= woe 5 a = oy 2 ae “FD
7) ; - ‘e
'S SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILONLILSNI NVINOSHLINS S3IY¥Vua 17
a 2 ts > Ss i |
2” _ Ss x .
a. te dy pie = AS oc
x VY ‘ae Uf a x + * eh <x
| «x Gy sj = S es te
n Gf 95 = 5 als
a Z = 2 ee }
NI NVINOSHLINS S3Ituvudi1_ LIB RARIES SMITHSONIAN _INSTITUTION
2 ie eS S = Vb a
car = wo = w
\ a Ys = es) 5 a
~~ \N NS w — w” > —
m ~ AS m m
7) an z wo = wn ‘
S| SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILALILSNI = NOP ee 1yuVvuadl
= ne 2 = 2 = Dy
= > X& a az =
os 5 NAG +: :
ie) f RINE Oo oe O
2 E No 2, E Z,
> = SY >" = >
2 7) fe z ” z
NI_NWINOSHLINS S44 lYvVuYdit LIBRARI ES SMITHSONIAN _INSTITUTION
Z 2 : a 2 |
\ 4 = 4 E Ws, oe
2 a. Se = < Uy fy 7 4
Cc me SS c t /;
J WN : =e Wf! S
2) “SS — re) = fe)
=z a 2 2 =
ES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLINS S31IuVUdl
= , Ji z - ea) m4 |
\ iz ie = Sa =
2 eo = | = 4 5
= = ¥ w = Pe) sar
SJ ie i = 2 =
pol m w” m ”)
z ; (ap) Zz w 7 Zz ii
SNI NVINOSHLINS S3SIYVYUEIT_LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTIC
z 2 2) ba aap = | ce
/2 a ey = ge SSS
ra) x Vay S CER = rs) fo
Ee 8 GH = WO 8s 2 VQ
E Gp = ™®& 2 E >i
= > = Roy ne s :
7) = 72) _ 2 77) ~
| ESg SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOLLNESN ee ea 1uvud
om : ‘ in ud = uJ SYA
Sa ee = v es
de a : =) :
oc “Gy S ac = oc
a “@ 3 = 5 oe
SNI_ NVINOSHLINS S3IYVuglT LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN
Bey st z i a m a
oO > = ow —_ ow
= Ye 5 : : :
aN le 2 . a
=a WY 8 = a* a
” ». < Ww <= wm 2
1ES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI _NVINOSHLINS S34 | uvud

fe

BRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLIWS

SMI
fe
2
NVI
SM
NVI

S:

»

\*

w
SS ¥ 3

NOILALILSNI

NVINOSHLINS S31YvVudIT LIBRARIES

LIBRARIES

ILALILSNI

x
SMITHSONIAN _IN

ee ee

SaIYVUGIT LIBRARIES

INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI
W

SJIMUVYGIT LIBRARIES SMI

S3luyvyudi

INSTITUTION

BRARIES SMITHSONIAN

INSTITUTION NOILALILSNI NVINOSHILINS S$:

” Zz wn z wn
= < = iY < =

: — = Xx —{ yy : a +

VBS (e) ba “aK 8 YY Oo YU" tip Oo

| NS = = \S ae A a Ze

pepe ee : 5

OILNLILSNI_ NVINOSHLIWS Salu¥vuag by SMITHSONIAN _IN
: us : fy, &
= = = = Gly,
A ce aa a < W fa 4 |
= [oad Cc a 2, cf Cc
= fos) ay a” ai =

| I an S a 2

ad

IBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI NYVINOSHLINS §S
z ie z EE z
re) st re) = ah. re)
- a res aN i
=! : oe a | 04 re RY, =
Eve Ss) = D [oa |
= oe = ni \M OF
2°» 2 ee Ge
z w = n he

IOLLNLILSN! NVINOSHLINS S3SIYVYEIT LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN If
Z z iat = Z
Ppa = ; ,= ‘ WS ~ = =
S = Bi S OX . =x 5 |
: Gd ON 8 =
E 2 “iy & \ Z iB
= S a . 2 a

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLINS S

LIBRARIES
LIBRARIES

S3iu¥vugiI1 LIBRARIES If

5

OLLNLILSNINVINOSHLIWS

x
SMITHSONIAN
‘Tp,

Ydil LIBRARIES

INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI
INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI

S31uvudgl
oy

Saluvyugl

SMITHSONIAN

Pa,

IBRARIES INSTITUTION NOILALILSNI NVINOSHLIWS S

_ ws

NS
\N
NS
AN

ee ee

a ‘en ‘oe
;

‘
Wey - r
i, ae i! ‘dq
wey Th U : 7 !
i ; ie
ae mh

i Q i )
at ar aN) 2) AL) een

u A min W ae

te he ae |
bi, i ; Wl

P.

1 u i)

t Oo.
el ey .

hi y ‘i ' Ay i sha
yen Wen 4 ‘he rs i

ha 7
ha " y ( 11 U . i

ae :
AAU
in i ii

Pr

aa tng Vay i AG ‘ 7”
ui, ihn Mh | i By i al 4 pene i) wai i i 0
nad, a TR 1d) en eho ey, "he q 7
Hav ae oe

ND
ia) EM

r Pale yin}
1h

(fh
a hen ;
mya hi} ie

:
-
Aart

fut

\SPHINA VESPIFORMIS:

AN ESSAY
fi

BY

EDWARD NEWMAN.

yo?

“ All are but parts of one stupendous whole,

Whose body Nature is, and Gop the soul.”

a

LONDON :
FREDERICK WESTLEY & A. H. DAVIS,

STATIONERS HALL COURT.

1832.

LONDON:

PRINTED BY R. CLAY, BREAD STREET HILL,
CHEAPSIDE, ‘

TO
HIS HIGHLY-ESTEEMED FRIEND,
BRACY CLARK, ESQ.

FELLOW OF THE LINNAZAN SOCIETY OF LONDON,

MEMBER OF THE ROYAL INSTITUTE

OF FRANCE,

&e. &e.
THIS LITTLE ESSAY
Is
DEDICATED

BY

THE AUTHOR.

*

Pa ae ig ae sll

PREFACE.

THE question—What was the Sphinx Vespiformis of
Linnaeus ?—is one that has occurred to almost every ento-
mologist. It seemed rather strange that Linnzus should
have described, in all his works, an insect which had
no existence; yet that really appeared to be the case.
Laspeyres, the clever monographer of the Lwropean Sesie,
previously to the appearance of that work, wrote to my
highly valued and ingenious friend, Mr. Clark, requesting
that he would investigate and describe for him the real
Linnean specimen of Vespiformis which was in the
Linnean cabinet, at that time in the possession of the
late Sir J. E. Smith. Mr. Clark not only described the
specimen in question, but employed that excellent artist,
Sydenham Edwards, to make a drawing of it, which was
forthwith forwarded to Berlin. Laspeyres exclaims—‘ Sed

quod spectaculum!—Sesia asiliformis erat.”* This was too

* Sesie Europee, p. 18. Obser.

6

much to believe; the search was given up as hopeless, and
the existence of the Linnzan Vespiformis was pretty much
considered a fable. On making some inquiries, a few
months back, about the species of Aigeria, the total loss
of one out of the three Linnean species appeared a little
unaccountable; and seeing the name of my friend in
Laspeyres’ work, in the note above referred to, I deter-
mined to have recourse to him, as the best authority on .
the subject. Mr. Clark, with the greatest kindness, at once
accompanied me to pay a visit to the said Sphinx, now in
possession of the Linnzan Society: we instantly, on seeing
it, fell in with the decision of Laspeyres—‘ Sesza astliformis
erat ;” yet it agreed excellently with the character which
Linnzeus had assigned to Vespiformis: “‘ dls fenestratis ;
abdomine barbato nigro; incisuris tribus posterioribus
margine fiavis : capite annulo flavo.” *—No character could
be more correct; the specimen was labelled in the hand-
writing of Linnzus, and the fenestrated wings merely
arose from the specimen being exceedingly wasted. The
fact was decided: the proof is open to all; and the

existence of Sphinx Vespiformis must henceforth cease to

be a fable.

To ascertain the place among insects, or even animated
beings, which this Sphinx Vespiformis naturally occupies,
I have attempted in the following pages.

* Linn. Syst. Nat. T.I. Pars. II. p. 804.

“1

The Systema Natura has for years been the object. of
my most diligent search; but the idea which I have here
taken of the subject is scarcely a month old. An anxiety
to hear the opinions of others has urged me to scribble
these few pages, with, I fear, far more haste than good
speed; for it has happened that other engagements have
prevented my affording them any time but that usually
devoted to repose: so that the rapid and careless manner
in which the sketch has been drawn, must be my apology
for the very imperfect state in which I now offer it to the
public. I feel, however, a firm conviction that my theory
is too near an approach to truth, to suffer from any garb,

however slovenly, in which I may have dressed it.

I must for the same reason here observe, that I will in
no way pledge myself to the infallibility of the precise
points of contact hereafter proposed, nor shall I notice
any attempts which may be made to invalidate the principle
of my theory, by appealing to such trivial inaccuracies.
Feeble efforts of this kind are naturally and very excusably
called forth by a feeling of disappointment at the sudden
destruction of favourite and long-cherished theories: skil-
fully managed, they often throw a momentary shade over
truth, but never can extinguish it; he, therefore, who is
confident in having truth on his side, would be acting

ungenerously to quarrel with them.

To conclude—for many excellent suggestions, and the
kind and continued interest which he has taken in the
progress of this little Essay, I embrace this opportunity
of publicly acknowledging my sincere thanks to my esteemed
friend, Mr. Edward Doubleday; feeling, however, that such
thanks are a very inadequate return for his invaluable

assistance.

Deprrorp,
January 25, 1832.

ERRATA.

Page 14, line 27, for I will suppose them, read I will suppose, then,

4l, 6, for Lasciocampa, read Lasiocampa
4}, 23, for of each, read on each
42, 4, dele previously

44, note, for Lithosia, read Lithosie
52, line 33, for Phalene, read Phalena
52, 38, for kaned, read naked

i i
d . cea, BAe te a if io Bini i
Bie A; Roe Oy ar

SPHINX VESPIFORMIS.

§c.

ON THE PRIMARY DIVISION OF NATURE.

Any attempt to overthrow existing systems, originally devised
and unanimously approved by men of superior talents and great
acquirements, should not only be made but received with the
greatest possible caution; but when, as in the arrangement of the
objects of natural history, there exists no universally received
plan, but each systematist has, for a few months, or at most, years,
his little circle of immediate followers and admirers, one thing
must be obvious,—that the true system is yet undiscovered ; and,
therefore, surely it is competent to every one, however unqualified,
to try his hand at the task: that the true system has not been
discovered, is admitted by Mr. MacLeay, the only individual who
has made any thing like an approach to it; for, in the preface to
the Annulosa Javanica, which appeared subsequently to the Hore
Entomologice, in which his circular and quinary system is pro-
posed, he acknowledges, that, ‘‘ as yet, we have not even arrived
at the threshold of nature’s temple.”

Some individuals would, I believe, argue that no fixed system
or plan prevails in nature, but that each individual species exists
quite independently of, and unconnected with all the rest; others,
again, allow that there is a system, but without any other division
than that of species; thus theoretically disallowing those plain and
universally intelligible groups, which we term beasts, birds, fishes,
and insects. It seems to me highly improbable that a Creator,

B

i0

who has, with such unerring wisdom, adapted means to their
destined ends, should have performed any part of the mighty
work of creation without a fixed and perfect design. If we
consider that no muscle, tendon, or vein, however minute,
whether in man, the highest, or in those animals which may be
reckoned the lowest grade among created beings, but has func-
tions appointed for it regularly to perform, and that no single
portion of our frame can be parted with, without occasioning us
inconvenience, it seems fair to infer, that no single atom, or no
one created thing, exists without filling some appointed place in
a great and perfectly organized and arranged whole ; however far
that whole may, and must be, above our limited understandings..
To doubt the existence of a natural system appears to me to be
precisely equivalent to doubting a creation; for one cannot con-
ceive the various tribes of animals to have received their being
at the hands of an Omnipotent Creator, and yet to be indebted,
at the same time, to chance for those gradual shades of difference
from each other, which are found so harmoniously blending group
into group, that the practised naturalist may follow up the same
peculiarity of habit or structure, however varied in its develop-
ment, from one to the other of the most opposite beings which
you can place before him. Infinitely varied, however, as the
course of such a peculiarity must be, the naturalist never finds
those sudden departures from the regular flow of variation, which
all systems, even the most approved, are constantly exhibiting ;
the reason of which is, that, in thus tracing approaches in his
mind, he will continually discover an individual completely sur-
rounded by others, each of which partakes of its peculiarities, not
only in a different degree, but in a different mode; and thus he
will perceive the character on which his attention has been fixed,
ramifying in all directions. Now no system, hitherto suggested,
will at all cope with this; it has been the plan, and I imagine
the fault of all our systems, that they are so constructed as to
be incapable of receiving a character from, or imparting it to, more
than a single individual: hence they never can possess capacity
sufficient to exhibit those endless chains of relation which the
mind so luxuriates in tracing. The want of such a system has
been, I believe, universally acknowleged, and should my humble

11

endeavour even prepare the way for its establishment, and act
the mere part of a herald to proclaim its approach, I shall not
only be satisfied, but delighted.

