and makes his definitions of species, without adding a description, so extremely short as to suit equally well perhaps a dozen different insects. The minor groups into which he has divided some of his Orders and Genera are sometimes natural, sometimes artificial. Those of the Coleoptera, from characters drawn from their antennæ (as is evident from his arrangement of the genera in that Order), are of the latter description; while those of his Aptera are more natural. The genera that he has most happily laboured in this respect are his Hemipterous ones of Gryllus, Cicada, and Cimex, and all his Lepidoptera. He had such a tact for discovering natural groups in general, that in him it seems almost to have been intuitive.

But in no respect were the labours of Linné more beneficial to the science and to Zoology in general, than when he undertook to describe the animals of his own country. His Fauna Suecica is an admirable exemplar, which ought to stimulate the Zoologists of every country to make it one of their first objects that its animal productions shall no longer remain unregistered and undescribed. Botanists have almost every where been diligent in effecting this with respect to plants, but other branches of Natural History have been more neglected. In his Systema Naturæ Linné attempted this for all the productions of our globe. The idea was a vast one; and the execution, though necessarily falling far short of it, did him infinite honour: and in it he has laid a foundation for his successors to build upon till time shall be no more.

Such were the services rendered to Entomology by the labours of the immortal Swede; services so extensive as well as eminent, that had they been the fruit of a whole life devoted to this single object, they would have entitled him to a high rank amongst the heroes of the science. But how much more astonishing are they when considered but as gleanings from his hours of relaxation, snatched from labours infinitely greater, the produce, as he himself tells us, of moments consumed by others in "venationibus, confabulationibus, tesseris, chartis, lusibus, compotationibus[1394]." It is not so much in original discovery that the merits of Linné lie,—though considered in this view they are pre-eminent,—as in the unrivalled skill with which he sifted the observations of his predecessors, separating the ore from the dross, and concentrating scattered rays of light into one focus.

This era produced other systematists who adopted various methods, but none that merit particular notice except Geoffroy and De Geer. The former in this view is principally celebrated as the author of the method generally adopted by modern Entomologists, of dividing the Coleoptera into primary sections, according to the number of the joints of their tarsi. This method, though in many instances, as was formerly observed[1395], it leads to artificial results, in others affords a clue to natural groups; it can only therefore be applied subject to frequent exceptions. Geoffroy's work[1396], which was published in 1764, was further serviceable by indicating many genera not defined by Linné.

We next come to one of the greatest names in Entomology, the celebrated De Geer, who united in himself the highest merit of almost every department of that science. Both as a systematist, anatomist, and physiologist, and as the observant historian of the manners and economy of insects, his Mémoires pour servir à l'Histoire des Insectes are above all praise. His system[1397] is contained in a posthumous volume published in 1778[1398].

This system, though built upon the instruments of flight; in its ternary groups, equivalent to the Orders of Linné, adds likewise the instruments of manducation, and is thus intermediate between that of Linné and Fabricius, who perhaps from the consideration of it might derive the first idea of assuming the last-mentioned organs as the basis of a new method. But, though partaking of both, it is nearer to nature than either; and had its illustrious author laid less stress upon the number and substance of the organs of flight, it would probably have been as near perfection in this respect as most that have succeeded it. But following too strictly these characters, he has been led to place in different Classes, or rather Orders, insects that ought not to have been so separated,—as in the case of the two sections of the Hemiptera, and the Coccidæ. In other respects the whole of De Geer's Mémoires are a storehouse of valuable observations, in which he has furnished many a clue for threading the labyrinth of nature, and given most complete and interesting histories of the whole economy and habits of many tribes and genera,—as of the Trichoptera, Aphides, Ephemerina, &c.

