ITH H“444 «7 aberewed MbLa ith US nar eet anes Pee tare yt try wel esha ashe nar ee Uaaa « Watery MONS dee Age AL DUAy tea ewes a: Na4 gE Srrarerec rire rt 2 Nas teodee whee aiid. De dm Peat ert esi ety ae SPS Trerisir Tis Serre a Se eid penates paces BAR: Tak pe peg at aves igdy oping 9 He a} odes sib gee bated oe Sunt Bos ty aren rt a g e| tio peceye gant a Tags oa FIM aS spe ale i sper beet rier aera Fees rsegnesaay fiat corre Perarions brig eget shaze ee apne ae essere me ee Fe tee ae ee ka ? eee fe . ' i eed tig oie ae stab ghee * re An wee ‘. 4 ' Cee Pe Lae + i dort at cag Sete eeky Miey rita og ‘ AME GBA Tate vA gta ep ete ty bP ots at eon l genes cee erate oie 138 anytee ‘thet f* sere re qeatgig ~ 7 EG "8 eo e* sea eet, a ca eee te te teri whith sapere 2 P Ark hee stdd a e * ararptetens tay eetyr dts! 2 ts ty hare 3 ; nt oi Vihy bat ate “Stawtd eps oe + yt 843. SUS re are tristed t wie its EM Ath b 7 large Nlatetsletse Pee ae ese | j nes 4 PEA De pee Weg lecnreaead b | ‘ y i GY BIOLO Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2010 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign http://www. archive.org/details/noraeentomologic112macl wn P| a ny Tk ala AR j ue ra nh i 1 4 ip ; ay uy hy) vi i OB i ; } We, Kj iar ral iye ’ he ne rh f yh : } f i] Maar oe | WW, f Py i i 5 f ay ‘ his aa | ee ' ; | i e hl } cs i 1 : \ A Pit, ‘hh Ai) nn i} 7 N He IN ' : ro ; i ra hi } f ' o A i ‘o Ce Alig hs Xe hel oii Nn A en a ; ane nt nt vig i ma tne , \ pay 14 AD) a) ay j , HL y ; TEA f a, ms 18, ; f ' iy) ard ‘ { 1 " i] f | i 7 1 i i, lr fies me a Hh ee | Fi Te Dit AB ih: ’ Naif ae rey iysy LAI We ie fF \ ; Avia sicko A hora ni A PT Rees Alt a te ' Hf) yi bi { h ay ; ! ‘ah aii vee) oy a ¥ tuk ao) a ie i) nM sa tl P fi, Hy ha} NG v war 1 MON are Ain ery wh yeah a ra a ey | ‘he ti Mer » ie toe if j bs | i (PY ‘1 v Mi! ‘7 b : i VHA i Oia nA i ue hn bE i vie i Ny by) { f va hel | i Te i I Cheat Duy - lig)’ i Wawen'\ f uv fast ne Jie Ridhadty Fi ius ia Teen AT wi va i] malar Ul ry ¥ }f a Li Wi T ' are wal f , i oh mAb nt Ai fl ‘ V4 oa JD) Wey fo Oy th , \ i a 7 ered a: t y ud ' ta hf im st | l fait | ne ' hi wiht hi i Mist SY i 7 es ay i f ‘ 4 mi i aA f ae Maly 4 Lyn } | = : ‘ i + VAY Uo i } ies ) fal oy ee ' RA hy NTA | 1 ai wi Peg HN ne wha | oS a hey ey I He A a \ \ vf ii ; My Ub y Chit Atay ri Af! it ina a lo: a = — ae Sar) | + ne Hore Entomologice: i. Fadel: fibers ESSAYS : Lt htc Vie THE ANNULOSE ANIMALS: yeou7ov W.S. MACLEAY, Esq AM. OF TRINITY CCLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, Vou.I. PartlL ~*2¢ 74 CONTAINING tage SE 8Y ural ervations on the Geography, Manners, and Nat 4. utities of the Insects which compose the Genus Scarabeus of Linneus; TO WHICH ARE ADDED A few incidental Remarks on the Genera Lucanus and Hister of the same Author. WITH AN APPENDIX AND PLATES. * Les Entomologistes multipliaient & Venvi les observations; mais ils se * dispensaient de les géneérdtisc:??- Savxaxv, Mem. sur les Animaux sans Vertébres. Part I. Pref. LONDON: PRINTED FOR S. BAGSTER, 15, PATERNOSTER-ROW ; BY RICHARD AND ARTHUR TAYLOR, SHOE-LANE» MDCCCXIX. 214 Winn HAOLU AVI . in may . > = yah om pak ea Sonik 6) aeuiinkans ODOT DES eed > ; ‘ *. a f bitch i pitt fey Ay it *" i. ; * ei - : Soin 1 ane 4 soil Ss * Rola ; pant Matar Co @EReeOOL oe an ® Lagan heray sWUOLTLORE. dieu af. <0. waucierrty, p peiaesieegarert ag pep ene. thst, Pay Sin “ttn : ae Wa a he eat me mite Ta o® | 3 ts abate Srp ties ‘eine SPORTY oy E06 sino ROE fidsas e, Xp ot . totes Lava Ser aa: Hi GAA: eh HTEY, age . o tt) Sie aide Faeuaibeieas: ‘eet sits ha 5 cbdniaibinata oa debe BGiipe sek sit tis TTI ml eee rs, ay a eet P . 4 PRAMAS ASPET UGE RES rsh ash seth et, oat anc oe iy | XX Se if oR Hat? get TAS i AEB Kee a ioe 5) AS I i oe oe eS ae Ves wei ‘y bidisting ; sharia, 7? a * he 5 ; ‘ : 18 ye 7 & “is Was: ’ "h ms rae ‘ Ca 1ay8 $25 bs (hie my) ue : hy “ites me 20 ig = J on, -BLS PREFACE. In offering to the public this, his first essay in En- tomology, the author thinks it by no means unlikely that he shall incur the charge of aiming at innova- tions in the science. ‘The following remarks are, however, as he conceives, entirely practical, and the examination of their accuracy is within the reach < of every entomological student. By such persons Jat least, therefore, he trusts that they will be consi- “dered as proceeding from a wish to connect and =to reconcile with each other the observations of his 7 predecessors, rather than from an absurd ambition Sto controvert or obliterate the result of their la- =bours. ~ The author has for the present confined his at- =tention to one branch of the science: principally, “indeed, because he coincided with Fabricius in ima- "~gining that on Monographs has been founded almost ty every thing in the general systems now in use that can strictly be called natural. But the vast num- ber also of animated beings which has been added Eutonus vi PREFACE. to our lists since Linneus first published his Sy- stema Nature, and the still increasing numbers which daily arrive from the most remote quarters of the globe, or which swell our indigenous cata- logues in proportion as our Fauna is explored, render it almost impossible for the naturalist to study in detail, more than one department of that which may be his favourite science. Of entomology in particular there are no bounds to the stores, and it may truly be said of insects, “ Sed neque quam multe species nec nomina que sint « Est numerus.” Amidst these countless multitudes, the animals which compose the Linnean genus Scarabeus ap- pear in all ages to have attracted the notice of the admirers of nature. This may have been partly owing to their size, and partly to their splen- dour; but still more likely to the celebrity of the "“Haroxxvbaeoc, or Scarabeus pilularius of the an- cients,—an insect which from the singularity of its form and manners, became even an object of ve- neration and worship with the ancient Egyp- tans. Indeed it was the peculiar interest which the Scarabeus sacer of Linneus excited, as being a principal among the many objects “ qualia de- mens Avgyptus coluit,” that first led the author to investigate its natural history with the intention of PREFACE. vil drawing up a monograph? of the several species composing the genus Ateuchus, to which this insect had been referred by Weber and Fabricius. But he soon found that the unsettled and hitherto ill-de- fined state of the science had not only rendered this celebrated species, by means of repeated changes in nomenclature, unknown to any but entomologists; but that several other very distinct species were con- founded together with it, under the trivial name of sacer. ‘Yo this difficulty was added the unaccount- able circumstance, that none of the great systematic authors, except Fabricius and Latreille, had pro- perly distinguished it from other Coleopterous in- sects with lamellate antenne, although the habits of these are often totally different. It thus was evi- dent, that to review the whole of the Lamellicorn insects, properly so called, became necessary for any one who might wish to have correct ideas of the true place held in nature by the most interesting of the tribe. And as his father possessed a cabinet con- taining nearly 1800 species of the Linnean genus Scarabeus, the author was led to imagine that few could be placed in a situation more favourable for the investigation, thanhimself; and, therefore, that it 4 This intention has since been abandoned, in consequence of a work “ sur les Insectes Sacrés d’ Egypte” being now in the hands of the person in Europe the best able to treat the subject—M. La- treille de ’ Academie Royale des Sciences. Vill PREFACE. would be in some measure inexcusable, did he not make the attempt. But in undertaking this task— as he has been obliged to search for an arrangement which when adopted skould coincide with nature, and as after some time and labour bestowed on the research, he is still unable to lay down any distinct principle or rule by means of which such a classifi- cation may be arrived at—it seems necessary that he should here make a few remarks on systems in ge- neral, as well as on that plan which it has been judged proper to pursue in the following pages. If it be true, as lias been said, that there are few persons who form an accurate idea of what is meant by a System in natural history, it is equally just that there are still fewer persons who comprehend the exact difference between the Natural and an Artificial System, although the whole science now depends on this distinction being thoroughly under- stood. A celebrated French naturalist? has indeed defined a System to be an arrangement of bodies ac- cording to the distinctions taken from the conside- ration of one only of their external parts and pro- perties; whereas he considers a Method to be an arrangement founded upon distinctions drawn from the form and structure of several of these parts. But so far as relates to their effects on natural hi- story, the author of the following work has had rea- 4Cuvier, Dict, des Sciences Naturelles. Pref. PREFACE. 1X son to remark, that a system and method, in the above acceptation of the words, may be made to amount to the very same thing; and he has even been led to believe that a system or method entirely founded on distinctions must be artificial, whether such distinctions be drawn from the consideration of one or of one hundred parts. The chances, per- haps, are in favour of our being the least distant from truth in the latter of these two cases :—but after all, if any certain or positive difference can exist between them, it seems to be, that the greater the number of parts on which the distinctions are founded, the less convenient for use will be that particular method. Asystem hasalsobeen said to act precisely towards enabling mankind to derive advantage from disco- veries in natural science, as adictionary in a particu- Jar language enables the world to participate in the discoveries that may have been madein that language. Now this observation is perfectly just, provided the system alluded to be an artificial one, and the dis- coveries it elucidates be supposed to refer entirely to nomenclature; for names in an artificial system are exactly what words are in a dictionary. Butall know- ledge in natural history beyond this of nomenclature is not (speaking properly) to be inculcated by a system, but is collectively itself no other than the Natural System. If, therefore, this natural system x PREFACE. be said to be a medium for teaching the properties of natural objects, the definition is equally unhappy as if it were said that the system of the universe enables mankind to acquire a knowledge of itself, that is, of the various properties of the heavenly bodies. In natural philosophy a system has usually indeed been considered as synonymous with an hypothesis; but the two ideas expressed by these words have of late been very properly distinguished by observing that though a mere fiction or hypo- thesis may explain phenomena, yet a system is a certainty that must be deduced from these. The existence of particular phenomena can therefore never be legitimately proved or explained by a sy- stem, though they are virtually included init, much in the same manner as in the statement of a pro- position all those facts are assumed upon which its demonstration may depend. When it is considered that in proportion to the number of data used in any investigation, the greater is the accuracy of the result, there seems little dif- ficulty in allowing that the perfect knowledge of the natural system must consist in that of a// the phe- nomena of natural history. This is moreover in no small degree rendered probable, though not ab- solutely confirmed, by the well known circumstance that the observations, whether of distinction or affi- nity, which are taken from the consideration of any PREFACE. xl single organ, of themselves alone invariably produce ‘an artificial system. Nor oughtit indeed to excite surprise, that a definite truth can rarely be obtained by reasoning on solitary data; because we are usually in such cases forced to call in some hypothesis to our aid in order to arrive at a conclusion. Yet thus it ‘is that the habit of reasoning on single facts has been the bane of the study of nature, that it has led many of us totally away from the true path, and created such a delusion that we often imagine the most to be known when in reality we know nothing. Were the planets to be arranged in a table ac- cording to any one of their properties,—as for instance, the period of rotation on their several axes,—such a system would be artificial, and only useful in that, having observed the length of a ro- tation, a reference to the table would be a conve- nient mode of determining the name of the planet. But no one would ever think of confounding this artificial table or system with the system of the universe; although an error exactly similar is every day committed in natural history, when a person who may by the mere exercise of his memory have become acquainted with an artificial table, fancies that he must therefore be a profound naturalist. If it should be asked what is here meant by an artificial table in natural history, the author would reply, that such in his opinion is that rather xii PREFACE. oddly termed Syst¢me de la Nature, which has been defined by Cuvier to be a great catalogue in which all organized beings have suitable names, can be recognised by suitable characters, and may be dis- tributed into divisions and subdivisions which are themselves also named and characterized. If then such a system as this be termed a dictionary, the true natural system may be reputed the language to which it refers; and as a dictionary is nothing but an useless assemblage of words, without some gram- mar or rules of syntax by means of .which a know- ledge of the structure of the language may be ac- quired, so an artificial system is a dry unmeaning collection of names, unless it be made subservient to the discovery of the natural one. An artificial system, according to what has been said, must al- ways be more or less a violation of natural order; since it has no higher pretensions, no other merit, than the readiness and facility with which it may enable an object to be named; and again, because this facility seems principally to depend on the as- sumption of arbitrary distinctions with which nature is altogether unacquainted. But it is different with respect to the natural system; since an injury to the order of creation in this ought to be as offensive and as readily perceptible to the naturalist, as an error of syntax is to the grammarian. An artificial system depends solely on observation, and may PREFACE. xili even be said to require the exercise of no other faculty than that of vision. The discovery of the natural one, on the contrary, is only to be hoped for from a cautious process of inductive and analogical reasoning, applied to facts gathered from observa- tion. ‘Thus it requires neither talent nor ingenuity to invent an artificial system, and there may be as many hundreds of such as there are heads to devise them; but of natural systems there is and can be only one. Finally, the former is the miserable re- source of the feeble mind of man, unable to com- prehend in one view the innumerable works of the creation; whereas the natural system is the plan of the creation itself, the work of an all-wise, all- powerful Deity. It will then scarcely be believed, that while the scientific world is inundated with artificial systems, the imperfections of which are daily discovered and daily criticized, not one in a hundred natural- ists takes a more exalted view of the creation than to become acquainted with that farrago of names which so many confound with the natural system. And it will still less be credited, that some of those even who can properly distinguish them, either covertly insinuate or openly assert that we ought to rest contented in our ignorance, and to cease our inquiries after those affinities, from the study of which, says a learned writer, ‘ the science XIV PREFACE. acquires new dignity; and instead of being con- versant merely with exterior forms and nominal distinctions, becomes acquainted with the laws and operations of nature*.” Though Linneus first distinguished the natural from all artificial systems; yet with true philosophic caution he was satisfied, at the early period when he wrote, that the first step towards ascertaining the plan on which organized beings were constructed, was to acquire some general knowledge of the be- ings themselves. He therefore cultivated his arti- ficial systems and his specific differences, to the comparative neglect of the higher branches of the science; and imagined that his time was thus more rationally employed, in collecting materials for him- self and others to work upon at some future period, than if he commenced at once the investigation of natural affinities. This methodical order in the study of the science on which he threw so much light, is one of the best proofs of his excellent sense: nay, a deviation from it by an ordinary individual at that time would have argued as much presumption as ignorance. But there are exceptions to every rule, and Lin- nus was so gifted by nature, and undoubtedly possessed such an intuitive knowledge of her ar- rangement, that we cannot but regret that his time * Roscoe, Linn. Trans. vel. x1. PREFACE. XV should have been employed more conformably to the dictates of his modesty than to the advantage of science. It was this modesty which probably in- duced him to make the unfortunateremark, that they who used an imperfect natural method, rejecting the artificial system, seemed to him like persons overturning a commodious and well covered house in order to build another in its place, the roof of which they are incompetent to complete. But if such an opinion was unfortunate for the celebrated man with whom it originated, it was more pecu- liarly so for those disciples who have always ad- hered to the principles and sworn by the words of their master, even when they may have differed from him in their application. Relying on autho- rity of such weight, they thought that, because they were secure from present blame, they must also be secure of future glory in following his example. They forgot that in the above remark Linnzus takes a circumstance for granted, which surely it is not for any human being to decide upon; namely, the incompetence of mankind to arrive at the na- tural method. ‘They failed to observe that it is as impossible as hopeless, that we should ever be able to bring our knowledge of the natural system to per- fection, unless we make use of the imperfect frag- ments of it which we already possess. Surely, at least, it was not by leaving every thing to hazard, XVI PREFACE. and by losing sight of the natural system altogether, that they ought to have expected its discovery. The simile of Linneus would indeed have been more accurate had he said, that to imagine that the natural method can be discovered without a pre- vious acquaintance with an artificial one, is to fancy that it is possible to erect a building without having collected the materials necessary for the under- taking. But then he ought to have added, that he who contents himself with an artificial method without a wish to attain the natural one, is a man who lives quietly and indolently amid a confused mass of materials, that might with industry enable him to construct that fabric of which the architect in the true sense of the word, is no other than the great Creator himself. Setting aside their convenience for use as cata- logues, it may, however, be fairly asked, what good purpose hitherto have these artificial systems, these commodious and well-covered houses an- swered? The ichthyologist may, for instance, pride himself on his knowledge of the “ finny race;” but unless he possess some nobler ambition than a per- fect acquaintance with an artificial system, he must not be surprised that all his vaunted science is to be surpassed by that of many a poor fisherman. Both may with equal ease be able to give a name to the objects of their search, and both of them are PREFACE. XVil equally ignorant of their natural affinities. Wherein, it may be asked, does the practical botanist (to use a modern expression) differ from the village herbal- ist er culler of simples; unless it be that the latter cannot give so learned a name as the former, to what it may have cost them equal trouble to find? The advocate of artificial methods will answer, per- haps, that the difference between the above two collectors is, that the one refers species to their gene- ra, whereas the practical skill of the other is confined to species alone. ut in reply to this, a question at first arises, namely—whether the notion of ge- nera, as commonly understood by naturalists, be al- together accurate? And then, even though this doubt should be decided in the affirmative, it ought to be recollected that the notion of genera is not pecu- liar to naturalists; but that, on the contrary, the rudest and most uncultivated mind readily perceives it; and indeed, that it must have existed in man ever since he exercised so common a faculty as comparison. When the ancients divided the vege- table kingdom into plants alimentary, medicinal, poisonous, tinctorial, and so forth, the classification was not perhaps very scientific; but a division into genera was thereby as strictly implicd, as if the sta- mens and pistils had been taken into consideration. Linnzus, therefore, in his definition of genera, has done nothing more than expressed with precision b XVIll PREFACE. an idea, which, whether it be correct or not 1s an- other question, but which must certainly have been coexistent with the first use of human reason. But it is said that every naturalist who has hi- therto proposed a natural system, has thereby only deceived himself and others with an illusive struc- ture, which, like the castle ina fairy tale, falls to pieces on being tried by the talisman of truth. The fact is perhaps indisputable;—but what after all does it prover not certainly that the existence of the natural system is chimerical, or that the discovery of it is impracticable. Yet, according to Linneus, the false naturalist. is he who flatters himself with the idea of having attained the natural method, “qui methodum naturalem sibi notam crepat.” There can indeed be no doubt that the natural me- thod is often in the mouths of the very persons who have the least notion of what it means. This, how- ever, is not exactly the question at issue. We have in truth to learn, whether the investigation of the order of nature ouglit altogether to be abandoned ; for itis idle to assert that any man in his senses will waste his time in seeking that which, if the opinion of Linnzus be adopted, he must be con- vinced that it is ridiculous in him to fancy that he can ever find. Before, therefore, we can admit the above definition to be correct, it is surely requisite for its defenders to prove, either the truth of the PREFACE. XIX Epicurean doctrine, and show that every form of matter takes its source solely from the casual con- currence of atoms; or, if a regular order and ar- rangement be by them allowed to exist—in short, if there has been a creation,—that it is impossible for man to discover the plan on which it has been con- ducted. When the truth of either of these hypo- theses—the first of which Linnzeus was certainly the last man ever to have entertained—shall rest on a foundation more solid than bare assertion, then, and not till then, we may adopt the above cele- brated definition. But in the mean time, were it said that the mere ability to assign an arbitrary name, without any further object in view, however it may argue that our time has been employed, can never show that any substantial knowledge has been acquired, we should therein assert nothing that re- quires demonstration, nothing that is not self-evi- dent and equally true, whether the natural system be hypothetical or not. The author is aware that for the decided nature of these reflections he is likely to be judged se- verely by some of those persons whose opinions in general he would always regard with deference. But truth is the sole object at which he aims; and though he venerates the name of Linneus, he has always endeavoured that it should not be so blindly as to render this his object unattainable. He re- b 2 XX PREFACE. peats, that he honours the memory of this great man; but not on account of his precision of de- scription; for this, except in the case of species and genera, Linnzus has himself acknowledged to be prejudicial to an acquaintance with the natural me- thod; nor on account of his learning in synonyms; for this, though a very useful, is also but a very humble species of compilation; and finally, not on account of his having been a happy inventor of words, since this is the excellence of a grammarian rather than of the naturalist. The glory of Linnzus is built, as the author conceives, on much more stable foundations; for the man who first pointed out the distinction between the natural method and an artificial system, who first perceived the impos- sibility of giving either accurate definitions or cha- racters to natural groups, and who first remarked the existence of intermediate genera between na- tural orders, must always be considered as one of the principal founders of our knowledge with re- spect to the natural system, whensoever this shall appear. | A French botanist* has indeed wittily styled Lin- neus the Aristotle of the North: bat this is to be accounted a reflection on certain disciples of the celebrated Swede, and not on himself. The merits of Linnzeus and Aristotle must both be judged, not 4 Mirbel, Elem. de Botanique. PREFACE. Xxl by the discoveries made since they flourished, but by the comparison of what they made known with that which was known before them. Neither of these great men can be blamed. because servile schools of followers may have risen up, and boldly preached their infallibility; or because with a superstitious intolerance their disciples may have denounced asa species of heresy, the praiseworthy ambition of those who wished to penetrate further than them- selves into the secrets of nature. The nation which has borne the brunt of these absurd charges in natural history is at last triumphant; it can now appeal to facts, and leave the world to judge be- tween its original discoveries on the one hand, and the monotonous chiming on the ideas of Linnaus, which its adversaries have contented themselves with, on the other. Who indeed, without the im- putation of prejudice, can now assert that the Northern schools have done as much within the last thirty years for natural history, as some of their more southern opponents? The truth is, that, like the religion of Mahomet, the Linnzan system has given rise in some parts of Europe to an unfortu- nate species of self-content, a barbarous state of semi-civilization, which is so far worse than absolute ignorance, that the existence of it seems to preclude every attempt at further improvement. In England, the country where above ail otlers XXil PREFACE. the spirit of emulation produces the noblest effects, it was truly unfortunate that no previous system or ‘method of natural history was in vogue at the pe- riod of the Linnean discoveries. We shall have ever perhaps to regret that no English name, not even that of Ray, was sufficiently known or ad- mired at the time to be put in competition with the gigantic authority of Linneus. All minor lumi- ‘naries, indeed, were lost in the blaze of light, which thus at once succeeded almost utter darkness, To widen the field of inquiry, is of itself no small ser- vice rendered to science; and this praise, at least, both Adanson in Botany, and Fabricius in Ento- mology, have a right to claim. Yet the dazzling power of the Linnzan name has detracted even from the merits of these men, who have secured immortality were it only because they dared think for themselves. It was however this last circum- stance, in fact, which in the eyes of some of our countrymen constituted their crime,—an_ unfortu- nate prejudice, since, through it, some future histo- rian of the progress of human knowledge will have ‘to state that England, till within the few last years, stood still at the bottom of the steps where Linnzus had left her, while her neighbours were advancing rapidly towards the entrance of the temple. To France is the same glory due for having resisted this vis imertia, that we have seen England obtain PREFACE. Xxlll for the dispersion of the Aristotelian clouds which once obscured natural philosophy. Tournefort was a mighty name, which, though infinitely infe- rior in true value to that of Linneus, was never- theless, fortunately for them, of sufficient import- ance with his countrymen to make them call in question the infallibility of any other. When there- fore the majestic eloquence of Buffon and the pro- found observations of Bernard Jussieu were pub- licly known, a few French naturalists became satis- fied that natural history had higher objects in view, than either to name the contents of a museum, to describe new species, institute new genera, or even to unravel the intricacy of synonyms. This country also has at last, under the auspices of a few justly celebrated men, spurned the fetters so long imposed on her, and proclaimed to the world, that whatever degree of respect may be due to the name of Linneus, (and none has paid a greater,) yet nature, and nature only, is infallible. It was thus only that England could ever have taken her proper place in the annals of natural science— that pre-eminent place to which her discoveries in philosophy proved that she was entitled, even at the moment when her naturalists were lost in prejudice, if not in error. But this prejudice is, in truth, to be imputed to some only of our countrymen, since the whole of Europe acknowledges and admires, XX1Vv PREFACE. among a few exceptions from it, that venerable one where splendid talents, a long life, and princely fortune have been invariably devoted to patronize science, without regarding either the garb, the lan- guage, or the peculiar opinions of the person by whom it may have been cultivated. In the following pages, the author, sincerely con- vinced that the object he had in view would have been otherwise unattainable, has endeavoured to pursue the example set by the new school of na- turalists ; for he happens indeed to be one of those who prefer an imperfect transitory glimpse of na- ture, pure and unveiled, to a full view of the most commodious and ostentatious mantle that can be employed to conceal her beauties from the gaze. With such sentiments, it cannot be a matter of surprise that he should have distrusted names still more celebrated in entomology than that of Lin- nus, when their authority was used to confirm a system. His confidence, however, in the OBSERVA- TIONS of these much respected persons has been always implicit, and if he has ventured to criticize their theory, it would be truly ungenerous in him not to state that his present opinions have been founded on the accuracy of the facts to which they first drew his attention. ‘To observe, to compare, and from these observations and comparisons to attempt to draw conclusions, has been the common plan pur- PREFACE. XXV sued both by them and by bimself. The conclusions thus arrived at, it is true, have been very different; but the author would by no means be understood to offer his own to the public. as rigidly correct. He wishes, on the contrary, that they may be subjected to the same criticism, that with the same doubt and constant reference to nature for their accuracy, they may be examined by those entomologists who would explore the same path. And if when assayed by this last only legitimate test, an error in the following remarks shall be detected, he trusts that he shall at least experience as much pleasure as vexation on being brought to a knowledge of the truth. It may now be well to conclude this long pre- face with a few words on the manner in which the following investigation has been conducted. The author’s first endeavour, after discovering the prin- cipal affinities, was to ascertain the connexion that might exist between the general structure of the animal and its manner of living. This in many cases, from our ignorance of physiological entomo- logy, was impossible; but in the organs of mandu- cation the author conceived himself in no danger of violating the order of nature, by examining whe- ther the texture and form of these bore any regular relation to their uses, and more particularly to the quality of their food. Such a plan, it was true, came in direct opposition to that of the celebrated XXvi PREFACE. naturalist?, who has laid it down as a rule, that we ought to take the character from the conformation alone, and not from any property or habits the exercise of which is momentary. But the mere authority of a name, however distinguished, could never shake the author's belief in a truth so ap- parent, as that the conformation of an organized being was originally ordained by nature subservient to and dependent upon its habits and manner of living; and that therefore to study for purposes of arrangement the structure of an organ, without con- sidering its use to the animal, is as if we were, on comparing the merits of different pieces of mecha- nism, to examine the form and count the number | of teeth ina wheel, without bestowing a thought on the functions which this may perform in the whole machine. Besides, that such a plan in Entomo- logy is contrary to that of nature, was evident, by the best work in the science having been pursued on a totally different system. And here the author cannot refrain from ex- pressing the extraordinary obligations which he owes to the works of the Baron DeGeer, a man whom he must ever consider as the first entomolo- gist that has hitherto lived, and whose A/émovres, modestly entitled pour servir a 1’ Histoure des In- sectes, comprise a fund of observation and acute @ Cuvier, Regne Animal, vol.i. p. 8. PREFACE. XXVil reasoning, which they who cultivate this engaging science must hope rather to develope than to aug- ment. An independent spirit, which prompted De- Geer to refuse obsequious submission to the au- thority even of Linnzus, and an utter absence of any partiality for nomenclature, seem, with a strong natural feeling for the observation and arrangement of facts, to have been the principal causes of the excellence of that work, to which the author must refer those who may wish to enter perfectly into the spirit of the following remarks, For the better understanding of any anatomical terms that may be used, he would also recommend the perusal of the article Bouche, in the Diction- naire d Histoire Naturelle, now in the course of publication at Paris, in which the reader will find the structure of the mouths of insects explained with great skill by M. Latreille. And by the study of this article, with the further assistance of the plates with which the Hore Entomologice have been adorned by the most able entomological artist in existence, the author hopes that his ideas may be followed sufficiently to prevent him from being subject to misconstruction. 4 ner ream: hadi Sibi oy ‘one eg "3 anes ste ieee pee mi | sich fied : os ek ; | nie mre AN: ¢ “sta a 4 on ; ee sani ones: dain, iene sien seg se ett EXPLANATION OF PLATES. A. Antenna. B. Labrum. b. Hinder margin. c. An excrescence, which I suspect to be the conse- quence of disease in the specimen examined. D. Mandibula. d. Outer side. E. Mazilla. e. Maxillary feeler. F. Mentum. f. Stipes. *o. Labial feeler. h. Labium. i. An excrescence, which I suspect to be the conse- quence of disease in the individual evamined. — N. Clypeus. n. Fore margin. o. Eye. Fig. 1. Hister maximus. . Lamprima aurata. . Pavillus crenatus. ~& Oo 29 . Passalus interruptus. . Chiron digitatus. DH or » Nigidius cornutus. * This is imperfect in fig. 17. EXPLANATION OF PLATES. . Aigus chelifer. . Sinodendron cylindricum. - Hybosorus Arator. . Elephastomus proboscideus. . Athyreus bifurcatus. . Acanthocerus eneus. . Phoberus horridus. . Cryptodus paradoxus. . Mechidius spurius. . Chalepus geminatus. » Dasygnathus Dejeanit. . Amblyterus geminatus. . Pelidnota 6-punctata. 20. Rutela Lineola. . Macraspis 4-vittata. . Chasmodia viridis. . Platygenia Zazrrica. - Gymnetis nitida. . Serica brunnea. . Euchlora viridis. . Areoda Leachii. . Oplognathus Kirbit. . Anoplognathus viridi-eneus. - Anoplognathus dytiscoides. . Leucothyreus Kirbyanus. CONTENTS OF VOL. LL PART. 1. CHAPTER PAGE, 1. Introduction 1 IL. Ill. iy. V: ie History of the ee cation ‘s the Linnean Scarabai . Nomenclature of the Linnean Scarabai . Natural Affinities which the Linnean Scara- bei bear to eachother . Linnean Genera Lucanus and Hister . Geography of the Linnean Scarabai - Fiwe Families of Petalocera which live on putrid or decomposed vegetable matter . » Five Families of Petalocerawhich feed on green or living vegetable matter ; Concluding Remarks Appendix 13 CORRIGENDA. Page 32, line 14, for circles read circle. ib. 19, for Recticera read Rectocera. — 40, —— 4, for tarsi read ftilie. — 59, —— §&, for replace read supply. — 61,—— 9, after which add with the exception of Lethrus. —— 69. Erase note J at the bottom of page, because a late examina- tion of the genus Hexndon has proved that it cannot with propriety be inserted among the Rutelidz. —— 102, line 5, for exponendum read exponendam. —— 113, —— 14, for at gener? Dorco read ad genus Doret. {BRARY “OF THE “ae UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS R 4 TS Curtis, del. scudp. TU LNBRARY io iG. Se a ae, UNIVERSITY OF WLINOIS 2 Of THE OS UNIVERSITY OF LLIN HORE ENTOMOLOGIC&. * CHAPTER I. —————— INTRODUCTION- Ir has long since bees stated that those organs, whether in the Animal or Vegetable Kingdom, which tend to the re- production of the species *, in reality compose the essence of its being; or, in other words, that the chief object of the ex- istence of the individual is to bring these to maturity. The truth of this assertion has been supported by the remark, that the vital principle begins to decay throughout organized matter, as soon as the abovementioned organs cease to be able to perform their functions. It has also been urged, that as Fructification forms the great basis of arrange- ment in Botany, so considerations founded on the repro- duction of the species ought to afford the most natural method of classifying the Animal Kingdom. But without discussing the accuracy of this mode of argument, it were useless to enter into the various objections—the various difficulties that such a system would be exposed to; ob- jections and difficulties that render it absolutely necessary to inquire aftersome other principles of arrangement. Now, if we lay aside the reproduction of the species, undoubt- ediy the chief remaining function of life is its preservation in the individual”; for indeed it has been questioned by * Monog. Apum Anglia, vol. i, page 39. » © Dass den Mundtheilen unter den iibrigen Theilen des Insekts eine vorzugliche Aufmerksamkeit gebiihrt, bedarf wohl keines ausfihrlichen 2 INTRODUCTION. some naturalists, which of the two ought to be considered the more important. The organs, therefore, tending to the preservation and nutrition of the individual, are those to which we must, in preference to all others, apply ourselves, when searching for the path Nature may have pursued in the distribution of animal life. These are not only, as will hereafter be shown, less liable to variation, when viewed in a general manner; but, on the other hand, are subject in detail to all those eudless changes of form, which. must depend on the variety of methods which beings en- dowed with animal life are obliged to use for the purpose of prolonging their existence. Thus Savigny has most inge- niously shown that one general plan of constructionis visible throughout the mouths of Insects, while the parts of which they are composed put on an infinite diversity of form. But there is another reason why we should prefer the study of these organs to that of others which have been used by entomologists in the formation of their numerous Systems, namely, that they are, with the exception of the organs of sight and locomotion, the only parts of an insect of which we absolutely comprehend the use. The func- beweises. Sie sind die Werkzeuge, auf denen die Erhaltung des Thiers beruht. Nach den verschiednen Arten der Nahrung, die dem Thiere bestimmt ist, sind sie verschieden eingerichtet ; sic onthalten gewohnlich alle Werkzeuge zum Habhaftwerdcu der Speise, und zu der stufenweisen Vorbereitung derselben, bis zum Uebergange in den Schlund beieinander, und die Arten dieser Vorbereitung sind so mannichfach wie die nahrungstoffe, auf die sie angewandt werden, und wie die Bestimmung des Insekts selbst, in dem grossen Haushalte der Natur. * * * Welche Menge von Zuriis- tungen fordert diess alles! Selbst Sinneswerkzeuge sind unter die Mund- theile gesetzt; und bei diesen verschiednen Bestimmungen, bei der oft grossen Zahl von Theilen gewahren sie einen Reichthum yon Merkmalen, der fiir die Unterscheidung héchst willkommen sein muss”? Ueber das Fae bricische System. Mag. fur Insekt, von llliger. i. 261, INTRODUCTION. J tions of the antenne even to this day are unknown?; and possibly may continue so, as there is no reason why an animal, whose generai construction 1s so different from our own, should not possess sensations with which we must for ever remain unacquainted. The same may in some measure be said of the Elytra, Wings, Sternum, Scutel- lum and Tarsi, organs which are either not to be found, or if found, are by no means analogously constructed in the Vertebrata, the only animals to which with propriety we can refer our own sensations. Nevertheless, all these parts of an insect have been made use of in their turn for purposes of general arrangement; and it is undoubtedly true, that no divisions, or rather no affinities», can be more na- tural than such as are often pointed out by some of these organs; as for instance, the antenne. Of the truth of this remark it will be seen that the Lamellicorn Insects af- ford a very striking example. But an implicit confidence for purposes of classification in any solitary anatomical part, or even in the organs of manducation themselves, must be objected to. We ought to proceed with care, assuming no principle of arrangement as fixed, and no- thing as fixed in arrangement itself, except so far as we may * It is probably on some account like this that Fabricius passes such a sweeping condemnation on the use of tho antenn» in the formation of genera: ‘ Antenne ad characteres generum vix usurpande.” Phil. Ent. p- 130.—-“ Antennz ad generum characteres minus valent quam plurimi estimant.” Ibid. p. 94. » The French naturalists make use of the expression coupes naturelles as we are accustomed to speak of sections and natura] genera. But how- ever correct all this may be in practice, it has certainly given rise to many erroneous ideas ; as it is difficult to conceive why genera should haye been imagined to exist in nature, until we had previously familiarized our- selves with the term natural divisions. As matters now stand, in endeavour- ing to discover divisions instead of affinities, we make use of an artificial method instead of a natural one to arrive at—Nature. B2 4 INTRODUCTION. be sure that our conclusions agree with what may be observed in nature. It appears to me, however, as a principle unobjectionable in itself, that the adoption of any organ, not immediately connected with the sexual difference, for purposes of ge- neric arrangement, ought to be in an inverse proportion to the difference of that organ in the sexes. So that when we find the form of the mandibles, for instance, to differ in the sexes of the genus Lucanus, we ought to choose some other test by which we may distribute these insects into natural groups. I shall perhaps be more clearly understood from the inspection of the following table, in which I have attempted to class, according to their degree of variation as to form or number, first in the sexes, and secondly in the species, all the various organs which have been the keystones of different systems. This table, however, is to be considered with reference to the Coleopterous insects only. In the Species. ——$—$ In the Sexes. cae As to Form. ae As to Form. Capitis ~ Tt ncinkes¢ variable variable variable variable Cornua vel Gibberes Alziss soe. Secale evariablensif. Meeaken variable | variable ‘Tarsorum Articuli ..__{ variable variable variable variable Pedum Ungues ....... invariable?! invariable?|] variable variable Scutellum distinctum, .| invariable | invariable || variable variable Sternum productum ,.| mvariable | invariable variable variable Palpi...... wes cece] invariable } variable? || variable variable Antenne ...... BE ed invariable | variable invariable } variable Pedesirestisensmias see invariable | variable invariable | variable Mandibuleciceee eee invariable | variable invariable | variable Mrentumey, Ses feos invariable {invariable?*|| invariable | variable Oenkh tenga. Hae Kae invariable | invariable |] invariable | variable Maxill sere. 8.27 ci see invariable | invariable |{ invariable | variable a @ Jt is possible that the form of the mentum may be found to differ in the sexes of some of the Linnxan Lucanz INTRODUCTION. 5 Tt may be seen from this table, that there are four modes at least in which the parts of an insect may vary; and as the great difficulty of making use of an organ in arrange- ment must depend on the irregularity and confusion which arise from the interference with each other of these several modes of variation, it follows that those parts are the best calculated to serve as the basis of classification which vary in the least number of different ways. Hence we are led to conclude, that the mentum, oculi, and maaille are the parts of an insect which are the most to be attended to in our endeavours to arrive at a natural system. But the first and last of these are very much preferable, for the attain- ment of our object, to the eye; inasmuch as the variation of the form of this organ in different species is by no means so easily seized. If however I have laid peculiar stress on the modifi- cations of the maxille?, I wish to be understood as by no means undervaluing those characters which may be ~ drawn from the more obvious parts of an insect. Such characters, indeed, once that the chain or order of na- ture is discovered and established, are the most useful, because the ordinary observer can by their means arrive at the same conclusions with the anatomist, without giving up the time and attention requisite for the dis- section of the parts of the mouth. At the same time we ought to be very careful in the use of artificial characters ; and to recollect, that in natural history we have always good reason for suspecting methods. Indeed, the interests of science and that love of truth which every scientific * « Maxijlam constantissimam invenimus, vix in congeneribus aberrat.” Phil. Ent. p.93,— Maxillz et labium ejusdem speciei tune constantissima semper simillima.” Ibid. p, 94. 6 INTRODUCTION. man ought to possess, require that we should not“allow ourselves to be dazzled by the seeming simplicity of rules, so far as to overlook the cases where these rules interfere with the evident order of nature. I am induced the rather to make this observation, because I have long felt that the system adopted by Geoffroy, Dumeril and Latreille, of arranging insects according to the number of joints in their tarsi—a system now jn very general use, owing to the unrivalled reputation of the last-mentioned entomo- logist—is by no means natural?. By the inspection of the foregoing table it will appear, that few characters are so variable as those drawn from the tarsi, and consequently few so objectionable for general use; though it must be granted, that in particular tribes these organs may safely be used for generic distribution. ‘The consequence, how- ever, of making primary divisions after the number of joints in the tarsi, has been, that many genera have been separated and thrown at an immense distance from the true place assigned them in nature. Among numberless general instances of which evil it will only be necessary to note the affinity between the Psephalide, Leach, and Staphylinide, Kirby, the genera Cis, Lat. and Anobium, F., * ** Ce n’est pas assez pour pallier les fréquentes anomalies qui se ren- contrent, de dire que tel insecte a cing articles aux tarses quoiqu’on n’en découvre que quatre. II devroit en effet en avoir cinq d’aprés la régle qu’on a établie. Cependant ces explications, toutes ingénieuses qu’elles sont, ne peuvent me convaincre, et je ne puis me déterminer 4 supposer plus d’articles aux tarses qu’on ne peut réellement en découvrir, en y met- tant toute attention possible, Le nombre des articles doit étre clair, positif et uniforme, sans quoi le caractére est vacillant. Au reste, je ne disconviendrai pas que sans étre rigoureusement propres a diviser les ordres, ils ne puissent trés-bien servir pour un tableau dans lequel les genres seroient ordonnés selon le nombre des articles des tarses.”—-—Ené. Helvetique, p. 30. ; INTRODUCTION. 7 Nilio, Lat. and Coccinella, L. &c., and to observe their re- spective placesin the latestsystematic works on Entomology. But two cases which affect the natural arrangement of the Lamellicorn insects, though in different ways, must particu- larly be mentioned. We have the genus T’rachyscelis, Lat. inserted among other heteromerous insects, and separated from Algialia, Lat. to which it is so nearly allied both anatomy and habits. Again: it seems difficult to conceive why thegenns Sinodrendron, F. should be so much further removed from the Bostrichide than a Curculio, L. to which these have evidently much less resemblance. In several cases also the number of articulations in the tarsi varies even in the sexes, which peculiarity Gyllenhall on the indication of Miller observed in several species of the genus Cryptophagus, as for instance, in his C. fumatus (Corticaria fumata, Ent. Brit.); and I have myself observed this curious and interesting difference of the sexes in Cry- ptophagus pallens (Tenebrio pallens, Ent. Brit.), an insect by no means uncommon in England. I state these cir- 2 ¢ Detexit acutissimus Miiller pastor Odenbachensis in genere Crypto- phagorum, sexui uni esse sepe quatuor, sexui alteri semper quinque articu- los tarsuum in pedibus posticis; et jam observarunt, tum entomologus consummatissimus Dom. Doct. Illiger, tum Jaudatus Miiller, plurimas parvorum Dytiscorum species, quas cum nominatis auctoribus ad genus Hypbydrum referimus, solummodo anteriorum pedum habere articulos tarsuum quatuor, postici vero pedum paris quinque, unde Cel, Illiger ex hoc genere peculiarem subdivisionem jure formavit; (vid. Ilig. Mag. tom. i. p. 299.) quum vero in ceteris proxima affinitate Dytiscis junga- tur illud genus, proxime ab eis id inserui notata tantum hac diversitate,” Gyllen. Ins, Suec. (Preef.) Vol. i. p. v. Again: “ Singularis valde et inexspectata est observatio a Dom. Miiller in Ilig. Mag, iv. p. 214, allata quod tarsi postici in altero sexu plurium specierum hujus generis tantum 4-articulati sunt; hoc tamen verwm esse in hac specie et nonnullis insequentibus olservavi.”—Gyllen. Ins, Suec. p. 168, 8 INTRODUCTION. cumstances not as reasons for rejecting the tarsi altogether in arrangement, but as proving how little they are to be depended on as the ground-work of primary divisions or families. In discussing the use of particular parts of an insect for purposes of classification, the sternwm deserves some de- gree of consideration, as we find it often assuming, in the ~ Lamellicornes, Lat. a very peculiar character, which ap- pears In some measure to correspond with their manner of living; but the use of this part of the insect has hi- therto been undiscovered. We may, however, arrive near the object of our wishes on this subject, by considering the construction of this organ, and the manners of the various insects which possess it. On dissecting a lamel- licorn insect it will be found, that on the inside and from the lower extremity of that ring of the abdomen which is known to entomologists by the name of pectus, there rises upwards obliquely a long crustaceous triangular pyramid, the apex of which is fixed to the abovementioned extremity. This pyramid has the lateral angles of its base very acute, and is the proper sternum of the Lamedlicornes, Lat. com- posing indeed the whole of it in nearly all the Scarabées de terre of De Geer: but in many of the other division, com- posed of insects which feed on living plants, and which I have therefore called Thalerophaga, we find that the lower acute edge of the pyramid is joined to the breast by a thin crustaceous plate, the extremity of which ap- pears produced externally between the first pair of legs into what is commonly called the sternum productum>. If we examine a longitudinal section of it under this * Fabricius appears to have been acquainted with this external process of the sternum only. “* Sternum linea pectoris longitudinalis, spe antice posticeque mucronatum, differt quoad proportionem, apicem.” INTRODUCTION. 9 form, as in the genus Anoplognathus, Leach, a construction is to be discovered which may be compared to the keel ofa ship, or still better to the sternum ofa bird; and the organ, no doubt, serves for some analogous purpose to all in- sects whose flight in the air or progress in the water Nature intended should be rapid. This kee/ must be a great advantage to every Coleopterous insect possessing it, and particularly to the bulky Lamellicornes, as materially con- tributing to balance the inconveniences that may arise from the obstruction of their wings by the superincumbent elytra, their greater specific gravity, and the blunt broad surface which they expose to the resistance of the air in flying—inconveniences that insects of the other orders, with the exception of the Orthoptera, are inno degree sub- jected to. The forked base of the pyramid which I have described is supported by strong muscles attached to the sides of the body, and thus appears to serve for another use, namely, the support of the intestine. This organ, which in the Petalocera, Dum. is long and cylindrical, passes close to the back of the insect, directly over the forked base of the prism. But whatever the use of the sternum may be, the above table will sufficiently show that it is not well adapted to be a principle of classification. The next organ which demands our attention is the scutellum; not as being in itself of importance, but because Geoffroy’s arrangement of the Linnean genus Scarabeus has been founded on it. It is sufficient to state, in order to prove the absurdity of using this character for great di- visions, that the accurate distinction is not, as has been supposed, whether the scutellum does or does not exist in a lamellicorn insect, but whether it is or is not distinct. There are several other parts of an insect which, like 10 INTRODUCTION. those I have just considered, might be made use of to _ prove how erroneous is the idea of assuming any particu- lar organ as the sole source of the Essential Character*: but I trust the above will be sufficient. Natural History is the science of comparison ;—to trace affinities, to weigh distinctions, and to compare characters, are the three principles upon which the whole knowledge of a na- turalist hinges; and so true is this position, that the earliest authors who have made Nature the object of their study have been obliged to use a classification rude indeed, as might have been expected, but not the less satisfac- torily proving that Natural History is of all the branches of human knowledge, that which the most requires the arrangement of our ideas. The very naturalists—such as Buffon, Reaumur, and Bonnet—who despised scientific nomenclature, were obliged to attend to classification; and the reason was evident. Nomenclature, it must always be understood, is artificial; and once that a natural group was indicated, it mattered little whether this group had a name, unless it was for the purpose of assisting the me- mory” and connecting the chain of reasoning. Entomolo- gists therefore, who never studied Nature in books, but 2 It is not to the Essential Character itself, as defined by Fabricius, (Phil. Ent. p. 96,) that I object; but to the impossibility of finding such. *¢ Character essentialis optimus facillimus at vix possibilis.” Why then trouble ourselves with hunting after a chimera ? > The almost exclusive attention which has of late years been unfortu- nately lavished on Nomenclatureand Systematic Arrangement—on the means in short, and not on the end of the science—has with ignorant persons dimi- nished the importance of the study of Natural History itself. Let us hope that the slur will be soon entirely obliterated by those naturalists who have already shown that they are not to be deterred from the investigation of affinities by great names, because, forsooth, these may have preceded them in the annals of science. INTRODUCTION. 11 compared her with herself, and that in a few objects which could easily be comprehended without resorting to subdi- vision, would naturally set little value on names, while on the other hand the very object of their pursuit was the investigation of affinities. No distinct ideas of an or- ganized being could indeed be formed in one’s own mind, much less communicated to that of others, except by first comparing the several parts with those in some other and well known organized being; and secondly, by the compa- rison of the two wholes. This process, so necessarily and so unconsciously adopted by persons the most ig- norant of natural history, is nevertheless a rude species of classification. The disposition to classify is then natural to the human mind ; and that organized beings have in some man- ner been arranged in nature, this disposition, if allowed to act freely, will soon discover. But, unfortunately, it is not so easy to agree upon the method in which organized matter was disposed at the creation; and every naturalist, in at- tempting to find the natural system, has only added an artifi- cial one to the hundreds that had already been proposed. In Botany indeed Linneus most happily founded his artificial system on the parts of fructification—organs which are per- haps the most important in the natural system. The conse- quence was, that the Linnzan groups in botany were not so wholly different from the more modern ones, which had their origin in a multitude of other though less essential characters combined with theformer. It has not, however, been so with Entomology*. Linnzus commenced with a system entirely a“ Examinavi tantam scientiarum tam affinium diversitatem; et in illa omnia firma, certa, in hac vero omnia vaga inveni.—Certitudinem hanc Botanices regulis fixis bene stabilitis niti observavi, quum e contrario in Entomologia omnino nulle sancite,”—Phil, Ent, (Pref.) 12 INTRODUCTION. artificial; and almost every author previous to Latreille, while he altered the principle, followed Linnzeus in the de- tails ofarrangement. Hence arose the abuse of the Essential Character; a term excellent and useful in the abstract idea given of it by Linneus and Fabricius, but which, being founded on one or two favourite parts only of the insect, soon became little else than a magical name for each prin- ciple of classification, whatever this might have been, and from which the entomologist fancied Nature could make no appeal. One author accordingly made use of the antenne alone for his system; another of the tarsi; and a third of the instrumenta cibaria: and each, according to his own plan, took his essential character solely from the modi- fications of the favourite organ which he had chosen to be the keystone of his system. It will therefore cease to excite surprise that Entomology, generally speaking, should be still in its infancy. The French entomologists have, it is true, made use of a system founded upon and combined of all the parts of an insect. Yet, by supposing Nature to have been absolutely governed by a set of rules which they themselves laid down, and by scarcely allowing the possi- bility of her making exceptions to these rules, they have done little more by their innovations, than given to the world an additional artificial system. CHAPTER IL. ON THE ACTUAL STATE OF OUR KNOWLEDGE WITH RESPECT TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE LINNZAN SCARABAI. M. Latrercee has lately, in the third volume of the Regne Ammal of M. Cuvier, and also in the new edition now publishing of the Dictionnaire d’ Histoire Naturelle, applied the name of Lamellicornes to an artificial divi- sion comprising all the insects which compose the genera Lucanus and Scarabeus, as they were left by Linneus in his last edition of the Systema Nature. Indeed the connexion between these genera is so evident, that in the Fauna Suecica and the ten first editions of the Systema Nature we find them combined under the general name of Scarabeus ; and even now it is difficult, nay even im- possible, to consider them separately, without overlooking several important characters and curious properties which belong to both. This difficulty may in some manner ac- count for a wider range being taken in this investigation than seems necessary for the original purpose I had in view. ‘The central object of the following remarks is ne- vertheless still the genus Scarabeus of the twelfth edi- tion of the Systema Nature; and if I touch on the genus Lucanus, it is only so far as is rendered necessary by the abovementioned affinity. The genus Scarabeus then, as it was constituted by the learned Swede in the later edi- 14 HISTORY OF THE CLASSIFICATION tions of his immortal work, consisted of Coleoptera an- tennis clavatis, capitulo fissili*; while the genus Lucanus, which owed its origin to Scopoli, in the Entomologia Car- niolica, was described by Linneus as Coleoptera antennis clavatis, clava compressa latere latiore pectinato-fissili®. The latter genus, which is certainly better defined thus, than it originally was by Scopoli*, seems to have also had the advantage in this respect over the Linnean definition of Scarabeus, as the peculiar character of the antenne of this last group can hardly be said to have been in the above words correctly described. Linneus also divided the Sca- rabe@i into groups depending upon the horns and protu- berances of the head and thorax; but it was unfortunate that he could hardly have pitched upon a more variable or artificial character, as will readily be perceived by inspect- ing the table given in the introductory chapter. Not content with the separation of the Lucani from the genus Scarabeus, Scopoli attempted another but less useful Innovation, in distributing the insects of the latter genus according to the number of spines or teeth on the fore-legs 5 but this method was even worse than the previous one of Linneus. Scopoli, however, proposed two other methods of arrangement, one according to the number of articula- tions in the clava of the antenne®, and the other according to the manners of the different insects themselves *. The first plan is clearly artificial, and even erroneous, as in the case where he conceives that there exists any truly bifid elava among the Lamellicornes. But the second is so deserving * Linn, Syst, Nat. vol. i. p. 541. ed. 13. » Ibid. p. 559. © « Antenne apice dentibus quatuor, uno latere pectinatx.” Scop, Ent. Carn. 1. But this character would almost restrict the genus to Lucanus Cervus. “ Scop. Ent. Carn. 2. © Ibid, 3. ‘OF THE LINNAHAN SCARABAT. 15 of our attention, from being the first attempt ever made to arrange these insects naturally, that I shall give it at length. “ Scarabai Flore famuli.” “ Anthophylh, nuptias plantarum promovent ; auratus, no- bilis, maculatus, littoralis, figulus, argenteus, libator, squalidus, alpinus, variegatus. “ Phyllophagi, larvas Lepidopterorum fugant ; melolontha, eremita, nasicornis, solstitialis, oblongus, minimus. “ Stercore?, radices plantarum nutriunt ; stercorarius, ver- nalis, lunaris, fimetarius.” The errors are obyious. But still this plan, faulty and fanciful as it was, must be allowed to have been the nearest approach hitherto made to truth, and the deepest pene- tration into that part of Entomology which is really the province of the naturalist. De Geer has the honour of having been the first to per- ceive all the advantages to be derived from the mode of ar- rangement indicated by Scopoli. But, sensible of its im- perfections, he instituted a new method of division, which was truly worthy of this great physiologist, and remains a striking proof of the advantage which he, in studying the manners of these insects, had over those who were content with describing them from their cabinets*. His method of distribution was into three families, as follows: 1. Scarabées de terre. 2. Scarabées des arbres. 3. Scarabées des fleurs. Oryctes and Trox were thus no longer, as by Scopoli, made @ Tn this case, at least, De Geer has shown the futility of Fabricius’s opinion, ‘‘ Nimis vero habitui adherere est stultitiam loco sapientiz inve- nire.”” 16 HISTORY OF THE CLASSIFICATION phyllophagous insects; and many other discrepancies weté avoided ?. In the interval between the publication of the Ento- mologia Carniolica and De Geer’s sixth volume, and pro- bably without the knowledge of either work, Geoffroy divided the original Linnean genus Scarabeus, by the se- paration from it of the exscutellated insects under the name of Copris, and of those composing Scopoli’s genus Lucanus under the name of Platycerus. The institution of the genus Copris was in some degree an improvement, though founded on such bad characters, that copropha- gous insects, such as those forming Latreille’s family of Geotrupini, were put in the same genus with Cetonia, from which they were obviously distinct, once that the neces- sity was seen of carrying the investigation further among the Lamellicornes than was allowed by that first principle of affinity, the form of the antenne. Fabricius, sensible of the heterogeneous composition of Geoflroy’s genus Scarabaus, broke off” from it the genera Trov, Melolontha, Cetonia, and Trichius*. The three first are natural groups, that show how correct was the eye of this great man in seizing generic distinctions. I say “‘ the eye,” because it is worthy of remark, that the cha- racters given to these several divisions in his Genera Insecto- rum prove that he had consulted his newly invented me- thod of investigation but little in their formation. It ought * De Geer was also aware of the true place of Hister, and its intimate connexion with Lucanus.—De Geer, Gen. Ins. Relx. p. 18. b Systema Entomalogic, I. xi. © «The organs of manducation in this genus resemble those of Cetonia so much, and indeed the affinity throughout between these genera is so great, that one is surprised how Fabricius should have separated them at such an early period of his career,”—Oliv. vol, i, no. 6. p. 1. OF THE LINNZAN SCARABAT. 17 also to be remembered, that the genera Melolontha and Cetonia had already been indicated by De Geer, and that the union of Geofiroy’s genus Copris with Scarabeus in the Systema Entomologie was a retrograde step in the science, which many years afterwards the entomologist of Kiel found it necessary to correct*. One advantage, how- ever, attended the formation of the Fabrician genus Scara- beus, which was, that the connexion between the insects afterwards named Geotrupes by Latreille and Geoffroy’s genus Copris was thereby re-established. Olivier was aware of the imperfection of Geoffroy’s ge- nus Copris, and therefore adopted the genus Scarabeus of Fabricius, with all his other genera except Trichius ; for which omission he gives sufficient reasons, considering the state in which entomology then was. This French naturalist also divided the Fabrician genus Scarabeus as follows : 1. Les Scarabées qui ont des mandibules, et qui mont ; , bas point de léevre supérieure. 2. Les Scarabées qui ont des mandibules, et une léevre supérieure. S. Les Scarabées qui wont ni mandibules ni levre supé- rieure. These three groups are strictly natural; and making allowance for the incorrectness of the principles on which the above distinctions were founded, Olivier may be said to have brought the natural history of De Geer’s Scarabei terrestres to the state in which it now stands. For if we except the names bestowed on the foregoing three di- visions of the Fabrician genus Scarabeus, and the more * Suppl. Ent. Syst. p. 28. Cc 18 HISTORY OF THE CLASSIFICATION precise anatomical characters given to them in Latreille’s Genera Insectorum, it will be found that the arrangement of this branch of the Lamedlicornes has since undergone but little further improvement. Latreille has indeed combined Olivier’s “ Scarabées qui ont des mandibules sans levre su- périeure” with the “ Scarabées des arbres” and the “ Sca- rabées des fleurs” of De Geer, under the general name of the family of Scarabeides: but it is difficult to perceive the advantages derived from this alteration; and it may even be questioned whether in several instances it be altogether conformable to nature. The publication, however, of the Précis des Genres conferred, by the distribution of insects into families, the most signal benefits on this as well as on every other branch of entomology. In this work Latreille di- vides the Lamellicornes into two families, which answer to the genera Lucanus and Scarabeus of Linneus; and these he again subdivides into genera. He also gives the names Scarabeus and Geotrupes to Olivier’s first and second di- visions of Scarabai, and restores the Geoffroyan genus Co- pris, while this as well as all the other genera are infinitely better defined than ever they were before. In the Histoire Générale des Crustacées et des Insectes, the same author establishes four families, viz. Lucanides, Scarabeides, Geo- trupini, and Coprophagi. The same plan is pursued in the Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum and in the Considéra- tions Générales. Butin the last two works these four fami- lies are united into one group, to which he afterwards gave the name of Lamellicornes. It remains now only necessary to mention the institution of the genus Aphodius by Illiger, of Rutela* and Glaphyrus by Latreille, as alterations that bring our general knowledge of the lamellicorn insects to * The genus Rutela was indicated by Olivier. Ent.i. no. 6. p. 4. OF THE LINNZAN SCARABZI. 19 the state in which it is at present. Many other valuable genera are indeed to be found in the various works of authors*; but, with the exception of the genus Anoplo- gnathus of Dr. Leach, they add but little to our general knowledge with respect to the arrangement of the Lin- nean Scarabei. * Lethrus, Scopoli; Hexodon, Oliv.; Gymnopleurus, Oryctes, Hoplia, Il- liger; Cremastocheilus, Knoch; Goliath, Lamarck ; Onitis, Fab.; Ateuchus, Weber; Sisyphus, Onthophagus, Zgialia, Amphicoma, Anysonyx, Latr. 5 Psammodius, Gyll.; Geniates, Apogonia, Bollocerus, Kirby. CHAPTER III. eT ON THE NOMENCLATURE OF THE LINNZAN SCARABAI. Tue preceding chapter may be considered as containing a brief but pretty accurate outline of our knowledge with respect to the classification of this very important branch of entomology. M. Dumeril has indeed distributed the Scarabai of Linneus into Petaloceri and Prioceri, the first of which names I have for convenience adopted, though neither of them express any thing but the genera Scarabeus and Lucanus as they exist in the later edi- tions of the Systema Nature. The term Priocert seems even to be so far objectionable, that serrated antenne by no means, as will be shown, constitute the precise natura! character of the division*. There are also some other changes or rather reforms (for it seems hard to call that an innovation which has the right of priority to support it) which appear absolutely necessary; and the explanation of this truth will form the principal subject of the present chapter. Scarab@us” appears to have been originally the name 2 An additional reason for not adopting this word is, that Mr, Kirby has lately given the name of Priocera to a new genus in the family of Cleride. > The origin of the word Scarabeus is not very clear; at least its deri- vation from exéarw, as given by Fabricius and Olivier, seems quite irrecon- cileable with the most common rules of etymology. To me it appears difficult to obtain the word at all from the Greek; and when we consider that it never occurs but in the Latin authors, there is little reason to doubt its being of Etruscan origin. If however it be a point of necessity that NOMENCLATURE OF SCARABAI. 91 used by the Romans to designate the Coleoptera* in gene- ral, as Kav$agos might have done among the Greeks. It may also be understood as having embraced some Ortho- ptera, such as the genera Acheta and Gryllotalpa®. Pliny, however, gives a particular description of the sacred beetles of the Egyptians under this title*, and it was accordingly restricted to these remarkable insects by Mouffet and the earliest modern naturalists. The name Scarabeus has m truth had so many different applications given to it, that it would seem above all others to be that which for ever ought to remain undisturbed. Linnzus, Scopoli, and their immediate followers may nevertheless be considered as the only persons who properly applied it; and Geofiroy, in giving the name of Copris to the exscutellated insects, may be said to have been the primary cause of all the uncer- tainty and changes to which the name Scarabeus has since been subjected. Indeed, when this last was taken away from the above-mentioned celebrated insects of Pliny with which Linneus had left it, it became a matter of indiffe- rence to what division of the Lamellicornes it was applied. We find therefore, that though Fabricius in the first it should come from the Greek, it is most likely to prove the corruption of a Doric word, and the primitive may possibly be exagi@douas from oxdeiPos penicillus, Sxagiddowas. iw, cxarrw, yorou, (Hesych.) scarifico, fodio. Scaraleus for ZxageOaios, as Lalena from @éaewa. In the same manner the Italians still say escaravaju.—The verb Aiczagi@ieas is also properly applied to the action of animals which scratch or dig up the earth with their claws. @ Plin. Hist. Nat. xi, 34, “ Quibusdam pennarum tutele crusta super- venit ut Scarabeis.” » Ibid. ‘* Alii focos et prata crebris foraminibus excavant noeturno stridore vocales.” Which evidently applies to the crickets. © Ibid. xxx. 50, ‘* Scarabeum qui pilulas yolyit, Propter hunc /gypti magna pars Scarabeos inter numina colit.” 22 ON THE NOMENCLATURE edition of his Entomologia Systematica gave the name of Scarabeus to all the Scarabai terrestres of De Geer, with the exception of those composing the genus Trox; and that therefore he comprehended under this name the true insects; yet in the Systema Kleutheratorum he gives it to the modern Geotrupide alone. As he had it in his power to apply the term properly when the genus dfeuchus was separated by Weber from Copris, it is to be regretted that so many excellent opportunities of rectifying the nomen- clature should have been neglected. The alterations in sy- stematical arrangement made by Olivier rendered it pos- sible, and even easy, for him also to have assigned the name to its proper place. But unfortunately the Fabrician names were adopted where they ought not to have been; and the consequence is, that the naturalist points out as a Scarabeus an insect totally different from those known under that appellation to the antiquarian, the artist, and the scholar. Now it so happens that these mischievous changes have taken place in the quarter of all others the most conspicuous, and consequently are the most hurtful to the interests of entomology, as hardly any insect is to be reckoned so celebrated in antiquity as the true Scara- beus. On the ground then of priority of right, as well as of absolute necessity, the name Scarabeus is here restored to the Ateuchus sacer, Fab.; and to the genus Scarabeus of Latreille | have assigned the name Dynastes, in other respects always adopting the generic names of the last-men- tioned entomologist *. There remains, however, still to be mentioned a pecu- liarity of nomenclature, which, though by no means ori- a ¢¢ Abstineamus a tali mutatione, que tantummodo confusionem et. tandem ruinam scientie parit.” Philos, Entom. p, 113. OF THE LINN AN SCARABAT. 23 ginal, or even new, is nevertheless [I believe, with the ex- ception of Mr. Kirby’s Century of Insects in the 12th volume of the Linnean Transactions, now for the first time generalized in entomology. In botany we often see the name of the family taken from that of the genus which is considered as affording more peculiarly the type of construction by which the former is characterized. In entomology also, Latreille has used the same plan; as when he names the family of Geotrupini from the genus Geotrupes, the family of Scara- beides from Scarabeus, &c. But, unfortunately, unless his work be kept constantly in the hand, we have no method of knowing from the name of a group whether it means a family, section, tribe, or any other of his numerous sub- divisions. This is the natural result of his having neither generalized the abovementioned mode of forming family names, nor even their terminations?. ‘To remedy this in- convenience | have followed the suggestion of Mr. Kirby, and designated families by the patronymic termination in-?de, which, though not classically correct in the case where the primitive has a feminine termination, is never- theless preferable to any other I have been able to devise, as well on account of uniformity as euwphonie gratia. With respect to the general principles of Nomenclature I have no remarks to offer, nor indeed would such a sub- ject be altogether suitably introduced within the limits of - amonograph. But it is really impossible not to express 2 Count Hoffmansegg of Berlin has suggested an improvement in the termination of new generic names, the value of which will readily be un- derstood by those who possess entomological cabinets. He proposes that the new name should always, if possible, be of the same gender with the genus to which the species originally belonged, “94 NOMENCLATURE OF SCARABAI. regret that so much mystery and importance should be attached to the formation of names; and that so many excellent-naturalists should set no higher value on their time, than to employ it in disputing each other’s titles to the invention of a few technical words. Natural history would indeed suffer but little injury were the pre- vailing ambition to invent new names altogether to cease; while it is not surely toe much to expect that it might derive more advantage from a stricter investigation of affinities than that which is at present adopted. Never- theless, such are not the sentiments of scientific men in some parts of the continent, particularly Germany, where entomology is truly a “ war of words,” and where to coin a barbarous name and to institute a new genus appear to be mistaken for one and the same thing. There are two facts difficult it seems in that country to be assented to, but which ought to be apparent at this time of day to every person who has paid any attention to the subject: First, genuine specific, nay even genuine generic distinc- tions do not constitute the perfection of natural science; and secondly, nomenclature is not a department of natural history, but only a convenient instrument whereby an ac- quaintance with it may the more easily be cultivated. wLOsTout Jas satepour wsnqqo winqipueyy uf soeve a oe ’ r ea *MALHLYNOOTIONY ™|-+squuaut [9A @zeUap W[Ixe]y) WAILSVNAT | 5 5 - *uoIpUapOUlg * *WaINvoaT]) @ PawsLsly}) © gen i : 1 op 4 5 3 | Bae a © C J EES refi g g ae eae : : jP aE sao | 8 Ba @ | 2 | 9 7 | ESS 5 = o* |-euel wnosnynoe wenqiparyy eS G g ‘yarnLxoto1ayyJ Pad ayeyuep wByprxeyy | 7" " ° wvatoout J ae "WAITVSSV 4 9 ¢AMLIATONO? 9 Lal - *HCIUAHAVT } ™ loaovuesquiam nssoooid ayjixeyy |" * waraoHay ) one *HAISAANAS ¢walsudy | £8 > B BO fe Sock 5 S re} QO BSE hon 5 5 s. 35 [oP Kg a 3 ia micn b te > . 5 5 oes! Ri , : Gs eas ee © ’ g raltnoLay PB) -+-+ qmoovuesquom ajnqipuryy HAW AV UVIS fe WALIVS EY P ¢ gWAIUAJOHINO ¢ 2 cs rae = 5 3.3 aa FI 5 Ge © c < =| = é M4 Sy Pe a8 ome i} ‘wartatay J 9 g)°" wausoo ayarsod ~jnqipueyy!” ** ‘waramitornjd FB *snAy aT" * WaIWNIUdNV'] 5} *pyusoour anypo vpIasuj~ * *SNS0]DUD LAQDMDYD “snd ssnqiuasuiyiod wmnue pe : -quadsunaod wmur pe snid snied siydja ‘sqsnsueqns eas stag hyo ‘sey sitqiy “(sn *OyeAasqNS JIA TTISsE SIIQIPSNGILOL [LOVE SNE IPA -ouaqns sie qe srorsod) oyeurjoad opnqidvos faye ~eyovdutoo BALI “aIeT *eiqUuezLOIA SNCIYUISIGIA SIplVa suqiped “Biquepy -nore-0 [snidas wuuoyy -NOIPte-T 1 snidas mwuusyy [eA SIAIA SiltoyeUl VYLOUSNT -D1A snqiuedsraynd [9A siq1s -odutosap stiteyeut VLOASNT ung “tooo, *yovayT aptto Sty OER TaLOqde LeqeRavos "WwT ‘saptueony *uwayhy “saplodoyslEy 12920 So[edoy Leqvavdg ‘1299 eG «= *S8.A4Satte} Taquaeos ‘uury Ssnuvowy “muyy *Ao STA ‘VOVHdOUDIVU YL, * ‘vVOVHAOUdVS * *VOVHAOUTIVAY, * ‘WOVHdIOUdMVS “Ef LT ak ee a ee ee a erence ee ee *@\1asxa OLB [OA BJoo1go enbunsard oadAyo w@pnqipurlM *apdasxe oplea Bpnqipuryy foye]peqey opnjyideo ‘wyooa BuusqUy foveppeqey pney opnqides ‘wyorsy Buus Uy "snvUey TOSTH *snpulry “sneqeaeog : snueowy quamng “YusOO TV Lad 8 esuy WUAOLOAA B39008Uy “wT f mysikg, SOULOOI[[OWIE'T ‘sizauaequad aubuinsayd sis.e} ‘airjsosetd sfoue sngonp ‘sijnsoutds aa siyeyuap audozxo Stiqiy ‘stizossoy suqtpad ‘oyejfouey oj] yd-¢ oubuinaald opnqideo ‘siyvaujo stuuazue “etoalq1oHT ‘erojdoajopD v}90S0T CHAPTER.1Y . a ON THE NATURAL AFFINITIES WHICH THE LIN- NAAN SCARABAI BEAR TO EACH OTHER. Tue preceding general arrangement was obtained in an attempt to combine the anatomy with the habitus of in- sects, and more especially by considering their organs of manducation with a continual reference to the manner of living. This method of considering entomology, besides the very questionable merit of novelty, possesses no small portion of interesting facts in its developement, as the fol- lowing observations will prove. The herbivorous pentamerous Coleoptera* which have clavate antenne, and their anterior tibia externally spinose or dentated’, that is all the Lamelhcornes of Latreille, together with the Linnean genus Hister, may be divided into two branches, viz. Rectecera and Petalocera, which are simply to be distinguished thus—the former by antennee as it were broken, and the latter by having them straight, or at least forming no sharp angle in their extent. 2 J had originally, for the sake of convenience, comprised al] these in- sects under the general name of Acanthopeda; but was subsequently induced to cancel it, from a fear that it might give rise to erroneous notions of division. For it is not to be imagined that the Acanthopoda could have represented any natural division, since their extreme genera may be shown to be con- nected with other Coleoptera in as intimate a manner as we shall see that they are among themselves. The Acanthopoda, therefore, could only have been considered as forming four links in a chain, and not as an insulated tribe, : > This definition is a good instance of the difficulty of finding characters NATURAL AFFINITIES OF SCARABZI. 27 I shall for the present confine my remarks to the Peta- locera. These appear to branch out into two columns of five families each ; one of the columns consisting of Sapro- phagous insects, or such as feed on putrid or decomposed vegetable matter, and the other of T’halerophagous insects, or such as live on green or fresh vegetable food. The saprophagous column answers to the “ Scarabées de terre” of De Geer, and the Scarabées des fleurs et ceux des ar- bres of the same author are both comprised under the name of Pelalocera thalerophaga. Itisalso observable that each column consists of two groups; the first, of insects which have membranaceous maxille, and therefore live on juices, and as it were by licking their food; and the second, of insects which haye corneous or crustaceous maxille, and therefore live on a more solid species of food, and by mastication. It will next be remarked, that the families in one of these columns have each a striking similarity of general form to the corresponding families in the other column: thus the Rutelide and Geolrupide have their body in ge- neral subconvex; the Scarabaide and Cetoniide have it generally depressed; the Aphodiide and Glaphyrida less so; the Trogide and Melolonthide have it very convex, while the Dynastide and Anoplognathide have this sort which shall net lead to an artificial distribution. For were the young entomologist to insist upon every one ef the four characters in the definition being distinct, he would necessarily exclude from the group many Histeres because not herbivorous, the genus Trachyscelis because not pentamerous, the genus Platycerus because the antennware scarcely clavate, and many of the genus Trox because the anterior tibia are not always externally spinose. It may however be safely asserted, that when any insect does not possess some two of these four characters, it ought not to be considered as belonging to the group. 28 NATURAL AFFINITIES of affinity carried even still further, as in the genera Dasy- gnathus and Amblyterus, of which descriptions will be — found in the Appendix. But it is in the construction of the mouth that the most remarkable analogy betrays itself, and consequently is in some degree evident in the manner of living, so that each saprophagous insect may be said to have a thalerophagous one corresponding to it. Such analogies, nevertheless, must be gathered from the most general view that can be taken of the different groups, and even then are often obscured by real or apparent ex- ceptions. So that, however interesting to the philosopher, they serve but to show that in the creation a general plan was pursued, the infinite shades of deviation from which, in the execution of the details, must render its complete developement by our limited faculties almost hopeless. But to return :—It will next be perceived that each of the columns into which the Petalocera are divided, forms a circle; for on the one side we find the Geotrupide con- nected with the Dynastide by means of the genera Or- phnus, Macl., and Oryctes, Lat.; and on the other, the Rutelide with the Anoplognathide by means of Pelidnota and Areoda, both new genera, now for the first time pub- lished.