Advanced Microeconomics Learning Materials For

Phd Students Karolina Sobczak Krzysztof Malaga

download

https://ebookbell.com/product/advanced-microeconomics-learning-
materials-for-phd-students-karolina-sobczak-krzysztof-
malaga-44146474

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Amsco Advanced Placement Microeconomics Teacher Resource Nick Anello

https://ebookbell.com/product/amsco-advanced-placement-microeconomics-
teacher-resource-nick-anello-35628366

Amsco Advanced Placement Microeconomics Nick Anello Woody Hughes

https://ebookbell.com/product/amsco-advanced-placement-microeconomics-
nick-anello-woody-hughes-35628368

Amsco Advanced Placement Macroeconomics Tracy Lowd

https://ebookbell.com/product/amsco-advanced-placement-macroeconomics-
tracy-lowd-35628360

Amsco Advanced Placement Macroeconomics Teacher Resource Tracy Lowd

https://ebookbell.com/product/amsco-advanced-placement-macroeconomics-
teacher-resource-tracy-lowd-35628364
Advanced Microeconomics Harald Wiese

https://ebookbell.com/product/advanced-microeconomics-harald-
wiese-38490374

Advanced Microeconomics For Contract Institutional And Organizational

Economics W Bentley Macleod

https://ebookbell.com/product/advanced-microeconomics-for-contract-
institutional-and-organizational-economics-w-bentley-macleod-43031372

Advanced Placement Economics Microeconomics Gary L Stone

https://ebookbell.com/product/advanced-placement-economics-
microeconomics-gary-l-stone-46865952

5 Steps To A 5 Ap Microeconomics Macroeconomics 20082009 Edition 5

Steps To A 5 On The Advanced Placement Examinations Series 2nd Edition
Eric Dodge

https://ebookbell.com/product/5-steps-to-a-5-ap-microeconomics-
macroeconomics-20082009-edition-5-steps-to-a-5-on-the-advanced-
placement-examinations-series-2nd-edition-eric-dodge-1994308

Advanced Microeconomic Theory 2nd Geoffrey Alexander Jehle Philip J

Reny

https://ebookbell.com/product/advanced-microeconomic-theory-2nd-
geoffrey-alexander-jehle-philip-j-reny-2219624
 Krzysztof Malaga
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu
poleca następujące książki z serii Materiały Dydaktyczne:
Karolina Sobczak 367

Elżbieta I. Szczepankiewicz, Kontrola wewnętrzna i audyt wewnętrz-

ny w jednostkach, wyd. 3 zm., nr 366

Krzysztof Malaga, Karolina Sobczak • ADVANCED MICROECONOMICS

Elżbieta I. Szczepankiewicz, Rachunkowość instytucji finansowych.
Zbiór zadań, wyd. 2 zm., nr 365

Anna Iwańczuk-Kaliska, Paweł Marszałek (red.), Vademecum usług

bankowych, nr 364 ADVANCED
MICROECONOMICS
Leszek Czapiewski, Marek Kaczmarski, Jarosław Kubiak, Jacek
Mizerka (red.), Zarządzanie ryzykiem finansowym, nr 363

Leszek Czapiewski, Józefa Gryko, Jarosław Kubiak, Joanna Liziń-

ska, Finanse przedsiębiorstw, nr 362
Learning materials
for Ph.D. students
Książki można nabywać w Księgarni PWN – Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny
w Poznaniu (Collegium Altum, I piętro)
ul. Powstańców Wielkopolskich 16, 61-895 Poznań
tel. 61 854 31 48
e-mail: [email protected]
ISBN 978-83-8211-070-8
poznan.ksiegarnienaukowe.pl
367

9 788382 110708 PUEB PRESS

 367

Krzysztof Malaga
Karolina Sobczak

ADVANCED
MICROECONOMICS
Learning materials
for Ph.D. students

PUEB PRESS

POZNAŃ 2021
EDITORIAL BOARD
Barbara Borusiak, Szymon Cyfert, Bazyli Czyżewski, Aleksandra Gaweł (chairwoman),
Tadeusz Kowalski, Piotr Lis, Krzysztof Malaga, Marzena Remlein, Eliza Szybowicz (secretary),
Daria Wieczorek

COVER DESIGN
Weronika Rybicka

MANAGING EDITOR
Marta Dobrecka

© Copyright by Poznań University of Economics and Business Press

Poznań 2021

eISSN 1689-7412
eISBN 978-83-8211-070-8
eISBN 978-83-8211-071-5

POZNAŃ UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS PRESS

ul. Powstańców Wielkopolskich 16, 61-895 Poznań, Poland
phone: +48 61 854 31 54, +48 61 854 31 55
www.wydawnictwo.ue.poznan.pl, e-mail: [email protected]
postal address: al. Niepodległości 10, 61-875 Poznań, Poland

DTP: Michał Krawczyk

Printed and bound: Poznań University of Economics Print Shop

ul. Towarowa 53, 61-896 Poznań, Poland, phone: +48 61 854 38 06, +48 61 854 38 03
Table of contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 5

Chapter 1. Static and dynamic Marshallian demand function and its properties ...................... 6

1.1. Static Marshallian demand function ................................................................... 6

1.2. Dynamic Marshallian demand function ............................................................ 26

1.3. Basic concepts ................................................................................................. 33

1.4. Exercises ......................................................................................................... 34

Chapter 2. Models of competitive equilibrium ..................................................................... 37

2.1. Simple model of exchange ............................................................................... 37

2.2. Static Arrow-Hurwicz model ........................................................................... 42

2.3. Dynamic Arrow-Hurwicz model ...................................................................... 52

2.4. Basic concepts ................................................................................................. 67

2.5. Exercises ......................................................................................................... 67

Chapter 3. Monopoly – determining optimal price and optimal output ................................. 69

3.1. Static approach ................................................................................................ 69

3.2. Dynamic approach ........................................................................................... 77

3.3. Basic concepts ................................................................................................. 84

3.4. Exercises ......................................................................................................... 84

Chapter 4. Quantity and price competition in duopoly ......................................................... 87

4.1. Cournot duopoly model ................................................................................... 87

4.2. Stackelberg duopoly model ........................................................................... 106

4.3. Bertrand duopoly model ................................................................................. 120

4.4. Basic concepts ............................................................................................... 136

4.5. Exercises ....................................................................................................... 136

Chapter 5. General equilibrium models in the Walras sense ............................................... 143

5.1. Market model with exogenous functions of supply and demand ..................... 143

5.2. Arrow-Debreu-McKenzie model.................................................................... 152

3
 5.3. Basic concepts .............................................................................................. 170

5.4. Exercises ....................................................................................................... 171

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 173

References ......................................................................................................................... 174

Figures .............................................................................................................................. 176

Tables ................................................................................................................................ 179

4
Introduction
Contemporary textbook literature on microeconomics is dominated by excellent English-
language textbooks. Their rankings are made on the Internet. They can be found, among others,
at https://bookauthority.org/books/best-microeconomics-books, 100 Best Microeconomics
Books of All Time, 10 Best New Microeconomics Books to Read in 2021 and
https://wiki.ezvid.com/best-microeconomics-textbooks, the Top 10 Microeconomics Textbooks.
To this set it is worth adding textbooks (Acemoglu, Laibson, & List, 2019) along with didactic
materials from MyLab Economics (Porter, 2008; Emerson, 2020). In these teaching materials,
we refer to our own textbooks (Malaga, 2010, 2012; Malaga & Sobczak, 2020). Supplementary
literature consists of: Anholcer (2015), Begg, Fisher and Dornbusch (2007), Eatwell, Milgate
and Newman (1989), Gleißner (2016), Jacques (2006), Kreps (1990), Malinvaud (1969),
O'Brien and Garcia (1971), Ostoja-Ostaszewski (1996a, 1996b), Panek (2003), Rochet and
Freixas (2007), Sydsaeter and Hammond (2008), Tokarski (2011a, 2011b), Varian (1995).
The content of the learning materials is strongly related to the neoclassical synthesis
trend, referring to the research results of the following Nobel laureates in economics: Paul
Samuelson (1970), John Hicks, Keyneth Arrow (1972), Gérad Debreu (1983) and others. We
decided that it is worth providing doctoral students of the Doctoral School at the Poznan
University of Economics and Business with knowledge related essentially to competitive and
general equilibrium in the sense of Léon Walras.
The study contains elements of the theory of demand, market structures, competitive
and general equilibrium in the Walras sense.
In Chapter 1 we focus our attention on Marshallian static and dynamic demand
functions. Chapter 2 deals with the simple model of exchange, as well as the static and dynamic
Arrow-Hurwicz models (discrete- and continuous-time). In Chapter 3 we discuss the static and
dynamic models of the monopoly with an exogenous product demand function, which is the
basis of quantity and price competition models in the static and dynamic Cournot, Stackelberg
and Bertrand duopoly and oligopoly models presented in Chapter 4. The study culminates in
Chapter 5 in which we synthesize the general equilibrium theory of Léon Walras on the basis of
static and dynamic models with exogenously defined demand and supply functions and static
and dynamic Arrow-Debreu-McKenzie models with endogenous defined functions of demand
and supply for goods and services (in a discrete- and continuous-version).
We wish you useful reading in the perspective of your doctoral examination
in economics, finance and management sciences.

