  PREFACE.In concluding the last volume of these Illustrations, I may be allowed to express the satisfaction I feel, at the favourable manner in which the work has been received, both in this country and on the continent. Several objections have been urged, even by sensible writers, against miscellaneous works on Zoology. First, that they range over the whole animal kingdom, without completing the history of any one tribe. Secondly, that their authors, while professing to illustrate only what is new or little known, intrude a large proportion of subjects to be found in all the common natural histories. And thirdly, that this rapid mode of publishing new discoveries, is an infringement on the right, and is detrimental to the labours, of those naturalists who direct their attention to one particular branch. These objections, however, are not unanswerable; for, in the first place, these miscellanies should more properly be considered as graphic illustrations, or collections of figures, wherein the efforts of the artist, aided by scientific knowledge, are called forth, to complete, by his pencil, the more minute and detailed descriptions which should proceed from the pen of the monographer. The most perfect works in the science are undoubtedly those which unite the labours of both; but, in proportion as this perfection is attained, the general utility of such works is diminished. They become so enormously expensive, that they are only to be seen in universities and princely libraries; for the most part inaccessible to the naturalist, and nearly unknown to the public at large. The works of Le Vaillant, Desmarest, Vieillot, Ferussac, and several others, published in France and Germany, are of this description; and while in one sense they have considerably benefitted the science, they have in another proved very detrimental to its general diffusion. No sensible naturalist will risk his fame, by giving his observations to the world, without knowing what has been done by those who have preceded him;—until, in fact, he has proper materials to work upon. He knows that these sumptuous authors should be consulted; he has not the means of so doing; and he relinquishes his purpose in despair. Such has been the result in two or three instances which I could mention: and the power of materially extending the bounds of science is thus confined to those favoured few, who are so fortunate as to possess, or to have the power of consulting, those splendid publications. The second objection is well grounded; but in whatever degree it may apply elsewhere, I trust the following pages will evince my anxiety to render the work replete with subjects hitherto unknown or unrecorded; and my own collections, in most cases, have given me ample means for examining and comparing both the genera and species of nearly all the subjects I have attempted to illustrate. In several instances my opinions will be found to differ from those of many celebrated naturalists of the day; but I have endeavoured to put the reader in possession of the reasons which have led to the conclusions I have adopted. This is but justice towards those who have preceded me, and to the great body of naturalists, by whom such questions will ultimately be decided. The age is past wherein the ipse dixit of a great name was enough to check all inquiries after truth. Assertions must now be proved before they are admitted: and those writers who lay before the public tribunal of science their facts, their arguments, and their deductions, can alone hope to have their opinions generally adopted. The third and last objection is as new as it is singular; and has been urged against Miscellanies in general by an anonymous French writer.[1] However an author may feel annoyance or disappointment, that another should be the first to publish discoveries, which he fancies belong exclusively to himself, he surely has no title to complain. The field of Nature is open to the inquiries of all. In her domain there are not yet established any scientific preserves.[2] If occupation or indolence does not permit one labourer to make known his discoveries, is another (who perhaps unconsciously has been working on the same ground) to hide the knowledge he has gained? This is surely a principle at once illiberal and unjust. At this time, there is not perhaps a single department of Zoology which is not employing the attention of more than one writer. It is to the honour, and to the lasting benefit of science, that it should be so: and although a great part of the new objects collected during my travels in Europe and Brazil have recently been made public by MM. Temminck and Godart, I feel rejoiced that this has been done by such distinguished men. I have been induced to enter (perhaps too fully) into a general defence of Zoological miscellanies, from the opinion I entertain of their great utility. First, in diffusing a general knowledge, and exciting a taste for such pursuits among the great mass of readers; and secondly, as being a prompt and interesting channel of communicating new discoveries to the scientific world. Their periodical appearances and comparative cheapness renders them of easy access