PROCEEDINGS OF SOCIETIES. 
9 
that all other men knew as much; and then that I should wish no more. I 
now doubt that I would venture to accept the offer; I fear knowledge un¬ 
wrought for is not to be desired. All useful and superior knowledge indicates 
and requires superior work. It is true some men have from nature greater 
fitness than others for acquiring knowledge, but when w T e look at the many who 
arrive at eminence by perseverance, against the greatest natural disadvantages, 
none need despair. Huber, a blind man, has given us the very best account of 
bees and ants. In our own college we know a classical tutor who never saw a 
letter. With such examples, may not those who have been favoured with the 
ordinary advantages of humanity hope to do great things. I know no good 
reason why a second Aristotle may not arise from amongst us. It is true we are 
not likely to have another Alexander for a scholar, to lend us the aid of some 1,500 
men, and 800 talents; but we have an advantage above this, we have what still 
remains of Aristotle’s own unrivalled works, which prove that as zoologist, and 
moral philosopher, &c., he has had no peer. We have all that has since been 
done, and we have his method, which was to observe facts with attention, to 
compare them with judgment, and to endeavour to arrive at general laws by 
their study. Let us follow his plan. 
A. H. Haliday, Esq. A.M., M.E.I.A, Y.P. of the Association, then read the 
following paper 
ON THE AFFINITIES OF THE APHANIPTERA AMONG INSECTS. 
It is not intended by this title to prejudge the question to which it refers ; 
neither will I presume to deduce any categorical conclusion on the question, 
whether the group of fleas should obtain a place as a distinct order, or be asso¬ 
ciated with some of the orders of the Linnean system, as this is now accepted in 
its modified form. I propose rather to add from my own observations some little 
fresh materials for the use of better qualified judges. And the term Aphaniptera 
for the group is here adopted, simply as that best known to British entomolo¬ 
gists, having been employed both by Curtis, Stephens, and Westwood, following 
Kirby, who first imposed the name. A few preliminary remarks may not be 
out of place here, historically regarding— -first, the anatomy and natural history 
of these insects, and, secondly , the rank and place that have been variously 
assigned to the group in the system. 
The physiology of insects had early shared the attention of philosophers. We 
must suppose that the mocking humour of the comic poet was not aimed at a 
purely imaginary butt, when he commended ironically the astuteness of Socrates 
in devising an empirical method of measuring the leap of a flea.* In after and 
better times, as Kirby and Spence have remarked, this has been done without in¬ 
curring ridicule, and it has been estimated at two hundred times the length of the 
insect itself, and thirty times its height.f As if a horse should clear Nelson’s 
pillar at a flying leap, and cover a quarter mile of ground at the stride. The 
item is not without its interest in estimating the measure of muscular force in 
animals; since, probably, few stronger instances of its intensity could be adduced. 
And Leeuwenhoek has demonstrated the muscular fibres of the ox to exceed 
those of the flea in diameter by four times only4 The earliest authentic biological 
observation that we possess, touching the group, is to be found, like so many 
others, in the pages of the great Stagyrite. Aristotle knew the progeny of the flea 
to be a maggot,§ but not having followed out its history, he attributed to the 
insect a sort of “ equivocal generation,’’ such as continued to be a common and 
* ipvWav o7rooovg dXXoiro ryg avrrjg 7r odag Aristopbanis Nubes act. 1, 
sc. 2. 
f Kirby and Spence, Introduction to Entomology, vol. 2, p. 315 ; Latreille 
Hist. Nat. des Insectes Tome 2. p. 410. 
t Opera, Tom. 4, Epist. Phys. 37. a.d. 1719. 
§ 2 fcwA» 7 Ka£ yf^wdi, Aristoteles de Generatione animalium 1. 1, c. 16. 
