INSECT. 



875 



our readers (in treating of the defences of insects), 

 whet her we need enter into detail, relative to the stints 

 ;. of hymenopterous insects, the pain arising from which 

 ! must probably, at one time or other, have been expe- 

 j rienced by all ? Now every one knows that wasps, 

 | as well as hive bees, are stinging insects. This cir- 

 cumstance, then, insures the existence of one species 

 I of relationship (that resulting from functions) ; but if 

 we take the trouble to notice these two insects more 

 particularly, we shall find they possess numerous 

 other characters in common. Both are provided 

 with membranous wings of unequal size ; both are 

 social in their habits ; both are similarly organised 

 in the structure of their antennae, and in the number 

 of their abdominal rings. Here, then, we find so 

 many points of resemblance, that we at once admit 

 the existence of a relationship, or similarity so close, 

 that it cannot have escaped the most indifferent ob- 

 server. This intimate kind of relationship is termed 

 an affinity. But there is another kind of relationship 

 which must have been equally observed by every ob- 

 server of nature. We have already taken the wasp 

 and the bee as our guides, and here again they will 

 serve our purpose. VVhoever has walked, during the 

 heat of the day, in any woody situation, must have 

 observed various bee and wasp-looking insects hover- 

 ing about in the sunbeams, and darting away on 

 being approached with an astonishing rapidity. These 

 are not, however, bees nor wasps, neither do they be- 

 long to the same order as these insects, although they 

 are sometimes called drones, when seen settling 

 upon flowers ; which name is also given to the male 

 honey bee. We have given figures of these in- 

 sects, in order to exhibit their resemblance, in the 

 article ENTOMOLOGY (page 430). Here there is no 

 real affinity, no resemblance extending through a 

 series of particulars. Habits, structure, wings, legs, 

 antennae, are all different, when examined with preci- 

 sion ; and yet, on a casual glance, the general ap- 

 pearance of the two insects is so similar. This 

 distant kind of relationship is termed an analogy. 

 Further ; as there are instances in which a similarity 

 of appearance may thus exist without any real affi- 

 nity, as regards the structure of essential organisation, 

 so, on the other hand, are there numerous instances 

 in which a direct affinity, resulting from similarity of 

 the essential organs, exists between two insects, 

 although their general appearance be quite unlike 

 each other. Of this masked kind of affinity, number- 

 less instances might be produced. Thus an hetero- 

 merous insect, related by affinity to Tcnebrio and 

 Helops, so closely resembles some of the predaceous 

 beetles, that Fabricius called it a Carabus ; and Mr. 

 Kirby has described several allied species under the 

 names of Adelium, Caraboides, Calosomoidcs, and Li- 

 cinoides. We have further to notice, that as there 

 are more than one species of hive bees dispersed 

 over the globe, so there are other social species of 

 wild honey bees : in like manner there are as many 

 species of wasps and hornets. Each of these groups 

 of species constitute a certain series ; and thus we 

 discover some of the links of a chain extending 

 throughout nature. Now it is impossible to adopt 

 these views without, at the same time, admitting that 

 all these beautiful and harmonious affinities and ana- 

 logies could be bestowed upon animals without any 

 regard to some fixed system. 



" Order is heaven's first law," 



and the naturalist must be blind, indeed, who cannot 



trace in the beautiful gradations of form, and the 

 various relationships of animals, the marks, slisrht 

 enough in too many cases, of a universal system, 

 wherein just regard is paid to every peculiarity, and 

 every structure shown in juxtaposition with allied 

 structures, none being excluded. This is termed the 

 natural system ; but in what manner the knowledge, 

 of this system is to be attained, whether, as appears 

 generally to be supposed by a review of mere struc- 

 tural peculiarities, or by selecting the general 

 functions of each species or by taking into con- 

 sideration its geographical range whether the 

 system be a linear series or a circular one whether 

 it be supposed to resemble the intricacies of a map * 

 or a sphere ; whether it be resolvable throughout its 

 divisions in a binary (Dr. Fleming and Haworth), 

 trinary (Swainson), quaternary (Fries), quinary 

 (Mac Leay), or septenary manner (Newman); whether 

 we confine ourselves to the now existent species, or 

 have regard to the countless multitudes of extiiift 

 species; whether by means of any of these proposed 

 modes or any other, it must be evident that natural 

 history, and especially philosophical natural history, 

 is too new a subject to allow any one to assert that 

 his system, and his only, is superior to all the rest. 

 Great progress has been made of late years in this 

 field .; but how great is the yet untrodden portion we 

 have to labour at unceasingly ; and he who, by a 

 minute analysis of any animal, enables us to solve 

 any dubious point connected therewith, does more 

 for the elucidation of this much abused natural sys- 

 tem than the greatest and most ingenious theorist 

 who has yet taken the subject in hand. 



The celebrated Cuvier, whose laborious researches 

 and acute reasoning made such vast strides in the phi- 

 losophy of natural history, and effected as great a revo- 

 lution in received opinions as was ever brought about 

 by one man in any science, was fully sensible of the cor- 

 rectness of these opinions. He laboured not to support 

 system, but to discover the truth ; and the further he 

 advanced, seemed the more convinced that he did not 

 know enough to enable him to form a system. And 

 if this were the case with the greatest comparative 

 anatomist who ever lived, how truly must the same 

 remark be made of those who, without having ever 

 touched the dissecting knife, sit down to construct, 

 out of the workings of their own fanciful and inge- 

 nious brains, the natural system. Speaking of such 

 theories, Cuvier, a little before his death, said, " 1 

 have sought, I have set up some myself, but I have- 

 not made them known, because I have ascertained 

 that they were false, as are all those which have been 

 published up to this day. 1 affirm still more ; for I 

 say that in the present state of science it is not pos- 

 sible to discover one, and it is for this reason that I 

 persevere in my observations, and that I continue to 

 publish them. This perseverance only can lead to 

 the truth. We ought to labour, not with the object 

 of supporting a theory, because then the mind, being 

 preoccupied, will perceive only that which favours its 

 own views ; our labours should be for the object of 

 discovering the truth." Memoirs of Cuvier. The 

 writer of the present article, who had the honour of a 

 personal acquaintance with this celebrated man, can 

 testify how completely these were his real sentiments. 



* Linnaeus, in his Philosophia Botanica, thus speaks of the 

 natural system as exhibited by plants, " Plants: omnes utrinque 

 affiaitatem monstraut uti territorium inniaji 



