THE AMERICAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



17 



THE OLD AND THEJJEW PHILOSOPHY. 



Prof. Agassiz, in his popular little book on 

 the " Metliods of Study in Natural History," 

 p. 24, has made tlie astounding assertion, that 

 "the man of science who follows his studies 

 into their practical application is false to his 

 calling." And yet nearly three hundred years 

 ago Bacon laid it down as one of the chief char- 

 acteristics of the new or Baconian philosophy, 

 that, unlike the old philosophical systems, it is 

 not a mere barren string of words, but is 

 adapted and intended to promote the comforts 

 and conveniences of human life; or, as he 

 phrases it in his terse and energetic Latin, 

 " humanis commodis inservire." 



Now mark how hard it is, even for a philoso- 

 pher of such distinguished eminence as Prof. 

 Agassiz, to be consistent in adopting the ideas 

 of a bygone age. It is undoubtedly true that 

 all the ancient philosophers of Greece and Rome 

 thought without exception as Prof. Agassiz, in 

 the passage which has just been quoted, pro- 

 fesses to think. For example, the celebrated 

 Grecian geometrician, Archimedes, being a res- 

 ident of the city of Syracuse in Sicily when it 

 was besieged by the Romans, employed his op- 

 tical and mechanical knowledge in devising 

 enormous burning glasses to burn up some of 

 the ships of the enemy, and in constructing cer- 

 tain grappling hooks of such prodigious power, 

 that they seized other vessels belonging to 

 the besiegers, hoisted them up bodily in the 

 air, and then, letting them drop suddenly into 

 the water, sank them to the bottom and drowned 

 every soul that was on board. Any American 

 of the present day would be proud of such 

 achievements as those, and would think science 

 well employed in protecting his country from 

 hostile invasion. But instead of being proud of 

 what he had done, the old Greek philosopher, 

 Archimedes, actually thought it necessary to 

 apologize to the scientidc world for having de- 

 graded the dignity of science to such base prac- 

 tical purposes! Let us see now if Prof. Agassiz, 

 the man of the nineteenth century after Christ, 

 can be consistent with himself tliroughout in 

 holding the views of Archimedes, the man of 

 the third century before Christ. 



In the very work which we just now referred 

 to, and only some 150 pages after the passage 

 quoted above, this very same author, Prof. 

 Agassiz, speaking of Prof. Bache, the late la- 

 mented Superintendent of the United States 

 Coast Survey, allows himself to discourse as 

 follows: "I can not deny myself the pleasure 

 of pa\iug a tribute here to the high scientific 



character of the distinguished Superintendent 

 of this Survey, who has known so well how to 

 combine the most important scientiflc aims with 

 the most valuable practical results in his direc- 

 tion of it." (p. 181.) Surely, now, if " tlie 

 man of science that follows his studies into 

 their practical application is false to his call- 

 ing," then Prof. Bache, instead of being so 

 highly praised by Agassiz, ought to have been 

 severely condemned by him ; and if, on the other 

 hand. Prof. Bache, in the opinion of Agassiz, 

 deserved high commendation for the practical 

 results which he deduced from his scientific dis- 

 coveries, then Agassiz is grossly inconsistent 

 with himself in making the sweeping assertion 

 which has just been referred to. 



For ourselves, we do not consider that the 

 scientific entomologist either degrades his favor- 

 ite science, or lowers his own scientiflc dignity, 

 by e-mploying his theoretical knowledge for the 

 attainment of objects of plain, practical, every 

 day utility. He may perhaps occupy a lower 

 position in the scientific world than the ingeni- 

 ous artists, who are every day grinding up vari- 

 eties into species, and flooding science with new 

 genera and new families, as uncalled for and 

 unnecessary as a flfth wheel in a coach. Still 

 he may perhaps be properly admitted within the 

 pale of the scientific hierarchy as a kind of sub- 

 ordinate and inferior officer, like the lay broth- 

 ers in a Roman Catholic monastery ; and cer- 

 tainly he ought not to be hounded forth into 

 outer darkness as a caput lupinum, with the 

 dreadful cry that he is " false to his calling," 

 and has degraded the body of men to which he 

 once had the honor of belonging. 



THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. 



There are four grand branches of the Animal 

 Kingdom: 1st. Backbone animals (Vertebrata) , 

 comprising the four respective classes of mam- 

 mals, birds, reptiles, and fislies ; normally all of 

 these have four limbs. 2d. Jointed animals 

 {Articulata) , or such as have their bodies com- 

 posed of a series of rings or joints, comprising 

 the class of insects wliich have, all of them, in 

 the perfect state, six legs ; the class of spiders, 

 etc. (vtracAniVZw), which have almost all of them 

 eight legs ; the class of Crastaceans (crabs, 

 lobsters, crawfish, etc.), which have from ten to 

 fourteen legs; the class of thousand-legged 

 worms {Myriapoda^ , which have verj' numer- 

 ous legs, and the class of worms wliich have no 

 legs at all. The 3d grand branch is the Mol- 

 lusks (MoUusca), which have soft bodies, not 

 composed of distinct rings or joints; of these 



