i88o.] 
A Change of Front. 
5 6 9 
Have their hues and their designs been elaborated in order 
that, after the lapse of myriads of years, some naturalist on 
board a Challenger or a Novara might dredge them up and 
be charmed with their appearance ? We find the fossil re- 
mains of insedts, Buprestidcz, Malachii, Monanthia, and 
others, described in Heer’s “ Primaeval World of Switzer- 
land.”* We have good reason to conclude, from their simi- 
larity to living members of these groups, that these creatures 
were beautiful, and we may even argue from their existence 
to that of a stately and beautiful vegetation. But did this 
beauty arise and pass away in order that its existence might 
be inferentially ascertained by a few zoologists in the nine- 
teenth century ? There are other fossils displaying exquisite 
designs concerning which it has been well remarked that 
not even Paley’s watch-maker Deity would “ contrive ” 
beauty in the Cretaceous epoch in order that a few traces of 
it might be detected in the Post-tertiary. Again, as a cor- 
respondent not long ago pointed out,t if we take the hoof 
of an ox, cut a thin section of it in certain directions, and 
examine it under the microscope with the aid of polarised 
light, a wonderful play of colour meets our eye. “ Will any 
teleologist maintain that the texture of such hoofs was 
‘contrived’ with reference to the fact that, after expiry of 
many thousand years, a few microscopists should detect all 
this beauty ?” 
Further, many of the most lovely organic forms, espe- 
cially animal, are decidedly rare. The adventurous naturalist 
finds them in situations where human foot has never before 
trodden. Nay, some thinkers even assert, though in my 
opinion wrongly, that rarity is an essential feature in what 
we regard as beauty. Something of this notion appears to 
underlie the very word “ homely,” which our forefathers 
applied to objects not perhaps positively ugly, but occupying 
a neutral position. “ Homely ” surely means that which 
surrounds us in our daily life, or, in other words, that which 
is common. It is further to be noted that the most nume- 
rous species, whether animal or vegetable, those which meet 
us everywhere, are precisely the least beautiful, and often 
the most pernicious. The least attractive and the most in- 
jurious of our native butterflies are the cabbage whites. 
Among the commonest beetles rank the cockchafer and 
those “ clickers ” whose larvae are dreaded as wireworms. 
The most numerous of all insedts are the house-fly. the 
* See Journal of Science, 1877, P- 257. 
f See Journal of Science, 1880, p. 343. 
