Our Common Insects: A Popular Account of the Insects of Our Fields, Forests, Gardens and HousesPackard, A. S. (Alpheus Spring)
Science
Our Common Insects: A Popular Account of the Insects of Our Fields, Forests, Gardens and Houses
Packard, A. S. (Alpheus Spring)
Insects
[Footnote 9: Nicolet, in the "Annales de la Societe Entomologique de
France" (tome v, 1847), has given us the most comprehensive essay on the
group, though Latreille had previously published an important essay, "De
l'Organization Exterieure des Thysanoures" in the "Nouvelles Annales du
Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, 1832," which I have not seen.
Gervais has also given a useful account of them in the third volume of
"Apteres" of Roret's Suite a Buffion,
published in 1844.
The Abbe Bourlet, Templeton, Westwood, and Haliday have published
important papers on the Thysanura; and Meinert, a Danish naturalist, and
Olfers, a German anatomist, have published important papers on the
anatomy of the group. In this country Say and Fitch have described less
than a dozen species, and the writer has described two American species
of Campodea, C. Americana, our common form, and C. Cookei, discovered by
Mr. C. Cooke in Mammoth Cave, while Humbert has described in a French
scientific journal a species of Jupyx (J. Saussurii) from Mexico.]
[Footnote 10: The direct homology of these parts of the head (the
occiput and the epicranium) with Perla, Forficula, etc., seems to me the
best evidence we could have that the Podurae are not an independent
group. In these most fundamental characters they differ widely from the
Myriopods. I am not aware that this important relation has been
appreciated by observers.]
[Footnote 11: As we descend to the soft, tube-like, suctorial (?) mouth
of Anura, which is said not to have hard mouth-parts, we see the final
point of degradation to which the mouth of the Thysanura is carried. I
think that this gradual degradation of the mouth-parts in this group
indicates that the appendages in these animals are not formed on an
independent type, intermediate, so to speak, between the mandibulate and
haustellate types, but are simply a modification (through disuse) of the
mandibulate type as seen in Neuropterous insects.]
[Footnote 12: Lubbock considers that Papirius should be placed in a
distinct family from Smynthurus, because it wants tracheae. Their
presence or absence scarcely seems to us to be a family character, as
they are wanting in the Poduridae, and are not essential to the life of
these animals, while in other respects Papirius seems to differ but
slightly from Smynthurus.]
[Footnote 13: Dr. Laboulbene has recently, and we think with good
reason, separated Anura maritima from the genus Anura, under the name of
Anurida maritima.]
CHAPTER XIII.
HINTS ON THE ANCESTRY OF INSECTS.
[Illustration: 177. Pentastoma.]
[Illustration: 178. Centipede.]
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