera_[1363].
{
{ iv. ---- coarctate {_Ichneumones_
{ { _minuti_ L.[1364]
{ {_Muscidæ_, &c[1365].
It was a great point gained in the science to introduce the
consideration of the metamorphosis, and to employ it in the extrication
of the natural system: for though when taken by itself it will, as in
the table just given, lead to an artificial arrangement, it furnishes
a very useful clue when the consideration of insects in their perfect
state is added to it. The tables contained in the _Prolegomena_ to
Ray's _Historia Insectorum_ divide insects into those which undergo
no change of form, and those which change their form. The arrangement
of the former Αμεταμορφωτα was made by Willughby, who subdivided them
into _Apoda_ and _Pedata_. As the only insects included in the former
section were the grubs of _Œstri_, the remainder being _Annelida_,
they need not be included in our table. I have endeavoured to compress
these tables into as small a space as possible, by using the Linnean
terms for metamorphosis, and reducing Ray's tribes of _Orthoptera_,
_Hemiptera_, and _Neuroptera_ to their modern denominations.
Ray details at considerable length the various tribes belonging to
the four classes of metamorphosis established by Swammerdam[1366].
Most of his tribes indicate natural groups of greater or less value:
but some of his larger groups are artificial, as you will see by the
mere inspection of the table.
INSECTA
_Ametamorphota_
Apoda
_Terrestia_[1367].
_Aquatica_.
Pedata
_Hexapoda_
_Terrestia_[1368]
_Majora_[1368].
_Minora_[1369].
_Aquatica_[1370].
_Octopoda_
Caudata[1371].
Non caudata[1372].
14-_poda_.
24-_poda_.
30-_poda_.
_Polypoda_
Terrestia
_Cylindrica_[1373].
_Compressa_[1374].
Aquatica[1375]
_Corpore tereti_.
------ _plano_.
_Bicaudata_.
_Metamorphumena_
Metamorphosis semicompleta[1376]
_Orthoptera_.
_Heteroptera_.
_Homoptera_.
_Libellulina_.
_Ephemerina_.
Metamorphosis incompleta vel obtecta
_Coleoptera_.
_Anelytra_
Alis farinaceis[1377].
Alis membranaceis
_Diptera_.
_Tetrapter_
Gregaria et Favifica
_Mellifica_[1378].
_Non Mellifica_[1379].
Solitaria non Gregaria et Favifica
_Apiformia_[1380].
_Vespiformia_
Breviora[1381].
Augustiora[1382].
_Papilioniformia_[1383].
_Seticaudæ_, seu _Tripilia_[1384].
Metamorphosis coarctata
_Muscidæ_ et
_Ichneumones minuti_ L.[1385]
This era produced several great and original geniuses, who enriched
the science with a vast increment of real knowledge. The illustrious
Zoologists whose names it bears,--the one by his dissections and
anatomical researches, and the other by his concise and well drawn
descriptions of numerous insects, by various interesting observations
on their manners and characters, and by the purity of his
latinity,--contributed greatly to its progress towards perfection.
Leeuwenhoek also, the compatriot of Swammerdam, and Hooke of Ray,
amongst other objects submitted to their powerful microscopes,
did not neglect insects.--To the former we are indebted for the
remarkable discovery that the flea belongs to those that undergo a
metamorphosis. Ray had besides two coadjutors whose names ought not
to be forgotten,--Willughby and Dr. Martin Lister. The former is
characterized by his lamenting friend as one of the profoundest of
naturalists, as well as one of the most amiable and virtuous of men.
What advantage Entomology would have reaped from his labours may be
inferred from the eminent services that he rendered that science,
amongst other branches of Zoology, during his short life. It appears
from Ray's Letters[1386], that he drew up a history of insects and
_exsanguia_, which probably formed the groundwork of the posthumous
_Historia Insectorum_ of that author; concerning which he says, "The
work which I have now entered upon is indeed too great a task for me:
I rely chiefly on Mr. Willughby's discoveries and the contributions
of friends[1387]." And indeed Willughby's name and initials occur
so frequently in that work, that it may be esteemed their joint
production. Lister by his various writings elucidated many points
relating to insects; and he may be regarded as the first modern who
observed that spiders can sail in the air. But the most important
of his works, and that on which his fame as an Entomologist is
principally founded, is his admirable treatise _De Araneis_; in which
his systematic arrangement of these animals leaves far behind all
former attempts, and rivals that of the best modern Arachnologists.
His specific descriptions are drawn with a precision till then
unknown; and each is headed by a short definition of the species,
which he calls the _Titulus_, synonymous with the _Nomen specificum_
of Linné, whose canon of twelve words it rarely exceeds.
