OF.NEK.U, I'lUNCIPLKS. 



FIRST CHAPTER. 



GENERAL PRINCIPLES. 



ALTHOUGH we here, at once, declare ourselves opposed loan unne- 

 cessary multiplication of orisaiological terms, yet we do not mean 

 that the determinate distinction of particular parts should be rejected, 

 whenever they are decidedly important. On the contrary, it is the 

 very first requisite of a precise orismology to npply an exclusively 

 proper term to each constantly distinct and peculiar part. It will 

 certainly appear often difficult to restrain oneself within exact limits, 

 particularly as there are but few other general principles to guide ns 

 than a certain, judicious, and intuitive tact. We will, however, com- 

 mence by endeavouring to lay down a few principles as rules to be 

 observed. 



9. 



I. Every decidedly different organ, or, where it appears necessary, 

 every portion of an organ, should receive a name exclusively peculiar 

 to itself. 



II. This naming, however, must not be arbitrarily exercised; but the 

 organs of the superior animals must be consulted, and their analogical 

 structure examined in the insect *. 



The greatest mistakes have, at all times, been made in opposition to this principle, 

 and yet it is as absolutely necessary, and as strictly founded in the very nature of the thing, 

 as any. It has doubtlessly occasionally proceeded from an ignorance of the anatomy of the 

 higher animals ; perhaps, also, from the love of innovation of many writers, that the most 

 singular interpretations have been made, names having been applied to parts, or merely 

 portions of organs, which, strictly, could be applied only to very different organs. To call 

 that part, the neck (collum), which bears the legs, is absolutely absurd. Even Fabricius's 

 division of the body of an insect into caput, truncus, and abdomen, is wrong, as every 

 one who knows anything of anatomy must admit that the truncus includes the abdomen. 

 In the course of our observations we shall detect many similar inconsistencies, but we have 

 generally considered it unnecessary to take further notice of them, confiding in the correct 

 judgment of the reader. We have, indeed, endeavoured to retain, as far as was possible, 

 what has been already done ; but we make it a rule to adopt nothing that is false, whatever 

 may be its antiquity, ami notwithstanding its toleration l>\ the great masters of the science. 