In this latter department of the science a light shone during part of the era we are now considering, which eclipsed every one that appeared before it, and has scarcely been equalled by any one that succeeded it. The date of its first appearance, indeed, was a year before that of Linné's first outline of his Systema Naturæ before alluded to; but it may properly be regarded as belonging to his era, since it did not disappear till some years after that had begun. A volume indeed would scarcely suffice to do justice to the preeminent merits of Reaumur, as exhibited in his admirable Mémoires pour l'Histoire des Insectes[1399]: I must therefore content myself with observing, that in judgement and ingenuity in planning his experiments; in patient assiduity in watching their progress; in the elegance of his language, and the felicity of his illustrations, he has rarely, if ever, been equalled. Every subject that he undertook was thoroughly investigated, and in the true spirit of philosophical inquiry. Every where you see him the same unprejudiced and profound observer, attached to no system, anxious only for truth and the advancement of science. If he has any fault, it is, perhaps, that of being sometimes too prolix; but we must recollect that from the nature of his subject much diffuseness was often necessary to render his meaning clear. A greater objection is his total inattention to all system, except with regard to Lepidoptera and their larvæ[1400], so that it is often difficult to ascertain the insects whose history he gives. But with these exceptions, no observer of nature, who wishes his discoveries to be at once profound and interesting, can copy a better model or one nearer to perfection.

Next to that of Reaumur, the name of his admiring correspondent Bonnet may be mentioned. This great physiologist, though still more deficient in systematical knowledge[1401], was also an admirable observer of the economy and manners of insects. In this sense he became an Entomologist before he was seventeen years of age, in consequence of an impression made upon him by the account of the Antlion in that attractive work the Spectacle de la Nature. From verifying its wonderful history with his own eyes, he entered with enthusiasm upon the study of other insects, his observations on which he regularly communicated to Reaumur. Amongst other interesting inquiries, his experiments on that singular anomaly in nature the generation of Aphides[1402] do him the highest credit, and have set that question perfectly at rest[1403].

In another department of the science this period was distinguished by a work which may almost be deemed a prodigy. I am speaking of Lyonet's admirable treatise on the anatomy of the caterpillar of the Cossus,—a work which will uphold his reputation as long as Entomology shall be cultivated as a science, or the comparative Anatomist be delighted to trace the footsteps of Divine Wisdom in the gradually varying structure of animals. The plates to this publication, executed by the hand of its excellent author, are as wonderful as the work itself; and together, to use Bonnet's words, form a demonstration of the existence of God. It is infinitely to be regretted that the author of this incomparable monument of scientific ardour and patient industry should have died before the full completion of his anatomical description of the pupa and imago of the same insect; of which he had prepared a considerable portion of the manuscript, and engraved upwards of twenty of the plates[1404].

Numerous other writers in various departments of the science appeared during this era; but it would be useless to enter into a particular detail of their works and merits. I cannot however omit noticing, on account of his inimitably accurate and chastely coloured representations of Lepidoptera, Sepp's beautiful Nederlandsche Insecten, in which the whole history of these animals, from the egg to the fly, is described and portrayed. In our own country this era was distinguished by no entomological work of any great eminence. Albin, Wilks, and Harris produced the principal. Gould, however, without having any thing of system, gave an admirable account of English ants, which I formerly noticed[1405].

One of our first poets, the celebrated Gray, was also much devoted to Entomology. From his interleaved copy of the Systema Naturæ, that venerable and able naturalist, Sir T. G. Cullum, Bart. copied the following characters of the genera of insects of Linné, drawn up in Latin Hexameters, which he kindly communicated to me.

Coleoptera.

Alas lorica tectas Coleoptera jactant.

*

**

***

Hemiptera.

Lepidoptera.

Squamam alæ, linguæ spiram Lepidoptera jactant.

Neuroptera.

Rete alæ nudum atque hamos Neuroptera caudæ.

Hymenoptera.

Diptera.

Diptera sub geminis alis se pondere librant.

Aptera.

Aptera se pedibus pennarum nescia jactant.