I cannot here plough my toilsome track through the wild
waste of systems and speculations, which have embarrassed, rather
than assisted, natural history during the last hundred years; my
aim will be more to make myself understood than comment on
the merits of others, except as I can lay them under contribution
to enhance my own.

Previously to the publication of Mr. MacLeay’s Hore Entomo-
logice, it appears to have been an opinion universally prevalent,
that there existed in nature a regularly graduated scale of beings,
beginning with man as the most perfect, and terminating in the
least perfect creature known to possess life. One ingenious author
had varied a little from this theory by allowing a double series to
nature’s works, which commencing on a level with the most per-
fect animal and most perfect plant, descended gradually and ap-
proached as they descended, until they met in those jelly-like
substances which seem yet to hover between the two kingdoms,
puzzling naturalists by their proximity to both—the system thus
assuming the shape of the letter V.*

However convenient for the formation of a catalogue, or the
arrangement of a cabinet, such a system may be; and however
inconvenient or impracticable any other conceivable plan may
appear, I think few will concur in imagining man capable of, or
warranted in, thus setting up limits and boundary-marks to the
works and power of his Maker; for the next step, as a matter of
course, would be the application of similar restrictions to infinite
space, which he might as reasonably expect to bring under his
sapient admeasurement.

Our country has the credit of having first sapped the foundation
of a building, which, though by its founder} termed a commodious
and well covered house, could not retain religion or reason among
its inmates; indeed, the illustrious Swede was himself the first to
see and to know that his mansion, however commodious, was
built but on the sand; but knowing its imperfections, he cared

* The system of Lamarck. _ + Linneus.
B 2

12
not to alter them: he thought it enough to acknowledge without
striving to amend them; in fact, he really seems to have consi-
dered the natural system, like the philosopher's stone, a mere ens
maginationis, the pursuit of which would be but a waste of time :
he doubted not its existence, but he doubted man’s ability to
discover it.

Such was natural history when Mr. MacLeay’s immortal work
first diffused its splendour over the world. The power of thought,
the profound research which he there exhibited, and the confes-
sion that ‘* he was one of those who preferred an imperfect
transitory glimpse of nature pure and unveiled, to a full view of
the most commodious and ostentatious mantle that could be em-
ployed to conceal her features from the gaze,”* were such novel-
ties in the science, that men scarcely credited their understandings :
they began thinking, and have continued to think until the term
naturalist is not, as it was but a short time back, immeasurably
separated from that of philosopher. ‘The extraordinary merit of
the Hore Entomologice consists, not merely in disclosing and
elucidating the invaluable fact, that a series of affinities, naturally
arranged, has a constant tendency to describe a circle which
eventually returns into itself: a still more important feature of
the work is, that unceasing and determined endeavour evinced by
its learned author to seek after, weigh, and examine facts, and to
employ these alone in the support of his theories,—an endeavour
indicative of that only true spirit of philosophy which has and can
have no other end in view than the establishment of truth.

That I suppose Mr. MacLeay to have mistaken the number
which nature has adopted in the combination and distribution of
her various tribes—that J totally dissent from his idea of analogies
and affinities, and from his division or rather adoption of Clairville’s
division of insects into mandibulate and haustellate, will be suffi-
ciently evident from the contents of this little Essay ; but in these
and all other instances, in which I feel myself bound to disclose
any difference of opinion which may tend to reveal or establish
truth, I hope I shall always be found urging my objections with
the deference due to an author from whose works I have extracted

* Hore Entomologice, preface, p. xxiv.

13

many important facts, and the still more important discovery
which forms the ground-work of my own theory.

That nature has a decided tendency to the formation of circles,
I cannot for one moment doubt. If there be yet doubters on that
subject,—if there be yet those who deem the discovery of Mr.
MacLeay a mere invention of his own, let them consider the plan
of the universe, as established by the celebrated Newton,—let them
behold the glorious sun, a circular centre of light and life; let
them observe the circular attendant worlds, which revolve in circles
about him, and which are themselves attended by circular moons,
whose progression is still in circles : the very days of the year, a
varied effect of the same universally operating cause, proclaim
the existence of a circle, by lengthening and shortening until
they arrive at the very day from which our observations began.
These facts, these unquestionable facts, while they beautifully
illustrate the existence of circles in the grand primary distri-
bution of nature, point quite as decidedly to another conclusion,
which it is my aim also to establish—that there is a tendency
universally developed, in a greater or less degree, in all minor or
less important circles to arrange themselves round major or more
important ones. Systematists, although fully allowing the ex-
istence of this tendency in this the primary or highest system of
nature which human intellect has hitherto been able to grasp;
yet its application in detail to the systematic arrangement of
the numerous objects of natural history has hitherto been totally
neglected. It can hardly be supposed that the idea has never
occurred to any of the illustrious writers who have devoted
their time and talents to this interesting subject: it has most
probably occurred, and been rejected as insupportable. It may
perhaps be, that the apparent difficulty of arranging the objects
of natural history thus, as it were, in a mass, has operated some-
what against the proposal or adoption of a plan like the present ;
but if we come to consider the question with the cool] deliberation
which an inquiry of this kind requires, I trust it will be generally
considered that our first object is to discover, if possible, nature’s
plan; our second to adapt it to our own artificial ideas. Should
the present, or any future scheme, prove incontrovertible,—and
incontrovertible the real system of nature must be, whenever

14

discovered,—it will then be high time to meditate on the best
plan of rendering it serviceable to ourselves, and available to
science ; and objectors on this score must please to recollect that
the calculations for eclipses, and other important astronomical
phenomena, experienced any thing but delay or difficulty from
Newton’s development of the true solar system. Be the system
of nature discovered when it may, it will never be found that
Appia Via which Linnzus has made it out to be, but rather like
the Cretan labyrinth, and whoever may happen to be the fortu-
nate Theseus, must undertake the task of showing the way to
his competitors, until it becomes so well known, that a map of the
road* may be drawn for the use of all.

It being then incontrovertibly established, that nature pos-
sesses, on the grand scale, two tendencies; one, the formation
of globes or circles, the other, the disposition of inferior creations
to cluster round superior ones, is it too great a presumption to
imagine tendencies thus exhibited in the creation and government
of worlds, as in some degree typical of the design from which
universal nature has been modelled? Is there the least violation
of probability in supposing the great and beneficent Creator the
centre of His works, and from the centre pervading and uphold-
ing His wonderful and stupendous creation? And again, may
not minor centres typify those beings on whom He has been
pleased to bestow a marked superiority over those around them ?
Such an one is man, of whom it is said, ‘“‘In His own image
created he him.” +

I will suppose them a system composed of an immense multi-
tude of material beings, organic and inorganic, animate and inani-
mate, revolving in circles around the central, everlasting abode of
that Providence who created, pervades, and upholds them, and
can, by the act of His will, either annihilate or create anew,—a
supposition much more readily admitted than rejected ; and,
although not positively proved, yet incapable of disproof from
man’s researches. I will further suppose the minor circles occa-
sionally clustering round major ones; yet I am still in want of
some number by which to allot to these circles their respective

* A systematic catalogue. + Genesis 1. 27.

15

stations, and give something like a primary arrangement to a
multitude that would be, without such an assistance to man’s
capacity, an utter wilderness of beings; and here it will be
perfectly useless to devise or invent: the only right plan is care-
fully to examine all authority within our reach, and steadfastly
endeavour to discover truth.

No authority on this subject can be equal to the Scriptures ;
and there we find the number seven always used as a number
of greater importance than any other ;—the six days of creation,
and the seventh day of rest, from that time more or less observed
as a holy or superior day, by divine command,” is the first and
one of the most remarkable instances: I need merely mention
the seven clean animals which Noah was commanded to take
into the ark, the seven plagues, seven years of famine and of
plenty, and that more than two hundred other instances occur
in the Old Testament. In the New the number seven occurs
still more remarkably: as seven golden candlesticks, seven
churches, seven angels, and seven spirits of God. I need
scarcely go further; but being able to adduce the opinions which
have been avowed by the greatest naturalists that have ever
lived, I rejoice to strengthen my own opinion by such high
authorities. M.le Baron Cuvier, in a paper published in 1795,
divided all invertebrate animals into six groups, the vertebrates
forming the seventh.+ Our eminent countryman, Mr. Kirby, ob-
serves: ‘The number five, which Mr. MacLeay assumes for one
basis of his system, as consecrated in nature, seems to me to
yield to the number seven, which is consecrated both in nature
and in Scripture. Metaphysicians reckon seven principal opera-
tions of the mind; musicians seven primary musical notes ; and
opticians seven primary colours. In Scripture the abstract idea
of this number is fulness, completeness, perfection. I have a
notion, though not yet sufficiently matured, that Mr. MacLeay’s
quinaries are resolvable into septenaries.”*{} Our own observation
will speedily convince us, that most groups of animals with which

* Genesis ii. 3.

} Translation of Cuvier by Griffith, Vol. I. p. 64, note. Cuvier has since
adopted the number four.

¥ Introduction to Entomology, Vol. III. p. 15, note.

16

we are tolerably well acquainted are divisible into seven; we

shall never find the number greater, and when less, we shall

invariably perceive that the deficiency exists in groups of
which our knowledge is particularly limited, for the perfection of
a septenary distribution of any particular group will depend

entirely on our acquaintance with that group: thus the groups

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

resolve themselves instantly into sevens. No ingenuity can frame

eight good groups of either, and no scheme, however plausible,

can reduce the number to sixes or fives. An attempt to reduce

birds into five groups has been made in this country; I cannot

do better than refer the reader to it as a triumphant confirmation ©
of the predominance of the number seven.* The great Linnzeus

assigned to Mammalia seven orders, to Aves six, and to Insecta

seven, in a system which, though capable of improvement in

many of the orders, evidently points to the truth, and considering

his limited means of reference, compared with what the naturalist

now possesses, was a remarkable and magnificent monument of
human talent.}

To go back two thousand years before the birth of Linnzeus,
may be thought rather an unlikely mode of obtaining proof of the
value of a modern theory in natural history; yet at that time we
find a system of insects{ divided so accurately into seven groups,
that every attempt to improve it has, as far as regards these great
groups, proved an utter fallacy. Now this array of names,
Aristotle, Linnzeus, Cuvier and Kirby, thus corroborating Holy
Writ, even in direct opposition to our own observations, is en-
titled to a good degree of confidence ; but how much more cheer-
fully is that confidence given when our own unbiassed judgment
must thoroughly coincide !

Presuming, therefore, that a septenary and circular arrange-

* By Mr. Vigors. Linnean Transactions.

+ It will be observed that in the Mollusca, Radiata, and Acrita of Mac-
Leay, all attempts to employ a particular number in grouping will be found
futile, a circumstance obviously attributable to our ignorance ; and the only
conclusion to be drawn from it is this: that, as these tribes can never be
rendered available for any numerical distribution, so they can never be fairly

and satisfactorily adduced in refutation of such a distribution.
+ That of Aristotle.

17

ment, with one seventh superior to the others, does exist in nature,
its first application must necessarily be made to the result of the
six days’ creation, which I consider as typifying six grand groups
of matter, and the seventh—the day of rest, emphatically com-
manded to be kept holy—that Omnipotence who created and
presides over the stupendous work.*

To trace nature from the trivial differences which may distin-
guish between two kindred mosses—differences scarcely to be
detected by the practised eye of the botanist—upwards to the
grand grouping of organized matter, into kingdoms containing
myriads of such species,—to define accurately major and minor
divisions, and assign to each division, and each individual, its
appropriate place in an enduring system, is a task, in all proba-
bility, far beyond the mental powers of any single individual,
especially when we consider the interesting facts and fresh objects
which are daily added to our store in such number as must con-
vince the student that as yet he scarcely possesses a knowledge
of one hundredth part of nature’s works; but, to pencil a dim
and dubious outline,—to suggest whether nature has not aimed
at such and such conclusions,—whether she has not chosen such

* T am fully aware that this part of the subject is far above the comprehen-
sion of man, and felt exceedingly reluctant to carry system farther than the
two great groups—animals and vegetables; but alluding, as I am compelled
to do so frequently, to the works of Mr. Macleay, I was fearful lest my silence
on this particular subject should be construed into consent. See Hore
Entomologice, p. 179.

+ In Britain we labour under another difficulty in this respect, a difficulty
which has proved beyond measure mortifying during the progress of the
present essay,—the want of a national museum.—A private individual cannot
be expected to sacrifice all his time and money in procuring, preparing, and
arranging, a tolerably perfect collection; a writer on natural history is, there-
fore, compelled to travel round to two or three hundred private collections,
and solicit leave to make his memoranda. Few men of taste can regret the
purchase of the ancient works of art now open to the public at the British
Museum; but the immense sums of public money granted to that institu-
tion should insure the naturalist a similar treat with the artist. A collec-
tion of vertebrate and annulose animals should be immediately formed,
arranged, and named after Cuvier, Latreille, or the most approved authority
of the day. Among the insecta, ’ have no doubt a tolerably perfect—cer-
tainly, a very useful—collection might with little trouble be made from the
specimens already in the Museum.