One of the most important events of this era was the complete
exposure and refutation of the absurd doctrine of _equivocal
generation_, which had maintained its ground in the schools of
philosophy from the time of Aristotle. Our own immortal Harvey was
the first who dared to controvert this irrational theory: and his
_dictum_--_Omnia ex ovo_--was copiously discussed and completely
established by two of the ablest physiologists that Italy has
produced, Redi and Malpighi.
Previously to the publication of the _Historia Insectorum_, no other
works of eminence, with the exception of Madam Merian's beautiful
illustration of the metamorphosis of the insects of Surinam,
made their appearance: but in the interval of twenty-five years,
which elapsed between the publication of that work and of Linné's
first outline of his _Systema Naturæ_, Entomologists became more
numerous and active. In England the pious and learned author of the
_Physico_ and _Astro-Theology_ was celebrated for the assiduity
with which he studied insects; and in the former of these works has
concentrated a vast number of interesting observations connected
with their anatomy and history. No Englishman contributed more to
the progress of Natural History, both as a writer and collector,
than that disinterested physician and naturalist Sir Hans Sloane,
whose extensive and valuable library and well-stored cabinets formed
the original nucleus of the present vast collection of the British
Museum. Amongst other departments, that of insects was not overlooked
by him; and it is to be regretted that those which he had accumulated
have either perished from neglect or are not accessible. Other
Entomologists were eminent at this period in Britain. The principal
of these were Petiver, Dale (to whom Ray bequeathed his collection
of insects), Bobart, Bradley, and Dandridge; the last of whom, as
Bradley tells us, delineated and described 140 species of spiders.
I must not omit here to observe that our ROYAL SOCIETY, the origin
of which took place in this era, communicated a new and powerful
impulse to the public mind in favour of Physical Science, and greatly
accelerated the progress of Natural History. It acted not only as a
centre of excitement which stimulated to exertion, but also as a focus
to collect the scattered rays of light before they were dissipated.
Insulated observations in every department of nature were thus
preserved; and communications from the most eminent naturalists in
various parts of Europe ornamented its _Transactions_. So that from
the establishment of this illustrious Society, the triumphant march of
Physical Science of every kind towards its acme may be dated.
4. _Era of Linné, or of the_ Alary _System._ We are now arrived
at that period in the history of Natural Knowledge, especially
of Entomology, in which it received that form, with respect to
its general outline, which, amidst many lesser mutations, has
been preserved ever since. Swammerdam had altogether deserted the
system of Aristotle, and Ray mixed it with that of his predecessor.
But a brilliant star soon appeared in the North[1388], which was
destined to be the harbinger of a brighter day than had ever
before illuminated the path of the student of the works of God.
The illustrious philosopher whose name distinguishes this new era,
imbibed a taste for Entomology almost as early as for Botany[1389];
and though the latter became his favourite, and absorbed his
principal attention, he did not altogether neglect the former. In
the first edition of his _Systema Naturæ_, published in 1735, and
contained in only _fourteen_ folio pages[1390], he began to arrange
the three kingdoms of nature after his own conceptions. But this
initiatory sketch, as might be expected, was very imperfect; and with
respect to insects, instead of an improvement upon his predecessors,
was extremely inferior to what Ray had effected; for he puts into one
Order (to which he gives the name of _Angioptera_) the _Lepidoptera_,
_Neuroptera_, _Hymenoptera_, and _Diptera_. In this work, however,
Generic Characters were first given. In successive editions he
continued to improve upon this outline: in the _fourth_ he finally
settled the _number_ and _denominations_ of his Orders; and in the
twelfth (uniting the _Orthoptera_, which he had at first considered
as of a _Coleopterous_ type, to the _Hemiptera_) also their _limits_.
His system, being founded upon the absence or presence and characters
of the organs for flight, is in some degree a republication of the
Aristotelian, and may be called the _Alary_ System.
{ { Superior { crustaceous with a straight _Coleoptera_ 1.
{ { { suture
{ { { semicrustaceous, incumbent _Hemiptera_ 2.
{ 4.{ { imbricated with _Lepidoptera_ 3.
{ { { scales
Wings { { All { membranous-- { unarmed } _Neuroptera_ 4.
{ { Anus { aculeate } _Hymenoptera_ 5.
{ 2. Poisers in the place of the _Diptera_ 6.
{ posterior pair
{ 0. Or without either wings or _Aptera_ 7.
