Our Common Insects / A Popular Account of the Insects of Our Fields, Forests, Gardens and Houses

by A. S. Packard

In this family the body is long and slender, and the segments much alike in size. There is a pair of spiracles on each thoracic ring. The mandibles are long and slender, ending in three or four teeth, and with the other appendages of the mouth are concealed within the head, "only the tips of the palpi (and of the maxillæ when these are opened) projecting a very little beyond the rounded entire margin of the epistoma," according to Haliday. The maxillæ are comb-shaped, due to the four slender, minutely ciliated spines placed within the outer tooth. The labium in Japyx is four-lobed and bears a small two-jointed palpus. The legs are five-jointed, the tarsi consisting of a single joint, ending in two large claws. The abdomen consists of ten segments, and in Campodea along each side is a series of minute, two-jointed appendages such as have been described in Machilis. These are wanting in Japyx. None of the species in this family have the body covered with scales. They are white, with a yellowish tinge.

The more complicated genus of the two is Japyx (Fig. 153, Japyx solifugus, found under stones in Southern Europe; a, the mouth from beneath, with the maxillæ open; b, maxilla; d, mandible; c, outline of front of head seen from beneath, with the labial palpi in position) which, as remarked by the late Mr. Haliday (who has published an elaborate essay on this genus in the Linnæan Transactions, vol. 24, 1864), resembles Forficula in the large forceps attached to its tail. An American species (J. Saussurii) lives in Mexico, and we look for its discovery in Texas.

Campodea (C. staphylinus Westw., Fig. 154, enlarged; a, mandible; b, maxilla), otherwise closely related, has more rudimentary mouth-parts, and the abdomen ends in two many jointed appendages.

Fig. 155. Larva of Perla.

Our common American species of Campodea (C. Americana) lives under stones in damp places. It is yellowish, about a sixth of an inch in length, is very agile in its movements, and would easily be mistaken for a very young Lithobius. A larger species and differing in having longer antennæ, has been found by Mr. C. Cooke in Mammoth Cave, and has been described in the "American Naturalist" under the name of Campodea Cookei. Haliday has remarked that this family bears much resemblance to the Neuropterous larva of Perla (Fig. 155), as previously remarked by Gervais; and the many points of resemblance of this family and the Lepismidæ to the larval forms of some Neuroptera that are active in the pupa state (the Pseudoneuroptera of Erichson and other authors) are very striking. Campodea resembles the earliest larval form of Chloëon, as figured by Sir John Lubbock, even to the single jointed tarsus; and why these two Thysanurous families should be removed from the Neuroptera we are unable, at present, to understand, as to our mind they scarcely diverge from the Neuropterous type more than the Mallophaga, or biting lice, from the type of Hemiptera.

Haliday, remarking on the opinion of Linnæus and Schrank, who referred Campodea to the old genus Podura, says with much truth, "it may be perhaps no unfair inference to draw, that the insect in question is in some measure intermediate between both," i. e., Podura and Lepisma. This is seen especially in the mouth-parts which are withdrawn into the head, and become very rudimentary, affording a gradual passage into the mouth-parts of the Poduridæ, which we now describe.

The next group, the Podurelles of Nicolet, and Collembola of Lubbock, are considered by the latter, who has studied them with far more care than any one else, as "less closely allied" to the Lepismidæ "than has hitherto been supposed." He says "the presence of tracheæ, the structure of the mouth and the abdominal appendage; all indicate a wide distinction between the Lepismidæ and the Poduridæ. We must, indeed, in my opinion, separate them entirely from one another; and I would venture to propose for the group comprised in the old genus Podura, the term Collembola, as indicating the existence of a projection, or mammilla, enabling the creature to attach or glue itself to the body on which it stands." Then without expressing his views as to the position and affinities of the Lepismidæ, he remarks "as the upshot of all this, then, while the Collembola are clearly more nearly allied to the Insecta than to the Crustacea or Arachnida, we cannot, I think, regard them as Orthoptera or Neuroptera, or even as true insects. That is to say, the Coleoptera, Orthoptera, Neuroptera, Lepidoptera, etc., are in my opinion, more nearly allied to one another than they are to the Poduridæ or Smynthuridæ. On the other hand, we certainly cannot regard the Collembola as a group equivalent in value to the Insecta. If, then, we attempt to map out the Articulata, we must, I think, regard the Crustacea and Insecta as continents, the Myriopoda and Collembola as islands—of less importance, but still detached. Or, if we represent the divisions of the Articulata like the branching of a tree, we must picture the Collembola as a separate branch, though a small one, and much more closely connected with the Insecta than with the Crustacea or the Arachnida." Lamarck regarded them as more nearly allied to the Crustacea than Insecta. Gervais, also, in the "Histoire Naturelle des Insectes: Aptères," indicates a considerable diversity existing between the Lepismidæ and Poduridæ, though they are placed next to each other. Somewhat similar views have been expressed by so high an authority as Professor Dana, who, in the "American Journal of Science" (vol. 37, Jan., 1864), proposed a classification of insects based on the principle of cephalization, and divided the Hexapodous insects into three groups: the first (Ptero-prosthenics, or Ctenopters) comprising the Hymenoptera, Diptera, Aphaniptera (fleas), Lepidoptera, Homoptera, Trichoptera and Neuroptera; the second group (Ptero-metasthenics, or Elytropters) comprising the Coleoptera, Hemiptera and Orthoptera; while the Thysanura compose the third group. Lubbock has given us a convenient historical view of the opinions of different authors regarding the classification of these insects, which we find useful. Nicolet, the naturalist who, previous to Lubbock, has given us the most correct and complete account of the Thysanura, regarded them as an order, equivalent to the Coleoptera or Diptera, for example. In this he followed Latreille, who established the order in 1796. The Abbé Bourlet adopted the same view. On the other hand Burmeister placed the Thysanura as a separate tribe between the Mallophaga (Bird Lice) and Orthoptera, and Gerstaecker placed them among the Orthoptera. Fabricius and Blainville put them with the Neuroptera, and the writer, in his "Guide to the Study of Insects," and previously in 1863, ignorant of the views of the two last named authors, considered the Thysanura as degraded Neuroptera, and noticed their resemblance to the larvæ of Perla, Ephemera, and other Neuroptera, such as Rhaphidia and Panorpa, regarding them as standing "in the same relation to the rest of the Neuroptera [in the Linnæan sense], as the flea does to the rest of the Diptera, or the lice and Thrips to the higher Hemiptera."

After having studied the Thysanura enough to recognize the great difficulty of deciding as to their affinities and rank, the writer does not feel prepared to go so far as Dana and Lubbock, for reasons that will be suggested in the following brief account of the more general points in their structure, reserving for another occasion a final expression of his views as to their classification.