18

and such paths, without making the slightest attempt to bend or
turn her aside from her course where it does not precisely coin-
cide with his own artificial schemes, may be fairly claimed as the
privilege of any of her students, and ought to be freely granted
to him by his fellow-labourers.

In looking for a centre around which to arrange the almost
infinite hosts of the animal kingdom, the vanity of man naturally
enough suggests himself; but to gratify this vanity, he must
submit to the somewhat mortifying necessity of admitting six
families of apes and monkies to his immediate company, and the
tribe thus constituted may be termed Primates, —a name ori-
ginally conferred on it by Linneus. Anatomy, as well as ex-
ternal appearances, prove the propriety of this arrangement,
however repulsive the idea may be to our false feelings of ex-
clusiveness. Primates thus constituted, will be found to be the
central seventh of a larger group, termed Mammalia by Linnzeus;
a group, which includes all the truly viviparous and mammiferous
animals. Amongst the outermost of these, as we retrograde
gradually from the type, man, we shall find a bird typified in
the bat; a shark in the seal; many other fish in the whale; a
tortoise, crocodile, and slender lizards, in the armadillos, ant-
eaters, &c., all thus exhibiting a tendency to borrow characters
from other approaching groups. Mammalia, thus surrounded,
must of necessity be the central of seven groups, within the
compass of which will be found all animals which possess a frame
of connected bones and a spinal marrow; these are termed Ver-
tebrata, and, I think, will be found to constitute a central seventh
of all animated nature.

From this it will be apparent, that there are in nature forty-
nine groups of animals, each of about the same value as Mam-
malia, as far as regards their relation to a whole. Distrustful
of my own very limited knowledge of the subject, and fearful of
encumbering science with crude theories and ill-defined divisions
and characters which future discoveries may hereafter totally sub-
vert, I shall content myself with observing, that I believe in the
existence of such groups, and shall not presume to give them, at
present, definitions or even names: the charge of ignorance is
merited and easy to be borne, but the charge of attempting to

19

establish divisions, in order to secure the paltry fame of naming
them, I hope not to deserve.

In some instances, these tribes or sub-kingdoms seem pointed
out by nature’s self in so decided a manner, that the lisping infant
will at once recognise them. Where this is the case, what can
definition avail? Let us refer to birds as one of these clearly
marked divisions. I single it out as better understood than
either of the others. Let us ask, To what does all the arrange-
ment tend which has here been so lavishly bestowed? To utter
confusion, volume after volume, essay after essay, open their
yawning leaves, and repeat, again and again, one and all, utter
hopeless, unintelligible confusion. But if, neglecting the high
authorities on the subject in toto, we condescend to consult
nature, we shall soon perceive that birds readily range them-
selves in seven good and clearly defined groups ; one of which is
preeminently distinguished from the rest, and yet partakes in
some one or other of its component genera of the characters of all
the other groups; such a sub-class must, therefore, be central ;
and, by a little care in availing himself of the most obvious
approaches, the naturalist will find every other sub-class, and
order, and genus, beautifully fillmg up their appropriate situa-
tions, without causing any of those distortions which so disfigure
every existing arrangement of this interesting tribe. Syrrhaptes,
Serpentarius, and all those hitherto parodoxical creatures which
seem to have frightened our ornithologists out of their wits, are
now not only admissible, but absolutely necessary to connect
tribes which no one had previously supposed in the least degree
related ;—but I will not here forestall, as an attempt to point out
the numerous and unlooked-for relations existing among the
genera of birds, which the present plan has served to develop,
forms the subject of a separate essay, already in a state of for-
wardness; and the more immediate object of my present in-
quiry, although a tenant of the air, is not to be sought for among
its feathered tribes. I will, therefore, leave these for the present,
fully intending that the ornithologist as well as the entomologist
shall have an opportunity of examining whether my theory has
truth and reason to support it, or whether he must condemn it as
an ignis fatwus of the brain.

20

The law that rules animal rules also vegetable nature: the
phzenogamous plants present a centre very nearly correspond-
ing, in relative value, to vertebrates among animals; these, again,
offer equal scope for subdivision; and the surrounding vegeta-
tions must be those at present termed cryptogamous, which vary
as greatly among themselves as they collectively do from the
more perfect and central ones: the various tribes of Fungi,
Algze, Filices, Musci, &c., possessing wonderfully varied forms
and characters, and assuming every size from the gigantic fern of
the tropical islands to that almost invisible Mucor, which seems,
by its instantaneous appearance, to be for ever floating in the air,
prepared to vegetate wherever it may chance to fall, and has often
afforded arguments to those who deny the dictum of omnia ex ovo,
and support that of spontaneous reproduction; thus ennobling
these almost nonentities, by assigning to them properties which
man might pine for in vain, and which cannot be the attributes
of dust.

The centre for each particular group will not always derive that
mark of superiority from its size, or intelligence, or beauty, or
complicated structure, but from a combination of these qualities,
and more particularly from uniting in itself the principal and more
decidedly distinguishing characters of the group of which it forms
the nucleus, and the gradation will by no means be found to be
regular, from the most perfect in the centre to the least perfect on
the circumference of minor groups, although I imagine this re-
lative position to obtain in the extremes: on the contrary, the
approaches towards perfection or imperfection will be infinitely
varied, presenting the most complete labyrinth of intricacies
that imagination can conceive, yet all disposed with that beautiful
and wonderful regularity which proclaims more loudly than words,
that ‘‘ the natural system is the plan of creation itself, the work
of an ALL-WISE ALL-POWERFUL Derry.’*

* Hore Entomologice, preface, p. xiii.

<

a ‘ 4

PALA) ie es chs RE
ih a fo
CLL Seis AE A

ad Chew eae apy, PO t
8 Ea” iat (

Aust LCR es Le , i ve 7¢
;

a hee SAS one a
= . 7 ,
v. ¥ bx Ney Pee hs ES a antes
Mi saatty (hae qed: GIO 2 oh ae
Tey F ;
cS iene 2
a 2 £32. i > A eu) aS
e , sa ¢
< te ad
? . “ad
as ‘ ve 4 ' ?

* a
{ hrs bet Oe
ae * = : 5
vi4 7% i
- FF gaber}
ile 3 ’
, .
4 ~ |
Cee 'y ma
Sete Po ss
np q
ar Sepa ' ;
AW
% * \
od ‘
A
ef . fo
2 P Vs '
j 4
¢ aie 1h
7
“ 4 she TMF i
A
Nb
\
‘
.

DIPTERA

HYMENOPTERA

21

ON THE CLASSES OF INSECTA.

Many theories, which read plausibly enough, we find, on
attempting to apply them, totally at variance with facts: I will,
therefore, not content myself with making unsupported assertions,
but endeavour to summon to my aid fragments of the great
whole, and array them before the reader, in what I consider
order, asking of him, as an especial favour, that he will examine
and compare the genera and species which I shall mention as
related to each other in corroboration of my scheme; for much
as I could wish by argument to convince him that a system of
circles, grouped in sevens, exists universally throughout nature,
yet I should much prefer that, by actual experiment, he should
convince himself. With this view I will take a rapid survey of the
central class* of Insecta, observing in what particulars it is related
to those which surround it. I have selected insecta first because
I already possessed a slight knowledge of its contents ; secondly,
because there exists little difference of opinion as to those
contents ;+ and, thirdly, because Mr. MacLeay has given it as
his opinion “that it is among insects above all other groups of
animals, that owing to their myriads of species, the mode in
which nature’s chain is linked—a mode, the knowledge of which
comprises all knowledge in natural history, will be most evident,
and therefore most easily detected.” $

It is somewhat remarkable that, although considerably up-
wards of two thousand years have elapsed since the first system

* T have invariably used the term class, to designate the orders of Linnzus,
and sub-class, for the next division, of which seven are supposed to exist in
every class: these sub-classes may sometimes constitute natural orders, in
which case a plural termination is given; thus, Blatta constitutes in itself
a sub-class Blatta, a natural order Blatt, and a genus Blatta; but generally
a sub-class will contain seven natural orders; as sub-class Scarabzeus con-
tains natural orders—Lucani, Coprides, Scarabei, Histeres, &c.

{ The only question as to the contents of insecta, is, whether the pediculi
are true insects or not; the class Hemiptera is so closely related to them, that
I cannot think it a great violation to place them in the outermost circle of
that class; the acari may be supposed meeting them in an adjoining circle,
but I have no desire to provoke controversy on this minor point.

+ Annulosa Javanica, preface, p. xi.

LEPIDOPTERA

Tinea

HEMIPTERA DIPTERA

Psyche

%
Or es

NEUROPTERA

mncog nita

HYMENOPTERA

ORTHOPTERA

Insecla

THE CLASSES OF INSECTA.

COLEOPTERA

22

of insects was promulged, at least the first of which we have any
knowledge, yet no attempt has hitherto been successfully made to
improve it; from this perfection I think we may fairly conclude,
that the philosopher of Stagira was not merely a man of extra-
ordinary talent, but that he had made himself the repository of
what had previously been saved of the learning of his forefathers,
in a day when it will be recollected the printing press had no
existence ; and we have nothing to prove that entomology had
not degenerated through the two thousand years previous to
Aristotle, as it unquestionably did during the two thousand years
subsequent to the time of that philosopher, when our own
immortal countryman, Ray, revived the science, and laid the:
foundation of a regenerated lustre, which, perhaps, may eventually
rival that diffused by the great Stagirite himself. Be this as it
may, the systematist has no choice but to go back two thousand
years for the primary outline, or classification of insects; and,
I may add, nothing but a desire to make myself clearly under-
stood, prevents my adopting the nomenclature, as well as the
division of Aristotle. I shall, however, employ the more modern
and less appropriate names for the present, hoping that at a future
day an opportunity may occur of doing justice to the merits of
that writer, whom we are all compelled to follow, or to forsake
the path of truth.*

The reader who does not understand exactly what animals
constitute the sub-kingdom Insecta, may refer to the Jntro-
duction to Entomology, where he will find the subject fully and
accurately investigated.} It would be a needless incumbrance
of my subject to repeat these definitions here, but as I am unable
to meet with any characters for classes, by which relations and
differences can readily and conveniently be traced, I have been
induced to add a few definitions to those already in use, which I
am the more willing to do because they will be useful here with-
out ever perplexing science by forsaking the pages of this essay.

* The learned authors of the Introduction to Entomology have inserted a
sketch of the Aristotelian system in that work, a reference to which will
convince the reader that it is next to impossible for the entomologist to over-
rate him. See Introduction to Entomology, Vol. IV. p. 433.

+ Introduction to Entomology, Vol. III. pp. 1—é1.

Se a a re eee oe

“SNOLIG A *SNLOLIV A. | *STLOLIR A *STLOLIG A. *SNOLIV A *STLOLIV A ‘VUTLIOUNIN "TIA
|
. +8 Q A “ge 8
STLOLIP A SSULM SuTjUeM SSUIM SUIZURM
a} Uprlosnwulol = : ae “OATIOV : ae ‘podexoy{ ‘VUTLIINIP, “TA
. ainjonays ‘Ino,g | UL ydeoxe ‘yoastog : ur ydaoxe “qoojlog

'
oammariee *STLOLIVA "SOUIM SUIJUUM i "SOUIM SUIURA | tag eae ah
Ge ainjonays ‘N07 | ut ydaoxe “oaj10 g BENE ut ydaoxa ‘joayt0 P set OSA
Pe PAS Se ee ee ee ee ee eS oS Se eS

1

*‘sosvo SUIM
‘aqyv[UqIpuUe JL a pie ‘omy; “JYSITS *UIISIINY "STLOLIB A. ‘snoueA | “787 ‘VUALAOITOD “AT
*snov0eUu
‘a}e[NqIpUL] -eiquiaut ‘10,7 “YSIS *yuIOSOING, “OUON, *STLOLIV A. ‘VUTLAONIWAP “TTI
= oS | eS eae Se Se ee ee eS ee ee ee ee
‘srostod
‘ayeprlosoqoig aa Bue (OMT, *QUON *yUsNsaIN® ‘OUON, ‘pody silp ‘VAIL “TI
"oeI UY “Ayeos ‘M07 “OUON, *yuUsosaINy “OUON ‘podAjog ‘vuaLdodldary ‘f
(Picci Oe rc ee a a «ey | ee ee ne ee ee Ce = ee
“no “Sut AA ‘ooRuy *JayoRIeyo OSRULT “1ajyovleyo
: 0} aoUR{quasoy jerome 0} souR[qWoSey easuey ‘SASSV'IO
| ‘OOVINI ‘Vd Od ‘VAUVT

ee ee ee ee | ee ee I ee eS

24

The very imperfection of this table will constitute its principal
utility, because, instead of acknowledging variety as a suitable
definition of any particular part or state, the differences of which
in respective classes, entomologists have been accustomed to
consider characteristic, we find authors labouring to confine a
group by what they would wish to consider good and solid cha-
racters, which characters they often at last leave so comprehen-
sive, as not only to include the class which they had originally
intended to define, but also a majority of those other classes
which they had supposed previously disposed of. If, in reply,
my reader should tell me that my seventh class was somewhat
of this too comprehensive kind, I should simply reply that I
intended it to be so; and if my reader happen to know a better,
he can interline it in his copy. A space would then be occupied,
which has hitherto in all such definitions been really, although
not verbally, vacant.

