218 A. S. Packard, Jr. on certain Entomological Speculations. 



black." This is only carrying the analogies of Laphria to Bouibus 

 still farther. 



" 4th. Hirsuties is by [no] means universal in all Laphria," — Walsh. 

 Most assuredly not. The fact, that some happen to be so, and, there- 

 fore, resemble the hirsute Bees, is sufficient and all the better for our 

 purpose. 



"We then seem to " harmonize" as to facts. Why then does Mr. 

 Walsh persist in obstinately drawing the reverse inference, that the 

 Bombus rather resembles Laphria ? Does an Ape resemble a man, or 

 does man copy the Ape's physiognomy? Why do our best Comparative 

 Anatomists persist in speaking of the Anthropoid Apes, when they 

 should rather be styled, according to the antipodal views uf our critic, 

 Simioid men. For the same reason, our critic should speak of a 

 whale-like fish, a Bat-like bird, or a caterpillar-like worm. 



Whether Bittacus resembles Bittacomorpha, rather than the reverse, 

 is a delicate point, but we think it does. The Neuropterous Bittacus 

 is an unusual form even in that suborder. On the other hand, the 

 Tipulidas are iu some respects aberrant Diptera, and Bittacomorpha 

 may therefore be considered an aberrant Tipulid. We look upon the 

 House Fly, Musca, as the type of the Diptera, and Libellula as the 

 Neuropterous type. Any divergence from these forms leads to a de- 

 parture from the type of the group. Thus starting from the typical 

 Neuroptera, i. e. the Libellulida3* and Ephemeridoe, we soon come to 

 the Hymenoptera-like Termes, the Aphis-like Psocus, the Lepidopter- 

 ous-like Ascalaphus, and the Myriapod-like Lepisma. 



All aberrant forms when well developed, show a constant tendency 

 to assume the forms of the higher groups ; or, if degraded in a 

 marked degree, revert to the archetypal articulate form. In either 

 case the progress is towards a higher or a lower form. The latter is 

 the more exceptional, as the evolution and growth of all animals is up- 

 wards towards a more specialized, differentiated form. 



There is theu a valid reason why comprehensive, mimetic forms do 

 not always, for simple biological reasons, assume the form of other 

 insects with which they are associated in life. Though there are 

 numerous instances where one species imitates another, from motives, 

 so to speak, of self-protection, yet in the Animal Kingdom as a whole, 

 this is subordinated to a deeper-seated tendency of all young or- 

 ganisms towards a perfection of the type to which they belong. 



* We should not feel authorized in using Fabricius' term Odonata for this 

 family, which in his system was considered as a group equivalent in value to 

 the rest of the Neuroptera, any more than to call the Pulicidse, Aphaniptera, 

 because they were once thought to be a group of the same value as all the rest 

 of the Diptera. 



