92 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER. 



1816. Savigny, Maria Jules-Cesar Lelorgue, bom 1777, died 1851 (Hagen). 



Memoires sur les Animaux sans vertebres. Premifere partie. Description et 

 Classification des animaux invertebres et articules, connus sous les noms de 

 Crustaces, d'Insectes, d'Annelides, &c. Premier fascicule. Mem. 1-2. Theorie des 

 organes de la bouclie des Crustaces et des Insectes. Lisecta, Linn. A Paris. 

 Janvier 1816. 



Savigny tolls us in the preface that he based his theory on the examination of some 1500 species 

 of insects and Crustacea, most of them scarcely four or five lines in length, and some far 

 smaller. These were carefully dissected, and complete descriptions drawn up and accurate 

 dra\vings made of the organs of nutrition, motion, sensation, respiration, &c. 



The theory in Isrief is, that whatever form of mouth the insects may take, it is always composed 

 of the same elements. In the second m^moire he divides the Insecta of Linnaeus into two 

 classes, 1. insectes Hexapodes, which in the perfect state never have more than six feet 

 attached to the first three rings of the body, including all the winged insects with "la Puce, 

 le Pou, le Ricin, les Forbicines, les Podures," the latter two more doubtfully added ; 2. 

 insectes Apiropodes, with more, sometimes many more, than six feet, including "les 

 Entomostrac(5s, les Crustaces, les Pycnogonum, Scorpions, Araignees et autres insectes sans 

 antennes, les Scolopendres, les lules." He shows that in the mouth of the crab are to be 

 found the elements which constitute the mouth of the Hexapod insect, but in addition 

 other elements which must of necessity be analogous to the six feet of the Hexapods. All 

 doubt on this point, he says, is removed by what we find in Gammarus. This, like the 

 crab, has two compound eyes, four antennae, a large upper lip, a tongue deeply bifid (the 

 labium inferius), two mandibles, two iirst maxillae, two second maxUte free, not forming 

 together a lower lip. Behind these second maxillae are not found sLx auxiliary maxLUaj as 

 in the crab, but two only united at the base and exactly imitating a lower lip surmounted 

 by its two palps. But these palps are armed with strong hooks or nails. After them come 

 not ten but fourteen feet, four more than in the crab, a number just equal to the auxiliary 

 maxillce which Gammarus has fewer than the crab. In truth, he says, all Crustacea 

 properly so-called have sixteen feet, of which more or fewer are converted into auxiliary 

 maxillae. He noticed that in removing the head from some of the smaller Crustacea, the 

 Gymotlwx for example, the maxUlipeds remain attached to the first ring of the body. This 



I have found with some of the Amphipoda. 



The mistake which Fabricius made in placing in the same genus the Pycnogonums without 

 antennas, and the Cyami which have four, Savigny attributes to the real relations " in the 

 habitation, mode of Hfe, and above all, the general form of body of these parasitic insects." 

 But in a note he says, " les Pycnogonum ne sont point parasites k la manifere des Cyames. 



II parait qu'ils s'attaquent principalement aux coquillages bivalves." In comparing Gyamus, 

 a close relation of the Gammari, with Nymplim of the Pycnogonum family, Savigny hopes 

 to show how Nature passed from the mouth of the Crustacea to that of the Arachnides. 

 He states that the head of Gyamus is " pourvue de gros yeux composes," and in describing 

 the eyes of Nymphrm, " tres-petits, lisses et groupes prfes de la tete sur le dos," he adds "ce 

 qu'U y a de singulier, c'est qu'on trouve aussi deux petits yeux lisses au Cyame. Ce sont 

 meme les seuls que les naturalistes aient aper9us." The singularity, however, is on the part 

 of Savigny, who, Liitken says, introduced the fiction of the large compound eyes. He does 

 not figure them either in the upper or under view which he gives of the animal. In the 

 "Eapport fait k la premiere Classe de ITnstitut," by the " commissaires MM. Cuvier, 

 de Lamarck et LatreiUe, rapporteui-," Savigny's mistake was accepted without question, to 



