Works on natural history have divers objects in view, and may be intended either for popular and general distribution, or for special scientific purposes, and in each case the mode of treatment will materially differ. Many purposes may also be intended to be severally met in the strictly and rigidly scientific treatment. They may be either general methodical arrangements treated superficially, having no other design than to give a sort of bird’s-eye view of the subject in its wider distributions and broader landmarks, or they may treat of portions of the large subject more specially; again, they may constitute monographs of varying extent from a family to a genus; or they may comprise loose descriptions of new species of old and well-established genera; and some such, conjunctively with new species, establish likewise new genera, indicating, at the same time, their proximate position in the general series. The two latter classes are usually the appendages to voyages and travels in distant unexplored countries, or are the result of a careful collection of neglected tribes at home. Each, thus, with its special application has its special construction; but in the case of new species, I would strenuously counsel a full and complete description, and urge as imperative the construction of a specific character, formally framed to meet the condition of the science, based upon the precise antecedents and existing state of the genus to which such species belong.
Even assuming that the knowledge of species is the essential foundation of the science, the preceding observations show that there is a higher knowledge connected with the pursuit than this mere knowledge of species, and yet from which it emanates. There is a higher object to be achieved than the accumulation of a store of them, arranged in seemly order, set with manifest taste, and named in accordance with the accepted nomenclature. These are extremely pleasing to the eye, but the intellect languishes over them in unsatisfied desire, craving more solid aliment. There is besides room for observation on every side, either confirmatory or original, and both are much needed, and must be considerably augmented before it is accumulated in satisfactory abundance; and until this be procured, existing systems can be viewed merely as temporarily useful, for until all that nature can teach shall be exhausted, perfection cannot be attained.
The many kinds of knowledge which the study subserves, and the recreation and pleasure each affords, are a sufficient reply to the sneering Cui bono? of its detractors, who, when they urge that it occupies time which might be more profitably employed, present themselves but as the priests of the Fetish of the age, and may be told that we use it only as a relaxation to necessary worldly toils. When pursued, in cases where it can be so, in unmolested security, is there a more salutary pursuit than that which inculcates the high veneration and love which the study of nature should inspire towards the Great Parent of all? What can compete with it in other studies? The investigation of the works of the Almighty lead directly to the steps of the altar of religion, and there we find the study of the Works confirmed by the precepts of the Word, both inculcating humble reverence and fervent love. Thus pursued, is it not a reply to every cavil?
CHAPTER VII
BRIEF NOTICE OF THE SCIENTIFIC CULTIVATION OF BRITISH BEES.
With the great John Ray dawns the scientific cultivation of British bees. Before his time, the only entomological work which had been published in England was Dr. Mouffett’s ‘Theatrum Insectorum.’ In this work there is an ample account of the domestic bee, with gleanings from many sources of some of its habits and economy, but there is no notice of any insects, excepting some species of the genus Bombus, which may be at all consorted with the social bee by affinities of structure or identity of function.
In Ray’s correspondence with his disciples and friends, we have straggling observations upon the habits of a few wild bees, especially some jotted down by his diligent pupil, the distinguished Francis Willughby. It is in Ray’s posthumous ‘Historia Insectorum,’ published in 1710, at the instance of the Royal Society, that we first find collected together all that had been previously known of ‘British Bees.’ In that work he describes them systematically. He there arranges the bees into Apis and Bombylius, which may be regarded almost as genera.
He divides Apis into what may be considered as two sections, Apis domestica forming the first, and the second containing his Apes silvestres, or wild bees. Nine of these are described and numbered consecutively, which are followed by eleven descriptions unnumbered, some of the latter having been supplied to him by Francis Willughby, whose initials are attached to these, and amongst which we find the description of the willow bee, subsequently, from this cause, named by Kirby, from its original describer, and now universally known as Megachile Willughbiella.
Ray’s second genus is Bombylius, identical, as far as it goes, with the modern genus Bombus, excepting that it includes an Anthophora. He here describes nineteen, all numbered. Ray’s names are phrases, the mode of describing then prevalent in all the natural sciences, until the happy introduction of the binomial system by the great genius of natural history—Linnæus. These phrases are almost tantamount to the modern specific character; but Ray unfortunately attaches no size, yet size might have lent some aid to their modern determination.
Mr. Kirby was able to identify and introduce into his synonymy only a few of Ray’s insects, from the defectiveness of the descriptions; the following embrace all that could be verified:—