464 HISTORY OF ENTOMOLOGY. 
If you examine the definitions of his Classes, you will 
find them in a variety of cases calculated rather to mis- 
lead than to instruct a learner. Thus that of the Eleu- 
thcrata would equally well suit the Piczata and several 
others : that of the Piezata is scarcely to be found in it; 
since in this the maxilla, instead of being corneous, is usu- 
ally coriaceous % and its lobe sometimes nearly membra- 
nous. In the Unogata he even mistakes the mandibles 
for maxillae. Let any young Entomologist endeavour to 
make out the Fabrician class of a Cicindela for instance; 
and finding its maxillae corneous and armed with a claw, 
he would conclude that it belonged to the Unogata rather 
than to the Eleutherata. Besides all this, the necessity of 
examining minute parts not easily come at without dis- 
section, is very discouraging to a beginner. 
From hence it is evident, that the system of Fabricius, 
considered as an artificial one or a method, was no im- 
provement upon the classification of his master Linne, 
but rather a retrograde movement in the science. 
As to that part of his system in which he professes to 
take nature for his guide, his genera, — though even with 
respect to them he seems fearful of following her too 
closely b , — he certainly has rendered most essential ser- 
vices to Entomology, and laid the foundation of all that 
has since been done for its improvement. But it must be 
observed, that the series of his genera is often altogether 
artificial ; as where he separates and places far asunder the 
Saprophagous and Thalerophagous Petalocerous beetles. 
a JLatreille Gen. Crust, et Ins. iii. 214. 
b With respect to Natural Genera he says— "Cavendum tamen 
ne nimis imitando naturam systematis amittamus filum Ariadneum." 
Ibid. § 6. 