It is hard to break through the trammels of habit ; it is hard
to give up what one has for a long time taken for granted ; it is
hard to relinquish favourite schemes, however untenable: an inno-
vator, however, is bound to deliberate well and coolly,—is bound
to try all the various schemes before him with the test of reason.
If the entomologist do this he will find his positive knowledge
much less than he expected,—he will perceive that he is book-wise
and fact-foolish; if, therefore, he would wish to arrive at truth,
he must strip himself of his borrowed garments and all the theo-
retical dogmas he may have, however incautiously, imbibed, and
trust entirely to what he has discovered himself, or what has been
discovered by those who had no theory to support but truth,—no
end to answer but, amusement; for your theoretical writers, if
they meet with a fact which militates against a favourite theory,
will too often suppress it entirely, and on the same principle are
ever anxious to magnify to an unnatural size, any slight, and
often imaginary, circumstance, which they consider may tell in
their favour. Among theories that have been thus established
on very weak and insufficient foundations are all dichotomous
divisions, especially those in which one group is defined as
possessing and the other as wanting any fixed and peculiar
character ; a definition, by the by, applicable to nearly all

25

dichotomies : the dichotomy to which I have here to allude is the
division of insects into Mandibulata and Haustellata. Now every
division founded on the presence or absence of a particular cha-
racter should be received with the greatest caution, because the
second group in which the character is absent* is sure to be too
comprehensive. Mr. MacLeay,} himself no great friend to dicho-
tomies in general, is completely led away by this particular one.
He considers the classes I. II. and VI. of the foregoing table to
constitute one grand order, and the classes III. IV. V. and VII.
to constitute another; and, after Clairville, he calls the former
order, Haustellata, and the latter, Mandibulata. Mr. Mac Leay’s
name is a tower of strength to any theory; and his authority,
added to the plausibility of the idea, has really given such a
truth-like appearance to this division, that we see it now univer-
sally adopted. Let us examine its worth. First, I would ask,
Can distinctive characters, thus drawn from part only of the
external anatomy of insects, be sound, when to enforce them we
are compelled to neglect various other characters which we have
been accustomed to consider all important? Scopoli has said,
“ Classes et genera naturalia non sola instrumenta cibaria, non
sole antenne nec sole ale constituunt ;” but our dichotomizing
entomologists tell us, that neither antennze, nor wings, nor habit,
nor metamorphosis, are to be regarded at all, but “ sola instru-
menta cibaria;” at least, they infer this by separating Orthoptera
and Hemiptera, by the intervention of several orders totally un-
related to either of them, a disruption which no nature-loving
naturalist could for a moment admit. The truth is, there are
seven kinds of mouth in insects, so distinct that good classes
could be built on them,{—classes which would confirm those

* And, be it observed, Haustellata merely means not mandibulate; it does
not propose to assert that the contents of the tribe so named need have a
particular kind of haustellate mouth, or any mouth at all.

+ Mr. MacLeay has written a little pamphlet on the impropriety of the
dichotomous system, which I recollect reading, when published, with consi-
derable pleasure. I forget its title.

+ If the reader happen to be unacquainted with the terms which I have
used in characterizing the mouth, he will find them accurately and elaborately
described in Ind. to Ent. Vol. III. p. 898, et seg. The orders of Fabricius de-
pend entirely on the formation of the mouth. See Systema Entomologia.

c

26

which Aristotle appears to have derived chiefly from other cha-
racters: of these seven, three are mandibulate, three are haus-
tellate, and one without the rudiments of mandible or haustellum.
The three which are mandibulate are somewhat similar, the three
which are haustellate bear no more resemblance to each other than
that which they all may be said to bear to that haustellated qua-
druped an elephant; and the tie which holds Haustellata together
as a group is about as strong as one formed to bend in a genus
Blaps mortisaga, Acrida aptera, Cimex lectularius, and the female
of Bombyx antiquus, with the one sole character of being destitute
of wings.

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

affinity ; and as Mr. Macleay is by far the most learned and
competent advocate of these distinct descriptions of resemblance,
and as I cannot pretend to refer to or cope with the voluminous
writings extant on this subject, I am necessitated to allude to his
work alone. It will be seen by the Hore Entomologice, (a
work which I have already spoken of with unfeigned admiration, )
that Mr. MacLeay considers that relation observable in the
general appearance, habit, food, metamorphosis, &c. of insects, a
relation of analogy, while that dependent solely on a fancied
resemblance in the mouth he considers a relation of affinity:
thus classes V. and VI., which, in five characters out of six,
agree as closely as such comprehensive classes can do, he con-
siders related by analogy, and classes I. and VI., which, in five
characters out of six, are as unlike as insects can be, he considers
related by affinity ;* so Dr. Johnson, when he calls affinity
“resemblance,” must have made a capital blunder, for Mr.
MacLeay proves clearly that it means dissimilarity. Classes I.
and VI. however, I find will meet as the line becomes bent into
a circle, and therefore we must conclude it to be a hidden
affinity, for it certainly is not apparent ; and moreover it must be
remarked, that the relation between classes is but little apparent
generally, except they are taken in pairs: thus, between I. and II.,
between III. and IV., and between V. and VI., the relation is
real and readily ascertained, although distant ; while between

* Horse Entomologice, p. 367.

eS OT

a

II. and III., between IV. and V., and between VI. and I., it
becomes scarcely traceable. It is also worthy of notice, that the
contents of either pair of classes, with the addition of class VII.,
may be formed into a tolerably perfect chain of genera, indeed
with much less appearance of disconnexion than is observable on
passing from either pair into the next pair,—a fact which attaches
a degree of importance to the number three, on which, perhaps,
at a future time, more may be said,—and thus a chain of relation
would be established in each instance, leaving four whole classes
entirely out of the question;—a chain which would steadily
pursue its way, regardless and in open violation of all established
laws of analogy, affinity and dichotomy; laws which I hope ere
long to see pining away like Echo, until they also are really what
I now fully believe them to be, vox et preterea nihil.

Mr. MacLeay found that in his quinary groups one of each
five contained genera or species related to other genera or species
in each of the other four groups. That I may be thoroughly
understood, I will quote the author’s own words :—“ In almost
every group which has been set before 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, contains types which represent each of the four other
groups, together with a type peculiar to itself.”* As far as my
observation has extended, this is universally the case; and
whether the total number of groups be five or seven, I think
I am safe in asserting that the only possible way of making
these types, thus representing groups, approach such groups, is to
place the heterogeneous group in the centre, and the homogeneous
groups around it; taking care that the type peculiar to itself be
its very centre, its “ heart’s core.” Such a heterogeneous group,
then, is Neuroptera: its characters as given,} I believe, perfectly
correct; and can any one say they are sufficient? Certainly not ;
but had I described it thus—Class VII. Neuroptera, central,
partaking of the characters of all the others, I think a better
character could not have been given. This class contains a type
peculiar to itself—the genus Libellula of Linnzus: a genus so

* Hore Entomologice, p. 518. + See the Table.
c 2

28

distinct, that several authors have supposed it to constitute one
of the primary divisions of Insecta. It is, however, merely
the Neuropterous type, the very essence of the class; and many
of its species, Anax Imperator for instance, proclaim themselves
by their imperial flight, their enormous size, their richly varie-
gated colours, their despotic and cruel habits, emperors of the
insect world. In this group we find the organs of sight, mandu-
cation, and locomotion, carried to a greater degree of perfection
than we ever meet with, except in similar centres: like the king of
birds, the dragonfly is unrivalled among his kind. From Libel-
lula, the centre, we descend at once to Tinodes, or Psyche, on the
circumference of the circle. Supposing Psyche to be the
approaching genus tc Lepidoptera, I think I need not enter
very diffusely on the similarities. Passing to the right, we find
that Diptera will next touch the central class; in which, after
leaving the Phryganez, we have now arrived among the next
group, or sub-class, Ephemerze: and here, as we might expect,
the inferior wings become much diminished—at the point of
contact obsolete.* The flight, instead of being solitary, is in
company, gracefully and gently rising and falling. The parts of
manducation are become obsolete; while, in habit and appear-
ance, the insect imitates the Tipule and Chironomi, so exactly
that the naturalist is foiled in his endeavours to distinguish
between them, as they joyously dance together by myriads in the
rays of the setting sun.

We now approach mandibulated orders, and we shall see the
loss of mandibles in Phryganea and Ephemera, although appa-
rently resulting naturally enough from their distance from the
type Libellula, has yet another cause—the proximity of classes that
have no mandibles: in the city-building Ants, the mandibles are
very perfect, and, therefore, we may expect them, and we find
them in the city-building Termites. The opinion of philosophers,
such as the authors of the Introduction to Entomology, is always
worth having, although I am doubtful of assertions about insects,
when unconfirmed by thorough entomologists; and I believe as
yet no entomologist is sufficiently acquainted with the real
history of white ants, to decide positively as to their different

* In Cloéon.

29

stages of existence. The following quotation eontains also a
corroboration of the propriety of this approach :—‘‘ The white
ants, though they belong to the Neuroptera order, borrow their
instinct from the hymenopterous social tribes, and, in con-
junction with the ants, (Formica,) connect the two orders. Their
societies consist of five descriptions of individuals :—workers, or
larvee ; nymphs, or pupz; neuters, or soldiers; males and
females.”* The class Coleoptera now approaches the Neurop-
tera, and on each side the boundary we find larve digging
pitfalls in the sand to catch their prey, and having tubular
mandibles to extract its juices when caught. We find them
spinning silken cocoons, in which they change into quiescent
pupze, incapable of taking nutriment; which may fairly be
supposed a symptom of approach; but there is no insect whose
imago I would venture to place on the circumference of the
neuropterous circle at the point.

When we find an insect so doubtfully situated between two
classes, that Linnzeus placed it in Neuroptera, Fabricius in Or-
thoptera, Latreille, in two of his works, in Orthoptera, and in two
others in Neuroptera, MacLeay in Neuroptera, and Kirby and
Spence in Orthoptera, I think it but fair to conclude, that the
orders must approach very nearly to admit of this difference of
opinion: such is Mantispa; and Mantis-like as it really is, it
only borrows that appearance from being on the extreme circum-
ference of the Neuropterous circle, and touching the Orthopterous
one where Mantis must evidently be situated. Lastly, we see
in Psocus the form, wings, and whole appearance of Aphis, so
exquisitely imitated, that practised entomologists often, nay
mostly, fail in separating them correctly: thus we find that class
VII. contains five natural orders, the contents of which have
been—and may be again, should the linear and dichotomous
system continue in vogue—placed either in the class to which
they truly belong, or respectively in classes I. IT. III. V. and VI.
at the mere option and caprice of the systematist. I have already
admitted that 1 find no neuropterous insect sufficiently related,
in its final state to class IV. to warrant my placing it in contact
‘with that class; and that I may not be accused of assuming

* Introduction to Entomology, Vol. II. p. 32.

30

facts which exist only in my imagination, I am perfectly willing
to conclude that no such insect is to be found; a conclusion that
time and discovery, by falsifying, can only add yet one more
buttress to a tower, which nature seems to point out as built by
herself.

There are a few little insects which, like the spiders which
crept across Richard’s brain, are somewhat perplexing to the
naturalist, yet he cannot dispose of them as the monarch did
of his spiders; I mean Pulex, Stylops, Thrips, Forficula. But,
in truth, the first attempt of the systematist should be to place
classes properly, and these disconnected species will, after a

time, find appropriate places: they were no more created without

a design than man; and their Creator, doubtless, has appointed
them a station, although man, whose wisdom is utter ignorance,
has not yet been able to discover it. It is impossible for the
entomologist not to observe the general similarity, the family
likeness if I may so express it, which exists between these
genera; they appear a little way removed from Coleoptera, yet
will not harmoniously join that class. Thrips is evidently man-
dibulated, although the dichotomists call it haustellated, and
comes nearer to Stylops* than any other known genus: its larva
is, I believe, unknown; but in March you may observe an active
hexapod, lizard-like animal, running about the flowers of Ran-
unculus ficaria on sunny banks, and two or three months later you
will find Thrips abundant on the same flowers in the same spots :
this is no proof of their identity; but as the larva of Thrips
and the imago of the said hexapod are equally unknown, there
may be a surmise expressed on the subject. Mr. Kirby calls
this hexapod Pediculus Melittz, and has given a description and
plate of it in his Monographia Apum.+ He there asserts that
De Geer considered it the larva of the Melée proscarabzeus, and
some observations of my esteemed friend, Mr. Doubleday, who

* For a beautiful and accurate figure and dissections of this rare insect,
see Curtis’s Entomology, pl. 226: for a popular figure, Professor-edly of the
same insect, see Insect Transformations, p. 67.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.

¢ Monographia Apum, Vol. IT. p. 168.

——eooorreeerr eee

OPTERA.

