Martyn Lister, and Francis Willoughby. After tracing out the gradual improvments of the illustrious Swede in the hymenopterous class, as they appear in the successive editions of his Systema Naturæ, our author gives a brief view of what has since been done in it by Scopoli, Geoffroy, the Baton de Geer, Schrank, Fabricius, Gmelin, Roemer, and Latreille. He scrutinizes with a searching eye the system of Fabricius in particular, as far as relates to his inmediate subject, and concurs in opinion with his friend, the author of the preceding article, that the instrumenta cibaria will not afford sufficient discriminating characters even for an artificial arrangement. He does not scruple to assert that this celebrated entomologist is inaccurate in his descriptions of the very parts on which he has founded his system, and that he frequently pays no regard to them in the construction of his species.

"It must," he concludes, "be evident that this author has committed perpetual mistakes in the genus in question. That in the arrangement of species, instead of abiding by his own character, in a class of in

sects in which the instrumenta cibaria are

very easy to be examined, he has been led solely by habit, or rather prima facie appearance: that he has done the utmost violence to nature; uniting distinct genera and families, and separating those that are most nearly related, even the sexes; placing the males in one genus, and the females in ancther, though both have the same oral instruments; and instead of order and true system, introducing the greatest confusion

and disorder."

We have observed with concern that through the whole of this introductory essay, Mr. Kirby departs from his asual accuracy in calling the hymenopterous insects a class, not considering that in the Systema Naturæ, the insects constitute a class in the animal kingdom, and that its divisions are, in the language of Linnæus, orders. We must approve of the term, families, applied to the subdivisions of the genus, and could wish that the subdivisions of the orders, whenever they occur, were uniformly called sections. We

should then have a distinct appellation for every division, from the highest to the lowest.

These may be thought minute criticisms; and, connected with a work like the Monographia Apum Angliæ, they certainly are so bu: the very excellence of the work renders them necessary. Ac

curacy and uniformity in the use of technical terms, are always of the highest consequence in every branch of science.

The first part of the monographia consists of a tabula synoptica nomenclaturæ partium, with a full definition of each term in Latin, and such further observations in English as may tend to give clearer ideas of their purport and propriety. This table, with a few slight alterations, the author believes, may be made to agree with all hymenopterous insects.

The second part fixes the characters of the genera and their respective families. When Mr. Kirby first applied to this subject, he thought of denoting all the species by one generic character, but the more he studied them, the more he was convinced that they belong to two natural genera, and was confirmed in the idea, when he found that Reau. mur, and after him De Geer, had adopted the same opinion, though they did not sufficiently extend the limits of the genus, which they denominated proa Beille, or apes minus proprie dicte. This Mr. Kirby has called melitta, the Attic dialect of 62, the Greek name for aps, which itself is pre-occupied in bo tany. The characters which form the most striking distinctions of both, are furnished by the tongue. The essential character of melitta is, " Aculeus punctorius. Lingua apice brevis, porrecta, planiuscula, vagina subcylindricâ. Of apis: "Aculeus punctorius. Lingua elongata, inflexa." Then follow artificial and natural characters of each; the whole drawn up with admirable distincness and precision.

The account of the method which our excellent naturalist pursued in dividing his genera into families, is so truly origi nal, and discovers such marks of superior genius, that, notwithstanding its length, we cannot resist the temptation of presenting it to our readers at large: and we are the rather inclined to select it, because, if we mistake not, it will illustrate some observations which we have already made in our review of Dr. Shaw's General Zoology.

Wise Author of Nature, who is a God of order, has not subdivided these genera, and impressed certain common characters upon such subdivisions, by which one who studies his works under no influence but the love of truth, and led by the single desire of finding out his system, might be enabled to arrange them according to their natural affinities.

"My first step was to place together all those individuals, which appeared to me to agree in habit, adopting the sentiment of Linnæus, that habit would often lend a clue to discover nature. At first, of course, I made many mistakes, often placing, as all who, with Fabricius, rely solely on habit for the arrangement of species will inevitably do, the males in one subdivision, and the females in another. By pursuing this method, however, I got my species into some order, and they were arranged, the above great mistake excepted, very nearly according to their natural affinities. I then proceeded to examine the proboscis, and external anatomy of those which were found to agree in habit, and by this method I soon arrived at their distinguishing characters, and was enabled to detect those marks, exclusive of the organs of generation, which are the constant characteristics of the males in these genera. I found that some of those insects which I had considered as belonging to distinct families, had invariably one joint more in their antennæ, and generally one segment more in their abdomen than others; that their bodies were proportionably narrower ; and their antennæ and legs longer and more slender. It soon occurred to me that these were only sexual distinctions, an idea which was confirmed by pressing the anus of such as I had an opportunity of taking alive, and inspecting their genitalia. The mistake