— Again: these two circles will be found in a manner to touch one another at the families of Dynastide and Anoplognathide, which are, as before stated, intimately connected with each other by such genera as Dasygnathus and Amblyterus. The following figure, therefore, which represents two circles, touching one another and composed each of five analogous ganglions, will express well the natural position of the Petalocera among themselves. Scarabeide Cetoniidze Dynastidz | Anoplognathide SAPROPHAGA THALEROPHAGA Aphodiide Glaphyride phedon Telolenthide Such an arrangement is important, were it only that by its means we find connected in the most satisfactory man- ner the Ruéelide with the Cetoniide, the Geotrupide with the Dynastide, the Dynastide with the Anoplognathide, the Trogide with the Aphodiide, the Dynastide with the Rectacera,—all which are separated according to the com- mon systems, although their affinity must be obvious to the most careless observer. Trogidz An attentive observation of the two circles has led me also to suspect that each of them is divisible into two others, or, which is the same thing, that the insects com- posing the extremity of each column approach in their general construction to those which form the middle of the same column. Thus the genus Hybosorus, Mach., in the family of Geotrupide, resembles #gialia and Orphnus?, while the African genus Popillia, Leach MSS.,( Melolontha bipunctata, Oliv.,) and the well known Chinese insect Melolontha viridis, Fab., which forms the new genus Eu- chlora, evidently connect the Rutelide with the Melolon- thidez. ‘The inferences that might be deduced from such a disposition, were it perfectly established, are highly in- teresting ; but the present perhaps is not the moment for enlarging on them. * These as well as the other affinities mentioned in this chapter will be found demonstrated at length in the Appendix. CHAPTER: REMARKS ON THE LINNZAN GENERA LUCANUS AND HISTER. TueEre are some truths curious and even interesting, which are nevertheless overlooked or despised on the sole account of their having been singly and without comment introduced to our notice. The idea of making use of them as premises from which some inference may be drawn is thus often paralysed; and they accordingly accumulate, until the science ,which they were intended to illustrate becomes neglected as a barren mass of insulated facts. Such would be the fate of natural history in an especial manner, were we to adopt the vulgar opinion, that it is a science of observation alone. But luckily we know from experience the very reverse to be the case, and that any branch of knowledge, where the true value of a remark can never be perceived until it be connected with others so as to form a regular whole, must therefore depend as much on the employment of our reasoning faculties as on that of the eyes. De Geer, in describing the parts of the -mouth in Geotrupes stercorarius, Lat., made known an anatomical structure quite as complicated, or even more so than the analogous parts in vertebrated animals, al- though formed on a totally distinct plan: yet at the time he only added one solitary unconnected fact to the stock LINNAAN GENERA LUCANUS AND HISTER. 38 then in the possession of entomologists. But the value of De Geer’s observations is now established, since Fabricius and his followers have proved that the nature and manners of the insect bear an immediate relation to the form and texture of its organs of manducation. In the same way there will be found ia this chapter several remarks on the Rectacera, which, though by no means new, will neverthe- less be shown to deserve greater attention than they have hitherto obtained. It may in general be observed of the Reciacera, or In- secta herbivora, pentamera, antennis quasi fractis, that Nature seems to have dispersed them over the globe much more sparingly than the Petalocera; the truth of which will appear from the inspection of any extensive entomo- logical collection. ‘They will however be found to branch off like the Petalocera into two columns, the one of sa- prophagous insects, composing Linneus’s genus Lister, and the other of thalerophagous insects, being the same with his Lucanus: and it is worth the noticing, that as both circles of the Petalocera seem to contain about the same number of species, so there is something like equality per- ceptible in the contents of the columns of Saprophagous and Thalerophagous Recéacera. As the Rectécera are few in number, and these few are but imperfectly known, it can hardly be a matter of sur- prise that we should not here perceive the infinite grada- tions of construction which render the filzation of Nature among the Petalocera comparatively easy to be seized.— A considerable hiatus accordingly often occurs among the Recticera: but that there is no reason to conclude that insects do not exist to fill up such chasms, I shall prove by the description (in the Appendix) of some new insects be- 82 REMARKS ON THE LINNZAN GENERA longing to the column of Thalerophagous Recticera. We shall see there two new genera, which | propose to name Nigidius and Figulus, intervening between the types of the Lucanide and Passalide, possessing the antenne of the former and the general appearance of the latter, with a construction of the mouth which bears evident analo- gies to that of both. A family which I have called Syn- desideé is clearly connected with the Passalide by the antenne and impressed thorax; while their convex form of body, indistinct maxillz, and short mentum, seem to prove their affinity with Msalus, F. The antenne also of this last genus, which I suspect however to be not quite in the circle, approach to those of Lamprima, Lat., which again joins the Lucanide, and thus completes the circles by means of two new genera, to which I have given the ap- pellations of Ryssonotus and Pholidotus. I have not been able to discern much lateral affi- nity between the corresponding families of Sapropha- gous Petalocera and Thalerophagous Rectécera, except at the extremities of the columns, or, which is the same, at the points at which the circles touch one another. In the construction of the mouth, the salide, Syndeside, and Passalide bear no resemblance to the Scarabaide, Aphodiide, and Trogide. Indeed, in proportion as the general plan of construction differs, it is clear that we ought not to expect much affinity in the details. Thus a very conspicuous analogy may and does exist between the two columns of Petalocera, and even between the two columns of Rectécera, which by no means can be ex- pected to be so distinct between a Recticerous and a Petalocerous column. ' Nevertheless it appears to be a law of Nature never to LUCANUS AND HISTER. 33 arrive suddenly at a complete change of form; for we find the Asalide resembling the genus Trox, F. in general ap- pearance, while the Syndeside may be called the Aphodi of the Thalerophagous Recéécera; and the Passalide from their colour and depressed body are, as it were, the Scara- beide of the same tribe. | With respect to the extreme families of the column, as it is here that the passage from one circle to the other takes place, we find the organs of manducation and the manner of living in each to be most beautifully connected by the genera Sinodendron, Lat., and Lethrus, Lat. The former of these remarkable insects was placed by Fabri- cius with some Bostrichide*, as well on account of the antenne as from other causes; and Latreille boasts of hav- ing avoided such arrangement, and made it an Oryctes, by paying attention to the number of the tarsi®. But it is doubtful whether the separation on the last account be not even more artificial than the junction on the first; for these various alterations are rather proofs that our systems are artificial, than that the place last assigned to such anomalous insects ought always to be considered the best. The fact is that Sinodendron has evidently some sort of affinity to the Bostrichide, which would be well worth the trouble of investigation; while nothing also can be more just than the observation of Latreille, “ que le sinodendron est un oryctés avec des antennes de lucane®.” This learned and acute entomologist has not however, as might have been expected, made use of this genus to connect his families of Lucanides and Scarabaeides. It is true, indeed, that in his last works he places * Syst, Eleuth. vol. ii. p. 376. > Hist, Nat. des Crust. ei des Ins. vol. x. p. 15. © Ibid. p, 156. D 34 REMARKS ON THE LINNZAN GENERA the Stnodendron with the Lucanides; but in the third volume of the Regne Animale, and more especially under the article Lamellicornes in the Dictionnaire d Histoire Naturelle, he appears to think that the Cetoniide come the nearest to the Lucanide of all the Petalocera. “ Dans quelques espéces les mandibules des males sont beaucoup plus grandes que celles de femelles; c'est ce quwon ob- serve dans les Lucanes et dans plusieurs Cetoines exoti- ques; dautres males de ce dernier genre ainsi que ceux de Goliath ont Pextremité anterieure du chaperon divisée en deux parties representant quelquesfors des cornes. De ces rapports et de quelques autres jen ai conclu que les Cetoines et les Trichies etoient de tous les Scarabées de Linneus, ceux qui se rapprochoient le plus de ses Lucanes.” But though the genus Cetonia does indeed always with this author immediately precede Lucanus, I cannot but think that, after having so acutely pointed out the affinity which Sinodendron bears to both Oryctes and Lucanus, he must have given the above reasons for uniting this last to Cetonia, more from an experience of the diffi- culty of placing them otherwise, according to our modern systems, than on any very evident grounds of affinity. If I may be allowed to differ in opinion with an entomologist of such celebrity, and to whom the science is so much in- debted, I should say that the Cetoniide are of all the Pe- talocera the most unlike to the Rectécera, and that their membranaceous mandibles can never be assimilated to the immense corneous mandibles of the Lucanide. On the other hand, I hope to prove that no insects in either co- lumn of the Petalocera resemble the Rectécera so much, in general form and construction of the mouth, as the Ge- otrupide and Dynastide. And with respect to the junc- LUCANUS AND HISTER. ap tion of the Cetonitde to the Lucanide, on account of the bifid clypeus of the Goltathi bearing a resemblance to the gigantic mandibles of Lucanus, one can only express astonishment that Latreille should be able to reconcile himself, by such very fanciful reasoning, to an arrangement so evidently unnatural. Both Cetonia and Lucanus are without doubt insects which live on vegetable juices; but then the maxilla of the former is a thin membranaceous plate proper for the expression of the nectar of flowers, whereas the maxilla of Lucanus is a long delicate brush of quite a different form, though extremely well contrived for its object—to lick up the sap flowing from the wounds of trees*. ¢ Let us now examine the genus Lethrus, which ap- pears to have opposed as many difficulties to entomolo- gists as Stnodendron:—it will be interesting to see this hitherto anomalous insect occupying the important place of a link between the Petalocera and Rectécera. Scopoli first instituted the genus”; and Fabricius added a new species®, from its possessing the convex form of body, in- fundibuliform clava to the antenna, porrect mandibles, and setose maxille, which so strongly characterized the type. As however this new insect was supposed to want the labrum, and its maxillz also were penicilliform, Schreibers asserted it to be a Lucanus*. Fabricius had previously hinted that it might prove a new genus, and Latreille accordingly placed it under the name Lamprima among his Lucanides. Now it is evident that these three great naturalists were all so far right, and only wrong in that Fabricius was not able to.connect it with Lucanus, nor Schreibers and , La- * Hist. Nat. des Crust. et des Ins, vol. x- p. 243; » Scop. Intr, Hist. Nat. p. 439. © Syst. Eleuth. vol j. ps 2 . * Trans. Linn, Soc. vol, vi. p. 185. Dg 36 REMARKS ON THE LINNZAN GENERA treille with Lethrus. Latreille indeed takes notice of an “ organization particuliere®”’ in Lethrus, which separates it from Geotrupes, but does not remark that this same pe- culiarity of construction unites it to Lamprima, though probably on this very ground Professor Pallas? and others had already made it a Ewucanus. 1 shall not, however, depend solely on the opinions of systematic writers to prove the connexion between Lethrus and Lamprima, but resort to observations already recorded. The following charac- ters are extracted from Latreille’s Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum, and are common to both genera. 1. Antenne articulis ultimis clavam infundibuliformem formantibus, articulo basilari elongato, conico. This character belongs to Geotrupes. 2. Mandibule validissime cornee porrecte. This character is common to Geotrupes and Lucanus. 3. Maxille in Lamprima filiformes setose. Mavzille, in Lethris processu terminali pilis spinulisque corneis, elon- gatis ciliato. It will I hope be allowed that nothing can more satis- factorily show the affinity existing between the Lucanide and Lethrus, than this last remarkable analogy in the con- struction of the maxille. I shall therefore now consider it as in a manner proved, that we are to pass from the Dynastide to the Lucanide by means of Sinodendron, and from the Geotrupide to the Lamprimide by means of Lethrus. Ihave but one more remark to make on the Thalerophagous Rectécera; which is, that the consideration * Hist. Nat. des Crust. et des Ins. vol. x. p. 139. » © Lucanus apterus.—-Insectum anomalum inter Lucanos et Scarabeos coprideos ambiguum.” Icones Insect. Pallas, 1.—Nov, Com, Petrop. Laxman tom, xiv, p. 594, LUCANUS AND HISTER. yf of their affinity to the Petalocera leads us to examine the na- ture of the genera that form the links of connexion. These genera I propose to call osculantia, from their occurring as it were at the point where the circles touch one another, and to distinguish them from genera annectentia, or those serving to unite the family in their own circle. These genera osculantia,—such as Sinodendron, Lethrus, Platycerus, and as I suspect, also Asalus, have in preference to all others a special right to be termed natural, and appear in general to possess a remarkable character, which is the few- ness of species of which they are composed*. I have men- tioned the genus Platycerus as one of these, because it will be easily perceived that its form enters with difficulty into the circle of Thalerophagous Rectécera, and is indeed, as Gyllenhall well observes’, the connecting link with the Trogosite, to which it approaches in colour, general form, and antenne, though these last are mostly heteromerous insects, without teeth on the anterior tibie. However, as it is not at present my object to discover where this path might lead me, I proceed to the consideration of the Sa- prophagous Rectecera. There are few entomologists who have not been struck with the general resemblance in manners and appearance between these and the Saprophagous Petalocera; but no one has attempted to define in what the analogy between them consisted. Soon after Linneus had instituted the genus, and placed Hister immediately after Scarabeus, Scopoli said * It ought to be observed that this peculiarity is not so remarkable in the genera which connect the two cirches of Petalocera with each other, and therefore it may perhaps belong solely to those singular insects which serve to connect the more discordant groups, ” Gyllen. Ins, Suec. vol. i. p. 73. 338 REMARKS ON THE LINNZAN GENERA “neglectis antennis Histerema Scarabeo nemo distinguet?.” Degeer, whose entomological sagacity one can never sufli- ciently admire, placed Hister next to Lucanus, and re- marks, that it appears to form a link between the Scarabat and Dermestes. Latreille makes it a member of his family Spheridiota, and remarks that “aucun insecte de la division des Byrrhes wa comme les escarbots ces deux characteres, antennes brisées, mandibules acancées*:”” and indeed it is true; for such are the characters of his family of Lucani- des, to which Fister naturally conducts us from the Byrrhi. This affinity did not escape the usual accuracy of Gyllenhall, who places his new family Histerotdes immediately after the Lucanoides, and before Spheridiota, with the just ob- servation that “ Familia 10ma Di Latreille Necrophagi nempe comprehendit genera plura nimis discrepantia, quare aplius censui Histeres a reliquis separare®.” Not having sufficiently studied the Saprophagous Rec- decera, I shall not attempt to say where or by what oscu- lant genera they are connected with the thalerophagous circle. It may be, that these interesting insects are not yet discovered: but my point will be sufficiently established if I can prove that the Histeride have a strong affinity to the Lucanide in general; and if I can show the existence of insects belonging to one circle which want some of its distinctive characters, and thus approach to the other. For this purpose, in the first place, [I take the following ana- logous characters from the description of a profound na- turalist, who never seems to have suspected the affinity, and * Ent. Carn. p. 13. ” Hist. Nat. des Crust. et des Ins. vol. ix. p. 191. © Gyllen. Ins. Suec. vol. i. p. 74, LUCANUS AND HISTER. 39 consequently, in using his words*, I can be in no danger of being charged with an attempt to force Nature, as it were, to submit to what may hereafter be termed a theory of entomology. 1. Histeris “Antenne thorace bre- viores, ad basin mandibularum inserte ; fractee. Articulo basi- lari maximo, conico, ad extima crassiori, incurvo; octavo clave 3-articulate basin efficiente.” 2, Histeris “ Labrum exsertum, crustaceum, transverso qua- dratum.” 3. Histeris “ Mandibule cornee, validz, crass, processu inter- no bidentato.” 4. Histeris “ Palpi filiformes, arti- culo ultimo longiore, subcylin- drico, obtuso; maxillares paulo longiores.” 5. Histeris “ Maxille laciinis dua- bus inequalibus, marginibus internis fimbriato-hirsutissi- mis; externa majore, subovato- trigona, lacinia interna ungue minuto, comneo, bifido, aut du- plici genere constructo.” 6. Histeris “ Mentum quadratum marginis superl medio emar- ginato.” ile ~ 5 Lucanidarum “Antenne thorace non longiores, fracte ; Capitulo e quinque, quatuor aut tribus lamellis composito.” Lucani “ Antenne articulo pri- mo longissimo, incurvo, ad apicem sepius crassiore.” Passali “ Labrum crustaceum, transverso-quadratum, penitus exsertum.” Lucanidarum “ Mandibule cor- nex, validissime, porrecte, dentate.” . Lucanidarum “ Palpi filiformes, articulo ultimo subovali aut subcylindrico; maxillares lon- giores.” . Passali “Maxille processibus corneis, spinosis, interné den- tatis; apicali validiore, subtri- gono, interno dentibus duobus aut unico,” . Passali “ Labium quadratum, mento profunde emarginato.” 2 Gen, Crust. et Ins, vol. ii. p. 46, 130, 131, 136. 40 REMARKS ON THE LINNZAN GENERA It seems superfluous to add any thing to these charac- ters in order to prove the near relation which Hister bears to Lucanus : but notwithstanding these, and the dentated anterior tarsi, Latreille, in the third volume of the Regne Animale, places his tribe Histerides between Silpha, L.and Clerus, L. Tam not aware of his reasons for this arrange- ment; but if it be on account of any resemblance of the larve, | should fear that there is an error somewhere. That he is right in asserting in the Dictionnaire d’ Histoire Na- turelle, Art. ‘ Escarbot, that Hister can neither be com- prised with his Lamellicorn insects nor with his Spheri- diota, no one can doubt; but it is surely as clear that it bears a greater affinity to both of these than either to a Clerus or a Silpha. In the next place it seems possible that an osculant ge- nus will occur somewhere about the place of Dorcas : for ister maximus, L. an insect from Senegal, approaches in some degree to the form of Lucanus alces, and is re- markable for having its head as exsert as any of the Thalerophagous Rectécera. But these difficulties will, I trust, soon be cleared away by my learned friends the Baron Dejean and Dr. Leach, who have both been of late occupied with the examination of the Linnean Histeres. Not having myself studied them in detail, { have adopted the principal groups of the last-mentioned entomologist, given in the Zoological Miscellany, and which appear prima facie to be very natural. ‘The chasm which occurs, and prevents the completion of the circle, is left to be filled up at some future period, by insects which are to represent the Lamprimide among the Sapro- phagous Rectecera. LUCANUS AND HISTER. 4l To conclude then this long digression,—which I hope, however, will not be found foreign to my original purpose of investigating the nature of the Linnean Scarabei,—it must be confessed that, excepting the situation of Hister, which for the reasons assigned can no longer be held doubtful, every thing with respect to our farther know- ledge of the Saprophagous Rectecera remains yet to be done. CHAPTER VI. GENERAL REMARKS ON THE GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE PETALOCERA. Tue geography of natural history is as yet but an infant branch of the science, which may be said to owe the principal nurture it has received, as well as its birth, to the labours of the enlightened Humboldt. It had, it is true, been already observed by Buffon, that the animals of the new world are different from those of the old; and various travellers had shown that the productions of different countries bear a character peculiar to each. But these were all rude and fortuitous observations, which had no view whatever to general consequences, or to the deve- lopement of those laws by which it is now certain that the geographical distribution of organized matter was re- gulated at the creation. M. Humboldt and our cele- brated countryman Mr. Brown have both contributed greatly towards the discovery of these laws, so far as they relate to the vegetable kingdom; but the geography of ani- mals is as yet enveloped in some degree of obscurity ; and in entomology above all, nothing has yet appeared to dis- pel these clouds, excepting the excellent Mémoire of M. Latreille, which is published in the Annales du Muséum. But this paper, proof as it undoubtedly must ever remain of the profound learning and inimitable tact for observa- tion of its author, is still rather a collection of facts than GEOGRAPHY OF THE PETALOCERA. 43 an arrangement and application of such facts to the dis- covery of the general limits by which the dispersion of insects over the earth is restricted. This imperfection, if it be one, is however to be attributed solely to the almost insuperable obstacles which impeded his researches. Insects are, it need hardly be said, a despised set of beings; though, were we not accustomed to judge of them by their individual size, and were we to look at their num- bers and effects, they would assuredly be found among the most powerful agents which nature employs in maintaining the equilibrium of the animal kingdom. ‘The joint conse- quence, however, of the neglect which they have suffered and of their numberless swarms is, that, compared with the whole number of species, we are acquainted with but few. Well then may Latreille say that the imperfect state of our catalogues has prevented him from pursuing any other plan than that which he has adopted. Having, however, had the good fortune to inspect al- most every collection of note in Europe, excepting those of Vienna and Berlin, 1 conceive myself in possession of data sufficient to justify an attempt to combat the diffi- culty under which M. Latreille laboured, and to offer to entomologists the following rough estimate of the various geographical proportions in which the families of Petalo- eera occur. It would, nevertheless, be highly improper not to acknowledge that such calculations, after all, are but vague approximations to the truth, which have nothing to support their accuracy, but inferences drawn from the inspection of many and extensive entomological collec tions. As such then I give them. The leading principles upon which organized beings appear to have been dispersed over the globe, are few and 44 REMARKS ON THE GEOGRAPHICAL simple. The presence of caloric, to whatever cause this may be owing, is undoubtedly the chief excitement of energy in the vital principle; which fact is demonstrated not only by the myriads of organized beings which swarm within the tropics, but also by the ingenious observations of Hum- boldt and Latreille. These gentlemen have both shown that the highest mountains in the warmest climes exhibit, as we ascend towards their summits, all the various gra- dations of organized matter which each hemisphere of the whole globe presents as we proceed from the equator to the pole. Still it must not be imagined that a horizontal circle traced round the mountain, or the parallel of latitude which encircles the hemisphere, are necessarily either of them accurate isothermal lines. Experience indeed teaches us the contrary, and fully confirms those inferences we should have drawn from the consideration of the different meteorological effects likely to arise from the variation of the surface of the soil, and other similar causes. Vegetation, for instance, which requires the absence of extreme cold rather than the presence of extreme heat, is likely to ex- tend itself in its tropical form towards the poles farther on a dry continent than on a marshy or low one. Tropical plants will therefore thrive better in Thibet and other in- land parts of Northern Asia than they would do were we to transport them to places of the same latitude in Ame- rica. In this last country the extremes of heat and cold are too widely asunder, and accordingly the vegetation of Canada by no means corresponds either in its general cha- racter or number of species with that of places in France under the same latitude, Animals also are subject to the same sort of limitation with plants: that is, they have to fear extreme cold rather DISTRIBUTION OF THE PETALOCERA. 45 than extreme heat*. Such animals therefore as can avoid this cold—either by passing it in a state of torpidity, or by the habit of burrowing in the earth, or by living in the sea, or by artificial clothing,—will in general be found the most widely dispersed, and the least to affect local situations. And insects which can escape the extremes of cold, not only by passing them in the torpid state of pupa, but by being generally, when in this torpid state, buried in the earth, must in a special manner be little sensible to the cold winters of northern climates. What they chiefly require is the presence of heat during some period of their existence; and the greater, within certain limits, is the heat, the more active will be their vital principle. On the American con- tinent the extremes of heat and cold in the course of the year are, as is well known, incomparably greater than in places of the same latitude in Europe. We may therefore readily conceive how particular families of insects will in- habit a wider range of latitude in the former country than in the latter. We see also how insects may swarm in the very coldest climates, such as Lapland and Spitzbergen, where the short summer can boast of extraordinary rises in the thermometer, because the energy of the vital principle in such animals is, within certain limits, proportionate to the degree of warmth to which they may be subjected, and escapes in a manner the severe action of cold. It is on the above principles also that I would account for what may seem at first sight an extraordinary circum- 2The white bear of Greenland, Ursus maritimus, L., appears to dislike warmer climates, from the great obstacles he encounters towards the enjoy- ment of his fayourite element, and the procurement of his food in countries where he cannot float about on the ice, This animal hates drought rather than heat, 46 REMARKS ON THE GEOGRAPHICAL stance in the geography of insects; namely, that their tro- pical structure extends much farther north in America than in Europe; that is, in a manner directly the reverse of that which we have seen to be followed by plants. Ex-~ amine Copris carnifex, F., Cetonia nitida, F., Rutela 6- punctata, Lat., and other New York insects, and compare them with insects of the same families from Brazil. The difference between the general structure of these will be found infinitely less than that which would result from a comparison of the entomological productions of the neigh- bourhood of Madrid with those of the banks of the Congo. Nevertheless, though I contend that the insect tribes suffer less in cold climates than plants, and hope to have proved it to be the case, it does not therefore follow that the prevalence of cold has no effect towards the destruction of insect life. We know the very reverse of this to be the truth, and that the diminution of the number of species becomes very conspicuous as we advance towards the poles. But this I imagine is owing to the short continu- ance of warmth rather than to the low degree of it while it exists*, And accordingly we find that insects, such as gnats, musquitoes, &c., which pass their larva state in water, thus avoiding extreme cold, and whose existence in their perfect state being naturally ephemeral, must therefore suffer little from the shortness of the summer,— are no where more troublesome than in the very coldest climates. Whereas the number of coleopterous insects, which, being naturally longer lived, require a longer conti- nuance of warmth, is sensibly diminished in these dreary countries. ® Heat, properly speaking, never absolutely ceases to exist; but it is here for convenience understood as commencing at 32° of Fahrenheit. DISTRIBUTION OF THE PETALOCERA. Aq The Petalocera, however, occupy so important a place in the ceconomy of nature, that we may easily perceive it to be impossible to assert in what latitude they altogether cease to exist. But though it may not thus be easy to prescribe limits of latitude to any of the Petaiocerous families, it is otherwise with respect to the longitude; for we find that the Glaphyridé have never as yet been found but in the old world, nor the Rutelide but in the new. As to the remaining eight families, they appear to have been confined within no limits of longitude, nor indeed of habitable latitude, though we shall see that some families are more plentiful in parti- cular climates than others. Thus the 4phodiide seem to be most numerous in rather high latitudes, the Geotrupide in temperate climates, and the Scarabaide in tropical. The Trogide and Melolonthide appear to be scattered rather equably over the globe, which may in some degree arise from their partiality to a particular soil. The Dynastide, Cetoniidea, Anoplognathide and Rutelide, though found in the temperate zones, are all most numerous in the warmer climates; but the two first families recede much farther from the equator than the two last. The Glaphy- ride, however, of all the Petalocerous families appear to be the most confined in their range of climate. In some cases also the geography of the Petalocera is affected by local circumstances; for the Dynastide which are common in America and on the European Continent, have never yet been discovered in England, although the Oryctes nasicornis inhabits even the high latitudes of Sweden. If however the truth of the preceding remarks be allowed, such incidents are readily accounted for, since a Petalocerous insect of a tropical family may readily be 48 GEOGRAPHY OF THE PETALOCERA. expected to avoid an English cold summer rather than a Swedish cold winter. In other cases the distribution of the Petalocera ap- pears to have been regulated by a higher purpose. Thus, if my observations on the subject have not deceived me, the species of coprophagous insects from within the tro- pics are to those from without, nearly in the proportion of 4:3; which, if we reflect on the services rendered in hot climates by these scavengers of nature, appears to be a limitation that is in some measure required by necessity. A similar purpose of utility may account for the species of coprophagous insects, that is, those composing the three families Geotrupide, Scarabaeidae, and Aphodiide;, being to the number of species which compose the re- mainder of the Saprophagous Petalocera in the propor- tion of about 3:2.—Ignorant as we are of the habits of the Rutelide and Anoplognathide, it is impossible at present to carry the same kind of investigation among the thalerophagous insects; though it may excite some little curiosity to know what proportion the species of phyllo- phagous Petalocera bear to those which feed on flowers. If it be allowable to argue from the general ceconomy of nature, it would seem that the number of the former ought to be predominant, and this I suspect to be really the case. . But this highly amusing subject must be left to some future period, when the continued prosecution of disco- veries by intelligent travellers shall have supplied ento- mologists with that information from which alone such calculations must always be derived. *Iy1USOoM! ONYpe Saloyy ‘WalTTLAY ‘OT *saquaqiq sooons UINJoqie JIA Wnloy siadvu “BIQUIOUIS I[NGIPULLA pas “IIQOJUY *WAIINOLAD *G *saqyuonij}sop ejejad uvsioy uIn.AoY Sf9ULOD SI[NqIpueU Pas “IiqoyyUY “waIYAHAVID *g *soJURPTIOIA snqiy “UDOSASIA SI119JLW WlOOUGLS “AINLNOTOTI *f, *TIUSooUL ONYpe RAdAdA Salou pas giseydoljAqq ‘wai HLYNOOTAONY ‘9 *soqueyiqey opi -nd AAOUSIT 9O1VAOD UL “iSvydo[AXY ‘waILsVNAG *G *SOJURILPOIA snqijuadsaajnd SILIO}JCW WpoOopngeg *wWaloouy, *SOJUBPIOA OOS UI Wl[OONI019}G "A AIIGOHAY *¢ *soyUuey -1[0A o[nosndaio Ul W[VII0019}G ‘WAI AVUVIS *Z *soqUaI po} URANO} SIpiaynd siyajoq [aA 2100.19}8 qug *waldAULoTy *T *waU.t0d &a110d w[nqipuryy *uNy09}q0 Oadé[O UNAqeT *xoovueIquioW wnqipuryy *soqUuRyTye| *WUN}ASXA UINIGeT ‘xoui0d K[Nqipur sy oadAjo qhs ajnqipueyy “UINJEUIZIeWA snides [aA alvaul] WNIQeyT “ayejuep x] Ixeypy *UINUOS IY WNAqe'T "SauJaur [aA ayEIUApP wIIxe] *uInyjto00 oadd]O wuNAqeT = *ozENdIe *oJI070p OUP” OoUN BUTS Ja OOIUN nssad0.id pas ‘saw JUL [9A wjEIUEp ej [XC ‘uinjeipenbqus pntrouraelp wniqe’y = *0.ON.4sUr *oynjongo oupy =suidees oaus0d OJENDIL oJUAp OUIZUI ‘sugoNp snqussa00id aj]IXe JT *7401)0] wonb v10r.su0) v44d09109 *slolupulfAd snqtpenbaqns stjnoiie gels tdjeg "040190 wonb nsorsu0) wow v.17d09)0A a0 ‘aout aydnaqe -BURIGUIAW SaquejzIVR] YeUIMI19} O[NoAe soperqey ‘1yA1y ouUIxeUL Idle oad Ajo qns wjnqipueyy *WIUIOD WOaAod W[nqipur]l OO ———————— SISCONAS WOUVITINVA | : *BIQUEzTIOIA sions = umnaoque JOA UNIO Pyssuy 1 “sIoovuRiq UiouIsng -nssov0ad ey] [Ixejqy *SNSTATp GSAOASTIV.IY Banqns snadAT9 *BIULOI VIX *BIULOD BLpEKeypy *veTyURy “T1JOTA SIIQTPUAUAIO -X9 sIDONS ByOosuy “slaoeuB.IqutauIsng -ussa00ad wp xe yy “VOVHAOUATVHL ee a= | ‘VUSOO1VLAd *VOVHAOUA VS CHAPTER VII. PE ——— ON THE FIVE FAMILIES OF PETALOCERA WHICH LIVE ON PUTRID OR DECOMPOSED VEGETABLE MATTER. Since from the circumstance that has been mentioned of their disposition in circles, it becomes very troublesome to arrange the Petalocera in a cabinet according to their natural affinities, the series prefixed to this chapter may be adopted for the purpose ; and it is perfectly natural, provided the connexion of the extreme families Geotrupide and Rutelide with the centre families Dynastide and Anoplognathide, be always borne in mind. The characters given to the ten families in this table may, however, be thought too brief for the inexperienced entomologist : and it is true indeed, that they only express the forms of construction to one or other of which every Petalocerous insect tends, and not those at which they all actually arrive. Thus the Rutelide and Geo- trupide donot all possess a membranaceous process to their maxille ; but the genera Chasmodia and Geotrupes, which perhaps are the types of the families, possess such. I have therefore imagined that it might be of some little service to attempt the still more detailed definitions of each family which follow ; though to me it appears that any advantage which may thus be gained, will be at the expense of some natural affinity. And for this opinion I have no less autho- rity than that of Linneus, who could never be persuaded to define his natural orders in botany, from a conviction that the investigation of nature by means of preconceived ON FIVE FAMILIES OF PETALOCERA. 51 rules and definitions, is an attempt as absurd as it would be to investigate truth by means of a set of prejudices. He felt that the student in the more profound branches of the science ought to have already paved the way for this sort of research, by that intimate and extensive knowledge of species which can always be most easily acquired by artificial methods. We see, therefore, that naturalists must always owe a large portion of gratitude to those who may by the help of artificial systems have made the productions of nature generally known: for it is with the materials collected by the humble labours of these indefatigable men, that the world can alone expect that the foundations of our knowledge with respect to nature should ever be laid. Fam. Il. GEOTRUPIDE. Antenne decem vel undecim articulate ; Articulo basilari subconico, vix elongato ; Capitulo magno, triphyllo, subgloboso. Labrum exsertum, crustaceum, transversum, subquadra- tum ; margine antico ciliato. Mandibule exserte, cornee, validissime, subtrigone, de- presse, ad apicem subarcuate. Maxille crustacee; margine interno vel apicali membra- naceo aut fimbriato hirsuto. Palpi mazillares filiformes. Labium bipartitum, mento bifido vel integro. Caput lateribus utrinque ante oculos auriculatim sepius dilatatis; Clypeo parvo, angulato, depresso. Corpus orbiculato-ovale aut suborbiculare, undique convex- um. Thorax latius quam longius extensus; Scutello EQ 52 FAMILIES OF PETALOCERA WHICH LIVE se@pius distincto. Pedes validi, tibiis anticis den- tatis, spinis apicalibus instructis ; tibiis quatuor pos- ticis apice sepius dilatatis. OBSERVATIONS. The characters hitherto given by entomologists to this family, which is altogether the same as the Geotrupini of Latreille, have been founded on the scrutiny of a few well known European insects. *'To use such definitions there- fore strictly would be equivalent to the exclusion of many true Geotrupide from their natural place. Concisely describing these insects, it may be said that they differ from the Scarabaide by their corneous mandibles, and from the Dynastid@ by their exserted labrum. But such characters, like all others, are subject to an infinity of shades, and may even altogether disappear in some insects of this family, hereafter to be discovered. In such ano- malous cases however, it will, I think, be always found that the insects belong to extreme genera, or to those which are close on the liniits of other families. The Geotrupide are coprophagous or boletophagous. Some extreme genera of the family, however, feed on roots, and may often be considered as even lignivorous. The types or central insects of the family, which are the best known, excavate cylindrical holes in the earth under fheir food, and thus approach in their manners as well as form to some of the Scarabaide. From the Geotrupide which I have had opportunities of seeing, it may be calculated that the proportions of those from within the tropics, from the temperate zones, and from latitudes higher than 60°, are to one another nearly as 2, 10,and 1. And by way of proof that the Geotrupide ON DECOMPOSED VEGETABLE MATTER, 53 are principally confined to temperate climates, I may observe that the tropical insects of this family principally belong to the extreme genera, such as BULaqU! BIMOR] ‘snsqy = *uInyeUSiewa soue WNj}UI] ‘eqelyy Wnieyixeyy -ojadqns *seo1od *WHAZIUT eoIQUe WUNjUZ_, ) VuusjUy ‘HINVONT '*G ‘aun sipysvuhg ‘uo1puspoulg *“sn[NS LT *SJONAJSUL OIUAOD OOUN pNely BI [IXv py *Pa0eysntd BUAaJUL YLULOR| *SNIPISIN *SPONASUL OIULOD OOUN Wj {Xv} unieyixeny J ésuiffo sep hor ; ‘uO *snjesseg *OVL][awWL]-¢g Ojnyideo wWuseuUDjJUy ‘HATIVSSYg *stufIxeg *oyerfatury-¢ ojnzideo wnaeouaWy x * # * *snsapuds Soe ere e sees SPORE HE EE SEH ECR eBeEEEEEOeee eee Hee ooperee see CISAGNAG *G eK % sgnpesqy PTT Tree eee eee teee ence ee vecee eres eeeenereess ses eeesevarTysay +g ** * * *euudwey ‘VJBABTOGNS LuuazUy SOADIQ BI]IXV]A] *snjouossAyy *oyeurzood ojnyideo wnieuue}Uy *WCINIYINY'T *f *snjoprjoyd *2VSUOl LI ]IXeIAT *DUUDINISO DigUED *YYUaJIaUUD DLIUAay) *Sal0JIDIDYD "PUD T = ‘susdouhy wniauary unsosnydosapny J, Unk04aI0}I0F APPENDIX, O7 Fam. LAMPRIMID. Antenne thorace breviores; articulo basilari elon< gato, conico, recto, tribus vel quatuor lamellis ca- pitulum efformantibus. 7 Labrum penitus tectum. vel deflexum. Mandibule (maribus saltem) maxime, intus hirsu- tissime, apice multidentate. Labium bilobum, hirsutissimum ; Mento subquadrato, Corpus convexum vel convexiusculum; Caput thorace multo angustius. Thorax lateribus de- flexis, elytris latior, I. Genus. PHOLIDOTUS. Antenne articulo basilari aliis conjunctim fere longiore. Mandibule (mari saltem) capite triplo longiores, apice incurve, dentate, intus serrate, hirsutissime. Mazille processu terminali elongate, ut in Lucanis penicilli- formi. Palpi elongati, gracillimi; Maxillares articulo tertio ultimo vix longiore. Mentum hirsutissimum, subsemicirculare, labii lobis penicilli- formibus. Caput subquadratum, transversum, vix emarginatum. Cor- pus subdepressum, thorace quam in Lamprimis con- vexo, at sterno vix producto. Tibi antic extus serrate, 6-dentate. Tarsi appendice sub unguium origine inserta, elongata, ad apicem bidentata. Oss. Instrumentis cibarlis accurato examini etiamnum subji- ciendis, diagnosis generica valde incerta est Pholidoto. Spec. 1. Pholidotus lepidosus. P. atroferrugineus nitidus, squamulis argenteis confertis. sime aspersus, tarsis nigris. H 98 APPENDIX. Mas mandibularum apice interno bidentato; Capite lineis duabus elevatis angulum formantibus. Mus. D. MacLeay. Femrna hactenus incognita‘? Habitat in Brazilia. | If. Genus. RYSSONOTUS. Lucanvus, Kirby. Antenne articulo basilari aliis conjunctim vix longiore ; capi-- tulo pectinato, haud abrupte distincto. Mandibulé apice multi-dentate, dentibus tribus intus in- structe. Mazille breves, penicilliformes, vix ultra articulum Palporum secundum attingentes. * Insectum quoddam Braziliense genus novum forsan constituat, sed Pholidoto affinitate proximum videtur. CasIGNETUS ? Antenne articulis tribus ultimis clavam quam in Histeribus perfolia- tam formantibus. Palpi breves ; maxillariura articulo secundo brevissimo. Mentum transversum, semicirculare. Caput trigonum Geotrupis singulariter illum simulans; Corpore tho- raceque depressis. Sternum vix productum. Articulus tarsorum quintus ante ungues processu Jongissimo bifurcato armatus. Spec. Casignetus geotrupoides. Anne Pholidoti femina ? C. fusco-violaceus, capite thorace elytrisque versus scutellum sca- brosis, corpore subtus aneo squamis argenteis asperso. Mas nondum detectus ? Femina mandibulis depressis, quam in Geotrupe stercorario acutis arcuatis. Mus, D. MacLeay. Obs. Insectum Lamprimis habitu proximum. Equidem nullus dubito instrumentis cibariis adhuc neglectis, et sexuali discrimine tantas difficultates obstante, quin genus proprium efformare vix habendus sit Casignetus. At nemini utinam displiceat, insectum quod ita benevolis entomologiz cultoribus apertitis manifestetur, hoc modo me nunc descripsisse. APPENDIX. 99 Palpi elongati gracillimi; Maxillares articulis arcuatis, tertio ultimo breviore. Mentum transverso-quadratum antice emarginatum. Corpus depressum, capite transverso-quadrato. Sterni rudi- mentum distinctum. Tibie antice extus sexdentate, tar- sorum appendice sub unguium origine inserta, setosa. Ozs. Thorax medio canaliculatus, inequaliter rugosus ; Scu- tello triangulari. Genus corpore, capite, et mandibulis Lamprime, at Lucani antennis indutum, ut cuivis insecta intuenti statim patebit. Spec. 1. Ryssonotus nebulosus. R. niger obscurus, elytris fuscis cinereo-nebulosis, thorace punctato: dorso late canaliculato foveis quatuor utrinque insuper impressis. Mus. D. MacLeay. Lucanus nebulosus. Kirby, Trans. Linn. Soc. vol. 12. p. 411. Habitat in Australasia. Sexuum diagnosis haud rite cognita. WII. Genus. LAMPRIMA, Latreille. « Lucanus, Schreibers. Lerurus, Fab. Antenne articulo basilari aliis conjunctim breviore ; capitulo subgloboso foliato, articulis quatuor formato, quorum primus minimus dentiformis vix conspicuus. Labrum minimum, inter mandibulas deflexum, latitans oblon- gum, supra carinatum, angulis anticis rotundatis, hirsutis. Mandibule maxime, crass, et maris saltem intus hirsutissime. Mazille brevissime, setose. Palpi breves, crassiusculi, articulis subovatis; Maxillares arti- culo ultimo illo antecedente longiore, Labium membranaceum, bilobum, pilosum. Mentum transverso-lineare vel potius semi-ellipticum, margine antico Cconvexo. . Corpus ovale. Caput oblongo-quadratum, antice emargina- Ha 100 APPENDIX. tum, triangulo medio magno, subexcavato, marginibus ele- vatis, glabris, antice ante oculos subprominentibus. Thorax convexus, margine utrinque angulato, deflexo. Pectus ca- naliculatum, punctatum. Sternum in cornu productum. Tarsi spina sub unguium origine inserta, gracili,apice divis? , Mas. Mandibule porrecte, valide, capite fere duplo lon- giores, intushirsutissime. Tibie lamina cornea, triangu- lari, apicali calcari adjuncta, Femina. Capitis triangulum quam in mare obsoletius. Mandibule multo breviores, fere glabre. Thorax magis punctatus et scaber. Tibi antice multo graciliores, apice minus emarginate, pilis aliquot ferrugineis solitariis, den- tegue ad angulum internum laminz loco cornez sat-lon- go, acuto. Oxs. Ultimus clave articulus fere bifidus, oculis quapropter _ quibusdam Antenne undecim-articulate videantur! An quo genus revera Australasicum Geotrupidis heret nextis aliam detegamus notam? Spec. 1. Lamprima aurata. L. viridi-aurea nitens, pectore plano. Mas capite angulis obtusis; mandibulis apice 3-dentatis, intus unidentatis; elytris subrugosulis haud levibus; tibiis anticis vix punctatis, 6-dentatis, dentibus tribus ultimis subremotis. L. aurata. Lat. Nouveau Dict. d’ Hist. Nat. vol. xvii. p. 278. Lamprima enea. Lat. Genera Crust. et Ins. vol. ii. p, 152. Lamprima enea. Lat. Hist. Nat. des Crust. et Ins. vol. x. p. 240. Lucanus eneus. Don. Ins. of New Holland, tab. 1. Lucanus eneus, Var. Schreibers, Trans. Linn. Soc. vol. vi. p- 187. Lethrus eneus. Fab. System. Eleuth. tom. i. p. 2. B. Var. parva tibiis anticis quinquedentatis. y. Var. cupreo-aurata. APPENDIXs 101 Femina thorace elytrisque quam in maribus magis punc- tatis, tibiarum anticarum spinis conicis, rectis. Lamprima cuprea. Lat. Nouv. Dict. d Hist. Nat. vel. xvii. p. 279. B. Var. ceruleo-viridis. y’. Var. cupreo-aurata. Spec. 2. Lamprima Latreillii. L. ceruleo-viridis nitida, elytris levibus punctatis, pectoris canali utrinque puncto impresso. Mas mandibulis apice 3-dentatis, intus unidentatis; tibiis anticis 6-dentatis, dentibus «qué dissitis. Lucanus eneus,Var. cerulea? Don. Ins. of New Holland, tab. i. Femina adhuc latet. Oss. In honorem Dom. Latreillii, qui, in Entomologia hodier- nos ante omnes longe latéque celebris, ordinem insecto- rum naturalem primus indagavit. Spec. 3. Lamprima enea. L. aurato-viridis, elytris rugulosis, corpore subtus piloso. Mas mandibulis apice vix 2-dentatis, intus unidentatis ; tibiis anticis 7-dentatis. Lamprima nea. Lat. Nouv. Dict. d’ Hist. Nat. vol. xvii. p. 279, Lucanus eneus. Schreibers, Trans. Linn. Soc. vol. vi. p. 185. Lethrus eneus. Fab. Syst. Eleuth. tom. i. p. 2, Oss. Variat anticarum tibiarum numero dentium 6—8. FEMINA nigro-enea cum nitore violaceo; thorace quam in maribus magis punctato, p. Var. fere nigra. Lucanus eneus. Fem. Schreibers, Trans. Linn. Soc. vol. vi. p. 188. Spec. 4. Lamprima pygmea. L. aurato-viridis nitens, elytris leviusculis vix punctatis. Mas capite angulis subacutis; mandibulis apice bidentatis 102 APPENDIX. intus unidentatis; tibiis anticis septem-dentatis ; corpore subtus glabro. Femina latet. Oss. I. Generis quidem rari, difficillimi, et ad methodum na- turalem exponendum pretiosissimi mihi nunc species vix sexus determinasse liceat. Hoc vero in tentamine con- sultits duxi Schreibersii quoad sexus diagnosem vestigia sequi quam cel. Latreillii, qui sententiam scilicet ut, Lam- prime mandibulis haud porrectis species distincte sint putande primus pretulit. Sexuale autem inter Rectocera discrimen tantz difficultatis est, tantique fortasse momenti ut leviter perstringi non debet sed ad accuratius examen revocarl. Oss. IT. Species ac varietates superscript, quibus omnibus, quod obiter notatu vix indignum sit, ad suturam stria obsoleta utrinque impressa sunt elytra, in Mus. MacLeay- ano hospitantur. Fam. AESALID/. Antenne articulo basilari incurvo, compresso. Labrum distinctum. Mazille processu apicali brevissimo; interno nullo vel haud exserto. Labium integrum, minimum, glabrum. Mentum ttansverso-quadratum. Corpus supra valde convexum. Oss. Hujus familie characteres specie una solum cognita haud facile sunt desumendi. An igitur familia sit vera, vel genus osculans tantummodo censeatur, affirmare ne- queo; fateor enim Aesali locum in systemate jam memo- ratum non eum esse qui omni ex parte mihi arrideret. Attamen res ulterius examen requirit, et nature: assecta- APPENDIX. 103 toris strenuissimi, qui Aesali larvam detexerit, questio- nem, nisi fallor, proprium sit expedire. IV. Genus. AESALUS, Fabricius. AESALUS, Lat. Lucanus, Creutzer. Panzer. Antenne capitulo perfoliato. Mandibule apice acute, arcuate, sublunate, superne mascu in ramum cornuve obtusum productz. Mazille brevissime, haud distincte, processu compresso, apice rotundato hirsuto. Mentum breve, planum, truncatum, integrum. _ Corpus quadratum, ad apicem rotundatum. Thorax immar- ginatus, margine antico concavo caput excipiente. Tibi late, compresse, extus inequaliter multidentate. Oss. Antennis, thoracis charactere caput excipientis, et tibiis examini subjectis, hoc genus Histeribus affiniusculum esse videatur; sed instrumenta cibaria adhuc sunt examinanda. Spec. 1. Aesalus scarabeoides, Auctorum. Fam. SY NDESIDZ. Antenne glabree, vix fracte, articulo basilari elongato, conico, arcuato. Labrum haud distinctum. Mandibule maris capite duplo longi res. Labium et Mentum brevissima, vix distincta. Caput brevissimum, transversum. Thorax velut mn Passalidis ab abdomine magnointervallo disjunc- tus. Corpus elongatum convexum, coleoptrorum lateribus abrupte declivibus, scutelloque inter elytra producto. Pectus magnum, Pedes haud breves, postico pare ab aljis distante. Oxs. Hujus familie diagnosis eadem de causa quam Aesalida- 104 APPENDIX. rum forsan fallax, at familia ipsa vera.—Quanti tameii hiatus replendi, quot nodi peregrinatoribus adhuc solvendi sunt! V. Genus. SYNDESUS. SINODENDRON, Fab. Lucanus, Don. LAMPRIMA, Lat. _ Antenne articulo secundo subgloboso, tertio majori conico, re- liquis septem (masculis saltem) clavam lamellatam, magnam, rotundatam, depressam formantibus. Mandibule elongate, fere recte, conice. Palpi Masillares mandibularum fere longitudine, articule ul- timo cylindrico, ovato, aliis longiore. Corpus cylindricum, capite oculis conjunctim vix latiore. Scutellum minutum. Thorax convexus sulco dorsali longi= tudinali. Tibi antic serrate, extus dentate. Oss. Genus quidem singulare corporis forma, antennis, tho- race ab abdomine et pedum postico pare ab aliis distanti- bus Passalis propinquans; at vero qua cum Aesalo devin- citur affinitas haud satis patet. SPEC. 1. Syndesus cornutus. S. obscure ferrugineus, capite emarginato angulis porrectis, thorace punctato antice subcornuto, elytris crenato-stria= tis. Mas mandibulis apice bidentatis. Mus. D. MacLeay. Femina simillima, at mandibulis haud porrectis inermibus: Sinodendron cornutum. Fab. Syst. Eleuth. vol. ii. p. 377. Lucanus parvus. Don. Insects of New Holland, tab.i. 4. Lamprima. Lat. Regne Animale, vol. iii. p. 290. Habitat in Terra Van Diemenii. Oss. Hocce insectum cel. Fabricius descripsit dicendo, “ An- tenn lamellis sex:” at maris antenne decem-articulate sunt clave lamellis septem distincté observandis. Femi= nam non adhuc vidi: APPENDIX: 105 Fam. PASSALID/E. Antenne sepius villose, arcuate, vix fracte, articule basilari parum elongato. Labrum magnum, crustaceum, penitus exsertum. Mandibule breves, dentate, arcuate. Mazxille processubus corneis dentiformibus, spinosis, intus dentatis, apicali validiore. Palpi Labiales menti dorso inserte. Mentum crustaceum, subquadratum, fossula utrinque versus basin impressa. Corpus oblongum, depressum. Thorax ab abdo- mine magno intervallo disyunctus. Scutellum in abdominis pedunculum immersum. Coleoptra lateribus abrupte deflexis. Pedes breves, postico pare pectoris causa ab aliis distante. Ors. In hac familia, cujus diagnosis nondum prorsus detegatur sexualis, characteres offerunt perutiles maxillz et mentum. VI. Genus. PAXILLUS. Passauus, Lat. Web. Antennarum clava quinque lamellis. Labrum transverso-lineare, fere glabrum. Palpi. subcrassi; Maxillares articulo ultimo aliis conjunctim fere longiore, subovato, apice subacuto; Labiales ad fossulas menti anticas inserti, articulis crassis, secundo et tertio fere eadem latitudine. Mazille processu apicali dentiformi, acuto; interno unidentato. Mentum subquadratum, latum, ultra palpi labialis articuli ex- -tremitatem secundi utrinque extensum, lateribus rotundatis, margine antico lobato tricuspidato. Thorax canaliculatus. Pedum par secundum extis vix pilos sum, 106 APPENDIX. Oss. Paxilli Passalis efformantes simillimum genus quod Syndeso antennis labroque minere convenire ducatur, ex America meridionali hactenus solum apparuerunt, Spec. 1. Pavillus Leachit. P. ater nitidus, corpore valde depresso, thoracis lateribus punctatis : angulis anticis planis, elytris punctato-striatis, tibiis anticis extus 4-dentatis. Mus. D. MacLeay. Oss. Amicitize nomen dedi. Spec. 2. Pavillus crenatus. P. ater nitidus, thoracis lateribus punctatis : angulis anticis profunde impressis, elytris crenato-striatis, tibiis anticis extus 6-dentatis. Habitat in Brasilia, Demerara. Mus. D. MacLeay. Oxs. Corpus quam P. Leachii convexius. VII. Genus. PAssALus, Fabricius. PassaLus, Fab. Lam. Lat. Lucanvs, Linn, Degeer. Oliv. Antennarum clava trilamellata. Labrum transverso-quadratum. Palpi Maxillares crassi, articulo ultimo aliis conjunctim bre- viore, cylindrico, apice obtuso. Labiales mediocres ad anticam menti fossulam inserti, articulo ultimo graciliore. Marille processu apicali subtrigono, in dentem acutissimum desinente; interno bidentato. Mentum subquadratum, ultra palpi labialis articuli extremita- tem secundi haud extensum, lateribus subrotundatis, mar- gine antico lobato, tricuspidato. Par pedum secundum pilis ferrugineis extus densissime obtectum. Spec. 1. Passalus interruptus, Auctorum, Oss. P. emarginatus, cornutus, &c, huic generi associandl. APPENDIX. 107 VIII. Genus. CHIRON. ScariTEs, Fub. SINODENDRON, Fab, Passauus, Illiger. Lat. Antenne novem-articulate, articulo basilari elongato, cylin- drico, secundo globoso, tertio conico, 4°, 5° et 6° brevissimis, reliquis tribus clavam ovatam formantibus. Labrum transverso-quadratum, penitus exsertum. Mandibule breves, vix exserte, valide, arcuate. Palpi Maxillares graciles, menti versus apicem inserti, articulo ultimo subulato, tertio subconico sed vix secundo longiore. Mentum semicirculare vel potius subtrigonum. Corpus cylindricum, elytris abdomen haud obtegentibus. Caput transversum, ab thorace nullo intervallo disjunctum, sed eadem omnino latitudine. Scutellum minimum vix distinctum inter elytra productum. Pedes sat breves, femo- ribus incrassatis, tibiis anticis dilatatis digitatis. Oss. Hujus generis apud Cel. Latreillium primum indicati, maxillas haud examinavi. Sexualis distinctio adhuc latet. SPEC. 1. Chiron digitatus. C. ater nitidus, thorace punctulato, elytris punctato-striatis, sutura pedibus corporeque subtus ferrugineis. Sinodendron digitatum. Fab. Syst. Eleuth. vol. ii. p. 377. Scarites cylindricus. Fab, Ent. Syst. Supp. xliv. 8. Passalus Cylindrus. Iilig. Mag. fur Inseck. i. 163. = * * * Lat. Regne Animale, vol. iii. 292. Habitat in India Orientali. Mus. D. MacLeay. Oss. Hujus insecti anomali Passalos ut mihi videtur Scolytidis nectentis D. Illiger cum prioribus affinitatem de capitis antennarum pedumque characteribus facillimé perspicien- dis primus deprompsit. Chironis vero structura antennis novem-articulatis, clava trilamellata compressa, corporis pedumque forma a Scolytidis, Platypo presertim, haud longe recedit. 108 APPENDIX: Fam. LUCANIDE. Antenne glabre, fracte, articulo primo longissimo, subcylindrico, clava 3 vel 4 lamellis. Labrum szpius cum clypeo connatum, rarissime di- stinctum. Mandibule in maribus maxime. Mazille externe compresso-dilatate lacinia apicali coriacea compressa setosa. Palpi axticulo ultimo elongato, ovali; Mazxillares plane longiores, articulo secundo tertio multo lon- giore. Labiales articulo ultimo antecedente multo longiore. Labium membranaceum, mento fere absconditum, laciniis duabus apicalibus hirsuto-penicillatis. Mentum magnum, transverso-quadratum vel subse- micirculare. Corpus szpius depressum, elytris abdomen obte- gentibus. Clypeus forma irregulari, varia. Tho- racis margo posticus ab abdomine haud longe remotus. Scutellum plerumque distinctum. Pe- des seepius elongati, antici presertim. IX. Genus. NIGIDIUS. Antenne articulo secundo subgloboso, distincto; Clava trila= mellata pectinata. Labrum exsertum, crustaceum, minutum, bilobum. Mandibule breves, triquetro-trigone, valide, arcuate. Mazille processu apicali setoso fimbriave hirsuto, apice obtuso, latere externo convexo, lacinia interna subtrigon4, concava, ad apicem intus unco corneo instructa. Palpi Maxillares articulo primo minutissimo, secundo elongato APPENDIX. 109 conico, tertio brevi subconico, ultimo multo longiore, conico, apice obtuse. Labiales articulo primo elongato, gracili, pro- cessu pectinato armato, secundo brevi subgloboso, tertio crassiori obtuso, Labium hirsutum; mento transverso-quadrato, plano, margine antico emarginato. Corpus parallelopipedum depressum. Caput trapeziforme, oculos amplectens, Thorax canaliculatus, ab abdomine brevi intervallo disjunctus. Scutellum inter elytra di- stinctum minutum triangulare. Oss. Genus Passali formam pulcherrimé simulans et ei om- nino affine. Spec. 1. Nigidius cornutus. N. ater nitidus, mandibulis tridentatis, clypeo punctatd an- tice mucronato, elytris inter strias elevatas triplici punc- torum impressorum ordine instructis: apicibus punctatis, tibiis anticis 7-dentatis. Mas mandibularum margine supero et externo in ramum cornutum producto. Femina mandibulis brevioribus haud cornu supero in- structis, Habitat in Australasia. Mus, D. MacLeay. X. Genus. FIGULUS. Lucanus, Olio, Fab. Antenne articulo secundo minutissimo, vix distincto, clavé tri- lamellata. Labrum haud distinctum. Mandibule breves, valide, triquetro trigone. Macille \acinia apicali securiformi, setosa vel pilis longissimis formata, interna crustacea, ovata, compressa, haud unco corneo armata. 110 APPENDIX. Palpi Maxillares articulo secundo crassiore, cylindrico, tertio precedente haud breviori, ultimo longiori ovato, apice ob- tuso. Mentum transverso-quadratum, concavum, margine antico emarginato. Corpus parallelopipedum depressum. Caput transversum, oculos amplectens, margine antico recto. Thorax canali- culatus, ab abdomine brevi intervallo remotus. Scutellum minutissimum, lineare, inter elytra immersum. Obs. Genus Passalis quoque stmillimum, sed labri maxillarum- que causa quam Nigidius ab illis remotius. Huic generi et antecedenti nomina dedi in honorem Nigidii Figuli equitis Romani, qui Scarabeos cornubus prelongis bisulcis den- tatis forcipibus in cacumine Lucanos primus vocasse apud Plinium memoratur. Spec. 1. Figulus striatus. F. ater nitidus, mandibulis apice $-dentatis, clypeo concavo ; obscure punctato, thorace quadrato antice unidentato: lateribus punctatis, elytris punctato-striatis apice punc- tatis. Mas. Tibiis anticis extus 8-dentatis. Femina? Minor tibiis anticis extus 6-dentatis. Lucanus striatus. Oliv. Ins. i. 19. tab. 4. fig. 14. Lucanus striatus. Fab. Syst. Eleuth. vol. ii. p. 253. Habitat in India Orientali, Insulis Mauritio Bourbonensi. Mus. D. MacLeay. . Oss, Mandibule profecto quidem tridentate, quamvis uni- dentate apud Olivierium et Fabricium dicuntur. An eadem species? Descriptiones vero cel. auctorum insecto nostro alias aptissime conveniunt. APPENDIX. lil XI. Genus. Dorcus*, apud Germanos in Specierum Catalogis. Lucanvus, Linn. Fab. Oliv. Lat. Web. PLATYCERUS, Lat. Antenne clava fere perfoliata, quadrilamellata, articulo ultimo majori semicirculari. ‘Labrum clypei fere processus exsertus, corneus, transversus. Mandibule arcuate vel falcate, breves, ints dentate. Mazille processu apicali recto, cylindrico, membranaceo, pilis fimbriato; lacinia interna membranacea, dilatata. Palpi Maxillares elongati, articulis tribus ultimis compressis ultra clypeum eminulis, secundo lato conico, tertio brevi conico, quarto longiore ovato, apice obtuso. Labiales breves. Labium bilobum, lobis cylindricis hirsutis, quam in sequentibus brevioribus. Mentum breve, semicirculare, planum, margine antico inte- gro recto. Corpus depressum, lateribus subrotundatis. Caput latitu- dine fere thoracis. Thorax vix canaliculatus. Scutellum trigonum, postice fere rotundatum. Oxs. Weberi Lucanus lunatus, piceus, &c. huic generi asso- ciandi? Spec. 1. Dorcus parallelipipedus. D. niger haud nitidus, mandibulis longitudine capitis : dente medio elevato, labro late truncato, thorace lateribus rectis, superficie tota subtilissime punctata. ¥* Optimé dixit cel. Latreille, art. Ocydrome, Nouveau Dict. d’Hist. Nat. tom. xxiii. p. 129. “Je remarque que plusieurs naturalistes s’em- pressent, comme par une anticipation titulaire, de donner des noms a quel- ques coupes, qui leur paroissent devoir former de nouveaux genres, sans se donner Ja peine d’en établir les caractéres, Ce ne sont que de simples indications, et qui n’imposent aucune loi.” 112 APPENDIX. * Lucanus parallelipipedus. Fab. Syst. Eleuth. ii. 251. 16, SPEC. Lucanus parallelipipedus. Panz. Fn. f. 19. 2. Dorcus tuberculatus. Anne D. parallelipipedi sexus alter? . D. superne rugoso-punctatus, labro emarginato, capite bitu- berculato. Dorcus tuberculatus. In Specierum Germanicarum Catalogis, Lucanus parallelipipedus. Oliv. i. 17. 11. tab. iv. fig, 9. Idem. Lat. Nouveau Dict. d Hist. Nat. xviii. p. 225. Lucanus Capra. Panzer Fn. lviii. f. 12. Oss. Hanc speciem, que Germanis videtur distinctissima, pre- XI. cedentis marem Olivierius cum Geoffroyo et feminam Latreillius cum Bergstraesser putavere. At alias distri- buuntur hec insecta a Gyllenhallo et Panzero. “ Mirum certe videtur,” ait Gyllenhallus, “discrepantias tanti mo- mentisolummodo sexui diverso tribuendas esse; anne potius species distincta? Dom. Panzer loc, cit. contendit alterum sexum Luc. Capre tuberculis frontis destitutum esse, sed figuram clypei non memorat, nec talem vidi, quare certius dijudicare nequeo.”—Entomologia Britannica, p. 49, etiam consulenda. Genus. AXGUS. Lucanus, Fab. Antenne clava fere perfoliata, vix quadrilamellata, articulo ul- timo majore semicirculari. Labrum haud distinctum. Mandibule porrecte, falcate, inermes. Mazxille processu apicali sub mento latitante. * Insectorum synonyma frequentiorum que pauca necessaria mihi visa sunt solum retuli, et omnia quidem preter ea que ad observationes jam scriptas exponendas utilia judicaverim sedulo omisi. In hoe opere non species determinandas, sed ordinem naturalem elaborandum esse, satig patebit, APPENDIX. 113 Palpi Maxillares breves, articulo ultimo ultra mentum solo apparente. Mentum transverso-quadratum, antice emarginatum Corpus depressum antecedentis illi generis simillimum. Clypeus emarginatus vel potius 2-dentatus. Scutellum minutum. Tibiz quadridentate. Oxs. Genus sequenti nimis affine; at palpis brevibus et clava antennarum perfoliata nihilominus distinctum. Spec. 1. Agus chelifer. JE. ater nitidus, capite thoraceque punctatis, elytris striato- punctatis. Habitat in Australasia. Mus. D. MacLeay. Oxs. Lucanum cancroidem Fabricii haud examinavi, at ge- neri Dorco potius pertinere videtur. SPEC. 2. Avgus interruptus. JE, atro-ferrugineus, capite thoraceque punctatis, elytris la- teribus punctatis ad suturam utrinque striis tribus impres- sis: duabus aliis interruptis. Habitat in India? Mus. D. MacLeay. Spec. 3. gus obscurus. iE. obscuré ferrugineus, capite thoraceque punctatis, elytris striatis. Mus. D. MacLeay. Oxs. Mandibule breves; sed femine forsan characterem ef- forment. Heec species a Lucani punctati apud Fabricium descriptione colore ferrugineo solum differt, et illius mera forsan varietas haberi debet. Spec, 4. Agus inermis. A. niger, capitis thoracisque lateribus punctatis, dorso levi nitido, elytris subpunctatis. Lucanus inermis. Fab. Syst. Eleuth, ii. 251. Habitat in Sumatra. 114 APPENDIX. Oxzs. Hance speciem hactenus mihi non visam, ab aliis distinc- tam propter Fabricii descriptionem habeo. XIII. Genus. Lucanus, Scopoli. Lucanus Auctorum. Antenne clava neutiquam perfoliata, at pectinata, trilamellata vel quadrilamellata, articulis subequalibus. Labrum haud distinctum. Mandibule in masculis maxime, glabre, cornua referentes vel intus dentate. Mazille medio unidentate, processu apicali, elongate, longis- simo, exserto, cylindrico, setoso. Palpi Maxillares elongati, graciles, filiformes, articulo secundo aliis conjunctim longiore. Labiales breves, articulis sub- zequalibus. Labium bifidum, penicillis elongatis, setosis, exsertis. Mentum latum, transversum. Corpus subdepressum forma irregulari. Scutellum distine- tum rotundatum. Genus ad interim sic dividatur. A. Antennarum clava trilamellata. SPEC. 1. Lucanus femoratus. Oliv. B. Antennarum clava quadrilamellata. * Thorax corpore angustior. Srec. 2. Lucanus Cervus. Lin. *# Thorax corpore latior. Sprc. 3. Lucanus Alces; Oliv. Oxss. Entomologis revera nodus Gordianus;. sexus enim unus et alter ejusdem speciei figura et habitu externis, in- strumentisque cibariis quam specierum-diversarum duo mares vel due femine inter se longitu sepissime dissi- dent. Labri etiam quod insuper Rectoceris haud raro cum clypeo cénnatum est, structura semper attentione digna, APPENDIX. 115 in Lucanis veris alteram difficultatem prebeat. Aliqui tamen in sexuali diagnosi*, labrique structura, charac- teres forsan lateant, quibus, ut opinor, ante omnes alios ad ordinem naturalem elaborandum quasi idoneis fides daretur. His autem malé intellectis, vix etiam adhuc investigatis, ut de Rectocerorum speciebus segregandis quibusdam in Entomologia doctis scrupulus olim injec- tus fuerit, sic alios et tyrones nodi inter Lucanidas toties solvendi hujus generis, posthac certe dividendi, 4 studio nune omnino deterreant. Nos igitur quodammodo opor- tuerit transitum ab ‘go per hoc genus ad Ceruchum et Lamprimidas facilem ut supra demonstrare; et quamvis characteres sic evoluti artificiales, nexus ipsi profecto na~ turales esse sentiantur. XIV. Genus. CERUCHUS. PLatycerus, Geoff: Lat. Gyllen. LuCANus, Linn. Degeer. Fab. Oliv. Panz. Payk. Antenne capitis longitudine, capitulo trilamellato, pectinato. Labrum parvum, membranaceum, integrum, sub clypei acu- mine reconditum. . Mandibule porrectx, valide, intus dentate, hirsute. Marille processu terminali brevi, penicilliformi, intus lacinia breviori setosa aucte. Palpi mandibulis breviores ; articulis elongatis, gracilibus. Labium integrum, apice ciliatum, laciniis obsoletis. Mentum corneum, pentagonum, concayum, Corpus elongatum subdepressum, abdomine elytris obvoluto. Scutellum breve, triangulare. Tibiz antice multidentate. Tarsi appendice setosa, bifurcata, sub unguium origine in- serta. Spec. 1. Ceruchus tenebrioides. C., supra ater nitidus umbilicato-punctatus, antennis palpis- * Lichtenstein, Trans. Linn, Soc. vol. vi. p. 35. 12 116 APPENDIX. que rufis, elytris substriatis, corpore infra fusco, pedibus nigris: tarsis paulo dilutioribus. Platycerus tenebrioides. Lat. Gen. Ins. et Crust. vol. ii. 1338. Platycerus tenebroides. Gyllen. Ins. Suec. vol. i. p. 68. Lucanus tenebroides. Fab. Syst. Eleuth. ii. 252. 21. Mas. Caput magnum, thorace latius, mandibulis capite longioribus, arcuatis, in medio dente magno armatis, tho- race brevi, transverso, ante medium foveola rotunda utrinque impresso. FEMINA magis obscura, crebrits et profundids punctata, capite angustiori, mandibulis minoribus, thorace lon- giore ruga transversa in medio elevata. B. Var. tota pallida rufescens,e nympha nuper deprompta. Habitat in Europe borealis truncis putridis, pini prxsertim. Mus. D. MacLeay. Ozs. Hujus generis, quod ad constituendum preclare Gyllen- halli descriptioni gratias habeam, Pholidotus necnon alia Lamprimidarum genera ad calcem recurrunt. XV. Genus. PLATY-CERUS, Geoffroy. PuLaTYcERvs, Lat. Gyllen. Lucanus, Linn. Fab. Payk. Panz. Degeer. Oliv. Antenne capite multo longiores, capitulo quadrilamellato. Mandibule valide, lunate, haud valde porrecte, intus obtuse dentate, glabre. Palpi articulis brevibus, subovatis; Maxillares mandibularum fere longitudine. Mentum semicirculare, planum. Corpus depressum Trogosite statura. Caput thorace trans- verso angustius. Scutellum breve rotundatum. Tibie anftice bidentate. Oss. Genus adhuc examinandum. APPENDIX. 117 Spec.1 Platycerus caraboides P. ceruleus aut virescens punctulatus, subtus obscurior fere nigricans, elytris punctato-striatis tarsisque rufescentibus. Platycerus caraboides. Lat. Gen. Ins. et Crust. vol. ii. p. 134. Gyll. Ins. Suec. i. 70. Lucanus caraboides. Fab. Syst. Eleuth. i. 258. 23. &e. &c B. Var. pectore abdomine pedibusque rufis, ore piceo, Platycerus rufipes. Gyllen. Ins. Suec. i. 70. Lucanus caraboides.(var.) Illig. Mag. iv. 104. 24. Lucanus rufipes. Fab. Syst. Eleuth. ii. 253. Herbst Col. iii. 311. 11. Fab. 34. f. 8. Panz. Fn. 58. f. 14. y. Var. supra tota chalybea. Platycerus chalybeus Germanorum. 0. Var. tarsis nigris. Platycerus nigripes Germanorum. Habitat in Europe sylvis. Mus. D. MacLeay. Oxgs. Antennarum articulis extimis majoribus et uno latere productis, labro parvo, mandibula exserta, palpis maxil- laribus subfiliformibus, articulo ultimo longiore ovato cy- lindrico, maxille laciniis duabus, quarum apicali elonga- ta compressa, intus et ad apicem pilis ciliata, ut et corpore depresso virescenti, ad Platyceros accedit Fabricii genus * Trogosita——Im6 verd Trogositam Mauritanicam insectam pentamcrum esse notatu dignum sit, cujus tarsorum arti- culus primus ut sepe in Rectoceris Thalerophagis parvus retractus videatur. Hanc ideo Trogositam inter Lucanoi- des suos optimé posuit acutissimus Gyllenhallus, genus enim revera distinctum, forsan osculans eam constitutu- Tam suspicor. XVI. Genus. SINODENDRON, Fabricius. ScanaBeus, Linn. Lucanus, Kirby. Antenne omnino ut in Cerucho. 118 APPENDIX. Labrum exsertum, coriaceum, antice convexum. Mandibule breves, cornex, valide, sub clypeo recondite. Mazille processu duplici; apicali membranaceo ciliato, inter- no dentiformi. Palpi Maxillares articulo secundo elongato, conico, subarcuato, tertio brevi, terminali ovato apice obtuso. Labiales arti- culo ultimo crassissimo, aliorum conjunctim longitudine. Mentum angustatum, integrum, valde retusum, labio brevi co- nico, carinato. Corpus convexum, cylindricum, ano obvoluto. Scutellum parvum, obtusum. SPEC. 1. Sinodendron cylindricum. S. nigrum profunde impresso-punctatum cicatriculosum: punctis umbilicatis: umbilico perforato. Sinodendron cylindricum, Lat. Gen. Ins. et Crust. tom. ii. p- 101. Mas. Capitis cornu recurvo, posticé fulvo hirto, thorace an- ticé truncato quinquedentato. Femina. Capitis cornu brevi recto, thorace antice vix re- tuso. Habitat in Europe ligno putrido. Oss. Insectum prorsus singulare, cujus cum Orycte affinitas a Cel. Latreillio pulcherrimé exponitur Gen. Ins. et Crust. vol. ii. p. 100. A Rectoceris labro mento mandibulis tho- race corporisque statura differt. Genera ita anomala que aliis semper adhuc difficultates objecerint, structura peni- tus spectata, opinionem nostram confirmare potius quam labefactare videantur. a Rectocerorum omnia Thalerophagorum genera que ad manus mihi fuere jam recensui; et ordinis hiatus naturalis quos exposue- rim, his insectis per orbem perparcé diffusis adeoque in muszis ra- rissime inventis, mihi tam suppletu difficiles fuisse vix Entomologo mirum erit, APPENDIX. 119 II. PETALOCERA. Antenne rectz, capitulo flabellato. Mandibule clypeo plerume que obtectz vel raro exserte. Oss. A Lamprimidarum familia per Lethrum cephalotem inter Geotrupidas transducimur.—Hiatus autem adeo perspi- cuus est quo Lethrus' a Rectoceris sejungitur ut vix la- teat entomologum neque ullo discrimine egeat apertiori. A. SAPROP HAGA. Pedes validi (posticis ab aliis subremotis); tibic late, ac elytra sepius ad anum pertingentia. Fam. GEOTRUPIDA. Genus. ORPHNUS. GEOTRUPES, Fab. Antenne decem-articulate, basilari magno, vix elongato, co- nico; secundo subgloboso; tertio, quarto, quinto, sexto et septimo brevissimis, transversis; ultimis paulo sensim latio- ribus, capitulo lamellato plicatili, subgloboso, Labrum clypeo fere occultatum, margine antico solum exserto. Mandibule exserte, arcuate, subtrigone, basi crasse, extus rotundate, apice acute, intus unidentate. Mazille inermes, processu unico crustaceo, triquetro-trigono, sed lacinie apicalis loco fasciculo ciliato, extus arcuato, ciliis spinosulis. Palpi Labiales articulo ultimo majore, subovato. Mentum subquadratum apice truncato. Clypeus in masculis unicornis. Corpus ovatum. Thorax antice truncatus aut excavatus, coleoptris abdomen posticé non obtegentibus. Tibie antice extus tridentate; alie lineis transversis ciliate. Spec. Orphnus bicolor. O. supra niger subtus brunneus, thorace retuso bidentate: 120 APPENDIX. lateribus punctatis, capitis cornu brevi erecto plano, elytris vix striatis. Geotrupes bicolor. Fab. Syst. Eleuth. vol. i. p. 9. n. 27. Habitat in India, Mus. D. MacLeay. Oss. Orycti genus simillimum, ab illo enim antennarum capitulo sukgloboso, labro exserto, maxillarum processu apicali ac mento breviore tantum differt, Genus. Hy BOSORUS. ScaRabazns, Fab. Grotrures, Fab. Antenne decem-articulate, articulo basilar! magno, crasso, pi- loso; secundo subgloboso vel conico; quinque proximis pa- tereformibus; octavo infundibuliformi duos ultimos exci- piente et clavam ita rotundatam subconicam formante. Labrum exsertum, crustaceum, antice valde convexum. Mandibule valide, exserte, falcate, vel valde arcuate, apice acute, haud dentate. Marille \acinia apicali acuta, cultelliformi, membranacea, compressa, fimbriata, interna subcrustacea intus ad apicem unidentata. Palpi Maxillares articulo basilari incurvo, minutissimo, piloso ; secundo oblongo conico; tertio breviconico; ultimo elongato- cylindrico apice subacutiori, Labiales articulo ultimo fere aliis conjunctim longiore. Mentum oblongo-quadratum, lateribus convexis, margine an- tico emarginato, ligula vix distincta. Corpus ovatum, convexum ; capite semicirculari; scutello distincto, elytris abdomen obtegentibus, tibiis anticis extus tridentatis. Oss. Genus quidem Orphno proximum, sed gializ maxillas palpos et mentum habens!—Dispositionem adeo circu- Jarem tam inter Petalocera Saprophaga maxillis mem- branaceis quam inter illa etiam corneis indicari, nobis incidit suspicio. Et cum porro talis quidem inter Thale- APPENDIX. 121 rophaga orde nequaquam difficillime distinguendus est, iis qui amovere vela quibus systema naturale obtenditur cupiant conjecture hujus verisimilitudo in speciebus ex- aminandis forsan posthac apparebit, etsi nullis adhuc certis rationibus niti ducatur. Spec. Hybosorus Arator. H. ater, thorace levi, elytris striato-punctatis. Scar. Arator. Fab. Ent. Syst. vol. i. p. 33. n. 106. Geotrupes Arator. Fab. Syst. Eleuth. vol. 1. p. 91. n. 75. Habitat in Hispania, a D° Dejean ibi lectus. Apud Fabri- cium Caput Bonz Spei locus Hybosori naturalis est, at Clar. viri sententiam in suspicionem vocare vellem; sex enim species in Mus. MacLeayano asservate Europe me- ridionali, Africe boreali ac India orientali sunt propriz. Genus. ELEPHASTOMUS.* SCARABEUS, Schreibers. Antenne undecim-articulate, articulo basilari conico, parum elongato, pilis longissimis instructo; articulo secundo bre- viorl, crasso, subconico, sex proximis brevissimis, paterifor- mibus; articulo nono et undecimo hemisphericis, medium omnino fere absconditum intercludentibus, clavam magnam oblatam subspheroidem ita formantibus. Labrum lateribus rotundatis transversum, sublineare, et clypei ad superficiem perpendiculare. Mandibule triquetro-trigone, falciformes, apice intus biden- tate, margine interno submembranaceo. Mazille cornee, arcuate, intus dente acuto et ad apicem laci- nia obtusa ciliis spinosulis armatee. Palpi Maxillares longissime, labialibus fere triplo longiores, ar- ticulo basilari minutissimo, subgloboso ; secundo longissimo, cylindrico, arcuato, apice obtusiori; tertio breviori, conico, apice crassiore; ultimo longitudine secundum fere equante, * Propr.¢ Elephantostomus—nomen ob eupkoniam curtatum. APPENDIX. cylindrico, elongato, lanceolato, apice graciliore. Labiales articulo basilari minutissimo subgloboso; secundo sub-cy- lindrico arcuato; ultimo eadem longitudine, sub-semicircu- lari, sub-cylindrico. Mentum lateribus angustatis, brevissimum, verticaliter deflex- um, et apice profunde emarginatum aut potius bilobum, lobis rotundatis. Labium fere nullum. Clypeus thorace multo angustior, posticé ad utrumque latus SPEC. in lobum ocularem dilatatus, anticé in medio extensus, et in laminam subquadratam versus apicem sub-emarginatam, so-~ lidam imperforatam productus. Rostri hujus apex crassior, furcatus; furcis lateralibus deorsum spectantibus. Os sub clypeo totum latitans, instrumentis cibariis verticaliter de- flexis structuram in hac familia anomalam formantibus. Corpus subtus undique hirtum, valde convexum; thorace subretuso, inermi, elytris totum corpus ambientibus. Scu- tellum magnum, triangulare, planum. Pedes hirti, femori- bus anticis et posticis incrassatis; tiblis anticis extrorsum sex-dentatis; tibiis mediis et posticis triquetris. 1. Elephastomus proboscideus. E. ferrugineo-nigricans, clypei cornu brevi erecto obtuso emarginato, antennis ferrugineis, thorace mutico subretuso ad latera punctis impresso, elytris punctato-striatis. Mas processu rostriformi gracili, longitudine totius clypei et subtus capitis lamina in medium elevata paululum supra os fulcro verticali apice furcato munita. FEMINA capitis cornu quam in mare subobtusiori, rostro multo breviore latiore; clypeo subtus in medium elevato sed fulcro verticali haud instructo. Scarabeus proboscideus. Schreib., Trans. Linn. Soc. vol. vi. p- 189. B. Var. rufescens e nympha nuper deprompta. Habitat in Nova Hollandia. Mus. D. MacLeay, APPENDIX. 123 Genus. ATHYREUS,. ScaraBpmus, Fab.? Gmel.? Copris, Fab.? Antenne fere omnino ut in Elephastomo, nisi clave margine rotundiori. Labrum \atum, transverso-quadratum, anticé vix trilobum, lobis rotundatis. Mandibule corner, valide, triquetro-trigone, subarcuate, superne plane, extus bidentate, apice interno pariter biden- tato margineque interno membranaceo. Mazille \acinia apicali subcrustacea, triangulari, dilatata, mar- gine antico ciliato, spinosulo; lacinia interna processubus duobus munita, hoc spiniformi et illo dilatato, spinosulo. Palpi articulo labialium ultimo maxillarium illum fere longi- tudine equante. Mentum subquadratum, profunde emarginatum, lateribus si- nuatis, postice convexis, tum angustatis, et in lobum utrin- que desinentibus. Labium bifidum, laciniis ciliatis. Clypeus thorace multo angustior, posticé ad utrumque latus in lobum ocularem acutum dilatatus, anticé in lJaminam sub- quadratam superficie inequali prolongatus; hoc processu antico in medio elevatione tricuspidata instructo, cornu me- dio longiore, basi lineam longitudinalem distinctam vel ob- soletam formante. Corpus valde convexum, subtus hirsutum, thorace antice mucronato postice lobato, Scutellum lineare, inter elytra productum haud distinctum. Pectus magnum, pedum secundum par alterum ab altero late separans. Oss. Genus admodum singulare capite neglecto a Copride haud distinguendum; sed ab Elephastomo quoque haud longe distat. Insecti mihi non adhuc visi descriptione apud Fabricium recensita, Copris son (vel Scar. Boas Ent. Syst, 149, 160.) huic generi appropinquare videtur. 124 APPENDIX. Srec. 1. Athyreus bifurcatus. Niger punctis elevatis scaber, thorace antice mucronato: dente elevato lato bifurcato, elytris striis elevatis glabris minutis: sutura hirsuta ferrugined. Habitat in Brazilia. Mus. D. MacLeay, Spec. 2. Athyreus tridentatus. A. ferrugineus scabriusculus, thorace in medio excavato glabro tridentato: dente apicali longiore, aliis lateralibus obtusioribus, elytris vix striatis, Habitat in Brazilia. Mus. D. MacLeay. Spec. 3. Athyreus bidentatus. A. ater scabriusculus, thorace in medio excavato glabro bi- dentato: dentibus lateralibus obtusiusculis, elytris obso- lete striatis. Habitat in Brazilia. Mus. D. MacLeay. Oss. A. bifurcato scutellum vix distinctum, et tibie antice quinquedentate sunt, dum clypei cornu medium basi lineam distinctam longitudinalem efformat; speciebus autem duabus alliis scutellum indistinctum, tibie quadri- dentate, et clypei obsoleta est linea longitudinalis, Fam. SCARABEIDE. Circulo naturali, quem inter Scarabeidas efformant Coprides Americane pedum unguibus nullis floriger, splendidulus, Carnifex, conspicillatus, festivus, Mimas, Faunus, Belzebul, Jasius, Lancifer ac aliz inedite, accedit Athyreus. Genus. PHANEUS. ScaARABEUS, Linn. Olio. Degeer. Copris, On1TIs, Fab. Antenne novem-articulate, articulo secundo brevi, pateriformi vel semicirculari, tertio, quarto, et quinto longioribus, sexto breviori; clava infundibuliformi, articulo primo subtrigona APPENDIX. 125 secundum et tertium excipiente, margine externo subemar- ginato; articuli secundi margine interno ferri equini instar ferente; articulo ultimo operculiformi margine externo emarginato. Instrumentis in Cibariis haud valida patet distinctio. Hee enim Insecta Coprophaga sunt, et in Mundo Novo Onitis generis officiis fungantur. Vide Oliv. Ent. t. vil. f. 50. a— ubi palporum labialium articulus basilaris notatu dignus sit. Caput subtrigonum, sepissime cornutum, clypeo sepius biden- tato vel emarginato. Thorax puncto utrinque impressus, abdomine antice sepius latior, lateribus sinuatis marginatis, margine postico punctis sepius duobus impressis, linea utrinque elevata rarius obsoleta. Pectus planum, sepius ca- naliculatum, sterno acuto vel carinato. Pedes validi; Tibie antice tri- vel quadri-dentate, tarsis obsoletis, sed spina arti- culata ad apicem. Tibi postice conic, tarsis gracillimis, unguibus nullis. Oss. Color metallicus vel nigro-lucidus nunquam obscurus. Elytra sulcata vel striata. Hoc in circulo quingue forme Typi sunt notandi. TYPUS 1. Clypeus antice bidentatus. Thorax margine postico vix acuminato, punctis duobus impressis. Pectus haud longius quam latius, canaliculatum, antice carinatum. Tibie extus quadridentate dentibus subacutis. Spec. 1. Phaneus bellicosus. P. nigro-violaceus, subtus niger, thorace antice excavato, lineis utrinque duabus elevatis, elytrorum striis vitte- formibus. Mas. Capitis cornu longo recurvo; in medio thoracis pos- tico cornubus duobus compressis, erectis, brevibus, biden- tatis, fossulaque inter cornua magna impressa. Scarabeus bellicosus. Oliv, Ent.i.3.p.103.n. 118. t. 22. f.32. Copris bellicosa. Schinherr Syn. Ins. i. p. 44, (recté, at Fa- bric error animo invito retinendus). 196 APPENDIX. FEMINA? Capitis cornu brevissimo erecto, utrinque uniden- tato, thorace prominentia triplici: imtermedia lata trans- versa supra canaliculata, tuberculo acuto utrinque munita. Mus. D. MacLeay. Habitat in Brasilia. Oss. 1. Huic Copris lancifer Fab. Scarabeus Jasius Oliv. et Onitis Jasius Fab. associandi. Ons. 2. Recte observat Schonnherrius cum Illigero, vol.i. p. 31, quod Scarabeus Jasius Oliv. et Onitis Jasius Fab. species distincte sint putande; at quoniam prorsus affines sunt, in errorem levem lapsus est ipse Insectorum Synonymiz celeberrimus auctor, qui speciem unam Oniti et alteram Copridi attribuit.. Ut confusio demum evanescat, has species distinguam. Spec. 2. Phanaus Jasius. P. nigro-viridis, capitis cornu breviusculo suberecto: lateri- bus unidentatis, thorace punctato rugoso excavato anticé retuso posticé longitudinaliter canaliculato, femoribus vi- ridibus. Mas? Capitis cornu reflexum, subacutum : parte stipitali lon- giore, thorace anticé excavato, supra tridentato: dentibus minutis, equalibus, acutis. B. Var. Thorax nigrior, supra glabriusculus, vix longitudina- liter canaliculatus; dente intermedio majore. Femina. Capitis cornu transversum, brevissimum : dentibus utrinque obsoletis, thorace medio excavato: processu an- tico transversali, truncato, lineari. Scarabeus Jasius. Oliv. Ins. 3. 109. 126. t. 7. f. 50. Copris Jasius. Illig. Mag. iii. p. 148. Habitat in Demerara, Cayenna. Mus. D. MacLeay. Spec. 3. Phaneus Dardanus. P. nigro-viridis, capitis commubus duobus brevibus basi conna- tis, thorace antice carina bidentata instructo. APPENDIX. 127 Onitis Jasius. ub. Syst. Eleuth. 1. p. 28. n. 3. Mas. Thorax fossula utrinque sub carine dentibus uniden- tata; his subacutis linea transversa sinuata elevata postice conjunctis. Femina? Mare minor. Thorax fossula utrinque haud pro- funda vix unidentata, carine dentibus obtusis, linea ele- vata minus distincta. Mus. D. MacLeay. Hec species, que capitis cornu et thorace bidentato Co- pridi Mimanti Fab. propinquat, e Brazilia nobis est allata. Ozs. 3. Insecta alia duo que speciebus et sexubus diversis attribuenda sint, vix pro P. Jasiz varietatibus habenda, Entomologis adhuc proponam. Phaneus Abas ? Mas niger vix viridis. Capitis cornu longiusculum, paulo recurvum lateribus unidentatum : parte stipitali breviore, thorace excavato, supra glabriusculo, prominentia triplici: intermedia lata truncata canaliculata, aliis dentiformibus, pedibus nigris. Habitat in Insula Trinidad. Mus. D. MacLeay. Phaneus Acrisius 2 FEMINA nigra vix viridis. Capitis cornu transversum, li- neare, dentibus utrinque nullis, thorace excavato, supra prominentia utrinque-vix elevata, glabriusculo; subtus processu antico transversali semicirculari munito, Habitat in Brazilia. Mus. D. MacLeay. TYPUS 2. Clypeus antice sub-bidentatus. Thorax margine postico acuminato, punctis duobus impressis. Pectus fere duplo longius quam latius, canaliculatum, anticé carinatum. Tibiz extus tridentate dentibus obtusis. Spec. 4, Phaneus Mimas. P. niger et viridi-aureus, capite obsolete bicorni, thorace inermi retuso angulato, elytris inauratis. 