SPHINX

3l

succeeded in obtaining the larva of Melde from the egg, certainly
tended to corroborate De Geer. But I am rather wandering from
my subject, and, therefore, will consider these little creatures also,
wandering like comets in eccentric courses over the whole system,
now approaching Staphylinus, and anon Ichneumon, and, as they
draw near, borrowing a character from each: they may, on the
other hand, constitute disconnected links of some other mighty
chain, the intervening parts of which are for a time hidden from
the sight of man, and perhaps hereafter may be revealed ; perhaps,
again, they may occupy some of the chasms I have been com-
pelled to leave vacant: but I deprecate, I detest the idea, of
forcing any creature into a situation which nature has not evi-
dently pointed out as its appropriate one, for the ignoble purpose
of giving plausibility and imperfect perfection to a scheme.

ON THE SUB-CLASSES, &c. OF LEPIDOPTERA.

It may be thought a strange propensity to grapple with diffi-
culties, that leads me to select Lepidoptera as a class, by which
to exemplify, in detail, the septenary and circular arrangement.
There is no class so puzzling to systematists, or for which science
has done so little—no class is at present so badly arranged, and
in none are barbarous combinations so much in vogue. Linnzeus
founded divisions at the outset, on characters, “ loose, vague, and
insufficient :” * modern genera have a little improved minor de-
tails, and but little, for their places appear to have been assigned
them by lot, and without the slightest regard to similarity or
approach : in a word, the arrangement of Lepidoptera appears to
have been conducted by collectors, who aimed rather at a pretty
picture than a related series; and all our writers have rushed
headlong by the same path, without staying an instant to con-
sider whether they were right or wrong, like boys playing at
follow-the-leader,} each occasionally leaping some wider gap, or
descending some more dangerous precipice than his predecessor,
as though for the very love of frolic and bravado. One, a
talented writer, an assiduous collector, a most accurate observer,

* Particularly in the sections of Papilio. + Linnzus.

SUB-CLASSES OF LEPIDOPTERA.

eT

PAPILIO

GEOMETRA SPHINX

Metrocampus.

s

s ”

8 ARCTUE. NOTODONT
ini ay

- on ’,

= PYRALIS

Fp ononomeuta

TINEA

psso0pidaT

Fe =
4
Ss
>
*

32

hesitated awhile, it is true, and it was thought he would have
broken the line, but no,—he kept precisely to the track of
Linnzeus and the rest of them, through Papilio, Sphinx, Bom-
byx, Noctua, Geometra, Pyralis, Tortrix, and Tinea; but, as he
stood pledged to traverse no more than five fields, he hit on the
ingenious expedient of asserting roundly, that the four last named
were but one. In fact, the whole of this immense class presents,
at this hour, nothing but a vast chaos, which seems to await the
operation of some predicted spell to call it into order.

These were apparent difficulties only ; for, as no system existed
to direct, so none existed to encumber or perplex. Too much is

known now of Linnzan combinations, to assert, that he always’

thought correctly; and since his day no one has thought at all.
Now, if you cannot obtain a nicely drawn plan, you prefer having
a blank sheet of paper to one covered all over with scorings and
markings, and then you may set to work and make your plan
yourself. So, in natural history, contrariety of opinion perplexes,
while the absence of opinion leaves the systematist perfectly
unbiassed in the formation of his own. Again, copious and
well-named* collections of this favourite class are by no means
uncommon ;} and through, the liberality of my friends, I had
often been permitted to inspect them, and had gained a sufficient
superficial knowledge of their contents, to be enabled, with the
assistance of my own specimens, to cluster them pretty well into
seven great families or sub-classes; and although, as I have
noticed, nothing available existed on the subject of arrangement
of Lepidoptera, either in essay, or treatise, or catalogue, or
cabinet, yet there was to be found, up and down, much valuable
matter, in the shape of what might be termed natural history of
Lepidoptera. Finally, I knew, that could I master this class,
I could stand my ground, because I had previously tried the
experiment on the classes Hymenoptera and Coleoptera, and had
found that, at the word seven, they fell into instant order, as at
the touch of a magician’s wand ; and, as for the other classes, we
are in such innocent and blissful ignorance of their contents, that
were a scheme ever so futile, acentury at least must elapse before
its futility could be proved by Orthoptera, Hemiptera, or Diptera.

* T mean each species labelled with @ name. + British collections.

3d

Whoever will give himself the trouble to examine thoroughly a
collection of British Lepidoptera, will find a very great majority
of them evincing very evident symptoms of relation to one or
other of the following species : — Papilio Machaon, Sphinx Li-
gustri, Pyralis verticalis, Tinea pellionella, Noctua pronuba, and
Geometra roboraria; and should any form widely different from
either of these occur, it may, if the larva be known, be placed
in the centre of a ring formed by the groups, which we will
suppose surrounding their six respective types; or, if its larva
be unknown, it must await the discovery of that most unerring
stage of its existence. J am persuaded, did entomologists know
how much depends on the form, habit, food, and clothing of
larvee, they would not be so neglected as they are at present.
I have much to regret my own remissness in this respect, for
it has seldom happened that I have found the larva of any insect
which had not been previously well known, but it has tended
to point out some approaches that had never before been thought
of,—approaches, even when thus pointed out, totally irrecon-
cilable with existing ideas of arrangement and combination of
groups, but which now open to my view the most beautiful
chains of affinities; and wonderfully but indubitably prove, that
a single individual may be related to three, four, or even more
apparently disconnected groups.

Perhaps no better genus was ever formed than Papilio of Lin-
nzus; its diurnal flight, its erect wings, and its clavated antenne,
at first bid defiance to the systematist who attempts to bring any
other group into contact with it; indeed, in Britain we have
nothing at all that will avail us in this respect, which compels me
to have recourse to exotics, an assistance which I shall only
avail myself of when I find it quite impracticable to furnish the
approaches from indigenous species, the reference to which is
attainable by every entomologist. Among foreign Papiliones, espe-
cially among those groups which approach our genera, Hesperia,
Lycena, Polyommatus, and Thecla, there appears to be an almost
infinite variety of form. Now it is but reasonable to seize on any
variations observable in genera or species from the prominent or
typical genus or order from which they may be supposed to derive
their more conspicuous character, and to employ such variations in

34

arrangement as connecting links between the group to which they
more decidedly belong, and the group to which, by such varia-
tion, they evince an approach: a precisely intermediate species or
genus between two classes or sub-classes, or even orders, I have
never met with, notwithstanding the renowned Linnzan maxim,
that Natura saltus non facit ; for did nature make no leaps, surely
the question were immediately at rest as to the existence of any
other division than species among created beings, a conclusion
which even ‘the most strenuous supporters of the Linnzean dogma
decidedly resist. Among the Papiliones, this departure from the
type may be looked for either in the form of the antennz, the posi-
tion of the wings, or the time of flight. The first is obviously the
most tangible should it occur, and it does occur. In Urania, the
antennee have become setaceous; the club has entirely disap-
peared, yet the other peculiarities remain much as in Papilio.
This single deviation may be assumed as pointing out a relation
to Geometra, which the reader will perceive is supposed to meet
the sub-class Papilio at this point. A second peculiarity is to be
found in an insect figured by Godart, a Polyommatus in shape,
but with pertinated antennz ;* the genus he has very suitably
named Barbicornis. This deviation, it must be observed, is in
favour of the Bombyces, which we therefore suppose touching the
sub-class at this point. A third deviation, of a very different
kind, is observable in an insect which Latreille has figured in the
Régne Animal, and placed among the Sphinges: he calls it
Coronis D’Urvillii. The antenne in this genus, as in Castnia,
are gradually incrassated, and they may probably be eventually
both considered as Papiliones: of Coronis D’Urvillii, I cannot
entertain a doubt, as the wings are too expansive, the antennz
too long, the abdomen too short for it ever to retain its station
among the Sphinges; the inferior wings are also very decidedly
caudate, a common formation among Papiliones, but unknown
among Sphinges ; but, let this question be eventually decided pro
or con, the approach between Hesperiz and Sphinges is not

* Latreille seems to think this to have been a deception, and that the
antennz which Godart found on the insect did not belong to it. I cannot
suppose that the latter author could have been so grossly deceived.

35

likely to be disputed, nor the fact that it takes place somewhere
in the neighbourhood of the genus Castnia.

The next type is Sphinx Ligustri; and here again our British
collections are obliged to plead poverty; few, however, as they
are at present, | am compelled, if I purpose consulting nature,
to reduce them about half: the Augeriz and Zygzenz must be
moved elsewhere; they look like Sphinges, but are none. I
will begin then with Castnia, of which no more need be said.
The next striking departure from the type occurs in having the
abdomen furnished with tufts or brushes, which the insect spreads
as it hovers over fiowers, somewhat in the manner of a bird’s tail.
The long porrected antlia also has a resemblance, perhaps rather
fancied than real, to the slender bill of a humming-bird, whence
the tribe has received with us the name of English humming-
birds. The genus Sesia I will place on the circumference of
the circle, not doubting but nearer approaches to the Cossi
may be discovered, or are even now known, but no better exists
among our own Sphinges. The next point of contact will be with
Pyralis; and here the genus Cigocera, figured in the Regne Ani-
mal, seems to claim its station: it is a decided Sphinx, with the
palpi of Hypena proboscidalis, and Latreille has placed it between
Sesia and Zygzena, from which it will be seen that I differ only in
making Zygzena pass over the boundary line and into the next

section.
_ We enter the third sub-class then at Pyralis, and find ourselves
among some of the most beautiful little creatures in existence—
sylph-like beings, which spend their lives in the brightest sun-
shine and among the sweetest flowers. Linnzeus considered them
Sphinges, from what character is not very apparent: the sub-cha-
racter, applicable only to this section, is certainly correct; they
are truly “‘ larva diverse.” As for the antenne being “‘ medio
crassiores,’ it is not the case, unless the increase and decrease of
pectination can be considered as making them so. Of this parti-
cular tribe Latreille observes, ‘‘ Les autres lepidoptéres de cette
division ont dans les deux sexes, des antennes garnies d'un double
rang de dents alongées ow bipectinées. Ceux qui ont une trompe
distincte forment le genre Glaucopis ; ceux ot cette organe manque
ou nest pas distinct celui d’ Aglaope—ces crepusculaires semblent

36

se lier avec les Callimorphes.” The approach of the genus
Aglaope to Aglossa, rather than to Callimorpha, seems to be pre-
sumable from the circumstance of its not possessing a tongue, the
genus Glaucopis having more similarity to our genus Pyrausta,
while some of its species, which appear to call for further generic
division of the order, are closely allied to our Botys literalis, &c.
The only British genera of this order are Zygeena and Ino; the
latter, however, appears to be merely a species of some extra-
European genus, as I have remarked several exotics of precisely
similar form. The insects of this order have a stout and rather
hairy larva, much like those of the generality of the sub-class,
and in no respect allied to that of the Sphinges. Early in the
summer they spin a glossy silken cocoon, generally attached to
blades of grass, and remain but a few days in the pupa state. A
great proportion of the perfect insects have hyaline spots and
patches in their wings, and nearly all of them are brilliantly
coloured. It is known that Linneeus occasionally, as in Tenebrio
and the present instance, made his genera recipients of species,
which he found a difficulty in locating properly ; but it is really
astonishing to find a naturalist like Latreille abiding by so absurd
a combination as the contents of the Linnzan genus Sphinx, and,
in servile imitation, calling creatures which nothing but an un-
clouded sun ever tempts abroad—Crepuscularia.* It is no part
of my present plan to assign names to orders, or to describe their
contents, except in those particular instances in which the more
immediate object of this Essay may render it imperative. I will,
however, just observe, that I by no means consider Zygzena the
type of the order, but merely the nearest point of contact with
Sphinx, and an evident departure from its true type, which per-
haps may be found in that ill-divided genus Glaucopis, the form
and appearance of which is altogether more Pyralis-like than
Zygena. I am well aware that Cigocera and Zygena do not
harmonize so beautifully as many other approaches, and fully
expect to see the connexion between these sub-classes much im-
proved; but I have seized on these genera as demonstrating a
tendency in each individual towards the sub-class to which it does

* Volatu vespertino, Lin.

37

not belong. The circumstance of Zygzena having been so long
considered a Sphinx will warrant its situation on the very cir-
cumference of the circle which contains its order, until a more
appropriate occupant of that situation can be found. At the
central point of contact, the genus Aglossa presents a very Bom-
byx-like appearance; its shape, its want of the antlia, &c. indi-
cate approach; and from the sub-class Tinea, the division of
Pyralis is at present an imaginary one: at this point, after making
what little comparison I am able, I am induced to place Galleria,
Melia, and Ilithya, in Pyralis; and Chilo, and Crambus in Tinea.

The fourth sub-class, Tinea, far exceeds in numbers either of
the others, and probably all of them together; and where such a
multitude of species exists, great diversity in form and habit may
be expected: the Pterophori are a most singular tribe, and greatly
resemble the Tipulee in many respects. I feel by no means
certain that their situation would not be better between the
lepidopterous sub-class, Timea, and the dipterous sub-class,
Tipulz, thus throwing them completely out of the lepidopterous
circle; but this I leave. 1am now only sketching a rough and
hasty outline from nature. If I attempt to finish my drawing
as I proceed, I shall find occupation sufficient for a lifetime. I
have observed that I considered the chain of relation entering from
the last sub-class at Chilo, or about that genus; the same order
must of course include Crambus, and its congeners; the next order
will contain Yponomeuta, which I will place at the point of con-
tact; and the next point being among the true Tortrices will drive
Halias fagana as a decided departure from their typical form to
the very circumference of the circle where it touches Noctua.

