HISTORY OF ENTOMOLOGY. 543 
that instead of enlarging the entrance to the temple of 
his science, it has made it narrower, and has placed 
most discouraging impediments in his way. 
If you examine the definitions of his Classes, you will 
find them in a variety of cases calculated rather to mis- 
lead than to instruct a learner. Thus that of the Eleu- 
therata would equally well suit the Piezata and several 
others : that of the Pzezata is scarcely to be found in it; 
since in this the maxilla, instead of being corneous, is usu- 
ally coriaceous*, and its lobe sometimes nearly membra- 
nous. In the Unogata he even mistakes the mandibles 
for maxille. Let any young Entomologist endeavour to 
make out the Fabrician class of a Cicindela for instance; 
and finding its maxillse corneous and armed with a claw, 
he would conclude that it belonged to the Unogata rather 
than to the Eleutherata. Besides all this, the necessity of 
examining minute parts not easily come at without dis- 
section, is very discouraging to a beginner. 
From hence it is evident, that the system of Fabricius, 
considered as an artificial one or a method, was no im- 
provement upon the classification of his master Linné, 
but rather a retrograde movement in the science. 
As to that part of his system in which he professes to 
take nature for his guide, his genera,—though even with 
respect to them he seems fearful of following her too 
closely ®,—he certainly has rendered most essential ser- 
vices to Entomology, and laid the foundation of all that 
has since been done for its improvement. But it must be 
2 Latreille Gen. Crust. et Ins. iti. 214. 
» With respect to Natural Genera he says—“Cavendum tamen 
ne nimis imitando naluram systematis amittamus filum Ariadneum.”’ 
Tbid. §. 6. 