{ elytra
In considering this table, it must strike every one acquainted
with the subject, that although the assumption of a single set of
organs whereon to build a system can scarcely be expected to lead
to one perfectly natural, yet that the majority of the groups here
given as Orders merit that character. The _second_ indeed and the
_last_ require further subdivision, and concerning the _fourth_
no satisfactory conclusion has yet been drawn. With regard to his
_series_ of the Orders, it is mostly artificial. Linné has the
advantage of all his predecessors in giving clearer definitions of
his Orders, and in their nomenclature; in which he has followed the
path first trodden by Aristotle.
One of his most prominent excellencies, which led the way more than
any thing else to a distinct knowledge of natural objects, was his
giving definitions of his genera, or the groups that he distinguished
by that name, since all preceding writers had merely made them known
by the imposition of a _name_. His generic characters of insects
were of _two_ kinds: A shorter, containing the supposed _essential_
distinction of the genus, given at the head of the _Class_; and
another, generally longer, and including _non-essentials_, given at
the head of the _Genus_. The first he denominated the _essential_,
and the latter the _factitious_ or _artificial_ character. He did not
do for insects what he did for Botany,--draw up what he has called
the _natural_ character of a genus, which included both the others,
and noticed every other generic distinction[1391].
The older Naturalists used to treasure in their memories a short
description of each species, by which when they wished to speak
or write of it they made it known. Thus, in speaking of the
common lady-bird they would call it "the _Coccinella_ with red
_coleoptra_[1392] having seven black dots." This enunciation of any
object was at first called its Title (_Titulus_), and afterwards
its Specific Name (_Nomen specificum_), and by Linné was restricted
to _twelve_ words[1393]. But as the number of species increased to
remember each definition was no easy task; that he might remedy
this inconvenience, he invented what is called the Trivial Name
(_Nomen triviale_), which expressed any species by a single term
added to its generic appellation, as _Coccinella septem-punctata_;
and thereby conferred a lasting benefit on Natural History. This
convenient invention has rendered it less necessary to restrict the
_Nomen specificum_ to twelve words: it is desirable, however, that
the definition of a species should be as short as possible, and
contain only its _distinctive_ characters. In his definitions and
descriptions Linné was often very happy; but sometimes, in studying
to avoid prolixity, he forgets Horace's hint,
... "Brevis esse laboro
Obscurus fio--"
and makes his definitions of species, without adding a description,
so extremely short as to suit equally well perhaps a dozen different
insects. The minor groups into which he has divided some of his
Orders and Genera are sometimes natural, sometimes artificial. Those
of the _Coleoptera_, from characters drawn from their antennæ (as is
evident from his arrangement of the genera in that Order), are of the
latter description; while those of his _Aptera_ are more natural.
The genera that he has most happily laboured in this respect are his
Hemipterous ones of _Gryllus_, _Cicada_, and _Cimex_, and all his
_Lepidoptera_. He had such a tact for discovering natural groups in
general, that in him it seems almost to have been intuitive.
But in no respect were the labours of Linné more beneficial to the
science and to Zoology in general, than when he undertook to describe
the animals of his own country. His _Fauna Suecica_ is an admirable
exemplar, which ought to stimulate the Zoologists of every country to
make it one of their first objects that its animal productions shall
no longer remain unregistered and undescribed. Botanists have almost
every where been diligent in effecting this with respect to plants,
but other branches of Natural History have been more neglected. In
his _Systema Naturæ_ Linné attempted this for all the productions
of our globe. The idea was a vast one; and the execution, though
necessarily falling far short of it, did him infinite honour: and in
it he has laid a foundation for his successors to build upon till
time shall be no more.
Such were the services rendered to Entomology by the labours of the
immortal Swede; services so extensive as well as eminent, that had
they been the fruit of a whole life devoted to this single object,
they would have entitled him to a high rank amongst the heroes of
the science. But how much more astonishing are they when considered
but as gleanings from his hours of relaxation, snatched from labours
infinitely greater, the produce, as he himself tells us, of moments
consumed by others in "venationibus, confabulationibus, tesseris,
chartis, lusibus, compotationibus[1394]." It is not so much in original
discovery that the merits of Linné lie,--though considered in this view
they are pre-eminent,--as in the unrivalled skill with which he sifted
the observations of his predecessors, separating the ore from the
dross, and concentrating scattered rays of light into one focus.
This era produced other systematists who adopted various methods, but
none that merit particular notice except Geoffroy and De Geer. The
former in this view is principally celebrated as the author of the
method generally adopted by modern Entomologists, of dividing the
_Coleoptera_ into primary sections, according to the number of the
joints of their tarsi. This method, though in many instances, as was
formerly observed[1395], it leads to artificial results, in others
affords a clue to natural groups; it can only therefore be applied
subject to frequent exceptions. Geoffroy's work[1396], which was
published in 1764, was further serviceable by indicating many genera
not defined by Linné.