4QO ANALYSIS. 



upon the erroneous basis of preconceived characters for 

 division. So that, because his philosophical idea of a ge- 

 nus was perhaps natural, he considered his genera, as he 

 has instituted them, to be the same. Yet if this great na- 

 turalist, instead of commencing with any rule from the an- 

 tennas or other solitary organs, had placed together in a 

 group all those insects which agreed in a majority of cha- 

 racters and habit, — if he had then endeavoured to discover 

 that character which was common to them all, he would 

 probably have had a group which might have been called 

 a natural genus without much error. Far from leading 

 him to indulge any idea of absolute division, the " notcz 

 aberr antes" would then have rendered such species a& they 

 distinguished the most valuable of all, as tending to point out 

 to his notice the neighbouring genus. And this Linnaeus 

 appears indirectly to have perceived ; for when he says that 

 it is no argument against the validity of a genus, that some 

 species should gradually quit its type, there seems reason 

 to believe that his theoretical notion of genera may, with- 

 out any inconsistency, be reconciled with his maxim, that 

 no saltus exists in nature^ which is positively contradicted 

 by his genera, as they are instituted. 



An example was given in the appendix to the former 

 Essay, of a genus containing five types of form, the pro- 

 gression of which returns into itself. This genus, Phanauis, 

 was there proved to be distinguished by a peculiarity of 

 geography, as well as of construction and appearance, 

 while the genus Scarabceus, as there developed, was con- 

 sidered to be probably artificial, like almost every other 

 that has hitherto been instituted in Entomology. Now to 

 show, if possible, by analysis, that there were grounds for 

 this suspicion ; to show that Phanaits is by no means a 



