74 THE REPOET OF THE No. 36 



is mainly a description of the plates. One does not know whether to marvel 

 more at the great patience and manual skill required to make out such detailed 

 dissections, or at his wonderful drawings and plates, 



Lyonnet's skill in dissection, however, surpassed his knowledge of anatomy. 

 His great monograph " reveals the lack of insight of a trained anatomist " largely 

 on account of the fact that he did not receive that careful preliminary training 

 in anatomy that his two great predecessors, Malpighi and Swammerdam, received. 

 His contributions to science are confined entirely to matters of anatomy. He 

 showed clearly for the first time what are now known as " imaginal disks " or 

 " histoblosts." 



Coming to the 19th century, the names of four anatomists appear on the 

 scroll of fame, viz, : Strauss-Diirckheim, Dnfour, Newport and Leydig, The 

 trend of research was gradually changing from a monographic study of a single 

 form to a comparative study of insects, and these with other invertebrate forms, 

 and finally to histological and emliryological investigations, 



Hercule Strauss-Diirckheim (1790-1865) of France, continued the work of 

 Lyonnet and published in 1828 a most valuable monograph of the Anatomy of 

 the Cockchafer, entitled, " Considerations Generales sur 1' Anatomic Comparee des 

 *Animaux Articules, aux quelles on a joint 1' Anatomic Descriptive du Melolontha 

 Vulgaris donnee comme example de I'Organization des Coleopteres," It contained 

 many finely lithographed plates of 109 sketches which compare very favorably with 

 those of Lyonnet, The dissections, however, lack the marvelous details of Lyonnet's 

 work, but his memoir has the merit of broadening the scope of anatomy and of 

 making it comparative, 



Leon Dufour, a Frenchman, published between 1831 and 1834 a large number 

 of memoirs on the anatomy and metamorphoses of different families of insects, 

 thus extending the work of Strauss-Diirckheim in the line of comparative anatomy, 

 Dufour merits attention also because the great Fabre got his inspiration for 

 his life work on reading a volume of Dufour's that came by chance into his hand. 

 It was " the electric impulse that decided his vocation," 



Dufour was a disciple of Latreille, and practised as a country doctor. Per]iiij).s 

 his greatest contributions to entomology were along the line of bionomics, lie 

 lacked, however, the requisite patience of concentrating his attention for a long 

 period upon a definite object, although he enriched science with a large number 

 of important facts ; he was to a large extent unable to interpret them. For example, 

 Legros relates how Fabre had his curiosity aroused when reading Dufour's account 

 of his finding a small metallic Buprestis in the nest of a Cerceris wasp ; apparently 

 dead but without any symptoms of decay. To Dufour the Buprestis was dead and 

 he attempted an explanation of the phenomenon, Fabre decided to make obser- 

 vations for himself, and " to his great surprise he discovered how incomplete 

 and insufficiently verified were the observations of the man who was at that time 

 known as the Patriarch of Entomologists," 



Newport was the first of the modern type of Entomologists, since he ap])lied 

 for the first time the facts of embryology to insect anatomy. In 1832-34 he 

 published his researches on the modification of the nervous system during the 

 larval, pupal, and adult stages. 



Leydig (1821-1908) is thoroughly modern; he broadened the work of Newport 

 by the introduction of histological methods. His great memoir, "The Structure 

 of the Animal Body " was published in 1864, 