above alluded to was in this manner rectified; and, instead of confusion, lucid order now took place in my arrangement. Thus, beginning with habit, and ending with anatomy and economy; descending from generals to particulars, and then tracing back my steps from particulars to generals; using both the synthetical and analytical modes of reasoning, as mathematicians speak, by a series of observations and experiments, frequently repeated, I was enabled to trace the labyrinth of nature, and, by the assistance of this double filum Ariadneum, to establish my system upon a sure basis. I do not pretend, however, to have exhausted the subjeet; much will still remain to be done; and much improvement may be given to what is here attempted, by those who possess the opportunity of examining the exotic species of these two genera; but, I hope, I have opened the way for the discovery of the natural arrangement.

FAMILIARUM S. ORDINUM SYNOPSIS.
Melitta.

• Linguâ obtusâ.

2. Ventre femineo hirsuto.
a. Palpis omnibus biarticulatis.
B. Palpis exterioribus exarticulatis.
y. Palpis interioribus exarticulatis.
S. Palpis exterioribus 4-articulatis.
d. Proboscide rectâ, apice subulato-co-
nica; palpis exterioribus 6-articu-
latis.

1. Laciniis interioribus involutis, exteri-
orum longitudine.

2. Laciniis interioribus rectis, quàm exteriores brevioribus.

a. Labio quadrato inermi.

B. Labio emarginato, tuberculo munito.
e. Proboscide subinvolutâ, palpis exteri
oribus exarticulatis.
1. Corpore villoso.

2. Corpore hirsutissimo.

"I could have wished that there had been more connection and harmony between the and that it had been in my power to have characters of the different families of apis, drawn them all from variations of the same part, but this was not possible, without doing the utmost violence to nature. To make this evident to the satisfaction of the judicious naturalist, I will draw out a scheme of an artificial division of the species of this genus, in which all the characters of the family, and their subdivisions, shall be taken from the exterior and interior palpi, and he will see what confusion will be the result.

*

Palpis exterioribus biarticulatis. a. Palpis interioribus biarticulatis. b. Palpis interioribus exarticulatis. ** Palpis exterioribus exarticulatis.

"This scheme looks very fair and harmonious upon paper, but if we arrange our apes according to it, our cabinets will exhibit a scene of confusion and discord. Apis violacea and its affinities, will be separated from the bombinatrices, to which they are most nearly allied, and be placed by the side of the vespiform nomada, which they resemble in nothing but the number of the articulations of the exterior palpi: the whole natural family distinguished by an inflected lip, will be broken up, and apis manicata, and variegata, will go into the same family with the bombinatrices."

It appears to us that this division of the genus apis, founded solely on the palpi, does not bring together more discordant species than we find incongruous genera in the Linnæan orders primates and bruta, of the class mammalia, founded entirely on the structure of the teeth. In both, simplicity is the only recommendation. And we apprehend that our author's statement affords sufficient proof, that nature, excursive as she indisputably is, cannot be confined to one narrow path by the fences of artificial theory. Simplicity, it will be allowed, is a beauty, and one of nature's striking characters. But that simplicity is always combined with a boundless variety which demonstrates the infinite fulness of its great Creator; and compels every observer who is possessed of true taste and feeling, to admire and adore the consummate wisdom which, by diversified means, is continually carrying on one immense system, and advancing by just degrees, every individual work to its true perfection.

The history of the different families abounds in curious and interesting matter, partly taken from the best authorities, and partly the result of the author's personal observation. Many of these we should be tempted to extract, did the limits of our work admit. Let the following note suffice.

to the crabo u. flavum of Hedwig, and were much struck with the very stimulating effluvia of æther which issued from it, when slightly pressed. This insect is extremely common upon umbelliferous plants, and might, with care, be collected in considerable numbers. Few entomologists are ignorant that a delightful odour of roses is diffused by cerambyx moschatus; this is sometimes so copious as to fill a whole apartment. One family, when pressed between the fingers, emit a powerful, and, at the same time, agreeable odour, resembling the scent of balm, or rather dracocephalum moldavicum. Many others have a strong scent, in some approaching to that of garlick or onion. The same remark may be extended to a num ber of ichneumons, which enit a most powerful, but, at the same time, not very agreeable scent. A most singular mixture of the odour of spices, with something indescribably fœtid, proceeds from staphilinus brunipes, Fab. The universal use of melce vesicatorius, 'the most active of stimulants, is a sufficient and well known proof of the powerful effects which insects are capable of producing on the human frame. A circumstance which ought to encourage us to proceed further into the virtues of which they may be possessed. The ancients seem to have had recourse to more than one species in medicine, for the heliocantharus or scarabæus solaris, which was, probably, the scarabæus pilularis of Linnæus, is said to have been a remedy in quartan agues."

