428 



♦ KNO^A/'LEDGE ♦ 



[May 22, 1885. 



origin, we may say that at an early period of their exist- 

 ence comets beloDged to the solar system. The system has 

 had no more occasiou, so to speak, to borrow meteor 

 systems from other systems — that is, from other suns — 

 than these have had to borrow meteor systems from it and 

 from each other. 



We decide, then, that meteor systems may certainly 

 be classified into those which have belonged to our solar 

 system from the earliest period of their history, those 

 which visit it from without, and pass away to other suns, 

 and an intermediate class, consisting of those which, having 

 visited it from without, have been constrained, by per- 

 turbations affecting them within it, to become attached 

 permanently to its domain. We may note also that as 

 there are meteor systems now belonging to our solar system 

 which originally belonged to other solar systems, so pro- 

 bably many meteor systems originally belonging to our 

 solar system are now either attending on (ither suns or 

 wandering through the star-depths from sun to sun. 



It has been from viewing the matter in this way, recog- 

 nising the almost decisive evidence that meteor systems 

 have from earliest times been members of our solar system, 

 that I have been led to inquire into the possibility that 

 some meteor systems may have been expelled from the sun, 

 and that others — those, namely, which seem attached to 

 the orbits of the giant planets — may have been expelled 

 from those planets when in their former sunlike condition. 

 The evidence to show that there is an adequate expulsive 

 power in the sun is striking, and we may reasonably infer 

 that the small suns formerly dependent upon him had a 

 similar power. The motions of the members of the comet- 

 families of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, accord 

 far better, too, with this theory than with Schiaparelli's. 



(To ie continued.) 



OUR HOUSEHOLD INSECTS. 



By E. a. Butler. 



COLEOPTERA (coniinued). 



A CORRESPONDENT has suggested that it would be 

 well to give the etymology of the scientific names of 

 the insects referred to in this series of papers. This would, 

 no doubt — in some cases, at least — prove a help towards 

 remembering the names : but there would be little other 

 advantage, for it must be remembered that the signification 

 of the names is, from a scientific point of view, a matter of 

 very little moment ; in fact, when once given they become 

 proper names, and therefore, like other words of that class, 

 are used merely as symbols to denote the objects referred 

 to, regardless of their original meaning. Doubtless it 

 would have been an advantage if the scientific name of a 

 natural object could have been a sort of compendious 

 description of it ; but, from the multiplicity of the objects 

 to be named, their frequent close resemblance to one 

 another, and the impossibility of compressing a suflicient 

 amount of information into the short space of two words, 

 such a scheme is incapable of realisation. Hence it is 

 unsafe to endeavour to form an idea as to the nature and 

 habits of the creature from the original import of its name, 

 and very little is lost by disregarding the etymology alto- 

 gether. 



This remark, often applicable enough even with respect 

 to generic, applies with much more force to specific names, 

 and of these it may safely be said they are almost as fre- 

 quently misleading as helpful, especially such as refer to 

 peculiarities of colour — so much so, indeed, that the question 



has been raised whether it would not be as well to do away 

 with them altogether, and substitute for them either letters 

 or numbers. They are sometimes given in reference to 

 some feature which, though marked enough in the species 

 in question, is yet not characteristic, being possessed in 

 almost equal degi-ee by several others ; and even when 

 thoroughly characteristic at the time of their first applica- 

 tion, they may cease to be so through the discovery of other 

 species possessing similar peculiarities. 



An illustration will, perhaps, make this clearer. Suppose 

 a genus of beetles containing a considerable number of 

 species, all with dark legs, and suppose, further, a new 

 species is discovered which, unlike the rest, has yellowish 

 legs; it is not unlikely that, in naming this insect, its 

 most obvious point of distinction will be seized upon, and 

 it will be christened Jlatnpes, " the yellow-legged." After 

 a time, however, another species of the same genus is 

 discovered, which has even yellower legs than the last ; 

 what is to be done now ? It would cause endless confusion 

 to transfer the name of the former species to the present, 

 and re-name the old one, and, therefore, the new species is 

 named after some much less obvious peculiarity — say, a 

 little depression on its back, which it has in common with 

 half-a-dozen other species — and so it is called, say, impressus. 

 The original Jiavijies is no longer the yellow-legged species, 

 and yet it must retain its name, whUe the new-comer, 

 which has a far better claim to the name, receives a 

 designation which altogether ignores its strongest pecu- 

 liarity. It is easy to see that a novice, on capturing the 

 yellow-legged impressus, and running his eyes over the 

 list of British species and seeing there a Jlainpes, may not 

 unnaturally, and yet most erroneously, jump to the conclu- 

 sion that this must be the insect he has secured. This is 

 not altogether an imaginary case, and many of such a kind 

 might be mentioned. 



Then, again, sometimes a name is given ironically, as, 

 for example, when a moth remarkable for the extreme 

 length of its wings is called abbreviaia, and a beetle, so 

 minute that, without a microscope, it is scarcely possible 

 to tell whether it be an insect at all, is dubbed Titan, after 

 those mighty sons of Earth and Heaven who, according to 

 the wisdom of the ancients, cost even Zeus, the Thunderer, 

 many a hard struggle before they could be overthrown. 

 The classical mythologies, indeed, have been ransacked for 

 names ; the Olympians now find themselves gifted with an 

 objective, though inferior, existence, and the heroes and 

 demigods of old live again in the hosts of the insect world. 

 A raid has also been made upon the mythology of India, 

 which has been forced to yield names for the ever- increasing 

 hosts of creatures that come up for registration. Some- 

 times an insect is honoured with a piece of barbarous 

 Latinity in the form of Jonesi or Smithi, or the like, in 

 recognition of the great merits of its discoverer, and 

 finally, in many cases, there is no etymology at all, the 

 names being purely fanciful ones, which in practice, how- 

 ever, answer just as well as any others. From these 

 illustrations, it will easily be understood that inappropriate 

 baptisms are numerous, and that, therefore, no great 

 importance must be attached to etymologies. 



After these cautions, we may venture on a few words 

 with refei'ence to some of the names already used. The 

 name Anobium is said to be from the Greek aneti, without, 

 and hios, life, and would thus refer to the habit these 

 insects have of counterfeiting death — a fairly appropriate 

 title, though there are plenty of beetles belonging to 

 genera not so named that indulge equally persistently in 

 this habit. Domesticum (pertaining to the house) and 

 ■jianiceum (pertaining to bread) of course explain them- 

 selves when we remember the habits of the insects in 



