ENTOMOLOGY. 



64; 



insects are too insignificant to deserve the attention of 

 the philosopher." But allowing these benefits to be un- 

 known, and that the study of entomology is not produc- 

 tive of any substantial advantages, how absurd would it 

 still be to treat such an extensive portion of the creation 

 with neglect ? The objection, that they are in nowise 

 conducive to our interests (even if founded in truth), 

 would be no evidence of the frivolity of the science, 

 unless we are to conclude, that the only inquiries which 

 merit our rational attention are those which tend to the 

 gratification of selfishness. If this be admitted as an 

 objection, how many objects of philosophical investiga- 

 tion must be rejected as frivolous ! From the earliest 

 period in which the light of natural knowledge dawned, 

 this class of animals has obtained considerable attention ; 

 and although the study has not at all times been cul- 

 tivated with equal ardour, yet we shall hereafter be 

 enabled to prove that it has not been utterly neglected, 

 but has engaged the study of men endowed with talents 

 as splendid, and judgment as refined, as the most exalted 

 of those who affect to treat it with contempt. 



HISTORY. 



From the earliest period of which any authentic re- 

 cords remain, this science has obtained a very consider- 

 able portion of attention ; but the total destruction of the 

 great public libraries, has deprived us of the means of 

 ascertaining to what state this branch of science had at- 

 tained, till within about 2000 years of the present time. 

 We shall now endeavour to lay before the reader an 

 account of these works ; and, as we deem the subject of 

 importance, shall, as far as our limits will allow, men- 

 tion every work, however slight, which has been pro- 

 ductive of any material information ; at the same time, 

 we wish it to be understood, that we do not consider it 

 necessary, or within our province, to enter at large upon 

 a critical analysis of the multitude of writings before us, 

 but only such as we have had an opportunity of consult- 

 ing with attention, describing the leading intention of 

 their authors respectively, which we shall enumerate as 

 nearly as possible in chronological order. 



Some books appear to have been written prior to the 

 date of those which have descended to us, as we infer 

 from various hints recorded in the earliest of those works 

 now extant. 



The oldest records on this subject are to be found in 

 the sacred writings, where mention is made of locusts, 

 flics, and caterpillars ; and it is probable Moses had ac- 

 quired a slight knowledge of this science from the 

 Egyptian sages, as his works abound with passages re- 

 lating to insects ; and amongst the obsolete works of 

 Solomon, he is said to have treated of « creeping 

 things." 



Hippocrates, who lived about 500 years before Christ 

 (as we are told by Pliny), wrote on insects. The writ- 

 ings of the earlier Greek and Latin philosophers, quoted 

 by Pliny, afford extracts of his labours. 



Aristotle flourished in the succeeding age. He wrote, 

 amongst many other works, a History of Animals, an 

 elementary book, giving a general and comprehensive 

 view of the animal creation; but he rarely descends to 

 the description of species. It is a work of the greatest 

 merit, which no one can impartially peruse without con- 

 fessing the intimate knowledge its writer must have pos- 

 sessed of nature. The insect class is treated of in seve- 

 ral parts of his work. In the seventh chapter of his first 



book, we find the term hrtfut is that of a family, which 

 constitutes one of his four orders of animals with colour- 

 less blood. These animals he terms exsanguineous ; 

 and, in his definitions, he points out, with great accuracy, 

 in what they differ from the other three divisions of this 

 class, viz. Mollusca, Crustacea, and Testacca. In the 

 first chapter of the fourth book, we find the essential 

 characters more clearly given, namely, the incisions on 

 the back or belly,"t>r both, by which their bodies appear 

 to be divided into two or more parts. In another part of 

 his book, more particularly devoted to insects, he des- 

 cribes them as having three parts, the head, trunk, and 

 abdomen : the second part is denominated an interme- 

 diate portion, corresponding with the back and breast of 

 other animals. He also adds, they have feet. In sub- 

 sequent passages, he describes insects which fly, and 

 those that walk. Amongst the former, he notices those 

 with naked wings, and those covered with a sheath ; and 

 he observes, that some of these have the sheaths divid- 

 ed, and others immovably connected. The naked wing- 

 ed insects are of two kinds, some with four, and others 

 with two wings. Some of those with four naked wings 

 are furnished with slings at the extremities of their 

 bodies, whilst those with two are destitute of this appa- 

 ratus. He describes, with attention, the horns (antenne) 

 of the butterflies and locusts. When noticing the legs, 

 he remarks, the leaping feet of the locusts, which he 

 compares to those of springing animals. The accuracy 

 with which this learned philosopher has described the 

 various parts of these animals, cannot but astonish the 

 learned entomologist ; he will be surprised at their con- 

 sistency. Their accordance with the entomological de- 

 finitions of the modern systematists, will excite further 

 comparison ; and the natural result will be, that, With 

 the acquired knowledge of 2000 years, so far as he does 

 proceed, we, until lately, have been unable to amend his 

 observations. A cursory perusal of the whole work will 

 show, that whatever might be the merits of this great 

 man, his writings evince too much acquaintance with 

 the science of nature to be the produce of any individual 

 genius, shining with unborrowed light; for, when we 

 reflect on the slow manner in which all human know- 

 ledge is developed, we are readily convinced that the 

 science of nature must have made some considerable ad- 

 vancements before his time ; and that he has derived 

 considerable assistance from the works of more ancient 

 naturalists. 



jElian, in his work on animals, iTe^} £am, appropriates 

 several chapters to insects, without entering into the 

 system at large, confining himself to particular kinds ; 

 and those noticed are described with attention, as crick- 

 ets, the generation of wasps, of cantharides, S<c. 



Amongst the Greek writers who immediately, or with- 

 in a few centuries, followed Aristotle, treating on insects, 

 were Democritus, Neoptolemus, Philistus, Nicander, 

 Herodius, with many others of less note. These writers 

 were probably cotemporary with Pliny ; and, during 

 the same period, several Latin writers seem to have 

 been induced to pursue this science, through the in- 

 fluence of the Greeks, who were insensibly led to it from 

 attending to the culture of bees, which at that time was 

 attended to with the most enthusiastic ardour. Aris- 

 tamachus of Soli is said to have written on the subject, 

 from the result of fifty years experience ; and Philiscus 

 to have employed his whole life in forests and deserts 

 attending to their history. 



Pliny, in the eleventh book of his Historia JVatttralh, 



