274 Supposed auditory powers of Insect Antennce. 



are agreed in assigning to Crustacea a true ear, analogous to 

 that of mammals. Analogy therefore fails to furnish us with 

 even the slightest support, if we attempt to fix on the anten- 

 na an office foreign to their legitimate use. 



We have now seen that the antennce, of insects, if regarded 

 as the external instruments of the auditory faculty, have the 

 worst possible structure for such an office, thus outraging that 

 great law of nature which adapts each instrument to its des- 

 tined end. We have seen that the antenna frequently in- 

 crease in developement, where the faculty of hearing appears 

 to be entirely useless, and greatly decrease where hearing was 

 obviously required. We have seen that insects do not need 

 such a preponderance of the auditory faculty, as these com- 

 paratively enormous instruments would imply that they pos- 

 sess. We have seen that the antennce of other animals pos- 

 sess no auditory faculty, but are used solely as tactors or 

 feelers ; and that such animals possess an auditory faculty, 

 the distinct site of which is ascertained. We have seen that 

 there is abundant evidence of the antennce of insects also be- 

 ing used as tactors or feelers, while no single instance is on 

 record, tending to establish their use as ears. How can we 

 then do otherwise than conclude that this supposed auditory 

 faculty of the antennce is nothing more than a vague and wild 

 theory, unsupported by reason, analogy, or fact ? How can 

 we claim for such a theory the support of the anatomist, the 

 general zoologist, or the man of common sense ? How can 

 we defend that theoretical fabric, whose foundation every fact 

 undermines, whose superstructure is beaten down by every 

 natural analogy ? Is not fact the fairest test of theory ? And 

 should not theory be the child of fact ? 



I have done. The broad principle of enquiry with which 

 I have treated the subject before me, is, I acknowledge, un- 

 wonted; the appeal from facts to common sense on a subject 

 of science, may perhaps be considered somewhat out of or- 

 der : yet why should this be so ? Science is or should be an 

 accumulation of fact ; and that theory is alone worthy the 

 name, which illustrates a design of Providence, by bringing 

 a mass of facts to bear harmoniously on each other. 



April, 1838. 



