410 | Mr. Westwoon’s Illustrations of the 
The truly comparative nature of these relations has not been hitherto stated, 
and hence, as it appears to me, has originated much of the misconception 
which still exists even among professed naturalists, many of whom are 
ready to admit the existence of relations amongst natural objects founded 
upon more or less complete resemblances, but yet of equivalent value, without 
perceiving the various natures, and consequently varied value, of such rela- 
tions *. ; 
In the following pages I have first selected such species of insects as exhibit 
an analogy with other species of the same order; and secondly, such as illus- 
trate the analogies between insects of different orders. 
That species belonging to two genera of the same family, or even subfamily, 
may be analogous representatives of each other, is as clear as though they 
belonged to different families or orders. Thus, although the genus Adelium, K. 
is so excellent an example of analogy, when its species are compared with the 
species composing the family Carabide, that the specific names Caraboides, 
Calosomoides, Licinoides, have been given to insects belonging to the former 
genus, yet there may be relations of analogy existing among the species of 
* One of the chief difficulties connected with this subject is that of drawing the precise line between 
these two kinds of relations (hence the difficulties connected with the true location of Mantispa); this 
is not a little increased by the evident distinctions existing amongst each class of relations: thus affi- 
nities may be so concealed as to escape the eye even of professed naturalists; hence the Homopterous 
genus Aleyrodes so completely puts on the appearance of a moth, that Linnæus named it Phalena 
Tinea proletella ; whilst Fabricius in all his works described an Orthopterous insect (Hymenotes rhombea, 
Westw. Proc. Zool. Soc., 1837, p. 130.) under the Homopterous genus Membracis ; the precise relations 
of these insects being disguised affinities. The relation between the house- 
affinity, but that which exists between the field- 
yet no one will question the propriety of these 
though so totally different in form, Again, an: 
and field-cricket is an evident 
cricket and the mole-cricket is a disguised affinity, and 
insects being considered as closely allied together, al- 
gh so alogies may be equally disguised. No one, for example, 
= ever PE that _ of the Carabide and Paussus possessed any relation; and yet not only do 
zæna and F aussus crepitate, but both also possess a minute tubercle at the posterior external angle 
of the elytra, 9 no other Coleopterous insects exhibit. In like manner, no one would suppose 
that any relation could exist between a butterfly and a woodlouse (beyond that of each being a Con- 
dylopodous animal), and yet by comparing the imperfect state of Thecla with the perfect state of Onís- 
cus we find them to possess a disguised analogical relation. 
5 I mention th i 
trivial circumstances which may be collected as grounds for i ee OE phe DINGY 
lations, which are necessarily often of so diversified a ch 
ser DR aracter and so readily to b 
almost any given groups, as to lead to a supposition that y to be traced between 
: they can afford n isi 
arrangement independent of more important sien o decisive test of a natural 
+ 
