DEFINITION OF THE TERM INSECT. 7 
though from some very recent observations of M. La- 
treille*, there seems some ground for thinking, that in 
these the antenne are represented by the mandibles, 
palpi, &c., and to the soft flexible, coriaceous or mem- 
branous skin of a vast number of insects, the term cutzs 
ossea is by no means applicable. 
Evident as these incongruities are, when the Herculean 
task which Linné imposed upon himself, and the vastness 
and variety of his labours, are considered, they become 
very venial. Indeed, unless he had divided his class Zn- 
secta into two or more, it was impossible to define it in- 
telligibly to ordinary readers, otherwise than nearly in 
the terms which he actually employed; and these cha- 
racters, restricted and amended by qualifying clauses, are 
still those to which recurrence must be had in a popular 
definition of the class, when separated as it ought to be 
from the Crustacea and Arachnida. 
Pennant, Brisson, and other zoologists, who, attending 
to nature rather than system, saw the impropriety of unit- 
ing a crab or a lobster in the same class with a bee or a 
beetle, long since assigned the Crustacea their ancient 
distinct rank. ‘ But these changes,” as Latreille ob- 
serves®, “being only founded upon external characters, 
might be deemed arbitrary; and to fix our opinion, it 
was necessary to have recourse to a decisive authority— 
the znternal and comparative organization of these ani- 
@ Quoted by Mr. Wm. Macleay in his very remarkable and 
learned work Hore Entomologice, in which he inclines to the same 
cpinion. 383. 
> Treviranus (Ueber den innern Bau der Arachniden, &c. 22.) al- 
ways calls the palpi of spiders “ Filhorner.’ In Scorpio he regards 
them as palpi (Patpen). © N. Dict. @ Hist. Nat. xvi. 181. 