Krzysztof Malaga, Karolina Sobczak

5
Chapter 1. Static and dynamic Marshallian demand
function and its properties

1.1. Static Marshallian demand function

There is a consumer goods market where:

– consumer goods (products and services),1
– a consumer’s income,
– a bundle (basket) of goods that the consumer wants to purchase
(consumption bundle),
– a set of all bundles of goods available on the market along with a metric specified
on it (goods space),
– a vector of prices of goods,
– a vector of supply of goods,
– a budget set (a compact and convex set
of all consumption bundles whose value is not greater than the consumer’s income),
– a budget line (a set of all
consumption bundles the value of which is equal to the consumer’s income),
– a supply set (compact and convex set of all
bundles of goods realistically available on the market),
– a budget and supply set (a compact and convex set of all bundles of
goods meeting both the budget and the supply constraints),2
– an utility function describing a relation of consumer preferences, which we
assume by default to be increasing, differentiable and (strictly) concave.
The consumer’s goal is to find the optimal bundle of goods in the set i.e.
such a bundle of goods that , which means that is better than
any other bundle of goods in the set .

1
In the teaching materials we will consider n-dimensional commodity spaces in which the number of consumer
goods is finite. However, for the sake of simplicity, we will limit ourselves to 2-dimensional goods spaces.
2
Since the demand for any product reported by a single consumer is usually many times lower than its supply,
in the theory of consumer demand it is assumed that the only limitation in the consumer’s choice of the optimal
consumption bundle is the budget constraint, and the supply constraint is not binding. Therefore, generally
.

6
(P1) max

or
(P2)

(1)
………
,
(2) ,
(3)
Note 1.1
The problems (P1) and (P2) are equivalent for mathematical programming. If the utility
function3 is a linear (concave) function then (P2) is the problem of linear
programming. On the other hand, when the utility function is a nonlinear function
(usually strictly concave, as we are interested in utility maximization), then (P2) is a nonlinear
programming problem. Conditions (1)–(3) define a set of solutions acceptable in this problem.
Example 1.1
Use the geometric method to find the optimal solution to the problem (P2) when the utility
function is:
a) linear (increasing, differentiable, concave), ,
b) power function (increasing, differentiable, strictly concave),
,
c) logarithmic (increasing, differentiable, strictly concave),
,
d) Koopmans-Leontief function (non-decreasing, non-differentiable, continuous, concave),
,
e) subadditive (increasing, differentiable, strictly concave),
,
f) CES function

,
knowing that set , of all these bundles of goods whose
utility is equal to , is called an indifference curve.

3
In the following sections, we will assume that

7
 Justify that if then for linear utility function:
− if , the problem (P2) has an infinite number
of optimal solutions belonging to the segment ,

where ,

− if , the problem (P2) has exactly one optimal solution:

or ,

− for the remaining utility functions the problem (P2) has exactly one optimal solution:

, where , ,

or:

Ad 1.d

From a geometric illustration of a solution to the consumption utility maximization problem:

(4)
(5)
(6)
it results that the optimal solution satisfies a system of equations:
(7)
(8)
It has the form:

(9) ,

where: such that

Conclusions
C. 1 Set of feasible solutions is a compact and convex set.
C. 2 The utility function is increasing (or weakly increasing), concave or strictly concave.
C. 3 If the set of feasible solutions is compact and convex, and the objective function is
strictly concave and increasing, then the problem (P2) has exactly one optimal solution.
C. 4 If the set of feasible solutions is compact and convex, and the objective function is
concave and increasing (or weakly increasing), then the problem (P2) has at least one
optimal solution. If there are more than one, they form a compact and convex set.

8
Example 1.2
Let us formulate the consumption utility maximization problem in a non-empty, compact and
convex set4 :
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14) .
where: – twice differentiable and strictly concave function,
, – twice differentiable and concave function,
– parameters.
The problem (10)–(14) can be written using the Lagrange function:
(15)
Th. 1.1 (Kuhn-Tucker theorem)
If function is twice differentiable and strictly concave, function is
concave and twice differentiable on a non-empty, compact and convex set , then
is the optimal solution of the problem (10)–(14) if and only if there exists a pair
meeting conditions:

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

Where:

(20)

(21)

(22)

4
The set is defined by the conditions (11)–(14).

9
 Thus, conditions (20) and (22) take the form:

(23)

(24)
where:

denotes the optimal Lagrange multiplier, which determines

how much the maximum value of the utility function will change
(generally increase), when the parameter value increases by a notional unit.
If , then the j-th constraint is binding. However, when ,
j = 1,2,3, then the j-th constraint is not binding.
Let us assume that we are only interested in positive solutions to optimal problems
(11)–(14) . The condition (23) is satisfied if and only if:

(24)

If moreover then condition (24) takes the form:

(25)

This is a case when none of the constraints is binding. Then:

(26) ,
which means a strictly concave, increasing and differentiable utility function
reaches its global maximum on the set . Then the conditional maximization problem (11)–
(14) is the same as the unconditional optimization problem.
A practical conclusion can be drawn from this. If we want to find the optimal solution to
the problem (11)–(14), then we should find the global maximum of the utility function
in its field . If additionally it is also the optimal solution of the
problem (11)–(14).
If, on the other hand then condition (24) is unchanged.
Simultaneously, from condition (24) we get that:
(27)
and
(28)

10
 In such a case, the optimal solution to the problem (11)–(14) is a vector , such
that . Then we call a stationary point the local maximum of the function

in the set .
In each of the remaining 6 cases, when at least 1 or 2 optimal Lagrange multipliers are
zero, we do the same. As a result, based on the conditions (21) and (22), we will obtain
an optimal solution , such that . Then we call a stationary point the

local maximum of the utility function in the set .

The Kuhn-Tucker theorem applies to a strongly concave function. On the other hand,
the comments refer to the positive optimal solution in the set . Let us present the
conclusions resulting from the Kuhn-Tucker theorem for two specific cases of the problem
(11)–(14).
Case 1
Let us suppose is a strictly concave and twice differentiable function. Let us also
assume that Then the problem
(11)–(14) can be written as:
(29)
(30)
(31) ,
which corresponds to the Lagrange function:
(32)
If we postulate that the function should additionally fulfill the following
conditions:

(33) ,

we can formulate the Kuhn-Tucker theorem as follows.