The fifth sub-class, Noctua, seems to be but one mighty
genus: we will enter it from Halias fagana, an insect so nearly
allied to Noctua in its larva, its pupa, and its imago, that for
a long time I hesitated to which sub-class it belonged ; again,
in Cymatophora,* subtusa and retusa, I was fearful that by

* Ochsenheimer places Oo in this genus, and I observe Mr. Stephens con-
fines the genus to that one species. Mr, Curtis places Oo in the genus Bom-
bycia: this confusion of genera is very puzzling, but I hope, by mentioning
species, to make myself understood. Oo is not at all applicable to my
purpose.

38

considering them Noctuz, I might deprive the order Tortrices of
a genus on which perhaps many curious combinations might
depend, and I now only place them in Noctue until I may have
an opportunity of examining their larvee, which I have not yet
been fortunate enough to meet with. Towards the central sub-
class there appear to be many genera which approach the line
of contact; Agrotis and Chareas for instance:* I prefer taking
the latter, and must mention the species Graminis, as I am
fearful of encumbering my system with species to which I not
only never intended to refer, but should probably place in some
distant order, or perhaps sub-class. At the approach to Geo-
metra, the genus Catocala, from its looping larva, seems to have
a right to be placed: this I, however, look on with suspicion,
as the larva appears to me any thing but a guide in the
connexion of sub-classes; but I here succumb to customary
usage in making this genus the approach to the real loopers,
objecting, however, to the intervention of Phytometra, Euclidia,
and Brepha.

The sixth and last of the exterior sub-classes is Geometra, and
we shall find one insect which is completely a Geometra, and yet
in the larva has two additional feet, and the abdominal fringe of
Catocala: this is Metrocampus margaritaria,} an insect, without
which the connexion of these sub-classes would have been
difficult to establish. The next species I am acquainted with
seems to be Rumia crategaria, and after it the Thorn moths, as
they are termed (Crocallis?): these lead to Geometrat in the
centre, which may be considered the farthest removed from any
of the surrounding sub-classes ; from the genus Geometra a line
may be drawn through Biston, Nyssia, and Hybernia, to the point
of contact with Phalzna in the centre, and another through
Boarmia, Abraxas, and Ourapteryx to Urania, from which genus
of Papiliones perhaps the reader will recollect we set out.

The seventh and central sub-class, Phalazena, now claims our
attention. The mere circumstance of having taken a little

* Perhaps Noctua Lambda.

+ Of Mr. Curtis’s Guide. I cannot consider fasciaria, Mr. Curtis’s next
species, at all allied.

+ Alcis. Curtis.

39

tour round it gives but a very poor idea of its contents, and
although my reader may assure me he knows them sufficiently
well already, that assurance will by no means satisfy me that he
and I are at all agreed either as to what those contents may be,
or as to their relative situations. Before, however, I again set
in earnest to the task of pointing out relations and approaches,
I feel that some apology is due for attempting the restoration
of a beautiful and euphonious name to that grand group of Lepi-
doptera, to which it was originally assigned by the eminent
naturalist who was the first to define and name such groups.*
I am fully aware this is an attempt at innovation for which I
ean never be forgiven by the scientific; for the merit of the
present day seems to consist in the total neglect of grouping
and classifying, and in making a host of imaginary genera and
species, for the mere pleasure of overwhelming us with a “ far-
rago”’ of barbarous and unutterable names,—a practice which
my unsophisticated and old-fashioned notions will never dwell on
with that deferential awe which such profound science has an
undoubted right to expect.

Again, on the subjects of orders, a term I have already been
induced to use now and then, I am quite aware that I here am
guilty of another misdemeanour, and more especially as I call
them natural orders, meaning thereby orders among the contents
of which nature has established the similarity ; and to the forma-
tion of which “the cunningly devised fables” of man have con-
tributed but very little; and meaning also that nature has
implanted in us all, more or less, the power of distinguishing
such orders by a mere glance, and without any reference to our
books.

Furthermore, the naming of orders which I have been obliged
to mention by name, in the unscientific way which I have adopted,
merely making them plurals of established names, of large and
overgrown genera, I acknowledge to be a confession of ignorance
not usual in this our day, especially as these old genera have
almost in every instance the disadvantage of being euphonious,
easily pronounced, expressive, and universally understood ; and

* Linneus.

40

an opportunity once missed of coining names for three hundred
new orders, (and each might have been a combination of conso-
nants which no one could spell, or speak, or read, or understand, )
alas! alas! may never occur again.

To return; I suppose the sub-class Phalzena to contain seven
natural orders, a number precisely similar to that discovered
from observations made on the larva by that most accurate and
indefatigable naturalist, Dr. Horsfield;* and I may add, my
own divisions are derived from the same source, together with
the pupa and whole habit: the perfect insect has no characters,
hitherto discovered, by which we can ascertain either sub-class
or order, and from this circumstance I am compelled to omit
those genera of whose larve I am ignorant,} and even to leave

* Tregret not having Dr. Horsfield’s work to refer to; but I believe I am
perfectly safe in stating from memory that these seven he considered typed in
the genera, Saturnia, Lasiocampa, Cossus, Cerura, Arctia, Laria, and Lima-
codes: two of these he manages to unite to other two, in order to reduce the
number to five, but I forget which.

{+ As the genera which I must mention ought necessarily to be drawn
entirely from one work, in consequence of authors differing as to their con-
tents, I have adopted those in Mr. Curtis’s Guide, invariably: below is a
list of the genera he has given in this section, with my own idea of their situa-
tion attached to each, and the addition of six genera, which Mr. Curtis does
not consider as belonging to the sub-class Phalene :

789 Trochilium .
790 Egeria ...
791 Hepialus . .
rea COssil:

792 Cossus .

793 Zeuzera.. -
794 Stauropus . .
795 Pygera ..

796 Clostera .
797 Notodonta.
798 Pterostoma
799 Petasia .
800 Episema

802 Dimorpha
803 Cerura
804 Ptilophora

2 Cossi.
2 Cossi.
2 Cossi.

2 Cossi.
3 Notodonte.

. 3 Notodonte.
. . 38 Notodonte.
. 8 Notodonte ?
. 3 Notodonte.
. Sub-class Noctua.
. . Sub-class Noctua.
801 Colocasia . .
. 8 Notodonte ?
. 3 Notodonte.
. 3 Notodonte ?
805 Endromis. .

6 Lariz.

Order uncertain.

806 Saturnia. .
807 Eriogaster

809 Lasiocampa .

810 Odenestis .
811 Gastropacha

812 Hypogymna.

813 Orgyia . .
814 Laria ..

. 7 Phalene,
- 1 Bombyces.
808 Clisiocampa.

1 Bombyces.
1 Bombyces.

- 1 Bombyces.

1 Bombyces.
6 Larie.

. 6 Larie.
. 6 Larie.
815 Arctia, :2.°°
816 Arcturus ..
817 Spilosoma. .

6 Larie.
6 Lariz ?
5} Arctiz.

818 Phragmatobia 5 Arctic.

819 Penthophera Order uncertain.
820 Eyprepia . .

821 Eulepia. .

5 Arctiz.
4 Lithosize.

822 Hypercampa 4 Lithosia.

41

those as doubtful, of which I possess but a partial knowledge of
that state.

Natural Order—Bombyces. Has an elongate cylindrical downy
larva, which rolls itself into a ring when touched; the pupa
changes in a close gummy oval cocoon, remarkably small for the
size of the imago. Among the exotic species of Lasciocampa,
we find in the males particularly slender bodies, expansive wings,
the inferior grooved to receive the abdomen, and diurnal flight,
all of them characters so indicative of an approach to Papilio, that
we scarcely hesitate a moment in assigning it the approaching
station, not but I expect fully that time will eventually furnish
us with a connexion on each side yet more conclusive.* The
second genus of Bombyces is probably Odenestis, and the third
Gastropacha, whose prominent and elongated palpi appear to point
out an approach toward a tribe of insects with the same peculi-
arity, of which there are several to be found in the following
order:

Natural Order—Cossi._ The larva is depressed; naked, except
a very few scattered hairs; has sixteen feet; lives through one
or more winters; never rolls itself in a ring when touched; feeds
on the solid interior woody parts of vegetables. The pupa gene-
rally changes in a tough oval cocoon, interwoven with particles
of its food. It has a double ring of raised denticulations of each
segment of the abdomen, by means of which it is endowed with a
considerable power of locomotion. The genus Zeuzera is very
near the point of contact with the Bombyces. In Zeuzera there
is much resemblance to the antennz of Gastropacha. One
genus, or group of genera, I expect will prove to be Stygia, a
native of New-Holland. A second, at the point of contact with
Sesia in Sphinx, must be Algeria; thus retaining its place among

823 Callimorpha. 4 Lithosiz. 829 Limacodes . Order uncertain.
$24 Deiopeia . . 4 Lithosiz. 854 Acronycta . 5 Arctie.

$25 Lithosia. . . 4 Lithosiz. 942 Platypteryx . 3 Notodonte.
826 Nudaria. . . Sub-cl. Phryganea. || 948 Drepana . . 3 Notodontz.
827 Psyche . . . Sub-cl. Phryganea. || 944 Cilix .... 3 Notodonte.

328 Heterogena. Order uncertain.

* See a Papilio with the antenne of a Lasciocampa, Drury, Vol. III. pl. v.
D

42

British insects, immediately between Sesia and Cossus.* This is
the first of a series of the most beautiful instances of approach, or
rather, of what ought to be termed relations of analogy, that any
system has ever previously disclosed. As a few words will again
be necessary on this subject, I refrain from any further obser-
vation here, than merely requesting the reader to examine how
minutely the Sphinx characters are appropriated by a true ligni-
vorous Phaleena, which cannot be said, in any of its prior and
principal states, to have the most distant approach to Sphinx.
A third genus is, probably, the strange and paradoxical exotic
Oiketicos, which has been minutely described in the Linnean
Transactions ; and a fourth is Hepialus.| This genus has some
slight points in which it differs from the others of the order
already known, the larva being radicivorous only, seldom or never
ascending internally the stems of plants: it changes in the earth.

Natural Order—Notodonte. The larva is naked, has sixteen
feet, and is, in different genera, furnished with excrescences, and
apparent distortions in various parts of the body. The eighth or
last pair of feet, and three last segments of the abdomen, are
elevated; when the insect is at rest, the head and first segment
are raised in a similar manner. In one genus (containing Came-
lina) the head and extremity of the abdomen nearly meet over
the back, when raised in this singular manner. The posterior
feet are frequently useless in walking; in some genera, entirely
obsolete. The pupa is smooth, in a cocoon, mostly among dead
leaves on the surface of the ground: sometimes it is glutinous,
and interspersed with fragments of wood, like the last. I confess
I am exceedingly puzzled both with the contents and extent of
this order; but this arises from my having seen so few of the
species in the larva state. Ptilophora plumigera, figured by
Mr. Curtis,{ I had always considered a Notodonta; but the larva
evidently excludes it from the order, and, I should imagine,
places it among the Noctuze; where among them I know not, for
I have not the slightest idea of any congeners, either of the larva

* It is a most singular chance that these genera should have been placed so
naturally, as the cause of this proximity has never before been even hinted at.

¢ Another type of Hepialus is figured in Drury, Vol. If. pl. xiii. 2.

t British Entomology, pl. 328.

2
Co

or imago. The larva from which a collector of Lepidoptera
could expect to obtain such an imago would be unicolourous,
stouter in the middle, elevated in the penultimate segment, and
more attenuated towards the head.* Pygzera appears doubtful
at first, but when observed quite at rest, and in a perfectly
natural position, elevates the head and tail, though in a much
less degree than the typical genus. Mr. Curtis’s genus Noto-
donta contains several good species, which may be considered as
typing the order, as Ziczac, Tremula, and Dictzoides. The
first species, Trepida (the Peridea serrata of Mr. Stephens,) seems
more nearly related to Endromis. Both these may, however,
probably belong to the order Notodonte, and be situate near the
approach to the central order Phalenz. Petasia cassinea and
Episema czruleocephala appear to be genuine Noctuz, and very
near Chareas graminis, and Rusina ferruginea, as far as my very
imperfect knowledge of these four species will allow me to
judge. Clostera is another departure from the type; but this
may be accounted for, in some degree, by its close proximity to
Hepialus, from which genus it borrows its remarkably short
antenne, and other peculiarities. It seems a strange perversion
of judgment to place Platypteryx at the end of or among the
Geometre ; but Linnzeus did so, and that is enough. Hubner,
Haworth, and a few others, positively ventured, in this glaring
instance, to refer this genus to the Bombyces; but their ideas
were thought to be wrong, and their judgment was, nem. con.
reversed. I have elsewhere expressed a wish that my readers
should convince themselves, and the frequent occurrence of the
larvee of Platypteryx and Cerura would afford any naturalist
abundant opportunity of ascertaining, that they can be referred
to but one order. The approach of Platypteryx and Cilix to
the Pyralides, in assuming so much of their characters, is very
interesting, and is a most striking departure from the typical
form. These genera also approach the Lithosiz, but not so

nearly as some exotics.
Natural Order—Jithosie. The difference between Lithosize

* As the larva so decidedly forbids the introduction of this insect among
the Notodonte, and places it among the Noctuz, it probably in some degree
approaches Geometra pennaria in the adjoining sub-class.