To these remarks we may add, that some species of coccinella, the well known cow lady, pressed between the fingers, and applied to the disordered part, has been lately recommended as a certain cure, or, at least, lenitive of the tooth-ache.

This part is concluded with magnified figures, and distinct explanations of the separate parts of an insect in each genus and family.

The third part is a synopsis specierum, and the fourth, which is considerably the largest, contains synonyms of authors, references to figures and English museums, detailed descriptions, sometimes of the aculeate, sometimes of the male sex, and sometimes of both in Latin, and miscellaneous observations in English. The miscellaneous observations are generally critical, but sometimes contain other interesting infor mation.

Annexed to the melitta nigro-aznea, we have the following curious account.

previously more than once observed upon other species, something that I took to be a kind of acarus, which appeared to be immovably fixed just at the inosculations of the dorsal segments of the abdomen: at length, finding three or four upon a specimen of melitta nigro-ænea, I determined not to lose that opportunity of taking one off to examine and describe; but what was my astonishment, when, upon my attempting to disengage it with a pin, I drew forth from the body of the melitta, a white, fleshy larva, a quarter of an inch in length; the head of which I had mistaken for an acarus.

"After I had examined one specimen, I attempted to extract a second, and the reader may imagine how greatly my astonishment was increased, when, after I had drawn it out a little way, I saw its skin burst, and a head as black as ink, with large staring eyes, and antennæ consisting of two branches, break forth, and move briskly from side to side. It looked like a little imp of darkness, just emerging from the infernal regions. When it was completely disengaged, and I had secured it from making its escape, I set myself to examine it as accurately as possible, and I found, after a careful inquiry, that I had not only got a non-descript, but also an insect of a new genus, whose very class seemed dubious. From its mode of life, it ought to belong to the Linnæan genus ichneumon in the hymenoptera; but it has neither stemmata nor four rings, and its palpi are not at all similar From its elytra (which, however, are placed in a very extraordinary situation, being fixed to the sides of the thorax) it ought to be a coleopterous insect, but it seems to possess but little of the general habit and character of that class; perhaps, it had better be considered as hemipterous; but till an opportunity occurs of examining more specimens, it would be rash to speak too positively on this head,"

to those of the insects of that class.

Mr. Kirby has given it the generic name stylops, on account of its pedunculated eyes, and has described it at large.

The work closes with excellent coloured figures of a whole insect in each of the families, with an alphabetical index of trivial names, and another of synonyms. In the index of trivial names, the Linnæan species are, very usefully, printed in capitals; those of Fabricius and others, in roman; and those which are new, in italic characters of the latter there are one hundred and nineteen, which Mr. Kirby considers as certainly non-descript, besides a few distinguished by an asterisk, of which he has some doubt. If we may judge

derived

from 7 to speak" says our author in a note, p. 119. vol. I. "seems to direct us to the tongue for its essential character." As names in mother languages are generally significant, it is highly probable that this name was given to the bee, on account of its humming noise, and conveyed the idea of a speaking insect. But surely our first great progenitor, and all the ancient inhabitants of the world, had too little knowledge even to form an idea of an essen tial character. Those dreams of a particular class of diviners, we flattered ourselves were nearly exploded. For if the principle which they take for granted be just, and it be allowed that the Hebrew bible contains in itself a cyclopæ dia of science, we must apply ourselves assiduously in the investigation of its roots, instead of studying the writings of Newton, Haller, Linnæus, and their illustrious coadjutors, in order to become acquainted with the system of nature. And if we had no other clue to the knowledge of the essential characters of a horse, a bull, a sheep, &c. but what is to be sought in the primitive signification of their Hebrew names, we are inclined to think that Hutchinson himself, the Corypheus of this kind of literature, notwithstanding his hyperchemical skill of extracting almost any essence he pleased from a Hebrew root, would have been completely puzzled.

We would not willingly be thought deficient in a reverence for the sacred writings. We believe that they contain the word of God, and apply to them for direction in all matters of religious faith and practice: but we cannot conceive that they are intended to teach us phi losophy. Such a purpose would not, in our estimation, be dignus vindice nodus;