128 APPEN DIXs Scarabeus Mimas. Linn. Syst. Nat. p. 545. n. 17. ~ Olio. Ent. 1.5. p. 108. n. 125. t. 7. f, 50. Copris Mimas. Fab. Syst. Eleuth. 1. p. 45. n. 68. Mas Capite linea transversa elevaté cornubusque duobus brevibus, basi connatis ; thorace anticé valde elevatiore, angulis subporrectis. FEMINA mutica, capite lineis duabus transversis elevatis, thoraceque linea alia transvers4 semicirculari elevata an- ticé instructo. Mus. D. MacLeay. Habitat in America Meridionali. Oss. 4. Copridem Mimantem forte ad Onitis genus amandan- dam esse suspicatus est cel. Fabricius, at affinitas illa Phanzi circuli omnis pro charactere est habenda. Oss. 5. Phaneo Mimanti Copris Faunus Fab. Belzebul Fab. et Scarabeus Belzebul Oliv. adhuc associandi. Oss. 6. Si in Copridis Jusii descriptione hallucinatus sit Fa- bricius, errorem similem cel. Olivier haud equidem vitavit. Mas enim sui Scarabei Belzebul a Fabricii Copride Belzebul differt, et species sic distimguantur. Spec. 5. Phaneus Belzebul. P. niger, capitis cornu brevi haud recurvo: basi corniculo utrinque armata, thorace punctato-rugoso prominentia triplici: intermedia multo latiore, elytrorum striis versus apicem subobsoletis. Searabeus sulcatus. Drury Ill. 1.t. 35. f. 1. Scarabeeus Belzebul. Fab. S. Ent. p. 23. n. 88. Fab. Ent. Syst. 1. p. 46. n. 152. Scarabeus Belzebul femina, Oliv. Ent. 1.3. 107.124. t. 14. f. 136. Copris Belzebul. Fab. Syst. Eleuth. 1. p. 37. n. $2. Mas. Capitis cornu erectum, corniculis ad basin distinctis, thorace antice sub prominentia intermedia excavato, cor- niculis utrinque acutis. APPENDIX. 129 FemINa capitis cornu brevissimo subprostrato : corniculis ad basin obsoletis, thorace antice truncato; corniculis utringue subobtusis. Habitat in Insula Jamaicensi. Mus. D. MacLeay. Oss. 7. Speciem semper icone determinari apud Drureum oportet: descriptiones enim ejus plerumque nihili sunt, tabule autem accuratissime. Oxzs. 8. P. Belzebul sectioni precedenti inter Phaneum quem (Abantem mihi) ex insula Trinitatis descripsi et P. Dar- danum propinquat: hujus enim thoracem, illius autem capitis cornu ad basin unidentatum habet. Spec. 6. Phaneus Moloch. P, niger, capitis cornu basi tuberculo utrinque inconspicuo, thorace glaberrimo antice retuso spinoso: partis superioris in medio linea longitudinali impressa, fossulaque cornu externum a duobus aliis lateralibus utrinque dividente, elytrorum striis latis haud profundis. Mas? Capitis cornu longum recurvum. Thorax corniculis septem, septimo transverso, apivé emarginato, in medio thoracis linez longitudinalis ad originem protenso. Fzmina. Capitis cornu brevius vix recurvum. Thorax tu- berculis sex fere equalibus, subacutis, septimo medio emarginato nullo. Scarabeus Belzebul mas. Oliv. Ent. 1 3. 107. 124. t. 14. f. 136. a. Copris Belzebul. Schinnheri Syn. Ins. Habitat in Brazilia vel Insula Jamaicensi? Mus. D. MacLeay. 130 APPENDIX. TYPUS 8. Clypeus antice emarginatus. Thorax margine postico acuto, lobo parvo punctisque duobus obsoletis vel vix conspicuis. Pectus paulo longius quam latius, antice acutum haud canaliculatum, at puncto longitudinali pos- ticé impressum. ‘Tibiz extus tridentate dentibus acutis. Spec. 7. Phaneus Columbi. P. nigro-virescens nitidus subtus niger, capitis cornu vix re- curvo, clypeo antice nigro subtilissimé rugoso ante oculos virescente, thorace punctato-rugoso antice retuso, canali profundo utrinque impresso, medio supero vix canalicu- lato, elytrorum sulcis haud profundis. Mas? Capitis cornu apice emarginatum. Thorax promi- nentia inter fossulas laterales quadrispinosa, spinis exter- nis majoribus. Mus. D. MacLeay. Sexus alter adhuc latet. Habitat in Brazilia. Oss. 9. Insectum Phango Columbi affinitate proximum, quod ab illo capitis cornu apice simplici, thorace antice bispi- noso et linea utrinque elevata ad angulos porrecté sub- corniculata solum differt, in Museo MacLeayano hospi- tatur.—An sexus alter? Oss. 10. In Phanei Columbi tibiis anticis sub spina ad apicem articulata tarsorum rudimentum latitans, singulare, mini- mum, vix conspicuum, articulatum, et ad apicem cillis duabus gracillimis longissimis instructum detexi. TYPUS 4. Clypeus antice subemarginatus. Thorax margine pos- tico acuto, lobo magno, punctis duobus posticis omnino deperditis. Pectus haud vel vix canaliculatum in sternum acutum recurvum inter pedes productum. Tibi antice extus tridentate, dentibus apicalibus acutis, altero obtuse vel subohsoleto. MAS cornutus. FEMINA mutica. APPENDIX. 15 Spec. 8. Phaneus festivus. P. rubro-zneus, thorace glaberrimo anticé prominente. Scarabeus festivus. Oliv. Ins. 1. 3. 110. 127. tab. 8. fig. 21. Copris festivus. Fab. Syst. Eleuth. 1. p. 32. 5. 10. Mas capitis cornu erectoad planum dorsi pertingente, tho- race bicorni, medio inter.cornua compressa nigra intus re- curva elevato, subcanaliculato, antice haud excavato. FEMINA capite linea transversa elevata, thorace mutico nigro maculato antice prominentia triplici; intermedia latiore, linea transversd elevaté angulum ad apicem for- maante. Scarabzeus festivus. Linn. Syst. Nat. 2. 552. 52. Mus. D. MacLeay. Habitat in Americ4 meridionali. Ozs. 11. In hujus insecti femina tarsorum anticorum rudimen- tum iterum detexi. Oxs.12. P. festivi apud Linneum, Fabricium, Olivierum ac alios character specificus malé depromptus est, ‘hec enim species adeo facillime cum duabus sequentibus concolo- ribus erat confundenda. Spee. 9. Phanaus hilaris. P. rubro-eneus thorace glaberrimo, antice excavato. Mas capitis cornu erecto ad dorsi planum haud pertingente, thorace bicorni, medio inter cornua compressa nigra ma- cula nigra conjuncta haud intus curvata, antice excavato. FEMINA Capite lined’ transversé bituberculata instructo; thorace antice excavato bimaculato, maculis nigris. Mus. D. MacLeay. Habitat in Demerara. Spec. 10. Phaneus lautus. P. rubro-cupreus, thorace antice punctato prominente. Mas capitis cornu recurvo, thorace retuso nigro maculato antice prominentia triplici, intermedia latiore linea trans- versa, clevata semicirculari ad apicem instructa. K 2 , 132 APPENDIX. FEMINA capite bituberculato, thorace nigro maculato antice prominentia quadruplici instructo termediis acutioribus. Mus. D. MacLeay. Habitat in Brazilia. Oxzs. 13. Phanai lauti mas, nisi thorace antice punctato, capite cornuto et colore rubro-cupreo a Phanai festivi femina vix differt. Oss. 14. Ad Phanaos festivum, hilarem et lautum, conspicillatus Fabricii et Humboldtii adjungendus. TYPUS 5. Clypeus integer rotundatus. Thorax abdomine haud latior, margine postico acuto, vix lobato, punctis posticis interdum in mare vix unquam in femina prorsus obsoletis. Pectus canaliculatum, antice acutissimum, haud produc- tum. Tibi extus tridentate, dentibus distinctis. MAs cornutus. FEMINA mutica. Spec, 11. Phaneus Carnifer. P. thorace cupreo-aurato: rugis distinctis elevatis; punctis posticis in mare obsoletis in femina distinctis, elytris viri- di-eneis multipliciter striatis: rugis elevatis confluentibus J inter strias scabris. Scarabeus Carnifex. Linn. Syst. Nat. p. 546. no. 22. Oliv. Ins. 1. 3. p. 185. n. 161. p. 6. f. 46. a. 6. Drury Ins. 1. p. 35. f. 3—5. Copris Carnifex. Fab. Syst. Eleuth. 1. p. 48. n. 84. Mas capitis cornu longitudine thoracis incurvato acuto, thorace depresso inermi plano medio triangulari: angulis posticis productis subacutis. FEMINA Capitis cornu brevissimo emarginato, thorace con- vexo antice truncato linea transversa elevata instructo. f. Var. thorace viridi-zneo ac elytris violaceis. Mus. D. MacLeay. Habitat in America septentrionali. - APPENDIX. 133 Oxzs. 15. Apud Olivierum figura 86, tab. 10, hance ad speciem haud pertinet, at insecto P. splendidulo Fab. affini forsan est assimilanda. Oxs. 16. Phanei Carnificis characteres ita recensui, ut varie- tatibus 4 sequentibus vix speciebus facilius dignosceretur. Phaneus vindex 2 P, thorace cupreo-aurato supra bicorni: inter cornua linea elevata transversa; rugis distinctis elevatis; punctis pos- ticis in utroque sexu obsoletis, elytris viridi-eneis multi- pliciter striatis, Mas capitis cornu brevissimo haud capitis longitudine acuto vix recurvo, thorace bicorni medio subexcavato: cornubus compressis obsoletis. Scarabeus Carnifex var. Drury Ins. 1. p. 35. f. 4. FEMINA capite tuberculato: tuberculo transverso, thorace supra subexcavato quadrato. Mus. D. MacLeay. Habitat in America boreali, P. Carnifici nimis affinis, Phaneus igneus? P. thorace cupreo-aurato: rugis inconspicuis elevatis: punctis posticis in mare saltem distinctis, elytris viridi- enheis inter strias punctis impressis. Mas capitis cornu capitis longitudine incurvato obtuso, thorace depresso plano: angulis lateralibus posticis in cor- ‘nua compressa intus subcurvata productis. Mus. D. MacLeay. FEMINA adhuc latet. Habitat in Georgia Americe borealis. Oss. 17. His C. splendidulus Fabricii ac C. floriger Kirbii asso- © ciandi, sed a quinto forme typo longi recedentes per alias species adhuc ineditas ad P. bellicosum Entomolo- gum denuo reportant. Obs. 18, Phaneus omnis his quinque typis facile referendus est; ac circulus undique connexus ita formatur quem ut 134 APPENDIX. supra e triginta speciebus in museo MacLeayano asser- vatis sedulo evolvi. En nature arboris dichotomi corpora omnia proferentis terrestria organica ex ramusculis ex- tremis aspicias unum! Oss. 19. Si genus Circulum undique connexum significare va- leat, tum preterea si omnis divisionis generici cogitatio ex animo extirpata fuerit Phaneum pro genere aliquatenus naturali oporteat haberi. Si vero genus contra pro divi- sione sit habendum, quis Phaneo terminos prescribet? Oss. 20. P. Carnifex formatam e stercore pilulam conjunctis viribus per totam exstatem usque in foveam determina- tam volvere ac volutare apud Linneum dicitur; An om~ nium Phanzorum mores ab uno diseantur? Oss. 21. Insecta que Phanzi circulo proximé accedunt, for- ma vero que distincta fruuntur sunt Copris Carolinus Fab, C. Hesperus Oliv. C. Nisus Oliv. C. tridens Fab. ac Onitis Bison Fab, Genus. SCARABEUS, Linné. ScARABEUS, Linn. DeGeer. Oliv. Cornis, Geoff. ATEUCHUS, Web. Fab. Lat. Actinopuorus, Sturm. Antenne articulis novem, articulo primo cylindrico, ad apicem et ad basin paulo crassiore, secundo subconico, tertio, quar- to, quinto et sexto duobus ultimis presertim brevibus, tertio et quarto subconicis, quinto et sexto patereeformibus, septimo, octavo et nono capitulum ovatum subcompressum trans- versum formantibus, septimo patereformi alios fere inclu- dente. Labrum subquadratum, ad apicem subacutum, angulis anticis rotundatis. Mandibule ad basin tricuspidate, deinde in laminam vix con- cavam, trigonam, externe corneo-coriaceam, intus coriaceo- membranaceam producte, latere interno et apice villis bre- vibus fimbriate. APPENDIX. 135 Maville \acinia apicali multo majore subquadrata, margine ex- terno subarcuato fimbriato; lobo interno dentiformi acuto, Palpi Maxillares articulo basilari minimo, secundo et tertio cb- conicis, secundo majore, externo ovali cylindrico longissimo, secundo fere duplo longiore. Labiales menti ad angulos su- peros inserti, articulo basilari subconico vix secundo majore, sed aperte longiore quam latiore, latere interno arcuato. Labium laciniis subtrigonis, Mentum subquadratum, lateribus convexis. Clypeus subtrilobus, lobo medio latiore emarginato, utrinque bidentato. Corpus depressum, elytrorum margine externo post humeros nec profunde nec abrupte sinuato. Pedes villosi, tibiis anticis extus quadridentatis; posticis ad api- cem oblique truncatis, inde tarsis illarum lateribus posticis insertis; tibiarum earundem ipso apice cum calcare in spinam validam producto, tarsorum dimidii ad minus lon gitudine. Spec. 1. Scarabeus Sacer. S. obscuro-niger, occipite bituberculato, elytris sublevibus lineis sex impressis obsoletis. Scarabeeus Sacer. Linn. Syst. Nat.ed. 13. vol. i. p. ii. p. 545. Oliv. Ent. vol. 1. no. 3. tab. 8. fig. 59. Ateuchus Sacer. Fab. Syst. Eleuth. tom. 1. p. 54. -— Lat. Gen. Ins. et Crust. vol. ii. p. 77. Habitat in Europa australiori, Africa, Mus. D. MacLeay. Oss. 1. Hoc genus circuli nondum examinati partem forsan constituens, prorsus artificiale videtur, at sic fere omnia! A Fabricii Ateuchis genera Gymnopleurum et Canthonem jamdudum separavit Cel. Illiger; illa autem insecta Co- prophaga clypeo radiato celeberrima Scarabei nomine sola dignatus sum. Tertiz apud Latreillium Gen: Crust. et Ins. vol. 2. p. 78. sectionis Ateuchi Pilularius Linn., &c, nomen retineant, 136 APPENDIX. Fam. APHODIID. Locum inter Scarabeidas et Trogidas Aphodiidarum verum ge- nerum anatomia indicari vix opus est, /Egialie enim apud Latreil- lium (Gen. Ins. et Crust.) et Psammodii characteres apud Gyllen- hallum consuluisse sufficiat. Fam. TROGIDE. Genus. ACANTHOCERWUS. Trox, Fabricius. Antenne decem-articulate, articulo basilari crasso triangular: uno angulo antico in spinam acutam producto, altero trun- cato, articulum secundum parvum subconicum recipiente ; capitulo ut in Troge articulis divergentibus fere pectinato. Labrum deorsum spectans, exsertum, transverso-quadraitum, margine antico vix emarginato. Mandibul@ exserte, corner, valide, oblong, crasse, subpen- tagon, supra concave latere externo rotundato ; apice exte- riori subacuto, interiori unidentato, margine interno ciliato. Mazille intus ad basin cornee unidentate, lacinia terminali membranacea, dilatata, quadrata vel subrotundata, intus ci- liata. Palpi Maxillares articulo basilari mmutissimo, secundo, tertie et quarto subconicis, hoc longissimo cylindrico apice obtuso. Labiales breves, articulis secundo et tertio subconicis. Mentum quasi e duplici parte formatum, alia apicali cordata ad basin truncata, carinata, margine antico emarginato, lateri- bus rotundatis, elevatis; altera prioris stipite transversa con- cava, margine antico recto, lineari. Clypeus porrectus subquadratus, margine antico lobato, lobo subacuto. Os sub capite latitans, instrumentis cibariis verticalibus. Corpus ovatum, valde convexum, elytris ab- domen globosum longe obtegentibus.. Thorax lunaris, APPENDIX. 137 margine postico semicirculari, vel angulis posticis emar- ginatis. Scutellum magnum, distinctum. Pedes, postici presertim, magni, lati, compressi, subcontractiles ;_ tibiis extus arcuatis, basi anyustioribus, fere acutis; anticis vix extus dentatis, alteris inermibus. Tarsi graciles, quatuor posticis pone tibias reflexis latitantibus. . Oxzs. 1. Genus antennarum forma et habitu generali Trogidis sane affine, cum illis ergo recte ponendum. Maxillarum vero structura mandibuleque exserte Hybosori propin- quitatem haud parvam satis demonstrant, dum clypeo in- strumenta cibaria occultante et situ oris verticali Elephas- tomo aliquatenus quoque Acanthocerus conferatur. An subdivisio bina circularis rursus nobis in suspicionem sit adducenda? Ulterius jam progredi nequeo licet conjec- turam supradictam aliquantulum ‘confirmaverit hujus in- secti singularis anatomia. SpEC. 1. Acanthocerus encus. A. eneus, antennis corporeque subtus ferrugineis, capite an- tice punctato postice cum thorace glaberrimo, elytris punctato-striatis: punctis elevatis rarissimis vix distinctis, pedibus obscure zneis. : Habitat in America boreali. Mus. D. MacLeay. Oss. 2. Trox spinicornis Fab. Syst. Eleuth. vol. i. p. 112. huic generi associandus. Genus. PHOBERUS. Trox, Fab. Oliv. Antenne decem-articulate, articulo basilari triquetro-trigono, magno, crasso, piloso, secundo oblongo globoso, tertio conico graciliore, quarto, quinto, sexto et septimo patereformibus. Labrun subsemicirculare, crustaceum, antice vix emarginatum, ciliatum, lateribus rotundatis. 138 APPENDIX. Mandibule valide, breves, crasse, triquetro-trigone, arcuate, inermes, apice acutissime. Mazcille hirsute, processu interno spinis duabus hirsutis elon- gatis, intls arcuatis, acutis, armato; terminali coriaceo-mem- branaceo, vel potius pilis longissimis instructo. Palpi Maxillares articulo secundo conico, tertio breviori conico, ultimo cylindrico ovato. Labiales breves, articulo ultimo cy- lindrico ovato, aliis subcrassiore. Mentum breve, subquadratum, margine antico truncate, ciliate, et lateribus convexis. Caput semicirculare. Corpus convexum, apterum, subtus pla- niusculum. Thorax scabriusculus, caput.excipiens, margi- nibus lateralibus dilatatis; scutello haud distincto. Elytra abdomen longe obtegentia. Tibiz antice vix dentate. Oss. A Troge instrumentis cibariis et corpore aptero distinc- tum, sed ad circulum eundem certe pertinens, Spec. 1. Phoberus horridus. P. ater, thorace elytrisque spinosis: his striis quinque spino- sis margineque ciliatis. Trox horridus. Fab. Syst. Eleuth. vol. i. p. 111. Oliv. Ins. 1. 4. 5. 1. tab. 1. fig. 2. Scarabeus pectinatus. Pall. Icon, 1. p. 10, tab. A. fig. 10. Habitat ad Caput Bone Spei. Mus. D. MacLeay. Genus. CRYPTODUS. Antenne dum contrahuntur ut in Troge sub thoracis lateribus inflexze, novem-articulate, articulo basilari glabro, dilatato, triquetro-trigono, reliquos usque ad clavam operiente, arti- culo sexto vix distincto, septimo vel capituli primo dilatato, subconico, duobus aliis dilatatis. Labrum corneum, semicirculare, margine solum exsertum. Mandibule nec valide nec crass, triquetro-trigone, arcuate, apice acutissime, ad basin sinu interrupto unidentate. APPENDIX. 139 Mazille glabre, corner, valide, processu terminali spinis duabus glabris elongatis intus arcuatis acutissimis instruc- to ; lacinid interna, loco ciliarum precedentis generis, spinis tribus minutissimis acutis nunc armata. Palpi Maxillares fere omnino ut in Phobero. Labiales mento absconditi, intus labii ad Jatera inserti, articulo ultimo duo- bus aliis conjunctim multo longiore, conico-cylindrico, gra- cili, subobtuso, stipite conico. Labium membranaceum, pilosum, mento prorsus absconditum, processubus duobus formatum; primo menti ad perpendicu- jum in stipite affixo, subquadrato, marginibus emarginatis ; secundo sicut ferrum equinum brachiis duobus horizonta- jibus instructo, membranaceis, ciliatis; omni ita galeam re- versam aliquantulum simulante. Mentum maximum, instrumenta cibaria, labri margine excepto, omnino occultans, subpentagonum, antice convexum, angu- lis subacutis, lateribusque sinuatis. aput planum, ut in Coprophagis subsemicirculare. Corpus ut in Phileuro glabrum, depressum, oblongo-ovatum. Tho- rax transverso-quadratus. Scutellum distinctum triangulare. Elytra abdomen postice haud occultantia. Tibie antice ex- tus tridentate, Oss. Genus valde anomalum, forsan osculans, Trogidarum an- tennis mandibulis et maxillis etsi forma prorsus nova et singulari indutis dotatum ; huic igitur familie Cryptodus associandus quamvis mento labroque omnino differt, Pas- salisque habitu generali et maxillis appropinquare potius videatur. Spec. 1. Cryptodus paradorus. C. ater punctis impressis scaber, capite bituberculato, elytris inter strias elevatas punctis excavatis cum aliis minutissi- mis ornatis. Habitat in Australasia. Mus. D. MacLeay. 140 APPENDIX. Genus. M&®CHIDIUS, Trox, Kirby. Antenne novem-articulate, articulo basilari magno, elongato conico, secundo brevi conico, tertio graciliorl conico, quarto brevissimo, quinto et sexto pateraformibus; capitulo ovato, lamellis lanceolatis acutis. Labrum crustaceum, antice concavum, margine fere ut in Me~ lolonthidis emarginato. Mandibule ut in Troge breves, triquetro-trigone, extus arcuate apice acute, intus inermes. Maville ut in Melolonthidis crustacee, sinuate, apice multi- dentate. Palpi Maxillares articulo secundo conico, tertio vix breviori, externo cylindrico apice truncato. Labiales brevissimi. Mentum magnum, lateribus truncatis, quasi e duplici parte for- matum, hac stipitali, alia terminali inflexa antice emarginata. Caput subsemicirculare, haud transverse suturatum, clypeo antice emarginato, oculos haud ambiente, margine reflexo. Os labri et menti concursu omnino clausum. Corpus ob- longum, ovatum, glabrum, depressum, elytris postice non opertum. Thorax transversus, subconvexus, antice emar- ginatus, lateribus convexis, margineque postico truncato vix obtusangulo. Scutellum triangulare. Pedes validi, ut in Troge, subcompressi, tibiis anticis extus tridentatis. Spec. 1. Mechidius spurius. M. oblongus scaber subcinereus, elytris seriatim papillatis. Trox spurius. Kirby, Linn. Trans. v. 12. p. 462. Habitat in Australasia. Mus. D. MacLeay. Oss. Hoc insectum inter Trogem et Melolontham interme- dium, et forsan proprio generi esse celeberrimus Kirby primus observavit. Non equidem dubito quin Trogidis propius sit existimandum. APPENDIX. 141 Fam. DYNASTIDZ. Genus. DASYGNATHUS. Antenne decem-articulate, articulo basilari longiusculo, septi- mo minutissimo, patereformi. Labrum membranaceum, clypeo penitus occultatum, margine antico transverso, bilobo, crustaceo, pilis longis instructo. Mandibule corner, compresse, breves, cultelliformes, supra plane, superficie inferiori inequali, margine externo rotun- dato piloso, interno membranaceo vel fimbria instructo. Mazille breves, caule crustaceo valido, subtrigono, processu apicali penicilliformi, vel e setis longiusculis formato. Palpi Maxillares crassi, articulis secundo et tertio conicis, ex- timo ovato aliis crassiore et longiore apice subobtuso. Mentum subquadratum, valde convexum, setis rigidis munitum, lateribus rotundatis, margine antico depresso, emarginato, angulis acutis. Caput subquadratum, haud transverse suturatum, clypeo por- recto, lateribus rotundatis, margine reflexo crassiusculo. Corpus subtus pubescens, oblongum, ovatum, haud elytris postice obtectum. Thorax marginatus. Scutellum parvum, apice rotundatum. Pedes validi, tibiis anticis extus tridentatis. Spec. 1..Dasygnathus Dejeanii. D. nigro-brunneus, subtus pilis ferrugineis opertus, clypeo antice punctato, thorace glabro, elytris profunde striatis ad latera scabriusculis: striis cbsoletis, ano punctato glabro. Habitat in Australasia. ». Mus. D. MacLeay. In honorem Dom. Baronis Dejean Galli, qui inter bella ex- terna discordiasque civiles scientia deditus, Europa ento- mologiam omnis indagavit, solertissimus cultor ac ob- servator acutus. 142 APPENDIX. Oss. In Petalocerorum maxillis examinandis hujusque generis presertim, quam facile et gradatim dentes maxillares spi- narum spineque rursus ciliarum se forma induant, Tyro= nibus opere pretium sit observare. B. THALEROP HAGA. Pedes plerumque graciliores, posticis ab aliis eque dissitis ; elytra sepius ad anum haud pertingentia. Fam. ANOPLOGNATHID. Genus. AMBLYTERUS. Antenne decem-articulate, articulo basilari setoso, secundo, tertio, quarto et quinto globosis, sexto et septimo brevibus paterzeformibus. Labrum crustaceum, hirsutum, exsertum, antice sub lobum de- flexum. Mandibule cornez, breves, valide, subtrigono-triquetre, supra plane, extus arcuate, pilose, vix emarginate, margine in- terno sub-bidentato. Marille crustacee, subcylindrice, apice obtuse, pilose, et dentibus minutissimis instructe. Palpi Maxillares graciles, articulis secundo et tertio conicis, ex- terno lanceolato, aliis conjunctim longiore, apice subacuto. Labiales articulo ultimo ovato crasso. Mentum subquadratum, valde hirsutum, convexum, medio an- tice producto, depresso, truncato, angulis rotundatis palpi- geris. Caput subquadratum, transverse suturatum, clypeo antice ro- tundato, margine subreflexo. Corpus ovatum, elytris postice hon opertum, scutello magno triangulari. Sternum non productum. Pedes validiusculi, tibiis anticis extus tridentatis. SPEC. 1. Amblyterus geminatus. A. brunneus subtus pilis testaceis obtectus, clypeo thoraceque APPENDIS. 145 punctatis eneo-olivaceis, scutello glabro «neo, elytris eneis brunneis punctatis: seriebus quatuor punctorum per paria ordinatis, ano hirsuto, pedibus zneis pilosis. Habitat in Australasia. Mus. D. MacLeay. Oss. Hoc in genere ad Rutelidas fere attinente Pelidnote man- dibulas et mentum cernamus, dum instrumentis cibariis Chasmodie propinquare habeatur Dasygnathus., Haud tamen necesse duco Dynastidarum affinitatem cum Am- blytero jam ulterius preferre, quum genera inter se habitu generali quam maxime coherentia efformant. Genus. ANOPLOGNATHUS, Leach. Antenne articulis decem, basilari conico, crasso, secundo sub- globoso, quatuor proximis subconicis, septimo patereformi brevissimo, capituloque elongato semi-ovato piloso. Labrum corneum transversum, antice medio acuminatum. Mandibule breves, subcompresse®, valide, subtrigone, basi crasse, apice obtuse, edentule, integerrime, extus con- vexe, intus acute, margine concavo. Mazille mandibuliformes, plane inermes, valide, cornez, sub- trigone, fornicate, apice obtuse, subemarginate. Palpi Maxillares subclavati. Labialés breves, articulo secundo previssimo, externo ovato, vix ultra mentum prominulo. Mentum subquadratum, ad basin utrinque emarginatum, an- gulis palpigeris, in medio processu porrecto subreflexo mu- nitum. Caput subquadratum, transverse suturatum, clypeo in fceminis semper rotundato semicirculari, sed in maribus interdum an- eulato, margine antico in uno et altero sexu reflexo. Corpus sub-convexum, ovatum, ano nudo saltem in uno sexu. Ster- num sepius ad pedum primi paris originem acute productum. Pedes validissimi, tibiis anticis in maribus saltem vix extus iridentatis, tarsorum unguibus indivisis et inequalibus. 144 APPENDIX. In duas divisiones commode distribui potest Anoplognathi genus. , * Menti apice sub-acuto recurvo. Mas clypeo producto ‘subrostriformi, lateribus late emarginatis, antice truncato, convexiusculo, margine reflexo. FEMINA clypeo semicirculari. SPEC. 1. Anoplognathus viridi-eneus. Anoplognathus viridi-eneus punctulatus, elytris basi punc- tatis: punctis in strias subdigestis, pedibus castaneis, tar- sis nigris. A. viridi-eneus. Leach, Zool. Miscellany, vol. 2: p. 44. Melolontha viridi-enea. Don. Ins. New Holl. Habitat in Nova Hollandia. Mus. D. MacLeay. Oss. A. viridi-tarsis Leach, rugosus Kirby, inustus Kirby, huic generis sectioni associandi. * * Menti apice truncato subrecurvo. Genus REPSIMUS, Leach, MSS. Maris femora et tibie valde sunt incrassatez, at clypeus in utroque sexu semicircularis. In his a sectione priore differentiz cardo preecipue vertitur. Spec. 2. Anoplognathus Dytiscoides. A. niger nitidissimus, clypeo atro subrugoso: punctis duobus postice impressis, thorace atro-ferrugineo, elytris glaber- rimis atris, corpore subtus nigro pilis albidis ad abdominis latera presertim hirsuto, pedibus rufis, tarsis nigris. Habitat in Australasia. Mus. D. MacLeay. SPEC. 3. Anoplognathus Brownii. A. rufus nitidissimus, capite nigro rugoso postice haud bi- punctato, thorace rufo, elytris brunneis glaberrimis, cor- pore subtus nigro pilis albidis ad abdominis latera pre- sertim hirsuto, pedibus rufis, tarsis nigris. Botanicorum hodiernorum principi hance speciem dicavi pre- APPENDIX. 145 cedenti nimis affinem ab illo in Australasia lectam, et meo cum patre amicissime communicatam. Oxss.—Secundam Anoplognathi sectionem novum esse ge- nus sibi persuasum habet vir in scientia naturali oma celeberrimus, Entomologia precellens, D. Leach; nec mihi quidem displicuisse hujus sententiam putari vellem, parvi quoniam plane interest utrum diligentia observentur di- visiones artificiales, an cuique liceat eas contemnere. Si vero ordinem precedentem ad pulcherrimam sectionum affinitatem inter se exponendam aptiorem fuisse habuerim, Entomologi adeo in errorem duci minus quam in veri- tatem mihi videntur. Genus. LEUCOTHYREUS. Antenne decem-articulatz, articulo primo conico, piloso, se- cundo sub-globoso, articulis tertio et quarto longiusculis, cylindricis, gracillimis, septimo brevissimo patereeformi; ca- pitulo semi-ovato piloso. Labrum magnum antice lobatum, lobo vix obtuso. Mandibule breves, subtriquetro-trigone, supra plane, apice crassiores, integra, obtuse, extus arcuate, pilose, intus sub- acute. : Maxille mandibuliformes, valide, breves, vix arcuate, sed me- dio quasi fracte, apice obtuse, subbidentate. Palpi Maxillares subclavati; Labiales brevissimi articulo ulti- mo vix ultra mentum obvio. Mentum transversum, subquadratum, basi palpigerum, medio antice producto; processus hujus apice crasso, vix recurvo, - profunde emarginato. Caput subquadratum, transverse suturatum, clypeo semicircu- lari, margine reflexo. Corpus oblongo-ovatum convexiuscu- lum; thoracis lateribus sinuatis; sterno haud producto. Pedum femora haud incrassata; tibiis anticis extus vix tridentatis. Tarsorum ex unguibus unus indivisus alter bi- fidus, L 146 APPENDIX. Spec. i, Leucothyreus Kirbyanus. L. capite thoraceque xneis punctatis; hoc utrinque squamis albidis asperso, elytris viridi-brunneis haud nitidis obso- lete punctatis; lineis quatuor subelevatis, scutello albido squaimis obtecto, corpore subtus cupreo; lateribus albido- squamosis, ano scabriusculo lituris duabus albo-squamo- sis, pedibus eneis. Habitat in Brazilia. Mus. D. MacLeay. Ob consilia mihi amicissime oblata, dixi in honorem Dom. Kirby, qui opere nunquam nimis laudando Monographia Apum Anglie nomen Anglicanum in summa scientie na- turalis fastigia attulit. Oss. Ex Leucothyreis in Geniatem ac alia Anoplognathida- rum genera maxillis multidentatis facili gradu ducimur. Fam. MELOLONTHIDE. Genus. SERICA. a ScaraBeus, Linn. MELOLONTHA, Fab. Oliv. Lat. Antenne articulis decem, basilari crasso clavato piloso, secundo globoso, tertio et quarto subcylindricis brevibus, quinto co- nico, sexto et septimo patereformibus, hoe vix distincto; capitulo trilamellato, maris valde elongato angusto. Labrum emarginatum, pilosum. Mandibule brevissime, crass, trigono-triquetre. Mazxille mandibulis duplo longiores, trigono-triquetre, intus ad apicem sexdentate, caule subquadrato, margine interno recto. Palpi Maxillares, articulis omnibus preter extimum pilosis, hoc aliis conjunctim breviore, cylindrico, apice subacuto. Labiales articulis primo secundoque hirsutis, ultimo acutis- simo, VIX Incurvo. Mentum oblongo-quadratum, stipite convexo vel antice retuso ; parte apicali carina vel linea elevata transversa; margine antico emarginato. APPENDIX. 147 Corpus breviter ovatum, convexum, elytris elongatis. Thorax brevissimus, transversus; scutello oblongo-triangulari. Pedes tenues, tarsis longissimis, unguibus equalibus ad apicem bifidis; dente supero graciliore, longiore, acuto. Spec. 1. Serica brunnea. S. rufo-testacea glabra, clypeo punctato: vertice plerumque nigricante, thorace vix punctulato: puncto utrinque ob- soleto fusco, elytris obsolete punctato-striatis. Melolontha brunnea. ub. Syst. Eleuth. ii. 170. 54. Scarabeeus brunneus. Marsh. Ent. Brit. Scarabeeus brunneus. Linn. Syst. Nat. il. 556. 72. Habitat in Europe sabulosis. Genus. EUCHLORA. Merotontua, Fab. Oliv. Antenné articulis novem, basilari conico elongato, secundo, tertio, quarto, quinto et sexto brevibus subglobosis; capi- tulo ovato, triphyllo, elongato, antennarum longitudinis totius haud dimidium zquante. Labrum prominulum, clypeo fere absconditum, margine antico lineari, ciliato, emarginato, lateribus rotundatis. Mandibule latitantes subtrigone supra plane, latere externo rotundato, interno ciliato ad apicem tridentato. } Marille caule subtrigono-triquetro, ad apicem inflexe sex- dentate. Palpi Maxillares articulo terminali cylindrico ovato, Labiales articulis secundo et ultimo longitudine equalibus, hoc subu- lato. Mentum subquadratum, margine antico emarginato, angulis truncatis rotundatis ac lateribus sinuatis, postice valde con- vexis. Caput subquadratum, clypeo lateribus rotundatis, margine re- flexo. Corpus ovatum convexum, postice elytris haud oper- L2 148 APPENDIX. tum. Thorax subquadratus, ad basin duplo longior quam latior, latere postico sinuato vix lobato. Scutellum parvum cordato-truncatum. Sternum haud productum. Pedes va- lidiusculi tibiis anticis bidentatis. Tarsorum ungues pusti- corum indivisi, reliquorum ex unguibus unus bifidus alter indivisus. Spec. 1. Euchlora viridis. E. glabra punctata supra viridis subtus cupreo-aurata, pedi- bus cupreis. Melolontha viridis. Fab. Ent. Syst. ii. 160. 23. Melolontha viridis. Oliv. Inst.1. 5. 29.31. tab. 3. fig. 21.b. B. Var. Elytris cupreo-marginatis. Habitat in China. Mus. D. MacLeay. Spec. 2. Euchlora Jurinii. E, nitidissima punctata supra viridi-olivacea subtus viridi- cuprea, thorace utrinque punctis duobus impressis, pedi- bus viridibus. Habitat in Java, Mus. D. MacLeay. Dixi in honorem illius Entomologie magistri precellentis D. Jurine apud Genevenses anatomiz artisque chirurgice doctissimi professoris. Oxzs.1. En genus Asiaticum Areode proximum, speciebus e pluribus constans, quod a Melolonthidis quidem maudibu- lis extus integris sub clypeo latitantibus, maxillis sinuatis, et sterno haud producto, a Rutelidis contra labro tenui prominulo, et mento subquadrato vix retuso haud longe distat. Hic igitur inter Petalocera Thalerophaga subdivi- sio duplex eadem quam circulos duos inter Saprophaga jam formantem observavimus, facile discernatur. Oxs..2.. Inter Euchlore genus et Rutelam ignitam Oliv. Cyani- pedem K. &c. veniunt Cetonia Muacropus K. (Anglice, Kan- garoo Beetle) et Melolontha chrysochlora Humboldt. Obs. de Zool. et d’Anat. Comp. APPENDIX. 149 Genus. CHALEPUS. ScaraBEus, Voet. Mrtotontua, Fab. Oliv. GEOTRUPES, Schinherr. Antenne quasi fracte, articulis decem, basilari subconico vel potius antice lobato, secundo subgloboso minuto, sexto sep- timoque majoribus patereformibus ; capitulo triphylo, sub- compresso elongato ovato. Labrum sub clypeo latitans, margine antico lunari vix obvio, infra subemarginato. Mandibule ad basin crasse, triquetro-trigone, extus arcuate, apice acute, intus inermes. Marille crustacex, valide, elongate, subcompresse, vix si- nuate, apice sexdentate, dentibus brevibus validis corneis. Paipi Maxillares articulo primo vix distincto, secundo subco- nico, tertio breviori conico, ultimo elongato cylindrico ovato, ad apicem basinque graciliore. Labiales breves ad menti loborum dorsa inserti, articulo primo gracili conico, secundo -breviore crassiore conico, extimo cylindrico ovato. Mentum subquadratum, versus apicem utrinque paulo angusta-~ tum, margine supero profunde emarginato, lobis subrotun- datis—Supra convexum, margine postico emarginato vel po- tius excavato. Caput subquadratum vel trapezoide, transverse suturatum, clypeo antice truncato vix emarginato. Corpus subcon- vexum, thorace transverso lateribus convexis, margineque postico truncato. Sternum non productum. Elytra abdo- men haud obtegentia. Tibiz antice extus tridentate. Spec. 1. Chalepus geminatus. C. nigro-piceus nitidus, capite thoraceque punctatis, elytris punctato-striatis: striis geminatis interstitiisque punctatis. Scarabeus fimosus Surinamensis. Voet. Ins. 21, 140. Melolontha geminata. Fab, Syst. Eleuth, 150 APPENDIX. Melolontha dubia. Oliv, Ent. vol. i, no. 5. p. $2. tab. 3. fiz. 20. a. b, Geotrupes lugubris. Schonherr. Synon. Ins. vol. 1. p. 21. t.2, oie Ee Habitat in America meridionali. Mus. D. Macleay. Oss. 1. Asynonymia laudata nomen derivatur genericum. M. geminatam Fab. Syst. Eleuth. sue Apogonie gemellate congenericam esse suspicatur Cl. Kirby, Linn. Trans. v. xii. p. 404. Famillis autem diversis hc insecta, nisi fallor, dis- tribuenda sunt; descriptione enim apud Fabricium et Schonherri Synonymia Insectorum collatis, M. geminatam pro novi generis typo Americani, Euchloram vel genera Rutclidarum extima Dynastidis annectentis esse haben- dam mihi persuasissimum est; Apogonia vero Anoplogna- thidis apud Kirbium recte associata pro genere omnino Asiatico, hujus familiz extremo, habeatur. Oss. 2. Si faciem suam Heteromerorum persona occultasse animo Chalepus fingatur, Hexodontis genus statim videbi- mus. Quod enimvero patri meo summa benevolentia dedére Musi Gallici administratores doctissimi, auspice cel. La- treillio, illi exemplari antenne desunt. Anatomia vero hu- jus insecti tam rari quam singularis reliqua nuperrime per- pensa, Labro brevi corneo subemarginato; Mandibulis corneis crassis triquetro-trigonis arcuatis apice subacutis ; Maxillis crustaceis, validis, elongatis, vix sinuatis apice sexdentatis; Palpis maxillaribus articulo primo minimo, secundo conico, tertio breviori conico, ultimo elongato, Jabialibus brevibus, articulo primo et secundo conicis ex- timo cylindrico ovato; Mento subquadrato margine su- pero emarginato; Capite subquadrato, clypeo antice trun- cato vix emarginato—Hec omnia et adhuc alia Chalepi proximitatem satis mihi monstraverunt. Quoad corporis formam a Petaloceris Hexodon longe distat, illam Hete- romerorum potius referens ut genus inter Asidam et Ero- APPENDIX. 151 dium ponendum primo intuitu prorsus esse videatur. Cha- racteres enim procul dubio Pimelidis cum illo communes sunt, nempe,Caput thorace multo angustius, illus margine antico profunde emarginato intrusum, Oculi parvi, Elytra subtus inflexa dilatata corporis latera involventia, Scutel- lum ‘breve, Pectus brevissimum fere nullum, cum corpere denique ipso suborbiculari supra convexo subtus plano. Quum vero hee ipsa Trogidis quodammodo adsunt, inter Troges et Chalepum Hexodontis situm quasi temporarium, examine ulteriori si minus emendatione carentem eruditis offerre haud incautus vellem. Fam. GLAPHYRID/. Interea dum hec familia inter Melolontham et Cetoniam a La- treillio recte disponitur, genera quedam extrema vel horum potius typos Amphicomam abdominalem (Lat. Gen. Ins.) et Trichium triline- atum (Fab.) indicasse sufficiat—Fateri autem oporteat hanc dicendi rationem nullas leges agnoscere posse, ideoque generum Petaloce- rorum Synopsi diutius esse attendendum. ~ Oss. Hic locanda sunt genera Monochelus Knoch et An- thipna Eschscholtz Act. Acad. Imp. Scient. Petrop. vol. vi. p- 472. quorum ultimum, monente Leachio, duas divi- siones genericas Latreillianas Amphicomam et Anysony- chem continere videtur. Fam. CETONITDZ. Genus. PLATYGENIA. Antenne decem-articulate, articulo basilar’ magno crasso, co- nico, parum elongato, secundo subgloboso; sexto lato pa- tereformi; septimo brevissimo, vix distincto; capitulo sub- compresso, elongato ovato. Labrum clypeo penitus tectum, lato-transversum, subcordatum, submembranaceum, antice emarginatum, hirsutissimum. Mandibule breves, basi crasse, cornee, latere externo producto, 152 APPENDIX. corneo, lanceolato, apice rotundato vel cbtuso, membrana subquadrata, translucida, fimbriata intus aucte. Marille \acinia interna subtrigona, dilatata, apice emarginata, setosa ; terminali fasciculis penicilliformibus elongatis in- structa. Palpi Maxillares articulo secundo subgloboso, tertio subconico, extimo subovato cylindrico, apice cbtuso. Labiales in ore sepe latitantes, versus menti angulos insert. Mentum latissimum, subquadratum, in medio concavum, late- ribus subemarginatis, margineque antico emarginato, sub- reflexo. Caput quadratum ; clypeo integro margine subreflexo. Corpus depressum, subtus vix pilosum, postice elytris haud opertum. Thorax latus depressus, lateribus convexis, margine:postico truncato. Scutellum mediocre subtrigonum. Sternum non productum, pectore magno, medio hirsuto. Pedes validi; Tibiis anticis extus bidentatis, posticis intus hirsutissimis. Oss. Genus inter Cetoniidas forme singularis et habitus fere Saprophagi, nullo tamen modo Rectoceris accedens. At verbis quid opus est? Si Lucanis Cetoniide annectantur, actum est ilicet de omni ordine naturali. Spec. Platygenia Zairica. P. atra nitida, capite punctato, thorace glabro, elytris striatis, ano et corpore subtus atro-ferrugineis haud nitidis. Mus. D. MacLeay. Insectum in ripas Zaire fluminis Africani insalubres a Do- mino Cranch, pro scientiis naturalibus et entomologia imprimis heu! quantum deflendo, nuper lectum. Genus. GYMNETIS. CretTontia, Fab. Oliv. Latr. Antenne articulis decem, basilari subgloboso magno, clava tri- phylla ovata. APPENDIX. 153 Labrum margine antico ciliato, emarginato, lateribus rotundatis. Mandibule breves, processtis latere externi fere sinuato, apice obtuso vel rotundato. Mazville \acinia interna membranacea, ciliata, processu termi- nali articulato, compresso, fimbria hirsuta instructo. Palpi Maxillares vix ultra maxillarum apicem producte, arti- culis primo et secundo brevibus, penultimo conico, ultimo subcylindrico apice truncato. Labiales menti lateribus exca- vatis inserti, articulis duobus. baseos conicis, externo lon- gissimo oyato. Mentum cordato-truncatum, ad basin et ad latera depressum, utrinque paulo angustatum, et lineis duabus elevatis angu- lum ad apicem formantibus instructum ; margine antico pro- funde emarginato, lateribus rotundatis. Caput subquadratum ; clypeo supra irregulari. Corpus ovatum depressum, ad humeros latius, elytrorum margire externo ad basin abrupte sinuato. Thorax subtrigonus, antice an- gustior et truncatus, postice lobatus, lobo miagno triangu- lari apice subobtuso. Scutellum minimum. Sternum tu- berculiforme, vix ad pedum secundi paris originem obtuse productum. Pedes graciles tibiis anticis bidentatis, fere tri- dentatis, unguibus equalibus indivisis. Scapule secundi et tertii pedum paris distincte. Spec. Gymnetis nitida. G. viridi testacea, capite spina incumbente. Scarabeus nitidus. Linn. Syst. Nat. 1. 552. 52. Cetonia nitida. Fab. Syst. Eleuth. ii, 139. 24. Oliv. Ent. i. 6. 18. 14. tab. 3. f. 16. Habitat in America boreali. Mus. D. MacLeay. Oss. In speciebus quibusdam, genus proprium forsan effor- mantibus, scutellum prorsus evanescit. 154 APPENDIX. Fam. RUTELID. Forme typi omnis inter Rutelidas mihi posthac preepo- nendi tempus sit; pauca tamen que ad hanc familiam cognoscendam lectori utilia sint nunc premonere licet. Tres sunt Rutele typi apud Cl. Latreillium, qui tot genera adeo indicasse dicatur. 1. Melolontha punctata, Fab. Cetonia ignita (Oliv.) et R. cyanipes K. hoc cum insecto affinitatem haud levem habent, tametsi instrumentis cibarils, maxillis presertim, illas differri suspicor. 2. Cetonia Lineola, Fab. Genus quidem distinctum quod Rutele nomen retineat. Huic Rutela pulchella K. proprii generis insectum proxime accedit, at sic genericé dignoscatur. Rutela Lineola. Mandibule intus tridentate. Maxille breviores arcuate, ad apicem sexdentate at laciniis duabus majoribus vix instructe. Palpi maxillares articulo secundo et tertio fere eadem longitu- dine, extimo elongato, ovato, apice truncato. Mentum subquadratum, margine antico emarginato, angulis truncatis lateribusque vix sinuatis. Rutela pulchella. Mandibulz intus inermes. Maxille elongate, rectiuscule, ad apicem laciniis duabus tri- dentatis instructe. Palpi maxillares, articulo secundo longiore, extimo maximo, ovato lanceolato, apice subacuto. Mentum oblongo-quadratum, margine antico emarginato, an- gulis anticis subacutis rotundatis, lateribus valde sinuatis. A Rutela pulchella, nisi instrumentis cibariis nondum examinatis, R. Liturella K. vix longe recedat. APPENDIX. 155 3. Cetonia Chrysis, Fab. Huic forme typo accedunt Cetonia fucata Fab., smaragdula Fab., clavata Fab., lucida Fab., splendida Fab., lateralis Oliv. &c. Alium adhuc typum quem Cel. Latreillius haud quidem cognoverat Chas- modie genus constituere putavl. Oxs. Hexodon genus est fere Saprophagum quod perperam Rutelidis associatum fuisse censeo. Genus. CHASMODIA. Antenneé articulis decem, basilari magno, subarcuato, conico ; secundo subgloboso; tertio longiore, subcylindrico; quarto, quinto, et sexto brevibus; septimo brevissimo patereformi; capitulo ovato elongato. Labrum porrectum, ciliatum, bifidum, laciniis rotundatis. Mandibule valid, corner, elongate, subtus canaliculatz, latere externo profunde emarginato, extra clypeum eminulo, in- terno membranaceo ciliato, apice interno integro. Mazville corner, bidentate, supra membranacee, ciliis pro- ductis penicilliformibus. Palpi Maxillares, articulo tertio subgloboso, quarto ovato apice obtuso. Labiales graciles, ad angulos menti inserti, articulo extimo subacuto. Mentum elongatum, concavum, lateribus sinuatis, vel ad palpo- rum insertionem profunde excavatis, apice truncato maximo ciliato. Caput subquadratum, clypeo profunde emarginato, margine re- flexo. Corpus ellipsoide depressum; Thorax duplo lon- gior quam latior; Scutello magno trigono. Sternum usque ad pedum primi paris originem productum haud acutum. Pedes validiusculi, tibiis anticis tridentatis, posticis subcom- pressis.. Tarsi mediocres unguibus indivisis. Spec. 1. Chasmodia viridis. C. atro-viridis nitidissima glaberrima, thorace marginato, ely- 156 APPENDIX. tris obsoletissime striatis, ano et corpore subtus ad latera rugosis, femoribus et thorace subtus pilosis, tarsis ni- gris. Habitat in Brazilia. Mus. D. MacLeay. Spec. 2. Chasmodia bipunctata. C. nigro-castanea glaberrima subtus nigrescens, capite tho- raceque brunneis ; hujus margine flavescente, scutelli mar- gine nigro, elytris castaneis obsoletissime striatis, ani ni- grescentis punctis duobus abdominis segmentis ad latera et sterni apice flavescentibus, pedibus castaneis. Habitat in Brazilia. Mus. D. MacLeay. Genus. MACRASPIS. ScaraBaeus, Drury. Crronia, Fab. Oliv. Antenne clava magna oblonga, longitudinis totius illarum haud dimidium xquante. Articulo basilari conico parum elon- gato. Labrum transversum, margine antico subsemicirculari, exserto, coriaceo, integro, hirsuto, apice subacuto. Mandibule subtrigone, compresse, supra concave, latere ex- terno eminulo, emarginato, vix bidentato, apice interno sub- emarginato. Mazille intus margme membranaceo instructe et ad apicem processubus duobus tridentatis corneis producte. Palpi Maxillares articulo extimo magno subgloboso ovato. La- biales articulo ultimo elongato ovato. Mentumelongatum subquadratum concavum, lateribus sinuatis, apice truncato haud ciliato vix emarginato. Caput subquadratum, clypeo rotundato margine reflexo. Cor- pus ellipsoide depressum; thorace duplo Jongiori quam latiori, latere postico emarginato. Scutellum maximum elongato-trigonum. Sternum ad capitis originem produc- APPENDIX. 157 tum acutum. Pedes validiusculi, tibiis anticis tridentatis, posticis subcompressis; tarsorum ex unguibus unus indivi- sus alter bifidus. Spec. 1. Macraspis quadri-vittata. M. atra nitida, thoracis margine omni elytrorumque vittis duabus flavis. Scarabeus Cineta. (cinctus?) Drury Ins. 3. tab. 44. fig. 4. Cetonia quadri-vittata. Oliv. Ins. 1. 6. 92. 7. tab. 8. fig. 65. Cetonia fucata. Ent. Syst. 2. 145. 69. Habitat in America meridionali. Mus. D. MacLeay. Spec. 2. Macraspis bi-vittata. M. supra testacea nitida subtus nigra, capite fulvo linea transversa nigra, thoracis duabus maculis scutelli fulvi margine elytrorum vitta ac sutura nigris, pedibus tes- taceis. Habitat in America meridionali. Mus. D. MacLeay. Ons. Speciem priorem ad animum revocans. Genus. PELIDNOTA. ScARABEUS, Linn. MELOLONTHA, Fab. Oliv. RUTELA, Lat. Antenne articulis decem, basilari magno subarcuato conico ; secundo subgloboso, tertio longiore subcylindrico, quarto, quinto et sexto brevibus, septimo brevissimo, patereformi ; capitulo ovato. Labrum exsertum transversum, subsemicirculare, pilosum vel ciliatum, margine antico emarginato. Mandibule subcompresse, triquetro-trigone, supra planiuscule, latere externo arcuato emarginato, intus ad apicem biden- tate. i Marille corner, crasse, pilose, incurve, intus ad apicem sex- dentate, dentibus acutissimis. 158 APPENDIX. Palpi Maxillares articulo basilari brevi subcylindrico, se- cundo longiore, tertio breviore ad apicem crassiore, ex- terno ovato subcanaliculato. Labiales breves articulo ult- imo ovato. Mentum breve quadratum, postice convexum vel retusum, la- teribus sinuatis, margine antico emarginato angulis rotun- datis. Caput subtrigonum, haud transverse suturatum ; clypeo rotun- dato obtuso margine reflexo. Corpus ovatum convexum postice elytris haud opertum. Sternum brevissimum sub- retusum. Scutellum mediocre semicirculare. Pedes vali- diusculi, tibiis anticis extus tridentatis, tarsorum unguibus ineequalibus. Spec. Pelidnota punctata. P. testacea, elytris maculis tribus fuscis distantibus. Scarabeus punctatus. Linn. Syst. Nat. 2. 557. 78. Melolontha punctata. Fab. Syst, Eleuth. 2. 166. 28. Oliv. Ins. 1. 5. 22. 18. tab. 1. f. 6. f. Variat maculis indistinctis, Habitat in America boreali, Mus. D. MacLeay. Genus. AREODA. Leach, MSS. Antenne decem-articulate, articulo basilari oblongo, conico, pi- loso; secundo brevi subgloboso ; tertio, quarto, quinto, sexto et septimo brevibus ; ultimis tribus clavam elongatam sub- lanceolatam formantibus. Labrum corneum, margine antico obvio crasso, infra profunde emarginato. Mandibule corne, valide, subtrigone, supra plane, latere ex- terno integro rotundato, interno ciliato et ad apicem emar- ginato vix tri-dentato. Marille valide, cornee, inflexe, apice sex-dentate. APPENDIX. 159 Palpi Maxillares articulo basilari brevi, secundo elongato co- nico, tertio brevi conico, ultimo elongato ovato vel cylindri- co apice subacuto. Labiales menti lateribus inserti, articulo ultimo subcrassiori ovato. Mentum subquadratum, versus apicem utrinque paulo angus- tatum, ad apicem inflexum, truncatum, vix emarginatum, angulis vix rotundatis. Caput subquadratum, clypei lateribus rotundatis margine reflexo, Corpus ovatum, convexum; coleoptris abdo- men haud obtegentibus. Thorax subtrapeziformis, ad basin fere duplo longior quam latior, latere postico sinuato vix lobato, Scutellum mediocre cordato-truncatum. Ster- num usque ad secundi pedum paris originem porrectum. Pedes validiusculi, tibiis bidentatis; tarsorum unguibus in- divisis. Spec. Areoda Leachii. A. viridis nitidissima supra lurida splendore viridi-aureo, capite thoraceque punctatis, elytris punctatis striatis: striis geminatis, scutello glabro, ano viridi subtilissime densissimeque punctato, pedibus viridiaureis. Habitat in Brazilia. Mus. D. MacLeay. Oss. 1. Genus Euchlore proximum inter Anoplognathidas et Rutelidas ponendum; Areodaenim Anoplognathi fe- mine omnino habitu similis est, sed ore toto differt. Ogs. 2. Hoc a genere distat OPLOGNATHUS (Kirby MSS.) mandibulis extus subemarginatis apice tridentatis, max- illis vix sexdentatis, palpis labialibus menti dorso insertis, mento apice emarginato angulis rotundatis, clypeo qua- drato, truncato, angulato, &c. Ut facie externa Anoplo- gnathi feminam Areoda, sic prime sectionis marem simu- lat Oplognathus; ex quo efficitur trium generum affini- tatem videri posse apertissimam, 160 APPENDIX. SPEC. Oplognathus Kirbii. O. viridis nitidissimus supra luridus splendore viridi-aureo, capite punctis scabro, thorace glaberrimo punctato bima- culato: maculis nigris, elytris striato-punctatis, ano vi- ridi subtilissime densissimeque punctato, pedibus viridi- castaneis. Habitat in Brazilia. Mus. D. MacLeay. END’ OF PART ’T. Printed by R. and A. Laylor, Shoe-Lane, London. Hore Entomologice : OR ESSAYS Poy ye CO he Ye THE ANNULOSE ANIMALS: feeure= ah i Spas bate Wes, MACE EAY, Esq. A: M.FL:S. - Wor l.« PARP f 4 CONTAINING ya Mig: IE EY. An Attempt to ascertain the Rank and Situation which the cele- brated Egyptian Insect, Scarabeus Sacer, holds among a Organized Beings. “Te mal nest pas méme fort grand si par des nouvelles observations on trouve s étre trompé dans ses idées ; il n’y a lors qu les changer selon le résul- tat de ces observations ultérieures, et par ce moyen le vrai Systeme dela Nature peut enfin se développer.’—DzxcEER, Mem. pour servir al Hist. des Ins. Vol. 7. p: 668. LONDON: PRINTED FOR S, BAGSTER, 15, PATERNOSTER-ROW ; BY RICHARD AND ARTHUR TAYLOR, SHOE-LANE, MDCCCXXI. na F vive } “ ey ait a eae cilia ite pee xin a AU AMIVA. & HAO ae he FEY Me 202 WA oot TABS DY eho LRAT he % r 2. Ys . a oe. 8% Me SNEAK; a ) ~ Ane: eal 5 ARLE BBO oe ‘ Wee os) shod ab doidve nobbassiet Diep kite ase oriny dt ne » eas Bata, pia Asian Bh 3x Neh sek aysbiel . ; sae is eguaotl lpnsranggt pe i y { \ ‘ a Y } yeerayt \ auiietivalacoss 2 ate 4 a > ge. seek aalenpariet. agile stig.) a hart Hiv. weir 2 ‘ ie Pee ot yey dkatlby or iady ORG aay een ne, enh, eve oe arity’ 552) sh tees sate betty Lie oh ayagoste tae Pa Laer SP anl ooh REE Tale aug RE pete PUR hy y ‘ ta ¥ i ets ; af Ri? dhe nhs ia if < ey Sa “jeanne yal Avo aie Lay at iy Ree, A sWOll it sigeacrs athe ae, ties | sh ae ae ih At SOD EULA ASeTY d wis ai 38 vi “ae q - ie were c ey hte, CONTENTS OF VOL. I. PART IL. CHAPTER PAGE PE OOUCIOT iy sredceuusiare faci o¥.)).(oisr e's, LOI i Definitions 22 e°8 ee ee oe oe ee 173 ILI. On the Distinction between Animals and Ve- ELQOICS Sia i Niels Wl aie ae oe wid OM IV. On the Animal Kingdom generally .. +. 199 V. On the Classes of the Animal Kingdom ., 213 Wi-eOndhe Ordersiof Annulosa, ..% we SAM VII. Onthe Tribes of Mandibulata .. .. .. 418 VIIL. General Reflections on the Synthetical Me- thod ee ee ee ee es ee ee 459 IX. Analysis of the Genus Scarabeus .. .. 490 ¥ apa * 4 ty bs, i yi cig FA tnt, wh ifs saaant sachincde! % rin ; cal - glblindte sian eye SANG Re US jug tw cus ga Aa, BY AD: ~ : HORH ENTOMOLOGIC. PAR T,11. CHAPTER I. ht INTRODUCTORY. ps Lw the former Essay it has been remarked as a subject of regret to Entomologists, that the systems on which their favourite science is pursued should be so far from natura! ; and that while the internal anatomy and exterior formation of Insects have been studied with the utmost perseverance, the important point of the connexion of these studies with Physiology in general should have been altogether neg- ected. It has also been observed that this neglect appears the more extraordinary, as it is manifest that no natural arrangement can be expected unless the anatomy of these bits and ‘manner of living; for the mere consideration of the form and number of the various parts composing the body of an insect, can eyidently lead to little else than artificial divisions, if the uses for which these several parts were intended be not also taken into account. Proceeding then on the plan of examining the structure of organs wit relation to their uses, I have attempted to disco- ver the principal affinities which the insects comprised LE oe eo M 162 INTRODUCTORY. in the Linnean genus Scarabeus bear to each other. I have, moreover, endeavoured to show that tthe o order r of ‘these affinities may be represented b by two ci circles. $3 meeting at one point, and having point, and having altogether an analogous structure woe Leg. their corresponding points. Relations of analogy have thus been distinguished from those of affinity; and it was advanced by way of example, that though Dynastes Her- cules might approach nearer to Scarabeus sacer in affi- nity than Cetonia aurata, yet that these last, namely the Scarabeus and Cetonia, had the most analogous formation. With respect to my anatomical observations and the affinities dependent on these, I have had the satisfaction to perceive that their accuracy, so far at least as they re- lated to the particular tribe of animals under consideration, has never yet been disputed. But it has been objected that in the ardour of discovery I have advanced my prin- ciples too far, and have argued from a solitary and singular fact to the existence of a circular disposition throughout nature. I have been told that the idea of a chain of be- ings returning into itself militates against those n notions of ‘an ascending scale in nature, which not only are incul- cated by revelation, but which have not even been dis- puted by those naturalists who have been the most cele- brated for scepticism. It was argued therefore, that the principles of the former Essay, thus opposing themselves to the most evident dictates of reason and revelation, could never be generally adopted; and that though the affinities [ had pointed out might exist, yet that they were more probably only apparent, or at least the effect of ac- cident; that in short my theory was in cunabulis, and too weak, too fragile, to command attention, until I should have first demonstrated it to hold good throughout all INTRODUCTORY. 163 nature. Long however before it was ventured to put the first part of this work to the press, | had ascertained that the peculiar order which was first observed in the Peta- locerous insects existed throughout all that portion of or- ganized matter which [had been in the habit of studying; and that the chain of affinities always returning into it- self, might | be represented by any curve, such as a circle or ellipse, having this property. It was even once in- “tended to publish the general application of this fact before the particular discovery of it which had been made in the Scaraba@i of Linneus; but on reflection I was induced to brave those criticisms which it was easy to foresee would be my portion, and to let the public, as nearly as possible, arrive at the same conclusions by the same order and means that I had used myself; assured that the publica- tion o: this second Essay, when compared with that of the first, would convince naturalists that I had never advanced general principles until there was some good reason for supposing them to be genefatjand that I had never adopted a new theory until that theory had almost lost the right to the name, and had become a mass of facts, observed in- deed by others, but now for the first time arranged so as to form one regular whole. I might indeed, according to what was once my intention, have published the general plan first; but as this course of proceeding would neces- sarily have led me to assume facts in proportion as the masses of beings under consideration became less general, the truth of the whole might have been disputed, or at best have rested its sole title to credit on certain casual circumstances; so that if [ had then attempted to make use of such an instrument in the examimation of small groups, I might with some justice have been accused of M 2 164 INTRODUCTORY. first advancing an hypothesis, and then endeavouring to explain facts on the assumption of its truth. It was there- fore preferred to proceed differently, under the idea that if the facts in detail which had originally led to my pre- sent opinions on Natural History were fairly stated, they must induce every person to draw the same conclusions with myself. To state these facts was to propose no new hypothesis, but to expose myself, as | might be nght or wrong, to the full assent or flat contradiction of every person who had studied the Scarabai of Linneus. If the accuracy of the table of affinities which had been drawn up on the presumption that my ; observations w were correct, was once assented _to, it was said that it might | be ex- pressed byt ‘two ‘circles ; ; and in this I did not ot expect that the ci circles would have attracted criticism, because it L was nity returning into themselves, a and that therefore it was useless to deny generally the truth of the circle, while cer tain ‘aligi ities_were unmoreste of which it was is only used as a a symbol. Tole was in short manifest that the accuracy “of the affinities ought to have been examined, and that if “these were found incorrect or false, the foundations of the the superstructure must fall. ‘The affinities however have remained undisputed, and the circle is even supposed by naturalists to hold good among the Petalocera, thouch some deny that it exists generally throughout nature. In the actual state of natural science it is presumptuous no doubt to assert positively that the general distribution of organized matter is in circles; but I am in some degree contented to submit to this charge, because my observa- tion has never been found absolutely to contradict the hypo- INTRODUCTORY. 165 thesis, and because the only argument hitherto advanced against it does not depend upon experiment, but on the supposition that to admit its truth is to deny the existence of an ascent in the scale of created beings. The object, therefore, of the present Essay is to show in a general but very rapid manner, that the phenomena which have been already recorded by learned anatomists and naturalists are sufficient to give us a distant view of a system which will embrace the whole of nature ;—that this system, though apparently complicated, is possessed in all probability of a symmetry and unity superior to any thing we can conceive, on considering the variety with which they are combined ;—that the most beautiful _ana- logies become conspicuous even on the very slight glimy glimpse_ which I am 1 able to give of it;—and finally, that so far is this plan from militating against the doctrines of revealed religion, that it will be found to depend on these as some of its very best supports. It must be evident, however, that it is almost im- possible to be free from error in an investigation like the present, which embraces a general view of so vast a re- gion as that of Zoology, the limits of which have al- ways appeared more distant, more immeasurable, as the examination of them has become more profound. No pub- lication on Natural History has ever yet appeared unas- sailable to criticism, and on the other hand, there are very few indeed which have not some merit to claim. It ought not however to be suspected that the labours of naturalists have been useless in proportion to their inaccuracy, or that theories have been injurious to the degree that they may have been false. So much the reverse of this has been the case, that science has gained as much by attempts to 166 INTRODUCTORY. prove others to be in the wrong, as ever it has done by the implicit belief that they were in the right. Such con- fidence in the accuracy of others ought never to be ac- corded until the opinion advanced shall have been tried “by several and severe tests. Alad therefore my fears of criticism been given way to, I should certainly never have ventured on a work where I miust be sure to merit it, and on the publication of new opinions which scarcely ever escape it; but I reflected that in the study of nature, the will to criticize produces investigation, and that mvesti- ‘ Seen Se ee gation must always tend to the development of the truth ; so that if I should be altogether in the wrong, the proba- bility is, that some good to Natural History will have been occasioned in calling forth that investigation which is to convince the public that | am mistaken. In the present happy state of science, which is founded solely on obser- vation and experiment, the he proposition of a false se_theory. ‘tends sno less indirectly to advance human knowledge than the discovery of a truth advances it directly. T he great enemy to the progress of Natural History hi has hi- therto been indolence, or, at least, the disposition to rest satisfied with the actual state of a science which till very lately has been wholly illusory. The inconsistencies of anatomical systems and of nomenclative methods have justified, as I conceive, the following search for some more satisfactory mode of studying nature than those hi- therto adopted. In this search, however, | must compare myself to a person, who having taken a careful survey of a very small district, and thus having been enabled to form from analogy some general ideas of the surrounding country, then ascends a neighbouring eminence to view it. His description of the general character of the tract INTRODUCTORY. 167 of land stretched out before him will probably be correct, while at the same time he may be very inaccurate in the details. These, before they merit confidence, at least re- quire that more minute survey which as yet he has only been able to bestow on a’ single spot. In like manner [ am now about to state the general appearance which na- ture has presented to my view; but as to the details, [ would always, even where they relate to the peculiar ob- jects of my study, the Petalocerous insects, rather ask the experienced naturalist if they are not the facts, than say to the inexperienced that they are. This part ofmy work therefore differs from the former in as much as it takes more the character of an hypothesis, and as such deserves more suspicion. It is not however an hypothesis answering to Sir Isaac Newton’s definition, “ Quicquid ex phanomenis non deducitur hypothesis vocanda est;” for it is entirely dependent upon observed facts which its object is to connect. It is an hypothesis rather because too few phenomena have hitherto been observed by naturalists, than because any have yet been found to contradict it. And though it may be evident that, in order to ascertain the truth with accuracy, the plan pursued in the former Essay, which is analytical, cught to be adopted; yet I imagine that when the present confused and artificial state of arrangement is considered, the fol- lowing remarks, with all their imperfections and inac- curacies, will add to our knowledge of nature. In the former part of this volume I had a very convin- cing proof of the accuracy of my observations on the Pe- talocera, by the insects of this family which had hitherto been considered anomalous, such as Lethrus cephalotes, Hybosorus Arator, Anoplognathus viridi-eneus, Xc., now ¢ if | 168 INTRODUCTORY. occupying situations which were so_far from being insu~ lated, that they showed the existence of such insects to be necessary in order to complete the chain of connexion. It BEC e el ya BOISE RO SOM pie eae Chall was thus _ I learned, that the transition from one of the families a had ce to the other was so regular, both in their habits (as far at least as had been observed) and ‘their general appearance, th that no greater ter separation c: could be drawn between them than such as might arise from the | idea of there _idea of there being five principal points, knots or types of form 1 every. li every cir rcle, to one to one or other of which ch all the ani- the ani- nals ir in that circle might | be referred. “With this idea of the Petalocerous insects, I was naturally induced to exa- mine the Lucani of Linneus to which the passage was so evident by means of the genus Lethrus. The result of this examination, while it served to convince me that the gencral disposition of the Lucani was similar to that which had been so satisfactorily demonstrated to exist among the Petalocera, still, to my vexation, left several chasms that made the new circle far less perfect than those into which the Scarabe@i had just been resolved. The atten- tion however of certain friends, who with the greatest li- berality laid their entomological collections open to my scrutiny, soon removed almost all those difficulties, and I became anxious to know whether the same regularity held good generally among the other Coleoptera. ‘The Luca- nide of Latreille being a family the insects of which’are known to live in their perfect state on green or living vege- table matter, they seemed to form a parallel to the Thade- rophagous Petalocera ; and the question that presented it- self was, whether any animals exist agreeing more nearly with the Lucani in general character than with any other tribe of insects, but which nevertheless differ from them INTRODUCTORY. 169 in their economy? Among other families of Latreille which, in order to answer this question, | examined with care, was that of the Spheridiota. Of these Latreille’s first sub-family, the Histeride, differed so completely from the others in every essential character, that they could not fail to becompared with the Lucani—a comparison which proved beyond a doubt that these singular animals form the pas- sage between Latreille’s very dissimilar families of Luca- nide and Byrrhide. An order and symmetry became thus visible, which gave the surest testimony that they existed in nature, and there was now some reason to sus- pect that the same regularity extended itself throughout Entomology, if not throughout all nature. But it may be well .to observe here, that it is no ob- jection to an arrangement being natural, that particular beings should appear by its means to be insulated or widely separated from others. It is sufficient that evi- dent affinities should never be overlooked, much less in- terrupted. The truth of this position will be manifest on considering how many races of animals, by means of the ancient revolutions which may have ravaged this planet, or other causes, have become totally extinct or at least re- moved from our view, and moreover how comparatively ignorant we are still of the natural productions not only of exotic regions but even it may be said of Europe itself. On the other hand, every organized every organized being seems to hav seems to have had certain limits Of tocality prescribed to it by natures y prescribed to it by nature; ‘so that until we can imagine ourselves acquainte every possible pr production of this this globe, and the experi- ence of ages s shall then have failed in the endeavour to _connect them, r naturalists can nev lever er be ; entitled to consider the chain of creation as broken. 170 INTRODUCTORY. Satisfied of this truth, I attempted to take a general view of insects, disregarding all anomalous genera, or even such families as did not seem very clearly defined. ‘The groups thus formed I then endeavoured ‘to connect on some principle of natural affinity, paying always the great- est attention to physiology, and finally leaving the first in- accurate outline to be corrected by future observations. This plan though evidently imperfect in many respects, as was indeed to have been expected in a first rough sketch, nevertheless produced, in my opinion, an arrangement so far more natural than the systems ordinarily adopted, that instead of continuing to trace the extreme fibres to the root of the tree, I ventured to begin at the root, in order to meet the ramifications which had already been traced. An unity of plan in the animal part of the creation be- came thus more remarkable ; for though I could find many chasms in the chain, no where, after an accurate examina- tion, was it certain that any anomalous interruptions oc- curred. Nay, the singularities of the animated part of the creation which had hitherto appeared so extraordinary to naturalists, as serving only to defy all arrangement, were here usually the very links required in order to arrive at connexion. Sothat nature appeared to me to have branched out in the animal kingdom, if at least it was allowable to judge of the whole from one ramification, in a most beau- tiful and regular though intricate manner, that might be compared to those zoophytes which ramify in every direc- tion, but of which the extreme fibres form by their con- nexion'the most delicate circular reticulations. These introductory observations have been deemed useful, in the first place in order to give the reader a ge- neral idea of the object of the former Essay, which so few INTRODUCTORY. 171 are likely to understand, without having previously ac- quired that knowledge of the subject under discussion which neither their time nor their opportunities may have allowed them to attain. Secondly, such a preface it 1s hoped will prepare experienced Entomologists for that chain of reasoning in the following chapters which leads to so many novelties in Natural History ; novelties however that will be found on examination to depend much less on any new observations than probably many in this country will imagine. The observed facts and metaphysical opi- nions hereafter stated J] have always indeed preferred to adopt en the assertion of others, as well because I should thus appeal to authority of infinitely greater weight than my own, as in order that | might confine within the narrowest possible bounds that bias towards a favourite hypothesis, from the danger of indulging which I do not flatter myself so much as to fancy that [ can be wholly free. A general list therefore of the authors consulted will be inserted in a future volume; and in the mean time, though it is hardly necessary in any work of this age on Natural History to cite the names of Cuvier, Lamarck, Latreille and Savigny, since an appeal to such authorities is always understood, I have peculiar reasons for stating that itis to the labours of these distinguished naturalists that I feel myself more particularly indebted. What has been introduced into this Essay of a meta- physical nature may on the first view seem misplaced, from its having to all appearance so little connexion with the prefixed title. ‘To those who may retain this opinion after the perusal of the volume, I can only say that some indul- gence on this head is expected, because observations on inachines in motion would be incomplete without some 172 INTRODUCTORY. inquiry into their moving cause, and would moreover if published alone have a tendency injurious to others as well as to myself. And should the critic scruple to ad- mit the full efficacy of this apology, I shall finally shelter myself under the excellent observation of Mr. Hume: «“ That all the sciences have a relation to human nature, and however wide any of them may run from it, they still return by one passage or other.” CHAPTER II. ———— DEFINITIONS. Tue following preliminary definitions, which with very few exceptions coincide with those of the most celebrated naturalists and metaphysicians, appear to me so little ob- jectionable, that I cannot refrain from proposing them as the foundations on which [ could wish all my subsequent observations to repose. 1. Nature is a word which has many different signifi- cations; but it will for our purpose be sufficient to consi- der it either as a collective name for the whole of the beings which compose the universe, or for the onginal properties with which these beings may be invested. Fi- nally, we shall consider it as a term applicable to the laws which govern the universe; a meaning which has often caused the word to be figuratively used in deno- ting the Divine Providence whence these laws originate ; and it must be confessed that this metaphor is very conve- nient, though it has sometimes had the bad consequence of seeming to refer effects either to other effects, or to causes which are only secondary. 2. The knowledge of the laws of the universe, of the beings which compose it, and of their properties, is the object of Natural Science; and it must be obvious from 174 DEFINITIONS. this definition that no study can be more extensive, since it may in some measure be said to include every other. 3. When the attention is more particularly directed to the properties of time and space, and to the laws of matter, the branch of Natural Science so studied has in our lan- guage been called Natural Philosophy, or Physics. 4. On the other hand Naturai History in the widest sense of the term has been the name applied to that study which more particularly embraces the properties of matter. It deserves notice, however, that there is a great difficulty in separating distinctly these two branches of Natural Science, as in fact the properties of matter are nothing but the necessary consequences of the general laws by which the universe is governed, where these are specially and particularly applied towards the formation of the various beings which exist in nature. And itis on this account that it is hard to say whether Chemistry and those sci- ences which are called physical ought not all to be consi- dered as the true province of Natural History. For though it has been attempted to define Dynamics as a science of calculation, Chemistry as a science of experiment, and Natural History as one of observation, it is unfortunate for the seeming simplicity of these terms, that all the three sciences depend more or less on observation, and re- late in some degree to the properties of matter. Indeed in the cases of Chemistry and Natural History, it ap- pears absolutely requisite, before we can admit them to be distinct sciences, that we should know experience and observation to be incompatible with each other. It is nevertheless true that Natural History, properly so DEFINITIONS. 175 called, can hardly in any degree be considered as a science depending on calculation ; and perhaps this negative pro- perty, could we draw a sufficiently distinct line between calculation and analogy, would serve the best to distin- guish it from the mixed sciences. Analogy is well known to be the very foundation of Natural History, not however so much by our thus arguing, as in metaphysics or mathe- matics, from things known to things unknown, as by ac- quiring from the comparison of two things placed before our eyes more accurate ideas of the nature of both. Though therefore analogy be rarely applied by the naturalist to considerations of quantity as in the mixed sciences, yet such considerations occur often enough to render it ex- tremely difficult, if not impossible, to define exactly the object of his study. Even in Mineralogy, which has hitherto been considered in the true department of Natural History, a system of laws has been discovered that seems to depend entirely on calcu- lation; and thus the connexion of the study with Chemistry, of which indeed it appears only a branch, has in one sense become still more evident than it was before. If Mine- ralogy then be within the pale of Natural History, by what rule are we to exclude Chemistry ? And if Chemistry be admitted, which of the mixed sciences cannot be shown to have a right to enter? Now to consider Natural Philo- sophy as forming only a division of Natural History seems quite contrary to the ordinary classification of human knowledge, and affords, I think, a very obvious reason either for restricting the objects of the latter science, or for giving it an importance to which it has never yet been thought entitled. But for the present we return to the consideration of the beings which constitute the universe, 176 DEFINITIONS. and whose laws and properties form the whole Science of Nature. 5. Natural Beings, or those which have a real and pro- per existence in the universe, appear to be of two very distinct sorts, Continuous and Incontinuous. 6. Of continuous and infinite beings, or those necessa- rily existing without interruption from eternity to eternity, we know only three, viz. One intelligent, the Deity, or Primary Cause; two unintelligent, Time and Space. 7. It is a necessary truth perfectly demonstrable, that the Deity or Primary Cause of every existence that has had a beginning, must be omnipotent, and we know from @ posterior: evidence that he is perfectly wise and good. He is the universal primary cause, and is therefore eter- nal, omnipotent, infinite, and one. Every other perfection attributed to him is not necessary, any further than as be- ing the consequence of his divine will; for to suppose such qualities otherwise necessary, and therefore indepen- dent upon his will, would evidently be to deny that omni- potence which is his most incontestable attribute. A power existing in any being must either have been im- parted by a foreign cause, or be self-existent; or finally, it must have originated in the being which possesses it. By an attribute of the Deity we understand a power existing in him. Now that an attribute which requires a subject should exist of itself, is perfectly unintelligible; and it is quite as impossible to understand how a quality should be imparted to the Deity by another cause, when he is himself the universal primary cause. It only remains for us, there- DEFINITIONS. 177 fore, to assign the perfections of God to himself as their sole origin. It is the universal dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes God; and so sensible was Sir Isaac Newton of this truth, that he chose thus to define the Deity, not even by his mtelligence, goodness, and other perfections, as is usually done, but by his omnipotence, from which all his other qualities flow by the exertion of a perfectly free will. 8. If we meditate on the nature of a continuous being; the mind is soon confounded by ideas too vast for its comprehension; but this difficulty is no more than what we anticipate in the consideration of an all-powerful and perfectly intelligent being. We know by experience our own power, our own intelligence, to be circumscribed by very narrow limits, and thus are in some measure led to ex- pect an immeasurable and inconceivable distance between omnipotence and human weakness. But it is very different when we turn our attention to the unintelligent conti- nuous beings Time and Space. We are surprised to find our minds so easily lost in the endeavour to comprehend beings such as these, absolutely without intelligence or active power, and intimately connected with every action of our lives; and we are induced to suppose that the error lies rather in our manner of considering them, than in any natural incapacity of our soul. The great Newton, there- fore, thought that the Deity constituted them: and some of his followers, proceeding on this idea, imagined that time and space are but attributes of God, being abstract terms for his qualities, eternity and immensity. Our inability to comprehend them is however far from being thus less- ened, since, though it is impossible to conceive the exist= ence of an attribute without that of its subject, it is well N ws . y * 178 DEFINITIONS. known that an atheist can conceive the existence of both time and space. Eternity and immensity seem indeed to be nothing but names given to the common property of these beings, namely, their continuity; and though we are ignorant how God can be continuous, except with re- ference to time and space, this seems to be rather an argument for their distinct existence than for the con- trary. All time is without doubt the duration of the Deity’s existence, and all space is the place which his intelligence pervades. This we are certain of, but further than this we know nothing. Time and space are evidently not causes, and on the other hand it is impossible to understand how they can be effects. We thus come to the inconceivable conclusion, that they are neither causes nor effects. We know them to be destitute of all active power; and yet itis as difficult to imagine that they can be annihilated or created, as that there can be.a time which is no time, or a space which is no space. In short, those men who are the most convinced of their inability to comprehend the nature of time and space, seem to be those who have the most accurate know- ledge of them. 9. The continuous and infinite beings are only three, whereas incontinuous and finite beings, or those contin- gently existing, seem to be innumerable: these are how- ever evidently of two very distinct sorts, of which one is unintelligent, the other intelligent, viz. 1. Forms of Matter. 2. Secondary operative causes. _ Butas it is to these and to the nature of their union that the following investigation will principally relate, we shall hereafter have to consider more fully their properties. DEFINITIONS. 179 In the mean. time, as another mode of dividing natural beings will make their several characters more clear, 1 need hardly apologize to the reader for so soon giving him an example of the difference between division and arrangement, and showing him how far they are from being, as some naturalists think, synonymous. 10. There are, says Mr. Locke, but two sorts of beings in the world which man knows or conceives. To these this famous metaphysician gives the names of cogztative and incogitative, answering very nearly to what we have hitherto termed intelligent and unintelligent. Intelligent beings are the only operative causes or prin- ciples which we can conceive. But their most obvious quality is their incapability of mensuration. Unity is their great characteristic, and it is impossible to conceive parts of them. The study of the nature of intellectual beings constitutes Metaphysical science, and: informs us that there are only two sorts of such beings, the distance between the powers of which is infinitely great. — 1. One universal Primary and continuous cause, or God, in whose hand is the life of every living thing. 2. Many secondary and incontinuous causes, such as a human soul, which has been to a certain degree created an independent principle by God, and which during his pleasure will continue to enjoy its free agency. 11. Of unintelligent beings we know only three sorts, 1. Matter, 2. Space, 3. Time, N@ 180 DEFINITIONS. the study of which constitutes the science of Natural Phi- losophy *. They differ from intellectual beings in that they are all capable of mensuration, and the human mind can only conceive parts of them. ‘Time and Space are co-ex- istent with and attendant upon the Deity, being both eter- nal. The immensity of Space is however wholly different from its eternity, nor ought they to be confounded. - Mat- ter is the work of the Creator, and its existence is neces- sarily neither eternal nor immense. ~ It is perhaps impossible to define either Time, Space, or Matter; we know them only by their properties. The two former consist of parts, and are therefore divisible, but differ from Matter inasmuch as it is impossible to conceive how one of their parts can exist without its connexion to another part, whereas every part of Matter is a distinct being which may exist without the other parts. We may therefore say that ‘Time is capable only of mensuration; Space, of figure and: mensuration; whereas Matter is capable not only of these, but also of incon- tinuity. Our most accurate ideas of Matter appear to be those which we acquire from its relation to Time and Space. Such relations, however, appear in general to be peculiar not to matter alone, but to all incontinuous beings. ® Many philosophers both ancient and modern have supposed another kind of natural beings to exist, namely, immaterial images of things, the immediate objects of perception, which have been termed species, forms, phantasms, impressions, or ideas. The Monads of Leibnitz are yet another sort of hypothetical beings ; but we shall take no notice of either, further than to say, that if we admit the existence of ideas as immediate objects of perception, it follows that there is nothing else in the universe but ideas; and if we admit the existence of monads; it equally results that there is no necessity for the existence of any thing than monads. DEFINITIONS. 181 12. No material particle can exist but with time and in space. Mobility is the name given to that quality of a material particle by which it is made to change one portion of space for another, and consequently the quantity of it must depend on the space described. The velocity of a particle of matter is measured directly by the space de- scribed, and inversely by the time of description. Motion and velocity are therefore not beings, but merely certain relations which particles of matter may bear to space or time. 13. No particle of matter can pass from one moment of time to another without existing throughout the inter- mediate interval. Neither can any particle be moved from one place to another without going through an inter- mediate space. - Hence we perceive the continuity of time and space to have a strong influence on matter; whereas the incontinuity of this has no effect on time and very little on space, except so far as a greater or less apparent occupation of it may be occasioned by a new ar- rangement of particles, 14. No two material particles can occupy the same place at the same time; which relation of matter to time and space is termed its zmpenetrability or solidity, since one particle of matter must leave the portion of space it occupies before this can be occupied by another. 