CHAPTKR III. 



REMARKS ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF INSECTS. 



The multiplication uf si)ecies reuilors it necessary to resort to some kind uf arrangement, 

 by which they may be gathered into groups under one or more common characteristics. 

 It matters not which of the kingdoms of nature we enter, if the individuals are dispersed 

 singly or unarranged into families or groups, no one can hope to possess himself of an idea 

 of their relations. Memory would be too much burthencd in the attempt to comprehend 

 the relations, or retain the characteristics of the species wliich belong to a single district 

 of the globe. Hence the necessity for devising some scheme by which we may group to- 

 gether those which are alike, and to which we may apply a positive expression indicative 

 of that likeness. 



There is perhaps nothing easier than to say on what general principle such a scheme 

 should be based ; for it is plain enough that resemblance must be the basis of all schemes, 

 and indeed ever has been since attempts at classification have been made. Classification is 

 founded on resemblance ; and yet there are so many points of resemblance, that it becomes 

 necessary to make a choice. It is evident that the resemblances in the mineral kingdom 

 are not those of the vogetidde or animal, and those of the vegetable kingdom are yet in- 

 applicalde to the animal. This, however, is not the difficulty : taking each kingdom by 

 itself, and selecting from among its individual members certain characters which belong 

 to the many, they fail us in attempting to make a general application of them ; they either 

 cease to exist, or else possess an importance so variable or inconsiderable that they become 

 uncertain as marks suitable to be employed in classification. 



There are two kinds of resemblances in the natural world : there are morphological 

 and teleological resemblances. In the first we seek for external forms ; in the second, we 

 look for ends. The wings of a bird, of a bat, and of an insect, possess a teleological re- 

 semblance, but not a morphoh)gical one : the end, or final cause, is the same ; but the 

 form, arising I'rom structure, is qiute different. It can be scarcely possible that final causes 

 or teleological reseml)lanccs should be available in classification, although they may be 

 useful in many other respects ; and we may remark here that it is only by an attentive 

 study of miirphiili)rry that a true basis for classification can be found, and all the schemes 

 that have been successfully apjdied belong to this kind. Availing ourselves of tlie principles 