Th. 1.2 (Kuhn-Tucker theorem) If a utility function is twice differentiable and
strictly concave, function it is twice differentiable and concave on a non-empty,
compact and convex set , then a vector
is the optimal solution to the problem (29)–(31) if and only if there exists a pair
meeting conditions:

(34)

(35)

11
(36)

(37)

where:

(38)

(39)

Conditions (35) and (37) take the form:

(40)

(41)
where:

denotes the optimal Lagrange multiplier, which determines how much

the maximum value of the utility function will change (generally increase), when
the consumer’s income increases by a notional unit.
If then the constraint is binding. However, when then the constraint is not
binding.
Let us assume that we are only interested in positive solutions to optimal problem (29)–
(31) . The condition (40) is satisfied if and only if:

(42)

If moreover then condition (43) takes the form:

(43)

This is the case when the constraint is not binding. This means that:
(44) .
In the case when the constraint, which defines the set , is not binding, then the optimal
solution to the problem (29)–(31) is the same as the global maximum which a strictly
concave utility function: reaches in the goods space . Then the problem
of conditional maximization is the same as the problem of unconditional optimization.
If, on the other hand then condition (42) is unchanged. Simultaneously from
condition (43) we get that:
(45)

12
 In such a case, the optimal solution to the problem (29)–(31) is a vector , such
that . Then we call a stationary point the local maximum of the function

in the set .
Case 2
Let us suppose is a strictly concave and twice differentiable function. Let us also
assume that Then the problem (11)–
(14) can be written as:
(46)
(47)
(48)
(49) ,
which corresponds to the Lagrange function:
(50)
If we postulate that the utility function additionally meets the conditions
(47) and (48), then the Kuhn-Tucker theorem can be formulated as follows.
Th. 1.3 (Kuhn-Tucker theorem)
If the utility function is increasing, twice differentiable, strongly concave
on a compact, convex and non-empty set ,
then a vector is the optimal solution to the problem (46)–(49) if and only if there exists
a pair satisfying a system of conditions:

(51)

(52)

(53)

(54)

where:

(55)

(56)

13
 Conditions (52) and (54) take the form:

(57)

(58)

where: is an optimal Lagrange multiplier, which determines

by how much the maximum value of the utility function will change (generally
increase), when the value of the parameter increases by a notional unit.
If it means that the i-th constraint is binding. However, when it means
that the i-th constraint is not binding.
Let us assume that we are only interested in positive solutions to the optimal
problem (46)–(49). The condition (57) is satisfied if and only if:

(59)

If moreover then condition (57) takes the form:

(60)

This is the case when the constraint is not binding. Then:

(61) ,
which means, that the optimal solution is identical with the global maximum which is
a strictly concave utility function reaches in space . Then the problem of
conditional maximization is the same as the problem of unconditional optimization.
If, on the other hand then condition (54) is unchanged. Simultaneously from
condition (58) we get that:
(62)
In such a case, the optimal solution to the problem (46)–(49) is a vector , such
that . Then we call a stationary point the local maximum of the function

in the set .
Let us consider a situation where the utility function is strictly concave, twice
differentiable and increasing over its entire domain. Let us assume that we are only interested in
positive optimal solutions to the problem (46)–(49). In this case, the utility function has no
global maximum . However, due to the binding constraints (57) and (59), it has a positive
optimal solution , which can be determined from the system of equations:
(63) ,
(64)

14
 From the condition (57) we additionally get that

(65)

where:
is an optimal Lagrange multiplier, which determines by how much the maximum value
of the utility function will increase, when parameter increases by
a notional unit.
Let us suppose .
Df. 1.1 A mapping which assigns the optimal solution of the maximization
problem (P2) of consumption utility to any price vector and any
consumer’s income is called a consumer demand function and is of the form:
(66) .
Note 1.2
– a demand for the 1st consumer good expressed in physical units,
– a demand for the 2nd consumer good expressed in physical units.
Note 1.3
The vector function of consumer demand is called
a Marshallian demand function.
Df. 1.2 A mapping which assigns the maximum utility of the consumption
bundle to any price vector and any consumer’s income
is called an indirect function of consumption utility and is of the form:
(67) .
Let us analyze in more detail important properties of the Marshallian demand function
and the indirect utility function.
Df. 1.3 The consumer demand function is homogeneous of degree 0 when:
(68) , which means, that:
a. a proportionate change in prices of consumer goods and in the consumer’s income
does not change the demand for consumer goods,
b. the demand for consumer goods does not depend on absolute levels of goods’
prices and the consumer’s income, but on relationships among them.
Df. 1.4 The indirect utility function is homogeneous of degree 0 when:
(69) ,
which means, that:

15
 a. a proportionate change in prices of consumer goods and in the consumer’s income
does not change the utility of the optimal consumption bundle,
b. a utility of the optimal consumption bundle does not depend on absolute levels of
goods’ prices and the consumer’s income, but on relationships among them.
Example 1.3
The consumption utility maximization problem is given:
(70)
(71) ,
(72) ,
and the corresponding consumer demand function:

(73) .

Note that if: and than , or:

The corresponding indirect utility function then has the form:

(74) .

1. Based on definitions 3 and 4, justify that the consumer demand function and the indirect
utility function are homogeneous of degree 0.
2. Justify this property for both functions graphically.
Ad 1
Homogeneity of degree 0 of the consumer demand function:

(75)

Homogeneity of degree 0 of the indirect utility function:

(76)

Ad 2
Figure 1.1 shows that the simultaneous and proportionate change in consumer’s income and
consumer goods’ prices does not change the demand for both goods, and thus the value of the
intermediate utility function is unchanged too. We can interpret these dependencies in terms
of the consumer’s nominal and real income. If we consider a nominal income as , then

16
we should consider a real income as: . When the prices of goods and the

consumer’s nominal income change proportionally (they increase when λ > 1 or decrease
when λ (0,1)) the real income does not change. Thus, the value of the demand function for
both goods and the value of the indirect utility function cannot change.

x2

 I 
 0, 
 p2 

x u (x )  u

(0,0)  I  x1
 ,0 

 1 
p

Figure 1.1. Homogeneity of degree 0 of the consumer demand function and of the
indirect utility function

Df. 1.5 A derivative of the indirect utility function with respect to the consumer’s income is
called a marginal utility of income and given as:

(77) ,

which determines by how much the utility of the optimal consumption bundle will
approximately change (generally increase) when the consumer’s income increases by
a(notional) unit.
Th. 1.4 If the utility function is increasing, twice differentiable, and strictly
concave, then :
1. the consumer demand function is differentiable in its domain,
2. the indirect utility function is differentiable in its domain

3.

(It is so-called Roy’s identity, which allows to determine the consumer’s demand
function for the i-th product using analytical form of the indirect utility function.)

17
 Another Random Document on
Scribd Without Any Related Topics
affinity, for it certainly is not apparent; and moreover it must be
remarked, that the relation between classes is but little apparent
generally, except they are taken in pairs: thus, between I. and II.,
between III. and IV., and between V. and VI., the relation is real and
readily ascertained, although distant; while between II. and III.,
between IV. and V., and between VI. and I., it becomes scarcely
traceable. It is also worthy of notice, that the contents of either pair
of classes, with the addition of class VII., may be formed into a
tolerably perfect chain of genera, indeed with much less appearance
of disconnexion than is observable on passing from either pair into
the next pair,—a fact which attaches a degree of importance to the
number three, on which, perhaps, at a future time, more may be
said,—and thus a chain of relation would be established in each
instance, leaving four whole classes entirely out of the question;—a
chain which would steadily pursue its way, regardless and in open
violation of all established laws of analogy, affinity and dichotomy;
laws which I hope ere long to see pining away like Echo, until they
also are really what I now fully believe them to be, vox et præterea
nihil.
Mr. MacLeay found that in his quinary groups one of each five
contained genera or species related to other genera or species in
each of the other four groups. That I may be thoroughly understood,
I will quote the author's own words:—"In almost every group which
has been set before the reader, he must have perceived that one of
the five minor groups into which it is resolvable, bears a
resemblance to all the rest; or, more strictly speaking, contains types
which represent each of the four other groups, together with a type
peculiar to itself."[26] As far as my observation has extended, this is
universally the case; and whether the total number of groups be five
or seven, I think I am safe in asserting that the only possible way of
making these types, thus representing groups, approach such
groups, is to place the heterogeneous group in the centre, and the
homogeneous groups around it; taking care that the type peculiar to
itself be its very centre, its "heart's core." Such a heterogeneous
group, then, is Neuroptera: its characters as given,[27] I believe,
perfectly correct; and can any one say they are sufficient? Certainly
not; but had I described it thus—Class VII. Neuroptera, central,
partaking of the characters of all the others, I think a better
character could not have been given. This class contains a type
peculiar to itself—the genus Libellula of Linnæus: a genus so
distinct, that several authors have supposed it to constitute one of
the primary divisions of Insecta. It is, however, merely the
Neuropterous type, the very essence of the class; and many of its
species, Anax Imperator for instance, proclaim themselves by their
imperial flight, their enormous size, their richly variegated colours,
their despotic and cruel habits, emperors of the insect world. In this
group we find the organs of sight, manducation, and locomotion,
carried to a greater degree of perfection than we ever meet with,
except in similar centres: like the king of birds, the dragonfly is
unrivalled among his kind. From Libellula, the centre, we descend at
once to Tinodes, or Psyche, on the circumference of the circle.
Supposing Psyche to be the approaching genus to Lepidoptera, I
think I need not enter very diffusely on the similarities. Passing to
the right, we find that Diptera will next touch the central class; in
which, after leaving the Phryganeæ, we have now arrived among
the next group, or sub-class, Ephemeræ: and here, as we might
expect, the inferior wings become much diminished—at the point of
contact obsolete.[28] The flight, instead of being solitary, is in
company, gracefully and gently rising and falling. The parts of
manducation are become obsolete; while, in habit and appearance,
the insect imitates the Tipulæ and Chironomi, so exactly that the
naturalist is foiled in his endeavours to distinguish between them, as
they joyously dance together by myriads in the rays of the setting
sun.