15. No particle of matter can be in different places at the same time; and this property constitutes its metaphy- sical identity. 182 DEFINITIONS. 16. Particles of matter when collected together in a mass of any degree of ‘size or compactness form a body, which may either be organic or inorganic. 17. An inorganic body is an inert or brute mass of matter, of which the component particles are collected to- gether by juxta-position alone. Such bodies are said to have never lived, and their proper arrangement is as yet unknown. 18. An organic or organized body is a mass of matter of which the component molecules are or have been in motion on being collected together by intus-susception. Such a body is said to live or to have lived. 19. By the term life we would express that faculty which certain combinations of material particles possess, of existing for a certain time under a determinate form, and of drawing while in this state into their composition, and assimilating to their own nature, a part of the sub- stances which may surround them, and of restoring the same again under various forms. This life must not be confounded, as it has too often been, with the life of an immaterial intelligent being, which is totally distinct, and seems to be nothing else than a name given to the duration of its existence or happiness. — It is there- fore only to the first mentioned faculty that the observa- tions immediately following ought to be supposed to relate. 20. How this faculty is acquired, what is its immediate DEFINITIONS. 183 cause, or, in other words, whether there may not be se- veral mediate causes between it and the Primary Cause, are questions to the solution of which we are totally in- competent. Like gravity and electricity, we know life only by its effects, or rather we are acquainted with the three only as so many names given to certain combinations of effects. The particular combination or series of effects which we call life, differs from gravity or electricity in the circumstance that these effects are totally different from each other. They however all concur to the same object, namely, the preservation of the individual and of the spe- cies. We observe however that during life, organic bodies can resist most of those chemical and more general laws which govern inorganic matter, and can modify the inert properties of this by an apparatus of organs specially cons structed for the purpose. And on the whole we con- clude that it is not a being enjoying a distinct existence, but an adherent quality which must necessarily have a subject. It is a motive quality of matter like gravity, and without matter for its subject we have no reason to suppose that it can exist. It is to the organic body what the expansion of steel is to a watch, or that of steam is to the engine; but if we ask what is expansion? what is life? we can get no answer but a recital of their effects. 21. The slightest study of the different systems of gene- ration among the lower animals will show how erroneous is the notion of those who would consider the life of each organized body as a distinct immaterial being, superadded to its material structure. The most minute embryo or germ enjoys a vegetative life while attached to its parent _ stock, yet every experiment proves that it has as yet no 184 DEFINITIONS. independent existence. Besides, if life be supposed to be superadded to a body at some particular time, it follows that previous to that period the body must have been a mass of inert matter. Now though this might have been the case when the species was first created, every obser- vation at present shows that the ovum has a vegetative existence from its very first formation in the ovarium, and fully possesses that faculty which we have termed life. In observing one of the least perfect of animals, such as a po- lype, we find life propagated solely by cuttings or sponta- neous fission. ‘There is nothing that resembles a new life; we merely witness a division of that which already existed, and conclude that there is every probability of all the animals of the particular species so multiplied, being, like the grafts of an apple tree, merely the con- tinuation of one individual... Even in the most perfect animals the ovum is separated from the parent stock by spontaneous fission, and though incapable of generating immediately other ova, is in other respects a mass of cel- lular tissue, organized in a degree quite as perfect as are the Infusoria. The above remarks apply with equal truth to vegetables; and it may be said that there is a life in all organized beings, which is merely a continuation of that originally imparted to each of the species. It is the life of the unimpregnated ovum and seed, and the only sort of life which the lowest tribes of plants and animals can possess. It is the common property of the species, which for a time is deposited with every individual. 22. But there is a second degree of material life pecu- liar to the more perfect plants and animals, namely, ‘that whereby various organs are constantly forming in the body. DEFINITIONS. 185 ‘Tt may be termed the life of organification, or that by which the various organs of the being are constructed and re- paired. The lower tribes of animals and vegetables are incapable of this life, and before the ovum itself can ob- tain the principle of organification it must be impregnated. Impregnation of the ovum may take place while it is yet in the ovarium, as in plants and some hermaphrodite ani- mals; or after fission while it is in another part of the pa- rent’s body, as in the more perfect animals; or finally, after it has quitted the body of the parent, as in the case of frogs and fishes. In whatever species organification ex- ists there must be particular organs for generating ova, and others forimbuing them again with organification ; but there are many circumstances which might be ad- duced to support the belief, that, whether from disease or other causes, there are periods when other parts of a body besides the ovarium may produce living germs, and demonstrate thus the polype nature of the cellular substance. 23. On the whole, then, organized beings differ from inorganic matter, ist. In repairing, by the incorporation of foreign sub- stances, the loss to which from various causes they may be subject. Qdly. In the emission by transpiration or otherwise of the molecules which made once part of their body. 3rdly. In a regular development of magnitude till they may have reached that limit which may have been prescribed to them by the Author of their existence. Athly. In the power of producing at some period or other of their life beings similar to themselves. 186 DEFINITIONS. 5thly. But still more particularly in what appears to be the first state of organization, namely, the existence ef a flexible cellular substance, the dass areolaire of the French, containing fluids circulating freely in the in- tervals which separate the reticulated fibres of which it is composed. 24. Fibres, lamelle or filaments are the most simple solid parts of an organized body; they are the elementary molecules of its cellular substance as far as our methads of mechanical division will allow us to discern. The ex- istence of this cellular substance is a natural result of the foregoing definition of a living body; since it was neces- sary, in order that foreign substances should be incorpo- rated in such a body, that its composition should be porous for the free admission of these molecules. 25. It appears then that the formation of the germ depends upon the life of the parent stock; it is in fact a portion of its organization, which on being impregnated may itself be capable of organification. When before impregnation, the germ is disorganized; or when after it, the principle of organification is extinct; when, in brief, the motion of the fluids in the cellular substance ceases, the body is said to die. On this event the distinctive ap- pearances of organization, and particularly the cellular sub- stance itself, rapidly disappear, and the body gradually dissolves and separates into the various species of inorganic matter which formed its chemical constituents, and which are soon assimilated again by new living beings. 26. Though for the sake of simplicity, and in order to DEFINITIONS. 187 avoid as much as possible what may be accounted as mat- ter of opinion, death has in the foregoing paragraph been considered as merely the cessation of life; yet it may be proper to observe, that those physiologists appear to have reason on their side, who make it generally an inevitable and necessary consequence of life. In the higher animals and plants, indeed, we are certain that if death should not be produced by accidental causes, it is sure in due time to result from the fibres which compose the cellular sub- stance growing so thick and rigid, that the fluids cannot penetrate through their interstices. In this sense a body receiving nourishment may be said to imbibe death: so true it is, that by living we die. 27. It is probable, from the clearest principles of ana logy, that the foregoing observations apply with equal truth to all matter, whether terrestrial or not. But as beings beyond the reach of sublunary examination may give rise to conjecture, but cannot produce real know- ledge, the widest signification of Natural History has been with propriety rejected, and we are taught to regard the science as relating solely to the phenomena and proper- ties of those natural bodies which are found in connexion with our globe. And this seems indeed to be the least vague acceptation of the term; though some there are, who by taking into view the mighty distinction which ex- ists between brute matter and that which is organized, and by regretting that there should be no name peculiarly appropriated to the study of this last, have rather unequi- vocally shown their wish to limit the province of Natural History still more, and to confine it to the investigation of the properties and appearances of terrestrial organized 188 DEFINITIONS. beings. But this I suspect to be a method of arrange- ment’ quite as liable to objection, as that afforded by the earlier and more popular distribution of Nature into three kmgdoms. In the first case we have indeed two natural, but I fear somewhat arbitrary divisions of mat- ter into organic and inorganic. This may appear para- doxical. They are natural, because no person accus- tomed to study the works of Nature can deny their hav- ing a real existence; but they are too strongly marked, and even appear arbitrary, when we reflect that there is nothing to show that some organized beings are not more widely separated from others than they are from inorganic matter. We have, besides, no reason to believe that the various forms of matter are not separated by other natural chasms quite as distinct as those which separate organic matter from inorganic. Those divisions so much insisted on by Peter Ramus, which consist of two members, one of which is contradictory to the other, are sure to be com- plete, but unfortunately one or both are always too com- prehensive; and this appears to be in a peculiar manner the fault of the division of matter into organic and inor- ganic. No person denies the existence of this division in nature, still less is the use of it to be despised ; but as there are forms of inorganic matter to all appearance as distant from each other as any organized being can be from an in- organic one, it is evidently liable to be abused. This ob- jection, though in a less degree, refers also to the division of Nature into three kingdoms ; but the great fault of both methods undoubtedly is the interposition of strongly marked distinctions where they are generally if not always ob- scure. Matter, whether organized or in a brute state, whether animal, vegetable, or mineral, is very little if at all DEFINITIONS. 189 different in itself. Yet Natural History having attracted the attention of the world long before Chemistry, it re- mained long unobserved that organized matter was no- thing but a peculiar modification of brute matter acted upon by the vital principle. It was in some measure for- gotten that man himself, the most perfect of organized be- ings, had been subjected to the dread sentence, “ Dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return;” and the mineral kingdom was thus separated from the other two, without its being considered upon what basis the true nature of this separation ought to rest. The truth however is, that the first great division of Matter is not yet ascertained; and the knowledge of it, to say nothing of the celestial bodies, must in a great degree depend on the labours of the chemist, who has hitherto so little elucidated the nature of heat, light, and many others of those subtle substances which are possibly forms of matter. Until this great desideratum of natural science shall be attained, we must remain satisfied with the divi- sion of Matter into organic and inorganic, not only as per- fectly agreeable to what we should be led to expect from analogy, but as convenient, provided we do not form er- roneous ideas of its real signification. It ought always however to be borne in mind, that an organized being is nothing but inorganic matter modified, and undergoing the temporary influence of a certain energy with which we are totally unacquainted except as to its eflects. This energy then, or life, is to be accounted the true distinctive principle in material bodies ; and though the crystallization of a mineral may show that even brute matter has been subjected to certain laws by nature, yet there is nothing to be found in it any ways resembling the assimilation, 190 DEFINITIONS. development, and generation which have been shown to constitute the principal functions of organized matter. Nay, so truly incompatible do these functions seem with matter in a brute state, that when they cease to exist, organized matter soon falls within the province of the mineral kingdom. It follows therefore, that as we have seen incontinuous beings to be dependent on continu- ous beings for their existence, so we may safely ac- count imorganic matter to be the officina from which organized matter has been constructed ; and it is in this sense alone that it shall be considered in the following pages. 191 CHAPTER IIL. een ON THE DISTINCTION OF AN ANIMAL FROM Weel a A VEGETABLE. Ir requires but little observation to see that organized matter is of two different sorts, animal and vegetable— but it is by no means equally easy to state in what the difference between them consists. —“ Rien ne semble,” says Cuvier, “ sz aisé d définir que lanimal: tout le monde le concoit comme un étre doué du sentiment et de mouve- ment volontaire; mais lorsqgwil s'agit de déterminer st un étre qwon observe est ow non un animal, cette défi- nition se trouve souvent tres difficile ad appliquer.” ‘The line of demarcation which has been allowed to be in- distinct even between the mineral kingdom and orga- nized matter, is then said by one of the first Zoologists to be at least equally so when we attempt to distin- guish the animal from the vegetable; and Lamarck ob- serves, that hitherto it has been found impossible to make this distinction without interfermg with truths already established, and without contesting principles which are universally considered as axioms. Indeed, it is a certain fact, that no naturalist as yet has proposed characters which can be considered either as truly applicable to all known animals, or of so precise a nature as to distin- guish them clearly from vegetables. The reason assigned for this has been, that anatomists hitherto have confined “Ly e ¢ fe if a ‘Lai Xeacy J 192 ON THE DISTINCTION OF AN ANIMAL themselves to the examination of the most complicated organizations ; so that the modifications which take place in the form of the organs, and the limits by which the faculties of these organs are prescribed, as we trace them down the scale of animal life, have been comparatively neglected. But though there may be no smail degree of truth in this remark, the fact is, that a very great difficulty indubitably exists in the subject itself, which, indepen- dently of the manner in which it is treated, opposes almost invincible. obstacles to the-clear distinction of the two species of organized matter. It is not assuredly in the czrculation of the fluids in ani- mals that this distinction can be safely said to exist; for while we are as yet ignorant of the true nature of that great motion in the more perfect plants, called the flowing of the sap, there are many animals, and those not of the most simple structure, in which nothing like circulation has as yet been detected. The distinction does not consist, as some authors will have it, in the nutrition of animals taking place by digestion, and that of plants by suction; for it is difficult to conceive how the simplest form of ani- mals is nourished at all, unless it be by absorption of fluids by their external surfaces. © It is not in respiration ; for air is the universal nutriment of organized matter; the penetration of which into an organized body is so neces- sary to its vitality, that whether it takes place by peculiar organs for the purpose, or by the. whole of the surface, death appears to be the inevitable consequence of the ex-, clusion. It is net in motion, because some animals are as completely destitute of the power of locomotion as plants : unless by motion is meant irritability; in which case, motion and sensation are resolvable into one and the same FROM A VEGETABLE. 193 faculty, the former depending on the contraction of the muscular fibre, which again depends on the influence of the nerves. Neither is it in the presence of azote as a chemical constituent of animal bodies, for this is allowed also to exist, though in a much smaller degree, in vege- tables. There remain however three characters of distinction which appear more capable of support; and I shall ac- cordingly adopt them in stating that vegetables are to be distinguished from animals ist. By the elaboration for their nourishment of fluid matter received by an absorbent external surface, whereas r~ fr in animals it is received by an absorbent_internal surtace; 2 ; this last being called the intestinal cavity, and its ifiner 2 hie’ surface being furnished with innumerable pores or vessels, which Boerhaave considered as real ¢nternal roots. - @ndly. By the exhalation of oxygen and absorption of carbonic acid, whereas animals exhale this last and ab- oe ’ (Lie. sorb oxygen. 3rdly. By the want of a nervous system and conse- quently of sensation, whereas animals possess both®. It has been objected to the first of these three cha- racters that an intestinal cavity has not yet been pete ceived in the infusoria, and that in the polypes this cavity may be turned inside out, like a glove, without the ordinary functions being disturbed. But it is possi- 4 Mirbel has attempted to add another peculiar characteristic to vegee tables, namely, that it is the office of them alone to transform inorganic matter into erganized living bodies, whereas animals feed only on orga- nized matter. This remark appears however to be more ingenious than ac- curate, since many animals of the lower tribes and some Heteromerous Coleoptera have been observed to feed on inorganic matter. O 194 ON THE DISTINCTION OF AN ANIMAL ble that the excessive minuteness of the infusoria may ac- count for our not having yet observed an intestinal cavity inthem: and with respect to the polypes, the pretended ob- jection is in reality none; as though the intestine of these animals may be turned inside out, yet the food is constantly received into it, and the nourishment consequently absorb- ed by that surface which may happen to be internal. The second character seems much more exception- able; for M. Biot is said to have discovered that several species of Coleopterous insects may exist in a vacuum without inconvenience, and it would above all be difficult to apply the rule of the absorption of oxygen to the intes- tinal worms. ‘To the third character it may be objected that a nerv- ous system has not yet been detected in all animals; and also, that. several vegetables, such as the sensitive plant, ‘possess irritable properties; finally, that all plants appear to direct:their organs to what is natural and beneficial to them in such a manner as to render it at least very ques- tionable whether they be not endowed with sensation. To these objections it may be answered, in the first place, that m all-animals:where.a nervous system has been detected, -their: sensation: has been discovered to depend on it; we sare hence led to. assume that all animals in which ‘sensa- ition is observable: must have it depending on.a nervous “system. 5 pat It may be proper to say a few words here on what we mean by a nervous system, which is thus. made the great characteristic of an animal. Filaments of a peculiar me- -dullary substance dispersed throughout an organized body _on different plans are called the Nerves. The plan of the dispersion of these filaments is called the Nervous System. FROM A VEGETABLE. 195 The nerves are the medium of sensation whether active or passive, whether of volition or pain; for every fleshy fibre or muscle receives a nervous filament, and when the communication of this with the rest of the system is inter- rupted, we perceive that the fibre thus insulated ceases as well to obey the will acting upon the centre or centres of the nervous system as to communicate any sensation to the source of that will. But it may be going too far to say that the fibre ceases in this case to feel, for we observe certain external agents to act upon the nerve, and cause con- tractions of the muscular fibre even after its separation from the rest of the body. Irritation of the nerve therefore, though we know from experience that it can be produced by an operative principle like the human mind, seems also to be a mechanical process, as is certainly the action of the nerve on the fibre. It is possible, then, that both these effects may have an unintelligent mediate cause, such as electricity for instance, and this is one of the most impor- tant circumstances to be borne in mind while we investi- gate the metaphysical nature of pain in irrational animals. We observe also on comparing different sorts of nervous systems, that the contraction and irritability of the sepa- rated fibre is greater in those animals whose medullary substance is less concentrated ; which in some degree proves that the irritability of the muscular fibre depends on the proportion of nerve remaining in it after separation from the rest of the body. Now it is possible that all the difference between the most simple class of vegetables and the least organized of animals is, that the homogeneous gelatinous substance of which the latter are composed, possesses, di- spersed throughout the mass, those nervous molecules which when united in the more perfect animals form the 02 196 ON THE DISTINCTION OF AN ANIMAL source of that exquisite sensation which gives them their superiority over the vegetable kingdom. And this hypothe- sis assumes the characterof probability, when it is consi- dered that in four out of five distinct sorts of animals four different sorts of nervous systems have been discovered, but none for the fifth; that in the most perfect class of ani- mals there prevails a diametrically opposite system to the one here supposed to exist 1n the least perfect class; and lastly, that the system here proposed would be of exactly such a nature as to accord with the actual pheenomena,— for instance, the nervous system itself would be indistinct, while the sensitive molecules being dispersed throughout the mass, would render the animals themselves peculiarly irritable. In the next place, the difference between the pheno- menon which occurs when the feelers of a polype are touched and that which the leaves of the sensitive plant exhibit on a similar occasion has been accurately stated by M. Lamarck. The first is a true contraction of the part as it were into itself, which contraction appears te result from the injury experienced by that process of the nervous system which ramifies through the feeler touched: In the case of the sensitive plant there is nothing like this nervous contraction of the part touched, but only, as La- marck styles it, an articular plication of the neighbouring parts, without any of their dimensions being altered. To this last phenomenon however this author will not allow the appellation of irritability, though I cannot but think that the distinction he draws between animal sensation and animal irritability is merely verbal, and by no means foundedon observation or analogy; while, on the other hand, it seems no easy matter to understand how the change FROM A VEGETABLE, 197 which takes place in the disposition of the parts of the sensitive plant on being touched does not proceed from irritability! 1 shall therefore apply the word sensation to that peculiar property of the animal kingdom which from muscular or fibrous contraction into itself of the part af- fected, evidently depends on some secondary action of the neryous system; whereas, I shall for the present ascribe to irritability those phenomena which without any fibrous contraction of the parts merely result from a change in their disposition among themselves, and which, for aught we know, may proceed always from a simple mechanical cause. To the latter cause alone, then, or mechanical irritability, will the remarkable properties of the Mimosa sensitiva, the Hedysarum gyrans, the Dionea muscipula, and other ve- getables, be referable ; and indeed these opinions are borne out by one of the first botanists on the Continent, who defines vegetables as “senstbilitate, voluntate et motu pro- prio destituta,” and animals as acted upon by two natural forces, viz. vis vitalis and sensibilitas, whereof, the former is according to him “ corporzbus organicis omnibus communis et sui inscia,” and the latter “ animalibus propria et sui conscia.” If these notions be correct, the vis vitalis will be the same with the vital principle described in the pre- ceding chapter by its effects, and the sensebehtas will be no other than that imponderable fluid by which Cuvier supposes the nerve to act on the animal fibre, or still more likely it will be the connexion between some intelligent principle and the nerve itself. When this connexion is interrupted the sensibilitas may be considered as dormant, and the animal as in the case of its sleep remains only acted upon by the vs vetalis, and may be compared to a 198 ON THE DISTINCTION OF AN ANIMAL, &c. vegetable. Buffon therefore observed that plants may be accounted sleeping animals, an idea which has been al- most universally followed by succeeding naturalists, and which if it cannot from observation be proved to be cor- rect, is nevertheless ingenious and highly poetical. On the whole however it appears that animals are to be distinguished by the existence of an absorbent intestinal cavity, and of a nervous system, and that both these marks become indistinct in the infusoria and polypes. It fol- lows therefore that the infusoria and polypes, which are the most simple of all animals in structure, approach nearest to the vegetable nature. 199 CHAPTER IV. — ON THE ANIMAL KINGDOM GENERALLY. OrGANIZED Matter may be generally described as ra- mifying into two branches which represent the animal and vegetable kingdoms, and which touch one another very nearly, if not precisely, at those points where the or- ganization of each is the least complicated. “ It is cer- tain,” says Lamarck, “ that if the vegetable kingdom could be shown to connect itself or pass into the animal kingdom by any points of their respective series, it would be by those alone which are the most simple in their or- ganization; so that the passage from the least perfect plants to the least perfect animals would be quite insensi- ble. All naturalists have perceived this truth; and in fact jt is in such a point, namely, where organization is the most simple, that animals appear to approach nearest to plants. Now, if the chasm which separates the kingdoms at these points be imperceptible, we shall be obliged to admit that instead of forming a chain, plants and animals present two distinct branches, united at their base like the two branches of the letter V.” Such indeed is the real state of the case; though with this celebrated naturalist it is an opmion advanced only to be rejected, because he cannot discern that there exists any point of union between the kingdoms. We have, however, already seen that the only difference between some of the minute gelatinous vegetables of the Linnean Se y ba 452 vP. VR “/, a 7] if ne y 200 ON THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. order Alge and the Infusoria is the supposed presence in the latter of a nervous system and an absorbent intestinal canal, neither of which however as yet has been ob- served, nor indeed reckoned to exist in the lowest animals except from analogical induction. We are therefore forced to acknowledge that like the letter V plants and animals present two distinct branches united at their base. Now, as the great object of the present Essay is to trace one of the ramifications of this dichotomous tree to its extreme fibres, I shall proceed to ascertain, if possible, the first na- tural groups into which the animal kingdom may be re- solved ; and for this purpose shall follow the excellent me- thod devised by M. Virey. © In the first place, we observe a tribe of beings which have one principal centre to their nervous system, the great trunk of which, with the said centre, is contained in a bony articulated case, which forms the axis of the whole body, and composes the vertebre and scull of these animals, which are therefore named VERTEBRATA. In asecond form of animals the skeleton is as it were external, so as to envelop the whole body, and is divided by transverse folds into a certain number of rings, to the internal surface of which the muscles are always fixed. Their nervous system consists of two long strings of medul- lary matter, passing through the whole of the body, and united to each other at small distances into several knots, or ganglions. These ganglions may be said to perform for the parts which surround them the functioa of so many brains, and for a certain period even to be sufficient for nervous sensibility after the animal has been cut in pieces. The animals constructed on this plan have obtained the. / a ff hid ferkdtda name of ANNULOSA. .- BS ae Ly: | Ss ay) om third fo there is no articulated skeleton either See Pi Me ~49 0 ON THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. 201 external or internal, the muscles being attached solely to the skin, which is itself in general soft, though often pro- tected by a calcareous or stony crust, termed the shedd. These animals, remarkable like plants for the variety of modes in which the sexes are combined, have their nervous system composed of several scattered masses or ganglions united together by nervous threads. They are called MOLLUSCA, and are almost all aquatic. A fourth form of animals presents to our view the or- gans of locomotion and sense arranged in a circular dispo- sition round a centre, so as to give a sort of radiant appear- ance to the whole body. Their substance is more or less gelatinous with the fibres indistinct. The nervous system of these imperfect beings is but little known as yet; though M. Tiedemann in his Mémoire sur ? Anatomie des Astéries, which was crowned by the French Institute, conceives that the whitish threads which proceed in a radiant di- rection from around the mouth, and which extend them- selves through the whole length of the arms of these ani- mals, form a sort of nervous system which from the pulpy nature of the medullary matter seems to correspond with the gelatinous composition of the animals themselves. They are all aquatic, and are named RADIATA. There still remains a fifth form of animals to be consi= dered—beings which cannot in the present state of know- ledge be better described than as masses of a transparent homogeneous, mobile, and sensible pulp. There are how- ever to be observed in this transparent pulp innumerable minute granulations, which may be considered as the ner- vous molecules dispersed over, or as it were confounded with, the substance of these animals, so as to impregnate the whole with sensibility. 202 ON THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. oo This last division I propose to name ACRITA. On considering the gelatinous composition of these ani- mals, the dispersion of the nervous molecules through their substance, and the absolute certainty that they are de- stitute of every sense except perhaps those of taste and touch, we are led to connect them with the Mollusca, whose substance is always mucous and often even gelatinous—= whose nervous system, though collected into several gan- glions, or centres of sensrbility, has nevertheless these gan- glions dispersed with little if any arrangement throughout the whole mass of their body—and whose senses, so far at least as we are certain of their existence, seem to be con- fined to those of taste and touch, with the exception of a few animals of the division which possess the organs of sight, and still fewer which possess those of hearing. Nevertheless, on comparing the Jcrita with the Mol- lusca, we find that the organization of these last has be- come much more complicated, and that a distinct system of circulation and peculiar organs for respiration, di- gestion, and secretion are even visible in these animals, which connect them in a remarkable manner with a still more perfectly organized family—the Vertebrata. These however by their red blood, their museular heart, their jaws acting vertically, their distinct organs for sight, hearing, smell and taste, their sexes constantly distinct, their vertebral column and extreme concentration of the nervous system, are sufficiently insulated from the Mol- lusca, as well as from all other material beings. ‘The group is therefore perfectly distinct and natural; yet if we at- tempt to define it by any one of the abovementioned various. properties, little examination is requisite to convince us that the characteristic thus chosen either disappears in ON THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. 205 the least perfect of the Vertebrata, or passes imperceptibly into the neighbouring groups. Thus in the fishes which compose the genera Ammo- catus Dum. and Gastrobranchus Bl. all those parts which ought to have constituted their skeleton as vertebrated animals become so soft and membranaceous, that they may be considered as having no bones. The organs of respiration and of manducation, the absolute want of the sense of sight, the general habits and external form of these singular fishes, all prove to us that they are connected with the Annelides, and that by them nature passes to the structure of the Annu/osa. On the other hand, on exa- mining some of the Hchinoderma of Cuvier, such as those composing the genus Comatula, we may trace the articulated texture of the Annu/osa into the division of Ra- diata, many of whose external forms are also exactly imi- tated by the sessile Cirrhipedes. Of the Radiata, again, the stellate form and the gelatinous semi-transparent sub- stance are observable among the Acrita. So that the chain whose links we have endeavoured to unfold returns into. itself, and we find that all animals form a circle composed of the following great divisions, viz. | ACRITA, Te MOLLUSCA, VERTEBRATA, ANNULOSA, RADIATA, This arrangement of animals is, it is true, quite distinct from that generally adopted ; but it will be seen that it is not only conformable to nature, but that it removes many of the discrepancies which shock the naturalist in the com- mon systems, For instance, there is an acephalous ani- Se < 204 ON THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. mal of the division Mollusca (Ascidia mamillaris Linu.) which exists without any visible organs of sense, except that of taste, whose substance is little better than a homo- geneous gelatinous pulp, whose inert nature seems to de- priye it of any power like that of voluntary motion; a be- ing which is consequently reduced to fix itself to solid bodies, or to be the sport of winds and waves; whose principal sign of life consists in the absorption and spouting forth of water, and whose animal properties in short are all comprised in its irritability, its circulation, and respi- ration. Yet because these two last qualities appear in this animal, whose existence is little better than vegetative, to bear some resemblance to the circulation and respiration in some of the Vertebrata, we find it placed in the com- mon systems before the bee, which astonishes us by its industry and social qualities; before the ant, which excites our admiration by its frugality and courage; and before the other numberless insects, which by their manners and stratagems have often made the naturalist hesitate as to the point where he would draw the line, and separate instinct from reason. Nevertheless, if the series of ganglions along the double nervous thread of insects, and the different ramifications which emanate from this remarkable system for the pur- pose of animating the members and organs of sense in the Annulosa, be considered, it may be asked whether this sy- stem does not present to the eye infinitely more order and harmony than the ganglions which are irregularly di- spersed in the Mollusca throughout the whole body. But then the oyster, it will be urged, possesses a brain, though in fact that nervous ganglion which is said to be situated over the oesophagus, and therefore has been honoured with ON THE ANIMAL KINGDOM, 2905 the title of brain, hardly deserves it more than that which is said to be placed at the other extremity of the body, and certainly not so much as the cerebral ganglion in thenervous system of the Crustacea and other annulose animals. Those Mollusca which possess a distinct head with tentacula and other organs of sense have undoubtedly a true brain, but that of an oyster has no other right to the name than the ob- vious analogy which its position is said to bear to that of the brain of a gasteroped. Such analogies, however, are al- most always incentrovertible; and the naturalist, when anatomical demonstration is so powerful, had better ac- cede to M. Cuvier’s opinion that the acephalous Mol- lusca possess a brain and a general construction which, upon the whole, makes a nearer approach to that of the Verte- brata than is made by any annulose animal, but particu- larly those undergoing metamorphosis. When however we have admitted this, it cannot, [ conceive, be therefore contended that an Ascidia has any superiority over the bee. No person, on comparing the two animals, will assert that the Mollusque has any quality that can be put in competition either with the intelligence or the compli- cated mechanism of the Insect. If we are to estimate by their anatomy the importance which different material beings are entitled to in the scale of creation, it may readily be supposed that with this object in view we ought to consider the complication of mechanism as the test of perfection, and not any fancied and often forced resemblance to the human structure. Nay, if this last rule be employed, the rudest artificial imitation will often deserve the praise of ingenuity in the construction supe- rior to that of some of the most extraordinary productions of nature. The absurdity of such a conclusion may then 206 ON THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. show us that the works of the creation are not referable to the human figure as a standard of perfection, but that they ought to be appreciated according to the ingenuity displayed in their organization, and the variety of effects which may depend on it. Indeed it must be remarked by the most careless ob- server, that many even of the vertebrated animals are far inferior to insects, both in the possession of those faculties by which we are accustomed to estimate the rank of the Vertebrata among themselves, as well as in complication of general structure. In proportion also as the organic structure is simple, it has been observed that the body is more capable of repairing, by reproduction, such parts as may have been lost; a principle which if applied to lizards and frogs, would evidently reduce them in the scale of being below many insects. On the whole then it appears necessary, first, that the afinity of the Mollusca to the Vertebrata, which is so ob- vious in the Cephalopoda, should not be disturbed by any intervening division; secondly, that the annulose animals should not be separated from the Gastrobranchus and other cyclostomous fishes; and above all, that they should not be made subordinate in rank to such simple animals as compose the greatest part of the Mollusca. Now these conditions will all be fulfilled if the chain of nature be viewed as returning into itself; whereas they will be com- pletely violated if we account it to be a regular line or ladder, commencing with the Infusoria and terminating in man, or indeed if we adopt any opinion that has hitherto been advanced on the subject by naturalists. ~~——~__, Another novelty in the plan now proposed is the divi- pe ewU I sion of the animal kingdom into five. great groups instead ON THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. 207 of four, as stated by Cuvier; but indeed both Lamarck and De Blainville have already sufficiently, though not directly, proved the necessity of the Acrita being sepa- rated from the Radiata. “ La dénomination d@animaur rayonnés,” says Lamarck, “ ne leur convient pas plus que la précédente ( Zoophytes) ; car elle ne peut sappliquer qua une partie dentr’eux; et il s'en trouve beaucoup parmi eux gui n'ont absolument rien de la forme rayonnante.” The very name of Radiaires, as given by Cuvier to the last di- vision he makes in the scale of animals, evidently excludes his Intestinaux, Polypes nus, Polypes a polypiers, and In- fusoires. itis true that many of the Polypi, such as the Polypes a polypier, inhabit tubes which take a variety of radiated forms, but there is nothing to show that the ani- mals themselves have the radiated organization which is so conspicuous in the Asterias, Echinus, Xc. For if the tentacula or feelers with which the mouth of a polype is furnished be conceived to indicate the animal as belonging to the Radiata, we shall by the same rule be obliged to place in this group many of the Annulosa as well as Mollusca. As for the intestinal worms, they exhibit at present to the naturalist nothing but a mass of confusion, which will require a great portion both of time and trouble to unravel. M. Cuvier observing that some of them have at Jeast two nervous fibres or threads shooting out from a circle round the mouth, has considered this property as indicative of their connexion with the Radi- ata, But this. observation would in my opinion be of much greater force in proving them to be annulose ani- mals, and [ have indeed but little doubt that many of them possess a much greater affinity to the nnulosa than is at present suspected. 208 ON THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. The Polypi and Infusoria are upon the whole a little better understood, and accordingly form the greatest part of that group which from the difficulties it throws in the way of the observer I have here named Acrita. To some indeed of the animals comprised under this denominaticn M. De Blainville has applied the name of Agastria ; but it does not seem expedient to adopt a word which is with accuracy applicable to so very small a part of the group. In general I could wish to state a novel opimion with the arguments on which it may have been founded briefly, since it is an ungracious as well as a disagreeable task to have to clear the way for its reception by refuting prevalent notions. Butin investigations of this sort some names possess an authority which to dispute is of itself presumptuous, but which to slight would be absolute folly. One of the first naturalists of the age, who has instituted several primary divisions which are popular on the Conti- nent, will therefore in the following remarks consider that they have proceeded solely from a love of truth and an ardour for the promotion of natural science, and that were not the doctrines criticised likely from their inge- nuity to mislead, they would never have been impugned. Animals have by this author been divided into Vertebraied and Unvertebrated. Now this division, as M. Cuvier per- ceived, errs more in its nature, of which we have already exposed the defects, than in its particular relation to Zoology. ‘The objection to it is not that it is contrary to truth, but that it does not state enough, and that the young naturalist, placing full reliance on it, may be led to conceive that animals have been formed on only two distinct plans. Had the animal kingdom however been divided into ra- diated and not radiated, or into annulose and not annulose, ON THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. 209 both of these methods would have been equally applicable with that proposed by the celebrated author of the Histoire Naturelle des Animauv sans Vertebres. He has, indeed, himself been sensible in some measure of this, as appears from his later division of animals into Intelligent, Sensible, and Apathetic ; where those which are vertebrated are styled Intelligens, Insects and Mollusca are considered Sensibles, and the Radiata and Polypes are Animaur Apathiques. Without discussing the propriety of these three degrees of comparison, and the perspicuity with which they are de- fined, it will be sufficient to state, in order to prove that a system founded on them must be erroneous, that some fishes and some reptiles are as truly or even more defec- tive in intelligence than are many insects; and, on the other hand, that the Cirrhipedes and many insects, such as the larvee of Diptera, are as apathetic, in Lamarck’s sense of the word, as any of the Intestinal worms. [tis not easy to per- ceive, moreover, why an Echinus ought to be considered as showing less signs of life than an Ascidia, or Oyster; yet all these conclusions, so contradictory to the naturalist’s per- sonal observation, are the direct consequences of a system founded on Lamarck’s scale of intelligence. Animals may no doubt be classed according to the de- grees of intelligence which each may display; but it is ab- surd to imagine that intelligence is divisible into three sorts, more than into any other number. ‘There is nothing that I am aware of which can be adduced in favour of this hypothesis.- It seems perfectly arbitrary, since every per- son, whether naturalist or not, knows that the intelligence of man is one degree, that of a horse another degree; in short, that as we can judge of intelligence only by its effects, and these effects differ not only with the species but also with p 210 ON THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. the individual, it may be said of the Vertebrata, at least, that there are as many sorts of intelligence displayed as there are individual beings, whilst of insects there are pro- bably as many degrees of instinct as there are species. It is also obvious that we cannot, without confusion, compare with each other in degree the different sorts of intelligence displayed by animals whose general structure is not only different, but also their nervous system, on the disposition of which their intelligence in so great a mea- sure depends. Where indeed the intelligence is of the same sort, we may estimate its degree; but this can only be where all the bemgs under consideration are referable to the same type of form; and, above all, where their nerv- ous matter has been dispersed on the same general plan. But as this is a subject I purpose hereafter more fully to discuss, I shall conclude this chapter with observing, that it must afford pleasure to those who have a taste for the analogies of nature, to perceive that no where are they more visible than between the animal and vegetable kingdoms. The difference which separates these appears to depend, as we have already shown, on the presence of a nervous system in animals. Yet it is worthy of attention, that those vegetables which are generally supposed to make the near- est approach to the other kingdom possess a degree of itrita- bility, the cause of which has long excited the curiosity of philosophers, but as constantly baffled their efforts to detect it. The chemical analysis also of the lower tribes of plants indicates the presence of azote; and though it has been as- serted that the irritability of the genus Linckza, or Nostochs, is entirely owing to the elasticity of the plant, and by:no means to any nervous action ; yet allowing this to be the case, we can only admire the beautiful regularity of nature, ON THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. 211 which, in order to mark the affinity between the lower tribes of plants and animals, has thus impressed a gelatinous ve- getable with a degree of elasticity which is so similar to the nervous influence among the Acrita. Nay, many Con- ferve have the same sort of generation with the Polypes; for, independently of the herbaceous and seminiferous mat- ter contained in the interior of the articulations, as observed by Vaucher, there are also gelatinous tubercles which give rise to new plants. We need not therefore be surprised that several of the Linnzan A/ge should be still hovering in a state of uncertainty between the two kingdoms, but on the contrary be prepared to expect additional proofs of the analogy which the two great divisions of organized matter bear to each other. No groups can be more natural than those of Mono- cotyledonous and Dicotyledonous plants. ‘The latter are the Vertebrata of the vegetable kingdom, their hard or os- seous parts being as it were in the middle, and thus afford- ing the most perfect and intricate plan of vegetable con- struction. The monocotyledonous plants are not only annulose in structure, or bear their harder parts on the out- side, but moreover have often that articulated construction which so remarkably distinguishes the corresponding be- ings in the animal kingdom. ‘These are not new or wild fancies, but positive truths which, as they were first men- tioned by Desfontaines, must excite our astonishment that they were not sooner known. Finally, it may be ob- served that the radiated form is to be found in the tribe of Fungi, and that if the analogy has failed to be so conspicuous between the Jungermannieé or Fuci, and the Mollusca, this is perhaps to be attributed as much to the little acquaintance which botanists generally possess with P@ 212 ON THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. the cellular plants of Decandolle as to any failure in this solitary case of a rule so general. In taking leave here of the vegetable kingdom, and pro- ceeding to imvestigate the probable place occupied by Scarabeus sacer among natural beings, I cannot but ex- press a hope that those who have time, opportunity, and sufficient botanical knowledge for the purpose may direct their researches to this interesting but intricate field of discovery. ‘The wonderful progress made of late years in Botany leads us to trust that ere long we shall be gratified with a general and connected natural plan of vegetable organization. GENERAL VIEW OF ORGANIZED MATTER. MOLLUSCA. DICOTY= LEDONES. **** | ACRITA, VEGETABILIA. ANIMALIA. MONOCOTY= TRPONES. 213 CHAPTER Y, ON CLASSES, OR THOSE NATURAL GROUPS INTO WHICH THE ANIMAL KINGDOM MAY BE RE- SOLVED ON ITS SECOND RAMIFICATION. Animats appear to have been created on two distinct plans; or, to make use of an idea frequently adopted in the course of this work, nature seems in the animal kingdom to have set out from inorganic matter by two different routes, which meet together and complete the cirele among 5 ~*~ : > x the Annelides, or Crustacea. This difference of construc-_ tion may be thus represented: although properly speak- ing the rule applies only to the greatest part of the Az- nulosa, and not to the Crustacea or Arachnida. Flos whiel et Tee ACRITA, umals in which no circulation : ua eae : RADIATA, 0 71S mer ee ANNULOSA. Animals in which the circulation ( VERTEBRATA, MOLLUSCA. In this last plan there is constantly a pulmonary or of blood is perfectly distinct, branchial respiration aimed at, with a perfect system of circulation for the nutritive fluid; im the other, not only is the existence of a circulation a question to which no small degree of doubt may be attached, but the system of respi- ration is of a nature quite different and apparently much less 278 214 ON THE CLASSES OF THE perfect. It has indeed been long since observed that the whole internal anatomy, and in particular the organs of respiration and circulation in the Mollusca and Vertebrata, differ entirely from the structure of the divisions of Acrita and Radiata, and from that of the greatest part of the Annulosa. Now, in the preceding chapter we have seen that the only method by which the unnatural interruption of the Annulosa and Vertebrata by the Mollusca may be avoided, is one which necessarily places the last mentioned group nearer in general construction than the Annulosa to the point of union between the two kingdoms of orga- nized nature, that is, to the lowest of animals. It follows therefore, that though they undoubtedly possess a very com- plete system of respiration and circulation, the Mollusca are inferior in the scale of nature to the Annulosa. If we are to judge of the rank of the Vertebrata by the distance at which they are removed from inorganic mat- ter, or, which is the same thing, from the confines of the vegetable and animal kingdoms, some of the Annulosa ought to be found to possess an organization quite as in- tricate as the animals withvertebre. This principle, Iam aware, may be objected to; and indeed it is so very diffi- cult to compare with one another two divisions of ani- mals which differ completely in their anatomical structure, whose very senses, for aught we know, are of totally di- stinct natures, that it becomes useless to attack or defend the propriety of such comparisons. No animal displays so much docility for general purposes as some of those which are vertebrated; nor does any display instinctively such wisdom for a particular purpose as an insect. No animal can be compared to such as are Annulose for strength and swiftness in proportion to their size, for perseverance and ANIMAL KINGDOM. 215 industry; nor any to the Vertebrata for size, duration of life, and variety of pursuit during that life. The result therefore to which we shall always arrive in this compa- rison is, that the Vertebrata are the perfection of one plan of organization, as the Annulosa may be of another. There can however be no doubt as to which ought to be accounted the lowest and least complicated of animals. With these then, or the Acrita, I shall begin, and endeavour to trace my way round the circle developed in the last chapter. Homogeneous gelatinous masses of pulp without any visible cavity, and propagated by buds or cuttings,—beings in which every character of life may seem absolutely de- stroyed by desiccation, but which, by the influence of humidity, light, and other natural agents, can resume their vital energy; beings sometimes fixed to a particular point of space, and often absorbing nourishment by their external pores,—would manifestly be classed among the lower and less organized tribes of vegetables, did we not observe that such a mass of pulp is not only in general endowed with the power of locomotion, but also is always extremely irritable. When, moreover, we observe that this irritability is manifested not by any mechanical action, or by any effect which we are likely to ascribe toa simple mechanical cause, but by a contraction of the injured part within itself, we are induced to suspect the presence of some nervous influence, and consequently that this ¢gela- tinous mass is an animal. The Agastria, or Agastraires of De Blainville, are indeed Animals, though they have neither distinct organs of sense, alimentary canal, nor even mouth; though they have, in short, so far as our present knowledge of them would lead us to believe, no internal digestion whatever to execute, but trust for nourishment, Let EG = 216 ON THE CLASSES OF THE like plants, to the absorption of their external pores. They must be esteemed animals, on account of their peculiar irritability, but are vegetables in almost every other respect. Of such an ambiguous nature indeed are these simply con- structed and minute atoms that they confound every no- tion, even the most clear, which we may have endea- voured to form of animal life; atoms that, were their importance to be estimated according to their size, would be utterly neglected in the study of nature, but which nevertheless, because organized matter in them is reduced to the most simple form of cellular tissue, and life, as it were, is atits very lowest ebb, have employed the time and labours of Hooke, Leuwenhoeck, Spallanzani, Muller, and Lamarck. And this method of investigation is surely more philosophical than that of those who attempt to form ac- curate ideas of animal life by studying it only in its most complex shape, which is just as if we could hope to pe- netrate into the depths of the Newtonian philosophy with- out being previously acquainted with the simpler eles ments of mathematical science. ACRITA. The genus Monas may be taken as the type of the [nm . fusoria, since it consists of the smallest and least compli- ‘cated of all known animals. From these, by means of be- ings still only visible by the assistance of a microscope, but gradually obtaining some sort of appendages so as to give them the definite form of which the Monades are destitute, we proceed to the Polypi rudes, which may perhaps be hereafter found tobe a circular group, conyposed as well of Cuvier’s Infusoires rotiferes_as of his Polypes nus: The Polypi rudes according to this idea, for which EOE ANIMAL KINGDOM. 217 naturalists are indebted to Lamarck, consist of animals which are so far advanced in organization as to possess a distinct mouth; this mouth having, at its entrance, either one or more wheel-like organs fringed and rotatory, or having such organs converted gradually into tentacula disposed in a circle. ‘The Infusoria rotifera of Cuvier are the Polypes possessing the abovementioned wheel-like organs, which are suspected by this naturalist as well as by Dutrochet to be employed for purposes of respiration. It would seem indeed that some of those animals described as Rotifera by MM. Dutrochet and Leclerc, are far too complicated in their organizatiun to belong to the Infuso- r?a; animals which not only are in possession of an in- testine, but also, having two apertures to this organ, ap- proach nearer, as M. Savigny remarks, to the group we shall hereafter have to describe under the name of Tun- cata. On leaving the Monades we are prepared for the curious wheel-like processes of the real oftfera, first, by the genus T7ichedu of Muller, and then by the. Polypes vibratiles of Lamarck. ‘The latter family, which is com- posed of the genera Ratulus, Lrichocerca and J ginicola, oe YC aces has a vibratory fringe encircling the mouth, which is an imperfect sketch of that of the Rotifera. The Infusoria rotifera are remarkable, inasmuch as in them we have the first instance of a testaceous covering for the animal, and consequently are led in some measure to expect the more calcareous excretions of the Polypes a polypier of Cuvier, or the Polypt vaginati of Lamarck. x fl Ao The Rotifera also present us in the genus Vorticedla Bl. Lu fe bp with the first example of composite animals, which we shall henceforward find so common among the Acrita. The Vorticelle indeed are not covered with a shell, but 218 ON THE CLASSES OF THE have a contractile body, rather dilated, and fixed by a pe- duncle to different solid substances, so as singularly to re- present certain monopetalous flowers. Of this nature is Vorticella convallaria. But the resemblance of such animals to flowers becomes still more manifest in the com- posite Vorticelle, or those whose peduncles ramify ; the dis- covery of a species of which (Vorticella digitalis) on a Monoculus quadricornis made De Geer, though a man to whom the wonders of nature were daily familiar, break out into raptures of admiration at the endless variety of the works of his Creator. A celebrated naturalist pretends to trace animal nature from its most complicated organization to its simplest form; but nothing, among innumerable instances to be found in his work of his having forgotten this principle, can better show how widely apart anatomical skill is from skill in classifi- cation, than his placing the genus Hydra, “ les animaux de cette classe réduits a leur plus grande simplicité,’ at the head of his Polypes. ‘There seems however to be great reason for supposing, with Lamarck, that,these simply constructed Polypes and the Rotifera are connected to- gether by means of the Vorticelle. Leaving the Rottfera, we arrive at the Polypi vaginati, the tubular oblong form and ciliated retractile mouth of the Plumatelle Lam. In true Polypes the rotatory organs with which the mouths of the Infusorta rotifera are armed become tentacula, or feelers. These however are no longer mechanical instruments for creating whirlpools in the wa- ter, but sometimes simple, sometimes dentated, or ciliated, appear always to be furnished with muscles sufficiently strong to enable them to secure their prey and to conduct ANIMAL KINGDOM. 219 it to the entrance of the intestinal canal. Still the method im which this prey is seized is more analogous to the man- ner in which insects are entrapped by various plants, than to that peculiar will which’ we perceive in the more per- fect animals when hungry. An object must irritate the tentacula of the Polype by contact before these will con- vey it tothe mouth. The alimentary canal is indeed the principal characteristic of the Polypes; for, except in this respect, the structure of some of them can hardly be said to be more complicated than that of the Infusoria. The gelatinous pulpy body of the Polype is now however protected by an inorganic sheath, and the animal is in ge- _neral composite. By a Composite Animal we are to understand a con- glomeration of the same species, adhering the one to the other, either by lateral appendages or by their posterior extremities, and which communicating together by such means, assimilate in common the nutriment which one alone has swallowed. It is a collection of animals which parti- cipate in a common life, while each enjoys an independent vitality for every part of its body. We have already seen instances of this compound organization among the Polypes nus of Cuvier, as in the genera Vorticella and Cristatella; but the difference between these and the compound sheath- ed Polypes seems to be, that each of the latter is insulated in front, and confined in a little cell formed of the horny crustaceous or stony matter which transudes from its sur- face, while by its posterior extremity, like the Polypes nus, it is connected with its fellows. The Polypt vaginati are very numerous in nature, and constitute an ample and interesting field, in which a na- turalist may acquire great honour. They appear to contain low o- 220 ON THE CLASSES OF FHE »among themselves some very beautiful and extraordinary types of form, than which none however is more interest- ing than the composite sheathed Polype. But this exter- nal stony sheath disappears in the Sponges and Alcyonia, or at least confounds itself with. the common body of the Polypes. These very imperfect beings are supposed to con- eg 17 i EP 2 BE 31 are hee ANS how - fs thatis, the two most complex forms of the circle of Acrita; Je tof. ee Zand we thus, for the first time, see that in passing from, one perfect plan to another, Nature makes use of some of her very simplest constructions. By means of the Sponges and the Polypi tubiferi of Savigny and Lamarck, we arrive at the Polypi natantes, where the structure of a sheathed, Polype is completely reversed. It is the axis of the whole compound animal which is here stony, often hollow, and about which the Polypes combine to form a fleshy body of a constant and regular form. M. Savigny, whose dis- goveries in every branch of Natural History he endeavours to elucidate are equally important and interesting, considers, the internal organization of the Polypi tubifert, which, he finds so complicated in comparison with the animals we have as yet had under consideration, to be analogous to that of the genus Veretellum among the Polypi natantes; and indeed the axis of these last is no longer distinct in the Veretellum Cynomorium (Pennatula Cynomorium Pall.). The compound structure of the Polyp: natantes however is not so very observable in the genus Virgularia, which has neither the general form nor the habits of therest. The animals composing this genus present a linear filiform body, which is sunk in the sand or mud so as to leave nothing but the polypiferous extremity of the animal exposed. Having thus clearly receded from the type of the Polype natantes, ANIMAL KINGDOM. 221 we may suppose ourselves near to the point whence we sare to set out in order to procure another type of form. From what we have now seen of the Acrita, it would ap- pear that there cannot be improperly assigned to the group, any animal which unites to a soft pulpy consistence an organization so imperfect, as to have the alimentary canal either indistinct or when visible never provided but with one Opening, a gemmiparous system of generation, and no traces whatsoever of vessels proper for the purposes of cir- culation and respiration. Such an animal, [ repeat, would evidently not be improperly connected with the Polypi and Infusoria, since it possesses their distinguishing cha- racteristics. Many of the intestinal worms, therefore, 4, CA live have been placed among the Polypes on the soundest _/” principles of reasoning. Not however all that heterogeneous mass of beings which compose the Intestinaux of Cuvier, : but only such of them as form the greatest part of his 2d ? ‘nd ve, tetibg. and 3d divisions of Intestinaux parenchymateux, and of A. 179, ye: ia the Vers mollasses of Lamarck, beings that have their «(v2 /: 63, 2, substance in general entirely consisting of cellular tissue, without any viscera. From the Polypes we appear to enter among these extraordinary animals, by means of the genus Scolex, and others, which to a gelatinous body add a ter- minal orbicular mouth surrounded by four flexible polymor- phous tentacula or feelers. ‘These appendages gradually vanishing in other species, the whole body becomes a sim- ple vesicle, as the Hydatis, that extraordinary animal whicli is often found in myriads inhabiting the liver or brain of herbivorous animals, and sometimes infesting even man himself. Finally, the mouth itself disappears, and the body has no other characteristic property than being an elon- gated linear flattened mass of cellular tissue; which ac- 222 ON THE CLASSES OF THE cordingly brings us back to the Agastria, in the genus Vibrio of Miller, or those Infusoria to which belong what are vulgarly known as the Keds of Vinegar. The most remarkable of the Indestina are the genera Tenia and Botryocephalus, not only on account of their being the most formidable parasites to which vertebrated animals have been subjected, but also from their probably forming a type of composite animals very distinct from the compound Polypes. ‘The classical type of the latter seems to be a congeries of animals adhering to each other lateral- ly; whereas, the above compound Intestina seem to consist each of a linear series of animals. It is an old but never- theless to all appearance a perfectly just idea, that each articulation of a Tenia is a distinct animal; for we may observe each to be supplied with its peculiar organs, in the shape of one or two pores and gemmiparous masses placed in the middle of each lateral face of the articu- lation. It is true that to the whole articulated ribband which composes a Tenia there appears to be but one mouth by which the nourishment common to all can be received; but we have already seen that in the compound Polypes the food swallowed by one may serve to the nou- rishment of the whole; whence it may safely be concluded that a T’enia cannot be confounded with the articulated Vermes, but is truly acompound animal though of a pe- culiar sort. On the whole then we have set out from the Agastria, or animals without mouth or alimentary canal, and, after passing through various different types of form, are now returned to the simple structure from whence we started, and the Acrita have been seen to compose a circle thus distributed in nature: ANIMAL KINGDOM. 225 AGASTRIA, or INFUSORIA, INTESTINA, POLYPI NATANTES, POLYPI VAGINATI, POLYPI RUDES. Atfirst sight, however, there appears to be a want of that symmetry in this circle so observable in the others which compose the great divisions of the animal kingdom; for the Radiata have all a classical type to which their several structures may be referred, as also have the Annulosa, Ver- tebrata and Mollusca ; whereas here we see Nature choos- f ing every possible type of form, and sporting as it were | Fd | with every thing like regularity. But this I apprehend is . ce ag the consequence of a too rapid glance, since Nature, so far_ 7“. ) heer gO cy _tnomsiorgettinig order, has, at the commencement of of her 4.4720 — work, in work, in these imperfect animals given us a sketch of the 477% ~& Gee five di e different forms which she intended afterwards to adopt 774s “af oh: Ids GiA ~ for the whole animal kingdom. In the soft mucous slug- ©“ 7,772 gish Intestina she has given the outline of the Mollusca. | ctaeltled C4 In the fleshy living mass which surrounds the bony and hollow axis of the Polypi natantes, she has sketched a _vertebrated animal. In the crustaceous covering of the @ (pv Clb ate living mass, and the structure more or less articulated in the Polypi vaginati, we trace the form of the Annulosa ; hoyerieebe while the radiated forms of the Rotifera and the sim- ple structure of the Polypt rudes,may in general ieee ee i Bue fob beze®. of the adiata. ta. pe hy iy Her AY, ero cs ain ees Ko means 'S profess “any self su iently informed on the subject to attempt, at present, a more rigorous and detailed subdivision of these animals, much less to criti- cise what has been already done in this province by learned anatomists. Nevertheless, | cannot but consider the ana- 204 ON THE CLASSES OF THE logy as deserving a severer epithet than vague, which has been used in order to unite the Entozoa with the Echino- derma. Because some of the Intestinaux of Cuvier have two fibrous lines, or muscular threads, shooting out from a circle round their mouths, it has been asserted that these animals afford traces of a radiated structure; but other naturalists appear to have drawn from the same observation a much more correct conclusion, in con- ceiving that these two fibres, where they exist, are but modifications of the ordinary nervous system of the An- nulosa, allowance being made for their bemg animals far ~ more imperfect than the usual types of this system of construction. It seems indeed impossible in an arrange- ment which has any pretensions to being natural, to sepa- rate some of the Entozoa, such’ as the Nematoidea of Rudolf, far from Leonbricus and Gordius. Withrespect to this new division ofanimals, which [have called Acrita, the following definition, which is nearly thatof Lamarck, will serve to exclude such of the Intestinaux of Cuvier as deserve a higher place in the scale of nature. Animalia gelatinosa polymorpha, interaneis nullis ‘me- dullaque indistincta, Os interdum indistinctum, sed nutritio absorptione ex- terna vel internd semper sistit. Anus nullus. Reproductio fissipara vel gemmipara, gemmis modo’ ex- ternis modo internis, interdum acervatis. ~ Pleraque ex individuis pluribus semper coharentibus ani- malia composita sistunt. _ The distinctive character of these animals is therefore principally negative as referred to animals, and_ positive as referred to plants. The simple texture of their cellular tissue 1s common to them with the Alge; their gemmipa- ANIMAL KINGDOM: 205 rous generation bears resemblance only to the simplest part of the system of reproduction in the other tribes of animals, whereas, itis by no. means uncommon in plants: the me- thod likewise in which all of them live more or less by the absorption of their external pores, and their attraction by light, is only to be discovered besides in the vegetable kingdom. Ifa Polype be cut in pieces each of these will continue to live, and in time will take the form of the ori- ginal individual, so that every point of such a body must be considered as having an independent life, like that of some of the lower vegetables. Lamarck accounts for this phenomenon by considering their alimentary canal to con- stitute a second absorbing surface, in no respect different from the absorbent external surface of the dgasiria, so that any portion separated from these bodies may live for a time like the infusoria, until they have obtained the second or internal absorbent surface; an idea which is not only ingenious but perfectly consonant with our observa- tion. But this is not all. That remarkable, nay, wonderful pro- perty of the greater part of these animals, which consists in their enjoyment of a common vitality, 1s what we ob- serve in the majority of vegetables. A vegetable, says La- marck, may in general be considered as a collection of living individuals, each capable of absorbing nutriment which is all to tend to the general health of the plant: now what naturalist is ignorant that this is only to be compared throughout the animal kingdom, with those compound be- mgs which we have seen to result from the union of many distinct individuals adhering to one another, and sharing a life common to all? If to these circumstances be added their still more singular general appearance, which with Q 296 ON THE CLASSES OF THE the earlier naturalists gained them the appellation of Zoo- phytes, we shall be under the necessity of acknowledging that the line of separation between animal and vegetable life is not so distinct as some philosophers would have us suppose, and that in fact no accurately distinctive charac- ter can be given, unless it be the presence of a neryous system in the former. So thought Linnzeus when he de- scribed his Zoophyta as “ Composita Animalcula in bivio Animalium Vegetabiliumque constituta, vere planta, sed systemate nerveo, sensus motusque organo instructe.” This indeed has been denied by Lamarck, and termed a per- fectly gratuitous and improbable supposition; because on this view it would follow, as he thinks, that a fresh water Polype must have all the organs of a perfect animal, and consequently hears, sees, smells, &c. with every atom of its body. But this conclusion, so absurd in itself, seems to me to be rather absurdly arrived at; since, if the study of nature teaches us that where an organ ceases to exist the faculty can no longer be found, there can be no rea- son in the world to suppose that a Monas or Polype, which appears absolutely an atom of jelly destitute of any thing resembling an organ, should be gifted with the above powers. Besides, in examining the construction of those animals which enjoy their senses in the greatest perfection, we find the nervous matter on the whole to be very homogeneous, whether it communicates sound, light, odour, taste, or touch, to the great sensorium; so that though the nerves form thus the medium of communica- tion from the organ of sense to the sensorium, they would be useless without the former, which. is so peculiarly adapted for receiying impressions from external objects. If an animal, therefore, could be supposed to exist de- ANIMAL KINGDOM: 997 stitute of organs, and having its nervous matter melted down as it were into the general mass of the body, we should have an animal indeed destitute of every sense ex- cept irritability to the touch, but having this irritability equally perfect in every molecule of its body. We should then be obliged to consider it as a compound animal, made up of as many animals as there were molecules in the body; and it would in short be a polype as we see this animal to exist in nature. TUNICATA. — = A minute gelatinous irregular compound animal, with- out a head or distinct organs of sensation, inclosed in a cartilaginous or coriaceous cell, and whose mouth is fur nished with six tentacula, cannot be far distant in nature from the Polypi vaginati, even though a second opening to the intestinal canal may now be distinctly traced. If moreover the individuals composing such an animal be disposed in regular systems, we may be allowed to refer it to a place near that of the Flustre or Cellularia, in both of which genera this disposition is also very observable. The Aplidium lobatum of Savigny is an animal of the na- ture we have just described. It is a Polype by means of which we may leave the Acrita and proceed to explore our way into a more complicated region of organization. Our knowledge of the anatomy of the Tunicata, or Tu- niciers, as they have been named by Lamarck, is entirely owing to the brilliant discoveries of Pallas, Le Sueur, Cuvier, and Desmarest, but, above all, to the admirable patience and discriminative judgement of M. aoe From what we have said of the Aplidium, it cannot ap- - pear remarkable that such an animal continued long to Q2 Ve Cuv. Vy, V aes Jifjutrnenn {Lf dllaeerie, , Ged. IZ “ogee — ae A OGf- Gnw oe Leeretie wee a F forme . Lipiies ———wreses / TEL tone Tq, foi LU pier ws deri Vs 4 tC 4s hie Iv Tne FF} Kh 47 At DIE AM pt 6h ltt hlited Pe Thain (ee “a OME. Lhe men Bega eek Deas oa as 42f ELLE Ul UES De tngerre oe ene ig’ Bie VA De ee Lhe ‘pagb=$, 12, Slet ‘eh Hee OK lyr” bung 228 ON THE CLASSES OF. THE be confounded with the: Acrita. It is only the other day, indeed, that the last mentioned naturalist gave full force and developement to discoveries of Gertner and Pallas, which had at first been neglected, and which at last became totally forgotten. The true Polypes however, as we have already seen, possess but one alimentary ca- vity, which is provided with only one external aperture, and is separated from the outer cuticle by a simple cellu- lar substance. From these, then, the group we have now under consideration differs, in having two apertures to their intestinal canal, in being no longer a homogeneous mass of pulp, but offering to the view two distinct tunics at least, with a body divided internally into several cavities, which are furnished with viscera. It is in these animals we have the first indubitable vestige of a concentration. of the nervous system, and of organs indisputably constructed for purposes of respiration, circulation, and generation. But notwithstanding all these proofs of a more complicated construction than that which the Acrita possess, some of the Tunicata, such as the genus Eucelium, and that curi- ous inhabitant of the Australasian seas, Sigi/lina Au- stralis Sav., resemble the Polypi vaginati so much as to ey) aly . Tequire the eye of the most experienced anatomist to di- stinguish them. The most singular however of the compound Tunicata are those perhaps which, like the Botryllz, display se- veral stelliform or radiant systems, disposed in circles, ellipses, &c. round a central cavity or opening; the whole appearing, at first sight, to be a thin transparent radiated jelly coating marine substances. To a careless observer this appearance might be sufficient to confound them with the Radiata; but a little attention will prove to ANIMAL KINGDOM. 229 our complete satisfaction, that each ray is a distinct ani- mal, having its mouth at its external extremity and its rec- tum opening into a common cayity, which is the centre of the whole star. If the mouth of one of these rays be touched, that animal alone contracts itself; whereas if the centre of the star be irritated, every individual composing the system is equally contracted. Nevertheless, the ju- dicious observations of our countryman Ellis on this sub- Ject were long neglected, and until the second part of the Mémoires sur les Animaux sans Vertébres made its appearance every system of Botryllus was considered as one Polype, and every Polype as one tentaculum ; though anatomy now shows that each of these pretended tentacula is provided with its own intestinal canal, its own branchie, viscera and ovaries. The rays of a Botryllus as wellas each of those innumerable little beings com- posing the elegant Pyrosoma, which by its phosphores- cence charms many a dreary night on the Atlantic Ocean, and makes the sea to vie with the rainbow in brilliancy and variety of colour,—these all lead us to the Ascidie and _Salpe, which though no longer compound ‘animals, still exhibit the same essential plan of construction. The _Ascidia clavata of Cuvier (Clavellina borealis Sav.) in particular, affords us a disposition of the viscera which exactly resembles that of the compound Tunicata. The compound animal does not however become at once di- stinctly simple, for in general the individuals of the same species of Ascidia are grouped together, and when thus grouped put on an appearance of ramification; though this, as Cuvier observes, is not real, nor does it establish any organic union between the individuals, like that which exists ina Botryllus. The Salpe also are generally found Chinas Shes OG. Jen by 230. ON THE CLASSES OF THE united in the same manner as originally they were in the ovary, and swimming together in long chains, where the in- dividuals are always disposed in a particular manner, ac- cording to the nature of the species. The simple Tunicata possess a distinct branchial system of respiration, with a liyer, heart, and in fine a complete system of circulation, which corresponds with that of the Mollusca. In the system of generation also, of both these groups, no small affinity may be discerned, at least the ovary of Salpa scutigera bears a remarkable resemblance to that of some Gasteropoda. But in order to obtain a distinct view of the progress we have made, it may be proper to give here a rapid sketch of the discoveries of Cuvier, detailed in his inimitable anatomical Paper on the yi ee, , structure of the Ascidia, or Thethya of Aristotle. ea The body of one of these animals is divided into three cavities. First, the branchial, which communicates directly with the air at its upper aperture, and at the bottom of which is the true mouth or entrance to the intestinal canal, Secondly, the peritoneal cavity, which does not communi- cate directly with the open air, but which is traversed by the intestinal canal, originating in the branchial cavity and passing along by means of the rectum towards the anal aperture. Thirdly, the pericardial cavity, inclosing the heart, and communicating neither directly nor indirectly with the atmosphere. The Tentacula of the Polypes are still visible, but per- form a new office in the Ascidie. They are here no longer instrumental in catching the prey, but appear reduced to be simple auxiliaries of the system of respiration; they surround in fact the branchial cavity, and not the mouth properly so called, which is a small opening without lips ANIMAL KINGDOM. 251 or tentacula, situated at the lower extremity of the above- mentioned cavity. The internal coats of this branchial cavity are covered over with a reticulation of minute veins, which cross one another at right angles. Those which are vertical come from the transverse veins, which again are connected by their extremities with two large vertical trunks, each occupying one of the sides of the whole ca- vity. These two vessels open at opposite ends into the heart, which is of nearly the same diameter with them, and merely distinguished by being fusiform and more mus- cular. M. Cuvier conceives one of these trunks, which opens into the heart, to be the branchial vein by which the blood passes into the heart, and the other, which is much the longest, to be the Aorta distributing the blood throughout the body. So that the Ascidie have a system of circulation corresponding to that of the Gasteropoda and Acephalous Mollusca, that is, they have only the left or Aortic Ventricle without any other at the reunion of the Vena cava and pulmonary Artery. The Ascidi@ have a liver like that of the Acephalous Mollusca. It is of a darkish colour, and adheres in an intimate manner to the sides of the stomach, into which the bile is distributed by several orifices which are for that purpose in its sides. The nervous system consists, so far as has yet been ob- served, of but one ganglion, which is situated in the sub- stance of the tunic and between the branchial and anal apertures. Amongst the numerous ramifications of medul- lary matter which proceed from this ganglion are two or three which go towards the cesophagus and there sur- round it with a nervous ring, which Cuvier considers to be the brain. This nervous system corresponds with that of the bivalve: or Acephalous Mollusca. On the whole then, CS x ee CN 2C 2 oy. (opeey isgpe Les oa eles leap laphesy, i he it MAA Le par Sia WV Va XV. XVGXV I) 232 ON THE CLASSES OF THE like many of these last-mentioned animals, the Ascidie are destitute of organs of locomotion; like these they have their mouth at the bottom of the bag opposite to the tube by which the water penetrates, and so placed that this water cannot arrive at the intestinal canal without having previously washed the surface of the branchie. There cannot therefore be the least doubt of our having now ar- rived among the Mollusca, and nearer to the Acephalous tribe than to any other o: that divison. hi hous Ws (fe “zy MOLLUSCA. * The Acephala then, like the Ascidia, are soft that there are five great circular groups in the animal kingdom “which possess each a peculiar structure, and that these, compose the whole province of Zoology. As for the sub- ordinate affinities, they had better be collected into one tabular view, when it will be found that what, from my imperfect description, may perhaps have appeared con- fusion in the above detail, becomes order in the general idea obtained of it from the following figure. Net yY Ae He ER > % : < $ Ly S x “q = x 0 = RS Y = ra) texsl oe \icephala * Peeropoda, pees ¥ Aves . Teeptilia Praginah 763, s “ zs =! £Q Bs 3 : : eS Mammal A Vy EB 1s S 2 ID. yO Aculephida s : > ss a Pa bulata < = S LEthinidayCrustacece =) Z = 2 a < FTaustel- Medusida Stelleridy CIRRIPEDA ANIMAL KINGDOM. 