The Cambridge natural history, Vol. 05 (of 10)Sedgwick, Adam
Science
The Cambridge natural history, Vol. 05 (of 10)
Sedgwick, Adam
Animals
The interest aroused in the minds of naturalists by the comparatively
simple forms of these purely wingless and therefore anomalous Insects has
been accompanied by much discussion as to their relations to other Insects,
and as to whether they are really primitive forms, or whether they may
perhaps be degenerate descendants from some less unusual states of
Insect-life. Mayer and Brauer dissociated our Aptera entirely from other
Insects, and proposed to consider the Hexapoda as being composed of two
groups—(1) the Apterygogenea, consisting of the few species we have been
specially considering; and (2) the Pterygogenea, including all the rest of
the immense crowd of Insect forms. They were not, however, able to
accompany their proposed division by any satisfactory characters of
distinction, and the subsequent progress of knowledge has not supported
their view, all the best investigators having found it necessary to
recognise the extremely intimate relations of these Insects with the
Orthoptera. Meinert thought that _Lepisma_ must be included in the
Orthoptera; Grassi proposes to consider the Thysanura as a distinct
division of Orthoptera; and Oudemans recognises the close relations
existing between _Machilis_ and Orthoptera proper. Finot includes the
Aptera in his Orthoptères de la France, and a species of _Japyx_ has
actually been described by a competent entomologist as an apterous earwig.
At present, therefore, we must conclude that no good distinction has been
found to justify the separation of the Aptera from all other Insects.
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