British Bees / An Introduction into the Studies of the Natural History and Economy of the Bees Indigenous to the British Isles

by William Edward Shuckard

The generic grouping is effected by structural peculiarities, which are essentially of a higher class than the characters of specific separation, these being determined by colour, pubescence, sculpture, etc. etc.; specific characters combining only individuals with such peculiar inferior resemblances. The generic characters thus establish groups of species allied only by such more general character and similarity, but conjunctively of one permanent habit, although the members of the genus may differ somewhat in habits, and so on of the higher groups into which insects are collected, each group in its ascent upwards presenting characteristics of a wider range than those of the descending series. And so, by degrees, we rise until we reach the characters which combine the whole order. The process is necessarily and imperatively synthetical, for the whole foundation is based upon species, and thence emanates the supposition that only species exist.

The type of a genus is that species upon the characters of which the genus was originally framed and named, and theoretically, however generic groups may be subsequently divided to suit views or to meet systems, the primitive generic type is assumed to retain the primitive generic name. It is much to be doubted whether, in every case, the type is the true pattern, or leader, or centre of the group called the genus; nor is it likely if genera be natural groups. It has usually been accident which has dropped upon the favoured species, and not a well-calculated and thoroughly digested selection, and which, although accepted, will require emendation or change if the whole collective series should ever be obtained.

It is the necessary result of the imperfection of our intellect, and one of the dominant conditions of overruling time, that one thing must follow the other. It is, therefore, neither an expressed nor even an implied inferiority that puts one species before the other in a generic group; or one genus before the other in their successive order. Affinities may lead both species and genera in varying directions, although treated descriptively as of linear succession, in which order they are usually arranged, but this is unavoidable and therefore not derogatory. It is for the mind to conceive their radiation from a type, or their parallelism with other forms, even in the connection of affinity, and not merely of analogy, for the latter can be expressed even in arrangement.

Thus encouragement attends the beginner at the very outset of his study, and the prospect of a wide field for discoveries, in all directions, lies open to him.

The Family, after the Genus, is the next natural group at which we arrive, proceeding synthetically. Its characters, succeeding to those of the Order, group together collectively the largest numbers of forms that in their several combinations are the most nearly equivalents, and may be almost paralleled in that quality to the alliance of species. Ascending from species, the naturalist scarcely hopes to find in the groups formed above them strict parallelism, although, to be logical, it should be so, and, where the combinations are most natural, it is most nearly so. Thus we do not again distinctly reach equivalents until we arrive at these families, which from linking together associations usually combined by an identity of instinct and functions, attach to themselves greater interest, and form alliances pointed out by the finger of nature itself, which are therefore exempted from the arbitrary caprice of the constructive systematist.

It does not follow that families should be even nearly numerically equivalent, for a family may contain a few or a multitude of genera and species, or a multitude of genera and few species, or also a multitude of species and few genera. Families comprise groups of forms to which nature delegates the execution of certain duties and offices, and whether specifically numerous or few, we may assume they are sufficient for the object intended. If we can reach the motive that controls the peculiarities of the group, it is a golden key to the explanation of the structure of its constituents, and, perhaps might furnish us, if not with a positive clue, yet with a surmise as to the functions of the collateral groups of which it forms a member, and which diligent observation may accurately determine.

Families, to be natural divisions, should stand in the same relationship to genera as species do, but from the opposite side, whatever the subdivisions are into which they may be separated, for the sake of convenience, and as descending grades whereby to arrive with greater facility at their genera, just as the species of the latter are also sometimes grouped, that they may be reached with greater ease. These subdivisions of families have no analogy with the varieties which species occasionally throw off, although they may be as irregular in their occurrence; that is to say, in the association of a group of families arranged in their series of most proximate affinities, the first may present subdivisions, others, in irregular occurrence, may not require them,—just as in the species of a genus, arranged also in the series of their closest resemblances, one will present a stringent adherence to the specific type, or all may do so, or all or some may have a tendency to vary. Groupings of species are, however, of a less natural character usually than are those of families, and generally are artificial, being capriciously made to break down long genera, that the required species may be more readily arrived at.

The characters which group families differ inter se. Thus in the Order Hymenoptera, the family of the bees is essentially framed upon their most distinguishing peculiarity—the tongue,—which in other families becomes of secondary importance. In some the neuration of the wings, their mode of folding, the form of the eyes, conjunctively with other peculiarities of general structure, etc. etc., which point to the differences in the economy that accompany all these, have successively the same prominent position which the trophi take in the family of the bees.

I have already recently alluded to the relations of affinity and analogy, and it is desirable that some notion of the meaning and bearing of these terms should be given, as, in the majority of modern works on natural history, use is frequently made of them.

On carefully surveying any class or order of creatures, the mind speedily becomes impressed by observing certain similitudes out of the direct line of continuous connection, and therefore remote from the strongest connecting links of positive relationship in the methodical series. Induced thence to inspect them more closely, we presently ascertain that what we at first conceived might be an error in their collocation, arises from very strong resemblances in certain particular features, but which are less important than those which directly unite them, and may not be permitted to interrupt the order established. It is, however, equally evident that they indicate relations which may not be neglected.