CIO TAXONOMY. 



a. a. Wings folded transversely. LOrd. Coleoptcra. 



b. b. longitudinally, 2. Orthoptcra. 

 b. With haustellate mouth. Sipho- 3. Hemiptera. 



nostomata. 



B. Without elytra, with wings. Gymnoptera. 

 . With mandibles. Odontata. 



a. a. Nervures reticulated. 4. Neuropfera. 



b. b. . . ramose. 5. Hymenoptera. 

 b. With haustellate mouth. Siphono.iloma. 



a. a. Four wings covered with scales. 6. Lcpidoptcra. 



b. b. Two wings and two halteres. 7- Diptera. 



c. c. No wings or halteres. 8. Suctoria. 

 We may oppose to this arrangement, which, as it does not regard 



the entire being of insects, is still merely artificial, that it is not 

 sufficiently strict, for the order of the Suctoria is as an apterous group, 

 not in its right place among the Insecla pterodicera. And also the 

 groups which are here considered as equivalent to the Tctracera, 

 Myriapoda, Apterodiccra, and Pterodicera, are by no means of equal 

 value, but the two first and two last are most closely allied ; the former 

 are the subordinate members of a higher group, and the latter also 

 could at most be placed as equivalent to the orders of the Insecla 

 pterodicera. Latreille published shortly afterwards a new grouping 

 of insects in his ' Considerations Generates/ &c. (Paris, 1810), his 

 attention having been aroused by Lamarck's division of invertebrate 

 animals ; and he here differed from his former work, by subdividing 

 Linnaeus' insects into three equivalent groups. The first of these, the 

 Crustacea, remained as before ; the second, the Arachntdes, comprised 

 all the Insecla aptcra of the former system ; the third, the Insccta, 

 included the earlier Insccta pterodicera, containing the same orders in 

 the same series, whereas the second had received some alteration by 

 the separation of the Insecla apterodiccra into two orders, the 

 Thysannra and the Parasila. Later alterations, which Latreille 

 repeatedly made, convince us that, even this arrangement, which is so 

 far superior to the former, neither satisfied the author nor the demands 

 of judicious criticism. In his own discontent with the result, and his 

 endeavours to correct it where possible, and to take advantage of every- 

 body's views, which, indeed, he has nowhere expressed, yet which is 

 but too apparent from all his subsequent works, he evinces a deficiency 



