88 



ON THE ORIGIN AND 



[CHAP. 



a beetle, Haltica (Fig. 53) ; Fig, 50 of a Saw-fly, 

 Cimbex (Fig. 54) ; and Fig. 5 I of a Centipede, Julus 



(Fig. 55). 



Thus, then, although it can be demonstrated that 

 perfect insects, however much they differ in appearance, 

 are yet reducible to one type, the fact becomes much 

 more evident if we compare the larvae. M. Brauer 1 

 and 1 2 have pointed out that two types of larvae, 

 which I have proposed to call Campodea-form and 



FIG. 48, Larva of Moth (Agrotis sujffusci), after Packard. 49, L^rva of Beetle 

 (Ha-.tica), after Westwood. 50, Larva of Saw fly (Cimbex) t Brischke and 

 Zaddach Beob ub d arren. der Blatt und Holzwei-pen, Fig. 8. 51, Larva of 

 Julus. Newport, Philcs. Transactions, 1X41. 



Lindia-form, and which Packard has named Leptiform 

 and Eruciform, run through the principal groups of 

 insects. This is obviously a fact of great importance : 

 as all individual Meloe's are derived from a form 

 resembling PL 2, Fig. 2, it is surely no rash hypothesis 

 to suggest that the genus itself may have been so. 

 Firstly, however, let me say a word as to the 



1 Wien. Zool. Bot. Gesel's, 1869. 



2 Linnean Transactions, 1863. 



