clxxxii Proposed Division of Neuroptera 



endeavouring to re-arrange and harmonize its contents, they have cut 

 off here and there a group which appeared to them peculiarly aberrant, 

 thinking that they had thereby reduced the residue into a more homo- 

 geneous mass. Our most profound systematists have thus separated 

 groups from the Neuroptera, and raised them to an equal rank with 

 the heterogeneous residue, which they have left united. As instances 

 I may mention De Geer, Fabricius, Dumeril, Kirby, MacLeay, Hali- 

 day, Brulle, Laporte Count de Castelnau, &c, who, under the names 

 of Elinguia, Odontata, Stegoptera, Trichoptera, Megaloptera, Thy- 

 sanoptera, Isoptera, Raphioptera, Anisoptera, &c, have separated 

 one or other of the integral portions of the class. To criticise the 

 labours of the men whose names I have here enumerated, would be 

 altogether out of place in one who is proud to rank himself as their 

 disciple ; but it cannot be overlooked that the concurrent testimony 

 of these profound and original thinkers is against the integrity or ho- 

 mogeneity of Neuroptera, although each has sought a different remedy 

 for an evil equally manifest to all. 



My own idea, broached many years ago, is, that the character of va- 

 riety in structure and metamorphosis, which all have assigned to the 

 Neuroptera, and which, for want of a better, I must leave attached to the 

 Anisomorpha, is not only insufficient but unphilosophical; and though 

 still at a loss to find satisfactory characters for the imago, I think there 

 is no doubt that the varied metamorphosis affords the means of divid- 

 ing the group into two good and equal divisions. That these divisions 

 should not be of the same extent as the other classes of Tetraptera, 

 indeed, that they should be more intimately related, and should pos- 

 sess a great and structural resemblance in the perfect state, appears 

 to me in no way to militate against the necessity for their separation, 

 but simply to establish their central position among Tetraptera, a sub- 

 ject which it is not the object of the present paper to discuss ; neither 

 do I consider it needful to explain away the addition of an eighth di- 

 vision to this important group, although I am thus setting aside, at 

 least to all appearance, the prevalence of the number seven. The fol- 

 lowing formula is that which I now beg to offer to the notice of ento- 

 mologists, as desirable to adopt in this division of Entomology. 



INSECTA TETRAPTERA. 



Pupa amorphous AMORPHA. 



Wings normal, scaly Lepidoptera. 



Fore wings normal, hind wings abnor- 

 mal, club-shaped Diptera. 



