On the Variation of Species, with Especial Reference to the Insecta: Followed by an Inquiry into the Nature of GeneraWollaston, Thomas Vernon
Science
On the Variation of Species, with Especial Reference to the Insecta: Followed by an Inquiry into the Nature of Genera
Wollaston, Thomas Vernon
Insects; Variation (Biology)
But let us glance at the subject through the medium of an example, and
endeavour to realize what would be the consequence of that wholesale
combination at which we must sooner or latter arrive, if genera are
not to be upheld because they slowly merge into each other as we
recede from their respective types. The immense department _Carabidae_,
of the Coleoptera, is eminently a case in point. In the details of
their oral organs the _whole_ of that family display (as I have
elsewhere[82] remarked) so great a similarity _inter se_, or rather
shade off into each other by such imperceptible gradations, that the
_tendency_ which various clusters of them possess to assume
modifications of form which attain their maximum only in successive
centres of radiation, must oftentimes be regarded as _generic_, if we
would not shut our eyes altogether to the natural collective masses
into which the numerous species (however gradually) are, in the main,
so manifestly distributed. It is possible indeed that, as our
knowledge advances and new discoveries take place, we shall so far
unite many of the consecutive nuclei which are now considered pretty
clearly defined, that we shall be driven at last _either_ to accept
the Linnaean genera only, or else the entire host of subsidiary ones
(albeit perhaps in a secondary sense) which are, one by one, being
expunged. And, since under the former contingency the _determination
of species_ would become practically well nigh hopeless, it is far
from unlikely that we shall eventually hail the latter as, after all
(at any rate to a certain extent), the more convenient of the two.
Look, for instance, at the great genus _Pterostichus_, which has
nearly 200 representatives in Europe alone: true it is that its
several sections (_Poe cilus_, _Argutor_, _Omaseus_, _Corax_,
_Steropus_, _Platysma_, _Cophosus_, _Pterostichus_ proper, _Abax_,
_Percus_, and _Molops_), although easily recognized in the mass, do
unquestionably blend into each other; yet I believe that it has arisen
from a too rigid promulgation of the generic theory that they have not
been retained as separate. And this opinion may be rendered somewhat
more plausible, from the knowledge that certain of the _Pterostichi_
(the Argutors, for instance) approach so closely, in their trophi, to
_Calathus_, as to be hardly discernible from it; which latter genus is
scarcely distinguishable (structurally) from _Pristonychus_,--a form
which, in its turn, leads us on towards another type. Who would have
imagined, again, some fifty years ago, that the widely distributed
groups, _Calosoma_ and _Carabus_, were not thoroughly detached _inter
se_? yet what naturalist _now_ can draw an exact line of demarcation
between them? And so it is with numerous others, which it is needless
to recall. The practical inference, however, from the whole, is this:
_that if genera must be rejected because they are not homogeneous and
isolated throughout, the only ones that will remain are those which
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account