SYSTEM OF INSECTS. 415 
portunity of consulting at his ease one of the first Ento- 
mological cabinets in Europe, in a work that will for 
ever couple his name with the science that he cultivates 3 , 
— has first taught the Naturalist the respective value and 
real distinctions of the two kinds of relationship that I 
am now discussing. He has opened to the philosopher, 
the moralist and the divine, that hitherto closed door by 
which our first parents and their immediate descendants 
entered the temple of nature, and studied the symbols of 
knowledge that were there presented to them : and in 
addition to his labours (in numerous respects successful), 
in endeavouring to trace out the natural groups of beings 
connected by affinity ^ has pointed out how they illustrate 
each other by analogy ; thus affording, as was before ob- 
served b , a most triumphant reply to the arguments of 
those modern sophists, who, from the graduated scale of 
affinities observable in creation, were endeavouring to 
prove that animals, in the lapse of ages, were in fact their 
own creators . 
For the more satisfactory elucidation of the subject 
before us, I shall consider, first, how we are to distinguish 
affinities from analogies ; and then mention some of the 
various instances of the latter that occur between insects 
and other animals, and between different tribes of in- 
sects themselves. 
To know what characters denote affinity and what 
are merely analogical, it must be kept in mind that the 
former being predicated of beings in a series (whether 
that series has its gyrations that return into themselves, 
or proceeds in a right line, or assumes any other inter- 
a HorcE Entomological. b Vol. III. p. 173—. 
c Ibid. p. 348. note c . 