During this era, and by the influence of Linné, in the year 1739 the Royal Academy of Sciences at Stockholm was established, which did for Natural History in Sweden what our own Royal Society had done for it in England. Other societies, with a similar object, were formed in different parts of Europe, and were attended by similar good effects. At Paris, at Berlin, at St. Petersburg, at Moscow, at Turin, at Lisbon, &c., the lovers of Nature, at that time and subsequently, have associated for this purpose; and I may mention here, that I may not revert to the subject, the great Natural History association of our own country, The Linnean Society, named after the illustrious Swede, which was first instituted in 1788, and incorporated by royal charter in 1802. In the Transactions of this learned body, the Zoologist in general, and particularly the Entomologist, will find much useful information and many interesting observations connected with his science. This flourishing society consists at this time of above 600 members, of whom more than 500 are Fellows;—a gratifying proof how widely Natural History is cultivated in the British Empire[1406].

5. Era of Fabricius, or of the Maxillary System.—We are now arrived, if its consequences be considered, at one of the most important epochs of the science. Fabricius, a pupil of Linné, who highly estimated his entomological acquirements[1407], thinking that the system of his master was not built upon a foundation sufficiently fixed and restricted[1408], conceived the idea of doing for Entomology what the latter had done for Botany. As the learned and illustrious Swede had assumed the Fructification for the basis of his system in that science, so the emulous and highly-gifted Dane, observing how happily those organs were employed as characters in extricating the genera of Vertebrate animals, assumed the instruments of manducation, far more numerous and various in insects, for the basis of a new system of Entomology; which, from the maxillæ being principally employed to characterize the Classes or rather Orders, may be called the Maxillary System. De Geer, indeed, as we have seen above, had, in the majority of his Classes, to the organs of flight added the parts of the mouth: but Fabricius pursued the idea much further, and made the Trophi[1409], or Instrumenta Cibaria as he called them, the sole corner-stone of his whole superstructure. Though nothing seems to have been further from his intention than to follow Nature, since he complains that Linné by following her too closely had lost the Ariadnean thread of system[1410], yet it is singular that, by building upon this seemingly narrow foundation, he has furnished a clue, by the due use of which, instead of deserting her, his successors have been enabled with more certainty to extricate her groups: since the parts in question being intimately connected with the functions and economy of these animals, where they differ materially, indicate a corresponding difference in their character and station.

The first outline of his System, I believe, appeared in his Systema Entomologiæ published in 1775; and the last, in his Supplement to his Entomologia Systematica in 1798. In this the series and characters of his Classes (for so, after De Geer, he denominates his primary groups) were as follows:—

*

1. Eleutherata[1411]. (Coleoptera L.) Maxilla naked, free, palpigerous.

2. Ulonata[1412]. (Orthoptera Oliv.) Maxilla covered by an obtuse galea or lobe.

3. Synistata[1413]. (Neuroptera L., excluding the Libellulina, and taking in Termes L. and Thysanura Latr.) Maxilla geniculate at the base and connate with the labium.

4. Piezata[1414]. (Hymenoptera L.) Maxilla corneous, compressed, often elongate.

5. Odonata[1415]. (Libellulina M^cL.) Maxilla corneous, toothed, two palpi.

6. Mitosata[1416]. (Myriapoda Leach.) Maxilla corneous, vaulted, not palpigerous.

**

7. Unogata[1417]. (Pulmonary Arachnida Latr.) Maxilla corneous, armed with a claw.

***

8. Polygonata[1418]. (Isopod and Branchiopod Crustacea Latr.) Palpi mostly six; Maxillæ many within the labium.

9. Kleistognatha[1419]. (Brachyurous Decapod Crustacea Latr.) Many Maxillæ without the labium, closing the mouth.

10. Exochnata[1420]. (Macrurous Decapod Crustacea Latr.) Maxillæ many without the labium, covered by palpi.

****

11. Glossata[1421]. (Lepidoptera L.) Mouth with a spiral tongue between reflexed palpi.

12. Ryngota[1422]. (Hemiptera Latr.) Mouth with a rostrum, having a jointed sheath.

13. Antliata[1423]. (Diptera L., Anoplura Leach., Trachean Arachnida Latr. &c.) Mouth with a haustellum without joints.

The Orders of Fabricius are equivalent usually to the primary groups of the Linnean Orders, and are regulated chiefly by the antennæ.

