Insects. 2691 



was anomalous.* Now it will be at once obvious to entomologists, 

 that, in the relative development of wings and wing-bearing segments, 

 Stylops offers a peculiarly apt illustration of the theory to which I 

 have alluded : it exhibits the most beautiful and perfect harmony in 

 the relative development of these parts ; and this harmony is not con- 

 fined to a comparison of these parts in Stylops inter se, but extends 

 to a comparison of such parts in Stylops with corresponding parts in 

 other insects. Tn Stylops there is nothing anomalous either in the 

 proportion or disposition of these parts, — at least nothing more than 

 an unimportant discrepancy in degree : perhaps no other insect has 

 fore wings quite so disproportionately small, or a metathorax quite so 

 diproportionately large ; but beyond the excess of a character we have 

 no discrepancy worthy of comment. 



We have, then, to inquire in which of the established classes do we 

 find the comparative proportions which are excessive in Stylops. 

 In all the Coleoptera and a considerable portion of the Orthoptera — 

 such, for instance, as Phasma and Forficula — the fore wings are totally 

 powerless as organs of flight. In the normal groups of these two 

 classes — such, for instance, as Scarabasus and Gryllus — they are large 

 and conspicuous appendages, apparently designed to cover the hind 

 wings, while in Atractocerus and Phasma they merely exist in a rudi- 

 mentary form, in a state of uselessness and inactivity : now it is precisely 

 this state of uselessness and inactivity, carried — to use a somewhat 

 paradoxical expression — to its maximum, that we find so apparent 

 in Stylops. And here it may be adduced, — as an argument in recon- 

 ciling the proposed association of Stylops with such genera as Rhi- 

 piphorus, Sitaris and Apalus, which have much larger and almost 



* The patriarch of British Entomology was led to this conclusion by the gene- 

 ral accuracy of his draughtsman, from whose figure it appears that the appendages 

 which in this essay are called fore wings are really attached to the fore legs, and on this 

 character the order (a primary division of insects) was actually founded. Surely such 

 a conclusion may fairly call forth the following queries : — -first, if the fore legs of 

 any insect be furnished with such appendages, can these by any possibility be wings 

 at all? Suppose a Dipterous insect — a Tabanus for instance — to be discovered 

 having appendages exactly identical with the fore wings of Stylops, but positively 

 and obviously attached to the fore legs ; such a structure would perhaps justify the 

 characterizing of a new species, — a Tabanus pennipes or Tabanus lobipes, — but 

 nothing more. But, secondly, suppose the juxtaposition of the parts in question was 

 accidental only, the idea that they were attached traceable to a mere error of the pen- 

 cil, then does not the division (whether class, order, genus or species) founded on such 

 error fall to the ground ? 



