INTRODUCTORY. 1^7 



of land sti'etched out before him will probably be correct, 

 while at the same time he may be very inaccurate in the 

 details. These, before they merit confidence, at least re- 

 quire that more minute survey which as yet he has only 

 been able to bestow on a single spot. In like manner I 

 am now about to state the general appearance which na- 

 ture has presented to my view; but as to the details, I 

 would always, even where they relate to the peculiar ob- 

 jects of my study, the Petalocerous insects, rather ask the 

 experienced naturalist if they are not the facts, than say 

 to the inexperienced that they are. 



This part of my work therefore differs from the former in 

 as much as it takes more the character of an hypothesis, 

 and as such deserves more suspicion. It is not however an 

 hypothesis answering to Sir Isaac Newton's definition, 

 *' Quicquid ex phcEnomenis non deducitur ht/pothesis vocanda 

 est;" for it is entirely dependent upon observed facts 

 which its object is to connect. It is an hypothesis rather 

 because too few pha?nomena have hitherto been observed 

 by naturalists, than because any have yet been found to 

 contradict it. And though it may be evident that, in order 

 to ascertain the truth with accuracy, the plan pursued 

 in the former Essay, which is analytical, ought to be 

 adopted ; yet I imagine that when the present confused 

 and artificial state of arrangement is considered, the fol- 

 lowing remarks, with all their imperfections and inac- 

 curacies, will add to our knowledge of nature. 



In the former part of this volume I had a very convin- 

 cing proof of the accuracy of my observations on the Pe- 

 talocera, by the insects of this family which had hitherto 

 been considered anomalous, such as Lelhnis cephalotes, 

 Hy bosoms Arator, Anoplogiuithus vmdi-trmmf, &c., now 



