OPINIONS ON MR. NEWMAN's SPHINX VESPIFOKMIS. 235 



Natures ; indeed, it is rather remarkable that, in describing 

 the former, he has employed the very expression which, in 

 the paragraph quoted above, is set in opposition to what is 

 called his Appia via: '^ Plantce omnes" says he, in his 

 " Philosophia Botanica," " utrinque qffinitatem monsirant 

 i(ti territorimn in Mappa Gcographicar How far a conti- 

 nuous systematic catalogue can ever be made, to afford a clue 

 to the intricacies of this map-like labyrinth, appears rather 

 dubious. 



Respecting the distribution of the animal kingdom (or, as 

 Mr. Newman terms it, first primary group) into seven sub- 

 kingdoms (kingdoms, Newm.), that gentleman has merely 

 ventured to give a supposition, that the Vertebrata will be 

 found to constitute a central seventh of all animated nature ; 

 at p. 54 (Sph. Vesp.) he, however, gives the Annulosa as 

 another of these first divisions. So that it is evident that the 

 remaining five subkingdoms must be formed from the residue 

 of the unvertebrated animals ; it will, however, be quite im- 

 possible to discover five such groups, which shall respectively 

 be of equal value with the Vertebrata and Annulosa. 



In like manner, the author has given no clue to his pro- 

 posed septenary distribution of the Annulose subkingdom into 

 classes (or, as he terms them, subkingdoms) ; it is true that he 

 considers the insects as forming the central one of the seven 

 Annulose classes ; and he is not unwilling to introduce the 

 Ametabola of Dr. Leach {Pediculi, &c.), into the outermost 

 circle of the Hemiptera ; so that his six remaining classes (or 

 subkingdoms) must be constructed from the Crustacea, Arach- 

 nicla, and Myriapoda ; but, if such a step were adopted, it is 

 equally evident that such six groups would not respectively 

 be of equal value, either with his group Insecta, or even with 

 the two divisions of insects adopted by some other naturalists, 

 Mandibulata and Haustellata. 



From the preceding paragraph, it will be seen, that the 

 author proposes to alter the value of those higher sectional 

 terms, which are tolerably well established ; of these the term 

 kingdom is so universally employed for animals, vegetables, 

 and minerals, that the innovation appears neither warranted 

 by necessity nor good taste. So also, in p. 21, he informs us 

 that he has invariably used the term class to designate the 

 orders of Linnaeus. If entomolooists of all countries arc 