We now approach mandibulated orders, and we shall see the loss of

mandibles in Phryganea and Ephemera, although apparently
resulting naturally enough from their distance from the type
Libellula, has yet another cause—the proximity of classes that have
no mandibles: in the city-building Ants, the mandibles are very
perfect, and, therefore, we may expect them, and we find them in
the city-building Termites. The opinion of philosophers, such as the
authors of the Introduction to Entomology, is always worth having,
although I am doubtful of assertions about insects, when
unconfirmed by thorough entomologists; and I believe as yet no
entomologist is sufficiently acquainted with the real history of white
ants, to decide positively as to their different stages of existence.
The following quotation contains also a corroboration of the
propriety of this approach:—"The white ants, though they belong to
the Neuroptera order, borrow their instinct from the hymenopterous
social tribes, and, in conjunction with the ants, (Formica,) connect
the two orders. Their societies consist of five descriptions of
individuals:—workers, or larvæ; nymphs, or pupæ; neuters, or
soldiers; males and females."[29] The class Coleoptera now
approaches the Neuroptera, and on each side the boundary we find
larvæ digging pitfalls in the sand to catch their prey, and having
tubular mandibles to extract its juices when caught. We find them
spinning silken cocoons, in which they change into quiescent pupæ,
incapable of taking nutriment; which may fairly be supposed a
symptom of approach; but there is no insect whose imago I would
venture to place on the circumference of the neuropterous circle at
the point.

When we find an insect so doubtfully situated between two classes,

that Linnæus placed it in Neuroptera, Fabricius in Orthoptera,
Latreille, in two of his works, in Orthoptera, and in two others in
Neuroptera, MacLeay in Neuroptera, and Kirby and Spence in
Orthoptera, I think it but fair to conclude, that the orders must
approach very nearly to admit of this difference of opinion: such is
Mantispa; and Mantis-like as it really is, it only borrows that
appearance from being on the extreme circumference of the
Neuropterous circle, and touching the Orthopterous one where
Mantis must evidently be situated. Lastly, we see in Psocus the form,
wings, and whole appearance of Aphis, so exquisitely imitated, that
practised entomologists often, nay mostly, fail in separating them
correctly: thus we find that class VII. contains five natural orders,
the contents of which have been—and may be again, should the
linear and dichotomous system continue in vogue—placed either in
the class to which they truly belong, or respectively in classes I. II.
III. V. and VI. at the mere option and caprice of the systematist. I
have already admitted that I find no neuropterous insect sufficiently
related, in its final state to class IV. to warrant my placing it in
contact with that class; and that I may not be accused of assuming
facts which exist only in my imagination, I am perfectly willing to
conclude that no such insect is to be found; a conclusion that time
and discovery, by falsifying, can only add yet one more buttress to a
tower, which nature seems to point out as built by herself.

There are a few little insects which, like the spiders which crept
across Richard's brain, are somewhat perplexing to the naturalist,
yet he cannot dispose of them as the monarch did of his spiders; I
mean Pulex, Stylops, Thrips, Forficula. But, in truth, the first attempt
of the systematist should be to place classes properly, and these
disconnected species will, after a time, find appropriate places: they
were no more created without a design than man; and their Creator,
doubtless, has appointed them a station, although man, whose
wisdom is utter ignorance, has not yet been able to discover it. It is
impossible for the entomologist not to observe the general similarity,
the family likeness if I may so express it, which exists between these
genera; they appear a little way removed from Coleoptera, yet will
not harmoniously join that class. Thrips is evidently mandibulated,
although the dichotomists call it haustellated, and comes nearer to
Stylops[30] than any other known genus: its larva is, I believe,
unknown; but in March you may observe an active hexapod, lizard-
like animal, running about the flowers of Ranunculus ficaria on
sunny banks, and two or three months later you will find Thrips
abundant on the same flowers in the same spots: this is no proof of
their identity; but as the larva of Thrips and the imago of the said
hexapod are equally unknown, there may be a surmise expressed on
the subject. Mr. Kirby calls this hexapod Pediculus Melittæ, and has
given a description and plate of it in his Monographia Apum.[31] He
there asserts that De Geer considered it the larva of the Melöe
proscarabæus, and some observations of my esteemed friend, Mr.
Doubleday, who succeeded in obtaining the larva of Melöe from the
egg, certainly tended to corroborate De Geer. But I am rather
wandering from my subject, and, therefore, will consider these little
creatures also, wandering like comets in eccentric courses over the
whole system, now approaching Staphylinus, and anon Ichncumon,
and, as they draw near, borrowing a character from each: they may,
on the other hand, constitute disconnected links of some other
mighty chain, the intervening parts of which are for a time hidden
from the sight of man, and perhaps hereafter may be revealed;
perhaps, again, they may occupy some of the chasms I have been
compelled to leave vacant: but I deprecate, I detest the idea, of
forcing any creature into a situation which nature has not evidently
pointed out as its appropriate one, for the ignoble purpose of giving
plausibility and imperfect perfection to a scheme.
 ON THE SUB-CLASSES, &c. OF LEPIDOPTERA.

It may be thought a strange propensity to grapple with difficulties,

that leads me to select Lepidoptera as a class, by which to exemplify,
in detail, the septenary and circular arrangement. There is no class
so puzzling to systematists, or for which science has done so little—
no class is at present so badly arranged, and in none are barbarous
combinations so much in vogue. Linnæus founded divisions at the
outset, on characters, "loose, vague, and insufficient:"[32] modern
genera have a little improved minor details, and but little, for their
places appear to have been assigned them by lot, and without the
slightest regard to similarity or approach: in a word, the
arrangement of Lepidoptera appears to have been conducted by
collectors, who aimed rather at a pretty picture than a related series;
and all our writers have rushed headlong by the same path, without
staying an instant to consider whether they were right or wrong, like
boys playing at follow-the-leader,[33] each occasionally leaping some
wider gap, or descending some more dangerous precipice than his
predecessor, as though for the very love of frolic and bravado. One,
a talented writer, an assiduous collector, a most accurate observer,
hesitated awhile, it is true, and it was thought he would have broken
the line, but no,—he kept precisely to the track of Linnæus and the
rest of them, through Papilio, Sphinx, Bombyx, Noctua, Geometra,
Pyralis, Tortrix, and Tinea; but, as he stood pledged to traverse no
more than five fields, he hit on the ingenious expedient of asserting
roundly, that the four last named were but one. In fact, the whole of
this immense class presents, at this hour, nothing but a vast chaos,
which seems to await the operation of some predicted spell to call it
into order.
 SUB-CLASSES OF LEPIDOPTERA.

