If you examine the definitions of his Classes, you will find them in a variety of cases calculated rather to mislead than to instruct a learner. Thus that of the Eleutherata would equally well suit the Piezata and several others: that of the Piezata is scarcely to be found in it; since in this the maxilla, instead of being corneous, is usually coriaceous[1426], and its lobe sometimes nearly membranous. In the Unogata he even mistakes the mandibles for maxillæ. Let any young Entomologist endeavour to make out the Fabrician class of a Cicindela for instance; and finding its maxillæ corneous and armed with a claw, he would conclude that it belonged to the Unogata rather than to the Eleutherata. Besides all this, the necessity of examining minute parts not easily come at without dissection, is very discouraging to a beginner.
From hence it is evident, that the system of Fabricius, considered as an artificial one or a method, was no improvement upon the classification of his master Linné, but rather a retrograde movement in the science.
As to that part of his system in which he professes to take nature for his guide, his genera,—though even with respect to them he seems fearful of following her too closely[1427],—he certainly has rendered most essential services to Entomology, and laid the foundation of all that has since been done for its improvement. But it must be observed, that the series of his genera is often altogether artificial; as where he separates and places far asunder the Saprophagous and Thalerophagous Petalocerous beetles.
Entomology, however, in other respects was deeply indebted to this great man. He first, as was lately observed, directed the attention of her votaries to parts which enabled them better to follow the chain of affinities, and to trace out natural groups. In his Philosophia Entomologica, drawn up on the plan of Linné's Philosophia Botanica, he bequeathed to the science a standard work that ought to be studied by every Entomologist. His incredible labours in defining new genera and describing new species, with which view he travelled into various parts of Europe, and seven times into Britain, have been of infinite service[1428], and placed the science upon a footing much nearer to that of Botany than it had ever before attained.
6. Era of Latreille, or of the Eclectic System. The system of Fabricius, though generally adopted in Germany and Switzerland, did not meet with a universal reception. It seems to have gained no permanent footing in the North of Europe, Britain, or France. In the latter country the Linnean phraseology and characters of the Orders were retained by the celebrated Olivier; while at the same time his definitions of genera were constructed, after the Fabrician model, upon the antennæ and the oral organs. But a new and brilliant genius had now appeared in France, whose indefatigable labours and singular talents have thrown more light over entomological science than those of all his predecessors. In 1796, about two years after Fabricius had completed his Entomologia Systematica emendata et aucta, M. Latreille published his Précis de Caractères Génériques des Insectes; in which important work, walking in the steps of his great compatriot Bernard de Jussieu, he disregarded all artificial systems of Entomology, and attempted to construct one upon a natural basis: and to this end, uniting the consideration of the instruments of manducation with that of the organs for flight and motion, and of other external characters,—or the system of Linné with that of Fabricius,—he became the founder of the modern or Eclectic system[1429]; for he judiciously adopted that sensible dictum of Scopoli, "Classes et Genera naturalia, non sola instrumenta cibaria, non solæ alæ, nec solæ antennæ constituunt, sed structura totius, ac cujusque vel minimi discriminis diligentissima observatio[1430]." His object has been in the above and subsequent works, by dividing his Classes into natural Groups, from the Order to the Genus, to trace out in all its windings, to its inmost recesses, the perplexing labyrinth of the true system of the Creator:—of what he has effected, the subjoined tables will give you a sufficient idea[1431].
1817.
| Class. | Order. | Family. | Tribe. | Subtribe. | ||||||||
| I. Crustacea. | ||||||||||||
| Territelæ. | ||||||||||||
| Tubitelæ. | ||||||||||||
| Sedintariæ | Inequitelæ. | |||||||||||
| Orbitelæ. | ||||||||||||
| Araneides | Laterigradæ. | |||||||||||
| Pulmonariæ | Vagantes | Citigradæ. | ||||||||||
| Saltigradæ. | ||||||||||||
| Pedipalpæ | ||||||||||||
| II. Arachnida | Scorpioides. | |||||||||||
| Pseudoscorpiones. | ||||||||||||
| Entoma | Tracheariæ | Phalangita. | ||||||||||
| Holetra | Trombidites. | |||||||||||
| Acaridia | Riciniæ. | |||||||||||
| Hydrachnellæ. | ||||||||||||
| Microphthiræ. | ||||||||||||
| 1. Myriapoda | Chilognatha. | |||||||||||
| Chilopoda. | ||||||||||||
| 2. Thysanura | Lepismenæ. | |||||||||||
| Podurellæ. | ||||||||||||
| 3. Parasita | Mandibulata. | |||||||||||
| Edentula. | ||||||||||||
| III. Insecta | ||||||||||||
| 4. Suctoria. | ||||||||||||
| 5. Coleoptera. | ||||||||||||
| 6. Orthoptera. | ||||||||||||
| 7. Hemiptera. | ||||||||||||
| 8. Neuroptera. | ||||||||||||
| 9. Hymenoptera. | ||||||||||||
| 10. Lepidoptera. | ||||||||||||
| 11. Rhiphiptera. | ||||||||||||
| 12. Rhiphiptera. |
1825.