148 Mr. W. S. MacLeay on the Anatomy of the 



whole of our received anatomical nomenclature.* Mr. Kirby's object 

 indeed is apparently to distinguish organs instead of tracing their varia- 

 tion ; and thus, so far from generalizing, he has even invented new names 

 for the same organs as they occur in different insects, f How far this 

 may be necessary in the present state of our science it is not for me to 

 say : but it is very sure that an elementary work on comparative anatomy 

 ought to reduce the number of terms as much as possible, as well on ac- 

 count of promoting the philosophy of the science as of facilitating a study, 

 the great objection to which now is the multitude of its technical 

 terms. The most serious objection, nevertheless, to Mr. Kirby's nomen- 

 clature is the violent change of universally received names of parts with- 

 out any sufficient reason,;}: nay, often for some fanciful § or even errone- 

 ous cause 1|. If such innovations are to be sanctioned, all our classical 



* M. Audouin only gives names to parts that were not named before. This 

 author is quoted once in a note of the Introduction to Entomology, but it is 

 only in order to blame him for a fault of which I cannot understand how he 

 should have been guilty. 



f As for instance, where tegmina on the authority of Illiger, elytra, and 

 hemelytra, are assigned as different names to the alee superiores of Insects as 

 they occur in different orders. There was so much inconvenience before with 

 the two words elytra and alee superiores to signify the same organs, that it 

 certainly did not require to be doubled. But this extraordinary ambition to 

 burden the science Avith new words reigns, unfortunately, throughout a work, 

 that is in many other respects highly meritorious. 



J Thus we have promuscis substituted for rostrum, which, to say the least, 

 is any thing but an improvement. 



§ Thus we have manus for tarsus on the supposed authority of Moses, and 

 a host of similar instances. It is worthy of observation, that if any of the six 

 feet of ScarahcBus alacer deserve the name of hands, it must be the posterior 

 pair of feet, so far as their ofSce is concerned. How different is this from M, 

 Audouin, who in inventing the name trochantine for a piece never before 

 named, regrets that he is obliged to use a word taken from human anatomy. 



II Such as nasus for clypeus. Were the clypeus proved to be the organ of 

 scent, there would even still be no necessity for changing an universally re- 

 ceived name that gives rise to no erroneous idea; and this is more than can be 

 said for the proposed alteration. There is some reason to imagine that the 

 organs of smelling are in the head, but none whatever for their being in the 

 clypeus. In Musca, indeed, it niMy be urged that they are above the clypeus, 



