OPINIONS ON MR. NEWMAN's SPHINX VESPIFORMIS. 233 



notice in his Mon. JEgeriar.), was an extension of the confu- 

 sion. I am the more willing to add my testimony upon this 

 subject, because I perceive, from the 33d page of the first 

 number of this Mag,, that the Fabrician nomenclature has 

 since been retained, notwithstanding its incorrectness. 



I was glad to perceive {Spli. f'esp. p. G) that an attempt 

 was about to be made, in the subsequent pages of the " Sphinx 

 Vespiformis," to discover the situation of a small group of 

 insects, whose economy as well as structure had rendered 

 them a very decided group amongst the species of Crepuscular 

 Lepidoptera, with which they had been associated; having 

 felt surprise that, in proposing the twenty-five groups into 

 which Dr. Horsfield had distributed the five tribes of Zf^??- 

 do/jtera, this most natural group had been dismissed in the 

 following passage: — " The divisions do not embrace /Egeria, 

 and several other genera, commonly arranged amongst the 

 SjihingidcE , which, if my observations are correct, have a 

 different metamorphosis, and will probably, at least in part, 

 find a place in the next tribe," {Bomhycida', divided into five 

 forms, to one of which the name of Lignivorcc was given, 

 with Pygcera, Cossus, and Hepiahis, as its types), " but this 

 remains for future discussion." Lep. Jav. p. 23. Mr. Ste- 

 phens had likewise noticed the approach of the Sphinx Ajjt- 

 formis towards the Bomhycida;. 



The corroboration of the circularity of natural groups and 

 the existence of a central primary typical subgroup, supposed 

 {Sph. Vesp. p. 13 — 17) to be afforded by the plan of the 

 solar system, does not appear to me to be entitled to much 

 weight. In like manner, is it not presumptuous in endeavour- 

 ing to discover the plan according to which the Creator dis- 

 tributed natural objects, even to suppose that He whom the 

 heaven of heavens cannot contain should have assigned 

 himself, a situation in a system of His creatures ? And yet 

 this is the only way in, which we can construe Mr. Newman's 

 'introduction of the subject (p. 14). So also the endeavour to 

 uphold a 'given . number of groups in natural history from 

 passages of ;Scripture, and the reference of a septenary arrange- 

 ment (with one seventh superior to the others) to the result 

 of the six days' creation and the seventh day of rest, appears 

 equally improper. I had hoped, after the caustic remarks of 

 Mr. MacLeay upon this subject, that naturalists would not again 



NO. III. VOL. I. H H 