These were apparent difficulties only; for, as no system existed to

direct, so none existed to encumber or perplex. Too much is known
now of Linnæan combinations, to assert, that he always thought
correctly; and since his day no one has thought at all. Now, if you
cannot obtain a nicely drawn plan, you prefer having a blank sheet
of paper to one covered all over with scorings and markings, and
then you may set to work and make your plan yourself. So, in
natural history, contrariety of opinion perplexes, while the absence of
opinion leaves the systematist perfectly unbiassed in the formation
of his own. Again, copious and well-named[34] collections of this
favourite class are by no means uncommon;[35] and through, the
liberality of my friends, I had often been permitted to inspect them,
and had gained a sufficient superficial knowledge of their contents,
to be enabled, with the assistance of my own specimens, to cluster
them pretty well into seven great families or sub-classes; and
although, as I have noticed, nothing available existed on the subject
of arrangement of Lepidoptera, either in essay, or treatise, or
catalogue, or cabinet, yet there was to be found, up and down,
much valuable matter, in the shape of what might be termed natural
history of Lepidoptera. Finally, I knew, that could I master this class,
I could stand my ground, because I had previously tried the
experiment on the classes Hymenoptera and Coleoptera, and had
found that, at the word seven, they fell into instant order, as at the
touch of a magician's wand; and, as for the other classes, we are in
such innocent and blissful ignorance of their contents, that were a
scheme ever so futile, a century at least must elapse before its
futility could be proved by Orthoptera, Hemiptera, or Diptera.

Whoever will give himself the trouble to examine thoroughly a

collection of British Lepidoptera, will find a very great majority of
them evincing very evident symptoms of relation to one or other of
the following species:—Papilio Machaon, Sphinx Ligustri, Pyralis
verticalis, Tinea pellionella, Noctua pronuba, and Geometra
roboraria; and should any form widely different from either of these
occur, it may, if the larva be known, be placed in the centre of a ring
formed by the groups, which we will suppose surrounding their six
respective types; or, if its larva be unknown, it must await the
discovery of that most unerring stage of its existence. I am
persuaded, did entomologists know how much depends on the form,
habit, food, and clothing of larvæ, they would not be so neglected as
they are at present. I have much to regret my own remissness in
this respect, for it has seldom happened that I have found the larva
of any insect which had not been previously well known, but it has
tended to point out some approaches that had never before been
thought of,—approaches, even when thus pointed out, totally
irreconcilable with existing ideas of arrangement and combination of
groups, but which now open to my view the most beautiful chains of
affinities; and wonderfully but indubitably prove, that a single
individual may be related to three, four, or even more apparently
disconnected groups.

Perhaps no better genus was ever formed than Papilio of Linnæus;

its diurnal flight, its erect wings, and its clavated antennæ, at first
bid defiance to the systematist who attempts to bring any other
group into contact with it; indeed, in Britain we have nothing at all
that will avail us in this respect, which compels me to have recourse
to exotics, an assistance which I shall only avail myself of when I
find it quite impracticable to furnish the approaches from indigenous
species, the reference to which is attainable by every entomologist.
Among foreign Papiliones, especially among those groups which
approach our genera, Hesperia, Lycæna, Polyommatus, and Thecla,
there appears to be an almost infinite variety of form. Now it is but
reasonable to seize on any variations observable in genera or species
from the prominent or typical genus or order from which they may
be supposed to derive their more conspicuous character, and to
employ such variations in arrangement as connecting links between
the group to which they more decidedly belong, and the group to
which, by such variation, they evince an approach: a precisely
intermediate species or genus between two classes or sub-classes,
or even orders, I have never met with, notwithstanding the
renowned Linnæan maxim, that Natura saltus non facit; for did
nature make no leaps, surely the question were immediately at rest
as to the existence of any other division than species among created
beings, a conclusion which even the most strenuous supporters of
the Linnæan dogma decidedly resist. Among the Papiliones, this
departure from the type may be looked for either in the form of the
antennæ, the position of the wings, or the time of flight. The first is
obviously the most tangible should it occur, and it does occur. In
Urania, the antennæ have become setaceous; the club has entirely
disappeared, yet the other peculiarities remain much as in Papilio.
This single deviation may be assumed as pointing out a relation to
Geometra, which the reader will perceive is supposed to meet the
sub-class Papilio at this point. A second peculiarity is to be found in
an insect figured by Godart, a Polyommatus in shape, but with
pertinated antennæ;[36] the genus he has very suitably named
Barbicornis. This deviation, it must be observed, is in favour of the
Bombyces, which we therefore suppose touching the sub-class at
this point. A third deviation, of a very different kind, is observable in
an insect which Latreille has figured in the Règne Animal, and placed
among the Sphinges: he calls it Coronis D'Urvillii. The antennæ in
this genus, as in Castnia, are gradually incrassated, and they may
probably be eventually both considered as Papiliones: of Coronis
D'Urvillii, I cannot entertain a doubt, as the wings are too expansive,
the antennæ too long, the abdomen too short for it ever to retain its
station among the Sphinges; the inferior wings are also very
decidedly caudate, a common formation among Papiliones, but
unknown among Sphinges; but, let this question be eventually
decided pro or con, the approach between Hesperiæ and Sphinges is
not likely to be disputed, nor the fact that it takes place somewhere
in the neighbourhood of the genus Castnia.

The next type is Sphinx Ligustri; and here again our British
collections are obliged to plead poverty; few, however, as they are at
present, I am compelled, if I purpose consulting nature, to reduce
them about half: the Ægeriæ and Zygænæ must be moved
elsewhere; they look like Sphinges, but are none. I will begin then
with Castnia, of which no more need be said. The next striking
departure from the type occurs in having the abdomen furnished
with tufts or brushes, which the insect spreads as it hovers over
flowers, somewhat in the manner of a bird's tail. The long porrected
antlia also has a resemblance, perhaps rather fancied than real, to
the slender bill of a humming-bird, whence the tribe has received
with us the name of English humming-birds. The genus Sesia I will
place on the circumference of the circle, not doubting but nearer
approaches to the Cossi may be discovered, or are even now known,
but no better exists among our own Sphinges. The next point of
contact will be with Pyralis; and here the genus Œgocera, figured in
the Règne Animal, seems to claim its station: it is a decided Sphinx,
with the palpi of Hypena proboscidalis, and Latreille has placed it
between Sesia and Zygæna, from which it will be seen that I differ
only in making Zygæna pass over the boundary line and into the
next section.

We enter the third sub-class then at Pyralis, and find ourselves

among some of the most beautiful little creatures in existence—
sylph-like beings, which spend their lives in the brightest sunshine
and among the sweetest flowers. Linnæus considered them
Sphinges, from what character is not very apparent: the sub-
character, applicable only to this section, is certainly correct; they
are truly "larva diversæ." As for the antennæ being "medio
crassiores," it is not the case, unless the increase and decrease of
pectination can be considered as making them so. Of this particular
tribe Latreille observes, "Les autres lepidoptères de cette division ont
dans les deux sexes, des antennes garnies d'un double rang de
dents alongées ou bipectinées. Ceux qui out une trompe distincte
forment le genre Glaucopis; ceux où cette organe manque ou n'est
pas distinct celui d'Aglaope—ces crepusculaires semblent se lier avec
les Callimorphes." The approach of the genus Aglaope to Aglossa,
rather than to Callimorpha, seems to be presumable from the
circumstance of its not possessing a tongue, the genus Glaucopis
having more similarity to our genus Pyrausta, while some of its
species, which appear to call for further generic division of the order,
are closely allied to our Botys literalis, &c. The only British genera of
this order are Zygæna and Ino; the latter, however, appears to be
merely a species of some extra-European genus, as I have remarked
several exotics of precisely similar form. The insects of this order
have a stout and rather hairy larva, much like those of the generality
of the sub-class, and in no respect allied to that of the Sphinges.
Early in the summer they spin a glossy silken cocoon, generally
attached to blades of grass, and remain but a few days in the pupa
state. A great proportion of the perfect insects have hyaline spots
and patches in their wings, and nearly all of them are brilliantly
coloured. It is known that Linnæus occasionally, as in Tenebrio and
the present instance, made his genera recipients of species, which
he found a difficulty in locating properly; but it is really astonishing
to find a naturalist like Latreille abiding by so absurd a combination
as the contents of the Linnæan genus Sphinx, and, in servile
imitation, calling creatures which nothing but an unclouded sun ever
tempts abroad—Crepuscularia.[37] It is no part of my present plan to
assign names to orders, or to describe their contents, except in
those particular instances in which the more immediate object of this
Essay may render it imperative. I will, however, just observe, that I
by no means consider Zygæna the type of the order, but merely the
nearest point of contact with Sphinx, and an evident departure from
its true type, which perhaps may be found in that ill-divided genus
Glaucopis, the form and appearance of which is altogether more
Pyralis-like than Zygæna. I am well aware that Œgocera and
Zygæna do not harmonize so beautifully as many other approaches,
and fully expect to see the connexion between these sub-classes
much improved; but I have seized on these genera as demonstrating
a tendency in each individual towards the sub-class to which it does
not belong. The circumstance of Zygæna having been so long
considered a Sphinx will warrant its situation on the very
circumference of the circle which contains its order, until a more
appropriate occupant of that situation can be found. At the central
point of contact, the genus Aglossa presents a very Bombyx-like
appearance; its shape, its want of the antlia, &c. indicate approach;
and from the sub-class Tinea, the division of Pyralis is at present an
imaginary one: at this point, after making what little comparison I
am able, I am induced to place Galleria, Melia, and Ilithya, in Pyralis;
and Chilo, and Crambus in Tinea.
The fourth sub-class, Tinea, far exceeds in numbers either of the
others, and probably all of them together; and where such a
multitude of species exists, great diversity in form and habit may be
expected: the Pterophori are a most singular tribe, and greatly
resemble the Tipulæ in many respects. I feel by no means certain
that their situation would not be better between the lepidopterous
sub-class, Tinea, and the dipterous sub-class, Tipulæ, thus throwing
them completely out of the lepidopterous circle; but this I leave. I
am now only sketching a rough and hasty outline from nature. If I
attempt to finish my drawing as I proceed, I shall find occupation
sufficient for a lifetime. I have observed that I considered the chain
of relation entering from the last sub-class at Chilo, or about that
genus; the same order must of course include Crambus, and its
congeners; the next order will contain Yponomeuta, which I will
place at the point of contact; and the next point being among the
true Tortrices will drive Halias fagana as a decided departure from
their typical form to the very circumference of the circle where it
touches Noctua.

