228 Prof. J. C. Schiódte on the Morphology 
At the same time, this order has, during the last two or three 
decennia, been worked up with predilection by a number of . 
specialists, to whose untiring and in part very meritorious ex- 
ertions we are indebted for an astonishing increase in the num- 
ber of described species. "The isolated merely descriptive treat- 
ment of the contents of the different museums, however, has had 
its usual consequences: the classification has become a mere 
register of specific characters; the distinction between its cate- 
gories has been rendered evanescent; and it has ceased to re- 
flect the typical unity of the morphological variations. So 
ar from the true understanding of the structure and life of the 
animal having been furthered, the state of our knowledge, on 
the contrary, as may be seen by consulting the newest and 
most used manuals, has receded several steps behind the stand- 
pe to which the leading works of thirty years ago had 
rought it. In the following, however, we shall confine our 
investigation of the present classification to those cardinal 
points which come into consideration in establishing the 
scheme which we propose. 
. The very first point in the morphology of Rhynchota, which 
is of primary systematic importance, is erroneously stated by 
all the authors that I am acquainted with. 
The two natural suborders Homoptera and Hemiptera are 
in their whole habitus so distinct that even the most super- 
p 
fundamentally different in the two orders, of which accordingly 
one, the Heteroptera, often were described as Frontirostria, 
whilst Homoptera were described as Gulcrostria. In the 
former case the rostrum was supposed to take its origin from the 
epistoma, in the second case from the underside of the head— 
hypostoma. This view is undoubtedly at variance alike with 
common sense and the first elements of a scientific appreciation 
of the structure of the head in Articulata. It is true that it 
has been adopted by men of scientific spirit and knowledge, 
like Latreille, Dufour, Burmeister, and others, who cannot 
possibly have been ignorant of the fact that the parts of the 
mouth in all cases have their basis on morphologically the 
same parts of the head, whatever position these parts may 
occupy in the general outline of the animal, rp toe to the 
exigencies of its structural combinations. But these zoolo- 
