18 
PROCEEDINGS OF SOCIETIES. 
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE. 
It has occurred to me, on looking over these notes again, that the points of 
comparison selected, and the estimate formed of them, must be so much in¬ 
fluenced by the view entertained as to the succession of the orders, that I should 
explain myself on this head. Not aspiring to originality, which, that it may rise 
above mere fancy, must be based on a comprehensive knowledge of every order, 
or spring out of that intuitive perception granted to few, I adopt the general 
view indicated by Germar in the article Diptera of the Universal Encyclopasdia, 
by Ersch and Gruber, considering that it tends more nearly than any other to 
unite the alary, metamorphotic, and tarsal systems, in a nearly harmonious pro¬ 
gression. The cibarian system alone suffers a rude shock from it; and this is of 
so much moment that I have chosen to represent the connection of the orders by 
a recurrent series or circular diagram, which can be resolved into a linear series 
Pediculina. Coccina. 
i. HEMIPTERA, 1. 
Physapoda. 
ii. NEUROPTERA, 6. vi. DIPTERA, 2. 
Labidura. 
iii. COLEOPTERA, 5. v. LEPIDOPTERA, 3. 
Strepsiptera. 
iv. HYMENOPTERA, 4. 
either by the alary system, or the cibarian, according as we break the con¬ 
tinuous circle before or after the order Hemiptera; and then a diameter pro¬ 
duced from the intersection to the opposite circumference will represent a dicho¬ 
tomy of the class corresponding to each of those respectively. Such a dichotomy 
was a principle of the cibarian system of Eabricius, which, according to the 
reactive power of words, has been perpetuated by Clairville’s happily chosen 
terms Mandibulata and Hanstellata, as much, perhaps, as by the actual contrast 
between the systems of oral composition, and more than by any positive internal 
congruity as regards one of the groups. The alary system commenced with an 
equivalent dichotomy by Aristotle, retained by most who have adopted the 
broad conception of the system, and is indicated here on the grounds that 
Germar has specified, without attributing much importance to the division, or 
precision to the line of demarcation. 
I am disposed to accede to the opinion rather than the arguments of Agassiz, 
that the most perfect development of insect organization is to be sought among 
the Haustellate orders, and am not prepared to dissent from his designation of the 
Lepidoptera for the representative.* If determined, indeed, to attribute an 
unqualified predominance to the alary characters, some plausible arguments 
might be urged in favour of the Coleoptera, to which, separately, Oken 
attributed a rank co-ordinate with the two other great sections (which com¬ 
prised for him the rest of the class of insects), and a grade of development 
superior to the rest; in which latter point only his followers in general are 
agreed with him. In fact, the position to be assigned to this order is, perhaps, 
the most difficult problem in the whole of this arrangement; the grade of meta¬ 
morphosis, and the prevalence of the pentamerous type in the tarsi, raising it 
above the Neuroptera and Hemiptera, while the essentially heterogenous wings 
militate against such an intermediate place for it in a linear series. It is even 
difficult to designate with confidence the typical element of the order itself; 
the very perfect organization of the Lamellicornia almost outweighing the 
general considerations that might lead us to look for that type in the Heteromera. 
The Neuroptera have been a more obvious stumbling-block to systematists, from 
the great variation of their characters in general, and the absence of any one 
invariable essential mark. Hence the successive dismemberments, Orthoptera , 
* The classification of insects from embryological data ; vol. 2 of Smithsonian 
contributions to knowledge, a.d. 1851. 