319 ~~On the examination of this sketch, we are at first struck with the analogy which opposite points of the same ‘circle bear to one another,—an analogy sometimes so strong that it has been mistaken for a relation of affinity; and in- deed I am still unable to state whether this be not the fact, and that the opposite points of the curve, if I may so express myself, do not meet each other. Thus the re- semblance which the intestinal Acrita or Monogena of Latreille bear to the Nematotdea of Rudolphi and the Annelides, need not be descanted on, nor the affinity which the Cirripeda, according to some naturalists, appear to have with the Brachiopod Mollusca. It will be suffi- cient to state, that as this peculiarity of natural distribution was detected by analysis in the former part of this work, and the use to be made of it was visible among the Peta- locera; so the discovery of it served to prevent my falling into several mistakes, which I could not otherwise have avoided in deciding between relations of analogy and afli- nity, as they exist in the more general groups. The qua- druped Reptiles may in this way be separated from the Mammalia by the intervention of Birds on one hand and of Fishes on the other; and yet Dumeril may possibly not be far wrong in urging that the paradoxical Ornithorhyn- chus bears a nearer relation to Reptiles than to Birds, But my province more peculiarly is Entomology ; and this pro- perty of a distribution which for convenience only we have considered as circular, will serve to make the hexa- pod Acaride approach to the Anoplura of Leach, as ap- pears to be the case in nature. The next observation to be made is on the nature of the five osculant groups, by which we may have per- ceived the great divisions of animal life to be connected 320 ON THE CLASSES OF THE together. These smaller links of the great chain appear to have no very distinct type of peculiar construction. They are all very imperfect beings, and seem in general to be compounded of properties which more peculiarly belong to the two great divisions which they link together ; or, if their structure may be referred to any one type, it is undoubtedly to that of the circle of Acrita. When a Cuttlefish has been confounded by Gmelin with the Po- lypes, when the intestinal Acrita are not even to this day clearly distinguished from Worms, when Savigny and Le Sueur have only just separated the Tuntcata from other Compound animals, and Lamarck still places Zoanthus with Hydra; it seems extraordinary that the gregarious disposition of the Cirripedes, their testaceous covering and long arms should not have given them also a place among the Acrita. They certainly deserve it better than the Cephalopoda, with which they were confounded by no less a naturalist than Poli. But however this may be, it is clear that the type of an osculant group, such as the Tu- nicata, Cephalopoda, Annelides, Cirripeda, and Zoan- thida, will find its corresponding form rather among the circle of Acrita than among any other of the great divi- sions, unless it be at the points of connexion. A curious exception however to the full force of this remark seems necessary to be made with respect to the Annelides; for we have only to cast a glance at the systems in present use, in order to be convinced that the external form and manners of some of these animals announce a certain de- gree of kindred or analogy with both the Mollusca and Radiata. But it is possible that what has been already said on the affinity which opposite points of a circle bear to each other, will serve to explain this circumstance. ANIMAL KINGDOM. a2] The third observation to be made is, that on leaving the Acrita by means of the Tunicata, we immediately have the nervous system directing all its energy to one principal gan- glion, which is called the brain, and thus are led to the very great intelligence of some Vertebraia; but on leaving the Acrita by Zoanthus, the vital energy is apparently divided among different ganglions, and we finally arrive at the very great instinct of certain dnnulosa. ‘The complication and perfection of structure in the animals we meet with in this last path, neither increase so rapidly nor arrive to so great a height as among those animals which possess a di- stinct brain. The Mollusca and Radiata are equally di- stant from the Infusoria, but the sluggish Mollusca are in general endued with more proofs of life than the most or- ganized of the Radiata. Perfection among the Annulosa seems always tending to make the animal a complicated machine, guided solely by an instinct implanted in it by its Creator. Perfection in the Vertebrata seems to tend to make the animal a free agent, and to render it more inde- pendent of fatality. Fourthly, it can scarcely have escaped our notice, as some- what remarkable, that each of the great aid ine to be composed of five smaller ones; for while it may be true indeed, that, contenting myself with the ability to pass from the Acephala to the Pteropoda, by means of the genus Hyale, | have by no means determined this disposition to hold good among the Mollusca; still, as it is equally certain that this group of animals 1s as yet the least known, it may be improper at preseut to conclude that it forms any exception to the rule. _It would _even seem _un- questionable, that the Gasteropoda of Cuvier return _into Temselves so as to form a_circular_ group; but whether Y Cir Ceclar g , tg SZ re One Group ah eloeng ee: whe Ce pines , EC eER* 322 ON THE CLASSES OF THE the Acephala form one or two such, is by no means accu- rately ascertained, though enough is known of the Mol- lusea to incline us to suspect that they a are no less sub- jected in general to a. circular disposition than the f than the four other great groups. ups. It may at first be imagined, that each tf SOUP resolving itself so constantly mto five others, is an ee aT PE eL, 2) cir ** effect which can only be at attributed to some accident which | 4 may Risy We e favoured this species of developement; but there ee er Ne are too any conditions to be fulfilled before we can consider this suppositior on as in the slightest manner er probable. The regularity which is conspicuous in the whole distribution of the animal kingdom, as above given, can proceed from no other cause than design. Whether this regularity be in nature, or whether it be merely part of an artificial sy- ————ee I stem, which I now am uselessly proposing to the scientific pce eiaere nee anne Se Ne SS world for their examiation, may not perhaps be very ee mea Se manana becoming in me to determine: but I can safely say y that Almost all the groups here laid down have been proposed by others; so that in ‘this respect, at least, there will be pari chi aetna! Seni some room for remonstrance, if I should be s judged to —— anata SS eee have wrested the animal kingdom to any theory of my BU Sea own. Indeed, when it is is considered that there were so NTI, many affinities to be reconciled with this constant use of the ON EO SO SA OO ND number five, it is clearly absurd to imagine that I would ore a TO LR CT NC ELI LC AC have hampered myself needlessly with such_a_rule. My sole object has been to demonstrate natural affinities; and eae oe in doing this I have fallen on a distribution into five groups so uniformly, that where there seems to be an exception to the 1 tule, it appears to be as much the c consequence of our little acquaintance with the manifold | productions 0 of Nature, as_ of any other cause whatever. No person, ae een a however, can be more reluctant than I am to make any ~s ANIMAL KINGDOM. 323 conclusion on this subject precipitately; and therefore, in saying that there is a general tendency, in every natural group of animals, f0 be subdivided into five others, I Sond oily AVES Opa aecoumed aa hypothesis which is not entirely destitute of arguments wherewith we may support its truth. Yet I must acknowledge that « en re ew it appears to me, even by what we have _already seen, to be so far established, that in future, wh where great chasms occur in smaller groups, I shall consider myself entitled to s to suppose th that these se proceed fror from our. ou r ignorance of the productions of Nature. On surveying with attention the affinities as they are expressed in the foregoing table, it also appears that the animals which compose a circle are few, and that the great bulk of living beings is in some measure to be reckoned out of its circumference. Thus, let any naturalist regard: aman, a beetle, a medusa, a monas, and a snail, he will find it impossible to connect them by any solid principles of affinity without reference to some of the intervening animals. ‘Taken alone, they are five different and peculiar pieces of mechanism, which scarcely possess any thing in common but material life and irritability. The course of the real Zoological] circle is nearly perhaps as follows: ON GS EE I Tunicata,..... Alcyonium, . . . Soanthida, Acephala, Fistulida, Brachiopoda, Echinida, Cephalopoda, Cirripeda, Reptilia, Branchiopoda. Amphibia, Crustacea, PieHi? i. Hoe. . Annelides, . . . « Ametabola. Anda all out of the line of t this : series may b pete termed eccentric __groups, w hich 1 indeed comprise the most st perfectly con- Y2 ~ S24. ON THE CLASSES OF THE structed of terrestrial beings. So clearly does this dis- “position appear in Vertebrated animals, that if Ornitho- rhynchus be in reality allied to aquatic birds, scarcely more than a dozen animals will be necessary to form the true circle of Vertebrata; and all the rest appear to be thrown off from these, in amanner of which I can give no better ' idea, than by comparing it to the radiation of a star_com- posed of five very eccentric ellipses touching one another. Such are the principal observations which I have to make on the foregoing table of affinities, which, although a: most feeble and imperfect sketch of the truth, will, I trust, be admitted to possess a degree of order and unity hitherto conceived unattainable in the arrangement of animals. ‘This much I venture to say, without the least fear of being charged with vanity, since it must be evi- dent that an arrangement like the preceding, which is nothing else than a simple table of natural affinities, however it may impress us with the idea of Almighty wisdom, can derive no aid whatsoever from human in- genuity. Every discovery of an affinity indeed is, in dis, in part, a_discovery of natural arrangement ; ;_but even in. in this respect I have done little more than combined in one view the discoveries of others. As for the combination of these affinities, the harmony it may display 1s the work of God, not of man; and herein it differs from all other systems hitherto proposed, that in admiring their several merits we celebrate the just triumph of one of our own species in simplifying the means of acquiring knowledge ; but in admiring the order of the preceding table, so far as it may be correct, we adore our Creator in one of his stupendous works. If it should excite surprise that this arrangement of ani- ANIMAL KINGDOM. 325 mals has not been sooner discovered, let it be recollected that it is founded on knowledge acquired by the study of comparative physiology. There are two methods by which we may arrive at a classification of organized beings, and they may be said to correspond with the ancient and mo- dern methods of natural philosophy. The first is, to make an arbitrary division of Nature, and then, holding it as a law, to view the works of God through this medium of our own creation, by which they cannot fail to be distorted. The second method is, to commence with supposing no- thing known but what has originated in actual experiment by the comparative anatomist, and then, by comparing the affinities thus collected, to attempt to gain that knowledge of natural groups which in the first method we started with supposing as already acquired. This last mode of proceeding could only be adopted when comparative ana- tomy had made great progress as a science ; and even now that it is adopted, I shall not be surprised to find it con- sidered as a premature attempt. [ will even freely confess, that not merely the object I have principally in view, namely, the place of Scarabeus Sacer, but also my little acquaintance with the subjects necessary to be discussed, prevents me from entering more minutely into the investi- gation of the classes which compose the great divisions of Vertebrata, Mollusca, Acrita, and Radiata. To others therefore more skilled in their anatomy I leave these parts of the animal kingdom, once for all stating, that the ana- tomical observations on which I have founded the pre- ceding arguments are all recorded in the works of the most celebrated naturalists. How much in particular I owe to the labours of MM. Cuvier and Lamarck, is sufficiently clear. Itis a tribute in 326 ON THE CLASSES OF THE truth justly due to their patient investigation and accuracy of research, to say that without them the Zoologist would probably have still been accustomed, like our predeces- sors half a century ago, to confound the true object of Natural History with Nomenclature. He would still have had to wander amid the animated works of Creation with nothing but Linnean light, or, what is worse, its reflec- tion, to guide his steps. For skill in anatomical dissection, for accuracy of ob- servation, and reference of means to their respective ends, perhaps no man living can be placed in competition with M. Cuvier. His works present a never-failig fund for meditation; they compose a mine of information, from which the ore is as rich as it is inexhaustible. But the disposition or ability to make use of this ore, to give it the proper form and polish, is not, it seems, a necessary con- comitant to skill in extracting it, or to the patience re- quired before it could have been collected for use. At least it is but too visible, and has been too often and too justly remarked, that no person of such transcendent talents and ingenuity ever made so little use of his obser- vations towards a natural arrangement as M. Cuvier. His splendid Geological theories, which, from the particu- lar direction Natural Science has taken in this country, have tended more to make him known here than all his other works taken together, and his Anatomical obserya- tions, which occupy so interesting a portion of the History of Science during the last twenty years, are infinitely beyond the feeble praise which it is in my power to bestow on them. And indeed in characterizing his merits as a naturalist, we have less concern with such labours than with his Regne Animal; a work which has been is- ANIMAL KINGDOM. 327 sued forth to the world as an epitome of his manifold dis- coveries, as the perfection of the object to which all his ope- rations tended, namely, a natural distribution of the Animal Kingdom. It may not be altogether useless to say of this work, which is at present the text book of Natural History in France, that it is impossible to have read it without being convinced of the importance of the object which the author has aimed at, and of the inadequacy of his en- deavours, compared with those of Lamarck, to attain it. At the same time it is but right to add, that no book ever published has comprised so great a mass of zoological information, nor has had it compressed within so small a compass, as the Regne Animal. Excellencies of this de- scription render it by much the best work ever published on the subject, and invaluable to those travellers who re- quire a scientific companion to guide their researches in distant countries. Naturalists, it is said, may be classed like the objects of their study into genera and species; and in this classifica- tion places may be found for the comparative anatomist and physiologist down to the mere collector who hoards a shell or pebble, simply that he may be gratified in the possession of that which his neighbour wants. The variety of pursuits embraced in the comprehensive term Natural History, is without doubt multifarious; but it may be questioned whether the title of naturalist be merited by the cultivator of any one or two of these pursuits, or in- deed by any person who deems even the most ignoble of them unworthy of his attention. A native of this island, whose aim it was to throw light on the organization con- nected with the great functions of human life by an ana- logical examination of some of the more perfect animals, 328 ON THE CLASSES OF THE has carried off the palm from all who have hitherto at- tempted to rival him on the same ground. But we are far from being thus assured of his right to be compared as a naturalist with others not blest with half his talents. We learn only that he confined his views to one of the most sublime, but at the same time most limited depart- ments of Natural History. To be pre-eminent in the science requires a much more extensive range of investi- gation,—no other than that physiology which endeavours to illustrate the system of affinities upon which organs, functions and habits, every thing in brief appertaiing to organized matter, were designed by the Architect of the universe. This study includes all the rest; and it is not the least praise of Cuvier that he has tried to impress on our minds a truth so important. M. Cuvier has been fortunate, inasmuch as his reputation is extended over all Europe, and he is universally admitted to be the first comparative anatomist in the world. But there is another Frenchman, his brother professor, now unhappily oppressed with age and sickness, whose name is in England much less known, and, when known, is rarely cited but in order to exemplify the objectionable tenets held by some of a modern school of philosophers. His peculiar and very singular opinions have never gained many converts in his own country, and I believe none in this; they are indeed only to be understood by those who are already supplied with the means of refuting them: so that, the mis- chief they may have occasioned being comparatively null, we may be permitted to assign due praise to the labours of Lamarck, as being those of the first Zoologist France has produced, as being those of a person whose merits in Natural History bear much the same relation to those of ANIMAL KINGDOM. 329 M. Cuvier, that the world has been commonly accustomed to institute between the calculations of the theoretical and the observations of the practical Astronomer. I speak not now of Lamarck as a mere genus-maker, which with as little trouble as science we can each of us be; nor do I allude to what he has done in Conchology, for it is here perhaps that his arrangement is most artificial; but I would ask those who may have studied his werks, whether the reputation of any man for clear arrangement on prin- ciples of affinity stands so deservedly high as his? Nay, if we compare what he has effected generally for Natural History with the improvements of others, there is little reason to believe that his claims to our gratitude will be found inferior to those of any of his contemporaries. Thus much I have considered it to be my duty to say of a man whose scientific labours are now closed in blind- ness; because his merits are in this country too little known; because his discoveries, though less brilliant, have had little less effect than those of Cuvier in producing the present triumphant state of Natural History ; and lastly, because he has done more than any other man that ever existed, towards the natural arrangement of the Unverte- brated animals. I shall now conclude this chapter with a review of the general distribution of animals, and prove that M. La- marck, by the first method of reasoning explained in a preceding page, obtained an indistinct view of that ar- rangement which | have attempted to develope by the se- cond. In the supplement to the first volume of his cele- brated work, which deserves to be studied by every naturalist who can divest it of his peculiar theory of or- ganization, he acknowledges that the idea of a simple series 350 ON THE CLASSES OF THE constituting the whole of the animal kingdom does not agree with the evident order of Nature; “car cet ordre est loin d’éire simple; il est rameux, et parait méme com- posé de plusieurs séries distinctes.’ He then presumes that animals offer two separate subramose series ; one com- mencing with the Infusoria, and leading by means of the Mollusca to the Cephalopoda ; and the other commencing with the Intestinal Worms and leading to Insects. Now this notion could only have gained a place in the mind of Lamarck, from a conviction by experiment of its being an incontrovertible truth; for be it observed, that no more complete proof of the insufficiency of his theory of forma- tion can be adduced than the existence of two series. Lamarck had unfortunately, from a ready perception of affinities, been induced to confound natural order, by which is meant the actual regularity of disposition which exists in Nature, with that order of formation by which is meant the process of it in time; and this error is more difficult to avoid, than a person who is not deeply versed in the investigation of affinities will be apt to imagine. The consequence however of thus mingling effects of which we are sure, with the means by which these eflects have been produced, of which we known nothing, was, that Lamarck adopted the hypothesis of a principle con- stantly existing in organized matter, by which it as constant- ly tends to be more organified. ‘The great first Cause had only to create a particle of matter with this principle, and the work of creation as far as it regarded animals was ef- fected. Now, had the series of affinities been simple, we should have had a strong argument for the truth of this hy- pothesis: but when its author is obliged to confess that Na- ture “en donnant [existence au regne animal, a _nécessaire- ANIMAL KINGDOM. 331 ment commencé par la série des Infusoires,” and that “assez long temps apres Pinstitution des Infusoires et des Poiypes elle a commencé Tétablissement d’une série nouvelle,” he thus allows that in the formation of animals there were at least two interferences of a foreign principle. Yet, if this weak theory ever had any merit, it was in the supposition that a particle of matter became totally independent on its first creation, and sufficient, in short, of itself, to account for all the affinities and differences reigning throughout the whole province of Zoology. When then that doctrine which its only use was to support is contradicted by La- marck, the clumsy pillar itself becomes cumbersome; and indeed, from the vague and obscure manner in which its author endeavours to reconcile the existence of two series in Nature with his peculiar theory, ] cannot but think that he was aware that he had caused it himself to totter at the very base. We therefore can have no doubt of the fact of there being two series of animals in nature, each emanating from the Infusoria ; nor does the observation that these two series meet in the Annelides interfere in any manner with this truth, as I hope already to have shown. It may possibly then be considered as a circumstance in no small degree favourable to the character of the remarks contained in the preceding part of this chapter, that I should, by one method of investigation, have arrived di- rectly at a truth which must have been estorted reluctantly from one of the first naturalists of the age, by a continued course of observations in another. M. Lamarck next observes, that the animals composing these two series differ so much from each other when their nervous matter becomes a little concentrated, that 332 ON THE CLASSES OF THE its mode of disposition is wholly different. Now this we have already seen to be the case in the two sides of the Zoological circle, which, as the reader needs scarcely to be told, correspond with the abovementioned two series. But to remove all doubt on this point, let us turn to the tabular view of the aflinities of the animal kingdom as given by Lamarck. It is as follows: SERIES OF SERIES OF INARTICULATED ANIMALS. ARTICULATED ANIMALS. Infusoria ————— Polypi Vermes t _ . . = ~ . . Tunicata Radiata Annelides Epizoaria | | Acephala Insecta ra Mollusca Crustacea Arachnida Cirrhipeda Pisces Reptilia Aves Mamiunalia. Now this table of affinities which is given in page 457, vol. i. of the Histotre Nat. des Animaux sans Vertéebres, however confused it may appear, or subramose, as it is termed by Lamarck, coincides with the tabular view which I have laid before the public in the preceding part of this chapter. We have only to join the Radiata to the Cir- ripeda, and the Annelides to Fishes, for the reasons which I should hope it will now be unnecessary to repeat, and Lamarck’s table of affinities, with scarcely any alteration, becomes precisely the same as mine. ‘This is proved by the following distribution, in which squares are used to mark the groupes, but not the progression of affinity. ANIMAL KINGDOM. 333 =A Mammalia : ? Infusoria : nie | : : Polypr : [eg Pa seaprosccuces ay pot hn Pat ae es ee Se zl Tunicata oe ee | i (resets een ees eee eee eee eee ?> Radiata : : Acephala : : E : : Be eee ati i : : Ae : : Cirripeda : Molluscs : Prossesteeneteessesenceeceenne see enon Be Mechta : Crustacea : : | : 2 ll tee hte s | Arachnida : : Insecta : { Rae iia 2 : ; : : lil : : : 3 : : Sag : : Epizoaria z 3 Pisces ? Annelides-— Vermes i ? Aves : 5 ie If any thing could convince me of the accuracy of my method of investigation, it was the coincidence of the result with this double series obtained by what, considering the means he used, was little less than inspiration on the part of Lamarck. His peculiar taste for affinities gave him a glimpse of that order which it was easy for me, or indeed for any person, to obtain, on applying those principles of which the accuracy was first discovered among the Petalocera. But is there no such thing in nature as a simple progres- sion of beings? I suspect, not. That a progression of some . 334 ON THE CLASSES OF THE sort does exist, neither believer nor atheist will deny; and Lamarck justly calls the existence of order in the compo- sition of organized beings “ le plus important fait de tous ceux qu onait remarqués dans U observation des corps vvwans.” Sure enough it is, that we cannot find within all the sphere of human knowledge so beautiful an evidence of the truths of natural religion. How vexing then for naturalists to find their researches into the nature of this progression so constantly foiled! It must be a simple series, say some philosophers, because man is evidently the lord of the creation, and the form to which every other must be re- ferred. But this cannot be a logical conclusion, suppos- ing even the premises to be correct; which however may be disputed, with the bare exception of that indubitable superiority which man holds over all terrestrial organ- ized beings. It is true that the possibility has been acknowledged, of establishing in the distribution of animals a sort of series which may appear to recede gradually from man, who is thus assumed to be a primitive type to which all other be- ings are referable. It has been even asserted, that by this process we may be enabled to form a graduated scale of organization, which will be that simple progression the existence of which has so often been assumed by meta- physicians, and taken for granted by naturalists. But sup- posing the human form to be the type to which all others are to be compared, it is clear that, in endeavouring to esta- blish the simple series, we must either consider each or- ganized being in the whole of its parts, or in only one of them. If we adopt the latter plan, there will be as many different series formed, as there are regulating or- gans; since every person knows that no two organs un- ANIMAL KINGDOM. 335 dergo an exactly equal and proportionable degradation. Hence, to obtain the simple progression so devoutly wished for, we are under the necessity of making use of the only alternative remaining, that is, of the first method proposed ; which failing, 1 fancy that it will be readily allowed that the truth of a simple progression in Nature is as little to be de- monstrated as that of the Ptolemaic system. Now, that the method of referring an organized being to man, by a compari- son of the whole of its parts, will fail to produce such simpli- city, [ think can be proved—In the first place by experiment, which has led almost every naturalist to express his inability to obtain a simple series; which has led Lamarck to pre- sume the existence of a double subramose series ; and which has induced the reader ere this, I trust, to have little doubt of the existence of a progression which returns into itself: In the second place, by argument; for, as Cuvier has most properly said, to form a simple scale of organization, upon the comparison of every organ existing in animals, we ought to calculate the effect resulting trom each com- bination, and then to give each animal its definitive place in the scale according to this calculation. Let us then go so far in our desire to procure the simple series, as to sup- pose this plan, which is the oniy one I will venture to say that can be devised, to be practically possible. Let us grant a simple scale to be thus obtained, and there are few so ignorant of Natural History as not to see that it would be the most artificial system that ever was invented. Well does Lamarck observe that such an operation, if practicable, could only be effected by making use of arbitrary data, and that such a result, if obtained, would be totally use- less and nugatory. It would no more argue a simple se- $36 ON THE CLASSES OF THE ries to exist in Nature, than the possibility of stretching a bow proves that it is always naturally stretched; than the possibility, in short, of forming any sort of scale at our pleasure, proves that the scale thus invented is that ac- cording to which we have all been created. As no naturalist of the present day, as far as I am ac- quainted, has any doubt of the non-existence of a sim- ple progression in Nature, it may seem to be trifling with the reader’s time to take any pains to support a truth which is so generally admitted. When however we ob- serve metaphysicians of no common acuteness, day after day, accounting such a series to be demonstrated, it may be proper to consider their method of demonstration. No mode of argument, if correct, is so convincing as by syllogism, and there is none in which, if incorrect, the error is so readily detected. We shall therefore now ana- lyze the syllogistical proof of asimple series in nature, which has been given nearly as follows. 1. Species of animals differ from each other in their material structure. 2. Man in his organization is a species of animal. 3. Man is the most perfectly constructed of all known animals. 4. Therefore we ought to refer every species of animal to man, as the type of that perfection from which it more or less recedes ;—in other words, there is a simple scale in Nature. The naturalist is the first to perceive that there must be some error in this reasoning, because he knows by ex- periment the conclusion to be false. Some first-rate zoo- logists have therefore supposed the above consequence ANIMAL KINGDOM. 337 to be improperly drawn; in which opinion we shall soon see that they were perfectly right. [t remains however to be questioned, whether their own conclusion be less ex- ceptionable: for instance, they admit the truth of the three first parts of the argument, and say that, consequently, there is an ascending scale of being from the lowest point of animal life to Man, the king of all, but that this scale is not necessarily simple. Indeed they most ingeniously prove the scale to be not necessarily simple, by supposing it to resemble the surface of a cone, the base of which is com- posed of innumerable species possessing an infinitely small degree of animal life. These species they further suppose gradually to diminish in number, and increase in compli- cation of structure, as they spirally ascend the cone, till they terminate in unity and perfection at the point,—which is Man. Here we have an ascending scale which is cer- tainly any thing but simple. Before however it is possi- . ble to do more than admire the ingenuity of its inventor, we must be fully convinced of the solidity of the base upon which this cone is constructed. Now itis by no means sure that the higher classes of animals, in proportion to the complexity of their organization, always consist of a fewer number of species than the lower. To take the first example that occurs at the top of the cone; the nume- merous Quadrumanes would thus be widely separated from Man by animals unlike to either. Nay, were it true that the group which comprises the greatest number of species is the lowest in the scale of perfection, there is reason to fear that the 4crita would not form the base of the cone, and that [ should not be the only person to la- ment the place which must then be allotted to the innu- merable Annulosa. Z 338 ON THE CLASSES OF THE But this is far from being the worst: for it seems more- over to be utterly impossible to draw up any table of na- tural affinities on the assumption of the truth of this hypo- thesis; so that, in addition to the difficulty of imagining the existence of this cone, it is useless to the naturalist when imagined. We are thus authorized to go back another step in the review of our syllogism. No one will deny that two species differ from each other in struc- ture; because, were they constructed precisely on the same model, they would form only one species: neither will any one, I think, deny that man is a species of animal. But is it equally certain that the material organization of man, which, for the wisest of purposes, has been made to appear so beautiful and dignified in our eyes, is that per- fection of animal mechanism, of which all others are merely modifications? Helvetius, and other materialists, must of course, for the sake of consistency, maintain the excellence of man, considered as a machine, to be infinitely before that of any other animal; because, making as they do the intellectual faculties of man to be the result of his material mechanism, they must either obstinately insist on his superiority in the latter respect, or consent to re- duce him to a level of intelligence with the brute. Never- theless the mechanical superiority of the human frame, although probable, is by no means a self-evident truth; for it has been disputed by those comparative anatomists who are celebrated for their profound knowledge of the Verte- brata,—that is, precisely the very division of which all the animals may justly be compared to the human form. ‘Thus says one of them, speaking of the Vertebrata, “ Lorsque Vanatomie comparée fait de VThomme son point de deépart, et lorsque s’ appuyant sur ce principe que les organes de cette ANIMAL KINGDOM. 339 espéce privilégiée sont plus parfaits, mieux connus et mieux définis, elle examine en quoi et comment ces organes se diver- sifient, se déforment, et s’altérent dans tous les autres ani- maux, mes nouvelles vues me portent a ne donner de pré- Sérence & aucune anatomie en particulier, mais a considérer les organes la d’abord ov ils sont dans le maximum de leur développement, pour les suivre de degré en degré jusqwa zéro @existence.” An anatomist thus informs us, that his observations have not led him to adopt the old opinion on the subject; and we are therefore called upon to prove the truth of the assertion, that the human frame is the most perfect mechanism in the animal kingdom. The pro- cess which Cuvier recommends, of calculating the effect of each combination, would, if it were practicable, be of some use here; but unfortunately it is not practicable, und I query much whether there be any other method of prov- ing the truth of the syllogism. We see however that it may be doubted even by those who have best the means of judging; and indeed as the indubitable superiority of man over other creatures depends on something totally immate- rial, which throws him out of the group of animals and makes him an insulated being, namely, his mind, I can see no necessity for metaphysicians or naturalists so strongly insisting on what they cannot prove,—the decided supe- riority in detail of the human mechanism over that of all other animals. Taken as a whole, the human frame with- out doubt is a most complicated machine, yet perhaps it scarcely possesses any one sense or bodily power in which it is not excelled by some irrational being. The argument perhaps therefore had better have lain thus : 1. Species of animals differ from each other in struc- Zz 2 340 CLASSES OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. ture; which structure may always be referred to one of two general plans. 2. Man is apparently the most perfectly constructed animal, on the whole, of all those which are constructed on the same general plan with him; and with the others he cannot very logically be compared. There are few naturalists that will be inclined to dis- pute the truth of these premises, and we may leave it there- fore for the metaphysicians to draw their conclusion. CEAP TER. Vt. ee ON THE ORDERS OF THE ANNULOSA. ArisToTLe appears to have comprehended under the general title of ”Evrow« not only true Insects and Arach- nida, but also some modern Annelides and Worms. Now, as they have nothing in common but their longitudinal knotted nervous system, which he cannot be supposed to have detected, and their annular structure, it is manifest that the founder of Zoology must have had an indistinct per- ception of the natural character of such a group being external articulation. He even expressly says that on this account he gave them their name; yet his perception of the truth I conceive must have been indistinct, because he has separated from these animals the modern Crustacea, which are as truly articulated as any of the foregoing. This separation of the Crustacea from the other Annulose animals originated in his unfortunately making the first great division of Zoology depend on the medium inhabited ; and his reason for continuing tn the error becomes appa- rent as soon as we observe from the name which he gives to the Crustacea, (Maduxdorpaxa or Soft-shelled Testacea,) that he considered them merely, as the vulgar do at this day, to be a sort of Shell-fish whose testaceous covering is softer than ordinary*. Nor indeed do the ancient na- * As he placed the Crustacea between the Mollusca (rz O¢gaxddsgua) and the Cephalopoda (rz Madaxia), he also called them, in opposition to these last, Yxanpadsoue. They were with him soft-shelled Testacea and hard- skinned Cephalupuda. 342 ON THE ORDERS turalists deserve to be condemned severely for this mode of reasoning, since we have seen in modern times, not- withstanding the complete refutation of such notions by the influence of comparative anatomy, that, besides Crus- taceous animals, others, such as the Cirripeda and An- nelides, have been confounded with the Mollusca for no other reason than because they are all protected by an external shell. Whatever good Linneus may have done to zoological science so far as it relates to the Vertebrated animals, whatever benefits he may even have conferred on Entomology so far as relates to the subdivision of Hexapod insects, it ought not to be concealed that until the works of Lefrancq de Berkley, Bruguitres, Cuvier and Lamarck appeared, our general knowledge of the Unvertebrated animals remained exactly in the same state in which Aristotle had left it, excepting indeed that in the Systema Nature Crustaceous animals were placed with the other Annulosa. Perhaps, also, Redi’s discovery of the mode in which insects are generated may form an ex- ception to the perfect justice of this remark, notwithstand- ing that itis very far from being true that even with this the ancients were altogether unacquainted. It is no stigma on the reputation of Linneus that he should have left so much undone; but rather wonderful that he should have done so much. In allowing, therefore, that the Aristotelian groups into which, after the example of an Englishman, he di- vided the winged insects, however badly arranged, are masterly and even natural*,—and in granting that, the entomologist ought never to be considered as the natu- ralist who owes him the least portion of gratitude,—we * It is singular that the only order of Hexapod Insects which is of Line nzan invention, namely, the Hemiptera, should have been constructed on erroneous principles, as Degeer first perceived. OF THE ANNULOSA. 345 ‘have another duty still to fulfill, namely, to assign that merit to others which is their due. Now, the Linnzan group of Aptera is the same heterogeneous and confused mass that it was in the earliest periods of Natural History, although not merely the science of Entomology, but that of Zoology in general, may be said in some measure to de- pend on the proper arrangement of Aristotle’s Apterous insects. Happy would it have been for the learned Swede if in this department also he had thought proper to fol- low the track of Ray. The remoyal of the chief difficulties attending the inves- tigation of Aptera may be dated from the moment when it was observed that a number of animals, of altogether differentexternal appearances, nevertheless agree in the pos- session of two nervous strings originating in a very small brain placed on the cesophagus, which these strings sur- a ee Se eT round. And when it was further discovered that these two strings, proceeding along the whole length of the subject, are sometimes united at different distances by double knots or ° Sp EET = ganglions, which disperse the nerves to the limbs and other parts of the body, the externally articulated animal may be said to have been insulated from all others. This ner- vous system, though it may vary in its details, and parti- cularly in its number of longitudinal ganglions, is singu- larly conspicuous in the Cirripeda, Annulosa, and Anne- lides. But as the former of these three groups consists of -_—_—e—err= . . . . . hermaphrodites, destitute of the faculty of locomotion, with a body not strictly articulated, and as the Anneltdes are hermaphrodite red-blooded animals, the Annulosa are not likely to be confounded with either. We have elsewhere seen that the Annulosa may be characterized-as white- blooded animals having the nervous system above de- 344 ON THE ORDERS scribed, with the sexes distinct, and a body visibly articu-' ee a ~~ ~~ Tated on the outside so as to be composed, as it were, of a _number of annular segments. _ Now, as the Scarabeus Sacer is evidently such an animal, it becomes necessary, in order to attain the object proposed in the title of this Essay, to investigate the composition of the division of 4n- nulosa. In attempting this, I shall commence with the Crustacea, not only as being the group which is according to all appearance the nearest to the Cirripeda, but because it is that of which J know so little, that I shall be glad to dismiss it in as few words as it is possible to use, consist- ently with my desire of proving that there is more unity in the plan of Nature than has hitherto been suspected, we? CRUSTACEA. They who may wish to be acquainted with these sin- gularly constructed rather than beautiful animals, must re- sort to the works of M. Latreille and Dr. Leach, the latter having analytically done as much service to this branch | of Natural History as the other has synthetically. My present object will be sufficiently gained by stating briefly that some Branchiopoda, such as the genus Zoe, have ap- peared both to Bosc and to Latreille to lead us to the Deca- poda, or those Crustacea which have the head confounded with the trunk. The Stomatopoda of Latreille are not allowed by Dr. Leach to be a distinct order, but merely the means of transition from the Decapoda to the Amphipoda. They are probably an osculant order connecting these: yet, if cer- tain analogical considerations be rigorously attended to, they will find a place rather with the latter than with the former. ‘This besides is a distribution which seems suffi- ciently authorized by the circumstance, that in both the OF THE ANNULOSA. 345 Stomatopoda and Amphipoda the head is distinct from the thorax. The Lemodipoda and Isopoda appear to complete the group, and by means perhaps of the genus Bopyrus to reconduct us to the Branchiopoda. Although very far from vouching for the infallibility of this series of affinities, I think that the reader will, without difficulty, allow that it is not in absolute contradiction to the disposition of Nature. It is indeed almost the same series as that laid down by M. Latreille in the Regne Ani- mal, differing only in its including those affinities which he specifies as having a real existence, but which he ne- vertheless neglects, or finds it difficult to employ, in his method of arrangement. I shall have occasion also, here- after, to support the above distribution of Crustacea by other arguments; and in the mean time I request it may be understood that it is the disposition of the component parts of the class, and not the limits that may have been affixed to the respective orders,—in short, that it is the chain of affinity, and not the accurate designation of the groups, which I would here propose to entomological no- tice. Having said thus much to prevent mistake, I ma now proceed to state that the general character of the Crus- Sen gre ala a eee bere do bee tacea as an Annulose class consists in their breathing by 4 means of branchie, and béing in possession of a complete “circulation. The blood, after communicating with the sur- rounding medium, passes into a great ventral vessel, which distributes it over the body, whence it returns to a sort of heart or muscular ventricle situated in the back, by means of which it arrives again at the branchie. Now, it is ma- nifest that this is the circulation of a Fish, rather than of a Mollusque, the heart of which is always aortal; and this circumstance might be adduced as conclusive evidence that 346 ON THE ORDERS those naturalists, by whom the Mo/usca are placed between the Crustacea and Fishes, have not properly applied even their own principles. If they think proper to found their arrangement of animals almost entirely on the system of circulation, we have a right to require of their consistency that two classes, such as Crustacea and Fishes, having simi- lar systems, shall not be separated by five classes of Mo/- lusca which have another system totally distinct. I had before reason to contest the propriety of an application of this principle of comparative anatomists to the arrange- ment of Annulose animals; and | do not even now regret that they should have chosen to neglect it, since the in- tervention of the Ametabola between Crustacea and Fishes has thus a sort of precedent. Indeed, out of the sphere of Vertebrata, the system of circulation, taken alone, rarely deserves to have any great importance attached to it; and we accordingly perceive that it has been overlooked even by those naturalists who make it the ostensible principle of their general distribution of animals. Vestiges of an ear have been detected in some few spe- cies of Crustacea; but as Hexapod insects,—which appear to enjoy the sense of hearing much more perfectly, although from the difference between the plan of their construction and ours we are unable to discover the organ,—have not the vestibulum of the Crustacea, the observation is of little or no use towards determining the relative perfection of the two groups. This is an argument indeed which has been elsewhere urged; but I would rather be taxed with repetition than avoid calling the entomologist’s most care- ful attention to such an extraordinary point of anatomy. The Crustacea are remarkable for having two pair of antenne, which are classed as external and internal. OF THE ANNULOSA. 347 When the external pair becomes null, we approach to the Arachnida ; and when, on the other hand, the internal pair gets indistinct, we may prepare ourselves for those Myri- apod insects which form part of the class anes AMETABOLA. Every author on Entomology having observed the affi- nity of the Oniscus Armadillo of Linneus to the modern genus Glomeris, it scarcely seems necessary to demonstrate here the accuracy of that process of reasoning by which the group of Ametabola is united to the Crustacea. It may therefore suffice to say, that if the possession of four antennz constitutes a general and absolute character of the last-mentioned class, the genus Onzscus must cease to belong to it on account of its having only a pair of these organs. Now Degeer has observed that the young of Oniscus Asellus L. or the genus Porcellio of Latreille, on leaving the mother possess no more than six pair of feet, and that as they advance in age they gain a segment to their body, together with a pair of feet additional to those which they possessed attheir birth. This our ad- mirable naturalist states to be an observation quite new, and well worthy of attention. Such indeed it was in his time, and even still remains; for we shall perceive it to form one of the many proofs, which, though now over- looked, confirm that axiom which is alone sufficient to immortalize its author, “ Natura non facit saltus.” In the first place, the genus Porcedlio is justly referred to the Crustacea by modern naturalists, because it breathes by means of branchie ; but when the form and the struc- ture of its mouth and of its organs of locomotion only are considered, the Latreillian order of Chilognatha instantly yp Mg 348 ON THE ORDERS occurs to our recollection. ‘These last are herbivorous animals, or at least feed on organized matter in a state of » decomposition, like the Crustaceous genera Armadillo and A natlitle Porcellio. ‘They differ from them in breathing by _stig- ~Tnata, and having in general two pair of feet for certain OOLALEL OC segments of their body. It is to be remarked, however, ys estetrhy) that while these insects have a tracheal system of respi- ration, their stigmata, as might be expected when we consider that the mode of breathing has just been changed, * are often very minute, and sometimes, as in the genus z) Winged insects into two classes, distinguished from each ) TWO Classe ther by their manner of feeding. In some countries in- because it was not to be found in the Systema Nature, then because it was not well explained in the Entomologia Systematica, and lastly, because it 1s in plain terms con- tradicted in the Genera Insectorum and Regne Animal. It is strange that, with this respect for authorities, they should have paid so little deference to the book of nature, They deem it sufficient that in the Regne Animal M. La- treille should have founded his general arrangement on the texture of the wings. He has there indeed expressed him- self as attaching more importance to the aérial organs of locomotion and to the texture of the body, than to the modifications undergone by those other organs upon which the very existence of the individual depends. “ Ainsz,” says Lamarck, “ des caractéres si importans de la bouche ne furent nullement considérés, et céderent leur préémi- nence aux organes si variables de la locomotion dans Pair.” The propriety, however, of this system is certainly not perceptible in its results, as exhibited in a series where we have Scutellera next to Tetrix, Libellula following Coccus, and Melhpona immediately preceding Papilio. Considering that M, Lamarck had already stated the great fault of the system of Linneus,as it regarded the Winged insects, to be the confusion of the Insectes Broyeurs with the Insectes Suceurs, such a series is the more extraordi- nary. It would nevertheless be the height of injustice not to acknowledge that Latreille had good reasons for OF THE ANNULOSA. 361 adopting it, when he found that the opposite method wholly disregarded the nature of the. metamorphosis. The ques- tion with him was, whether a general distribution, evi- dently natural, ought to be abandoned when we cannot make it in detail to coincide with the truth. He judged in the affirmative; but bemg fortunate enough to have taken no other guide for his opinion than nature, he has been the first to remark that he erred in his decision. M. Latreille is too justly celebrated for scientific candour, the greatest possible merit of a naturalist, not immedi- ately to have published to the world his admission of the classes of MM. Cuvier and Lamarck, on being sen- sible that their accuracy is not necessarily affected by the difficulty experienced in the attempt to reconcile them with other truths. ‘To expect that all his followers will investigate the grounds on which he has altered his opinion may perhaps be going too far; but it is perfectly allowable to hope that they will henceforward adopt this division of Insects into Mandibulata and Haustellata, now that it hap- pens to be published in the Nouveau Dictionnaire d’ His- toire Naturelle, art. Entomologie, and still more lately also in the excellent dissertation which this great naturalist in- tends as a preface to his proposed Species Insectorum. Having little ambition to invent new names, and being very reluctant to encumber the science with them unne- cessarily, I have made use of the words Mandibulata and Haustellata, which M. de Clairville first applied to these two classes comprising all the Winged insects. The Fabri- cian terms Odontata and Rhyngota might have answered equally well; but having had in the first case a more li- mited signification given to them by their author, the fear of confusion must be my apology for rejecting them. 362 . ON THE ORDERS 3 The distinction between the Mandibulata and [aus- tellata is, I repeat, clearly natural, because it directly af- fects those habits of the animals upon which their exist- ence immediately depends. It may, indeed, be sup- posed at first to be in contradiction to the acute observa- tions of M. Savigny; yet, so far is this from being true, that, in his first Mémoire, he himself recommends the di- vision of Insects into Broyeurs and Suceurs. His work in fact affords no more than a happy demonstration of that analogy which neighbouring groups generally, if not al- ways, bear to each other. When in the distribution of the animal kingdom into classes my efforts to detect any marked relation of analogy were foiled, I contented myself with pursuing those con- siderations of affinity which served to reconduct me to the point from which I had started. I never can persuade myself, however, that this scarcity of analogical relations between the classes of Zoology has resulted from any other cause than my own inability to detect them. To me their rarity argues nothing more than how much remains to be done, before the order of affinities I have pointed out can be considered as perfectly correct. It is impossible to draw any other inference than this, since in every inves- tigation [ have made by analysis, and of the accuracy of which therefore | am most sure, relations of analogy have not failed to be conspicuous. Nay more, when these could be detected, they have always supplied the most convenient testimony of the affinities with which they were connected being real, and thus have given me some reason to suspect that no affinity can be true which is not connected with a relation of analogy. Suppose the existence of two parallel series of animals, OF THE ANNULOSA. 363 the corresponding points of which agree in some one or two remarkable particulars of structure. Suppose also, that the general conformation of the animals in each series passes so gradually from one species to the other as to ren- der any interruption of this transition almost imperceptible. We shall thus have two very different relations, which must have required an almost infinite degree of design before they could have been made exactly to harmonize with each other. When, therefore, two such parallel series can be shown in nature to have each their general change of form gradual, or, in other words, their relations of affinity uninterrupted by any thing known—when moreover the corresponding points in these two series agree in some one or two remarkable circumstances, there is every probability of our arrangement being correct. It is quite inconceiva- ble that the utmost human ingenuity could make these two kinds of relation to tally with each other, had they not been ‘so designed in the creation. Relations of analogy consist in a correspondence between certain insulated parts of the organization of two animals which differ in their general structure. ‘These relations, however, seem to have been confounded by Lamarck, and indeed all zoologists, with those upon which orders, sections, families, and other subdivisions immediately depend. Now, such can be no other than relations of affinity, since it is clear that the affinity between two neighbouring groups must become greater instead of less, as our ideas of them become less general and more simple. Every person is, I believe, -aware that it is a relation of affinity which places the dog next to the wolf, as well as the Mammazlia near to Birds; but then it is with the same ease perceived that the aff- nity in one case is much stronger than that in the other. $64 ON THE ORDERS These various considerations have led me to imagine, how truly [ have not yet been able to determine, that the test of a relation of affinity is its forming part of a transition continued from one structure to another by nearly equal intervals, and that the test of a relation of analogy is barely an evident similarity in some one or two remarkable points of formation, which at first sight give a character to the animal and distinguish it from its affinities. As a relation of analogy must always depend on some marked property or point of structure, and as that of affinity which connects two groups becomes weaker and less visible as these are more general, it is not at all surprising that what is only an analogical correspondence in one or two im- portant particulars, should often have been mistaken for a general affinity. ‘That the effects, nevertheless, of this common mistake are by no means trifling, I shall now at- tempt to show in the case of the Winged insects; and I trust the reader will feel, that because my acquaintance with Zoology may not be extensive enough to enable me to detect the consequences of this error in other places, he ought not therefore to believe that in them it can have had a less baneful influence towards retarding the knowledge of the natural system. First, It is a fact, I believe, universally acknowledged by those who have paid any attention to Hexapod insects, that a resemblance in certain important parts of their construc- tion may be traced between the Cimicide and some of the Orthoptera. Nay, on account of this similarity being so striking, Linneus even united them into one order, He- miptera, to which he assigned the following characters : “ Os Rostrumque inflerum versus pectus. Ale hemely- trate; superioribus semicoriaceis per suturam rectam mi- OF THE ANNULOSA. 365 nime conniventibus, sed margine interiori impositis.” If to this it be added that both groups undergo the same sort of metamorphosis, we shall have little occasion. for conjec- ture to obtain the reason of M. Latreille’s having followed the example of Linnzus, and continued to place them to- gether in the Regne Animal. At first sight there is cer- tainly sufficient to warrant the supposition of an affinity existing between them; but a more careful examination assures us that there is little similarity either in their or- gans of manducation or in their internal structure; and above all, that, on placing them together, we interrupt that very evident series of affinities which is composed of insects living by suction. ‘This relation, therefore, which exists manifestly between a Cimex and a Gryllus is one of analogy, and not of affinity. : Secondly, In the same way many Dipterous genera, as Musca, Sicus, Volucella, Loxocera, &c., imitate Hymeno- ptera in certain respects, either of economy or appearance, so accurately as not unfrequently to deceive even scientific observers; anda non-descript and unique hymenopterous insect in my father’s possession, 1s on the other hand well known as having completely adopted the disguise of some Dipterous genus without losing any one of the essential cha- racters of Hymenoptera. "Thirdly, ‘There is also an evident, though perhaps not so close, analogy between Homopte- rous insects (as Tettigonia) and some Neuroptera. This did not escape the penetration of M. Latreille; but, as usual from confounding it with a relation of affinity, he has placed together two groups totally distinct, and by that means broken a very regular transition of affinities. Fourthly, Lyonnet, the most indefatigable of naturalists, made like- wise no distinction between analogy and affinity, when, in 866 ON THE ORDERS mentioning the difficulty of assigning a place to certain insects which appeared to him to be anomalous, he said, “ le rapport qu’a la puce a certains égards avec les scara- bées la feroit mettre a la fin des animaux de cet ordre.” The Suctoria of Degeer are accordingly situated next to the Coleoptera in the Regne Animal. We have thus four'examples of insulated points of resemblance being deemed evidences of affinity. Now, to close this list with a contrary instance of an analogy being correctly taken for an affinity, [ may remark that Mr. Kirby has lately pointed out in the most satisfactory manner, the strong analogy or rather identity of plan which subsists between the mandu- catory organs of some Tinerd@, such as the genus Aglossa, and those of Latreille’s Pétctpennes, constituting part of the new order of Trichoptera. Indeed, in the cases of Aglossa and Phryganea, the larve of both these genera live in the water by the aid of similar organs of respiration, and conceal themselves from their enemies in tubes, which they form by the agglutination of various foreign sub- stances. Nor do they accord with each other less in structure when arrived at their perfect state. In short, the particulars of analogy become here sufficiently nume- _ rous.to compose an affinity; and at length the connexion. between the Lepzdopilera and Trichoptera is to such a de- gree manifest, that we find it impossible to do otherwise than make this the point of junction between the Mandi- bulata and Haustellata. From this point then, as the foundation of our fabric, we may arrange the first mentioned four analogies or insulated resemblances, giving them the situation of cor- responding ganglions in the two series of Winged insects, which differ in their manner of feeding. But no sooner OF THE ANNULOSA. 367 can this be effected than the reader, if he be an entomo- logist, perceives that the animals, at these corresponding points, have the same sort of metamorphosis, and more- over that the transition from one form to the other in each series is as gradual as can be expected from our present imperfect knowledge of species. A beautiful regularity, in brief, is visible, which combines those distinctions of the parts of the mouth so much insisted on by Cuvier and Lamarck, those relations of metamorphosis which constitute the leading principle of Degeer, Olivier and Latreille, and finally, those characters drawn from the organs of locomotion upon which the orders were origi- nally founded by Aristotle, Ray and Linnzus. MANDIBULATA. “2 “4 Relations of Analogy. 1. HYMENOPTERA Metamorphosis in- 1. DIPTERA Arist. HAUSTELLATA. Tann. completa vel coarc- <_tata. Larva apoda. , Strepsiptera? Kirby. Homaloptera Leach. 2. COLEOPTERA Arist. Metamorphosis in- 2. APTERA Lam, x completa. Dermaptera Degeer, .” Metamorphosis se- 3. HEMIPTERA 3. ORTHOPTERA Oliv. P : micompleta. Linn. Dictyoptera Leach. I 4. NEUROPTERA Metamorphosis sub- 4 Homoprrera De- Linn. semicompleta. geer. 5. TRICHOPTERA Metamorphosis ob- 5. LEPIDOPTERA Kirby. y tecta. Larva pedi- Linn. Tenthredina. bus membranaceis. Imaginis os mandi- bulis abbreviatis in- completis, labio et makxillis ad basin saltem coalitis. A 242 ote LEAK yp iden Me dy» ki: A) ae 368 ON THE ORDERS The first reflection to occur on the inspection of this table* will probably be, that Savigny has, in his “ Tableau des organes de la Bouche des Insectes Hexapodes Masti- cateurs et Suceurs comparés,” given a proof that these re- Jations of analogy may extend even to the organs of man- ducation. He has the rare merit, moreover, of using no expression which would induce us to suppose that he con- sidered them as proofs of direct affinity, although certain authors, whose arrangement was founded on his observa- tions have since reckoned them to be such. Our thoughts will next be directed to the inequality which is so apparent in the contents of the orders. ‘The order of Diptera, for instance, comprises an almost innumerable quantity of species, whereas those of Apterous insects are well known to be remarkably few. Yet the order of Aptera has been admitted as natural by every eminent entomolo- gical writer since the days of Degeer. Why then this disparity of contents in two adjoining groups? Such is truly a question well worthy of investigation, but more par- ticularly when we know that this disparity is the strongest argument in favour of a saltus that can be adduced. I have, however, designated the great intervals which some- times separate two such adjoining groups as chasms or hiatus, rather than as saltus; in the first place, because they never appear to proceed from the series being interrupted by any thing known; and then, because I cannot help thinking, from analogy, that if they never should be filled by living animals, they may have, at some time or other, ™ The relations of analogy refer of course to the types of the correspond- ing orders, rather than to all their contents ; and the proper name annexed to the order is that of the person who applied first the technical word, rather than of him who has the greater merit of having detected the group. Of the ten principal orders we owe four to Aristotle, one to Ray, one to Lin- nzus, and four to Degeer. OF THE ANNULOSA. 369 been occupied by species now extinct. These chasms are indeed in some cases very wide; but, on the other hand, we often see the orders passing gradually into one another, as the [Hemiptera and Homoptera, the Coleo- ptera, Orthoptera, Neuroptera and Trichoptera ; so that, where any void occurs, it is difficult not to imagine that it must result rather from the imperfection of our know- ledge of created species than from any other cause what- ever. We shall now return to the Coleoptera, which, previ- ously to this general dissertation on Winged insects, we left connected with the Ametabola ; and thus we may en- deavour to trace those circumstances of affinity which the column of MANDIBULATA evidently displays. The Coleoptera are universally admitted to be connected with the Orthopteru, by means of the Forficule, which, though now placed by Latreille and others in the latter order, formerly with Linnzus brought up the rear of the Coleoptera. ‘The mere aspect of the genus Man- tispa is sufficient to satisfy us that the Neuroptera ought never to have been separated from the Mantide. And so truly is a Trichopterous insect connected with the Neuroptera, that it is only within the last few years that Mr. Kirby has revived the opinion of Degeer that it belongs to a distinct order. Thus far our path has been smooth; but now we have to determine to which of the other Mandibulata the 'Trichopterous insects lead. An evident hiatus is visible in this place; but we cannot do better, perhaps, than follow the example of such entomologists as Linneus and Latreille, and pass at once to the Tenthre- dines. Hence to the Hymenoptera the passage is easy ; 2B 870 ON THE ORDERS and these closing the column of Mandibulata, it only re- mains to be seen whether the series here terminates, or whether it returns back to the Coleoptera. Several cir- cumstances that have occurred within my own observation, relative to the systematical arrangement of Ants, have, IL confess, led me to suspect that there is an approach made by these Hymenoptera towards the Coleoptera. ‘The ab- sence in some ants of the wings, sting, and ocelli, all such remarkable characteristics of the Hymenoptera, has served to strengthen this belief. No one can doubt that a power- — ful alteration from the Hymenopterous type has taken place in some of these insects; and their whole shape, as well as the gradual disappearance of their ocelli, shows that this new tendency is not towards the Tenthredines. How the question may in the end be settled, I know not; but it is very certain that Mr. Kirby, by means of his new order of Strepsiptera, has opened a vast field for speculation, as to the means of connecting the Coleoptera with the Hymenoptera. The true place in nature of the singular genera Xenos and Stylops is indeed very difficult to de- termine; and what remarks, therefore, I am now about to offer on them ought to be received by the reader with great caution, as well because it has hitherto been out of my power to become acquainted with them, except through the medium of the works of Kirby, Latreille, Savigny and Lamarck, as because the total variance in the statements of these authors respecting them demon- strates that their true nature is, as yet, by no means as- certained. Professor Peck and Savigny, however, have both most satisfactorily shown that the Strepseptera are provided with true mandibles and palpigerous maxille; and therefore have completely set aside the opinion of MM, Lamarck OF THE ANNULOSA. 371 and Latreille, as to their affinity with the Diptera. Pro- ceeding then on the fact that they belong to the Mandibu- lata, which, by the by, appears at last to be admitted by Latreille, we necessarily make inquiry as to the particular part of this class in which they ought to be placed. Now, the only chasms of importance, which we have noticed in the column, are one between the Trichoptera of Kirby and the Tenthredines, and the other between the Hymenoptera and the Coleoptera. The deficiency of ocelli, the structure of the whole insect, but particularly that of the wings, prove that the Strepsiptera cannot occupy any vacancy near the Tri- choptera. It therefore only remains for us to place them be- tween the Hymenoptera and Coleoptera. But this appears to be nearly the situation originally given to the Strepsi- ptera by Mr. Kirby ; for in his very remarkable paper on these insects, in the 11th volume of the Linnean Trans- actions, he says, “‘ With respect to the place of Strepsi- ptera in the system, it seems to me that this order should follow Coleoptera ; for its metamorphosis being different from that of Orthoptera and Hemiptera, and nearer to that of the Coleoptera, this seems its most natural station consi- dered as an elytrophorous order; especially since, if it be inserted between Orthoptera and Hemiptera, with both of which it has some affinity, it would interrupt the series of semicomplete metamorphosis, by which, besides other characters, those two orders are so closely united.” He had previously noticed a circumstance which at once di- stinguishes them from all Coleoptera and Orthoptera, and gives them an affinity with the Hymenoptera, namely, a narrow collar instead of an ample thoracic shield. And it is worthy of remark that Rossi, in the work which first informed naturalists of their existence, placed them among the Hymenoptera, induced to this, as Mr. Kirby supposes, 2B2 372 ON THE ORDERS” by the economy of their larvee. Such, then, is in all pro= bability their true place in nature, though certainly my opinion on the subject, for the reasons already stated, ought to be received, as it isadvanced, with great caution. The Xenos beyond a doubtis, with the Sty/ops, the most puzzling insect to place naturally that we know; itis truly an“ animal ? animum excrucians;” and no better proof of this can be given than that when Lamarck and Latreille make the Stre- psiptera a division of Diptera, they seem absolutely to have pitched on the most artificial situation for them which they could have chosen, Latreille has remarked that the body of the Strepsiptera bears a striking relation to that of some Homoptera; and to judge from the descriptions given by Mr. Kirby of these insects, their wings are folded like those of Orthoptera, while the form of their head resem- bles that of some Neuroptera. To the Diptera they have no visible affinity, and scarcely any analogy, except such as we might expect from their proximity to the Hymenoptera. How far J am right in adopting Mr. Kirby’s opinion as to their real affinities, remains yet to be seen; but it is no weak argument in support of its accuracy, that they pos- sess the very precise kind of metamorphosis, which insects in the hiatus between the Coleoptera and Hymenoptera ought to have from analogy. The Strepsiptera ought probably to be considered as an osculant order; and they undoubtedly form a group which is apparently of much greater importance, and is marked with much stronger characters, than the Dvetuoptera. These can scarcely be said to afford a type of any very peculiar construction, and may therefore, perhaps, with more propriety be viewed as an annectent tribe falling ito the extensive order of Orthoptera. OF THE ANNULOSA. 375 Having now obtained a general notion of the Mandi- bulata, our thoughts ought to be employed on the best method of quitting them. For this purpose we must be guided by the excelient observations of Mr. Kirby, with respect to the similarity of the organs of manducation in the Trichoptera, or Mouches Papillonacées of certain writers, and the Lepidoptera; those of Baron Degeer as to the cor- respondence between the forms of their wings, and be- tween the internal organizations of their larve ; and finally by those of Reaumur as to the affinity visible in the gene- ral appearance of the insects themselves. In this manner we shall enter among the HAUSTELLATA, or Insectes Suceurs of M. Cuvier. In all his various works M. Latreille assigns a place to the. Lepidoptera immedi- ately after Hymenopterous insects, and immediately be~ fore the Diptera. He has thus differed entirely from Linneeus, with whom the Lepidopterous insects are situated between his orders of Hemiptera and Neuroptera. If, however, it be asked what direct affinity the French entomologist was able to detect between a butterfly and the Hymenoptera, or what direct affinity, on the other hand, Linneus could have detected between it and the Libellula (the insects which he places nearest to the Lepi- doptera), | fear that the patience of the inquirer will be ex- hausted long ere he can obtain any satisfactory answer. The maxille indeed of certain Hymenopterous insects form a proboscis or trunk, having some similarity to that of Lepi- doptera; but this solitary character might with equal pro- priety be used to connect the latter order with certain Coleo- ptera, as the genera Nemognatha and Gnathium. Upon the whole, therefore, the celebrated Swede has the advantage 374 ON THE ORDERS here over his successor in the science ; for while it is im- possible to connect Melipona with Papilio, or indeed any Hymenopterous insect directly with the Lepidoptera, it is undoubtedly true that these last have their natural situa- tion between the Linnean Hemiptera and Neuroptera ; due regard being always paid to the manner in which these orders were originally defined. Unfortunately for Lin- neus, however, the arrangement he pursues in detail does not give us the least reason to suspect that he merits any praise for this position of the Lepidoptera. At the period when his work was published the Trichoptera formed part of the Neuroptera, and the Homoptera part of the FHe- miptera; if therefore in the Systema Nature we could find Phryganea the first genus of the Neuroptera, or Ci- cada nearly the last of the Hemiptera, we might conclude that Linneus had discovered the natural affinities of these insects. But there is not even a semblance of such dis- position in his work, and to all appearance it was by the merest hazard that he pitched the Lepidoptera on the place which they occupy in his system. On examining the characters given in the Regne Animal to the Lepidopterous insects, we are informed that they present to the eye two peculiarities which belong to them exclusively. The first is, that “es ailes sont récouvertes sur leurs deux surfaces de petites écailles colorées, sembla- bles a une poussicre farineuse et qui s’enleve a toucher;” the second, “une trompe @ laquelle on a donné le nom de langue roulée en spirale.” We ought to corhmence our investigation, therefore, by inquiring whether there are any other tetrapterous Insects among the Haustellata, which have their wings covered with a farinaceous powder ; and if there should be any such, it is clear that they pos- OF THE ANNULOSA. 373 sess a peculiarity by which Latreille thought proper to distinguish the Lepidoptera. Yet any person the least versed in Entomology will at once put an end to this re- search, by replying that certain Homopterous insects cor- respond with the description proposed. It is true that the shape of the head, the position of the eyes, the indistinct- ness of the antenne, and the presence of ocelli, all se- parate what may be considered the type of an Homopte- rous insect from the Lepidoptera: instead of the triangu- lar dilated forehead, by which the true Cicade@ are distin- guished, we require one that shall be destitute of ocelli, truncated in front and contracted at the sides; instead of the minute antenne, we require them to be remarkably developed. It happens then that such an insect is found at Sierra Leone, and is described by Fabricius under the name of Flata imbata. It is indeed so singular an ex- ample of the commencement of a relation of of affinity be be- tween the Lepidoptera and Homoptera, and so distinct withal from its present congeners, as to excite our sur- prise that so little attention should have been paid to it. But in truth the whole genus Flata, as it exists at pre- sent, bears manifestly a distant affinity to certain extreme Lepidoptera, which must be apparent not only from its having been connected by Linneus and Fabricius with such trivial names as Phalenoides, but from the admission of Latreille himself. “ Les Fulgores dont la téte wa point CFE ee, y fest LEte 4 4 att wi Lz rae 7] ele 6-4 4 €: (a se st OY LOE TOTE OI, Dectraee Ig a @avancement remarquable composent dans Fabricius divers - genres. Ses Flates ont les élytres et les ailes tres larges, et ressemblent a de petites phalenes, ou mieux encore a des pyrales.” ‘The immediate means of transition from Ho- mopterous insects to the Lepidopterous,—in other words, the osculant order,—is exemplified probably in the genus S70 ON THE ORDERS Aleyrodes of Latreille, the Tinea proletella of Linneus, and the Phaleéne culiciforme of Geoffroy. The history of this minute insect is the subject of one of Reaumur’s most interesting Mémoires; and when we learn. that it under- goes an obtect metamorphosis, that in its pupa state it is Inactive and in its adult is covered with a farinaceous powder, we are as little surprised that this great physio- logist should have considered it to be Lepidopterous, as that Latreille, reasoning from its articulated rostrum, should have pronounced it to be Homopterous. We are only astonished that the latter should have adopted any arrange- ment, which would lead us to fancy that he believed his observations on Aleyrodes contradicted those of Reaumur. It is thus that these great naturalists are so often right and wrong at the same time with respect to the same ani- mal, and that a person in search of natural affinities has generally reason to conclude himself to be perfectly correct, when he has combined all their positive observations and rejected their negative inferences. That the Homoptera are directly in conjunction with the true He Hemiptera, or + Hete Heteroptera of Latreille, I believe no one will be inclined t to dispute. At least ‘this affinity cannot be disputed without a distortion of some of the most evident facts in Natural History, being accompanied by an utter disregard for the authority of all entomologi- cal writers. The transition is effected through the medi- - um of the Notonectide and other Hydrocorise of Latreille, which coincide with the Homopterous insects in the small developement of their antennz, and conical rostrum, and with the true Hemiptera in their rostrum being frontal, their elytra coriaceous, and their body generally depressed. It would at present be very blameable in me to pretend to OF THE ANNULOSA. 377 determine whether these insects come nearest to the He- mipterous or Homopterous type; but I may observe that probability is on the side of the latter supposition, since the genus Ranatra bears a strong analogy to the Ephe- mere. We perceive, however, the wings of the Hydro- corise becoming gradually more coriaceous, or rather corneous, and opaque; we perceive them crossing one another more and more, in order to make room for the en- largement of the scutellum, which, with the two ocelli and quadri-articulate rostrum, is the typical character of the true Hemiptera. On account of the similarity in the structure of their mouths, but particularly in consequence of the sheath of the rostrum in both orders being articulated, Fabricius, Lamarck and Latreille have all admitted the proximity of the Suctoria of Degeer to the Hemiptera. “ En divisant,” says Latreille, “ comme Va fait M. de Lamarck, les insectes qui subissent des métamorphoses en deux grandes coupes, ceux qui ont des mandibules et des machoires, et ceux ov ces organes sont transformés en un sucoir, ordre de Suceurs semble étre entremédiaire entre les Hemipteres et les Di- pleres.” Yet, notwithstanding the justice of this remark, notwithstanding that M. Latreille mentions this affinity of the common flea to the Hemiptera in all his works, it is very singular that in his arrangement he never acts wholly upon its truth, and in the Regne Animal even totally dis- regards it. This inconsistency without doubt arises from his not having been able to make his observation accord with his system; and unfortunately, rather than disturb this, he is often apt to overlook the advantages to be de- rived from his discovery of an affinity. Nothing, however, stamps such a value on his works as the candour with 378 ON THE ORDERS which he always, on its detection, mentions an affinity at the moment even when it directly contradicts the accuracy of his distribution. In the Genera Insectorum M. Latreille reckons that the Suctoria of Degeer, as the last order of the Hexapod in- sects, immediately follow the Diptera, and even in the Regne Animal he allows this to be their natural place. In good truth, however, this is to be accounted only half the situation which the order ought to possess. Fabricius was more bold and less correct; for he placed the genus Pulez, not even at the end of the Systema Rhyngotorum, but be- tween Zelus and Aphis, with which last it certainly has some remote affinity. Butitis to M. Lamarck, who united these opinions of Fabricius and Latreille, that we are indebted for the knowledge of its true place in the scale of creation, and therefore the very least return we can make is to adopt his name Aptera for the order. 1am the more disposed to insist on this point of nomenclature, because it is a classical denomination, which, owing to the later improvements in the science, would otherwise be lost. But it must not be under- stood that every insect which belongs to the group is there- fore of necessity Apterous; this is perhapsno more true than if, in adopting Degeer’s word, we should therefore conclude that the order contains every insect which lives by suction. The Aptera contain undoubtedly the type of a very distinct order; for they are the only animals in the class of Haustellata which have a bivalve articulated sheath to their rostrum. “ La puce,” according to Lamarck, “ tzent beaucoup aux Diptéres par la métamorphose*, car sa larve * Leeuwenhoeck claimed and has acquired all the honour of this dis- covery ; but in fact it was half known in the days of Aristotle, who observed not only that the Pulices had distinctsexes, but that they produced cxwanxes audeis. From not following the metamorphosis further, he fancied this OF THE ANNULOSA. 379 est apode, et sa nymphe inactive est renfermée dans une coque; mais son bec en forme de trompe est éminemment articulé, et rien de semblable ne se montre dans les Dipte- res.” The structure of the Aptera, in short, conducts us from the Hemiptera to the Homaloptera, which comprise such Dipterous insects as have the sheath of their rostrum. . in like manner bivalve, but without articulations. The Dipterous insects are by Latreille connected with the Lepidoptera; ; and against the opinion “of those who “may ¢ doubt ‘the tr truth of this affinity he can always vays appeal to certain ain Diptera, as s the J Psychoda a ph halenoides, for formin the ger the genus Tene us Tinearia of. Schellenberg, or to certain Lepi- Le Fler ty & ~~ i) ‘doptera, such as ‘the Pterophori_Latr. which are ‘named Leno 29 4 Rs! lad Sees, 2 dat’. which are ni Phatenes-tipules b iles by D egeer. Unless therefore these ob- servations are so many idle fancies which have deceived some of the most acute of naturalists; and unless it be conceivable that these various idle fancies occurring to different persons, can have fortuitously combined into a —— — of affinity ee teat with a a er ak I ae can arrive at such conclusions, nédiega is ne no ei resource ———— léfé than to allow the series of 5 anecliaca to be natural ; and ind one, moreover, which in pursuance of a desiga xe: turns urns into itself. _ ress ere ine In all this I ade scarcely touched on the metamor- phosis, because | am sure that the foregoing table, show- ing the analogical relations that exist between insects pro- vided with a rostrum and those furnished with mandibles, will more forcibly express to entomologists the regularity progeny, however, to be something sui generis and imperfect, the parent being generated spontaneously in the earth. It is always e:ther at the egg or pupa state that Aristotle loses sight of the metamorphosis, and in ab- sence of experiment has recourse to his fancy. 