D2

44

and Arctize is rather difficult to point out; yet a difference exists,
which it is perfectly impossible not to detect. The larva of
Lithosiz has sixteen feet, is very active, is moderately hairy,
does not readily roll itself in ring, but occasionally assumes that
attitude. The pupa is smooth, changes in a slight web, in which
the hairs are intermixed. The approach of Lithosia* to the
genus Yponomeuta, in Tinea, scarcely need be pointed out.
It will be observed, that Mr. Samouelle{+ was aware of this
approach, and placed the genera Lithosia and Yponomeuta fol-
lowing each other. The splendid Callimorpha dominula, al-
though, to all appearance, a real Arctia, must be included in this
order, and placed in contact with the following one.

Natural Order—Arctie. Larva, with sixteen feet, generally
very hairy, bear-like ; rolls itself in a ring when touched; pupa
smooth, in a slight web. Whether the whole of Mr. Curtis’s
genus Acronycta must be included in this order, I am not able
positively to say: the genus Apatela of Mr. Stephens certainly
must, and until I have obtained sufficient information to decide
on Acronycta, we must bring Mr. Stephens’s genus only into the
order, leaving the remainder of the species undisposed of. The
development of the antlia in Acronycta discovers as near an
approach to Noctua, as Lithosia does to Tinea; but the bear-like,
cocoon-spinning larva place these insects in close alliance with
the true Arctize.

Natural Order—Larige. Larva, with sixteen feet, and furnished
with various brushes, or fascicles of hair, on different parts of the
body, but mostly on the anterior dorsal segments ; it rolls itself
in a ring when touched. The genus Porthesia of Mr. Stephens
may be considered a near approach to Eriogaster, in the following
order, Bombyces, in many of its peculiarities, as the abdominal
hair with which it covers its eggs, in its antenne, &c. Orgyia
antiqua, on the other hand, is in habit, expansion of wing,
slender body, and apterous female, a close approach to the
Geometre, near the genera Hybernia and Nyssia; in fact, were it
not for the larva, that is, were the larva unknown, we should have
no hesitation about placing this insect with the Geometrze.

* See note for the genera of Lithosia. } Ent. Useful Com. p. 249.

45

Natural Order—Phalene. Larva, with sixteen feet; it has
a circle of wart-like protuberances on each segment, from each
of which spring a few strong bristles; pupa, smooth, with a
few bristles at the tail; changes in a cocoon, which is singularly
left partly open at one end. We have but one species of this
order in Britain, Saturnia carpini;* but among exotics there is
a great variety, some remarkable for the immense expanse of
their wings.~ Probably Phalena Atlas of Linneus is the
centre of the group, and, if so, the centre and type of the class
Lepidoptera.

I have previously given, in a note, a list of the genera which
are usually considered as Bombyces, and ought, therefore, if
properly placed, to be included in the sub-class Phalena; five
of those genera yet remain, and at present must be excluded
from the sub-class: Penthophera, Heterogena, and Limacodes,
because I know nothing of their history; Nudaria and Psyche,
because, in the larva, pupa, and imago states, they have the
habit and appearance of another class (Neuroptera). The time
of their dwelling with Lepidoptera is over and gone; they have
already occupied too long a position to which they were not
entitled. The difficulty of assigning a situation to Limacodes
I hope to see removed, as the larva is occasionally to be met
with. I must also remark, that although I have proposed a
situation for Endromis, I feel very doubtful as to its being the
correct one. These doubts and difficulties will probably gain
me much censure; but I must endeavour to shelter myself in
some degree, by observing, that I am the first who has ever
deviated from the original Linnean arrangement of Lepidoptera,
the first who has ever thought of appealing to nature in support
of theory, or rather has waited for nature to supply him with
theory; and surely some allowance is to be made for a first
attempt of any kind. I would also plead the poverty of our
British Fauna in the sub-class, and my almost entire ignorance

* Saturnia carpini is the Pavonia minor of Linnzus, who, apparently,
considered it a variety of a completely different species: the retention of a
name thus originating in error is not justifiable.

+ Drury has some fine figures of this order, particularly Vol. I. pl. xviii. 2 ;

Vol. II. pl. v. 1, pl. vi. 2, pl. xi. 1,2, pl. xiii.2; Vol. III. pl. xix. pl. xxiv.
pl. xxv. pl. xxxiv.

46

of exotic Phalenz. Even supposing myself acquainted with all
our indigenous species, they will barely furnish a systematist with
a clew to the truth: you may pick up a single link of a chain,
yet fail to discover the length of that chain, or the situation in
that chain which the link originally possessed.

Having, then, pointed out, as clearly as my limited knowledge
of the subject will permit, not only the principal contents of the
class Lepidoptera, but endeavoured to establish them in appointed
and fixed stations, and to show their mutual approaches, at least
those of the most striking kind and essential to my purpose,
I must now proceed to make a few remarks on the nature of
these approaches. It will be observed, that they are, almost
without an exception, what Mr. MacLeay considers relations of
affinity, that is, the relation is between species which, in their
imago state, have a real and positive similarity to each other;
so much so, that entomologists, unacquainted with the prior states,
and frequently even in direct defiance of their own knowledge
of those states, place them in orders, and even sub-classes to
which they do not belong; to which fact all our systems and
catalogues bear most ample testimony. This similarity is by no
means confined to a cursory glance at the insects, but bears the
test of a minute anatomical investigation, the antlia, palpi and
antennze demonstrating the approach quite as forcibly as the form
and appearance of the whole insect. Where a tribe has short
biarticulate palpi, a genus departing from the type will assume
elongated and triarticulate palpi, should another tribe with those
characters approach it: again, should a tribe with long antlia
approach a tribe whose character it is to have none, we shall be
sure to find a genus without antlia at the point of approach.
On the other hand, the very egg, the larva, the pupa, the mode
of feeding and description of food, the mode of metamorphosis,
and, in fact, every prior quality, or state, from which distinctions
could be obtained, differ so decidedly, that the characters of these
often bear as near an approach to those of Hymenoptera, Neu-
roptera, and even Coleoptera, as to those of their own kindred,
into immediate contact with which these approaches will be found
inevitably to bring them. What term can then be applied to
designate the real value of this species of approach? Supposing

47

the terms analogy and affinity to have had good, sound, and
distinct meanings, as originally employed and explained by great
naturalists, they have now been so confused, confounded, and
utterly misunderstood by ignorant persons, that either of these
terms is entirely out of the question:* in fact, a suitable
term by which to designate this peculiar species of relation or
approach, I neither know where to find, or how to invent; and,
therefore, I shall purpose simply to call it relation of larva,
relation of pupa, or relation of imago, as the case may be.

In one instance, the relation of imago is, from several com-
bining causes, which it will be unavailing to recapitulate, uncer-
tain enough—that of Barbicornis and Lasiocampa ; but I would
ask the impartial reader, is it half so far-fetched and untenable as
those in common use? Can human sagacity, in sheer wanton-
ness, invent combinations more unnatural than ——, twenty
or thirty of which we could all point to in our own cabinets?
For the value of the other relations (eleven others) I appeal to
the judgment of the assiduous collector, the experienced observer,
the real nature-loving naturalist——to him who has spent days in
the woods, and not only captured but observed these delightful
beings,—to him who never invented or supported a theory,—to
him who is pledged to no system, to no party,—I ask him,
nothing doubting of his concurrence, whether these relations do
not too plainly bear the impression of nature’s seal, to allow him
to doubt one instant of their reality.

In the next place a question occurs, how is the relative posi-
tion of the sub-classes proved to be correct, seeing it is so totally
at variance with what we have from our childhood been perfectly

* No individual need say with more ‘heartfelt sincerity— Preserve me
from my friends,” than Mr. MacLeay; let the naturalist read the Hore
Entomologice, and he will pause in admiration at the vigorous, manly display
of intellect, which, frankly and eagerly seeking truth, throws a golden lustre
over every page; and, I confess, my eyes were opened to the suspicion that
all was not pure gold, by the awkward and abortive attempts of commentators
to prove itso. Puerile schemes of applying the quinary system in detail, and
sundry vapourings about affinity and analogy, have so mystified these subjects,
that they already totter to their very foundations, and must speedily fall;

while the existence of circles must stand for ever as a discovery of which
Britain is proud.

48

satisfied with?* It is proved correct, simply and solely by the
harmony with which each flows into each,—with which neighbour
meets neighbour,—comparable somewhat to that exquisite feeling
which induces a man to bend to the peculiarities, and perhaps
even little failings of a friend, until he makes them almost his
own. It can hardly be supposed that the sub-classes naturally
fell into the positions which I have assigned to them, without
some little endeavour, on my part, to produce this harmony.
This was far from the case. The discovery, if it be one, was the
result of serious and deliberate study. Even after arriving at
their present state, I have twice endeavoured to alter these
positions, once in hopes of making some of the Tortrices meet the
Papilionidze, as I had an idea that that very assiduous and inge-
nious naturalist, Dr. Horsfield, had mentioned the discovery of
such an approach.+ In vain, however, did J strive to discover
such an approach, in either larva, pupa, or imago, while these
points of resemblance were most abundant between the Geometrze
and Papiliones ; the pupa, as though in sport, being now sus-
pended by the tail, now girted round the waist, now enveloped
in a silken web; sometimes round-headed, sometimes pointed,
sometimes eared; now smooth, anon angulated, black, brown,
yellow, pure green, clouded, or spotted: of these, and a thousand
other peculiarities, which tended to corroborate my ideas of
arrangement, I refused invariably to avail myself, trusting to one
guide only, which seems as steadfast as a rock: that relation of
imago constitutes approach of divisions; relation of larva is the
tie which holds divisions together. 'The second alteration I endea-
voured to make, was to place the Papiliones in the centre, a
situation to which their splendour and magnitude would really
appear to give them a title. This idea seems every way so
plausible, and so likely to be proposed by entomologists, should
any such see merit enough in this system to give their attention
to its minutiz, that I am compelled to consider it more at large.
To a sub-class selected for a centre, two qualities are indis-
pensably requisite. They have been previously given from

* This question has occurred.
} Itis so long since I have seen Dr. Horsfield’s beautiful work, that I will
not pledge myself to the doctor’s making this assertion.

49

Mr. MacLeay, who, it will be remembered, discovered that one
of each of his five groups contained types of the other four, besides
a type peculiar to itself. This quality must hold good in any
group thus selected for a centre; it must contain types of the six
surrounding groups in the first place. Now, is this applicable to
Papilio? Have we not already experienced the greatest difficulty
in finding three good approaches, the smallest number which a
sub-class can possess? How then can we hope, by any good
fortune in discovery, to make ourselves masters of three other
entirely new ones, and these to sub-classes to which it is con-
fessedly the most unlike? Phalzena, on the contrary, presents us
with Lasiocampa, A®geria, Cilix, Lithosia, Apatela and Orgyia,
five of which genera beautifully typify the approximating sub-
classes. The preference on this score then is decidedly with
Phalzena.

The second position, that it should contain a type peculiar to
itself, is almost a matter of course; but my own idea is, that the
very centre should not only be a type of the genus, or order, or
sub-class, but of the class itself of which it is the centre. From
this position, then, a further and still more important question
arises,—What is the type of Lepidoptera? The parts which
afford the generic characters of Lepidoptera, and, I believe,
generic characters in the perfect state are the only ones of any
value, are these—the mouth, palpi, antennze and wings ; and, as
no medium can constitute a type, the excess of these characters,
whether superlatively or diminutively considered, must be resorted
to as the most probable means we possess of discovering what
this type may really be. First, then, the mouth. In Lepidoptera,
we find two distinct characters in this ;—first, its entire absence ;
secondly, its being furnished with prodigiously long antlia. The
first character is that of Phalaena, the second that of Sphinx.
Next, the palpi are either entirely obsolete or exceedingly pro-
minent, the first in Phalzena, the second in Pyralis. Thirdly,
the antenne are remarkably pectinated, or clavated, or setaceous :
the first character is that of Phalzena, the second that of Papilio,
the third that of Noctua. Fourthly, the wings are enormously
expansive in proportion to the body, or remarkably small,—the
first is the character of Phalzena, the second that of Sphinx.

5U

It need scarcely be added, that all these characters are to be met
with in every intermediate degree of intensity. Now, it appears,
that Phalzena possesses an extreme of each of the four principal cha-
racters, Sphinx of two, Noctua of one, and Papilio of one; there-
fore Phalzena is the typical genus, Phalzenze the typical order, and
Phalzena the typical sub-class of Lepidoptera: and a necessary
conclusion from this fact is, the type of Lepidoptera is an insect
without antlia or palpi, with very pectinated antennz and enor-
mously expansive wings, and we may add nocturnal flight: so
that such peculiar characters as the thick full body and pro-
digiously long antlia of Sphinx, the clavate antennze, erect wings,
and diurnal flight of Papilio, argue a departure from, and not an
approach to, the type.

