Insects. 1803 



the foetal, compared with the adolescent larvae of all those insects, 

 cannot escape observation, and appears an especial provision of 

 nature for the preservation of each ; myriads must perish, without 

 ever possessing a chance of accomplishing the first, or fcetal ecdysis, 

 or metamorphosis. When, with the cautious and scrutinizing eves 

 of entomologists, we compare the structure of these three larva?, we 

 find them to possess distinctive characters, whereby each may be rea- 

 dily known from either of the others. It is not my object to conceal, 

 or to palliate these differences, but rather to invite attention to their 

 careful examination and due appreciation ; for, supposing, as I do 

 suppose, that they are related, by certain analogies in structure, pre- 

 sent economy, and subsequent metamorphosis, still, I neither contend 

 nor imagine that that relation is sufficiently near to warrant our plac- 

 ing them consecutively in any arrangement : the genera Apalus, 

 Symbius, Ripidius (if distinct), Myodites (or Myodes), Ripiphorus, 

 and many others, some known, and others yet to be discovered, inter- 

 mix with that group to which Stylops, Sitaris, and Meloe appear to 

 belong, and in all probability, intervene between them. I would, 

 however, invite especial attention to the fact, that the discrepancy 

 among these fcetal larvae is not more strongly marked between the 

 genera Stylops and Meloe, or between Stylops and Sitaris, than it is 

 between Sitaris and Meloe ; indeed, in the last instance it is most ob- 

 servable ; and yet no one will doubt the existence of an approach 

 between the two last-named insects ; an obvious parity in econo- 

 my, metamorphosis, habit, and structure : so that the discrepancy of 

 the Stylops-larva from either being less than their mutual discrepancy, 

 cannot be availed of as an objection to the association of the three : 

 but, since its presence rather harmonizes the group, rather increases 

 than diminishes, the general uniformity of the group, and since it will 

 enter no other group in Coleoptera or any other class, because none 

 other possesses any parity of structure, economy and metamorphosis 

 combined; and none other a marked parity of either structure, 

 economy or metamorphosis, we have no option in a metamorphotic 

 system where to locate Stylops; we must place it in the necromor- 

 phous class Coleoptera, and in that division of the class in which the 

 parasitic heteromerous beetles have been associated by universal 

 consent. 



In opposition to this view, should it be contended that the para- 

 sitism of Stylops and Meloe are not identical, Stylops being internal, 

 I am willing to admit the fact, but not the objection ; for in this re- 

 spect Stylops and Symbius agree, although Symbius and Meloe dif- 



