6J4 



INSECT. 



ing amongst insects ; and, secondly, he mode of ap- 

 plication of these relationship!", either with a view to 

 the construction of an amusement most fitly adapted 

 for the artificial bringing together of objects, so as to 

 enable the memory with least difficulty to retain an 

 idea of their various characters, distinctions, and 

 names, or, with a higher view, of endeavouring to 

 trace out, by the strict application of their relation- 

 ships, the general plan by which the wondrous whole 

 has been so beautifully arranged. 



We have heard it maintained, by men whose views 

 of natural history have been based upon a too partial 

 examination of a few isolated species of some limited 

 groups of animals, that, except in the relations exist- 

 ing between the sexes of a species, or the sexes of 

 distinct species which might accidentally couple to- 

 gether, or between a predaceous insect and the insects 

 upon which it preys, there can be no such thing as a 

 relationship amongst insects. And this view of the 

 subject is endeavoured to be supported by the argu- 

 ment, that the various species of the group which we 

 term a family or genus, are totally independent of 

 each other in all their relations of life, and that the 

 annihilation of one species would in nowise influence 

 the remaining species. 



Now, all this mav be, and much is certainly true ; 

 but we submit, that this is a most partial mode of look- 

 ing at the relations of animals, even in a natural 

 history and economical point of view. We ordinarily 

 employ the term relationship to designate that bond 

 <it community existing amongst the members of a 

 family ; but there are numerous other species of alli- 

 ances to which we may also give the general term of 

 relations. And it is upon these undeniable relations, 

 affinities, analogies, resemblances call them as you 

 will that the classification of all animals are founded. 

 And the more perfect our knowledge of any animal, 

 in all its states, and in all its relations to all other 

 animals, the more correctly are we enabled to give 

 due weight to every peculiarity, whether structural or 

 functional, which it exhibits ; and thus to trace its 

 more or less contiguous relations with other animals. 

 Again, if we look at the habits of insects, we find 

 some exhibiting a similar predaceous economy ; others 

 are vegetable feeders ; some attack particular species 

 of animals ; others particular species of plants. Now 

 each of these groups of species will, both from eco- 

 nomy and from structure dependent uprn economy, 

 exhibit more close relations amongst their respective 

 members than the species belonging to groups pos- 

 sessing opposite habits. Hence we may be induced 

 to affirm, as has been done by a celebrated writer, 

 Dr. Fleming, that we shall have as many systems of 

 animals as there are variations of function". And thus, 

 animals differing from each other, except in one 

 isolated particular, are thought to be more nearly 

 related together than they are to other species, 

 to winch, in all their other particulars, they are 

 more intimately allied. But this also appears to us 

 to be an equally incorrect and partial view of look- 

 ing at nature. We have given too great a weight to 

 such an isolated peculiarity : we will endeavour to 

 illustrate this view of the subject by a reference to 

 the recently published volume of the" Count de Saint 

 targeau, upon hymenopterous insects, in which we 

 find the social character of these insects regarded as 

 outweighing all other characters. The result of this is, 

 that we have the ants, wasps, hive bees, and humble 

 bees, united together, whilbt the solitary wasps, and 



j the Psitht/ri (as noticed in the article HUMDLB RKK), 

 and all other solitary or parasitic bees, are scparati-d ; 

 although their structure is in every respect almost 

 identical, except in the organs, which are necessarily 

 modified in the former, so as to be fitted for the duties 

 of their social character. No-v this mode of distribu- 

 tion appears to us to be erroneous, because too 

 limited in respect to the great workings of the crea- 

 ture. These social habits, as we have seen, are but 

 the results of a modification of the instinct for 

 securing the development of the progeny of these par- 

 ticular species, whilst the great object of these insects 

 in nature is overlooked. The solitary bee which 

 burrows hi rotten wood, and then forms its cell, 

 exhibits as much instinct as the humble bee which 

 is the foundress of a community. The wonders 

 of the hive are but the exhibition of a more highly 

 developed instinct in building and provisioning a 

 nest. " In rejecting from the family of the humble 

 bees," observes Saint Fargeau, " the JSitglosscE of La- 

 treille (which that author had always inserted in the 

 same group with the formei), I may remark, that in a 

 system (datts un syslemc') the very long tongue may 

 indicate a relationship between Bombus and En- 

 glussa. But in a natural method (une melhode natu- 

 relle], this length only indicates that both are destined 

 to gather honey from flowers having long and narrow 

 tubes, although their habits are in other respects 

 entirely different, as indicated by the structure of 

 their hind legs*." Here, however, the difference in 

 habit between these two tribes of bees are only such 

 as are immediately connected with their social or 

 solitary nature, their entire structure being in other 

 respects similar ; thus indicating that, except in this 

 single circumstance, the entire system of the two 

 groups must be as nearly as possible identical. Thus 

 too much weight appears to have been given to the 

 social conditions of the Bombi, and the characters of 

 structure resulting therefrom. And, in like manner, 

 the same remark may be applied to all classifications 

 founded on the presumed superiority of an isolated 

 character, independent of the question of its real 

 value, as proved by the functions for which it is 

 bestowed. And herein lies one of the great obstacles 

 in the way of our tracing the real relationships of 

 animals. Thus one author will maintain that the 

 metamorphoses of insects are entitled to the first 

 consideration ; and will hence insist that the all- 

 devouring locust and the suctorial bug ?re closely 

 allied together. Another will give the same weight 

 to the organs of the mouth, and, denying the relation- 

 ship between these two insects, will assert that the 

 one is more nearly allied to the mandibulated Xnu- 

 roptcra, and the other to the suctorial Lejrido/ilera ; 

 whilst a third will maintain the superiority of the 

 wings, and thus bring the mandibulated Hymenoptcra 

 and the suctorial Diptera into contact. Now all 

 these variations of classification do not prove that 

 there are no such things as relationships existing 

 amongst these tribes of insects ; but simpl}' that the 

 correct mode of applying the various characters, so 

 as to correspond with their natural relationships, has 

 not been discovered. 



These relations, whether of structure or of habit, 

 must have presented themselves to every one who 

 has paid the least attention to natural objects. Let 

 us take an example or two. We have already asked 



"Hist. Nat. dcs Insectes HymenopUres." Paris, 1836, p. 438. 