By a reference to the Diagrams exhibiting the classes of
Insecta, and the sub-classes of Lepidoptera, it will at once be
observed, that the central group in each case contains types
of the surrounding groups. Now after a central group has
thrown off a set of six forms, each representing, in general
appearance, some group equally extensive with such central
group, the faculty or power of throwing off such forms becomes,
in a good degree, extinct, or, at any rate, very much debili-
tated. This can be no unforeseen, but a perfectly natural, and
absolutely necessary consequence; for taking either of the two
classes which are at present sought after, Lepidoptera and Coleop-
tera, we must observe, that did either of them possess as varied
forms and characters as are to be found in Neuroptera, the essen-
tial and distinguishing character of that class, viz. variety, and
the harmonious arrangement of the whole sub-kingdom, would
both be entirely lost ; and it would remain for human ingenuity to
locate either of the classes centrally or externally, as caprice, or
the love of differing from others, might dictate. I wish it to be
observed, that Neuroptera, in the genera Psyche, Cloéon, Termes,
Psocus and Mantispa, does not merely assume the form of the
genera, Tinea, Chironomus, Formica, Aphis and Mantis, but
actually possesses the characters and appearance of the classes
Lepidoptera, Diptera, Hymenoptera, Hemiptera and Orthoptera.
The obviously homogeneous character of Lepidoptera and Co-
leoptera, although, probably, containing in every sub-class more

ol

species than the whole of Neuroptera, clearly disproves the exist-
ence of variety amongst their contents, equal to that amongst the
contents of Neuroptera. Yet the power, although weakened, is
by no means extinct; for, amongst the central group, Phalzna,
we find the sub-classes, Papilio, Sphinx, Pyralis, Tinea, Noctua
and Geometra, most faithfully pourtrayed in Lasiocampa, Aigeria,
Cilix, Lithosia, Apatela and Orgyia, and not merely the indivi-
dual genera which may happen to approach. As far as I can
discover, after this second series of types the faculty becomes
much weaker, and, after a third, ceases entirely. A decided
difference existing between the first and second series of types,
must on no account be lost sight of, because it so decidedly
proclaims the superiority of the first: in the first instance, the
whole character of the central type, Libellula, is completely
lost in each of the varying types; whereas, in the second instance,
the characters of Phalana are preserved most decidedly to the
remotest ramifications of the class, subject, however, to the
variations already pointed out.

The natural order, Coss?, of which the larva and pupa have
been already described, contains but ten genera, even including
those whose claim to a place in the order is somewhat doubtful ;
and these ten are readily referable to six families. The genus,
Stygia, of New Holland, seems from Latreille’s description, de-
cidedly to belong to this order. Speaking of Stygia Australis, he
says, “ M. Villiers la considére comme intermediare entre les Sesies
et les Zygénes ; mais elle n’a point de trompe; ses palpes sont
ceux de Cossus ; ses antennes sont courtes, et nullement en fuse,
et plus analogues a celles de certains Bombyx qu’a celles des
Sesies et des Zygénes.* Now the fact, as M. Latreille supposes,
of having no antlia, argues most forcibly the impossibility of
uniting this genus either with Sphinx or Zygzena; for the sub-
class Sphinx not only possesses the most elongate and con-
spicuous antlia of any sub-class, but retains this character to its
very circumference, and imparts it to approaching groups, whose
types will be found entirely aglossate: its similarity therefore
in shape to the Sesize, which tribe is generally understood to

* Regne Animal, tom. V. p. 395.

52
include the Aigeriee, is merely that relation of imago which I have
before so repeatedly pointed out. The situation, which without
this genus must have been vacant, thus filled, gives us a most
perfect chain of families throughout the order, except at the point
of connexion with Phalzena, a point of no consequence, because
it too much favours old theories to be contested.

It is rather remarkable, that in this order no instance should
occur of more than three genera belonging to any one family, a
number which I should hardly suppose complete, because a diffi-
culty must always occur in placing, as in discovering the typical
genus or species, where the number is confined to three.

The introduction of a new generic name, after what has been
said on that subject, may appear rather an inconsistency, but I
found it indispensable, as the species in question would not bend
to either of the established genera, Trochilium or Aigeria ; it will,
moreover, afford those whose labours in this way I have some-
what deprecated, a fair opportunity for retaliation. The families
and their relative situations, as far as my immature and hastily-
formed judgment will allow me to decide, I have shown in the
annexed diagram: but it is now time for me to describe the
species whose situation I am endeavouring to point out.

Sub-kingdom, Insecta.

Characters from the imago.

The body is divided into three parts, head, thorax, and abdo-
men; the head has two fixed compound eyes, and two moveable
antenne. Insects have six jointed legs in pairs; they breathe
by lateral spiracles.

Class, LEPIDOPTERA.

Characters from larva, pupa, and imago.

Larva polypod, bears no resemblance to the imago; pupa qui-
escent, bears no resemblance to the imago. Imago has four scaly
wings, and the mouth aglossate or antliate.

Sub-class, PHALZNz (central).

Characters from larva, pupa, and imago.

All varying (the universal character of such central groups).

Natural order, Cosst.

Characters from the larva and pupa.

Larva depressed, kaned; has sixteen feet, lives through one or

K
}

GENERA OF TE

Zeuzera
€sculi

GENERA OF THE NATURAL ORDER COsSSI.

Macroglossa,
stellatarum,

Oiketicus

Sesia.

Bombiliformis.
Trochilium. Fusiformis
T. Apiforme.

T. Bembeciforme. ZE. Culiciformis,

ZE. Chrysidiformis.
Zeuzera

Bsculi

MEMYTHRUS.
*
VESPIFORMIS.

\ M. Crabroniformis.

Cossus M., crassipes.

Ligniperda

\

Stygia Australis
—

Hepialus

‘A. Virginiensis. \
H. Humuli.

H. Sylvinus.

Clostera

reclusa oe

53

more winters, never rolls itself in a ring when touched, feeds on
the solid interior woody parts of vegetables; pupa changes in a
tough cocoon, in which are interwoven particles of the larva’s
food; it has a double row of small raised denticulations on each
segment of the abdomen, which give it partially the power of
locomotion.

Family Aicerup®, Stephens.

Characters from the Imago.

Palpi triarticulate, incrassated at the base, acuminate at the
apex, prominent, enclosing the antlia; antennz, sub-cylindric,
gradually incrassated from the base nearly to the apex, the apex
itself acuminate and terminated with a fascicle of hairs; ocelli,
two. Flight diurnal in the hottest sunshine.

Genus Memyturus.—Sphinx, Linn.; Sesia, Laspeyres; Ageria,
Fab.

Characters from the imago.

Palpi very prominent, and densely clothed with scales at the
base, in appearance angulated; antlia fine, not so long as the
antenne; antennz the length of the thorax, in the male much
pectinated, in the female simple; superior wings clothed with
scales, inferior hyaline.

Sp. 1. Memyrurus Vespirrormis.—Sphinx Vespiformis, Linn.
Syst. Nat. II. p. 804, n. 31. Mgeria Asiliformis of Fabricius,
and other authors.

Characters from the imago.

Palpi black. yellow at the apex; antenne black, beneath
testaceous; fulvous at the base; head black, excepting a white
mark before each eye; a yellow ring round the neck; thorax
black, with a yellow spot at the base of each superior wing;
abdomen black, slightly barbate, with three equidistant yellow
belts; superior wings deep fuscous, inferior hyaline; femora
and anterior tibize black, posterior tibize and all the tarsi yellow.

Inhabits England, but is very rare.
Sp. 2. MemyTHRUS CRABRONIFORMIS.—Sesia crabroniformis,
Lasp.
Inhabits Italy.
Sp. 3. Memyrurus crassipEs.—Sphinx crassipes, Drury.
Inhabits Africa.

54

Sp. 4. Memyrurus tisratis.—Avgeria tibialis, Fab.

Sp. 5. Memyturus ——-——?— Unnamed in the Linnean
cabinet.

Several other species probably exist, with which I have not
happened to meet.

The principal distinctions between Memythrus and A%geria
are, that the antenne in the former are not longer than the
thorax ; in the latter they are much longer; in the males of the
former genus they are decidedly pectinated, in those of the latter
but obscurely ciliated; in the former the anterior — are
always opaque, in the latter always hyaline.

Natural Divisions to which the Spuinx Vespirormis of

Linneus is referable.

First Primary Group .. . . . ANIMALIA.

First Kinepom . . 5 ite Oho tents 3) ON OME RO ars

CrenTRAL Sus-KINGpDomM .. . . . INSECTA.

Pinse Crass...) kx sg os oe te os, EO Rae

CENTRAL, SUB-CLASS!) 00s isi+ “ony ee

Seconp NaturaL Orper . . . . COSSI.

SECOND FAMIEY)...9 s 8. fs Ui es eee

SECONDUGENUS) (4) eye) eee) en VEE NYCRR Ss

Pars? (SPECIES 4 ee 0)e) Ke) heuiyet sh) WEE LER Muse
FINIS.

R. CLAY, PRINTER, BREAD-STREET-HILL.

a atte

DIRECTIONS FOR PLACING THE DIAGRAMS.

1. The Classes of Insecta to face page 21.
2. The Sub-classes of Lepidoptera to face page 31.
3. The Natural Order of Cossi to face page 52.

Ly, 4 \& IS) ca +4 S/S SS si
Me ro) Lon oC > =a “nis ro} aR
Fe a z= be ol j
JOSHLINS S3IYVYGIT LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTIC |
Zz in Zz ¥ By i
=: ow = G2 o
~ a =e 4, a
y oa
: S © OL:
- mee Fee eae aN ee
ot m = m
= wo = rap)

N

THSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILALILSNI_ NVINOSHLINS saluvug

a

S3SIYVYGIT LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN

NVINOSHLIWS

SMITHSONIAN
NVINOSHLIWS

re in es
= p r2
g = Yin,”
— re thy, A
= < Sora
< Y Yes.
S ow Hip, CS
z ar = i

THSONIAN _INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLIWS saluvud

S31IYVUYGIT LIBRARIES SMITHSONIA

5 —- « 5
AS ae = = a
7 A

V4 = > es

teu = =

Vy, = pax =

Wt Z m =

NOSHLIWS S3JINUVUGIT LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN

z Bi gee Z

: EON 3 5

B 2M 2 2

zt = NS z a

Tenaies: _ 2 é
THSONIAN _ INSTITUTION NOILALILSNI NVINOSHLIWS S3I1Y¥Vudl
za ft zm ha ;

toe A fy ot ae ot re

Pip > : =

yy 3 2 S :

c 2 4 z So 2 a
NOSHLINS __S31NV¥G17 LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN _INSTITUTIC

| = z ie i

= ive] — My o

E % 5 $% >

Ke > i 4 po/* ©.

ie = rE ,%/ As 2

op eh :
= OD z o

THSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI_ NVINOSHLIWS saiuvugl

& hi

‘
ITHSONIAN

INOSHLINS

NOSHLIWS
%
WN

ITHSONIAN

®

Lo hie Sl ot eT ikem A a any By Zz = We <
=> a S rr a |e. Se,

= c Keay, mite ac oN
= y 1 ay at ;

E 2) on Dey e <UISS> re)

ILNLILSNI_ NVINOSHLINS S3SIYVYdIT LIBRARIES_ SMITHSONIS

aaa z = a

w = w = Uy

Ee = 2 = £2

x - z = Ls

a a es -. <g eri

m L rm) ;

a) = 7) =

3RARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLII
x x Z

Pe

*
NVINOSHLINS S3!tYVYgit LIBRARIES SMITHSONI/

NVINOSHLIWS

SMITHSONIAN
bY
ty tb %
NVINOSHLIWS

SMITHSONIAN

a m i
3 us fz ul
= o =a feed
a << 4 fe
~ a far] oe
re) NN = ro) aay
ta eal = aS
BRARI ES_ SMITHSONIAN, INSTITUTION NOILOLILSNI_NVINOSHLI
re) wea re) a OO .
<= ‘Ww = S
= a = 2 SE
> .. = 2 z
aa i le = »
Z @ z op
HLALILSNI § SSINVUAIT_ LIBRARIES SMITHSONI
= aia
= 4 wtf fg = \\) Sa
& z Gy si Sate
= > GS = >
Ww za (7p) en

BRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOJLONLILSNI NVINOSHLI
RNS
SS

S

NOILNLILSNI
LIBRARIES

SMITHSON

Vy
FE

BRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILALILSNI_ NVINOSHII

Sat¥vudit LIBRARIES

>

SSIYVYEITLIBRARIES
INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI

INSTITUTION
SJIYVudi

Hiiws

“i
NOSHLIWS
TISONIAN

THSONIAN

2 mee Z Pee eo 9 Soe Sate
S - ~ wre, = - . r= .

inx vespi

nhent QL561.S7N55
Sph

3 908646 0024435? oO