The fifth sub-class, Noctua, seems to be but one mighty genus: we

will enter it from Halias fagana, an insect so nearly allied to Noctua
in its larva, its pupa, and its imago, that for a long time I hesitated
to which sub-class it belonged; again, in Cymatophora,[38] subtusa
and retusa, I was fearful that by considering them Noctuæ, I might
deprive the order Tortrices of a genus on which perhaps many
curious combinations might depend, and I now only place them in
Noctuæ until I may have an opportunity of examining their larvæ,
which I have not yet been fortunate enough to meet with. Towards
the central sub-class there appear to be many genera which
approach the line of contact; Agrotis and Chareas for instance:[39] I
prefer taking the latter, and must mention the species Graminis, as I
am fearful of encumbering my system with species to which I not
only never intended to refer, but should probably place in some
distant order, or perhaps sub-class. At the approach to Geometra,
the genus Catocala, from its looping larva, seems to have a right to
be placed: this I, however, look on with suspicion, as the larva
appears to me any thing but a guide in the connexion of sub-
classes; but I here succumb to customary usage in making this
genus the approach to the real loopers, objecting, however, to the
intervention of Phytometra, Euclidia, and Brepha.

The sixth and last of the exterior sub-classes is Geometra, and we

shall find one insect which is completely a Geometra, and yet in the
larva has two additional feet, and the abdominal fringe of Catocala:
this is Metrocampus margaritaria,[40] an insect, without which the
connexion of these sub-classes would have been difficult to
establish. The next species I am acquainted with seems to be Rumia
cratægaria, and after it the Thorn moths, as they are termed
(Crocallis?): these lead to Geometra[41] in the centre, which may be
considered the farthest removed from any of the surrounding sub-
classes; from the genus Geometra a line may be drawn through
Biston, Nyssia, and Hybernia, to the point of contact with Phalæna in
the centre, and another through Boarmia, Abraxas, and Ourapteryx
to Urania, from which genus of Papiliones perhaps the reader will
recollect we set out.

The seventh and central sub-class, Phalæna, now claims our

attention. The mere circumstance of having taken a little tour round
it gives but a very poor idea of its contents, and although my reader
may assure me he knows them sufficiently well already, that
assurance will by no means satisfy me that he and I are at all agreed
either as to what those contents may be, or as to their relative
situations. Before, however, I again set in earnest to the task of
pointing out relations and approaches, I feel that some apology is
due for attempting the restoration of a beautiful and euphonious
name to that grand group of Lepidoptera, to which it was originally
assigned by the eminent naturalist who was the first to define and
name such groups.[42] I am fully aware this is an attempt at
innovation for which I can never be forgiven by the scientific; for the
merit of the present day seems to consist in the total neglect of
grouping and classifying, and in making a host of imaginary genera
and species, for the mere pleasure of overwhelming us with a
"farrago" of barbarous and unutterable names,—a practice which my
unsophisticated and old-fashioned notions will never dwell on with
that deferential awe which such profound science has an undoubted
right to expect.

Again, on the subjects of orders, a term I have already been induced

to use now and then, I am quite aware that I here am guilty of
another misdemeanour, and more especially as I call them natural
orders, meaning thereby orders among the contents of which nature
has established the similarity; and to the formation of which "the
cunningly devised fables" of man have contributed but very little;
and meaning also that nature has implanted in us all, more or less,
the power of distinguishing such orders by a mere glance, and
without any reference to our books.

Furthermore, the naming of orders which I have been obliged to

mention by name, in the unscientific way which I have adopted,
merely making them plurals of established names, of large and
overgrown genera, I acknowledge to be a confession of ignorance
not usual in this our day, especially as these old genera have almost
in every instance the disadvantage of being euphonious, easily
pronounced, expressive, and universally understood; and an
opportunity once missed of coining names for three hundred new
orders, (and each might have been a combination of consonants
which no one could spell, or speak, or read, or understand,) alas!
alas! may never occur again.

To return; I suppose the sub-class Phalæna to contain seven natural

orders, a number precisely similar to that discovered from
observations made on the larva by that most accurate and
indefatigable naturalist, Dr. Horsfield;[43] and I may add, my own
divisions are derived from the same source, together with the pupa
and whole habit: the perfect insect has no characters, hitherto
discovered, by which we can ascertain either sub-class or order, and
from this circumstance I am compelled to omit those genera of
whose larvæ I am ignorant,[44] and even to leave those as doubtful,
of which I possess but a partial knowledge of that state.

Natural Order—Bombyces. Has an elongate cylindrical downy larva,

which rolls itself into a ring when touched; the pupa changes in a
close gummy oval cocoon, remarkably small for the size of the
imago. Among the exotic species of Lasciocampa, we find in the
males particularly slender bodies, expansive wings, the inferior
grooved to receive the abdomen, and diurnal flight, all of them
characters so indicative of an approach to Papilio, that we scarcely
hesitate a moment in assigning it the approaching station, not but I
expect fully that time will eventually furnish us with a connexion on
each side yet more conclusive.[45] The second genus of Bombyces is
probably Odenestis, and the third Gastropacha, whose prominent
and elongated palpi appear to point out an approach toward a tribe
of insects with the same peculiarity, of which there are several to be
found in the following order:

Natural Order—Cossi. The larva is depressed; naked, except a very

few scattered hairs; has sixteen feet; lives through one or more
winters; never rolls itself in a ring when touched; feeds on the solid
interior woody parts of vegetables. The pupa generally changes in a
tough oval cocoon, interwoven with particles of its food. It has a
double ring of raised denticulations of each segment of the
abdomen, by means of which it is endowed with a considerable
power of locomotion. The genus Zeuzera is very near the point of
contact with the Bombyces. In Zeuzera there is much resemblance
to the antennæ of Gastropacha. One genus, or group of genera, I
expect will prove to be Stygia, a native of New-Holland. A second, at
the point of contact with Sesia in Sphinx, must be Ægeria; thus
retaining its place among British insects, immediately between Sesia
and Cossus.[46] This is the first of a series of the most beautiful
instances of approach, or rather, of what ought to be termed
relations of analogy, that any system has ever previously disclosed.
As a few words will again be necessary on this subject, I refrain from
any further observation here, than merely requesting the reader to
examine how minutely the Sphinx characters are appropriated by a
true lignivorous Phalæna, which cannot be said, in any of its prior
and principal states, to have the most distant approach to Sphinx. A
third genus is, probably, the strange and paradoxical exotic
Oiketicos, which has been minutely described in the Linnæan
Transactions; and a fourth is Hepialus.[47] This genus has some
slight points in which it differs from the others of the order already
known, the larva being radicivorous only, seldom or never ascending
internally the stems of plants: it changes in the earth.