In estimating the value of the above system, we must bear in mind that, according to the statement of its author, it was intended to be partly artificial and partly natural: artificial as to its Classes and Orders; natural as to its genera, species, and varieties[1424]. He admitted, however, that natural Classes, &c. do exist; but he contended that artificial ones should be substituted for them, till further discoveries had cleared the way for their satisfactory development[1425]. As therefore his system, in its primary and secondary groups, was confessedly artificial, and the only use of an artificial system being to facilitate the study of any department of Natural History, its value must be estimated by the facilities it affords to the entomological student. But here, it must be allowed, that instead of enlarging the entrance to the temple of his science, it has made it narrower, and has placed most discouraging impediments in his way.

If you examine the definitions of his Classes, you will find them in a variety of cases calculated rather to mislead than to instruct a learner. Thus that of the Eleutherata would equally well suit the Piezata and several others: that of the Piezata is scarcely to be found in it; since in this the maxilla, instead of being corneous, is usually coriaceous[1426], and its lobe sometimes nearly membranous. In the Unogata he even mistakes the mandibles for maxillæ. Let any young Entomologist endeavour to make out the Fabrician class of a Cicindela for instance; and finding its maxillæ corneous and armed with a claw, he would conclude that it belonged to the Unogata rather than to the Eleutherata. Besides all this, the necessity of examining minute parts not easily come at without dissection, is very discouraging to a beginner.

From hence it is evident, that the system of Fabricius, considered as an artificial one or a method, was no improvement upon the classification of his master Linné, but rather a retrograde movement in the science.

As to that part of his system in which he professes to take nature for his guide, his genera,—though even with respect to them he seems fearful of following her too closely[1427],—he certainly has rendered most essential services to Entomology, and laid the foundation of all that has since been done for its improvement. But it must be observed, that the series of his genera is often altogether artificial; as where he separates and places far asunder the Saprophagous and Thalerophagous Petalocerous beetles.

Entomology, however, in other respects was deeply indebted to this great man. He first, as was lately observed, directed the attention of her votaries to parts which enabled them better to follow the chain of affinities, and to trace out natural groups. In his Philosophia Entomologica, drawn up on the plan of Linné's Philosophia Botanica, he bequeathed to the science a standard work that ought to be studied by every Entomologist. His incredible labours in defining new genera and describing new species, with which view he travelled into various parts of Europe, and seven times into Britain, have been of infinite service[1428], and placed the science upon a footing much nearer to that of Botany than it had ever before attained.

6. Era of Latreille, or of the Eclectic System. The system of Fabricius, though generally adopted in Germany and Switzerland, did not meet with a universal reception. It seems to have gained no permanent footing in the North of Europe, Britain, or France. In the latter country the Linnean phraseology and characters of the Orders were retained by the celebrated Olivier; while at the same time his definitions of genera were constructed, after the Fabrician model, upon the antennæ and the oral organs. But a new and brilliant genius had now appeared in France, whose indefatigable labours and singular talents have thrown more light over entomological science than those of all his predecessors. In 1796, about two years after Fabricius had completed his Entomologia Systematica emendata et aucta, M. Latreille published his Précis de Caractères Génériques des Insectes; in which important work, walking in the steps of his great compatriot Bernard de Jussieu, he disregarded all artificial systems of Entomology, and attempted to construct one upon a natural basis: and to this end, uniting the consideration of the instruments of manducation with that of the organs for flight and motion, and of other external characters,—or the system of Linné with that of Fabricius,—he became the founder of the modern or Eclectic system[1429]; for he judiciously adopted that sensible dictum of Scopoli, "Classes et Genera naturalia, non sola instrumenta cibaria, non solæ alæ, nec solæ antennæ constituunt, sed structura totius, ac cujusque vel minimi discriminis diligentissima observatio[1430]." His object has been in the above and subsequent works, by dividing his Classes into natural Groups, from the Order to the Genus, to trace out in all its windings, to its inmost recesses, the perplexing labyrinth of the true system of the Creator:—of what he has effected, the subjoined tables will give you a sufficient idea[1431].

1817.

1825.