238 OPINIONS ON MR. newman's sphinx vespiformis. 



introduced, and the uniformity of the figure, as well as the 

 imaginary value of the number, destroyed. Homoptera, 

 Dennaptera, and Strepisiptera, seem also to claim an equal 

 rank. 



Second. That the class Neuroptera is related to each of 

 the other six classes. Let us try this also. In order to make 

 good his position, Mr. Newman places Psyche, a genus of 

 moths, with his subclass, Phryganea, in Neuroptera, and 

 thus connects Lepidoptera and Neuroptera ! He next fancies 

 a relationship between the Kphemera; and the gnats, because 

 " they dance together in the sunshine ! " This is as profound 

 reasoning as that by which " the erroneous Rennie" })roves 

 antennae to be ears, — a piece of besotted ignorance which you 

 have very laudably exposed. This is the mode of connecting 

 Neuroptera and T>'iptera ! The white ants in Neuroptera 

 (being larvas) are supposed to be related to the common ants 

 in Hymenoptera (being perfect insects), because both build 

 houses ! No relation between Coleoptera and Neuroptera is 

 attempted ; but the next class, Orthopiera, is robbed of a 

 genus, Mantispa, which is placed in Neuroptera for the sake 

 of making a relation between these two. Lastly, Aphis, in 

 Hemiptera, meets Psocus, in Neuroptera, and there seems, 

 in this single instance, to be a distinct analogy. To sum up, 

 two of these relations depend on genera being misplaced ; two 

 more on accidental similarity in habits ; a fifth on analogy ; 

 and the sixth is, even by the ingenious author, not attempted. 



Third. That the central class, Neuroptera, is any way a 

 type of the others, cannot be for a moment upheld. Mr. New- 

 man has not descended to any explanation of this ; he must 

 have been well aware that any thing that could have been 

 urged in favour of such a proposition must have been met with 

 instant refutation. 



This is a fair view of the Newmannian theory, — system I 

 cannot call it : it is lamentable that entomologists shall have 

 regarded it as entitled to serious consideration; it bears its 

 refutation on its very face ; and yet the author tells one, with 

 the coolest effrontery, that " no one," but himself, " since 

 the days of Linnaeus, has ever thought at all," and speaks as 

 though he were perfectly confident that " that great arcanum, 

 the syslema naturcc,'' were at length discovered. 



I sec Mr. Newman's name so prominent in your Magazine, 