Natural Order—Notodontæ. The larva is naked, has sixteen feet, and

is, in different genera, furnished with excrescences, and apparent
distortions in various parts of the body. The eighth or last pair of
feet, and three last segments of the abdomen, are elevated; when
the insect is at rest, the head and first segment are raised in a
similar manner. In one genus (containing Camelina) the head and
extremity of the abdomen nearly meet over the back, when raised in
this singular manner. The posterior feet are frequently useless in
walking; in some genera, entirely obsolete. The pupa is smooth, in a
cocoon, mostly among dead leaves on the surface of the ground:
sometimes it is glutinous, and interspersed with fragments of wood,
like the last. I confess I am exceedingly puzzled both with the
contents and extent of this order; but this arises from my having
seen so few of the species in the larva state. Ptilophora plumigera,
figured by Mr. Curtis,[48] I had always considered a Notodonta; but
the larva evidently excludes it from the order, and, I should imagine,
places it among the Noctuæ; where among them I know not, for I
have not the slightest idea of any congeners, either of the larva or
imago. The larva from which a collector of Lepidoptera could expect
to obtain such an imago would be unicolourous, stouter in the
middle, elevated in the penultimate segment, and more attenuated
towards the head.[49] Pygæra appears doubtful at first, but when
observed quite at rest, and in a perfectly natural position, elevates
the head and tail, though in a much less degree than the typical
genus. Mr. Curtis's genus Notodonta contains several good species,
which may be considered as typing the order, as Ziczac, Tremula,
and Dictæoides. The first species, Trepida (the Peridea serrata of Mr.
Stephens,) seems more nearly related to Endromis. Both these may,
however, probably belong to the order Notodontæ, and be situate
near the approach to the central order Phalænæ. Petasia cassinea
and Episema cærleocephala appear to be genuine Noctuæ, and very
near Chareas graminis, and Rusina ferruginea, as far as my very
imperfect knowledge of these four species will allow me to judge.
Clostera is another departure from the type; but this may be
accounted for, in some degree, by its close proximity to Hepialus,
from which genus it borrows its remarkably short antennæ, and
other peculiarities. It seems a strange perversion of judgment to
place Platypteryx at the end of or among the Geometræ; but
Linnæus did so, and that is enough. Hubner, Haworth, and a few
others, positively ventured, in this glaring instance, to refer this
genus to the Bombyces; but their ideas were thought to be wrong,
and their judgment was, nem. con. reversed. I have elsewhere
expressed a wish that my readers should convince themselves, and
the frequent occurrence of the larvæ of Platypteryx and Cerura
would afford any naturalist abundant opportunity of ascertaining,
that they can be referred to but one order. The approach of
Platypteryx and Cilix to the Pyralides, in assuming so much of their
characters, is very interesting, and is a most striking departure from
the typical form. These genera also approach the Lithosiæ, but not
so nearly as some exotics.

Natural Order—Lithosiæ. The difference between Lithosiæ and

Arctiæ is rather difficult to point out; yet a difference exists, which it
is perfectly impossible not to detect. The larva of Lithosiæ has
sixteen feet, is very active, is moderately hairy, does not readily roll
itself in ring, but occasionally assumes that attitude. The pupa is
smooth, changes in a slight web, in which the hairs are intermixed.
The approach of Lithosia[50] to the genus Yponomeuta, in Tinea,
scarcely need be pointed out. It will be observed, that Mr.
Samouelle[51] was aware of this approach, and placed the genera
Lithosia and Yponomeuta following each other. The splendid
Callimorpha dominula, although, to all appearance, a real Arctia,
must be included in this order, and placed in contact with the
following one.

Natural Order—Arctiæ. Larva, with sixteen feet, generally very hairy,

bear-like; rolls itself in a ring when touched; pupa smooth, in a slight
web. Whether the whole of Mr. Curtis's genus Acronycta must be
included in this order, I am not able positively to say: the genus
Apatela of Mr. Stephens certainly must, and until I have obtained
sufficient information to decide on Acronycta, we must bring Mr.
Stephens's genus only into the order, leaving the remainder of the
species undisposed of. The development of the antlia in Acronycta
discovers as near an approach to Noctua, as Lithosia does to Tinea;
but the bear-like, cocoon-spinning larva place these insects in close
alliance with the true Arctiæ.

Natural Order—Lariæ. Larva, with sixteen feet, and furnished with

various brushes, or fascicles of hair, on different parts of the body,
but mostly on the anterior dorsal segments; it rolls itself in a ring
when touched. The genus Porthesia of Mr. Stephens may be
considered a near approach to Eriogaster, in the following order,
Bombyces, in many of its peculiarities, as the abdominal hair with
which it covers its eggs, in its antennæ, &c. Orgyia antiqua, on the
other hand, is in habit, expansion of wing, slender body, and
apterous female, a close approach to the Geometræ, near the
genera Hybernia and Nyssia; in fact, were it not for the larva, that is,
were the larva unknown, we should have no hesitation about placing
this insect with the Geometræ.
Natural Order—Phalænæ. Larva, with sixteen feet; it has a circle of
wart-like protuberances on each segment, from each of which spring
a few strong bristles; pupa, smooth, with a few bristles at the tail;
changes in a cocoon, which is singularly left partly open at one end.
We have but one species of this order in Britain, Saturnia carpini;[52]
but among exotics there is a great variety, some remarkable for the
immense expanse of their wings.[53] Probably Phalæna Atlas of
Linnæus is the centre of the group, and, if so, the centre and type of
the class Lepidoptera.

I have previously given, in a note, a list of the genera which are

usually considered as Bombyces, and ought, therefore, if properly
placed, to be included in the sub-class Phalæna; five of those genera
yet remain, and at present must be excluded from the sub-class:
Penthophera, Heterogena, and Limacodes, because I know nothing
of their history; Nudaria and Psyche, because, in the larva, pupa,
and imago states, they have the habit and appearance of another
class (Neuroptera). The time of their dwelling with Lepidoptera is
over and gone; they have already occupied too long a position to
which they were not entitled. The difficulty of assigning a situation
to Limacodes I hope to see removed, as the larva is occasionally to
be met with. I must also remark, that although I have proposed a
situation for Endromis, I feel very doubtful as to its being the correct
one. These doubts and difficulties will probably gain me much
censure; but I must endeavour to shelter myself in some degree, by
observing, that I am the first who has ever deviated from the
original Linnæan arrangement of Lepidoptera, the first who has ever
thought of appealing to nature in support of theory, or rather has
waited for nature to supply him with theory; and surely some
allowance is to be made for a first attempt of any kind. I would also
plead the poverty of our British Fauna in the sub-class, and my
almost entire ignorance of exotic Phalænæ. Even supposing myself
acquainted with all our indigenous species, they will barely furnish a
systematist with a clew to the truth: you may pick up a single link of
a chain, yet fail to discover the length of that chain, or the situation
in that chain which the link originally possessed.

