58 
REVIEWS. 
and head is the generous and grateful testimony he has borne to the un¬ 
grudging aid and cordial reception that he found in this and other coun¬ 
tries of Europe, which he visited in the course of the exploratory studies 
necessary for the work he had undertaken. Among the petty squabbles of 
little minds, which sometimes ruffle disagreeably the lighter surface of the 
u scientific world,” it is refreshing to have such a hearty attestation of the 
genuine and disinterested sympathy which, we trust, deeply imbues the 
greater peaceful mass, and shines so pre-eminently in the unfading wreath 
that encircles the most honoured and the dearest names in the realms of 
Natural History. 
The modifications which Burmeister’s views of classification have under¬ 
gone, both as to the orders of insects in general, and the family of 
Lamellicornia among the Coleoptera in particular, are very suggestive 
of instruction, appearing, as they do, to be rather the natural deve¬ 
lopments of a principle, determined by different degrees of evidence 
acquired, than vacillations of judgment, such as we trace in the successive 
varying arrangements of Latreille, high as we estimate his rank among the 
founders of genuine entomological science. In this article, however, we 
shall confine our view to the later volumes of the Manual, and to the 
arrangement of the Lamellicornia, the broad lines of which, laid at first in 
close accordance with the views of the illustrious author of the Horae 
Entomologicae, have, in the sequel, converged so much more nearly towards 
the plan traced out by Erichson, that the close concurrence of two such accu¬ 
rate observers and sagacious reasoners may be considered sufficient to super¬ 
sede the division drawn by MacLeay, according to the difference of nutri¬ 
ment and of the oral organs (Thalerophaga and Saprophaga), in favour 
of another, founded chiefly on the segmentation of the abdomen, and the 
position and relative development of the spiracles which open in that region 
of the body. Thus, Burmeister’s two grand sections, Phaneropyga and 
Stegopyga, nearly correspond to Erichson’s Pleurosticti and Laparos- 
ticti, the Xylophila ( Oryctes , &c.) being in both transferred from their 
place among MacLeay’s Saprophaga to the association with his Thalero¬ 
phaga. The principal difference between Burmeister and Erichson is in 
respect to the Glaphyridce (the group somewhat modified from that insti¬ 
tuted by MacLeay), which compose for Burmeister the main body of the 
Anthqbia, the second family of the Phanerophyga ; while by Erichson 
they have been associated with his Laparosticti. Of the other families of 
that first section, the Melitopiiila B. correspond to the Cetonlule E., 
the Xylophila B. to the Dynasties E.; while the Phyllophaga B. 
comprehend the Melolonthidas E. and Kutelidas E. ; but in the further 