380 ON THE ORDERS of the transition which here takes place, than any other ar- gument in my power to advance. Nay, if a person should ebject to the foregoing detail of affinities, it would in my opinion be perfectly allowable to refer him to the attendant analogies, as amounting to a demonstration of its general accuracy. There are certain Dipterous insects, however, which before we quit the Hausteliata deserve a few moments of particular attention. It is easily seen that allusion is now made to the Pupipara of Latreille, or Mouches-araignées of Reaumur and other French naturalists. The struc- ture of their mouth and organs of locomotion, the nature of their metamorphosis, the texture of their body, but par- ticularly the gradual manner in which the head becomes united to the thorax, and at length almost forms one piece with it, all distinguish these animals from the ordinary type of Diptera, and have lately occasioned their being formed into the osculant order of Homaloptera. Analogy seems to indicate that they ought to occupy that situation among the LHaustellata which, to all appearance, the Strepsiptera occupy in the circle of Insects provided with mandibles. The safest way therefore, in the present state of our knowledge, will be to account it an auxiliary or osculant order like the other. ‘The singular genus Nycte- ribia, or Pthiridion of Hermann, well known as infesting bats, closes the series of Pupiparous insects, and must satisfy every person that we are arrived among the ARACHNIDA, of which Leon Dufour has just said that the history is scarcely yet sketched, while our knowledge even of their species is extremely imperfect, notwithstanding the OF THE ANNULOSA. 38k labours of Lister, Homberg, Clerck, Degeer, Olivier, Wal- kenaer, and Latreille. On entering this class we find ani- mals still parasitical and still hexapod, even when the type of the Acaridea, as well as of the other Arachnide orders, is undoubtedly octapod. In the genus Siro we are led by an easy transition from the Mites to the Phalangidea, hence by Galeodes to the Scorpionidea and Araneidea. From these last we may possibly be able to return to the Acaridea by means of genera like Trombidion. This isa series of affi- nities, all of which, excepting the last, have been noticed by the modern French entomologists; so that for the pre- sent I shall refer to their works for the proofs requisite to substantiate the accuracy of the progression. As to the manner in which the series is here divided, it must on the other hand be considered as barely an approximation to the truth; so that, having thus chalked out a mere outline of the distribution of the Arachnida, I may-be permitted hereafter to correct it in proportion as its inaccuracies shall be detected. It may, however, with more confidence be stated that the Arachnida are connected with the Crus- tacea, by means of the Pycnogonida, because the observa- tion and the consent of all the first entomologists of the present day unite in confirming this affinity. The Arachnida differ from Crustacea in having their respiratory organs always internal, and opening on the sides of the abdomen and thorax to receive the air. ‘These la- teral apertures are common to them with Insects, and are known to physiologists bythe appellation of Stigmata. When these > stigmata communicate with pulmonary pouches, there is a circulation effected by means of a dor- sal and muscular heart, from which two great vessels pro- ice la 382 ON THE ORDERS ceed and communicate with every respiratory cavity, ra- mifying over its membrane. When the stigmata, on the contrary, are tracheal, there is no circulation; but in its “place we have alternate contractions of a dorsal vessel, which, from its not throwing off any branch whatever, appears to deserve the name of heart no further than as it occupies a situation in these animals, which corresponds to that of the heart in Pulmonary Arachnida.__Neverthe- less the Arachnida, whether breathing by pulmonary ~ pouches or by tracheee, form but one class, as We perceive from the union of their head and thorax into one piece, and from the concentration of their viscera into the abdo- minal portion of the body. It is needless to repeat in this place the arguments that have been already adduced to show, that the division of the organs of respiration and circulation is not to be depended on in the classical ar- rangement of the Annulosa. If these arguments should not have been deemed satisfactory, perhaps the opinion of M. Lamarck on the subject may influence the reader to believe, that their only weakness has consisted in my man- ner of enforcing them. “Lorsqwil y a de grandes analo- gies densemble, les diverses particularités d’organization que Von observe quelquefois ne permettent cependant pas de séparer classiquement les objets qui les offrent. Quy a-t-il, en effet, de plusvoisin des araignées que les faucheurs, les galéodes, &c.! Cependant les premiéres respirent par des poches évidemment branchiales, tandis les autres ne respirent que par des trachées.” _'The trachew, however, of the Arachnida, when_they exist, differ from those of _ Insects in being disposed in a solitary ramifying series, _ which may almost be termed radiated ; on the other hand, OF THE ANNULOSA. 383 Insects, under which denomination I include the Ameta- bola, are well known to have their trachee disposed i in a double longitudinal series. Linneeus does not appear to have allowed the existence of antenne in Spiders or Scorpions, although he assigns this name to certain organs in Nymphon, Phalangium and Chelifer*, which evidently correspond with those organs in - Spiders, which he terms their Palpi. The separation of the class of Arachnida from other Annulose animals originated with Lamarck, who nevertheless made it comprehend the Ametabola under the name of Arachnides antennées, as well as the true Arachnida, which, adopting the opinion of Degeer, he entitled “ Arachnides exantennées.” M. La- treille in the Genera Insectorum made these latter the third legion of his Insecta, under the name of Acera, and at last, in the third volume of the Regne Animal, com- prised them all in a class entitled Arachnides, which he says “se distingue au premier coup dail des deux classes voisines, les Crustacés et les Insectes, parcequ elle n'a point d@antennes.” Still more recently however, in a very sin- gular Mémoire presented by him to the Institute, he has advanced several curious speculations on the external or- ganization of Winged Insects, as compared with that of the Arachnida and Crustacea. Among these theoretical novelties we find that he now considers the old opinion of Lamarck, to wit, that the Arachnida are destitute of an- tenn, to be an error which he acknowledges to have him- self propagated from not having sufficiently examined the subject. He observes that the mandibles, maxilla and maxillary palpi, or the organs which correspond to these * This genus, or rather Olisium, is so well described by Aristotle, under the epithet of Scorpodes, that | think he has the right of priority to the name, 384 ON THE ORDERS in Crustacea, exercise a function so secondary, that after gradually becoming modified in those genera, such as Cyamus, which come near to the Arachnida, and after almost even disappearing, as in the genus Phyllosoma, they may be considered as being altogether null in the Araignées palpistes of Lamarck. Nevertheless my readers, whom I suppose all to be entomologists, need scarcely to be informed that the last mentioned animals possess organs which are commonly termed mandibles, organs which Linneus, in the Spider, named “ungues seu retinacula,” and which in the Scorpion he regarded as “ Palpi che- leformes.” Now, it will be asked What organs among the Crustacea do these two mandibles, ungues, or che- liform palpi of the Arachnida represent? Savigny was of opinion that they took the place of the second pair of pedipalpi; but Latreille answers the question in quite a different manner. He refers to the changes which the two intermediate antenne of the Branchiopoda undergo, and finds a resemblance even between these organs in the brachyurous decapod Crustacea, and the mandibles of Phalangium. He further observes that these organs in both the tribes,—that is, the internal antennee of Crustacea and the mandibles of Arachnida,—have a similar situation, namely, above the labrum and entrance of the cesopha- gus, together with a similar mode of insertion, being pa- rallel at their base, and only taking an oblique or curved direction at their extremities;—whereas, on the other hand, all true pedipalpi are situated below the labrum, and are inserted immediately above the breast. M. Latreille then adopts the remark of Lister, that all Annulose animals have a distinct head, and that the head of Spiders and Scorpions is that part of the thorax which OF THE ANNULOSA. 3885 contains the eyes, together with these cheliform or un- guiform antenne, and which is generally distinguished from the true thorax by an angular impression, the point of which faces the abdomen. ‘There is, it is true, only one method of setting this matter completely at rest, which is, to ascertain whether it be really with nerves answering to the antennal nerves of Crustacea that those organs, com- monly called the mandibles of the Arachnida, are sup- plied: but in the mean time I confess that I am much inclined to adopt M. Latreille’s theory, because it recon- ciles many circumstances which had hitherto appeared to me anomalous. To give only one example: M. Savigny considered that the Pycnogonida connected the Arachnida with Cyamus, but thought it evident that Nymphon has lost not only the compound eyes and masticatory organs of Cyamus, but also the antenne, He thus makes the two pairs of organs, which proceed from the head of Nymphon grossipes, to be the first and second pairs of true feet in Am- phipod Crustacea; or, in other words, he accounts the first and second pairs of feet in a Squilla,—that is, according to his theory, the second and third pairs of feet in an Insect,— to be nothing else analogically than the mandibles and maxille of a Spider! There is little enough of rule in this, it may be said; but there will appear still less, when we find that in other Pycnogonida the pair of feet which is most apt to disappear is not, as might have been expected, the first, but the second. Hence, proceeding on this theory, we find the principal appendages of the body of a Crab to be dis- posed in a male Phozicholus, as follows: 1. Antenne, mandibles and maville, none. 2. Second maxilla. and first pair of maxillary feet, a vestige. 2c 9 (HD oS) ON THE ORDERS 3. Second pair of maxillary feet, present. 4. Third paw* of maxillary feet, none. 5. First pair of true feet, none. 6. Second pair of true feet, present, Kc. This irregular appearance and disappearance of organs, so contrary to the very object of M. Savigny’s excellent work, is, however, entirely removed by M. Latreille’s hy- pothesis, as is likewise the violence done by M. Savigny’s theory to that uniform principle of nature, which places the eyes constantly in the head of ai animal. ‘Those who have well weighed the admirable Mémoire suv les Animaux sans V ertébres, which first called the attention of naturalists to these anatomical analogies, know that the author’s theo- ry, with respect to the Pycnogonida, would place their eyes in the thorax, or atleast in that segmentof their body which corresponds with the thorax of insects. Now, only suppose, with M. Latreille, that what Savigny accounts to be the first ring of the body is nothing else than the manducatory organs soldered together, or a prolongation of the pharyn- gean region, and that the mandibles and palpi represent the four antenne fof the Crustacea, and the above ano- malies will in a great measure disappear. Even although the four antennae may become all null in Pycnogonum, Wwe may perceive that these which seem the most readily annihilated are the lateral pair, as in Phoxicholus. Thus the only locomotive organs which we may regard as totally lost in the Pycnogonida, are such as may be reckoned immediately connected with the system of manducation * Dr. Leach has confined the name of Pedipalpi to this pair of maxillary fect. 1 have thought it best, however, until we know more of the structure of the mouth in the Apiropodes of M. Savigny, to term this, with the two preceding pairs, pedipalpt, or maxillary feet, discriminating them merely by their place, By this mode of proceeding their true nature remains ad- huc sub judice, OF THE ANNULOSA. 387 among the Crustacea, and which are replaced in the true Arachnida by organs of a totally different construction. But, granting this doctrine of M. Latreille to be agree- able to nature, it may next be urged that the greatest argu- ment for the necessity of distinguishing the Parasita or Anoplura of Dr. Leach from the Arachnides trachéennes of Latreille is thus done away with, since both possess a pair of antenne. Nay, M. Latreille seems to have him- self judged that it ought to have this consequence; for in his last general distribution of the Annulosa, published in the Annales du Muséum, he places the parasitical Ame- tabola in the class of Arachnida under the name of Arach- nides pédiculaires. Some persons, however, may be dis- posed to think that in doing this he too hastily abandons his old arrangement, which the new theory, once admitted, instead of weakening will serve to establish beyond a doubt. Thus it has not escaped him that the two antenne of his Arachnides pédiculaires represent the lateral pair of an- “Yenne in Crustacea: now, these are the two which remain in the Onisci, but absolutely become null in the true Arachnida. So that, in following the changes which the antenne undergo in the Annulose animals, a most beau- _ tiful regularity presents itself to the view. A Decapod Crustaceous animal has, for instance, four antenna, the / middle pair of which disappears in Oniscus ; from which ———— 3 a circumstance, in the circles of Ametabola and Hexapod insects we have only one pair of antenne, which answers to the lateral pair of Crustacea, and finally disappears in ————— TT : Nycteribia. If again, on the other side, we quit the = SS Se. . . . . Crustacea, by means of the Pycnogonida, it is the external Fie pair which is most ready to disappear; and e So BEF Ra eae . . . among the rachnida we discover only the intermediate SS a cg 388 ON THE ORDERS pair, until this also disappears about the confines of this ~ group and Winged insects. Tn this manner M. Latreille’s ‘doctrine becomes an argument for proving the Crustacea to be naturally interposed between the Arachnida and Pa- rasitical insectS, which indeed are only connected by that property which the opposite points of a group always pos- sess of appreaching to each other. The true Arachnida have no lateral antenne, but_only 5 a pair answering to the intermediate pair of these_organs aaa / é in Crustacea, and which in the former animals is always ee OE ET - = \ connected with mand on. Their head is always in , Some degree confounded with the thorax; the stigmata occupy only a part of the body, and even in those species “which breathe by means of trac of tracheze communicate with a “simple tracheal cord, which, from its ramifications, may c—— almost be termed radiated; ThE Paracicenl cea on “the other hand, have no intermediate pact! aot but only a Canela lela eaieaeiee the lateral pair in ar mm Crustacea, a ustaced, and which in these animals is never used for purposes of man- ducation. The head is always distinct from the body; ~~and the stigmata, which are disposed over almost the whole cheal system. Having now described, as briefly as I conveniently 7 could, the natural connexion of those orders into which the Annulosaa re resolvable, it may not be improper to give a summary view of the affinities as they may be ex- pressed by a table. In this table, however, the distribu-. tion of the Crustacea and Arachnida is presented to the reader with much diffidence of its accuracy, and that chiefly on the following account. If we establish a chain of organic gradation solely upon OF THE ANNULOSA. 389 the relations of affinity as above detailed, so that the cir- cles of Crustacea and Arachnida shall touch at the points Lemodipoda and Phalangidea, with the mere interven- tion of the Pycnogonida as an osculant class, then it will be perceived that the analogies which the two classes, possessing a distinct circulation, bear to the contiguous circles having no circulation, are reversed in order. If, on the contrary, we pay attention, as in the subjoined table, to the relations of analogy as well as of affinity, we have the analogies between contiguous circles always observed in their proper order; but then the Araneidea and Deca- poda will be found near the osculant point of the classes of Arachnida and Crustacea, while Cyamus and Phalan- gium, which I perfectly agree with M. Savigny in think- ing connected together by Pycnogonum, are at the oppo- site although analogous points of their respective circles. The only method by which at present I can explain this remarkable circumstance, is by the affinity which opposite points of a circle always bear to each other. As Pha- langium approaches near to Aranea, and female Lemodi- poda in some measure to Decapoda, the reader will per- ceive how the Pycnogonida may form a point of union for the four groups; in other words, may be the centre of that affinity which exists between an Aranea, Phalangi- um, Cyamus and Pagurus. Although I am unable to come to any final determination on this curious and (if it may be judged by the trouble it has given me) even ab- struse point, yet I request the attention of entomologists to the fact that one of the most singular characteristics of the Pycnogonida 1s their possession of only one segment to the abdomen; in which they wholly differ from Pha- Jangium, but agree with Aranea and Pagurus. Nay, 390 ON THE ORDERS there is a nondescript genus of Spiders from India, of which the abdomen is as minute, in proportion to the other parts of the body, as in Pycnogonum; so minute indeed as to have occasioned one of these Arachnida to be mis- taken by a naturalist for a Coleopterous insect, of which the head and elytra were represented by the abdomen and antenne of the Spider! But before we proceed deeper into the discussion of analogies, the annexed table of afli- nities ought to be examined with care. = Thysa- nura AMETABOLA 2,.aemo- dipoda MANDIBULATA Tricho- ae aD LL0-4, 7 Scorpi- onidea 4 Ry cae a “se. i} g HAUSTE Zz ARACHNIDA Phalangidea NYCTERIBIDA? OF THE ANNULOSA. 391 One of the first properties of this compend of affinities which will excite attention is, that the 4unulosa appear therein to be naturally divided into two great groups; one composed of three circles distinguished by a tendency to metamorphosis and’a bifurcated tracheal system of re- spiration, the other of two circles characterized by the possession of internal antenne and a tendency to a system of circulation. The only animals mdeed of these last groups, which are subject to any remarkable change in the primitive and essential-form of their body, are a few Branchioped Crustacea; that is, the opposite points of the circle of Annulosa correspond intimately with each other. It is not a little singular that this correspondence, ES or perhaps more properly this affinity tween the Branchiopoda and the Hexapod Insects should. be founded on the nature of their metamorphosis. Some “Gredit 1s due to Miiller if he ever had this connexion in view, and it is probable that he really had, from his having bestowed on these Crustacea the appropriate appellation of Entomostraca or Testaceous Insects. Even if he meant no more by the word than that they are articulated testa- which exists ceous animals, it is well known that their disposition to metamorphosis, so contrary to the usual habit of the Crus- tacea, did not escape him. [ have already made an attempt to draw the attention of naturalists to the relations of analogy existing between corresponding points of the two contiguous circles which pass through a perfect change of form; and now [ shall content myself with indicating, by position, those analo- gies which apparently hold good between the correspond- ing points of all the five groups of Annulosa. While, however, at this part of my subject, I must express regret at knowing comparatively so little of the Crustacea and 392 ON THE ORDERS Arachnida; convinced, as I am, that it 1s my duty to warn the inexperienced reader of the circumstance before he enters on the study of the following columns. i oO oy 4. i . Hausrecrata. Manpisutata, AMETABOLA. CrusTAcEA. ARACHNIDA. 1. Diptera Hymenoptera Vermes Branchiopoda Acaridea 2. Aptera Coleoptera Anoplura Decapoda Araneidea { me . Hemfptera Orthoptera Thy ura Amphipoda sedvptonide . Homoptera Reet . Lepidoptera Trichoptera. Chilognatha Isopoda Sironidea ? or Of these five columns I consider the three first to be distributed not very maccurately, and to deserve much more confidence than the fourth and fifth. Unfortunately, from not having studied the affinities of these last with the care required by analysis, [ have been unable to detect the principle upon which their analogies are graduated. There are naturalists, I well know, who will object to the supposition that these are graduated on any other scale than that which we are certain of, such as the exter- nal appearance. But as, independently of their form, the analogical characters of the groups of Mandibulata and Haustellata are founded on the variation of metamor- phosis ; so there is reason to believe that some principle of analogy, unconnected with their general appearance, may hereafter be found to exist between every other two contiguous columns. Sure enough it is, that, with re- spect to external form, these analogies are remarkably conspicuous, and as usual have been mistaken for affini- ties. Thus it was that Linneus, Miiller, and others, came to confound the Calygi with true Epizoaria; and that ~ Latreille says of his Branchiopoda, “ Plusieurs de ces ani- maux sont de véritables suceurs, et se rapprochent a cet égard des Arachnides,” such as the Acaride for instance. Nay, if this train of reflection on the nature of relations of ana- fr ite! Awe era Chilopoda Lemddipoda Phalatigidea; ~ OF THE ANNULOSA. 393 logy be pursued, we also perceive why Pallas was induced to give the trivial name of Scolopendroides to a species of Caprella,—why the Amphipoda have been characterized by the setaceous appendages of their abdomen,—why these Crustacea \eap,—why the genus Thalassina imitates the form of a Scorpion,—why naturalists, conversant with this branch of Natural History, have, since the days of Aristotle, all compared the genus Pagurus to Spiders,— why some species of the genus Epezra resemble Decapod Crustacea so much as from them to have borrowed their name. ‘These, and a thousand similar cases, are all rela- tions of analogy, which may be explained by the bare in- spection of the above columns. But it will be said that the 4rachnida and Haustellata are according to the table of affinity contiguous circles, and_ yet the corresponding points in the columns do not coincide analogically. This struck me at first, [ confess, as some- thing unaccountable; but a very little attention to the sub- ject served to show that it could not be otherwise, as these columns only represent half the course of the analogies which appear on the inspection of the preceding table of “aMinities. By a reference to that table, the entomologist will perceive that the corresponding points of these contiguous circles have an analogy, which, I doubt not, would be even more conspicuous if the groups of Arachuda were only more accurately defined. Even assuming their accuracy as they have been described in the foregoing pages, surely we may consider the faculty of spinning, which is common both to Spiders and Lepidopterous larve, to be one of analogy. Surely the Nepa or Ranatra, with its cheliform anterior feet, its caudal appendage, its habit of carrying its progeny on its back, deserves the title of Water Scorpion, which it has acquired in almost every uropean language. 394 ON THE ORDERS a — We may add that an analogy of form and manners is visi- ble also between the Phalangidea and the larve of He- miptera, between the Acari and the parasitical larve of the corresponding group of Haustellata. But granting that the analogical relations between these two classes are not so visible as those which exist between the Arachnida and Crustacea, (although the above exam- ples, in my opinion, amount to a perfect demonstration of their having a real existence,) it is to be observed, that rela- BES of analogy are sometimes disguised in — a manner mia pointed out to his notice. In the eyes of any person at first sight, few groups can be more dissinular than the Ametabola and Mandibulata ; yet they are contiguous, and therefore ought, according to what has been said, to have relations of analogy between their corresponding types. Now, if such can be pointed out as existing under a dis- guise, and as being particularly curious when unmasked, it is perhaps a fair inference to suppose that two contigu- ous circles, like those of Hlaustellata and Arachnida, which differ as much or even more than the former two in general structure, may likewise have these analogies depending upon some secret of Nature. It is obvious that the analogies will thus be rendered less liable to de- tection than those which depend on the external appear- ance simply. Another argument in favour of this con- jecture is, that in both cases we are leaving insects which undergo a perfect metamorphosis for those which are sub- ject to an imperfect one, or which only shed their external envelope. But we must leave inferences for facts; and, in the first place, have to explain why the above-men- tioned analogies of external appearance, between the cor- responding groups of Arachnida and Haustellata, are not OF, THF. ANNULOSA. 395 Peancuichabies in the columns as above disposed. Fox this purpose I shall lay before the reader a table, expressing all the analogies which have been now given in detail, premis- ing only that it is carefully to be kept separate from any no- tion of the progression of affinity, such as is expressed by the other figure. It results, however, as may easily be dis- cerned, merely from the corresponding points in those five circles being joined together*, every line expressing the existence of an Se oy een the igen it connects. "Ln Qe Veatch ot res ede: ASG 2+ 7 fhysa: 7 seen el (fk ela jew 6h 4 hed oa 762 4 ied Lye Homo- =plera. Scorpi- onidea. Wycleribida ‘Hemi 4 Phalan- ; plera gidea ? * Nothing in Natural History is, perhaps, more curious than that these analogies should be represented by a figure so strictly geometrical. One is almost tempted to believe that the science of the variation of animal struc- tures may, in the end, come within the province of the mathematician, ad 396 ON THE ORDERS a< Now, if the line of analogy, beginning at the Orthoptera for instance, and setting out for its corresponding group of Thysanura, be followed, when the five circles have been traversed analogically we arrive at the Homoptera, and “not at the Hemiptera, which order is only attained after the circles have been twice analogically traversed. This may serve to explain a circumstance to which I may hereafter have occasion to allude, namely, that an external order* seems always to have an analogy to the two exter- nal orders in the contiguous circle, but with this dif- ference, that to the one it is direct and very conspicuous, while to the other it is indirect and barely visible. An example will best explain what is meant. The Orthoptera bear a relation of analogy to both the orders of Hemiptera and Homoptera, but to the fornier it is much more con- _spicuous than to the latter, than to the latter. The same appears to hold good with all “good with all the other external orders. To follow up these speculations at present would be losing sight of the principal object which it was originally our purpose to keep in view. It need dnly, therefore, be stated, that when we shall have once attained a knowledge of the accurate series of affinity, the study of relations of analogy seems calculated to throw light on almost every general and specific notion, that may have been or can be entertained on the nature of these animals. To those who may have a taste for this investigation it must, for the pre- sent, be left, while our attention shall be more closely con- * By an external order is meant any one situated in the greater segment “of a circle of affinity, when divided by a line joining its osculant points. There are ten such, viz. Orthoptera, Neurcpiera, Homwptera, Hemiptera, Phalangidea, Scorpronidea ? Amphipoda ? Lemodipoda? Chilopoda and Thysanura. We may vame the five orders, Vermes, Hymenoptera, Diptera, Acaridea, and Branchispoda, internal, and the ten remaining tnosculant, from their communicating with osculant groups, OF THE ANNULOSA. 3907 fined to the Insects breathing by trachez, and to the ana- logies which they in particuiar' may display. It has been already hinted that a very beautiful analogy, although disguised, reigns between the corresponding co- lumns of Ametabola and Mandibulata. To prove that there was ground for the assertion will now be my aim. The subjoined columns represent part of the preceding table of affinities. Branchiopoda . Vermes . . . Lary of Hymenoptera Isopoda ... . Chilognatha . Larve of Trichoptera Lemodipoda . . Chilopoda . . Larve of Neuroptera Amphipoda. .. Thysanura . Larvae of Orthoptera Decapoda ... Anoplura . . Larve of Coleoptera. There is so strong an affinity in general structure be- tween Ricinus and certain Coleoptera, that it has disposed me to believe that the circles of Ametabola and Mandi- bulata must here meet; a further proof of which may be, that the larvee of Coleoptera, as being the nearest to the Ametabola, do not imitate any one group in particular, but the whole five, in precisely the same order in which they occur in their own circle. But if there should be any doubt on the subject, I am sure that the perusal of the 26th and 27th pages of Savigny’s first Mémoire must remove it entirely. When the reader has well weighed the comparison therein made and the nature of relations of analogy, he will perceive that these two pages support not only the affinity of the Coleoptera to Ricinus, but many also of my other observations. The Hexapod larvie of Orthoptera, with the setiform appendages to their tail, meet with their prototypes among the T’hysanura; the flat carnivorous larve of Neuropterous Insects, furnished as they are with suctorious mandibles, bear an obvious 398 ON THE ORDERS analogy to the Chilopoda; the form of an Iulus is easily discoverable in the cylindrical eruciform larve of the Trichoptera, while the apod larve of the Hymenoptera are described by the first zoologists as resembling an intestinal worm in form as well as manners*. I shall leave the analogy between the Coleoptera and Ametabola to be discussed in a future chapter; only stating, for the present, that so far from the other analogies being fanci- ful, it can be proved by citations from the works of the best entomologists that they have been severally noted by them, although without any view to arrangement, or in- deed any object beyond the mere mention of the fact. Compare Lamarck’s descriptions of the genera Blatta and Lepisma, and it will be seen in how few circumstances some T’hysanura differ from the larvee of the first mentioned genus. | mean few circumstances according to the descrip- tion, for there 1s enough of dissimilarity evident to show that the relation between them is only one of analogy. Let any one read Latreille’s description of the larva of an Hemero- bius or Raphidia, and, except that it is hexapod, he may easily believe that a Scolopendra is meant. Nay, the greatest part of the aquatic larvae of Neuroptera have false feet or branchie, which complete their Scolopendriform appear- ance. ‘The similarity between an Iudus and the larva of a Tenthredo is carried even to such a pitch, that the number * M. de Humboldt’s Anatomical Account of the worm Porocephalus Cro- tal, which he discovered adhering to the esophagus and pulmonary sac of a South American Rattlesnake, affords us an interesting example of the relation of analogy between intestinal worms and the larve of the internal orders of insects. Nothing is more remarkable in the metamorphosis of these last, than their propensity, when larvz, to secrete fat for the absorption and nutrition of the insect during the period when it is unable to eat. Now, M. de Humboldt says of the abovementioned intestinal worm, ‘‘ Tuut le corps de Vanimal a Vexception de deux extremités est rempli de fils vermiformes Mun blanc laiteux, qui paratssent avoir de Vanalogie avec les lamleaux grais- senx (epiploons) qui flotlent dans Vintérieur des larves des insectes, et surtout avec les ovaires peletonnés des Ascarides.” OF THE ANNULOSA. 399 of feet shall be here increased above the usual number in a Winged insect; in which case we must bear in mind a maxim of the Philosophia Entomologica, “ Ubi plures quam sex pedes adsunt, axteriores sive pectorales tantum vert pedes, reliqut omnes spurii et mutici.” Finally, M. La- treille, in describing the Hymenoptera, says “ Leurs larves vessemblent d un ver, et sont dépourcus de pattes.” But if the entomological reader can divest himself of the notion of absolute divisions, and if he will recollect the great difference there is between a tendency towards any construction and the actually attaining it, | would re- commend, in preference to being guided implicitly by such examples, his studying the figures and descriptions of larve given in the works of Reaumur and Degeer, and then judging for himself. Relations of analogy, however, are not rigorously con- fined to contiguous circles, but may sometimes be carried on to the corresponding points of others widely distant. Thus, on referring to the table of analogies, a comparison may be instituted between the larvee of the Mandibulata and the corresponding orders of Crustacea, though we must expect that the force of the resemblance should be here much weakened by the intervening distance. Never- theless, between the Amphipoda and the larve of Ortho- plera it is particularly striking; for, if we take no account of the leapmg Talitrus Locusta, which bears such a gene- ral resemblance to the Gryllidz, we have the larve of Mantes and even of Phyllia represented most closely by some of these Crustacea. Such forms being far from di- stinct among the Ametabola, it would appear that Na- ture was resolved that they should not be lost, but be re- produced in the next circle and in their proper analogical A400 ON THE ORDERS place. Thus, M. Latreille, in describing the genus Phyi- losoma, which was one of the results of the unfortunate Congo expedition, expresses himself in the following words : “ On a donné a une Squille de la Mediterranée, genre de la méme fanulle que la précédente, le nom de Mante, par- ceque ce crustacé a quant a la forme de ses serres des rap- ports avec les Orthopteres qui ont recu cette derniére dé- nomination. Il semble que la Nature ait voulu, a Cégard des Phyllosomes, étendre ce paralléle, et réprodutre le type de forme quelle a adoptée pour d'autres Orthopteres rangés avec les Mantes par Linnaeus, et qui composent aujourd hur le genre Phyllie.” Turning also to the other side of the insects furnished with mandibles, we may distinguish those relations of ana- logy, which have an existence between the corresponding ganglions of Mandibulata and Ametabola, to be still visi- ble between these last and the corresponding groups of Haustellata. ‘Thus says Degeer er, in describing the Jarvee of the Latreillian genera Erycina_and Polyommatus, « Celles sont les Chenilles-Cloportes, ainsi nommées parce- qwelles ressemblent en quelque maniére aux Cloportes, ayant le corps trés applati, mais large, et portant ordinaire- ment la téte cachée sous le prenier anneau du corps: elles marchent aussi tres lentement en glssant pour ainsi dire sur le plan de position.” _And_if Lepidopterous larve sometimes thus imitate the more eccentric forms of the _corresponding onler of Clilognatha, every one knows that their ordinary “their ordinary shape j is that of an Iudus. Nay, the rule of analogy between corresponding Sroups is so strictly ob- served, that we may even trace vestiges of it all the way from the Lepidoptera to the analogous point of the Crus- tucea, although they become at last very vague. No OF THE ANNULOSA. 401 animals, for instance, are so singular in appearance as the eT OS geometrical larve of the Phalenide* ; and the only place ——————<——— LLL SLE A LT where we shall again meet with this mode of with this mode of progression among g the he Annulosa i is at the corresponding point conmpspanding oint_of th of th the Wy “and Isopoda, as Tis qeancteal Caterpillars occ occur be- tween the types of the Lepidoptera and Homopter and Iomoptera. a. #03 op 3 A natural series of ; of affinity i is such as, taking the ma- jority of characters for our guide, shall be found uninter- ~ rupted by any thing known, although possibly broken by chasms occasioned by the absence of things unknown. Thus the series of the Systema Nature and of the Regne Animal is not natural when the Cetacea intervene between the Mammailia and Birds, but is perfectly consonant with Nature when the Tortoises are made immediately to fol- low these last. In the first case there is an intervention * disagreeable to the eye and contrary to the opinion of the naturalist, as well as of the ordinary observer; in the other there is only a chasm which the discoveries of a future day may fully occupy. I rest therefore the general accuracy of the above arrangement of the Annulosa much less on the presence of every link in the chain of affinity, than on this being uninterrupted by any thing known, while it beautifully coincides with relations of analogy. Still it is but a shadow, a pitiably faint shadow of the “truth. “ Animadverti immensum opus Dei non posse hominem assequi quamvis laboriosé querat.” And as it is an advantage to a person aware of his fault to be the first to acknowledge it, I shall now show wherein I consider the above observations to be most imperfect. : Aristotle describes their motion well: ‘* Divoyras 38 xal ex rnvia xa} ve priea ix Tivay xaeway TeoUTHY, a) xymalovel 77 mepria, mal wot aca: re brig xourpacas taitaivovow.” 2D 402 ON THE ORDERS We shall return, for this purpose, to the relations of ana- logy visible between the circles of Mandibulata and Haustellata, where I take it for granted that the two se- ries are perfectly natural according to the foregoing defi- «» nition, that is, because they are only broken by chasms and not interrupted by unnatural interventions. But it is far from being a necessary consequence of the series being natural, that the specification of the five orders which com- pose each series should also be correct. I make this re- ee mark, because a fluctuation of the line of analogy is often ZA *2) A nalrty 1 ee “visible; for which I cannot see any sufficient cause unless : o . pS TO SS ae AS ER LT the circumstance, before noticed, of every external order OF obs ; iA Zi rv Lf fed bearing an analogy to the two external orders of the con- ae oe ou tiguous class, may hereafter prove to be such. As we p Fhe M14, eve heard so Tauch of the distortions and dislocations of Lh , natural order, and as so many of these have now disap- peared, it is my firm belief that Natural History scarcely knows what is truly an anomaly. There is, at least, a possibility of these apparent fluctuations being hereafter in like manner reduced to a regular principle. But whe- ther it be owing to the above circumstance, or to some cause of which as yet we have no idea, or whether it re- sults from our orders being badly constructed, the effect is. undoubtedly visible. To explain what is meant: a Dipterous insect resembles a Hymenopterous one in ap- pearance as well as metamorphosis; the genus Pulew also resembles the Coleoptera, and the Lepidoptera imitate the Trichoptera in these same points: consequently, as to the accuracy of the position of three groups in each series there can be no doubt. Yet, although the analogy of meta- morphosis remains unobjectionable, that of external ap- pearance and even of economy appears not to follow OF THE ANNULOSA. 403 exactly the same rate of progression. Looking at the Hemiptera, we necessarily must compare some in their aspect to Coleoptera, others to Blatte, but few to the true Grylli. Nay, these have more similarity in the form of their head and external structure to Homoptera than to He- miptera, and the Homopterous insects, which resemble most in their perfect state the Neuroptera, are perhaps those which compose Latreille’s second family. To be brief, but I fear more abstruse, it may be said that in that space of the series of Haustellata, which intervenes be- tween the Aptera and Lepidoptera, the analogy of external appearance with the Mandibulata commences a little nearer to the 4ptera than that of metamorphosis. A cir- cumstance, however, which makes me almost sure that there is some rule in this, is to observe that in the other An- nulose columns symptoms of the same apparent irregularity are visible, and always in the corresponding space, that is, between the second and fifth orders, as they are disposed in page 392. What also deserves remark is, that this space nearly, if not altogether, coincides with half the column, and its extremities are the opposite points of the class, which, according to what has been said of such circles, always approach to each other, if they do not even meet. This we see in the disposition of Cocc? and other Homopterous insects to come in between the 4ptera and Diptera, and likewise in the relation which holds good between Ter- mites and Ants; or still better perhaps between Psocz, the larve of Coleoptera, and Anoplura, which, by the by, appear to afford a parallel for the relation between Aranea, Pycnogonum, and Phalangium. The greatest fault, however, of the tabular view above given is my uncertainty, not only with respect to the 2p2 A04 ON THE ORDERS natural limits of the osculant classes, but even as to their types ard those points of the classes which they accu- rately meet. I deem it preferable, however, to express this uncertainty by notes of interrogation or asterisks, rather than pretend to that acquaintance with the truth, which can only be obtained by analysis. In conformity with the prevailing disposition of natu- ralists to generalize anatomical facts, and their anxiety to reach the semplex duntaxat et unum, it may now be ex- pected that I should endeavour to give the reader an abs- tract idea of an Annulose structure, that I should enter, in short, upon one of the most difficult and obscure provinces of Natural History. Unfortunately, however, little more progress has been made in this direction of the science than suchas may be summed up in the recital of afew vague conjectures, and one or two probable hypotheses, which their authors are still only preparing the proper means to substantiate. It may, therefore, be somewhat bold in me to attempt criticism on a question beset with so many difficulties; but as this species of inquiry is, if not the first, at least one of the best steps towards a right under- standing of those animal constructions which are framed on a plan different from that of Man, a great object will be attained if 1 do no more than explain in what these difficulties consist. In all his demonstrations of a peculiarity in the forma- tion of Unvertebrated animals, the naturalist is under the necessity of referring constantly to the more generally un- derstoodstructure of the Vertebrata ; not, however, that he would reduce every living creature to the Vertebrated type of form, or even insist upon any direct affinity between plans so fundamentally different, for this would be a great mistake ; OF THE ANNULOSA. 405 but, in order that those analogical principles, which may have served so well to connect Vertebrated animals to- gether, may be transferred to the arrangement of the mul- titude of heterogeneous forms which are included under the comprehensive title of Animals without Vertebre. Now, on looking at the circle of Vertebrata, undoubt- edly the first and most general idea we can obtain of them them is afforded by that bony art articulated axis which gives sup- gives sup- ‘port to their whole body. Our secor Our second and much less general notion of them arises from the principal bony and ey . . . i ee rel tached yordinistas Every Vertebrated animal may, for instance, be consi- dered as a quadruped, or at least as tending to have four appendages to the vertebral column, which, whether mo- dified into hands, fect, wings, or fins, are always in some degree referable to one general model for their structure. Man has usually been accounted to be this model; but the great aim of Geofiioy St. Hilaire, in his Philosophie Anatomique, is to show that every tribe of Vertebrated i Tag EP NEIS repeaeepar eee Ee Te ee ee ae portion of an organ in a maximum state of developement, a a a EE: a eee and consequently that the model to which we ought to re- fer every vertebrated structure is not a real existence, but —————$— NGO ee an abstract idea made up c of ¢ all the the various exc excellencies ee that may be dispersed throughout the group. One beir being may indeed come nearer to this perfect model than an- other, by possessing more of these perfections; yet, on the other hand, not only is there no being in the group absolutely destitute of all these characters of the model, but there is every probability also that there is no being which has not some advantage of structure to boast over every one of its fellow species, SSS ere } 406 ON THE ORDERS Reptiles afford us examples of the partial or even total absence of feet; and while we know, from the doctrine of analogy, that these organs of locomotion are represented in fishes by their fins, yet, in the case of such substitu- tions, a new form is often adopted, in which the original type is no longer recognisable. Nor ought it to surprise us that these appendages of the axis should disappear, still less that they should differ from their original type, when we perceive that the vertebre themselves may be- come obscure, as in the Chelonian reptiles, or may be nearly annihilated, as in the Cyclostomous fishes. Any attempt, from such considerations, to define the particular living animal which is or even comes nearest to the model of the Vertebrata were clearly absurd; we can do no more than endeavour to ascertain what animals possess the least number of those characters which distinguish the type of ‘the group. Thus we learn to consider Reptiles and Cy- clostomous f fishes as the two paths by wl which the verte verte- brated model is abandoned for others, and at last, finding this ¢ chain interminable, are induced to confess t to confess that there is no strict rule of absolute division by m by which a Verte- brated anim animal may be defined. The line cannot be drawn without our either leaving this division imperfect, or en- croaching in some respect on the others. Still it must be confessed that this uncertainty only relates to the verbal definition or rule which we may choose to institute; for we are seldom in danger of mistaking a Vertebrated animal either for any Cephalopoda or Annelides. The type of the Vertebratais indeed, without being limited by words, an idea much more definite, and therefore more easily conceived, than that of an Annulose animal; for if, as M. Latreille has observed, we compare the organs of OF THE ANNULOSA. 407 locomotion in the Annulosa with each other, such enor- mous discrepancies are to be remarked, that we are, ona slight view of the subject, almost tempted to believe that the torch of analogy throws little light on the anatomy of such organs out of the circle of Vertebrata. Not content with the group of Annulosa being held to- gether by their nervous system and external articulation, characters which they possess in common with the Cer- ripeda and Annelides, M.Savigny was the first who un- dertook to reduce this uniformity to more definite princi- ples, and thus to afford us a more distinct and precise per- ception of the Annulose model. For this purpose he dhrected his at attention to the construction of the mouth in Hexapod insects ts undergoing metamorphosis, and appears een to have succeeded in reducing this astonishing variety of — Si © fee Sa —_— a mechanism to one general al type. It was diacudnessballe expected that the same theory, carried a step further on to the Crustacea and Arachnida, would produce similar ef- fects, and that the entomologist would be able to under- stand the general plan upon which those organs are formed, which principally contribute to the life of an Annulose animal. So far, however, is this just expectation from having been realized, that the chief information to be drawn from the second Mémoire of M. Savigny relates to the individual construction of those species of Apiro- poda which he has examined, and indeed does little more than explain the gradual adaptation of their feet to pur- poses of manducation ;—a fact certainly of the most inter- esting kind, but which can only by analogy be directly connected with the object he had in view. I have no hesitation in saying, for my own part, that, notwithstand- ing M. Savigny’s industry ‘and wonderful talent for gene- ralizing facts collected by the most sound experiments, [ 4058 ON THE ORDERS am not only still unable to refer the construction of the mouth of his Apiropoda to any one type, but cannot even form an abstract idea of the organs of manducation in the circles of Crustacea, of Arachnida, or Ametabola, taking each class separately. M. Latreille indeed, in his late Mémoire, read before the Institute, on the formation of the Wings of Insects and their external organization considered with reference to that of the Arachnida and Crustacea, has attempted to remedy by a new theory the anomalies so apparent in that of M. Savigny; but he has only made more manifest the extreme difficulty of the investigation, and the futility as yet of all endeavours to surmount it. This Mémoire of M. Latreille, although unsuccessful in its attempts to- wards a general theory of the mouth, is nevertheless full of most interesting speculations, in the illustration of which by anatomy every friend to natural science must be gratified in learning that he is now busily employed. His opinion with respect to the antenne of 4rachnida has already been dis- cussed, and, if correct, goes a great way towards our ob- taining a definite notion of the type of the Annulosa. But, in addition to this, M. Latreille makes a daring at- tempt to substantiate the accuracy of an hypothesis which I believe, with the exception of the late M. Jurine’s ap- proach towards it, is quite new and entirely his own. Heargues, that as the Vertebrated animals offer so striking a correspondence in their organs of locomotion, the pro- bability from analogy is, that Nature in the structure of the Annulosa may, notwithstanding her deceitful exterior, be found on accurate examination to be equally consistent with herself. Now, to prove the justness of this position, he states that in some species of Caligus he has observed the feet to be fan-shaped, divided at the extremity into OF THE ANNULOSA. 409 two branches, which are adorned with plumose sub- divisions ranged parallel to their axes. Then comparing this structure with the wings of the Pterophori, a small family of Lepidoptera, of which the wings are composed of feathers somewhat similar to those of a bird, he con- cludes that the feet in the Caligus are the substitutes of wings, and that the wings in the Orneodes occupy the place of feet. Without prejudice to the validity of his conclusion, it may however be properly objected tu this mode of reasoning, that the general construction of the Orneodes being so distant from that of Caligus, we cannot place much faith in any affinity between the details. M. Latreille seems to perceive this, and therefore adopts a closer but scarcely more solid comparison, in assimilating the tracheal fins of the larve of Ephemeride to the wings of the perfect insect, that 1s, abdominal to thoracic appen- dages, and then appeals to the observations of M. de Blainville, which prove that the wings of Insects are a sort of trachee*. On these loose notions of resemblance he founds his opinion that the wings of a Hexapod insect are nothing else than tracheal appendages, which occupy the place of tarsi in certain feet. ‘The articulations of the wings which correspond to the coxa, femur, and tibia, are, in his judgement, so far rudimentary that he hesi- tates to give these names to the three or four callosities, termed osselets by M. Jurine, which, although nearly con- cealed in the thoracic cavity, are visible at the root of a wing. M. Latreille was doubtless carried a great way to- wards this conclusion on still more solid ground than has been just cited, namely, a Mémoire on the W ings of Insects, * This discovery ought not to be attributed to M. de Blainville, but to the late M. Jurine, who in the introduction to his work on Hymenoptera has admirably explained the structure of their wings. 410 ON THE ORDERS read before the Physical Society of Geneva in 1805, and in which M. Jurine has explained the analogy which these organs bear to the wings of birds, a subject of late still more rigorously and almost mathematically investi- gated by M. Chabrier. It is obvious, nevertheless, that such a basis for a the- ory is sufficiently flimsy, and would scarcely deserve much attention, were not the theory itself susceptible of many happy applications to fact. But as this is one of the great tests of the worth of any new opinion, and is only inferior to a sound deduction of it from actual experiment, I shall now indicate the use to which M. Latreille’s theory may be converted. Boas Johansson, in the Amanitates Academica, sum- med up the character of Annulose animals in these words : “ Haecce denique, ad unum omnia, animalia suis vestita os- sibus cataphracta et quasi loricata, mirifice incedunt ;” and the foundation of M. Latreille’s theory may be said to rest upon this fact, that the Annulosa ought to be con- sidered as clothed in their bones. Arguing therefore from the established truth of the skeleton of the Vertebrata be- ing referable to one model, he conceives that the Annu- lose type may be discovered by a strict attention to the segments which compose the external envelope of such animals. The body of an Amphipod Crustaceous animal is, as our author observes, formed of fifteen articulations, the three first of which, having the manducatory organs at- tached to them, constitute the head, the five following the thorax, and the remaining seven the abdomen. In Deca- pod Crustacea and the majority of the Arachnida, the upper covering of the thorax is united to the head, form~- OF THE ANNULOSA. All ing one piece with it. These three segments in the My- riapoda become more connected together than they are in Crustacea, and when at length they become in a manner compressed into one piece with the three pairs of pedipalpi which are affixed to them, there seems to him reason for supposing that we have before us the head and organs of manducation of a Hexapod insect. ‘This doctrine, how- ever, in as far as it regards the mouth, I cannot consider to be yet established, notwithstanding the ingenuity of some of the arguments by which it is supported. It is particularly hard to discern, for instance, in what respect this opinion, as it affects the second pair of pedipalpi in a Scolopendra, is less objectionable than that of M. Sa- vigny on the same subject——But we proceed with the more essential part of the theory.—'The head, then, being thus formed of three segments in the Crustacea, and be- coming gradually compressed into one, it follows that the body of an insect must be composed of thirteen segments, that is, still allowing five for the thorax and seven for the abdomen. All this Latreille has admirably elucidated, as well as the correspondence of this number of segments with those of Caterpillars and larve in general. The only objection to it is, the difficulty of accounting for the circumstance of the thorax of Winged insects consisting of no more than three segments. M. Latreille considers that the remaining two become the two first of the abdo- men,—an idea which it is impossible to adopt without giving up his theory altogether. For, in the first place, on looking at any Coleopterous insect we find only seven segs ments to the abdomen, three to the thorax, and one to the head, eleven in all; from which it appears that some two segments which existed in the same insect when a larva A412 ON THE ORDERS are now apparently lost. M. Latreille thinks with jus tice that these two are thoracic, that is, are such as would bear feet in Crustacea: the question therefore is, how he can assign them to the abdomen. If he supposes that these two as they exist in the larva of an Oryctes are transferred to the abdomen of the imago, it is neither true in fact,—since no more than its proper number, seven, can be found in the abdomen,—nor would it, if true, coincide with the theory which he wishes to establish, and which makes the wings take the place of the feet that are de- ficient. The segment which is usually termed the thorax of a Coleopterous insect, is evidently only one, and bears the first pair of feet. We have next four pairs of locomo- tive organs attached to that part of the trunk which is commonly considered to consist of only two segments. Now, for M. Latreille’s theory to stand, it is absolutely necessary to resolve these two into four, which, although it has not yet been effected, I confess I think by no means iunpossible. The surest guide, however, in this research, will be the dissection of an insect in the pupa state, with reference to the larva and imago. The reader will observe, that if ever this hypothesis should be substantiated by such or equivalent experiments, a Coleopterous insect, in addition to what is termed its thorax, will have four thoracic segments in the trunk, or that part of the body which forms the front of the abdo- men. It requires explanation, perhaps, how segments united to the abdomen of a Hexapod insect ought to be accounted as appertaining to the thorax ; and for this pur- pose we return to the Crustacea. The five thoracic seg- ments of Lycista furina Eg, have perhaps no other cha- OF THE ANNULOSA. 41S racter to distinguish them than that each carries a pair of true feet. And this seems the proper definition of the thorax of an Annulose animal, namely, that it consists of those segments which carry the true organs of locomo- tion; a rule which, if applied to Coleopterous insects, will evidently make us account those articulations, appa- rently the first of the abdomen, to be in reality the last of the true thorax. The abdomen, therefore, of a Coleopte- rous insect is in reality composed of only seven segments, of which the last is often retracted from its forming part of the sexual organs. M. Latreille observes, that this re- traction of segments is still more remarkable in Hymen- opterous insects, since the genus Chrysis, for instance, has apparently only three or four abdominal articulations, the remainder being in fact internal and composing a sort of tube. He also remarks that the position of the sexual organs in the Apiropoda of Savigny will always be suff- cient to mark out the true thorax, except in the genus Scolopendra : but the best method is, as before mentioned, to consider the thorax as consisting in all insects of those segments to which the true organs of locomotion are at- tached. I say the true organs of locomotion, because by this expression the false feet of Crustacea and Myriapeda are excluded. But if the thorax of Winged insects should consist of five segments, corresponding to five in Crustacea—and the inspection of the trunk of a Cefonia or Buprestis gives some credibility to the supposition,—then the substitutes of the two pairs of feet wanting can only be found in the wings, which, in the pupa state, are disposed like the feet, and which have a situation, so far as relates to the thoracic segments, exactly suitable to what we should have Ai4 ON THE ORDERS expected. Nor do these wings differ more in appearance from the feet of which they occupy the place, than the fins of Fishes do from the organs of Mammalia which they represent. Nay, there are certain Annulose animals which afford us indubitable examples of this analogy be- tween wings and feet. The Cyamus, for example, is a Crustaceous animal with ten feet; yet, for the purposes of locomotion, it has only three pairs, the remaining two pairs being organs which M. Latreille has termed bran- chial feet, and which indeed undoubtedly serve for pur- poses of respiration. Again, when wings are deficient in any great division of Hexapod insects, we always find them replaced by the vestiges or semblance of wings, or, finally, by other organs having even a greater appearance of being tracheal feet, as, for instance, the halteres of the Diptera occupying the place of the two under wings which in this order are null. It is, however, sufficiently obvious that, so far from this theory being confirmed by incontrovertible proof, it is as yet little more than enunciated: but as I know no fact di- rectly in opposition to it, and many by which it is indirectly favoured, no course of proceeding would in my opinion be more blameable than hastily to reject the hypothesis before we have seen the result of M. Latreille’s present labours. Undoubtedly those persons who are unacquainted with the conformity of Nature to certain general principles, will have great difficulty to understand how the wing of an Hymen- opterous insect can be one of its feet; yet they are not so dissimilar perhaps as the fore foot of a quadruped and the wing of a bird, which often agree almost to the number of digiti. My chief reason for entering on this subject so fully, OF THE ANNULOSA. 415 was, that it appeared to me of all the theories yet invented the most likely to serve in the end to effect the reduction of the Annulosa to a general plan of construction, ana- logous to that on which the Vertebrata are now known to be framed. But I had also another reason, connected in no small degree with the chain of affinities, which I have attri- buted to the class of Mandibudata. Itis, that, if the theory of M. Latreille be true, there can remain no further doubt as to the accuracy of Mr. Kirby’s opinion on the natural situation of the Strepsiptera being close to the Coleo- ptera; for then those appendages to the thorax which he terms elytra, may really be such, or at all events be the substitutes of wings. MM. Lamarck and Latreille have indeed both declared themselves against this doctrine, and have consequently accounted the genera Stylops and Xenos to be Dipterous ; a conclusion peculiarly harassing to the entomologist, who may wish to adopt it, from no insects whatever being more unlike than these to the com- mon type of the order of Diptera. Assuming, however, the truth of M. Latreille’s theory as to the tendency in the thoracic segments to have each a pair of appendages, the elytra of a Coleopterous insect are wings, serving in- deed as a case for the shelter of the other pair, but not the less answering to the place of true wings in other Hexapod orders, or of two feet in Crustacea. But this is not only the exact case with the elytra or thoracic appen- dages of a Xenos, but the insect would be theoretically imperfect without such organs, since it has neither had- teres nor squamule to take the place of a pair of wings as in the Diptera. Herethen, to mention nothing of the more solid arguments to be drawn from the construction of the mouth, 416 ON THE ORDERS is a reason founded on a most ingenious speculation of M. Latreille, why we should believe his opinion of thenatu- ral situation of the Strepsiptera to be less correct than that of the distinguished naturalist, who first attempted to decide with precision on their affinities. But to return: It may be remarked that while the thorax of a Crustaceous animal has in reality ten feet, we find a pair of these to disappear first in the males of such insects as recede from the Crustaceous type. Thus the female Nymphon is decapod like the Crustacea, while the male has only four pairs of feet, like the drachnida,—a mode of change to which Nature appears to be partial in the struc- ture of Annulose animals, when leaving one form for another, and of which I have given an instance on a smaller scale in the change of the clypeus of the genus Anoplognathus, described in the first part of this volume. Savigny per- ceived that the male Nymphon prepares us for the Arach- nide form, in which we have never more than eight feet. M. Latreille indeed imagines that vestiges of a decapod structure are visible even in some Arachnida, such as the Scorpion, whose pectines he fancies to represent a pair of feet or wings; nor does he seem aware that his theory is supported by the opinions which Redi and Amoreux formed, on observing the use which the animal makes of these processes in walking. But, however this may be, it is very sure that the less perfectly organized animals of this class lose still further a pair of feet and become hexapod, thus preparing us for the apterous and parasitical Diptera, which again are among the least perfect of the Haustel- lata. ‘The tendency, however, of an Annulose animal to a decapod structure is soon again visible ; for at first we have a minute pair of wings, as in EHippobosca, which af- OF THE ANNULOSA. 417 terwards become of a powerful size in the Muscidae, besides being assisted by a pair of thoracic appendages termed halteres, which finally themselves become wings in other more perfect orders. A more troublesome office of the learned author of this hypothesis will probably be to explain the conformity of Mpyriapod animals to this Decapod construction, or at least to show how they have gone beyond it, like those fishes which apparently have overshot the tetrapod mark of the Vertebrata. But as this leads us into speculations of a very extensive nature, and not immediately connected with our subject, I shall, for the present, merely state my in- clination to adopt the following opinion of M. Latreille, viz. That every Annulose animai has a tendency to be De- capod, or, more properly, to have five pairs of thoracic ap- pendages answering to the five thoracic segments; and thus, although Nature may make particular exceptions to her plan, it may eventually be necessary to describe that ima- ginary being, the Annulose type of form. 418 CHAPT HR Vit: ON THE TRIBES OF MANDIBULATA. In tracing Nature from the root into any of the ramifica- tions, it may be expected that our comprehension of the various objects which present themselves to the mind, ought to become at once less difficult and more strong as these diminish in number. In climbing this tree, the firmest grasp is not at the broad trunk, but among those slender branches where, in fact, we have the least support. There are persons, therefore, who may perchance think that im proportion as our scrutiny be- comes gradually confined within narrower bounds, and we come more particularly into the province of the entomologist, there ought to be less doubt attached to his positions and greater credit given to his arrangement for accurate conformity with Nature. Nor could any ob- jection be brought against this reasoning, if it were only possible for the naturalist, in the prosecution of the plan adopted for this inquiry, to proceed at once to the ana- lysis of species and of artificial genera. But as we at present are advancing towards our object synthetically, I am under the necessity of warning those who may be in- clined implicitly to follow me, when arrived on compara- tively familiar ground, that they can scarcely indulge any ON THE TRIBES OF MANDIBULATA,. 419 opinion more erroneous in entomology, than to confound the present species of investigation with the analytical nicety of a Monograph. It is to be recollected that we are now distributing animals, into various groups upon principles of s of knowledge, v which the reader i is ‘is supposed to have already acquired by analysis." For this analysis, in so much as it was necessary for the establishment in out- line of the primary groups, he has been presumed to be indebted to the assiduity and skill of comparative anato- mists. But that still more minute and tedious examination, which is requisite ere we can esteem the subdivisions of these groups to be natural, remains yet to be attempted. Until therefore we resort again to minute analysis, and perhaps until this analysis shall have been extended to all the beings which compose the group of Muandibulata, little that is positively certain ought to be concluded with respect to its subdivision. Nay, the safer way will be to account much of the remaining synthesis in this Essay as somewhat hypcthetical. It is a misfortune which I fore- saw would be the consequence of the plan of this investi- gation being rather premature. And it is therefore my intention, if any of the foregoing notions should be deemed likely to promote the interests of Natural History, to in- vestigate, at some future period, this same ground in de- tail by the inverse method. It is sufficient, for the pre- sent, if my aim should be perceived from the arrange- ment of the following few crude facts, te which I was led in the course of collecting materials for an Analytical Essay on the Developement of Annulose Forms. These preliminaries being settled in order to prepare en- tomologists for many mistakes that will no doubt hereafter be detected in this and the following chapter, by means 2EQ Pie Ces. 420 ON THE TRIBES of future analysis, | may proceed to make a few remarks on the COLEOPTERA. dike metamor spas of ofithese Insects is technically term- foarte ao to” the ima imago ‘state has taken place through the medium of a third or nympha form, which is wholly diferent from the two others, besides being. ine inactive e and incapable ¢ of t taking nourishment. . Now, if in addition to this be taken the circumstances that the larve have all a constant form, in which, while the thorax is rarely distinct, there is always a corneous head furnished with mandibles and masille; if it be remarked that the nymphe have the upper wings much thicker and larger than the two lower, we shall probably have stated every thing that is known to apply generally to the undeclared state of the Coleoptera. But although there be little in this that will separate them on a first glance from some other Mandibulata of the order of Neuroptera, yet their perfect or imago state is so peculiar that perhaps no order of in- sects is better defined than that of the Coleoptera. The total absence of ocelli, the enlargement of the second seg- ment ment of the body, and and the peculiar 1 manner in which the wings of the most part are folded under the elytra, render a mistake with respect to to > the contents « of the order quite impossible. Whether this particularity be natural, or whether it results from the imperfect state of PIL know- ledge of species, is a question only for time to resolve ; but analogy would persuade us to assign the latter alter- native as the cause of these insects forming what, if we adopt the ordinary expression, may be termed so very natural an order. The accident, however, of a group 0 en ears OF MANDIBULATA. AQ} animals being in a manner insulated is very advantageous for Piose seh may be in search of a natur iral_ ‘method of distribution, because the most general ideas wh which can be formed of it are thus confined within certain limits, and the greatest evil of generalizing is thus 7m limine counter- acted. It was from such reflections that I had much less reluctance to confide in the accuracy of my eye in seizing the natural affinities of the Coleoptera than I should other- wise perhaps have experienced, being convinced that the peculiarities of the order made it equally impossible to in- sert any thing in it which ought not to be there, as to withdraw from its just province any insect which might be truly Coleopterous. ‘Thus, I threw the whole into the great groups which occurred i most obviously to the sight, leaving out of consideration all genera with respect to whose See AO ——___——— SS ed affinities there was the least 1 reason for doubt. I¢ then became necessar y, in pursuance ce of that elementary maxim of Natural History, “Character non est ut genus fiat, sed ut genus noscatur,” to seek for general characters where- with the divisions thus obtained might be defined; and for some time I could discover none that were in any manner applicable. Some satisfaction, therefore, was ex- perienced when, on happening at length to think of their ——_—_ ——_ larye, 1 discovered that each of my groups had, as far_as my “knowledge of them wen & peclaity_OF characte, distinguish groups, can only be described by an enumera- tion of the types to which the animals composing each group more or less approach ; or in this case rather by a classification of the types to which the larve of each group may, in a greater or less degree, be assimilated. Of he J hr 422 ON THE TRIBES = YW le Cie. 67*¢ CUAKK types we have, First, a Carnivorous Hexapod larva, Siclepre*re- with an elongate, linear and flattened body, having a large head armed with two sharp falciform mandibles, and fur- a eal nished with six granular eyes on each side. Example: Ca- ye. ey hy . /?rabusor Dytiscus. Secondly, A Herbivorous Hesapodlar- é va with a long and almostcylindrical body, so fashioned that Ua Lees the posterior extremity being curved under the breast, the animal, when at rest, necessarily lies like an_Ludus onits side. Example: Petalocerous larve. ‘Thirdly, Apod larva, hav- we Aho ‘ing scarcely the rudiments of antenne, but which is fur- Roar ae nished instead of feet with fat fleshy tubercles, which, when continued along the back and belly, give the animal a facility of moving in whatever way it may be placed. Example: Abpea been gee? ,Curculio or Cerambyx. Fourthly, Hexapod and di- 4 ? hI lAFICECZAIDVI EY CLAP E EIT inctly Antenniferous larva, with a subovate rather coni- bintrtt cal body, of which the second segment is longer and of a | different form from the others, so as to give the appear- ance of a thorax. Example: Coccinella or Chrysomela. ya _Fifthly, Hexapod Antenniferous larva of an oblong form, having like the former vestiges of a thorax, besides two or We Lp her tet ae more articulated or imarticulated setaceous or corneous appendages to to the last segment of of the abdomen. Exam- ple: Meloe? iy Every Coleopterous larva which I have had the oppor- tunity of observing may be assimilated to one or other of these types, which it was scarcely possible to look at with- out being reminded of the 4Ametabola. Indeed, it occurred to me almost immediately, that I had Chilopodiform, Chi- lognathiform, Apod or Vermiform, and Anopluriform larvee, together with a fifth form, of which I even now know little except from the examination of two or three larvee collected by myself, together with the almost mar- OF MANDIBULATA. A93 véellous descriptions of Goédart and Degeer. Such a dis- tribution of the Coleoptera may be said to be founded on relations of analogy, which, on comparing the young 4me- tabola with the larve of the corresponding groups of Co- leoptera, will be found as strong as those which exist be- tween the classes of Mandibulata and Haustellata. _The distinction, however, between affinity and analogy, is per- i! eile no where in in Entomology more necessary to be at tended to than here; since tended to than here; since in terming larve Chilognathi- formes or Eiiqodfitnes, oe eed: Tig pot tncaug tine theyane co colopendre or Juli, or even near to thei or Judi, or even near to them in affinity; but Beak iy Gra cbiconawacted that. that they are so constructed that certain analogical circumstances attending them strongly remind us us of these Ametabola. The only author who has to my knowledge placed the order of Hymenoptera next that of Coleoptera is M. Cu- vier. How he came to discover this affinity I know not; but I suspect his reasons for it to have been founded on very general considerations, since at the time his work was published the Strepsiptera* had scarcely been thought of, much less studied. If further observations should prove Savigny to have * If the word Strepsiptera is in these pages invariably used in preference to Rhipiptera and Rhipidoptera, names given to the same group by the French entomologists, it is because the former word has the right of se- niority, because it is the name bestowed on these insects by the person who first gave us any definite notion of their place in nature, and in short because it appears to be free from fault. M. Latreille indeed says, that the etymology of his name Rhipzptera rests on an incontestable fact ; but so does also Strepsiptera, as will appear from the Mémotres both of himself and M. Jurine on these insects. They both acknowledge that the organs which have occasioned so much dispute among entomologists are used in fiying, and every person agrees that they are distorted. I therefore ask whether, according to the rules of the science, it be not our duty to adopt the name originally given to the order by our learned countryman? For my part, until a fault shall be distinctly proved to affect it, 1 shall always adopt that name, whether French or English, which is supported by the right of priority. 424 ON THE TRIBES erred in his analysis of the mouth of these last animals, they must then no doubt take a situation near to the Diptera. But at present, all who confide with me in the consummate accuracy of this gentleman’s microscopical dissections can only consider the resemblances which the Strepsiptera bear to certain Haustellata as so many re- lations of analogy. M. Latreille seems to have been in- duced originally to form his opinion of their affinity to Dipterous insects, from an idea that the head of their larvee is soft and changeable in form; which, if correct, would indeed have been conclusive evidence im his favour. I can perceive nothing, however, either in the figure or slight description given of the larva of Xenos Peckii, by professor Peck, or in the more detailed and scientific history of the larva of the Xenos vesparum of Rossi by the late M. Jurine*, that warrants any other opinion on the subject than that the head is covered with a hard scale, and is constant in form like that of Hymenoptera. M. La- treille is at last sensible of this, and says, “ Outre que les larves des Rhipiptéeres ont une céritable téte munie de deux yeux ; quwelles ressemblent d'avantage aux larves apodes de la plupart des Hyménopteéres, elles conservent leur forme primitive, ou wéprouvent point le changement que Réaumur nomme forme de boule allongee. I have elsewhere shown that Mr. Kirby considers these insects as close to the Coleoptera. Better authority, there- fore, for this affinity 1 need not. It only remains to de- monstrate their affinity to the Hymenoptera. From their comparative anatomy and metamorphosis, Jurine was the first to prove this, the opinion of Rossi, with respect to * It was one of the last papers read by this lamented naturalist before the society established at Geneva for the promotion of Natural Science. OF MANDIBULATA. 425 them, to be correct. M. Latreille, in consequence of a late most elaborate examination of them, comes to the following conclusion : “ Les Chalcidites et les Chrysides, tribus de ce dernier ordre (Hymenoptera) sont les seuls in- sectes dont le thorax, par Vensemble de ses rapports puisse étrecomparé dcelui des Rhipiptéres. C’est encore vers les hy- ménopteres pupivores que nous ramenent d'autres caractéres de ces derniers insectes, leur manicre de vivre et Vhabitude de sautiller”? A naturalist, therefore, judging, as | now do, of the situation of an insect which he has never had an opportunity of examining, cannot be far wrong when he in this manner unites the opinions of three persons so di- stinguished in the science as MM. Jurine, Latreille and Kirby. M. Latreille, however, reviving another of the neglected observations of Degeer, finds two epaulettes, as he calls them, attached to the anterior and dorsal extremities of the second segment of the thorax in Lepidoptera; and on account of this solitary resemblance deems the Strepsi- ptera to be situated between the //ymenoptera and Lepi- doptera. ‘There is certainly every reason to think him night in imagining the elytra of Xenos to answer to these epaulettes in Lepidoptera, and to the tegule in ITymer- optera ; but as Neuroptera, Diptera, §c. appear also to have similar thoracic processes, although under different forms, we may perhaps be enabled to set its proper value on this as a single character sufficient to establish an afh- nity. No other character, I may venture to say, will ever bind a Strepsipterous insect to the Lepzdopiera. I have little doubt, moreover, of the elytra of Coleoptera being still the same epaulettes or tegule under a different form; and this belief is grounded on the fact that the 4°26 ON THE TRIBES upper wings of Lepidoptera are articulated at their base, and then communicate with these epaulettes, which are themselves not articulated any more than the elytra of Coleoptera. The last mentioned organs, therefore, I am in- clined to consider as the basal process of a wing, of which the subsequent articulations are obsolete, but of which a vestige may be traced immediately under the base of the elytra. It is certainly curious that the elytra of Coleo- ptera should not have articulations at their base, but that their wings should ; and it is rather singular that it should escape the notice of M. Latreille, that if these epaulettes of Lepidoptera were organs sui generis, all his theory of the thorax must fall to the ground. There would then be one more pair of thoracic appendages in a Butterfly than there are thoracic segments. These remarks, however, I offer merely as hints, content- ing myself with the certainty that the organs which Mr. Kir- by calls the elytra of Strepsiptera answer to the elytra of Coleoptera, and requesting those who may doubt it to re- flect whether any other conclusion can be drawn from the following description, which M. Latreille himself gives of these organs in his late Mémoire sur quelques Appendices du Thorax de divers Insectes: “ Jurine, qui a assisté ala naissance du Xenos des guépes, nous apprend qwil agite vi- vement ses balanciers des le premier instant de leur appa- rition. Leur tige est selon lui composée de deux parties bien distinctes ; Pune antérieure, ronde, solide, et cornée, Pautre postérieure et formée d'une légére membrane blanche. Ces organes sont des lors creux ou tubulaires ; Vinsecte les meut avec une grande rapidité lors qwil vole, et souvent méme lorsque ses ailes sont en repos. On ne peut donc guére douter qwils ue Vaident d voler. Sans leur secours, OF MANDIBULATA. 4Q7 les ailes wauroient pu, a raison de leur ampleur extraor- dinaire, de leur grande ténuité, de Pobstacle que leurs pli- catures opposent continuellement a leur extension, vaincre la resistance de Tair. Elles sont annexées au mésothorax ou au second segment du tronc, et correspondent ainsi aux ailes supérieures des autres insectes.” Thus I consider it to be established that we are to pass from the Coleoptera to the Hymenoptera by means of the Strepsiptera*, As yet, however, | am ignorant of the Coleopterous insects which we ought to quit directly for them. Judging from their facies, I know no Coleo- ptera which approach them closer than the genus Alrac- tocerus. Were I from theory to describe the Cole- opterous insect which ought to come nearest to the Hy- menoptera, it would be nearly as follows: Larva apod, Imago with the thorax small, and the remaining segments of the trunk forming a mass not lable to be confounded with the abdomen. The wings ought not to be folded transversely, and the elytra should perhaps be very mi- nute, since we know no instance among Coleopterous in- sects where they become at their full size membranaceous. It is possible, nevertheless, that the transition frem a Co- leopterous to a Hymenopterous form is effected on another principle, namely, the affinity which some Iymenoptera, in their perfect state, may be found to bear to imperfect Coleoptera. ‘Thus, in the Australasian genus Myrme- codes we observe many of the distinctive characters of LTymenoptera to disappear. Until the truth be ascer- tained by analysis, it will perhaps be most prudent to * If[ express myself with more confidence on this head than in the pre- ceding chapter, it is because the receipt of M. Latreille’s Mémotre has confirmed me in the opinion which I there advanced with some hesitation, 428 ON THE TRIBES adopt the middle path between these two hypctheses, hold- ing it for certain, nevertheless, that some of the first Hy- menoptera we can approach, when keeping close to the path of affinity, must be such as are destitute of ocelli. HYMENOPTERA. On looking at the Hymenoptera generally, and endea- vouring to fix on the most distinct types of construction, I made choice of Formica, Chrysis, Apis, Sphex and Ichneumon. In such cases, Linneus is a guide almost infallible, from his wonderful facility in discovering the minor natural groups. If he could but have combined these as well gs he has defined them, he would still be in legitimate possession of that rank in Entomology, of which he has béen so long only the usurper, to the prejudice of Degeer and others. Now, besides the Hymenopterous genera before mentioned, which I have chosen as types, Linneus has no more than five, to wit, Cynips, which comes so close to Ichnewmon that Latreille refers them both to the same group; Tenthredo and Sirex, which dif- fer so much from true Hymenoptera, that it is difficult to imagine them to belong exactly to the order; Muti/la, which is now with propriety referred to the Formicide as containing its type; and finally Vespa, which from its form and manners seems not to be a peculiar type, but only intermediate between Apis and Sphex. M. Latreille in- ceed has founded his family of Diploptera upon the Lin- nean genus Vespa, and apparently with much reason ; but the simple circumstance of the upper wings being doubled longitudinally is not sufficient, in the opinion of M. Lamarck, to constitute a primary division of the order. In short, if we consider those Hymenoptera of OF MANDIBPULATA. £29 Linneus which have apod larve (the Larve subvermi- formes of Latreille) to form one group, it seems not im- possible to refer them all to one or other of the following subdivisions. 