Having, then, pointed out, as clearly as my limited knowledge of the

subject will permit, not only the principal contents of the class
Lepidoptera, but endeavoured to establish them in appointed and
fixed stations, and to show their mutual approaches, at least those
of the most striking kind and essential to my purpose, I must now
proceed to make a few remarks on the nature of these approaches.
It will be observed, that they are, almost without an exception, what
Mr. MacLeay considers relations of affinity, that is, the relation is
between species which, in their imago state, have a real and positive
similarity to each other; so much so, that entomologists,
unacquainted with the prior states, and frequently even in direct
defiance of their own knowledge of those states, place them in
orders, and even sub-classes to which they do not belong; to which
fact all our systems and catalogues bear most ample testimony. This
similarity is by no means confined to a cursory glance at the insects,
but bears the test of a minute anatomical investigation, the antlia,
palpi and antennæ demonstrating the approach quite as forcibly as
the form and appearance of the whole insect. Where a tribe has
short biarticulate palpi, a genus departing from the type will assume
elongated and triarticulate palpi, should another tribe with those
characters approach it: again, should a tribe with long antlia
approach a tribe whose character it is to have none, we shall be sure
to find a genus without antlia at the point of approach. On the other
hand, the very egg, the larva, the pupa, the mode of feeding and
description of food, the mode of metamorphosis, and, in fact, every
prior quality, or state, from which distinctions could be obtained,
differ so decidedly, that the characters of these often bear as near
an approach to those of Hymenoptera, Neuroptera, and even
Coleoptera, as to those of their own kindred, into immediate contact
with which these approaches will be found inevitably to bring them.
What term can then be applied to designate the real value of this
species of approach? Supposing the terms analogy and affinity to
have had good, sound, and distinct meanings, as originally employed
and explained by great naturalists, they have now been so confused,
confounded, and utterly misunderstood by ignorant persons, that
either of these terms is entirely out of the question:[54] in fact, a
suitable term by which to designate this peculiar species of relation
or approach, I neither know where to find, or how to invent; and,
therefore, I shall purpose simply to call it relation of larva, relation of
pupa, or relation of imago, as the case may be.

In one instance, the relation of imago is, from several combining

causes, which it will be unavailing to recapitulate, uncertain enough
—that of Barbicornis and Lasiocampa; but I would ask the impartial
reader, is it half so far-fetched and untenable as those in common
use? Can human sagacity, in sheer wantonness, invent combinations
more unnatural than ——, twenty or thirty of which we could all
point to in our own cabinets? For the value of the other relations
(eleven others) I appeal to the judgment of the assiduous collector,
the experienced observer, the real nature-loving naturalist,—to him
who has spent days in the woods, and not only captured but
observed these delightful beings,—to him who never invented or
supported a theory,—to him who is pledged to no system, to no
party,—I ask him, nothing doubting of his concurrence, whether
these relations do not too plainly bear the impression of nature's
seal, to allow him to doubt one instant of their reality.

In the next place a question occurs, how is the relative position of

the sub-classes proved to be correct, seeing it is so totally at
variance with what we have from our childhood been perfectly
satisfied with?[55] It is proved correct, simply and solely by the
harmony with which each flows into each,—with which neighbour
meets neighbour,—comparable somewhat to that exquisite feeling
which induces a man to bend to the peculiarities, and perhaps even
little failings of a friend, until he makes them almost his own. It can
hardly be supposed that the sub-classes naturally fell into the
positions which I have assigned to them, without some little
endeavour, on my part, to produce this harmony. This was far from
the case. The discovery, if it be one, was the result of serious and
deliberate study. Even after arriving at their present state, I have
twice endeavoured to alter these positions, once in hopes of making
some of the Tortrices meet the Papilionidæ, as I had an idea that
that very assiduous and ingenious naturalist, Dr. Horsfield, had
mentioned the discovery of such an approach.[56] In vain, however,
did I strive to discover such an approach, in either larva, pupa, or
imago, while these points of resemblance were most abundant
between the Geometræ and Papiliones; the pupa, as though in
sport, being now suspended by the tail, now girted round the waist,
now enveloped in a silken web; sometimes round-headed,
sometimes pointed, sometimes eared; now smooth, anon angulated,
black, brown, yellow, pure green, clouded, or spotted: of these, and
a thousand other peculiarities, which tended to corroborate my ideas
of arrangement, I refused invariably to avail myself, trusting to one
guide only, which seems as steadfast as a rock: that relation of
imago constitutes approach of divisions; relation of larva is the tie
which holds divisions together. The second alteration I endeavoured
to make, was to place the Papiliones in the centre, a situation to
which their splendour and magnitude would really appear to give
them a title. This idea seems every way so plausible, and so likely to
be proposed by entomologists, should any such see merit enough in
this system to give their attention to its minutiæ, that I am
compelled to consider it more at large.

To a sub-class selected for a centre, two qualities are indispensably

requisite. They have been previously given from Mr. MacLeay, who, it
will be remembered, discovered that one of each of his five groups
contained types of the other four, besides a type peculiar to itself.
This quality must hold good in any group thus selected for a centre;
it must contain types of the six surrounding groups in the first place.
Now, is this applicable to Papilio? Have we not already experienced
the greatest difficulty in finding three good approaches, the smallest
number which a sub-class can possess? How then can we hope, by
any good fortune in discovery, to make ourselves masters of three
other entirely new ones, and these to sub-classes to which it is
confessedly the most unlike? Phalæna, on the contrary, presents us
with Lasiocampa, Ægeria, Cilix, Lithosia, Apatela and Orgyia, five of
which genera beautifully typify the approximating sub-classes. The
preference on this score then is decidedly with Phalæna.

The second position, that it should contain a type peculiar to itself, is

almost a matter of course; but my own idea is, that the very centre
should not only be a type of the genus, or order, or sub-class, but of
the class itself of which it is the centre. From this position, then, a
further and still more important question arises,—What is the type of
Lepidoptera? The parts which afford the generic characters of
Lepidoptera, and, I believe, generic characters in the perfect state
are the only ones of any value, are these—the mouth, palpi,
antennæ and wings; and, as no medium can constitute a type, the
excess of these characters, whether superlatively or diminutively
considered, must be resorted to as the most probable means we
possess of discovering what this type may really be. First, then, the
mouth. In Lepidoptera, we find two distinct characters in this;—first,
its entire absence; secondly, its being furnished with prodigiously
long antlia. The first character is that of Phalæna, the second that of
Sphinx. Next, the palpi are either entirely obsolete or exceedingly
prominent, the first in Phalæna, the second in Pyralis. Thirdly, the
antennæ are remarkably pectinated, or clavated, or setaceous: the
first character is that of Phalæna, the second that of Papilio, the
third that of Noctua. Fourthly, the wings are enormously expansive
in proportion to the body, or remarkably small,—the first is the
character of Phalæna, the second that of Sphinx. It need scarcely be
added, that all these characters are to be met with in every
intermediate degree of intensity. Now, it appears, that Phalæna
possesses an extreme of each of the four principal characters,
Sphinx of two, Noctua of one, and Papilio of one; therefore Phalæna
is the typical genus, Phalænæ the typical order, and Phalæna the
typical sub-class of Lepidoptera: and a necessary conclusion from
this fact is, the type of Lepidoptera is an insect without antlia or
palpi, with very pectinated antennæ and enormously expansive
wings, and we may add nocturnal flight: so that such peculiar
characters as the thick full body and prodigiously long antlia of
Sphinx, the clavate antennæ, erect wings, and diurnal flight of
Papilio, argue a departure from, and not an approach to, the type.

By a reference to the Diagrams exhibiting the classes of Insecta, and

the sub-classes of Lepidoptera, it will at once be observed, that the
central group in each case contains types of the surrounding groups.
Now after a central group has thrown off a set of six forms, each
representing, in general appearance, some group equally extensive
with such central group, the faculty or power of throwing off such
forms becomes, in a good degree, extinct, or, at any rate, very much
debilitated. This can be no unforeseen, but a perfectly natural, and
absolutely necessary consequence; for taking either of the two
classes which are at present sought after, Lepidoptera and
Coleoptera, we must observe, that did either of them possess as
varied forms and characters as are to be found in Neuroptera, the
essential and distinguishing character of that class, viz. variety, and
the harmonious arrangement of the whole sub-kingdom, would both
be entirely lost; and it would remain for human ingenuity to locate
either of the classes centrally or externally, as caprice, or the love of
differing from others, might dictate. I wish it to be observed, that
Neuroptera, in the genera Psyche, Cloëon, Termes, Psocus and
Mantispa, does not merely assume the form of the genera, Tinea,
Chironomus, Formica, Aphis and Mantis, but actually possesses the
characters and appearance of the classes Lepidoptera, Diptera,
Hymenoptera, Hemiptera and Orthoptera. The obviously
homogeneous character of Lepidoptera and Coleoptera, although,
probably, containing in every sub-class more species than the whole
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com