OF MANDIBULATA. 453 



Ray, Reaumur, Roesel, Bonnet, Lyonnet and Latreille, 

 which are all in some measure founded on Metamorphosis, 

 have become useless, both as dictionaries and as tables for 

 displaying those affinities which exist in nature. The cause 

 of their thus being inconvenient as artificial systems, while 

 they do not fulfill the object of the natural system, is, that 

 their inventors have all proceeded on the notion of the ex- 

 istence of absolute divisions in nature, and moreover have 

 all confounded relations of analogy with those of affinity. 

 To understand this, let us return to the classification which 

 I have attempted to give of Ecdysis. It has in this chapter 

 been divided and subdivided, and the division may perhaps 

 have helped to diminish the obscurity which may possibly 

 ever attach itself to the nature of metamorphosis. Yet if 

 any person, fancying that his ideas on the subject are be- 

 come more clear, should apply this classification of Meta- 

 morphosis to the classification of insects, a system from 

 his attempt will arise, confused and artificial to a degree 

 which is almost incredible till seen. For instance, if we 

 class together all Atinulosa which undergo that change 

 of form which I have made the second division of com- 

 plete Ecdysis, that is, the Metat7iorpho.se pariielte of La- 

 marck, a group is formed in which the Myriapoda, certain 

 Branchiopoda and Arachnida, the winged Orthoptera and 

 Hemipteta, are all combined. Again, taking the first divi- 

 sion of complete Ecdysis as the character, another group 

 in hke manner consists of the majority of Crustacea, Arach- 

 nida and Ametahola, with the apterous Orthoptera and 

 Ilemiptera. However manifest these two divisions may be, 

 and however well grounded on the classification of Meta- 

 morphosis, of which we have seen the importance in Aw- 

 nulose economy, they give origin to a chaos of confusion 