1. Antnophila Lat. 2. Rapacia of Lamarck, excluding his second division. 3. Pupivora Latr., with such modifications as will make the group consist only of those insects which have a plurivalve fissile appendage to the abdomen. 4. Heterogyna Latr.: and 5. Tubulifera Latr., which last appear to approach in habit, organs of man- ducation, and structure of wings, to some brilliant In- dian bees, allied to Latreille’s parasitical family of No- made. [t is undoubtedly through the medium of certain Pu- pivoraof Latreille that we ought to quit the Hymenoptera. If we look to external structure, the genus dulacus of Jurine will probably be fixed upon; and if we resort to theory, and ask which of the true Hymenoptera have phyllophagous larve presenting vestiges of feet, it may be answered that certain species of the Linnean genus Cy- nips correspond with this description. The truth may possibly be found hereafter to le between these two sup- posed means of arriving at the genus Tenthredo of Lin- neus. Sufficiently certain, however, it is, that the Ure- cerata of Latreille, composing the genus Szrex of Linneus, come nearer than Tenthredo to the Hymenoptera. The abdominal appendage of Szrex is constructed on the plan of that of the Ichneumonide, and the larva has only six feet; whereas in the true Tenthredines the oviduct is com- posed of four pieces, of which the two internal are serrated ‘and sheathed by the two external, and the larva at last has from eighteen to twenty-two feet, of which all after the first six are membranaceous. 43 ON THE TRIBES We now look for Mandibulata which have cylindrical larvee with membranaceous feet, and the genus Phryganea appears to the view. TRICHOPTERA. That the Urocerata, with their hexapod larve, form an osculant order between these and the true Hymenoptera, cannot be doubted; they may, in pursuance to the custom of naming orders from some peculiarity of the wings, be called Bomboptera, in allusion to the unusual noise which they make in flying, and from which they borrow their French name of Ichneumons-Bourdons. The important question, however, is, Whether the genus Tenthredo of Latreille, which is evidently further removed from the true Hymenoptera than the genus Sirer, ought to be esteemed osculant with it, or as constituting a ganglion of the same order in which Phryganea is placed? I confess that 1 am rather inclined to adopt the latter alternative, however contrary to the general opinion, aud that for the following reasons. The Perlaria of the Genera Insectorum, or M. Lamarck’s family of Phryganide, is evidently a natural group formed of those insects whose larve, admirably described by Aris- totle under the name of Xylopthori, are aquatic and live in tubes or sheaths, which they have the instinct to make for themselves. This group is lately divided by Latreille into Perlides and Plicipennes, the last of which constitute Mr. Kirby’s order Trichoptera. Such a name, thus found- ed on too trivial a character for an order, is perhaps ob- jectionable not only as inapplicable to all Phryganea, but. because it places the genus Perla in another order, when the larva, the metamorphosis, the antenne, the mouth OF MANDIBULATA. A431 and wings, all manifest their close affinity*. Yet, if the Perlides of Latreille fall into.the same group with the Phryganee, such an order presents a singular discordance in the external appearance of the imagines. For instance: some, as Nemoura, have the corneous mandibles of the Hymenoptera; others, as Phryganea, have them scarcely developed like the Lepidoptera; some have a broad head and the first segment of trunk large, others a small head, setaceous antenne, and the first segment of trunk as small as in the HTymenoptera. ‘There are some with caudal ap- pendages, others with none ; some with opaque, deflexed, trichopterous wings, the upper larger than the under, others with them horizontal, membranaceous and transparent, the inferior exceeding in size the superior; some with two ocelli, others with three; and perhaps no solid character can be found for Lamarck’s group of Phryganida, but the circum- stance that while the perfect insects are Gymnopterous, and vary excessively in external organization, the larve are all cylindrical with membranaceous feet, and undergo that me- tamorphosis to which Linneus has applied the epithet obtecta. But, if this be the character of an order of Man- dibulaéa, it is difficult to exclude from it the Tenthredina; and indeed it is very singular that even the genus Cepha- leia of Jurine scarcely possesses a leading character, in the external organization of its perfect state, which may not be found either in the Perlide or Phryganide. It conse- * We may hope that the learned entomologist who has revived this or- der will change its name on another account, namely, that Meigen has applied the word Trichoptera to designate certain Diptera. On Phryganea being indicated as a distinct order by Degeer, his commentator Retz gave it the name of Elinguia. But, besides the necessity which, for the sake of uniformity, there is for naming the orders from some character of the wings, this, the original name of the order, is even still more objectionable on other accounts, as must be sufficiently obvious. 432 ON THE TRIBES quentlyis not improbable that the Linnean genus Tenthre- do may hereafter be ascertained to constitute a type of that order for which, until a better shall have been invented, we must retain the name T’richoptera. This type seems to be intermediate between the Perlide and Phryganida, al- though separated from each of them by a tribe of insects, of which as yet I know nothing except from theory *. The genus Stalis comes so close to Nemoura in external appearance, that nothing perhaps will exclude it from the order of Trichoptera, except the circumstance of its having neither an eruciform larva nor a truly cased metamorpho- sis. It is therefore osculant, having a Neuropterous sco- lopendriform larva and a Trichopterous imago. Hence, if we retain for such insects M. Latreille’s name of Me- galoptera, the order of NEUROPTERA may be entered at the genus Chauliodes, which may be referred to Corydalis as the type of its tribe. The prin- cipal forms among the Neuwroptera, or those to which all in the order appear referable, are probably, 1. Termes, 2. Corydalis, 3. Myrmeleon, 4. Libellula, 5. Panorpa. * Scarcely had the above been written, when Dr. Horsfeild, by a rather singular coincidence, inquired of me where he could procure any informa- tion with respect to a larva found on plants and trees at Java. It covers it- self witha tube of straws glued together longitudinally, from which it occa- sionally protrudes a head like that of a Caterpillar. He kept it alive in a box for months, without being able to ascertain its perfect state. This is clearly something alliedto Phryganea, although not aquatic. Can it be the larva of any insect which will occupy a place in one of the chasms which I have indicated between Tenthredo and the aquatic Trichoptera ? 1 may here cbserve that M. Latreille has just announced a new Trichopte- rous genus (Sericostoma) resembling the Lepidoptera in the form and di- rection of its labial palpi, but of which ‘‘ la larve est terrestre et logée dans un tuyau en spirale.” These circumstances show that it is not the same genus with Dr. Horsfeild’s Insect, but at the same time establish the tm- portant fact that the larva of Trichoptera are not necessarily aquatic. OF MANDIBULATA. 453 Hence may be derived the following tribes : Termitina .......... Metamorphosis semicompleta Corydalina ........ Metamorphosis incompleta Myrmeleonina ...... Metamorphosis obtecta Libellulina ........ Metamorphosis subsemicompleta Panera Sia goss 5.s Metamorphosis : <>... J. Although these groups are laid down in the Regne Ani- mal, I have no great confidence in their accuracy on ac- count of our knowing so little of the exotic Neuroptera. The metamorphosis even of the common Panorpa is still unknown; and therefore it is entirely from theory that I conclude it, in the above arrangement, to be intermediate between that of a Termes or Psocus and that of a Libel- lula. If we consider indeed the extraordinary general resemblance which Nemoptera bears to the Ephemera, and which the Panorpa hyemalis of Linneus bears to Raphi- dia and Termes, this idea seems not improbable. _But even if it should be erroneous, this can never affect the r truth of the principal fact we have to establish after the 7774 Sik ete suggestion of M. Latreille, namely, that the essential cha- 2+ 744% * | rn ) . Jue racter of the Ni europtera isa varied metamorphosis. Their we: ih 5 ; ies ptt WJ larve undergo either incomplete, obtect, subsemicomplete ae 0) pa or semicomplete metamorphosis, in opposition to the Oy- = o ’ a el o eee Zz Py La thoptera, which are subject only to semicomplete metamor- phosis, or to the T'richoptera, which have it only obtect. (W317 “244 ° But although the Neuroptera, like their corresponding or- en Py the Pe) der among the Haustellata, vary so much in their meta-* ~ . 8 : y LRA £AA4 hehe morphosis, the Libedlulina, which are the types of the / “, g Se. _. eae ae SaMppigpe Mlegan sot aera a Sire Lf Fee tle order, are subject to one which is peculiar. We proceed, y however, with our affinities. ree hes oe Linneus gives the following singular description of an Lhe v. (Fiktyrg * 2F apAk ke tlie “an th, “) £ Diprtletpe pp) LES f prngsile 7 4Q pon Le tec ter 4 Pl to-e lccaclt- ‘ CZ. athe OP as 434 ON THE TRIBES insect, which seems to occupy nearly the same place among the Mandibulata, as a Thrips among the Haus- tellata, and which he calls Panorpa hyemalis: “ Antenne corpore breviores. Rostrum corneum cylindricum thorace longius. Thorax teres rugosus. Ale maris 4. abdomine breviores apice incurvo subulato fusce. Abdomen maris muticum; femine ense terminal.” ‘The next time we have an original observation on this insect is in Panzer’s Fauna Ins. Germ. under the title of Gryllus probosci- deus! “Singulare admodum insectum, quod ad Gryllos Fab. (Acridina. Lat.) propter antennarum situm atque fabricam habitumque pene cum Gryllis convenientem re- legavi. Mira fabrica orts, quippe proboscide ad instar Trux- alidum instructa!” We then find it in the French Ency- clopédie again under tts original name, Olivier concluding his description of it with the following words: “ Cet in- secte wappartient certainement a ce genre (Panorpa); ié paroit en former un qui devra etre placé peut-étre parmi les Orthopteres.” Lastly, we have it as the Neuropterous genus Boreus of M. Latreille, of which the characters are, the first segment of the trunk enlarged into a thorax, and the abdomen of the female terminated with an ensiform appendage; in both which respects it evidently leaves the true Panorpe for Raphidia. We are now very near, if not already arrived at, the osculant point of the circles of Orthoptera and Neuroptera. Another insect, forming the modern genus Mantispa, which with Linneus and Scopoli was a Raphidia, but which Fabricius and Pallas esteemed a Mantis, an insect which M. Latreille, in the Genera Insectorum, made Or- thopterous, in the Conszdérations générales Neuropterous,. which in the Regne Animal he again restored to the Or- OF MANDIBULATA. A595 thoptera, and lastly, in the Dictionnaire d’ Histoire Natu- relie, seems inclined to consider Neuropterous, must with- out doubt have been as difficult a subject for naturalists to place as the Panorpa hyemalis. The theory of oscu- lant groups, however, removes this difficulty ; and inreck- oning Mantispa to be nearly osculant between the orders of Neuroptera and Orthoptera, we have the satisfaction of adopting as correct all the above-mentioned opinions, which to appearance are so discordant. The construction indeed of the mouth, thorax and feet of a Mantispa differs not essentially from that of Mantis; while the transparent, reticulated and deflexed wings are truly those of a Neu- ropterous insect. As we have now ascertained that an insect exists, leading from Panorpa to Truxalis or Proscopia, and another from Raphidia to Maniis, it follows that, accurately speaking, the orders must touch one another at some point, among the Neuroptera, between Raphidia and Bittacus. ORTHOPTERA. If there was reason for hesitation with respect to the types of the Newroptera, there is not the least with re- spect to the principal forms of Orthoptera. Every ento- mologist seems to have been sensible of these forms, and often from their dissimilarity has been disposed to con- sider what are only tribes to be so many orders. Indeed no forms that are within the hmits of an order can be more distinct from each other than those of a Phasma, Truxalis, Locusta, Acheta, Blatta, and Forficula ; and we accord- ingly find that they have been considered as the types of so many groups by Linneus. The affinity of Blatta to Mantis is acknowledged in the Regne Animal. The ge- Q2Fe 436 ON THE TRIBES nus Proscopia, lately instituted by professor Klug of Ber- lin, one of the first entomologists of the present day, proves the proximity of Phasma to Truxalis; andno entomologist is ignorant that the chain of connexion from Acridium to Locusta, from Locusta to Acheta, and from this to Blatta, has been long since detected, and is now perfectly esta- blished. Hence some notion may be obtained of the con- tents of the Orthopterous circle, if we reckon the above-men- tioned five genera as the types of the following tribes: 1. Phasmina @. Acridina* 3. Locustina 4. Gryllina 5. Blattina. But as this series returns into itself, and the Linnean genus Forficula cannot be inserted therein without dis- turbing its regularity, we must agree with Degeer and Mr. Kirby that it belongs to a distinct order. That this order can only be esteemed osculant between the Ortho- * The types of this family are the Acrides of Aristotle, and present one of the rare instances of an ancient name being properly applied in Entomo- logy. Perhaps it is too Jate now to extend this plan; yet a greater ser- vice could not be rendered to Natural History than an edition of Aristotle’s Historia Animalium from the hands of au able zoologist. That excellent work has been a sealed one to modern entomologists, principally because © the founders of our present nomenclature opened it not for the purpose of study, but in order to save themselves the trouble of inventing new names. They seem to have taken the old Aristotelian words at a venture, without either considering their meaning or the context, and thus to have applied them to the first insects that came in their way. Among innumerable instances of this it may be stated that the true Attelabi were Orthopterous insects, and probably the same with our tribe Gryllina, including per- haps the Apterous Locusts, The Tettigometra, instead of being a distinct genus, was, as its name implies, the Mother of the Cicada, in other words thepupa: the Coleopterous insect, to which Aristotle applied the name of Carabus, was the modern Lucanus: Spondylis, or rather Spondyle, was the name given to the smaller Staphylini allied to S. olens: the Clerus of the ancients was the larva either of the Galleria cereana or Timea alvearia : their Bostrichus appears to have been some male Lampyris, and their Necydalus the hairy larva of some Lombya ! OF MANDIBULATA. ASY ptera and Coleoptera the reader will perceive by referring to its place in the Systema Nature. The Dermaptera, for so they are termed from its having been the name ori- ginally proposed for the Orthoptera by Degeer, are in fact Coleopterous insects, with the metamorphosis and caudal appendages of true Orthoptera. In the course of these various details 1 have taken little notice of the relations of analogy which may exist between the corresponding groups of adjoining circles. Indeed, my confidence in the accuracy of the foregoing tribes has not been great enough to induce me to give much time to this part of the subject, although relations of analogy are visible even from the simple position of the different groups in their series of affinity, I shall therefore content myself with laying this position of the series before the reader, to whom the investigation of such analogies may perhaps afford some amusement. In the present as well as in the similar table before given the order of affinity is repre- sented vertical, and the order of analogy horizontal. T. I. Ill. IV. Vv. OnTHOPTERA. CozLeorrerA. HyMenorrera. TricHoprera. NEUROPTERA. 1, Phasmina Larve Vermiformes Tubulifera Perlina Cory dalina 2, Acridina LL. Chilognathiformes Anthophila Phryganina Myrmeleonina 3. Locustina L. Chilopodiformes Rapacia * * * Libellulina 4, Gryllina LL. Thysanuriformes Pupivora Tenthredina Panorpina 5. Blattina LL. Anopluriformes Heterogyna * * * ‘Termitina. If a diagram of these analogies be constructed on the plan of that given in the preceding chapter, the reader will perceive the same general order and the same appa- rent anomalies. But if we only recollect that the two ex- treme columns have their analogies inverted, the bare inspection of this table is sufficient for my purpose, which is to call attention to the vermiform appearance of the larve of a Phasma, Raphidia, Tenthredo, and Ichneumon, 438 ON THE TRIBES —to the curious partiality which certain carnivorous in- sects, such as Ammophila, Cicindela, the Apterous Lo- custs of Africa, and the Myrmeleon, all possess towards‘a sandy soil,—to the gregarious omnivorous disposition of Termites, Blattea, Ants and Coccinelle,—and to the caudal appendages which give such a peculiar aspect to an Ichneu- mon, Gryllus, Perla, Tenthredo and Panorpa. The most satisfactory point, however, to observe, is the relation of ana- logy which connects Bees with Phrygane@, and consequent- ly with Lepidoptera. In this manner we perceive the real value of that similar structure of the maxille, from which M. Latreille has conceived an affinity to exist between two insects so different in general structure as Melipona and Papilio. If such be a few of the analogies brought immediately into view by an approximation to the truth so imperfect as the foregoing detail of affinities, what in- finite order and beauty may we not expect on the deve- lopement of the Natural System! The relations between Panorpa and Myrmeleon, be- tween the Mutil/le and the Ichneumon-Wasps of Latreille, between Si/pha and Cassida, Gryllus and certain Acridina, all show that the opposite points of the orders approach each other as usual*. With this consideration premised, we may now venture to exhibit the preceding details of affinity, as they may be collected into one summary view. The chief difficulty in this attempt is to discover the exact points of the Coleopterous circle, which communicate with the contiguous orders of Hymenoptera and Ortho- ptera. I could therefore wish this part of the figure to be regarded with distrust. * It is perhaps by the circumstance of Anopluriform larve meeting the opposite point of the circle, and resembling Chilognathiform larve, OF MANDIBULATA. A5Q Pa Anthophi- < ; i + hit f x ftapacia Rs %& = BY phe Rae > ae fa teytt ey 75 S) Br1é s ses Pe | @, Tubulfera § ’ = Pupi- Je. Ud as ai vora » > * ~ 4 Chilogna- = Verm- ‘ spt ‘Tenthre- 0a formes : thiformes A Pieter Opynti dina ee eee ye aaa egg YD “rs ollce a Anconiu- Ay - eh pe g riformes we , / MANDIBULATA O- NC aiflrmes Thysanu riforme io) i roe} is) Acridina ——~ Biattinad fe pee the ete Vad 4 LE Phasmina RAPHIOPTERA? ina, ~Y Hii eo fk- mommy 2 Ze “3 me a alee ot.. COMER oo clos ae anorpri tthe U4#f< & ta Ole 2 em a z eae a TY Ta fit U-Le 77 LEE SZ PL Jee Pyic Gill BG iizs e La Lt.Y Z4Att KAZE an Libellulina —< In this diagram I have marked the place of Strex, Sialis and Boreus, as belonging to osculant orders, to which I have ventured to give the usual terminations in pfera, al- though ignorant of the just limits of such groups. If indeed that we may account for the singular analogy which the larve of certain Blatie bear to Glomeris. Some interesting examples of this may be seen in the collection with which Dr, Horsfield has lately enriched the Museura of the East India Compan y. . Pls Pee ‘ Foe, Urn os 4 Mae Z ete &ifier LA 440 ON THE TRIBES the above three insects should eventually prove to be the types of their respective osculant orders, they may in conformity to the method in common use be styled Bomboptera, Me- galoptera Lat., and Raphioptera. As for Mantispa, 1 can scarcely conceive it to offer any type of form distinct from Mantis, from which indeed it only differs in having the wings of a Neuropterous insect. It is therefore an insect in the tribe of Phasmina, close to the osculant points of the orders of Orthoptera and Ne«yoptera. I shall only here add, that while from the inspection of this chain of affini- ties several deductions may be drawn, that particular one which seems to be of paramount importance to Natural History, is the artificial nature of the term Order as usu- ally applied in an insulating sense... In Entomology, at least, an order can only be called natural when the epithet is assigned to a certain group, which, without being in- sulated, has in it one principal ganglion, whose character is in some degree imprinted on the whole of the contents. Thus the types of the five orders of Mandibulata may be represented by a Carabus, Pompitus, Phryganea, Libel- lula, and Locusta. We have now completed a hasty sketch of the tribes into which the Mandibulata may hereafter with more cer- tainty be subdivided. ‘The review of them, however, affords a simple method of designating the orders, which hitherto I had only indicated by their analogical relations. CoLeopTERA Larve varie . . . Metamorphosis incompleta ORTHOPTERA Larve hevapodes . Metamorphosis semicompieta NEUROPTERA TRICHOPTERA Larve eruciformes’ Metamorphosis obtecta HYMENOPTERA Larve apodes .. . Metamorphosis incompleta. The beauty of this natural disposition is, that the above three columns are so many chains of connexion, the vari- wtt. tho ttenraucsies Oh fhe tef flterk# Larve hexapodes . Metamorphosis varia pb A HW. 3 lle itl an CCC oe Le ae : hc flee c-thog clown Whe oer SRE By o Lp on a [ed Moe aaa = fin paretea gs FIA Ktece< b> Lape ES. - Lx coupe Lrr« ( (Ge ee | Lf bh (Lee A rage OF MANDIBULATA. 441 ation of which is perfectly regular. The metamorphosis, for instance, which is incomplete in Coleoplera, becomes semicomplete in Orthoptera, subsemicomplete in the types of the Neuroptera, obtect in Trichoptera, and then once more again incomplete. As for the orders themselves, we have seen them to pass most regularly into one another, excepting, however, the chasms which occur between the Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, and between the Tenthre- dina and the Phryganide of Lamarck. These several remarks, which appear capable of very great exteasion, together with a recollection of the pre- ceding statements respecting the Haustel/ata, must, I think, sufficiently evince the truth of Metamorphosis being the» chief principle upon which the natural orders of Aristotle’s — Piilota have been constructed. We ob observe that thie table of a nities, inaccurate and superficial as it may be, a en turns out in the end to be also a table of the variation of |... A a PA AE ‘metamorphosis. Hence it may increase the conclusive- ness of our principal affinities, if, in the first place, it can be proved that metamorphosis is in these animals the maximum state of a general law of N ature, by which the whole organization of the being is gradually de dev eloped anc and made fit for reproduction ; and if, “secondly, \ we can show that the most distinguished among naturalists have united in expressing their conviction that considerations founded on metamorphosis must ultimately produce the most na- tural plan of entomological arrangement. Now, that nei ‘ther of these propositions ‘ought to be deemed incapable of d&monstration, may, I think, be inferred from the fol- lowing slight sketch of some of the most remarkable truths in Natural History. It was perfectly in unison with the gnnate propensity faa fd 6 442 ON THE TRIBES of the human mind towards the marvellous, that the change of a caterpillar into a butterfly, when first noticed, should have been considered by the ancients as a true transformation irreconcileable with the ordinary course of nature. Even on the mystery being in a great degree clear- ed up by the discoveries of Libavius, Redi, Malpighi, and Swammerdam, the phenomenon continued to be termed metamorphosis; and perhaps it is even still a little owing to such circumstances that a natural process, neglected in other branches of Zoology, has always excited so much cu- riosity among entomologists. Metamorphosis, however, has been taken of late in a very general point of view, and ren- dered synonymous with that species of organic decomposi- tion which, by means of continual shedding of the external envelopes, or even of the various integuments which may compose these envelopes, occasions that extraordinary cha- racteristic of a living body, namely, thatit never remains ina constant sta state c or identically the same, but is continuall similating n new particles of matter as it throws off the oid. a nn nn ——_—__________. And since no metamorphosis can take place exc except in con- sequence of these integuments being shed, perhaps it may not be altogether improper to survey the subject in this light. What I meanis, that we ought to regard the metamorphosis or change of form which certain animals undergo at various periods of their life, as an attendant upon, if not a variety of, the ecdysis or moulting, to which all organized beings are subject. There is, however, a great distinction to be made between the ecdysts of the Vertebrata and Annulosa ; for in the. former we observe little more than that the anima¥has quitted a sheath in which it was inclosed; whereas in Whe latter, , the change is nothing else than if the skeleton were shed ; for this name is surely deserved by those hard and OF MANDIBULATA. 443. solid parts which in so many cases afford support to the muscles. Itis clear that such a process must occasion a crisis in the life of an Annulose animal incomparably more decisive in its effects than what can be produced among the Vertebrata, by merely being set free from an integu- ment. All the marvellous, however, of ecdysis was with the earlier naturalists comprehended in the change of form, and consequently the shedding of the envelope only excited attention where it regarded a few of the dnnulosa. Hence it was a great discovery of Linneus fhat every Annulose animal ought to be considered as subject to metamorpho- sis.. ‘It may indeed have led t6 his more artificial notion of every externally articulated being having a nympha state; but even this helped Fabricius to give, although with a faulty nomenclature, a much more convenient division of metamorphosis than he could otherwise have devised. ~ Ecdysis, by which term is signified generally every change in the identity of the envelope of a living body, may either be complete or incomplete. If it be incomplete, or, which “Js the same, if the integuments scale off piece by piece, we have that mode of change which is peculiar to the most perfect of the Vertebrata, and to the least perfect of the Annulosa. | Complete ecdysis is the shedding of the whole external envelope at once, of which we have examples among the ~ vertebrated as wellas annulose animals. It is of three-sdrts ; irst, where the external envelope is shed without produ- cing any essential change of form, except inasmuch as may relate to the increased size. In those larve of insects which become inactive in their pupa state, such a process “may always be distinguished from the true metamorphosis ; but in Apterous Hexapods having active nymphe they are 444 ON THE TRIBES necessarily confounded. It isalso visible in reptiles and spi- ders, where such appendages of the trunk as have been lost may be reproduced by continued moulting. “When the various envelopes are all cast as it were in one mould, it is to be expected that the proper form of the animal should reappear as these continue to be thrown off. The return therefore of a spider or crab, after having lost a limb, to its original form, may be in some measure understood as de- pending on the manner in which such animals shed their en- velope; but that the limbs thus shot forth should be furnish- ed with muscles and nerves, is, | conceive, what cannot be accounted for, except by referring to that polype nature of the cellular substance which is perhaps, in the opinion of some persons, the foundation of all ecdysis. If perfect Hex- apod insects cannot reproduce their members, this mability may probably proceed from a cause which appears to have produced the same effect among Mammalia and Birds, to wit, that these animals in their perfect and final form are all subject, if to any, at least to a very imperfect ecdysis. The second sort of complete ecdysis is that where the under envelope has been cast in a somewhat diferent mould Gea Ghcaipery al dak Wi hoc pecel oe tain new parts become gradually developed without the general form being in any material degree altered. This is observablein every Annulose class, as well as in Humboldt’s Axotl among the Vertebrata, and is the first species of change which merits the name of Metamorphosis. It in- cludes the Metamorphosis inchoata and Metamorphosis di- midiata of Latreille, and is the same with the Métamorphose partielle of Lamarck. _The third sort of complete ecdysis is that wherein by some two or three moultings, generally the last which the OF MANDIBULATA. 445 animal has to undergo, the form is entirely changed, as well as the number of appendages more or less increased. This is clearly a true Metamorphosis, and includes the othertwo sorts of complete ecdysis; for we have here combinetka tot tal casting of the integuments, a developement of additional “appendages, such as feet or wings, and finally an entire among the Vertebrata in Frogs, and among the Annulosa in certain Hexapod insects. Hence, in confining ourselves to plain and open ecdysis, there will be no great error in stating that the most imperfect takes place in the highest Verte- brata and the lowest Annulosa; while the most complete -_ ecdysis is that which is seen to prev revail in the highe lighest A An- nulosa and some of the lowest Ver oe In strict accuracy, however, it appears that we ought to acknowledge the existence of complete ecdysis throughout the circle of Vertebrata. Nay, some physiologists have attributed insect Metamorphosis itself to a shedding of an envelope analogous to that which contains the foetus of the more perfect Vertebrata. As every embryo, whether ani- mal or vegetable, is inclosed in a tunic more or less solid, which is its chorion, so, proceeding with the analogy, they conceive that there must be some condition for every ani- mal, similar to the state of the foetus of the more perfect animals when surrounded by the amnios; and this state in Batrachian reptiles and Hexapod insects they hold to be the larva. The only danger of this reasoning 1s, that while we find the birth of an animal to be cen with complete ecdysis, we may be apt to imagine that every complete ec- a 2 dysis betokens a true birth. It would however be trul absurd to consider the casting of their shell by Crustacea, or the periodical moulting of the serpent, in this light; yet > = aoe = SS = a Ee ees 4406 ON THE TRIBES no one can doubt the fact of both of these being cases of complete ecdysis, only differing from that of Lepidoptera because in the former animals the internal envelope is al- ways of the same formas thatof which it is to take the place. The truth perhaps is, that we ought only to allow two states to every animal, a perfect and an imperfect state. Then, by the reflection that no animal out of the circle of Acrita can ever arrive at its perfect state except by means of Me- tamorphosis, and that when perfect it can never again be subject to this change of form, though it may still moult or shed its external envelope, we may be able, if not to com- prehend the cause, at least to know the effect of some of the most puzzling phenomena in nature. ‘The true crite- tion of animal as well as vegetable perfection is the ability to continue the species; hence some of the Vertebrata, as well as Annulosa, gaining this s faculty before they have ar- youre Masia Sos! rived at their pr proper type of form, metamorphosis ceases, a ea and they preserve the shape of larve. - But if a complete ecdysis may sometimes create a total change in the external appearance of the animal, the fact, however astonishing, is nothing in comparison with the in- ternal metamorphosis which accompanies it, and of which as yet no philosopher has been able to give any satisfacto- ry explanation. The generalization indeed by which we have reduced the moulting of a bird’s feathers and the _ metamorphosis of a butterfly to one principle, may appear to be strained beyond its proper limits; yetif we contem- plate the regular gradation from one to the other, how truly for instance the inactive pupa of a Beetle corresponds with the agile nympha of a Gryllus, how this ecdysis in an ~ Apterous Gryl/us corresponds with the sloughing ofa spider; _ and this again with the annual renovation of the serpent, OF MANDIBULATA. 447 we must be sensible that however dissimilar the extremes may be, al! these changes are modifications of one principle. But what more particularly deserves remark is, that these extremes should often be visible in neighbouring groups ; nay, in the same order; that, inshort, metamorphosis should differ so much in degree even where the animals are near in affinity. An Orthopterous insect may preserve the same form and habits from the instant it quits the egg up to the period of its death, the only qualities obtained by ecdysis being an augmentation of size and an aptitude to continue the species. But if we turn to the order of Coleoptera, which is contiguous in affinity, it is truly wonderful that by metamorphosis not only the form but the nervous and di- gestive systems may be altered, and the organs connected with these primary functions may all be of a construction different from that which they originally possessed. Those changes in the instincts of the same insect which every person must have observed to result from metamor- phosis being considered, it is to be expected that the ner- vous system of the larva and imago will prove different on dissection ; but the difficulty is to understand how any such complete alteration in the nervous system can be effected while the identity of the animalis preserved. ‘The larva of an Oryctes nasicornis, for instance, has, proceeding from the lateral and somewhat posterior lobes of the brain, two nerves, which having embraced the cesophagus consti- tute what may be termed its medulla spinalis, which is here a large fusiform ganglion formed by the agglomeration of smaller ganglions, from which the nerves diverge to supply the various organs. Another pair of nerves which proceeds from the brain, on uniting above the cesophagus forms a small ganglion, which is the origin of a single nerve A48 ON THE TRIBES called the recurrent. This supplies the coats of the sto- mach and intestinal canal. In the perfect insect, on the other hand, the double knotted longitudinal cord of the 4n- nulosa is very distinct, and the animal would seem to have changed a spinal marrow for a sympathetic nerve. Similar changes to a greater or less amount take place in other insects. Nor does the system of nutrition undergo a less extraordinary transformation by metamorphosis ; for, to take again the larva of the said Oryctes, we find that not only the structure of its mouth, but the whole form and disposition of its intestinal canal are undiscernible in the perfect insect. The same circumstance holds good in the Frog, which in its perfect state has the short narrow intestine proper for an animal destined by nature to feed on insects; whereas while a tadpole, it possessed a long spiral intestine, such as better suited its herbivorous dis- position. If, finally, the alterations developed by metamorphosis in the organs of respiration and generation be taken into view, we must be absolutely convinced that the Naturalist cannot neglect the particulars of ecdysis in his arrangement of the Annulosa, without resorting to artificial principles in their stead. From the study of Metamorphosis, indeed, we may be said to learn every circumstance of the lives of such animals as are guided solely by instinct; and just as Se emee= 6 (Pama) Tai eth aTE a a knowledge of the whole life of an insect inust make us =e . . v . better acquainted with its nature than a mere description SS 6) $$ OO of one of its forms, in the same proportion ought Meta- morphosis to outweigh every other principle of arrange- TST ARG: SUT LO ment. There is perhaps no maxim in the Philosophia Entomo- logica more sound or more worthy of notice than the follow- OF MANDIBULATA. 4AQ ing: “ Larva alimento proprio nutrit imaginem latentem in adultiorem etatem.” Andindeed when we trace the natural history of a Libellula from the egg to its perfect state, no clear idea of the truth can be formed, except by con- ceiving one animal to be so inclosed in another, that the imago is in some measure distinct from the larva, and is only declared to view by the death of the latter. Hence a system unconnected with metamorphosis may be reckoned to take no more notice of half the number of true insects, than if they never hadexisted. It is the defect both of the — artificial system in Entomology, and of the sexual sys stem in Botany, | that. hat they become useless, except when the ob- jects of the respective sciences are re before us in one parti- cular state, which is often the most transitory of their life. Unless this condition be fulfilled, such systems lose their sole and peculiar merit of being dictionaries by which na- tural objects may be named. ‘There are thousands of or- ganized beings, to the history and knowledge of which the disciple of Linnzus or Fabricius has no clue what- ever; although perhaps they are in that state of their ex- istence which most directly affects the interests of man. Plants not in_flc flower, and insects not in their declared Seip constitute janocean \ of difficulties i in which the most skilled in Linnean nomenclature will | founder _unless I he See ae cee have other beacons: than such ch momentary ¢ considerations as are afforded d by | the number of stamina or the form | cok J Shades Gc thee te antenn. There is surely, therefore, reason to think that it would be an immense improvement on a Species Insectorum, and would, as much as any ny thing whatever, benefit the philo. Femina patentee ne a, sophy of the science, if larvae were classed on artificial Saeeeneintnetetninnteteteesin enn cenit ee principles. Rather than that they should be totally neg- —_—_—_— 2-G OL shee 450 ON THE TRIBES lected as at present, it were better with Aldrovandus and Mouftet to consider them a separate tribe of animals, or even to return to the classification of Aristotle, and place them with worms. Little matters it to say that they are not distinct animals from others duly classified, and there- fore deserve not a separate description. Such an argu- ment might be admirable, if the natural system were in question, as this would be sure to take some notice of them; but is wholly inapplicable to an artificial system, which is defective whenever we are not enabled by its means to discover the scientific name for any object that may fall in our way. The natural system, when discovered, will doubtless combine a view of every property and peculiarity of spe- cies, with a certain perception of the manner in which these characteristics vary. Now in Entomology, every approach to this beau idéal must evidently be inconvenient—nay, un- intelligible to persons commencing the study, because it pre-supposes a knowledge of animals, which they have on the contrary to acquire. And this is the objection that Reaumur made to the system of Swammerdam, ina passage of his Mémoires sur les Insectes, which, by the way, not- withstanding the acknowledged faults of Swammerdam’s - system), induces me to suspect that he himself was insensible to the full value and drift of those facts which he has so ingeniously compiled. ‘To deem Entomology only as a science, by the help of which insects may be named with the least possible trouble, was a bitter satire on his own invaluable labours, as they respected true philosophy. The following passage of Degeer will show us how dif- ferent a view of the matter was taken by a better naturalist, and scarcely less celebrated physiologist. OF MANDIBULATA. A451 * Swammerdam a établi les classes sur les métamor- phoses des insectes, et M. Bonnet a donné Pébauche @une division générale des insectes, fondée égulement sur leurs métamorphoses. De tous les plans de division celui-la paroit assurément la plus naturelle ; car, comme dit M. Lyonnet, La diversité qw ont les insectes, savoir que les uns changent de forme, et que les autres conservent toujours celle qwils ont recue ennaissant, cette diversité suppose en eux une dis- position dorganes, une construction intérieure, un mécha- nisme si différent, qu’on peut dire, que rien ne les distingue plus essentiellement les uns des autres.” Degeer neverthe- less felt as strongly as Reaumur, a truth which escaped the notice of Swammerdam, that an artificial system ought never to be founded on metamorphosis; but he had more sublime notions of nature, than to suppose that metamor- phosis must therefore be totally independent of system. That however which 1s most singular, and which shows that Reaumur’s opinion must have arisen from any other cause than an incapability of perceiving natural affinities, is, that he almost invariably adopts metamorphosis for his guide, whenever he pays any regard to arrangement, This is, as if he had said, I do not place much faith in systems, still less in the existence of a natural system; but if any such should exist, Metamorphosis must be the leading principle upon which insects have been constructed. The English naturalist therefore experiences no small satisfaction on reflecting, that Ray*, the expounder of * Rarely can England be accused of being taught by foreigners to do justice to the merits of her sons. There are however iastances of her in- gratitude in this respect, and no where is it more manifest, than in the case of John Ray. Whether his views were too profound both for the age in which he lived and for that which succeeded him, or whether true science was forgotten in what the late Dr. Gordon termed the pleasure of expound- ing riddles, cannot now be determined ; but certain it is, that the services 26 9 ) pepe A52 ON THE TRIBES those orders of Metamorphota, which Linneus did little more than name, and the founder of that classification of Ametamorphota, which the other did no more than adul- terate, was one of the original advocates of a maxim which does honour to Fabricius: “ Metamorphosis insectorum ad ordines naturales viam pandit, ideoque semper observanda et distincte tradenda.”’ If to the authority of Ray that of Lister and Willughby be added, I suppose we shall have cited the three greatest names in Zoclogy of which England can boast; and if I should err in considering Me- tamorphosis the key to the natural arrangement of the An- nulosa, it will always be some consolation to think that I have erred with such men. But it is impossible that I can have much deceived myself in this respect; it is incre- dible that such footsteps can have led me far astray from nature, when the consequences of following them mani- festly produce an uniformity of plan, a general harmony of one part with another, which afford the best proof that any fault which may be discovered in the preceding re- marks, ought not at least to be attributed to the method of investigation. It is but too true, however, that the Linnean school, and more lately that of Lamarck, have been led into error by observing that the methods of Swammerdam, Lister, of this admirable philosopher have never in this country been properly appreciated. To say that he was a great naturalist, isnot enough; we ought to add that in Zoology at least he was the master of Linnzus, and that but too often the depth of his views appears to have been beyond the compre- hension of his pupil. The only advantage over him which Linneus enjoys, is notin the general conception of the animal kingdom, but inthe clearness of details ; not so much inthe power as in the facility which the latter ac- quired of communicating knowledge by means of his unrivalled artifice of nomenclature, At last the cloud which has so long eclipsed the reputation of Ray passes off; but they are not his countrymen who canclaim the credit of having dispelled it. M. Cuvier styles him ‘ le premier véritable métho- diste pour le regne animal, guide principal de Linnaeus.” How far the latter has acknowledged the obligation, bis various works testify. OF MANDIBULATA,. 455 Ray, Reaumur, Roesel, Bonnet, Lyonnet and Latreille, which are all in some measure founded on Metamorphosis, have become useless, both as dictionaries and as tables for displaying those affinities which exist in nature. The cause of their thus being inconvenient as artificial sy: stems, while they do not not fulfill the object of the natural system, is, that their inventors have all proceeded on the not notion of the ex- istence of absolute divisions in nature, and moreover r have overs giants SBA Sen all confounded relations of analogy with those of affinity. To understand this, let us return to the classification which I have attempted to give of Ecdysis. It has in this chapter been divided and subdivided, and the division may perhaps have helped to diminish the obscurity which may possibly ever attach itself to the nature of metamorphosis. Yet if any person, fancying that his ideas on the subject are be- come more clear, should apply this classification of Meta- morphosis to the classification of insects, a system from his attempt will arise, confused and artificial to a degree which is almost incredible tillseen. For instance, if we class together all Annulosa which undergo that change of form which I have made the second division of com- plete Ecdysis, that is, the Métamorphose partielle of La- marck, a group is formed in which the Myriapoda, certain Branchiopoda and Arachnida, the winged Orthoptera and Hemiptera, are all combined. Again, taking the first divi- sion of complete Ecdysis as the character, another g group in like manner consists of the majority of Crustacea, Arach- nida and Ametabola, with the apterous Orthoptera and Lemiptera. However manifest these two divisions may be, and however well grounded on the classification of Meta- morphosis, of which we have seen the importance in An- nulose economy, they give origin to a chaos of confusion & ADA ON THE TRIEES at utter variance with nature and her affinities. Yet such a system is nearly the same with that proposed by Swam- merdam and Ray, who, after smoothing down its contra- dictions as much as was really possible, left spiders and worms in one group; Orthoptera, Hemiptera and certain Neuroptera in another; and Lepidoptera and Coleoptera in a third. On looking at such a scheme, I think we cannot wonder much at naturalists rejecting it, both as an arti- ficial and a natura natural method of entomological arrangement. Whether “they | have been equally right in rejecting along with it Metamorphosis itself as a principle of distribution, is quite another matter, and will depend on the opinion of the scientific world, as to the accuracy of those authorities I have cited, in order to establish my details of affinity. Grant that only one fourth part of these authorities may happen to be in the right, then it must be further allowed, } Ty: that a classification of insects in admirable harmony with 0 nature may be constructed on Metamorphosis, 1 not indeed SS t on its division or differences, but on its method 1 of varia- ‘ tion. And this perhaps ma be held to be the compend Naty > me perhap sf Pp eee . ‘obe ~ Philosophia Organica,—that it is an error to con- cnl) 7 Lt tla yes found the distribution of the works of our Creator with <477t our own method of dividing a subject into heads for the sake of perspicuity. In other words, [ imagine it to be pp, proved by the whole of the preceding chapters, that when Pee ferzv _, a system depends on the division of organs or properties, it QP arten lees —ts artificial; when it depends on their method of variation, it ts natural. ‘This truth, which seems not without its use even in metaphysics, [ had a great wish to place among my definitions, but was deterred by feeling that it is too con- trary to certain old established maxims to pass at first sight unquestioned. OF MANDIBULATA. 455 A more appropriate example of the consequences of not knowing what has just been explained, cannot be given than the system of Fabricius. . That he was an acute man is testified by the Philosophia Entomologica ; that he was well versed in the knowledge of species appears from his other works; and the reader must have witnessed in several of these pages, unequivocal marks of his not having been by nature incapable of perceiving an affinity. Indeed it would be very extraordinary if he should have been but little above the ordinary level, whose memory is honoured in Germany as that of the greatest naturalist it has produced. Yet there is no hazard whatever incurred in asserting that the system he invented, although originating in considerations of the first importance, 1s one of the most artificial of the multitudes that have been proposed for Entomology. Of this, although the cause escaped him, no one was more aware than himself, as he shows by a total disregard at times of the most essential parts of his method. The Linnean school has therefore condemned the adoption of any such principle as the structure of the organs of mandu- cation, just as Swammerdam’s failure drew down their own part the the production of any much less objectionable arrangement. Indeed it appears impossible that there invectives on metamorphosis, without occasioning on their le Oe mere es a See ee should be a great distinction between any two of all their systems in value, since the generality of Entomologists have split on the same rock, and regarded ed only the actual difference between the structures of animals, and not the manner in which this difference takes place. If Fabricius Si ne = ™ even had bestowed half the att@htion on the method in which the organs of manducation vary, that he has on his 456 ON THE TRIBES own division of them, and this is not much, the Systema Entomologica would have been nearly as consonant with nature as it is now the reverse. Any principle of dis- tribution, whether wings or tarsi, antenne or maxille, though perhaps not always convenient, is in itself good ; the difference in the effect consists wholly in the method of using it, and there is no principle so good as not to be- come worse than useless by being applied improperly. Re- lations of analogy themselves seem to be of little use in prescribing exact limits to a group. Nay, when we em- ploy such relations as absolute characteristics of all the contents of a group, then the most natural of characters become artificial. Thus Metamorphosis constitutes the basis of the analogy which reigns between the correspond- ing orders of Mandibulata and Haustellata. Yetif it be used to circumscribe these orders with precision, the ex- tremity of some of the most natural groups, such as the Diptera, will be divided from those types to which they evidently are referable. Hence we may conclude that the variation of Metamorphosis is only an index of the series of affinity, and not a principle by which the orders have 0 SE PPR A DEAE OE EMER ERIE ES DRL TR MEST Eke been strictly circumscribed. Notwithstanding the importance in Zoology of this maxim of variation, it has never that I know of been clearly expressed; and, as it has certainly never been acted upon, we may doubt that it can have been distinctly under- stood. The only author in whose works I have been able to trace a vestige of it, is that great philosopher whose merits | have occasionally canvassed with severity, both for the sake of benefit to science and of justice to Ray,— most assuredly not from any unworthy wish to detract from OF MANDIBULATA. 457 his just meed of fame*. Botany is the true province of Linneus; there he claims the prize of pre-eminence, and there he must stand or fall according to the judgement of those philosophers who in the cultivation of that charming science are able to carry their ambition beyond ascertaining the name of a plant. But the most original of the bota- nical works of Linnus, belongs in certain respects as much to the zoologist as to the botanist; and there are some even who think that, with an exception in favour of his powerful instrument of Nomenclature, he never con- ferred such a benefit on Zoology as by the publication of his Philosophia Botanica. Here we find that what by his * [t cannot be supposed, however, that my partiality fora science, injured as this has been by a belief in the infallibility of Linnzus, shou!d have excited any great anxiety to conceal his faults. In every attempt to serve the cause of Natural History, my rule has been *¢ fart que sentiam.’ Had there been in this country any regular and efficient school of Zoology, such remarks would not have been left for me to make; but unfortunately in those classic scenes which derive no small portion of their fame from a Ray, and a Lister, the existence of Zoology as a science is in these days scarcely suspected. Well may the foreigner who beholds our learned establish- ments so splendidly endowed, note, among the most remarkable circum- stances attending them, that in none whatever should there be a zoological chair. It is not for me to enter into the causes of this, else it were desire- able to know why plants should have been deeined worthy of attention, while animals have been utterly neglected. I can only acknowledge with regret, that such has been the case. If it be said that lectures on natural affinities are included in some course of comparative anatomy, I am truly glad to hear it ; but if it be urged that the knowledge of comparative ana- tomy implies that of the animal kingdom, I deny it totally, since compara- tive anatomy is only the instrument of Zoology ; and while no man can be versed in natural affinities without some acquaintance with comparative anatomy, examples may easily be specified of comparative anatomists who know nothing of Natural History. It is true, that there are professors of Natural History in three of our Northern Universities ; and indeed the zeal, the liberality, and justly celebrated acquirements of one of these gentlemen are likely to produce the most beneficial effects to science at large, as well as to the learned body which he adorns. But we must not conceal the fact, that a professorship of Natural History is necessarily charged with duties that give ample emplovment in Paris to thirteen professors with their numerous assistants. I have ventured to give this humiliating pic- ture of the state of zoological instruction in Great Britain, because there are persons who affect surprise, that in that science which relates to the animated works of God, France should take precedence over a nation in- comparably more religious. 458 ON THE TRIBES OF MANDIBULATA. disciples have, in pursuance I suppose of an expression in the Classes Plantarum, been always called Natural Orders, he himself with admirable caution also named fragments of a natural method ; by this implying that the intervals which separate them are not natural, but the consequences of our ignorance of species. Hence we have the observa- tion, “ Plante omnes utrinque affinitatem monstrant uti territortum in Mappa Geographica,” which, to be sure, is sufficient evidence of his never having suspected much re- gularity toexist in the creation. Still more to the purpose therefore is the remark which follows, “ Defectus nondum detectorum in causa fuit quod methodus naturalis deficiat, quam plurium cognitio perficiet ; natura enim non facit saltus.” Now, although no where can I find it positively express- ed, and although the Linnzan definition of genera appears even in opposition to it, I conceive this idea, that absolute divisions do not exist in nature, to lead directly to that which is still more important, namely, that the only pro- bability of our ever understanding the great scheme of the creation must depend on studying the method in which the organs and properties of natural beings vary. All true knowledge of Natural History hinges on this—Ordinis hec virtus erit et venus. 459 Wotat thin Vv Let. GENERAL REFLECTIONS ON THE SYNTHETICAL METHOD. In the first Chapter of this Essay, it is stated to be my firm belief, that one plan extends throughout the universe, and that this plan is founded on the principle of series of affinities returning into themselves, and forming as it were circles. The time is at length arrived, when the reader has the means of deciding whether this presumption was warranted by facts, or whether it ought to be considered as the mere offspring of an ardent imagination under the bias of a favourite theory. In the first part of this volume, I discovered by analysis. three instances of progressions of a of a affinity returning into themselves ; es; namely, i in the circles of Saprophagous and Thalerophagous Petalocera, and of Thalerophagous Recto- cera. Still more minute analysis enabled me to perceive the same rule of progression in the genus Phanéus, which is so singularly characterized by the want of ungues to the tarsi. Tn the present essay, on the other hand, the opposite me- thod has been adopted; and while we make use almost entirely of the observations of others, the same effect is uniformly seen to be produced. A degree of order, unity and harmony appears to prevail throughout a great portion ‘ ys fe Len Bi BLAE? A60 GENERAL REFLECTIONS ON of Nature, far, I confess, beyond what two years ago would have been by me conceived possible to exist amid such infinite variety of form. This order, thus deduced in the first case from experiment, and then confirmed by the ob- ,servations of the most celebrated naturalists, became by ee, a d we _analysis apparent in the plan upon which a genus of South GAMES I American insects has been constructed, and by synthesis “{s now seen to extend to those primary groups which com- . pose the whole of the animal kingdom. Can we then sup- at Feit; y pose that the collateral branches of Nature present nothing ma but confusion, when, in that which we have happened to investigate, there appears a design so consummate as to have no limit except in our power of understanding it? In one part of Nature we discover affinities and their at- tendant analogies all combining to one sublime effect, intricacy upon intricacy, yet apparently capable of being reduced to the most simple regularity of plan. Is it then possible to suppose that the rest of organized beings con- stitute a chance-medley map of reticulation, as some seem to think, or offer to the view a few scattered fragments of a temple now in ruins, as others have esteemed them to be? Or, if it be granted that order of some kind does exist in those collateral branches, which have not fallen within the scope of our investigation, is it credible that one plan should have been uniformly adopted for that vast and essential part of the universe which has been the subject of the preceding pages, and another plan for the rest? These are questions which must be left for the reader to answer. [ shall merely observe, that he who can readily assent to such opinions has undoubtedly the nght, but he alone, to give his verdict against me for having too hastily formed a general hypothesis with respect to nature. I do not THE SYNTHETICAL METHOD. 46} however fear that such a verdict founded on such grounds can ever be the verdict of the majority; and at all events less blame must fall to my share than was incurred long since by the ingenious author, who, without the same rea- sons for it, has expressed the same sentiment. “ Dans ce qui appartient a la nature tout est lié, tout est dépendant, tout est le résultat @un plan commun constamment suivi, mais infiniment varié dans ses parties et dans ses détails.” Indeed, had it not been that now the belief of one gene- ral plan extending throughout the universe seems justifi- able, it might be doubted whether the preferable course of proceeding would not be to omit the present chapter altogether. We might question whether it would not be better to have immediate recourse to analysis, rather than to pursue any further the synthetical plan, while destitute in so great a degree of the information necessary to sup- port it. Thus every interruption to the synthetical method of investigation is not only inconsistent with the particular path traced out for this essay at the commencement, but is moreover losing sight of its very object and sole use. On the other hand, again, the accurate designation of the more minute ‘groups of Co/eoptera, in the actual state of ‘our acquaintance with them, is quite an impossibility, and every attempt at it, unless founded on analysis, deserves to be considered as little better than vague speculation. Ob- jections thus presenting themselves to each alternative, I have resolved to sketch slightly the leading affinities of the Coleoptera, in order to preserve as much as possible the plan originally laid down, while at the same time, to pre- vent the possibility of great errors creeping in, I shall abs- tain from offering at present all remarks, the tendency of 5 ene, 462 GENERAL REFLECTIONS ON which may be to define by synthesis the subdivision of this order. The chief cause of our of our being placed is in this dilemma, is the almost total ignorance orance which prev Svails with respect to Coleopterous larve. Itis saat indeed, that 1 names and | ge~ circle of Ametabola, have been en bestowed in the preceding $I ne —— eta pages on the leading y groups or tribes into which the or ‘order of f Coleoptera may be divided. But these characters: are by no means to be understood as rigorously exact. If it be e possible ever to assign such, it can only be after a series of minute observations, and a much more “accurate €3 exami- nation than any to v which the larva of insects have yet been Sn SRS eer re ere subjected. 1 Now, h however, that the science of Entomology ‘8 80 ‘near ly iy relieved from the ignorant nt_prejudices which have e prevented its cultivation, there is reason to hope that this branch of of the physiology of insects will no longer be overlooked. “It is very sure that the economy of the greatest part of these animals is most calculated to excite curiosity, and most connected with the interests of man, while in the first stage of Metamorphosis; and moreover that they would, while in this state, have undoubtedly en- gaged particular attention from the observers of Nature, had their forms been but more attractive to the eye. _In_the researches here recommended to entomologists, —-_—— great_advant tage is in my opinion to be derived from a Set ate oe al careful consideration of of Tarva fi forms with reference to the ei ces a meme ., nth Rail Ametabola ; for Of these these-we may see even the more singular and ‘eccentric genera represented by bythe larvee of f Coleo- ptera. The larva of Anthrenus, for instance, bears a strong THE SYNTHETICAL METHOD. 463 likeness to a Polyxenus, while that of the genus Gyrinus resembles a Scutigera. Thus does every step we take in the study of nature, unfold to ‘the view new instances of her attachment to certain general principles of form, amid a variety in the details which truly appears to be inex- haustible. The following indications, which relate rather to the contents of the tribes than to the order of affinity in which these contents are distributed, «will be found useful, not as * being the truth itself, but as being guides to the truth. It must be well understood, however, that the designation of some of the contents of a tribe is not synonymous with the designation of the distinctions and affinities affecting the groups which compose it. The latter Ido not aim at; and even in the specification of the probable contents of a tribe, there are many chasms yet to be filled up, particularly in the circles of Apod, Anopluriform, and Thysanuriform | larve. The types of the tribe of Chilo ilopodiform larye are cer- tainly those carnivorous insects which have four maxillary palpi. These form two great groups, one of which con- sists of the genera Carabus and Cicindela of Linnzus, and the other of the Hydrocanthari of Latreille. To the same tribe the genus Hydrophilus of Geoffroy ought to be ascribed ; from which, by means of Spheridium, we enter — Silbes ff lrlecyi LEED s] lhe le fied ther, among the Chilognathiform larve. The type of this tribe Ma é ty a A appears to be the genus Scarabeus of Linneus, or those insects to which, after the example of Dumeril, I have given the name of Petalocera. The tendency of Chilogna- thiform larvee is herbivorous ; and among them we have the Linnean genera Lucanus, Ptinus, Byrrhus, Hister, Elater, Buprestis, and part of Tenebrio and Dermestes. By means probably of the genus Bostrichus of Geoffroy, we quit the 0 Tag CT7P LL 464 GENERAL REFLECTIONS ON LAL ¢C¢zv Chilognathiform tribe for that of Apod or Vermiform larve. a LUebrme sh pace SS ae frre Loa ene To this belong the Linnean genera Bruchus, Curculio, Attelabus, Cerambyx, Lepiura, Necydalis, and part of Dermestes, and Tenebrio. With the help of Donacia, so nearly allied to Leptura, we quit this tribe for that of Ano- ae Zecae — Pluriform lary, where we find the Linnean genera Chry- fe a d A somela, Cryptocephalus, Coccinella, Cassida and Hispa. , These last lead us into the tribe of Thysanuriform larva, APhytuneets where we have Meloe, Mordella, with many Heteromera* ny oF at am a ee of Latreille, and perhaps Clerus. I suspect also that some * | have lately come to the knowledge of the larva of the Xylita Lupres- toides of Paykull, the Elater Buprestoides of Fabricius, which ought not to be confounded with the genus Serropalpus of Hellenius. The Xylta be- longs te the group of Thysanuriform larve, although not central, but ap- proximating to the luliform lJarvze, which are opposite. This is a proof of the acuteuess of my friend M. Latreille. Although the affinity is not so close as,to be readily remarked, he has said of the Melandryadz, ** Ces He- leruméres se rapprochent des Cantharis et des Meloe de Linneus.’ As Thysa- nuriform Jarve are but little known, and as no confusion was ever greater than that which affects the genera Serropalpus, Melandrya, Dirce@a, Or- chesia, Mystax:s, Xylita aud Hypulus, it may be of service to describe this larva. I shall merely premise that I have -had no opportunity of dissecting it. Larva whitish, elongate, scaly, with few hairs, except about the last segment of the abdomen ;_body thickest at the middle and tail, upper side rather convex, under concave. Head semiglobular, with vestige of eyes. Antenaz triarticulate, short, with the first joints greatest. Mandibles short, strong and sharp. Maxillary Palpi acute at paint, and labial excessively minute. Second segment of the body large, subthoraciform, and composed apparently of twosegments. Anterior feet large, compressed, hooked, ex- tending nearly to the top of the head; the two posterior pairs of the same shape, but so short as scarcely to reach beyond the coxa of the first pair, besides being in some measure hid in the concavity of the body. The third segment of the body is shortest, and the others lengthen gradually to the 12th, which is convex, and marked with strongly impressed points. But the singular part of the body is the tail, or 13th sezment, at the base of which isthe anal aperture. This segment is slightly convex above, and flattish below, but armed at the extremity with two sharp horny appen- dages, curved upwards. In colour and appearance, this forked process re- sembles the caudal appendage of certain Forficule. 1am indebted for a knowledge of this larva to Mr. Samouelle, a gentleman as well versed in in- sects, as he is assiduousasa collector. He found it with the perfect insect in the solid wood of an old oak in Hampshire, and thus at the same mo- ment added anew genus to the British Fauna, and an important fact to entomological science. M. Waudouer has found several of the same species at Nantes, in the same situation. It has little connexion with Elater, except by that property which opposite points of a circular groun have of ap- proaching each other in affinity. THE SYNTHETICAL METHOD. 405 of Latreille’s Malacoderma will ultimately find a place in this group; but however this may be, the Linnean genus Staphylinus certainly reconducts us from these insects to the Chilopodiform tribe of larve. The opposite sides of the Coleopterous circle appear to meet in the cases of Si/pha and Cassida. But here I must desist, as there is reason to fear that I have already gone more minutely into this subject, than my knowledge of it warrants. Some modern groups, indeed, I scarcely dare venture upon, particularly the Melasomes, Taxicornes, and Stenelytres of Latreille. These, as their names import, are so many magazines, which it will cost the Entomologist no small labour to elucidate. Pentamerous insects seem chiefly to belong to the tribeses of Chilopodiform and Chilognathiform larve. Apod larve “Zeem almost all by metamorphosis to becon y metamorphosis to become Tetramerous Insects; Anopluriform larve either Tetramerous or Trime- “Tous; and Thysanuriform larve either Heteromerous or "Pentamérous. The nature of this variation in the number of joints in the tarsi, ought not to escape our notice. If my observations had been sufficiently extensive to au- thorize the determination of the following problem, namely, whether the Rectocera and Petalocera ought to be consi- dered as referable to one type of the subdivisions of the tribe, or to two, I might have ventured to designate the Stirpes into which the [uliform larvae may be divided, and consequently from analogy might have obtained more de- finite ideas of the composition of the tribe. To say the truth, however, I am inclined to think that the three Lin- nzan genera Scarabeus, Lucanus, and Hister, may be dis- covered hereafter to be all referable to one peculiar type. But this is mere matter of suspicion, or at least [ can give 2H 466 GENERAL REFLECTIONS ON no better proof of it, than what is to be found in the first Essay, and I therefore am unwilling at present to speculate on the assumption of its entire accuracy. I may state however my belief, that future investigation will produce a table expressing the affinity of the Stirpes of Coleoptera, exactly on the same plan as those we have already seen. For if the groups of Tuliform‘larve be di_ rectly divisible into families such as those into which the Petalocera were resolved in the first Essay, then the uni- formity hitherto so observable in the distribution of the animal kingdom no longer holds good, or at least the diffi- culty of reconciling such an hypothesis with this unifor- mity seems at present to me to be insurmountable. But the strongest argument in favour of my opinion, that there is an intermediate class of groups between those which in the last chapter I termed tribes, and those which in the first Essay were called families, is, that every Entomologist has acknowledged that the Linnean genera Scarabaus, Curculio, Cerambyx, Kc. are natural groups; and these would evidently be lost, did we proceed at once to divide the Chilognathiform larve into families, such as the Me/o- lonthide, Rutelide, &c. This intermediate class of groups may, as before stated, perhaps be named STIRPES; and had they been properly determined, our next object would probably have been to resolve them into FAMILIES, unless indeed we can sup- pose that there exists still another intermediate class of groups. Here, however, unusual difficulties present them- selves; for the Lamellicornes of Latreille appear to be de- composable into two distinct divisions of two circles each, which seems irreconcileable with what we have seen, unless we can imagine the Rectocera and Petalocera to be Stir- THE SYNTHETICAL METHOD. 467 pes, and one of the two circles, into which each of these groups is divisible, to be osculant. This however is too violent a supposition, and besides, to say the truth, does not entirely destroy the anomaly ; and therefore I am obliged to confess myself at present ignorant of the means by which the Tuliform larve are to be resolved into families. Nor do I see any other means of extricating ourselves from the obscurity in which this part of my subject is involved, than by an investigation of the Linnean genera Ptinus, Buprestis, Elater, and Dermestes, upon the same princi- pie as that which I have pursued in the analysis of La- treille’s Lamellicornes. The deficiency of our information as to the subordinate affinities of the above-mentioned Linnean genera, is so great that I do not feel myself au- thorized to proceed further by the synthetical method. But from the contents of this volume, I think the reader must be convinced that the Scarabeus Sacer is situated in nature nearly as follows: 1. Animalia. 2. Annulosa. 3. Mandibulata, . . be ; och}, oainy Disarle, artes, ClaZ4- OPAL 4, Coleoptera. 200i lucevo giluiow Qosbul saad 5. Larve Chilognathiformes. . .. . . 6, Acanthopoda? (Here occurs an uncertainty as to the groups froma defici- ency of proper analysis.) 6. Petalocera Saprophaga. 7. Scarabaeidae. 8. Scarabaus. Its place as a species in the genus Scarabeus, shall ap- pear in the next chapter, when, with the exception of the investigation still requisite to show the relation which the 2H 2 ~ ~ S hth Pe 468 GENERAL REFLECTIONS ON Petalocera, as a group, bear to the Chilognathiform larve, the object of this Essay will in some measure be fulfilled. It would be wrong, however, to close thus, without al- juding to a subject most important to the advancement and general interest of human knowledge, and intimately connected, as I conceive, with reflections that cannot fail to rise in the mind of every person who may believe with me, that one principle of arrangement extends throughout nature. It has been said, that a contempt for the exer- tions of intellect under forms different from ours, is as sure a mark of a narrow mind as that hostility, almost to be called hatred, which is sometimes betrayed by men of ta- lent against those sciences which they are incapable of learning. Such is a sentence lately written by one of that school, of which, as he himself observes, it is the peculiar character to view all the sciences with an equal eye. In- deed it would be difficult to find within the whole com- pass of modern philosophy, a remark in which more true learning is displayed, or a maxim, I regret to say, more necessary than this to be impressed on our minds, That we should place the highest value on whatever we may have judged worthy of employing our time, is clearly to be expected; but that we should therefore not only despise but throw obloquy on what others may esteem a proper exertion of their intellect, can only be attributed to igno- rance the most bigoted. ‘‘ We content ourselves,” says the excellent author of the Wisdom of God in the Crea- tion, in the quaint but forcible style of his age, “we con- tent ourselves with the knowledge of tongues, or a little skillin philology or history perhaps, and antiquity, and neglect that which to me seems more natural, I mean Na- tural History and the works of the creation. I do not dis- THE SYNTHETICAL METHOD. 469 commend or derogate from those other studies; 1 should betray my own ignorance and weakness should I do so; I only wish that they might not altogether jostle out and exclude this. I wish that this might be brought in fashion among us; I wish men would be so equal and civil as not to disparage, deride, and vilify, those studies which them- selves skill not of, or are not conversant in.” In this re- spect perhaps no branch of science has had so much right to complain as Entomology; it has, within the recollection of many, been spurned as useless, condemned as trifling, and laughed at as foolish, Yet, asif to demonstrate the excessive absurdity and wickedness of judging any thing organized by the hands of Omnipotence to be unworthy of human notice, it so happens that of all branches of na- tural history, without exception this is the one in which we can best study that interesting scheme by which our own structire, as well as that of every other terrestrial be- ing, has been regulated. ‘This may seem a sweeping pro- position ; but the almost infinite number of species con- tained in the group of Annulosa, of which certainly more than a hundred thousand now exist in collections—the consequently easy gradation of affinity from one form to another, will always, in preference to any other branch of - natural history, render this the field for investigating the nature of those general rules which may have governed the’ distribution of the universe. They may without doubt be also detected in other branches of Natural History, but no where so easily as in this; since the chasms are here not only narrower, but less frequent. In contemplating the otherwise unaccountable profusion of Annulose spe- cies, their diversity of manners, structure, and ornament, we almost fancy with Ray, that it was in order to teach us A7O GENERAL REFLECTIONS ON. the Wisdom of God in the Creation, that they were called into being. Botanists and Zoologists, we are all in full pursuit of the same sublime object, the natural system. Now, without pretending to any extraordinary foresight, I think it may be asserted that we shall never owe so much knowledge of it to any branch of Natural History, as to Entomology. Time only can show whether this surmise be false ; but if it should prove true, I cannot perceive how it should be in opposition to what we already know, that the despised worm has been employed to teach us our present material nature. Man, however, is an animal whose ideas can reach be- yond matter. And from this high privilege and peculiar characteristic it is, that in all ages he has been enabled to make his sentient principle the chief object of his interest and inquiries. There are sequestered moments, I believe, in the life of every person when the mind turns anxiously to the contemplation of its own nature. Whether we ought to look for much information on this perplexing sub- ject from the future discovery of the natural system, it is at present impossible to say: but I cannot refrain from stating, that every step hitherto taken in the investigation of natural affinities, has afforded me additional ground for thinking that there are certain leading rules of connexion which extend beyond the limits of matter. Under the head of Definitions, I have already attempted to give briefly those opinions on this momentous question, which seemed to me as indisputable in themselves as they were necessarily connected with a discussion on forms of matter. IJ may have stated there several propositions that required proof, but none, I verily believe, that may not in some degree be proved. An endeavour has constantly THE SYNTHETICAL METHOD. 471 been made, to rest contented with a simple exposition of those principles which every naturalist admits to be in- controvertible truths,—such asthe omnipotence of God, and the unity of our sentient principle. That mind must be lamentably warped by scholastic prejudices or sceptie cal theories, which can doubt such facts as these. The only assumption, with which I am likely to be taxed, is that of the existence of secondary operative causes distinct from matter, or at least not of necessity dependent upon it.. As a promise was held forth that I should resume this sub- - ject, my reasons shall now be given for having taken that much disputed position, the defence of which will inevi- tably lead me to consider the true distinction between man and other animals. On a question so hackneyed nothing new ought to be expected here, and I feel that it would be ridiculous in me to attempt any thing of the kind. Nay, this point, so often debated, would never have been handled by me, had I not been sensible that many expressions in the preceding pages are liable to miscon- ception. My aim therefore is not to launch forth any noyel system of Metaphysics, but only to explain briefly, First, my chief reasons for adopting, with a firm con- viction of its truth, the doctrine of the immateriality of all operative causes. Secondly, my chief reasons for believing that whatever relates to the sentient principles of the lower animals must ever in this world be seen, as through a glass, darkly. With these objects in view, I shall simplify, as much as I possibly can, the metaphysical nature of an inquiry so con- trary to the usual researches of Entomologists, by compre- hending it in a classification of the chief hypotheses that have been proposed on the sensations of animals. The 472 GENERAL REFLECTIONS ON word hypotheses thus applied to all of these theories must not startle, for it is unquestionably true that no opinion has yet been advanced, or perhaps ever can be advanced on the nature of the distinction between man and the brute, that does not involve some open or concealed assumption of what it is impossible for us to prove. The merits of the hypothesis must rest entirely on the probability of this as- sumption, and the following classification shall not there- fore be according to the order of time in which these the- ories have been started, but as nearly as possible according to the apparent probability of the assumptions they involve. As this plan will show the connexion which exists between these several opinions, every shade of them that has been or may be formed, will more easily be comprehended. It were needless to enumerate every obstacle that im- pedes our progress in this branch of Natural History. There are a few, however, which must not escape us; of which the chief indubitably is, that little, except the fact of its fu- ture immortality, having been positively revealed to us on the physical qualities of the sentient principle, we find ma- terialists and immaterialists with equal zeal applying scrip- tural texts to the support of the most opposite doctrines. We ought also to take into consideration the fact that the majority of our ideas, even those of reflection, are during this life in some measure dependent upon the influence ex- ercised by matter on our material organs. Hence it be- comes peculiarly difficult for immaterialists to preserve their ideas of spirit and matter separate. The purity of the one is generally contaminated by certain lurking notions, which a little analysis of our thoughts soon convinces us to have been derived from the other. Another prominent difficulty is, that, whatever be the nature of the sentient THE SYNTHETICAL METHOD. 473 principle, we can only be acquainted accurately with our own individual feelings. Uncertainty thus attending our knowledge of what really operates in the minds of others of our own species, it is little to be wondered at, if all our spe- culations on the perceptions of animals of a structure dif- ferent from our own should be shrouded in comparative darkness. In the examination of the sentiments which agi- tate cr appear to agitate such bodies, analogy ceases to be of much use, and we are obliged to rest content with no better guide than conjecture. The last, but by no means the least obstacle to these re- searches, which we shall take notice of, is the absolute in- ability of the human soul to comprehend perfectly in what manner a being can be omnipotent. Nothing is so mani- fest as that the Primary Cause must be omnipotent; yet it scarcely seems possible, in the imperfect state of our facul- ties, to imagine a divine attribute without at the same time limiting almighty power. Few persons are aware how much this subject was formerly connected with Natural Fistory, or how much injury was formerly done to the science by erroneous notions of omnipotence. The older philosophers, whether materialists or not, seem all to have entangled themselves in a maze of difficulties, when they took up the most useless and hopeless of all researches, and laboured to discover what works were compatible with omnipotence. ‘Their inquiries were directed not to the actual state of the creation as it appears to be formed, but to the means by which it has arrived at its present state. Hence came those subtle scholastic questions relative to final causes, which as long as this world exists will afford matter for disputation. Few thought of ascertaining what 474 GENERAL REFLECTIONS ON things do exist, still fewer of the manner in which they exist; but all were anxious to know by what means they were created. Almost the only question was, whether God ought to be considered the immediate cause of the effects we daily witness, or whether he has employed mediate agents, such as Adyo: omegudrixos, settled laws, ~ plastic natures, and a host of other instruments; of which, granting them to exist, as possibly they may, we have equally clear notions. Every decision on this subject has however been futile. The most cogent argument, for in- stance, which Cudworth advanced in favour of his plastic nature, was founded on the apparent errors of organiza- tion, those dusus nature which argue the agent, as he fan- cied, to be imperfect. One does not, however, easily see why he should have taken it for granted that these are im- ~ perfections which frustrate the particular, as well as what we suppose to be the general views of the Creator. Nor is it very clear how the choice of an erring agent in the creation, can be less derogatory to omnipotence than di- recterror. But, after all, the most singular argument of the advocates of mediate agents has been, that the Divine Being must necessarily be distracted among the mean, trifling and infinitely numerous things which demand his attention, on the supposition that he acts directly. I think I need cite no more examples to prove that it does not follow be- cause aman calls his maker Almighty, that he believes him to be omnipotent. Having thus mentioned a few of the principal difficulties which will ever throw some doubt and mystery round even the most probable of the hypotheses which follow, we may now refer to a subject which appears in itself indeed more THE SYNTHETICAL METHOD. A475 comprehensible than Omnipotence, but of which nearly as little appears with certainty to be understood,—the nature of sentient principles, other than the human soul. We may pass over those who pretend to disbelieve the evidence of their senses, and to doubt the existence of matter. No man of this way of thinking, can rationally take up a book-on Natural History, much less can he have studied it; and we turn therefore to the equally absurd dogma of those, who on the contrary deny the existence of every thing but matter. 