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- 

 therata would equally well suit the Piezata 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 a , 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 theFabrician 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, \\isgenera, 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. 



3 Latreille 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. 