1. This, which is the most simple kind of materialism, was the celebrated system of Spinoza, so ably refuted by Clarke and Cudworth. There is nothing in the universe, says Spinoza, but matter, which is the universe or Deity, and has cogitation among its other attributes. It is suffi- cient to observe, that by this impious, if intelligible pro- position, time and space were denied existence, since they are clearly distinct from matter, and therefore could have no place in the universe of Spinozists ! 2. Next therefore come those who acknowledge the ex- istence of something in the universe besides matter, and who even believe in the immateriality of the Deity, but in- sist that the sentient and cogitative principle in man is not distinct from the body, but the result of its organization. With such persons sensation is nothing else than a variety of material life, and reason little better than the conflict of various appetites. The advocates of this opinion may be ranged under two heads :—viz. those who believe in the authority of revealed religion, and those who do not. Both proceed to a certain point on the same reasoning, and argue, that as the powers of perception and thought have never been found but in A760 GENERAL REFLECTIONS ON conjunction with a certain organized system of matter, therefore those powers necessarily exist in, and depend upon such a system. But this is clearly the same assump- tion as that made by Spinoza; namely, that no sentient beings exist, but such as we perceive; and would, if ne- cessarily true, make the Deity material. They who have been so ‘unfortunate as to renounce re- velation, generally consider utter annihilation to take place at the termination of material life. They hold, that the combination of actions to an end, is more complete in pro- portion to the complexity of the material organization of the agent. In order therefore to maintain the intellectual superiority of man over other animals, they are obliged to assume his positive superiority in mechanism; and as this assumption is demonstrably false with respect to the ma- jority of his bodily powers, they are obliged to centre the light of reason which characterizes him, in some favourite part of his structure. Helvetius accordingly placed it in the human hand, and came to the monstrous conclusion, that the flexibility of the human fingers produces that in- telligence, which is to direct them to useful purposes. Others, composing what may be styled the school of Bi- chat, vest their reason in the substance of their brain, by the organization of which they hold perception as a latent property of matter to be called into activity. The nerves with them produce the mental faculties, in the same manner that the various secretions of an animal are generated by the secretory organs. Here is clearly an assumption of what can never be proved; for while they assert that the brain and nerves constitute the mind, all we really know of the subject is, that during life the exercise of the senti- ent principle is connected with medullary matter. But THE SYNTHETICAL METHOD. 477 why this medullary matter should be an operative cause rather than an operative instrument, no one can tell, par- ticularly when it is more consonant with what we positively know of matter, that it should be an instrument. That inevitable conclusion, however, of materialists, which is in direct opposition to the conviction of the com- monest understanding, is the divisibility of the sentient principle, or, in other words, the doctrine that it is the in- stincts of a person which compose all that he can call his being. To say the truth, this denial of the unity of the sentient principle, is not only in perfect harmony with ma- terialism, but even absolutely required by it; for matter, to which our perception is said to belong, being demonstrably divisible ad infinitum, it follows that, instead of each of us being one sentient being, we are each an infinite number! And this amusing conclusion must be equally arrived at by those who, conscientiously founding their belief upon a particular interpretation of certain texts of scripture, adopt the above notion of the materiality of the soul, but suppose that with the particular species man, it is to be revived after dissolution by death to future immortality. They assume, like the former, that matter is neither impenetrable nor inert, and consequently different from what we have every reason from experiment to believe it to be. They assume, moreover, that after the dissolution of the body by death, the material particles which composed it remain es- sentially distinct, and are never assimilated by other bodies ; for if they are, there ceases to be any identity, and the re- surrection of the material soul as a distinct being from other souls, and independent of them, becomes physically im- possible. Even if we grant the second body to be identically the same with that which died, another singular conse- 478 GENERAL REFLECTIONS ON quence of this doctrine presents itself, which is at complete variance with the experience of every Zoologist. It is, that a material body during life is always composed of the same identical particles. Now mind being supposed a property of matter, if this point were not rigidly insisted upon, a short interval of life would destroy all responsibility with our identity. t was in order to get rid of such impossibilities and contradictions, that in the first chapter I admitted the ex- istence of secondary operative causes, distinct from matter. My conviction of this truth, is of the same nature with that derived from an ex absurdo proof in geometry. Some however go much further, and argue on the pre-existence of immaterial beings to their union with the body, or speculate on their necessary immortality. Such subjects I could not venture to discuss, since all that can be stated with certainty is, that whatever has had a beginning may have an end, and that the necessary immortality of the human soul is a dogma as much in opposition to the idea of divine omnipotence, as its necessary mortality. Without the assurances of revelation, the immortality of the soul could never have been ascertained ; nay, perhaps might have been reasonably doubted. The truth, however, of a future state, rests on different grounds, and may be clearly deduced from our being to a certain degree free agents. The doctrine of free ageucy is perhaps not de- monstrably true; but, however theorists may say to the contrary, it is one of those truths in which our conduct and our laws show that we have as much belief as in our existence. One thing very certain is, that the de- nial of the possibility of a creature being a free agent, is a denial of the omnipotence of the Creator, and an advoca- THE SYNTHETICAL METHOD. 479 tion of the doctrine of his attributes being independent upon his will. If the free agency of man be admitted, re- sponsibility for our actions ensues as a necessary conse- quence, unless we can fancy that the De?ty should have in this instance acted directly contrary to those principles of order by which we observe the universe to be governed. Free agency without responsibility is an attribute of the Deity ; and to invest a naturally imperfect being like man with it, is as contrary to our notion of divine justice, as that he should be made responsible without being a free agent. With Omnipotence, it must be equally possible to trace out our future actions as to give us perfect freedom of thought and deed; our disbelief therefore of necessity in human actions, must rest solely on the consciousness im- planted in us, that we are to a certain degree free agents, and therefore responsible. Revealed religion, however, shows in what a wretched state of misery and despair we should be involved, had we only to abide by the conse- quences of this responsibility. Being in this manner convinced of the immateriality of the sentient principle in man, and firmly believing in its ex- istence after the dissolution of the body by death, I placed these truths among my definitions. To those who may believe with me in one plan reigning throughout the uni- verse, I need not say how essential to its uniformity is the existence of secondary immaterial causes, as connect- ing matter with spirit. I shall therefore proceed to enu- ‘merate the leading hypotheses which have been published on the subject of comparative psychology, by persons who believe in the immateriality of the human soul. 3. The nearest of these theories to materialism, is that which has for its fundamental position, that the other ani- 480 GENERAL REFLECTIONS ON mals are all distinguished from man, by having no imma- terial agent connected with their bodies. This opinion has two branches, the most improbable of which has been adopted by no less men than Bacon, Locke, Gassendi and Willis. It is that the sentient principles of brutes are wholly material. As Willis was the only one of these ce- lebrated persons who had any pretensions to be a Zo- ologist, he is the only one that can be charged with incon- sistency. When he admitted the existence of an immate- rial soul in man, he must have considered the medullary matter to be an instrument, or medium only. Now if nerves be the instrument or medium in one case to produce certain effects, it is almost inconceivable, and certainly in opposition to the established rules of philosophy, that they should be the causes of the same effects in another, If medullary matter in man be acted upon by an immaterial agent, and brutes be allowed the faculty of perception, the nerves of these must also be acted upon by an im- material agent, unless indeed we make all the lower animals, as materialists apparently make man, to consist each of an infinite number of sentient beings. In order to avoid this absurdity, Descartes and Male- branche denied to animals the faculty of perception. This is the second branch of that theory which allows no im- material agent to act on the nerves of the lower animals. It is said to have been borrowed by the Cartesian school, from Vivez and Pereira, but it is probably still more an- cient. Descartes was too good a catholic not to make the human soul an immaterial bemg, attendant during this life on the body; and too proud probably of the powers of his own mind to believe in the existence of any similar prin- ciple in brutes. He thus came to view them as mere ma- THE SYNTHETICAL METHOD. 481 terial machines put in motion by simple mechanical laws. In denying perception to animals, he certainly avoided the singular consequence of materialism, which, by invest- ing matter with that power, denies the unity of the perci- pient. There is also no impossibility in the same actions of a man and a brute resulting by the same medium, nerves, from different causes. But that a uniform mechanical law should produce effects varying according to circum- stances, as we perceive them in the generality of animals, is perfectly unintelligible, and has occasioned the Carte- sian hypothesis to be generally regarded as one of the most revolting assumptions of philosophy. If any zoolo- gist, however, be an advocate for the necessity of human actions, I do not see how he can consistently maintain the superiority of man over other animals, without being either a materialist or a Cartesian. 4. We proceed, as often happens in matters of belief, from one extreme to the other, and now have to state, that by some persons every animal has been accounted not only to be acted upon by an immaterial sentient principle, but to be endowed with free agency as well as man. If, indeed, nervous matter be necessarily indicative of the presence of an immaterial free agent, no line can well be drawn to separate one part of the animal kingdom from the other ; and we must thus, with free agency, allow responsibility and a future state even to that principle which animates the gelatinous pulp of an ascidia or polype. Yet this conclusion, which to me is even more disagreeable than that of Descartes, has been entertained by some of the most acute philosophers that have ever existed. It appears also to lead inevitably and directly to a ridiculous idea of Krause, who has seriously asserted, not only the presence 21 482 GENERAL REFLECTIONS ON of a soul in the most minute of animalcules, but that the souls which are thus attendant upon the simplest forms of matter, and which seem so little affected by material in- jury, ought to be ofa more refined and perfect nature than those others which areaffected by the slightest derangement of a complicated piece of machinery. In other words, the soul of a polype ought to be accounted a more refined and perfect being than that of a man! 5. We shall now return to the ordinary doctrine, or the opinion of Locke on this subject, in order that we may understand, or rather endeavour to understand, a new the- ory which has been of late advanced with a degree of con- fidence in its accuracy, that argues any thing but acquaint~ ance with this obscure subject*. The opinion of Locke seems to have been that there are three kinds of souls, 1. 4 vegetative soul, which is common to all organized matter, and which seems to be nearly the same with that phenomenon which in the pre- ceding pages has been named material life. 2. A sensitive or wrrational soul, which is common to the whole of the * The writer referred to announces a number of discoveries in natural history; for, as he does not state his authority, and the facts appear to be quite new, we must give him the credit of their discovery. 1 shall state a few of them for the amusement of naturalists. He says, the first process which distinguishes the animal from the vegetable, is digestion; and that this peculiar characteristic is observable even in the lowest degrees of animal life: hence we learn, either that the Agastria of De Blainville are plants, or that our author has discovered their digestive organs. Hesays that an animal is distinguished from a vegetable by its power of changing the abso- Jute position of the whole of its parts. No wonder therefore that naturalists should have such a difficulty in deciding the place of the Sessile Cirri- pedes, since it appears now that they are plants. A piece of information also, for which our farmers can never be sufficiently thankful to him, is, that the Uredo frumenti draws positive nutrition only from earth. ‘The animal, he says, appears to derive positive nutrition only from organized matter, or rather from that which has previously been alive; while the vegetabledraws the supply from earth, and other unorganized substances. -—My reason for noticing these things is to show, that in certain studies a little more attention to zoology, than is at present bestowed in this country, would not be misplaced. THE SYNTHETICAL METHOD. 485 -animal kingdom, and which is material. 3. 4 rational _ammaterial and immortal soul, in which the intellect and will are conceived to be seated, and which is peculiar to men and angels. Now the consequence of admitting that any sensitive principle can be material, has already been seen ; and it was in order to avoid it, I suppose, that a new version of this unauthorized compound of Alexan- drian philosophy, and Jewish tradition, was devised. Whether this new version be more satisfactory, it is for the reader to determine from the following abstract. For my part, I shall be sorry if it cannot be doubted without incurring the charge of heresy. Man, as we are now told, has three lives, viz. the life of vegetation ; the life of volition ; and the life of understand- ing. These are termed three degrees distinct in themselves. I trust, however, that species are meant, as it savours rather strongly of materialism, to make the understanding a de- gree of material life; we shall therefore consider them as distinct species. We easily discern, that the chief alter- ation that has been here made on Locke’s system, consists in the sensitive soul being furnished with will. It is, how- ever, besides, made immaterial and mortal; so that each man has two distinct species of immaterial beings in him, a mortal and an immortal being. It is not specified how this squares with Mr. Locke’s notions of identity ; indeed ne ver was the unity of the sentient principle more distinctly denied. But we are also told, that while the plant is en- dowed with organic life alone, the animal enjoys the life of volition. “It is this,” we are informed, “ which gives it the power of voluntary motion, of sensation, perception, and of that sagacity which, though it may sometimes rise to a very high degree, is nevertheless totally distinct from DURE: 484 GENERAL REFLECTIONS ON the understanding in man.” We have here to learn, either that “the understanding which constitutes the human soul” has no will, and therefore no responsibility, since I suppose it cannot be contended that the soul is responsible for what it has not willed; or that every man is endowed with two wills, that of his understanding, and that of his life of volition. It must be an important, if not a pleasant speculation, for our author to know which of his two wills is implicated in his faults, since, if he can contrive to fix them all on the principle of volition, which is mortal, his understanding will come well off. It deserves remark, that Mr. Locke was afraid that persons would fall into this very mistake, although he had distinctly shown that intel- lect and will are only powers of the mind, “ These pow- ers of the mind,” he says, “ viz. of perceiving and prefer- ring, areusually called by another name; and the ordinary way of speaking is, that the understanding and will are two faculties of the mind; a word proper enough, if it be used, as all words should be, so as not to breed any confusion in men’s thoughts by being supposed (as 1 suspect it has been) to stand fer real beings in the soul that performed those actions of understanding and volition.” But the whole of the new theory seems hastily got up; for we have volition sometimes a power, sometimes an immaterial prin- ciple, while in general it is supposed to mean the act of willing. From all which I know not what inference to draw, unless that we are to believe the principle that wills, the power to will, and the act of willing, to be all one and the same thing. 6. The reader has now doubtless had sufficient of this improvement upon Locke, and will not be sorry to have another theory set before him, which, although I scarcely THE SYNTHETICAL METHOD. 485 think it will have many advocates, is neither utterly incon- sistent with natural history nor in opposition to revealed religion. It rests on the belief, that no active energy can be imparted to nervous matter, except by the volition of an immaterial spirit. Thus an immaterial soul, placed here in a state of probation, is held to act by volition di- rectly on the brain of man. But the brain of other ani- mals or the ganglions which obtain that name, are supposed to be acted upon by the volition of the Deity. This opi- nion can only have one foundation, which is far from being weak or easily subverted. It is, that this planet and its contents were created for the sole use and instruction of man, who thus is the end of the terrestrialcreation. “ Prin- cipio wpse mundus Deorum hominumque causa factus est : quequeim eo sunt omnia, ea parata ad fructum hominum et inventa sunt.” The common objection to the theory now under discussion is, that if the Deity be really the di- rect cause of the actions of animals, they ought never to err in their instincts, as we know that they do. Such reasoning, however, is as erroneous as that of Cudworth in favour of aplastic nature. [tis surely presumption to talk of errors in nature, asif they were faults or imperfections that had taken place in opposition to the will of the Deity. All we can mean without impiety is, that they are departures from a general plan or rule, which very departures are perhaps proofs of some interference. A more powerful obstacle to our belief in the divine vo- lition being the only agent on the nerves of animals other than man, is their possession of organs of sense. We can perhaps conceive that the Deity should be the cause of their actions ; but what can be their passive principle? The Deity cannot surely be the percipient. If the eyes of , 486 GENERAL REFLECTIONS ON an animal, for instance, be put out, it is evident from his actions that he has lost a power. Yet we cannot be ab- surd enough to suppose that the Deity should have lost any power by this process; andif we say, on the other hand, that the loss has only been experienced by the body, we fall into the exploded notion of a material sentient principle. To me, such an argument appears insurmountable; but J confess its force is very much weakened by the reflec- tion, that the basis of the opposed doctrine is, that every thing we see is intended for our instruction, either with respect to the divine nature or the human. Now it is manifestly possible to place to this account, not only the apparent consequences of injuries in animals, but all the phenomena they may present. Nevertheless, assumption, I repeat, crowds so fast here on assumption, that, although not any one by itself may be improbable, all together ren- der it very difficult, if not impossible, to credit the maxim, “ Deus est anima brutorum.” In consequence of a re- markable but not very explicit paper in the second volume of the Spectator, Addison is generally supposed to have been of this sentiment. When talking of the energy which acts in animals he says, “To me it seems the im- mediate direction of Providence, and such an operation of the Supreme Being as that which determines all the portions of matter to their proper centres.” The latter part of this sentence, however, seems to correspond rather with the Cartesian hypothesis, which supposes animals to be acted upon by some mechanical force; and the whole makes me suspect that Addison had not exactly made up his mind as to the distinction between the two theories, 7. I now come to the last hypothesis which I have to THE SYNTHETICAL METHOD. 487 mention. In this, as in the cases immediately preceding, man is imagined to consist materially of one of the most complicated pieces of mechanism which the animal king- dom contains ; but his corporeal superiority and perfection appear to consist in his nervous system, which is con- ceived to be acted upon, during the life of organification, by a conscious immaterial being endowed with a suffi- cient degree of free agency to render it morally respon- sible to its Creator. The medullary matter of such other animals as possess the life of organification, is supposed to be acted upon likewise by conscious immaterial beings ; but these are infinitely inferior to the soul of man, inas- much as, their actions not being sufficiently free, they are destitute of the powers of reflection, discharged from responsibility, and therefore from the necessity of a future state. The principle of necessity is carried to its utmost limits in the annulose circle, as may be exemplified in the laborious economy of Searabeus Sacer. The principle of liberty, on the contrary, predominates in the Vertebrata; and although no animals in this last circle, except man, are sufficiently free to be morally responsible, we see the whole contents of the group tending towards this point of perfection. We have seen that nature appears to abhor absolute division in the arrangement of organized matter, and something of the same kind is observable here in cha- racterizing spirit. Vestiges of instinct may be traced in man; and a will faintly dawns in those insects which are most enslaved to their peculiar economy. But there are animals, as we have seen, which possess only that simple degree of material life, which allows merely of their being propagated, like plants, by scission ; and for the sake of uniformity we were obliged to assume 438 GENERAL REFLECTIONS ON _ that such animals are capable in some degree of sensibility. The very reverse of unity is however visible in their irrita- ble principles. Here, therefore, if the presence of an imma- terial conscious being be adinitted, it must be in infinite — number ; an idea so absurd, that we are forced to believe that the Acrita, or those animals which possess not the life of organification, have no sentient principle acting on their nervous matter. Their irritability no more proves it, than the convulsion by galvanism of the muscles of a dead frog is sufficient testimony of its suffering pain. The latter notions with respect to the nature of the sen- tient principle in animals, are in strict unison with zoolo- gical phenomena. I am indeed ignorant of any better ex- planation of these, than by such an hypothesis, which must be acknowledged, however, to involve, as well as the other theories, assumptions of the truth of which we cannot be certain. Perhaps some opinion, preferable to any of the preceding, may yet be devised, and the search for it must give us an additional zest for that science, which affords the only sure data upon which similar investigations can ever be founded. I despair, indeed, of positive certainty on the point being in this world ever attained; but surely the subject is one of the most interesting upon which the mind can speculate, and must fully repay the trouble of thought. At all events, we ought not on a philosophical question, as ithas most truly been said, to take assertion for proof, obscurity for depth, or perplexity for argument. Neither the authority. of office, nor the weight of name; neither the elegance of style, nor the purity of motive, can be any suf- ficient reason for doing ourselves so little justice. Or, to cite a passage of Ray which is most apposite, “ Let it not suffice us to be book-learned, to read what others have THE SYNTHETICAL METHOD. 489 written, and to take upon trust more falsehood than truth; but let us ourselves examine things as we have opportu- nity, and converse with nature as .well as books. Let us endeavour to promote and increase this knowledge, and make new discoveries, pot so much distrusting our own parts, or despairing of our own abilities, as to think that our industry can add nothing to the invention of our ances- tors, or correct any of their mistakes. Let us not think that the bounds of science are fixed like Hercules’s pillars, and inscribed with a ne plus ultra ; let us not think we have done when we have learned what they have delivered tous. The treasures of nature are inexhaustible ; here is employment enough for the vastest parts, the most inde- fatigable industries, the happiest opportunities, the most prolix and undisturbed vacancies.” A9O CHAPTER IX. ANALYSIS. a V ervs botanicus genera naturalia assumit, nec erronea ob spectei notam aberrantem conficit.” After duly weigh- ing this expression of Linneus, the full force of which certainly long escaped me, I am inclined to think that when we find him declaring genera to be natural, it may be of use to recollect that he confounds two sorts of ge- nera:—the one, the genus as he most philosophically con- ceived it ought to be constructed; the other, the genus as he was only able artificially to construct it. The first of these, which perhaps he constantly aimed at, was truly a natural group, not liable to be injured by any slight aber- ration from the leading characteristics by which he ima- gined it to be distinguished in nature. Before, however, he could carry this idea into execution, he was obliged, as he unfortunately thought, to choose some principle or prin- ciples of division, by the application of which his genera mught be formed; and herein lay his error. He chose in Entomology to make the antenne the keystone of division, as he might have made any other organ or property of in- sects. Fabricius, by a parody on his words, said, on the other hand, “ Genera tot sunt quot similiter constructa in- strumenta cibaria proferunt diverse species naturales,” a rule than which scarcely any more false could have been ANALYSIS. 491 devised. The instrwmenta cibaria are indeed as useful in- dices of a natural arrangement, as any other organs what- ever; but absolute rules of generic distinction, founded on their minute differences of structure, are not only faulty in themselves, but calculated to blind us altogether to those beautiful groups which the Entomologist has so often oc- casion to remark in nature. In a tribe of msects feeding on dry food, every species shall perhaps present a slight variation in its organs of man- ducation from the nearest to it in affinity; and in a tribe feeding on juices, and therefore provided with membra- naceous mandibles, insects the most opposite in external appearance, shall present scarcely any difference in the structure of their mouth. So also with the antenne: the “ clava fissilis” makes the Linnean genus Scarabeus one of the most natural in Entomology, while the “ clava per- foliata” and “antenne moniliformes” make the genera Dermestes and Tenebrio of the Systema Nature groups worthy only of Mouffet. Nay, this very adoption of one principle of division—this prescription of a rule to nature, was a cause moreover of the Linnean and Fabrician ge- mera, even when natural groups, having an insulated cha- racter about them, utterly inconsistent with the abstract idea which Linneus, from the above botanical aphorism, appears to have had of a genus. There is no appearance, indeed, in the works of Fabricius, that this naturalist ever had any abstract notion of a genus, or indeed any belief, but that every division he in his good pleasure thought proper to propose was a law of nature. Linneus, on the contrary, undoubtedly had both a theoretical and a prac- tical genus, the latter of which was the invariable result 492 ANALYSIS. upon the erroneous basis of preconceived characters for division. So that, because his philosophical idea of a ge- turalist, instead of commencing with any rule from the an-__ = “tenne or other solitary organs, had placed together in a — group all those insects which agreed in a majority of cha- _— racters and habit,—if he had then endeavoured to discover that character which was non to them all, he would, probably have had a group which might have been called a natural genus without much error. Far from leading him to indulge any idea of absolute division, the “ note aberrantes” would then have rendered such species as they distinguished the most valuable of all, as tending to point out to his notice the neighbouring genus. And this Linneus appears indirectly to have perceived ; for when he says that it is no argument against the validity of a genus, thatsome species should gradually quit its type, there seems reason to believe that his theoretical notion of genera may, with- _to pelleve that his theoretical nc g Yo W. out any inconsistency, be reconciled with his maxim, that SS Ee ee ae ae, . . Oe . no saltus exists in nature, which is positively contradicted =—=_hby his genera, as they are instituted. An example was given in the appendix to the former Essay, of a genus containing five types of form, the pro- gression of which returns into itself. This genus, Phaneus, was there proved to be distinguished by a peculiarity of geography, as well as of construction and appearance, while the genus Scarabeus, as there developed, was con- sidered to be probably artificial, like almost every other that has hitherto been instituted in Entomology. Now to show, if possible, by analysis, that there were grounds for this suspicion ; to show that Phaneus is by no means a ANALYSIS. 495 solitary example of generic regularity in the distribution of nature, and that in both Phaneus and Scarabeus the theoretical genus of Linnezus appears to be exemplified, will be attempted in the present and concluding chapter, of which the leading object is to ascertain the place of Scarabeus Sacer in the smallest group to which it can be referred. With respect to the Saprophagous Petalocera, but par- ticularly to the three Coprophagous families, it may be said that they walk not on their tarsi, but on the extremi- ties of their tibia. We may observe this so well in Geo- trupes stercorarius, that, excepting in certain .cases where the insect hangs by the ungues of the tarsi, we are utterly unable to imagine the use of them. In the genus Phaneus, where the ungues themselves are deficient, it is particularly difficult to determine the use of the tarsi, although it is very easy to conceive them to be a great inconvenience to the animal. Indeed, on this very account the tarsi in Co- prophagous insects become often obsolete, and their use as organs of prehension is in some measure supplied by one or two calcaria fixed at the extremity of the tibia. It is on these that, accurately speaking, the animal walks. After the discovery of the principle upon which the natural group of Phanéus was constructed, I turned my attention to the true Scarabei, in the hope of being able to apply a similar plan to these more celebrated insects. But every attempt failed, because, although my series of affinity was to a certain degree very distinct, [ had no point about which my group could centre. It was in this state of doubt that I received a letter from the Rev. Mr. Kirby, to whose discoveries [ have so often already alluded, announcing a new principle of arrangement, founded on the compara- 494 ANALYSIS. tive number of tibial calcaria in various insects. _ This he conceived of sufficient importance to entitle Scarabeus H. E., Gymnopleurus Illig., together with S. Asculapius Oliv., to the rank of a family, because they all possess two calcaria less than other Coprophagous insects. To me the observation appeared to afford the generic character for which I had hitherto been fruitlessly seeking—a character by which it was possible to group these insects together in much the same manner as the Phanai had already been as- sembled, on account of all wanting ungues to their tarsi. The arrival also in England of an extraordinary insect, forming a type intermediate between the Scarabeus Sacer and S. Asculapius of Olivier, enabled me to descry not only the limits of the genus, but its series of affinity such as I now present it tv the Entomologist, instead of the genus Scarabeus of the first part of this work, which proves to be only atypus forme or subgenus. Fam. SCARABAIDA. H. E. Genus. SCARABEUS. Linné. Genus Mundi Antiqui proprium, tibiis omnibus apice unicalcaratis. Scarabei spec. Lin. DEG. Actinophori spec. CREUTZ. STURM. Ateuchi spec. Fas, Lat. Scarabeus et Gymnopleurus.H. E. Antenne articulis novem, primo cylindrico 2pice basique paulo crassiori, secundo tertio quarto et quinto obconicis, secundo minimo, tertio quarto et quinto, tertio presertim, longioribus, sexto breviori pateriformi; reliquis clavam irregularem sub- compressam formantibus, septimo maximo octavum tenuem in sinum excipiente, ultimo subtrigono seminis citrini ad instar acuminato. ANALYSIS. 495 Instrumentis in cibariis haud valida patet distinctio. Confer H. E. vol. 1. p. 134. et Stwrm Ent. Hand. tab. iii. Caput subtrigonum vel rhomboidéum nunquam cornutum ; cly- peo radiato bidentato vel emarginato. Thorax ellipticus marginatus puncto spe indistincto utrinque impressus, ab- domine semper latior, lateribus marginatis. Pectus irregu- lare. Pedes validi. Tibie trigone ad apicem spina. unica instructe ; antice tri- vel quadri-dentate tarsis plerumque obsoletis ; posticee conice ad apicem oblique truncate tarsis gracillimis setaceis unguibus duobus munitis. Oss. Color plerumque niger haud raro metallicus. Hoe in circulo quatuor forme typos adhuc solim vidi. With respect to the geography of this genus, [I may mention that out of 43 known species, 27 may be found in Africa. The first type extends from the Atlantic Ocean to Thi- bet, and from Austria to the Cape of Good Hope. The second type, however, appears to be confined to the north of Africa, and the third to the south. The fourth type has not yet been found ; and the fifth inhabits all that tract of country which extends from the Atlantic Ocean to the Chinese sea—from Paris to tne Cape of Good Hope. Creutzer, in his Entomologische Versuche, a little work published in 1799, and containing many excellent obser- vations on the science, has stated, that S. sacer, laticallis, ampius, semipunctatus, variolosus, and morbillosus, do not possess that character which Illiger had assigned to the genus Copris. In other words, they have not the middle feet distant at their base. On the contrary, it is remarked by Creutzer, that their middle cox are as near to each other as those of the first and last pair of feet. This cir> cumstance, therefore, with their different habitus, induced 4906 ANALYSIS. him to set apart, under the name of Actinophorus, the abovementioned insects in his cabinet, and to add to their number S. pilularius, Geoffroy and Schefferi. “It is true,” he observes, “‘ that these three species, and particu- larly the last, in which the middle coxe are wide apart, quit in some measure the habitus of S$. Sacer and its affi- nities; yet they appear to me to be better placed in this genus than in any other.” In the year which followed the publication of the Ento- mologische Versuche, appeared Sturm’s Entomologisches- Handbuch, in which the genus proposed by Creutzer is adopted, and scientific characters are assigned toit. Sturm, however, adds S. volvens and sinuatus to the species spe- cified by his predecessor, merely observing that volvens and Schefferi quit in some degree the general habitus of the others. He therefore divides his genus Actinophorus into two families ; the first consisting of those species which have the middle feet near to each other at the base, and the second containing those which have them widely apart. The first family is the earliest, and indeed the only distinct specification of the genus Scarabeus as here given, that I have met with. When we consider the small num- ber of species with which these two Germans were ac- quainted, it is really surprising that they should have ac- quitted themselves so well. They certainly are the first discoverers of the present natural group, of which [I shall now indicate the construction. ANALYSIS. 407 fr Species vel varietates quas obelo distinxi in Museo Mac-Leayano non hospitantur. TYPUS I. Antenne articulo ‘tertio quarto quinto et sexto, his ultimis presertim, brevibus, quinto pateriformi, septimo trapeziformi octayum et nonum in sinu fere includente et capituli ovati transversi irregularis basin formante. Cly- peus radiatus, sexdentatus, vel potius subtrilobus, lobo medio emarginato utrinque bidentato. Abdomen trun- catum depressum elytrorum margine externo post hume- ros acutos nec profundé nec abrupte sinuato. Medioster- num oblongum elevatum fere porrectum. Pedes villosi coxis basi xqué dissitis. Tibize antice extus quadriden- tate intus rari serrate; posteriores quatuor calcaribus fixis. Tarsi anteriores nulli; posteriores tibiz pone api- cem inserti unguiculis brevibus. Oss. Caput anticé scabrosum. Elytra striata vel substriata. HELIOCANTHARUS, Antiquorum. 1. SCARAB/EUS ater, occipite bituberculato, elytris sublevibus Sacer. punctis aliquot inter sex lineas obsuletas impressis. g Abdomen sepius tam longum quam latum. eg Abdomen sepius quam longum latius. Scarabeus sacer. H. E. Pars. 1. p. 185. Scarabeus crenatus. Degeer Ins. vii. p. 638.n. 36. t. 47. f. 18. Scarabeeus levis. Osbeck. Iter. p. 51. Habitat in Europe australioris, Asie occidentalis et Africe borealis aridis, pilulas e stercore bovino volvens, ovisque impositis denique sepeliens. a VAR. S. tibils anticis intus bidentatis. Mus. Brit. 6 Van. S. elytris subsulcatis. Mus. Kirby. y VaR. S. atronitidus; tibiis anticis haud intus bidentatis. Scheffer Icon. Ins. Ratisb. t. 201. fig. 3. Scarabeus sacer. Panzer Faun, Germ. fase. 48. fig. 7. e 2K: Dufresnii. plus. Bonellii. Hottentottus. AQS ANALYSIS. S. Var. sexualis. Lat. Gen. Crust. et Ins. vol. ii, p. 70. Habitat in Rossia meridionali, in regione Caucasea.— D.Steven. d VaR. S. impius FaB. atronitidus ; clypei dentibus tuberculisque inconspicuis, tiblis anticis extus serratis vix dentatis, intus in- ermibus. 2. SCARAB-EUS ater, clypeo cruce elevato, thorace tuberculis confertissimis scabro : linea longitudinali levi, elytris haud punctatis. In honorem viri amicissimi, Entomologi acuti, nominatur species pracedenti nimis affinis. 3. SCARAB/ZUS atronitidus, clypeo cruce elevato, thorace tuber- culis scabro posticé levi: medio subdepresso, elytris punc- tis irregularibus impressis. Scarabeus sacer. Don. Ind. Ins. tab. 1.? Actinophorus sacer. Sturm. Ent. Hand. 1. p. 74. t. 3. Ateuchus lvigatus in Catalogis Germanorum. Habitat in Austria. DD. Dejean. Dahl. 6 Var. S. ater hirsutior; clypei tibiarumque dentibus longissimis acutis, thoracis punctis rarioribus. Habitat in Hispania. D. Pavon. y VaR. S. inter varietates ~ et 8 intermedius. 4. SCARABMUS ater, clypei linea transversa elevata: medio tu- berculato, thorace tuberculis scabro: linea dorsali lzevi, ely- tris granulatis, tibiis fere tridentatis. a VaR. S. clypei tibiarumque dentibus acutis. Mus. Brit. 6 VaR. S. clypei tibiarumque dentibus obtusis rotundatis. Habitat ad Cap. Bon. Spei. Historie Naturalis sagacissimo interpreti, Musai regalis apuad Taurinenses Presidi, sic meritas grates persolvo. 5. SCARAB/EUS ater, clypei cruce elevata, thorace punctis im- presso : anchora dorsali elevata levi, elytris punctorum striis impressis punctisque minutissimis granulatis aliisque ravis vix impressis. . ANALYSIS. 499 Ateuchus Hottentottus. Lat. in Cat. Mus. Gall. Reg. MSS. 8 Var. S. anchora dorsali inconspicua thoracisque punctis obso- letis. Habitat ad Cap. Bon. Spei. Mus. Brit. 6. SCARABEUS ater, clypeo trituberculato, thorace anticé vix impius. scabroso, elytris punctis minutissimis granulatis. Scarabeus impius. Herbst. col. 2. p.302. n. 196. t. 20. f. 1.? Habitat ————. Aut eremplar Herbstianum, aut unum illud singulariter simulans in Mus. Mac-Leayano hospitatur. This species answers so exactly to the description and figure of S. impius given by Herbst, that I have little doubt of its being the same. [t is clear that the above specific character does not at all answer to S. Sacer, and the only circumstance in which it positively differs from that of Herbst’s insect is in the clypeus having three tuber- cles, whereas this author says that in» the middle of the clypeus there is an elevated line, “die in der mitte getheilt ist, so dass sie das ansehen zweyer stumpfer erhohungen hat.” It was owing probably to this opinion, which may have resulted from a careless examination, as well as to the specific character given by Herbst, which rests on a variation apparently common to every species of the type, that Fabricius made it a variety of S. Sacer. From this, however, Herbst’s figure and the sculpture of the elytra as above given sufficiently separate it. 7. SCARAB/EUS atro-eneus, clypeo tuberculato: linea utrinque Lamarckii. ad occiput connivente, thorace anticé tuberculis scabro, ely- tris punctis minutissimis granulatis paucisque majoribus vix impressis. Habitat in Senegallia. Insectum Artis Zoologica magistro dicatum. 8. SCARAB.EUS ater, clypeo medio vix cornuto : linea transversd Cuvieri. 2K 2 sanctus. Palemon. tntricatus. 300 ANALYSIS. elevata, thorace tuberculis scabro, lyra dorsali levi tricuspi- data, elytris punctis minutissimis granulatis paucisqué majoribus vix impressis. Habitat in Africa. In honorem Anatomes Zoologice principis, Entomologt apprime docti, nomen dedi. 9. SCARAB/EUS viridi-cupreus, capite thoraceque scabrosis, tho- racis cruce dorsali elevata levi inconspicua, elytris punctis plurimis impressis, tibiis vix quadridentatis. Ateuchus Sanctus. Fab. 8. Eleuth. 1. p. 56. n.6. Copris Sanctus. Fab. Suppl. E.S. p. 34. n. 209-10. 6 Var. S. elytris cupreis. y Var. S. totus viridi-nitens. d Var. + S. totus atro-ceruleus clypei dentibus obtusioribus. Mus. Brit. Habitat in India orientali. Mus. Brit. This species approaches to Gymnopleurus in marking, tridentated anterior tibie, colour, vestige of sinuated elytra, and of impressed puncture on each side of the thorax. It is the only insect of the type which ts known not to inha- bit Africa. 10. SCARAB EUS ater, clypei linea dorsali elevata vix levi, thorace punctis impressis numerosis, elytrorum striis elevatis un- datis. Scarabeus Palemon? Oliv. Ent. 1. 3. 237. Ateuchus morbillosus. Fab. §. Eleuth. 1. p. 56.n. 7. Habitat in Senegallia. Ad Caput Bone Spei.? Mus. Brit. 11. SCARABEUS ater, clypei linea dorsali elevata levi, thorace punctato: linea dorsal parum elevata, elytris punctis ele- vatis quadratis lineatis. Scarabeus Palemon. Oliv. Ent. i. 8. n. 237. t. 27. f. 234. Ateuchus intricatus: Fab. Syst. Eleuth. 1. p. 56. n. 9. Habitat ad Caput Bone Spei. Mus. Brit. ANALYSIS. 501 Notwithstanding Schonherr’s excellent work, the great- est confusion still prevails with respect to the two pre- ceding species ; and it has arisen entirely from Fabricius, when publishing his Systema Eteutheratorum, having for- gotten the insect which he had described in his Systema Entomologia under the name of morbillosus. The S$. mor- 6illosus of his Ent. Sysé. is a German insect, (“ Habitat in Germanid,’) and is evidently the species found in Malta and the south of Europe, and described by Panzer, Ent. G.I.p.17.n.69. This is so dissimilar in form and sculp- tare from A. intricatus of the Syst. Eleuth., that it could never have been confounded with it on comparison. It would appear, therefore, that Fabricius, when about te publish his Syst. E/euth., saw an African insect, which answering nearly to his description of the true S. morbil- losus, the form of which he had forgotten, he thought pro- per to alter the habitat from Germania to Guinea, and the “ Elytra striis punctisque numerosis exarata” to “ Elytra 9 strits elevatis undatis,” without taking any notice of the difference. ‘They are blunders like these which render Natu- ral History such a drudgery, although their rectification is by some esteemed to be the whole of the science. The in- sect, however, which Fabricius describes as 4.morbillosus in the Syst. Eleuth. has truly so great an affinity to his A. intrica‘us, that, when he suspects them to be varieties of the samespecies, (“ Statura, magnitudo et summa affini- tas A.morbillosi, cujus forte mera varietas,”) | am inclined to think him in the right. Olivier appears also to have been of the same opinion, for he says of S$. Palemon, “It se trouve au Senegal, au Cap de B. Esperance.” The spe- cles are only to be distinguished by Palemon being rather smaller than intricatus, besides being more punctated, puncticollis. Spencit. Degeeri. 502 ANALYSIS. wanting the elevated dorsal’ line, and having the elevated points of the elytra irregular, so as to give the stri# the. appearance of being waved. From S. morbillosus they may easily be distinguished by their anterior tibiz being more distinctly quadridentate. S.intricatus and Palemon both come very near to Gymnopleurus in marking and form, in vestige of sinuation in Palemon, and of impressed points on each side of the thorax of antricatus. 12, SCARABEUS atronitidus glaberrimus, capite anticé scabro posticé levi convexo, thorace punctis minutis rarissimis anticé impressis, elytris vix striatis. AV aR.+S. thorace punctis duobus dorsalibus vix impresso. Mus. Brit. Ateuchus puncticollis. Lat. Mem. sur les Ins. Sac. d’ Egypte. p- 7. t. 18. fig. 14. Habitat in regione Tripolitana. D, Ritchie. Mus. Brit. This species approaches excessively close to the Spanish variety of S. pius before described. The rectangular shape of the abdomen distinguishes this at first sight from S. se- mipunctatus, which has it rather circular. Species qué Scarabeum Bonelli affinitate attingunt. 13. SCARAB/JEUS atronitidus, capitis lineis duabus curvis antror- sum in vertice concurrentibus, thorace tuberculis scabrius- culo, elytrorum striis sub lente vitteformibus. BVaR.S. rufus. Habitat ———. Mus. Brit. Hac Species Monographie de Cholevis acutissimo auctori dicatur. 14. SCARAB/EUS atronitidus, capite posticé punctato: medio tu- berculato lineaque transversa elevata mucronata, thorace anticé tuberculis scabro, elytrorum striis inconspicuis. Habitat ———— Tn memoriam Entomologorum principis. ANALYSIS. 3503 15. SCARABUS atronitidus, capitis linea transversa interrupta Sevignit. convexa, thorace levissimo: tuberculo utrinque ele- vato. Habitat : Ilius oculatissimi tot res mirandas explicantis nomine merito insig- nita prodit species profecto distincta, Species osculantes que S. Sanctum affinitate attingunt. 16. SCARAB.EUS atronitidus, corpore convexiusculo, capite me- morbillosus. dio levi posticé punctato: puncto medio apertiori, thorace elytrisque punctis raris latis subconicis equalibus variolosis impressis. Scarabeus morbillosus. Fab. Ent. Syst. 1. p. 63. n. 210. Scarabeeus variolosus. Panz. Faun. Germ. 67. n. 7. Actinophorus variolosus. Sturm. Ent. Hand. 76. 0.66. Habitat in Insula Melitensi et Dalmatia. D. Dejean. B VaR. S. fere duplo minor elytrorum striis indistinctis. Scarabeus morbillosus.. Panz. Ent. G.I. p. 17. n. 69. Habitat in Melite Insula. D. Riichie. Mus. Brit. y VAR. S. parvus, thoracis dorso utrinque gibboso. Panzer certainly was in error when he referred the in- sect he has figured as S. variolosus to the S. variolosus of the Entomologia Systematica. 17. SCARABUS atronitidus, thorace punctato elytris sulcatis. _Laticollis. 6 Var. 8. duplo minor, thoracis punctis indistinctis. Scarabeus laticollis. Linn. Syst. Nat. p. 549. n. 38. pilularis. Ravi Ins. p. 105. 4. Copris serratus. Fourcroy Ent. Par. 1. p. 13. n. 2. Le Hottentot. Geoff. Ins. tom. 1. p. 89. n. 2. Habitat in Europa meridionali, Africa boreali, irsectum feeti- dissimum. Mus. Brit. 18. SCARAB/EUS ater, corpore depressiusculo, capite medio variolosus. levi posticé punctato, thorace elytrisque punctis con- semipunctatus. 504 ANALYSIS. fertissimis confluentibus inequalibus variolesis impres- sis. Scarabeus variolosus. Fab. Ent. Syst. 1. p. 63. n. 208. Fab. Syst. Eleuth. 1. p. 56. 4. Habitat in Europa australiori et Africa boreali. @ Var. S. minor. Fab. Mantissa, p. 16. n. 161. Oss. Species S. morbilloso valde atinis, at abdomine subcirculari distincta. 19. SCARABAUS atronitidus, capite posticé punctato, thorace punctis latis impresso, elytris substriatis. Scarabeus semipunctatus. Fab. E. S. i. p. 63. n. 207. Scarabeus variolosus. Oliv. Ent, 1. 3. p, 151. n. 184. t. 8. f. 60. 6 VaR. S. duplo minor, elytris striatis. Habitat in Europa meridionali, Africa boreali. In Sardinia sa- bulosis vulgatissimus. D. Arnold. These are all the species which I have seen of that type of form which, as emblematic of the sun, was held in such reverence by the Egyptians. In thus endeavouring to distribute them in a natural order of affinity, taken from their general structure and individual sculpture, I find that we may account nine at least of the species above de- scribed, to constitute part of a series which returns into itself, and of which the opposite points meet, as appears by the affinity of form which S. semipunctatus bears to S. Sacer. Of the economy of these insects, although so common in the south of Europe, we know scarcely more than what may be found in Aristotle’s Hist. Animalium. M. Disderi, however, in the third vol. of the Turin Trans- actions, has given an entertaining paper on the manners of the insects inhabiting the vicinity of Saluzzo; and _ this, perhaps, contains the most able history of S. Sacer to which the reader can refer. ANALYSIS. 505 M. Disderi observes, among other circumstances, that * Scarabaus noster non urget pectore globulum antrorsum eum trudendo quod faciunt alii; verum longioribus pedi- bus suis posterioribus globulum stringit atque retrogrado non directo incessu volvit.” Which admirably coincides with aremark communicated to me by Mr. Kirby, to wit, that the hinder tibiee of Heliocanthari are of the same form as the fore tibiee of Onitis. In addition to various Egyptian sculptures of this type of form, the artists of which perhaps strictly intended the imi- tation of no particular species, | have seen good representa- tions from Egypt of S. sacer, semipunctatus, morbillosus, and /aticodlis. Latreille appears also to have seen an image of 8. puncticollis. These five species therefore, with Copris Midas, which was emblematic of Isis and the moon, and is well described by Pliny, may be held among the most ce- lebrated insects of antiquity. Although the explanation of Horapollo’s mysticism, and the cause of the Heliocan- tharos being the Egyptian symbol of generation, are sub- jects which more properly belong to the antiquarian, much curious information may be derived from M. Latreille’s Mémoire sur les Insectes sacrés d Egypte, which has been lately read before the French Institute. TYPUS II. Antenne articulo tertio longiori, quarto et quinto brevibus septimo, trigono pateriformi, capituli subquadrati transversi basin formante. Clypeus radiatus subtrilobus, tobo medio emarginato utrinque bidentato, adeoque sexden- tatus. Abdomen rotundatum subdepressum circuli seg- mentum majus sistens, elytrorum margine externo post humeros vix acutos nec profundé nec abrupté sinuato. Mediosternum breve elevatum triangulare vix porrectum. Pedes villosi coxis intermediis adjunctis et tibiarum calcari- 506 ANALYSIS. bus cum tibia articulatis seu mobilibus. Tuibie antice ex- tus quadridentatz intus serrulate tarsis nullis, MNEMATIUM mihi. Ritchu +. 20. SCARABLUS nigronitidus, capite punctato vertice depresso, thorace levissimo punctato, elytris atris subsulcatis. Habitat in Africa boreali. Mourzouk. D. Ritchie. Mus. Brit. M.S. Perlustratoris intrepidi, zoologia peritissimi, amici nunquam nimis deflendi, JoSEPHI RiTCHIE, qui labore et curis defessus sub sole Africano juvenis occubuit die Octobris vicesimo 1819. The only specimen known of this interesting insect is now in the British Museum, and formed part of a curious col- lection sent home by my lamented friend, the late Mr. Ritchie, who, amid the versatility of his genius and know- ledge, was particularly devoted to the science of entomo- logy. The Scarabeus Ritch is one of the most con- vincing arguments that can be adduced for the probabi- lity of the chasms which now occur in entomology, being all in due time filled up by the discoveries of travellers. Until this insect was detected, there was a wide distance between the S. sacer and $. A’sculapius of Olivier; but now the chain of connexion is complete, as we have here the clypeus of one species, with an approximation to- wards the singular form of the other, Mr. Kirby long since observed to me, that S. daticollis, semipunctatus, and variolosus, quit the character of their type in having the fore tibiz serrulate on the inside, the calcaria distinctly articulated with the tibia, the four hinder tarsi inserted in the middle of the tibia, and the ungues rather long. Now these are all characters which, to say nothing of the sub- circular form of their abdomen, show us how these insects ANALYSIS. 507 lead from S. sacer to this type—Mmnemation—which is probably confined to the north of Africa. The inequality of the number of species in natural groupes, I have before stated as perhaps one of the most curious facts in natural history. On looking therefore at such groupes as the present, the entomologist should bear in mind that an Azatus ought not to be confounded with a saltus, however fashionable of late the synonymy of the words may have been. TYPUS III. Antenne articulis tertio quarto et quinto longiori- bus, at paulatim longitudine decrescentibus, septimo octavo et nono subsimilibus capitulum subglobosum formantibus. Clypeus triangularis apice bidentato. Abdomen convexi- usculum circulare, thoracis margine pilis longis ciliato, elytrorum margine externo post humeros rotundatos nec profunde nec abrupteé sinuato. Mediosternum subtriangulare fere impressum. Pedes villosissimi coxis intermediis basi adjunctis et tibiarum calcaribus cum tibia articulatis vel mobilibus. Tibi antice extus quadridentate tarsis nullis ; tarsis posticarum quatuor apicibus insertis unguiculis longis. Pacnysoma. Kirby MSS. 21. SCARABZUS ater, thorace punctato, elytris punctatis vix stri- sculapius. atis, tibiis anticis intus linea elevata instructis. | Scarabeus Asculapius. Oliv. Ent.3. 187. Pl. 24. f. 207. Ateuchus Asculapius. Schinherr. Syn. Ins. Habitat ad Cap. Bone Spei. Mus. Brit. 22. SCARABZUS atronitidus, thorace punctato, elytris striatis vix Hippocrates. punctatis, tibils anticis intus tuberculorum serie instructis. Pachysoma Hippocrates. Kirby MSS. Precedente duplo major habitat ad Cap. Bonz Spei. Mus. Kirby. Tn this, as well as in the last type, the coxe of the inter- 508 ANALYSIS. mediate legs touch each other at their base; yet Latreille (Hist. Nat.des Crust. et des Ins. X..92.) gives the follow- ing character to hisgenus Ateuchus, as distinguishing it from Aphodius, “ Pattes intermédiaires plus écartées entre elles a la naissance que les autres.” If, however, this character be held only as the structure to which the Scarabeide have a general tendency, itis without doubt perfectly cor- rect; and in this sense alone it has been adopted in the general description of the family given in the preceding Essay. Another proof of the futility of absolute rules of division in natural history 1s, thatin the work above quoted, Latreille separates Ateuchus from Onitis by the latter having no anterior tarsi. We perceive, however, that these organs are equally deficient in Heliocantharus, Mnematium and Pachysoma, which all formed part of his genus Ateuchus. In a letter recently received from Mr. Kirby, he states to me that he has perceived in Pachysoma an approximation towards the Gymnopleurt of Mliger. In this opinion I perfectly coincide with him, on account of the globular form of the clava of their antenne among other considerations. But then the hiatus between them is so great, that it becomes absolutely necessary to suppose the existence of an intermediate type. TYPUS IV. Nondwn detectus. From theory, the clava of the antenne of this type ought to be globose, aud the clypeus bidentate. The remark- able propensity which the other four types of Scarabcus have to make Africa their habitation, renders it probable that this unknown type still exists in the interior of that vast peninsula. Mr. Ritchie’s late discovery of the second type of the genus fully warrants the supposition. It is at ANALYSIS. 509 all events remarkable, that whenever a groupe does not contain five minor groupes, some chasm in the series of af- finity should thus be apparent. In stating so curious a fact, it becomes very desirable that 1t should be supported by the argumentum ad verecundiam, but | can find no observation resembling this in any author but Linneus. In that part of his Diary which relates, not to natural his- tory, but to medicine, he says that nature is balanced by contraries, and acted upon “ numero quinario.” The whole passage is curious, but at the same time, I confess, beyond my comprehension, as it seems to have been also beyond that of his learned biographer, who, in allusion to it, says— It was his opinion that Nature acts numero qui- nario, as he informs us in his Diary ; but he has no where explained himself on this abstruse subject; and the hypo- thesis seems to be one of those eccentric excesses of ima- gination in which ingenious minds are apt to indulge, with- out the possibility of being followed.” Tempus ducamus, et dies alteri lucem afferent. TYPUS V. Antennz articulo tertio longiori, quarto et quinto pateriformibus, septimo maximo subhemispherico capituli globosi basin formante. Clypeus rhomboideus apice sex- dentatus quadridentatus bidentatus vel emarginatus. Tho- rax puncto parvo utrinque impresso. Abdomen truncatum subdepressum, elytrorum margine externo post humeros acutos profunde et abrupté sinuato. Mediosternum oblon- gum elevatum retusum vel subporrectum. Pedes pilosi coxis intermediis subdistantibus, femoribus anticis sepius intus unidentatis et tibiarum calcaribus mobilibus. ‘Tibi antice triquetre extus tridentate, tarsis minimis instructe ; postice elongate subarcuate triquetre angulis serrulatis, interiori duplicato, a10 ANALYSIS. GYMNOPLEURUS Ililiger. . Oxzs. Quibusdam Cetoniadarum speciebus Australasicis ely~ trorum margo post humeros profundée sinuatur; et analo- gia, affinitas haudulla, C. punctatam, Don. inter Petalocera Thalerophaga quasi Gymnopleurum facit. * Clypeus antice rotundatus quadridentatus fere sexdentatus, den- tibus intermediis longioribus. Corpus supra lave nitens. Tho- rax postice punctis duobus impressus. Elytra margine parum sinuato. Tibie intermedia subbicalcarate. Insecta Africana. azureus. 23, SCARABUS nigro-cyaneus, clypeo bilineato, elytris sub lente striatis, pedibus cyaneis. Ateuchus azureus. Fab. S. Eleuth.1. 57. 15. Scarabeeus profanus. Fab. Syst. Ent. 1.64. 211? Ateuchus profanus. Fab. S. Eleuih. 1.56.9? Ors. Statura omnino Scarabai sinuati. Habitat in Guinea. Tt is so usual with Fabricius to describe in one werk, under anew name, an insect which he has already described in another, and forgotten, that my only doubt as to the pro- priety of affixing the synonym of profanus to G. azureus, arises from the epithet parvus being used in his description of the former. If this word be employed in a general sense, and not in comparision with S, sacer, the profanus of Fabricius, must be the c@rulescens of Olivier. ‘The laxity of the description in the Entomologia Systematica renders it almost impossible to decide the matter. nitens.+ 24, SCARAB-EUS cupreus, antennis nigris pedibus cupreis. Scarabeeus nitens. Oliv. Ent. 1,5, 159. 195.—T. 7. 55. Flytra sub lente fortasse striata? Hee Species mihi adhuc invisa habitat in Senegallia. mundus, + 25, SCARAB/US nigro-olivaceus, clypeo trilineato, thorace punc- tato, elytris subtilissimé granulatis: striis punctatis, ANALYSIS. ont Gymnopleurus mundus. Leach MSS. Habitat ad Cap. Bon, Spei. D. Burchell. Mus. Brit. ** Clypeus bidentatus vel emarginatus lateribus haud undatis. Corpus lave, sericeum vel scabrum. Thorax foveola posticé haud impressa, Insecta plerumque Europea. 26. SCARABXUS levis supranigro-eneus, antennis flavescentibus, sinuatus. clypeo bilineato, thorace vix punctato: angulis posticis acu- minatis, elytris septem-striatis, femoribus anticis serratis. Scarabeeus sinuatus. Oliv. Ent. 1. 3. 160. 196.—T. 10. f.93. Ateuchus sinuatus. Fab, 8. Eleuth. 1. 60. 28. Scarabeus Leei. Don. Chin. Ins. T. 1. 4. Actinophorus sinuatus. Sturm. Ent. Hand. 1, 76.—T.3. 1. Habitat in China et in India Orientali. Mus. Brit. 6 Van. S. ater, clypeo emarginato, tibiis anticis arcuatis extus vix crenulatis. Scarabeus Mopsus. Pall. Icon. p.3. A. 3.T.A. 3. Oss. Apud Olivierum figura 189. tab. 21. in omnibus prater clypeum S. mundum simulat. Tagree with Sturm in thinking that Pallas had this species in view when he described S. Mopsus, although it is also clear that he was acquainted with the pidudarius of Fabri- cius. The truth, perhaps, may be, that he confounded two species ; the one taken in Daouria, near the Selenga, be- ing a variety of G. sinuatus; and that taken on the banks of the Wolga, being G. pilularius. 27. SCARAB/EUS obscuro-niger, subtus nitidus, antennis nigris, pilularius, clypeo trilineato, elytris inter strias tuberculis aliquot- minutissimis instructis, tibiis anticis caleare obtuso. Le Bousier a Couture. Geoff. Hist. Ins. 1.91. Scarabeus pilularius. Fab. Syst. Ent. 29. 118. Ateuchus pillularius. Fab. Syst. Eleuth. 1. 60. 27. Scarabeus Geoffroye. Panz. Ent. Germ. 18.71. Gymnopleurus Cantharus. Il/ig. Mag. 2. 201, 2. ~ Sturmie. 519 ANALYSIS. Actinophorus Geoffroyi. Sturm. Ent. Hand. 1.78. Ateuchus pilularius. Var. 6. Schonnher Syn. Ins. Habitat in Europa meridionali magnitudine admodum varians- Vix ipsi accedis, plerumque statim avolat clausis elytris, Ce- tonie ad instar, ita ut minuti spatio ex 100 qui simul convenerint vir unus maneat. Vide Laur. Ponza in Act. Taur. B Van. S.clypeo inter lineas duas concurrentes tuberculato, elytro- rum striis valde conspicuis. y VaR. S. clypeo bilineato: lineis concurrentibus, thoracis linea dorsali elytrorumque strlis inconspicuis. Scarabeus Mopsus. Pall. Icon. p. 3. A. 3. No species is more common, or less distinctly known, than G. piludarius, as the above synonyms testify. Lin- nzus was never able to distinguish it from A. volvens, an American insect, which belongs to the neighbouring genus, and has a strong relation of analogy with this. Fabricius has carelessly copied, into all his works, the Linnean ha- bitat of pi/ularius, even after he had distinguished the two species; and has thereby made a great mistake in the geography of insects, since no true Scarabeus, as the ge- nus stands in this Essay, is to be found in the new world. 28. SCARABEUS ater levis vix obscurus, clypeo trilineato, elytris inter strias granulatis femortbus anticis obtusé dentatis, ti- biis anticis inter dentes haudcrenulatis : calcare acutissimo. Actinophorus pilularius. Sturm. Ent. Hand. 1. 79. t. 3. Precedente minor convexior. Habitat in Europa australiori; in Grecia. D. Woods. f VaR. S. elytrorum striis et granulis inconspicuis, tibiis anticis bidentatis. Habitat in Lusitania. y VAR. S. elytris sublevibus. ANALYSIS. 513 Sturm was the first who pointed out the distinction be- tween this species and the former. So many excellent ob- servations on the subject are to be found in this Natura- list’s Verzeichniss, that Schonnher certainly appears to have been too hasty in rejecting the notion of their being di- stinct species. As, however, Sturm unfortunately gave the name of Geoffroyi to the common species, and indeed to the only one that could have been confounded with A. olvens, I have thought proper to return to the Fabrician synonyms, which he has cited erroneously. 29. SCARABEUS atro-nitidus, clypeo bilineato: lineis obliquis haud confluentibus, thorace elytrisque levissimis. Habitat in Grecia, D. Woods. Precedenti nimis affinis. 30, SCARAB/EUS niger, supra confusé variolosus: variclarum centro sub lente eminente, clypeo bilineato: lineis ad nu- chum concurrentibus, elytris substriatis. S. flagellatus. Fab. Mantissa, 1. 17. 168. Oliv. Ent. 1. 3. 162. 199. T.7. 51. a. b. S. stictopterus. Linn. S. N. Gmel. 1. 4, 1558.? S. coriarius. Herbst. Col. 2. 309. 199. T. 20. 4. Ateuchus flagellatus. Fab. Syst. Eleuth. 1. 59. 22. Gymnopleurus flagellatus. I/hg. Mag. 2. 201. 1. Habitat in Europa australiori et versus Septentrionem usque ad Lutetiam pertingit, magnitudine varians. Mus. Brit. P Var. S,. variolis omnibus confusis. Habitat in Hispania, D. Dejean. y Var. S. thoracis variolis minimis, elytrorum variolis et striis valde conspicuis. Gymnopleurus flagellatus, var. .D. Gebler in literis. conflagratus. D. Steven in literis. Hane varietatem sub lente pulcherrimam, e loco prope Sees 2L atronitidus. Jlagellatus. 514 . ANALYSIS. von Saisan in Tartaria magna misit D. Gebler ; e Cherso- neso Taurico D. Steven. The nomenclature of this species is a singular instanee of the habitual carelessness of Fabricius. In the Species Insectorum he described a Cape insect thorace levi, under the nameof S, flagel/atus. Inthe Mantissa, he gives the same name to an insect of the South of Europe, thorace e/ytrisque scabris. In the Systema Entomologie he confounds them both, having evidently forgotten the original flagellatus so much, as not to know it on its reappearance, since we find it in the appendix to the last-mentioned work, described as S. scabratus. And thus they stand in the Syst. Eleuthe- raiorum, where the first habitat of flugellatus ought con- sequently to be expunged. Schonnher first perceived this blunder, but has himself erred in taking any synonym for scabratus from the Mantissa. humanus. 31. SCARABUS atro-olivaceus holosericeus levissimus haud punctatus, clypeo bilineato: medio levi, elytris sub lente forti substriatis. Gymnopleurus humanus. Leach MSS. Habitat ad Cap. Bon. Spei. D. Burchell. Mus. Brit. ** * Clypeus apice bidentatus, lateribus undatis. Corpus metalli- cui, sericeum vel nitidum. Elytra striata vel substriata. Tn- secta Africana. Leet. 32. SCARAB/EUS rubro-cupreus holosericeus, subtus atroviridis, clypeo thoraceque linea longitudinali nitida dimidiatis, elytris subgranulatis, tibiis posticis eneis. S.Leei. Fab. Ent. Syst. 1.65. 215. Habitat ad Cap. Bone Spei. D. Burchell. Mus. Brit. The reader will perceive that this species differs from the Ateuchus Leet of Fabricius, in the under side being of a dark-green instead of black, and its habitat being the ANALYSIS. O15 Cape instead of India. Still I have no doubt of the spe- cies being one and the same. 33. SCARABIEUS rubro-olivaceus holosericeus, thorace elytrisque Bufo.+ pulcherrimé rugulosis versicoloribus. ge Habitat ad Cap. Bone Spei. D. Burchell. Mus. Brit. 34. SCARAB/EUS rubro-cupreus metallicus, clypeo linea mediani- fulgidus. tido, thorace rugoso nitidé sculpto, elytris ad latera rugosis nitidé granulatis ad suturam elevatam nitidam undatis. $. fulgidus. Oliv. Ent. 1. 3. tab, 22. 199. Ateuchus Leei var. Fab. Syst. Eleuth. 1. 58. 16. Habitat in Senegallia. Insectum pulcherrimum. Schonnherrio et Fabricio non obstantibus, a Scarabeo Leei prorsus distinctum. 35, SCARABUS atro-ceruleus metallicus, clypeo linea media ni- cerulescens. tido, thorace ruguloso : sculptura dorsali nitida, elytris pilis albidis canis, sutura elevata laté nitida undatis, lateribus rugulosis, Scarabeus cerulescens. Oliv. Ent. 1. 3. 189. 240. t. 27.231. Habitat in Senegallia. Mus. Brit. 56. SCARABEUS viridi-ceruleus, clypeo linea media nitido, tho- affinis, race ruguloso: sculptura dorsali nitida, elytris granulatis piloso-canis: sutura elevata. Oss. Precedenti nimis affinis. **** Clypeus apice bidentato. Corpus subtus nigro-nitidum. Thorax foveold postice impressus. Elytra striata vel substriata. Insecta Asiatica. 37. SCARAB/EUS atro-ceruleus nitidus, clypeo trilineato: lateri- cyaneus. bus undatis, thorace varioloso, elytris valde rugosis. Copris cyaneus. Fab. Ent. Syst. Suppl. 34, 211. Habitat in Tranquebaria. 58. SCARABHUS niger, clypeo lined media elevata, thorace punctis sex sicaque dorsali atronitidis elevatis, elytris sulca- tis: unctis linearibus canis ordine duplici impressis. 2,2 -~ cal Kenigi. granulatus. 516 ANALYSIS. Scarabeus Keenigii. Fab. Syst. Ent. 1. 29. 114. Scarabeeus scriptus. Pall. Icon. p.7.A.7. T.A. f. 7. guttatus. Linn. S. N. Gmel. 1. 4. 1558. Ateuchus Keenigil. Fub. Syst. Eleuth. 1 58. 19. Habitat in India orientali. Mus. Brit. B VaR. S. atro-zneus, thorace punctis quatuor elevatis. Oss. Speciem simillimam circa Lacum salsum Inderiensem Deserti Tatarici legit D. Pallas. The Ateuchus squalidus from Brazil, which Fabricius characterizes as “ Afjinis A. Kenigii,” does not belong to this genus, although to one immediately contiguous. The mistake is analogous to that of Linnzeus in confounding pilularius with volvens. Gmelin has described the S. Ka- migii twice under different names ; and his work, “ tout indigeste, denué de critique et de connaissance des choses,” as usual, justifies this character given to it by Cuvier. 39. SCARAB/EUS niger supra cinereo-pubescens, capite maculis nitidis duabus, thorace sedecim, elytris basi octo; medio una undata; apice tribus, abdominis lateribus albo-guttatis, ano albo. S. granulatus. Fab. Ent. Syst. 1. 65. 217. S. Kenigii. Don. Ind. Ins. t. 2. f. 3. Hee species, a precedente omnino distincta, habitat Tran- quebarie. Mus. Brit. Ihger has observed in his Magazine i. p. 318, that Fa- bricius was wrong in citing the S. granulatus of Olivier as a synonym to this species; but he little suspected the real extent of the evil. It is indeed among the most curious circumstances attending the history of this unfortunate ge- nus, of which scarcely a species has escaped an error of nomenclature, that the 8. granulatus of Olivier is no other than Ateuchus scabratus or the original S. flagellatus of ANALYSIS, 517 Fabricius, to which we before have had occasion to allude. This, although a native of the Cape, belongs not to the present genus, but is an osculant insect apparently con- necting Gymnopleurus with that genus to which Ateuchus volvens belongs. 40. SCARAB/EUS atro-viridis supra cinereo-pubescens, thorace maculis nitidis octo, elytrorum basi septem, medio una magna, apice duabus. Habitat in India orientali, Mus. Brit. Ops. Thoracis foveola postica parum conspicua. *** ** Clypeus sexrdentatus. Corpus supra cinereo-pubescens maculis nitidis, subtus nigro-nitidum. Elytra striata. Insecta Asiatica. 41. SCARABUS atro-viridis, thorace maculis duodecim, elytris margine nigris; basi maculis quinque ; medio quatuor ; apice tribus. S. miliaris. Fab. Syst. Ent. App. p. 817. Oliv. Ent. 1. 3.167. 206. t. 18. 164, Habitat in India orientali. Mus. Brit. G Var. S. pubescentia cinerea subobliterata. y VaR. S. aier. 42. SCARABZEUS atro-viridis, capite trimaculato, thorace cana- liculato maculis tredecim, elytrorum basi octo, medio qua- tuor, apice tribus ; maculis aliis minoribus inter strias se- riatim dispositis. Habitat in India orientali. 43. SCARABZUS atro-viridis, thorace decem-maculato, elytris maculis multis irregularibus subseriatim dispositis. Habitat in India orientali, precedente duplo major. Mus. Brit. B Vax. 5S. tibiis anticis intus emarginatis. An Sexus alter? Oxs. Heliocantharus Palemon et Gymnopleurus azureus hac specie quodammodo attinguntur. parous, miliaris, spilotus. muculosus. 518 ANALYSIS. I have thus attempted to find characters for the natural groups which appear on disposing the Gymnopleuri ac- cording to their affinities; but the proper method of con- sidering them all is, as referable to one or other of forms which may be expressed by the five following species :— 1. azureus. . flagellatus. . caerulescens: & co io Kangii. 5. miliaris. In almost every group which has been set beforé the reader, he must have perceived that one of the five minor groups, into which it is resolvable, bears a resemblance to all the rest; or, more strictly speaking, consists of types which represent those of each of the four other groups, to- gether with a type peculiar to itself. This is visible in the composition of the Acrzéa, among the divisions of the Ani- mal kingdom ; in that of the Ametabola, among the classes of Annulosa ; and of the Coleoptera, among the orders of Mandibulata. It is a disposition also which can scarcely have escaped our notice on examining the genus Phaneus, the fifth type of which contains insects resembling all the other types, together with P. Carnifer, which has a form peculiar to this fifth type. What this fifth type is to Pha- neus, Gymnopleurus is to the genus Scarabeus ; that is, while it has a form peculiar to itself in G. flagellatus, it contains insects varying in the structure of those parts which remain constant in the other sub-genera. To minds that delight in tracing design amidst those circumstances which seem in our eyes the least to require it, 1t will always be interesting to observe the limits by which nature has circumscribed the locality of animals. ANALYSIS. 519 That plants, which have no means ofchanging their place, except by foreign agency, should beconfined to certain di- stricts, is perhaps to be expected. At least, this circumstance is not calculated to excite our astonishment so much as, that beings endued very perfectly with the powers of locomotion, should never wander beyond certain definable limits. Whe- ther, indeed, the species be thus in a manner imprisoned within an invisible wall, or whether their non-appearance beyond certain degrees of latitude be owing to the circum- stance that those which may have strayed so far from their assigned region immediately perish,—in either case, no more convincing instance of the geography of animals be- ing definite, can be advanced than G. piludarius. We find this insect in the north of France, and, according to Scheeffer, at Ratisbon; also, according to Pallas, in that tract of country which separates the Don from the Wolga : and again, if this celebrated naturalist be right as to the identity of the species, it occurs in the north of Chinese Tartary, on the banks of the Selenga. A learned Entomolo- gist, M. Gebler, whose residence in the heart of Siberia is rendered tolerable by the study of Natural History, has also sent me the G. flagellatus from Barnaul. Latreille, therefore, appears perfectly accurate when he fixes the northern geographical limit of Gymnopleurus at the 50th degree of latitude, since this parallel is so strictly the boun- dary of that species which comes the furthest north. But do the minimum and maximum heights of the thermome- ter remain constant throughout the old world on this pa- rallel of latitude? If they do not, we may suppose that the geographical distribution of these animals has been regu- lated by some other principle besides warmth. Our know- ledge of the economy of the Gymmnopleurus assures us also, 520 ANALYSIS. that this line of locality cannot depend either on its food or on the soil. Oa what circumstances it really does depend, isa question perhaps difficult to decide, but which I would here propose as well deserving the attention of Entomo- logists. A review of the preceding analysis will enable the reader to construct a Table of the affinities of the genus Scarabeus. He must not, however, imagine himself in a state to form any correct notion of the comparative distance of the spe- cies from each other, until many more species than are here described shall be known. It is sufficient if he be aware that a table, however rude, will always have the ad- vantage of expressing affinities more clearly than a linear series. With such a table I shall conclude this attempt to discover the rank and situation which Scarabeus sacer holds among organized beings ; certain that, whatever er- rors may be detected in it, they have not arisen from any. want of anxiety to ascertain the truth. po snide pnosipy—sormtooddiyy =———-—— | “HOW ‘WOME WANW oO | ‘§ fl W al V uY V @) S *snourso *suzeyoundiuas *SNsojoul BA——SNSO/]/q.loul | | *LOIAND *snyzoUuRs | “HYoIeUe’| “SNYV HINKO | -O17TaH ‘snrdwiy ‘1 | | *80}}0}U9}}0TT ‘stqjoorjound | | “W[jQuog “sn *ttouads “HuUsadj uy "Manse 1a00S “HUSTARS VNOSAHOFd ‘SH jooue] UO |VT—sNzBON{UL "BNUGVIULA DIU mid “131000 3T ‘sn ated—snjepnuas *SIUV ITLL ssnqopids j ‘SON “SIULYE *SUdDSO| UO “snpisyoy *1oo"T— Jug *snacruog THULIMyS—snyeyposepy —-— SU PION foe ‘snsopnoeut -/ TION NWAD G *snoInze *stlaqIU ssnie payed | “snzenuis ‘snpund "snvgninagy snuary ay2 Jo sarod paquiasap ayy yoaunos 07 anaddp yaya sauna ay} Jo yroys ADDENDA Er CORRIGENDA. ——=F PART L Page 97.—By a letter received from General Dejean, I learn that Pholidotus lepidosus had previously to the publication of this part, been described by Schonnher in the third volume of his Synonymia Insectorum, under the name of Lamprima Humboldtii. Not having yet seen this volume, I can only give the name as a synonym, and make use of it as a satisfactory proof that the insect in question may safely be attributed to the family of Lamprimde. P. 98.—Mr. Swainson, who was urged by his zeal for Natural History to make a voyage to Brazil, has assured me that my suspi- cions were correct with respect to the insect I have named Casz- gnetus being the female of Pholidotus. P. 111.—General Dejean is convinced, from actual observation, that Dorcus parallelipipedus and D. tuberculatus are sexes of the same species. P. 143.—It is the female of Amblyterus which is here described ; but it has been remarked by Mr. Brightwell of Norwich, that the other sex has the last joint of the maxillary palpi much larger, and also furnished with the same longitudinal incision which is so con- spicuous in Peldnota. An additional proof is thus offered to our view of the affinity between these two genera. P. 154.—The organs of manducation in R. pulcheéla are described from Mr. Kirby’s dissections, published in the 12th vol. ofthe Lin- nzan Transactions. On this subject I have since received the fol- lowing letter from him :-—“ Dear Sir,—I beg that in your next part you will correct an error into which I have been the occasion of leading you. The Instrumenta cibaria, figured in the 12th vol. of the Linnzan Transactions (tab. xxi. fig. 10. a, b, c, d.), are not those of Rutela pulciella, of which I had only a single specimen, but they are those of Muacraspis tetradactyla, which I then regarded as a Ru- tela. This oversight arose from the MSS. and drawings being sent separately to town, so that the circumstance escaped my treacherous memory before the explanation of the plates was made out. I am, &c. W. K.”—The Entomologist will therefore perceive, that the character is erronecus which I have given to Rutela pulchella in the first part of this work. ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA. 523 PART IL. P. 194.—Perhaps no animals are more worthy of the Physiolo- gist’s attention than Heteromerous Insects. Their singular proper- ties have afforded objections to the second character of distinction between the Vegetable and Animal kingdoms, which may seem op- posed to an expression in p.192. But we ought not at present to lay any great stress on such objections, since Mr. Baker’s curious experiments on the Blaps Mortisaga, which he has detailed in the Philosophical Transactions, and which appear to have been only repeated by M. Biot, prove no more than that this annulose animal can exist in air extremely rarified. M. de Humboldt has also shown in the Mémoires de la Société d’ Arcueil, that the air-bladder of fresh- water fishes contains from four to seven per cent. of oxygen. Hence, all that can be said of those intestinal worms which have been cited as the most striking examples of the power of an animal to live without oxygen, is, that the minutest particle of this air is sufficient for their existence. P. 230, 1. 15, for Thethya read Tethya. P. 258, 1. 12. I have here adopted the French word Batracien, which would have been more correctly Batrachien. P. 261, last line but one, for family read class. P. 278, 1.8. When this was written I had only seen M. Latreille’s report, since which M. Savigny’s work has itself appeared. From this it seems, that now, in order to occasion as little violence as possible to nomenclature, he has altered his first intention, and given the name of Sanguisuga to the common leech, assigning the gene- ric appellation of Hezopis to the horse-leech. P. 288, 1. 4, for leads read lead. P. 351, 1. 5, for the read some. P. 367, 1. 8, before Cuvier insert Fabricius. , 1. 18, for apoda read apus. P. 375. 1. 7, after antenne erase the words the presence of ocelli. ]. 11, after be erase the words destitute of ocelli. P. 436, 1.5.—Panzer in the Fauna Germanica, fascic. 68. n. 24, has given a figure of an insect found in ant-nests, and which he terms Blatta acervorum. Respecting its affinities he merely observes, * Ambiguum insectum! an hujus generis? quamvis marime Blattis af- fine, an jam declaratum?” Never having seen the insect myself, I could net venture to express any decisive opinion on its natural situation at the time my sentiments with respect to the connexion, existing between the Blaétina and Gryliina were written. Since then, however, I have had the satisfaction of seeing’in the 16th vol. of the Biblioteca Italiana, a very interesting paper entitled “ Osser= 51, 67, 524 ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA. vazioni sopra la Blatta acervorum di Panzer del Dottor Paolo Savi as- sistente al Prof. di Botanica nell’ Imp. e R. Universita di Pisa.” This Entomologist fully states the several respects in which its construc- tion agrees with the true Blatte, but also observes “ che questo in- setto certamente none una Blatta, ma piuttosto un’ Acheta di Fabricio o Grillo di Latreille,” and he accordingly names it Gryllus myrmeco- philus! It is not easy to imagine a more complete confirmation of the truth of the affinity here stated to existbetween the Gryl- lina and Blattina. P. 457, note line 12, for desireable read desirable. P. 497, 1.17. Although in conformity to the plan of the Regne Animal, I have assigned. names to the subgenera of Scarabeus, Tam not without apprehension that confusion will thus arise be- tween genera and subgenera, or types of form. It may indeed be a question for Entomologists to determine, whether it be preferable to give names to types of form, or to designate them only by their number, reckoning always from some particular type. As every natural group seems divisible into five others, perhaps the latter mode is the least objectionable, particularly if we were always to account that type of a group to be the first, which contains repre- sentations of the four other forms, as well as the form which is peculiar to itself. On this plan the type of Phaneus which contains P. Carnifex, and that of Scarabeus which Sag ee S. flagellatus, would bethe first of their respective groups. : ¢.' END OF VOL. If. Printed by R, and A, Taylor, Shoe-Lane, London. aie 4 i i‘ wy Tiny mh ee my i : yi oy) ier : i Hi : orn ‘ a A ee i va \ ( f ; .; ‘ "t ned at em a iva ¢ ; t ‘on iy it ae AN { ye i ene Poe ie] UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 595.76M22H C001 HORAE ENTOMOLOGICAE$LOND Mn 11