to the student; and, if well conducted, they unite all that is essential from the pen and the pencil. Several foreign journals have noticed the appearance of these Illustrations, and generally in such terms as to stamp a value on their contents. One of these, however,[3] contains several misrepresentations, which have doubtless escaped the notice of the editor; and which, therefore, it may be as well to explain in this place. The writer in this journal, while noticing my Illustrations, seems to have mixed up with it criticisms intended for another periodical miscellany,[4] to which this has, perhaps, given birth, and which professes to be on a similar plan. He states that these Illustrations are to be completed in sixty numbers, making five volumes. No such declaration, to my knowledge, has ever been made, although such is the averred plan of the Naturalist's Repository. The reviewer goes on to state: "Il suit pour l'Entomologie et la Conchologie la classification surannÉe de LinnÆus." This is not a very respectful mode of speaking of the labours of the greatest naturalist whom his age produced; but the proposition is a total mistake; the charge is refuted by almost every page of my work; and, what is rather extraordinary, by the very quotations of the reviewer. In reply to the regret expressed, "que l'auteur n'indique pas toujours les ouvrages les plus rÉcens," I should have been thankful had he subjoined what works these were; as I do not find, in the monthly lists of the Bulletin, any one which I have not consulted or referred to, if connected with the objects here described.[5] M. de Ferussac's work has been regularly cited, but his Prodromus I have never been able to procure, either in England or Paris. And here I cannot refrain from adverting to the great number of Zoological publications which have appeared in this country during the last three years; a number far exceeding in proportion that of any period in the annals of the science. Dr. Horsfield has commenced a beautiful work on the Animals of Java; and Mr. Sowerby is prosecuting his Genera of Shells with much zeal, and with increased ability. Both these appear periodically. They are conducted on the modern principles of science, and do credit to their authors. The Naturalist's Repository, before alluded to, likewise appears monthly, but is carried on according to the LinnÆan system, pure and unadulterated. All these, however, unite in showing how rapidly the taste for such works has increased. Added to these, a new quarterly Journal, exclusively devoted to Zoology, has been announced, and, if conducted on liberal principles, its utility will be very great. But nothing, perhaps, has more fully evinced the state of public feeling on this point among men of enlightened minds, than the discussions which have arisen on the present state of the British Museum. It is a subject on which I might be tempted to say much, did I not feel, that among those who do not know me, I might be suspected of interested or unworthy motives. But from the retirement of a country life, I may now be allowed perhaps to say a few words. It is indeed most true, that, in the Zoological department, this institution is a full century behind the rest of Europe; I might almost add, of America. But the fault is deep-rooted; and does not spring from the person (whoever he may be) to whom this overwhelming charge is given. It is ridiculous to suppose that the exertions of any one person (however great his talents, his zeal, and his assiduity,) are sufficient to discharge the duties of so complicated an office. Such a supposition implies the expectation of a moral impossibility; and so long as such a Herculean task is allotted him, so long will the Museum continue, with little alteration, in its present state. Where we have one Zoologist, the museums of Paris, Berlin, and Vienna have many; each is charged with the care of one particular branch; and, by their united efforts, the whole is displayed to the examination of the scientific, and to the view of the public. Each professor has thus leisure to prosecute the most important objects of his duty; i. e. to examine, compare, and describe, to detect analogies, to investigate affinities, and to give to the world the fruits of his studies. To France more particularly this honour is due. And what has been the result? Why, that Paris has become the Zoological university of Europe; and that the principles which have emanated from it, are now considered the only true ones by which Nature is to be studied. It is not my object to attach reproach to any body of men collectively, or to any one individually; but truth is not to be concealed. Every writer who has the advancement of his favourite study at heart, is bound (however feebly) to advocate its cause. The truth of the preceding remarks cannot be questioned; and it remains with those in power, to consider well, whether such a state of things is consistent with the honour and reputation of the country; with the justice due to those great men who founded the institution; and to the expectations of the public, by whom it is supported. Warwick, October, 1823. AMPULLARIA corrugata,Wrinkled Apple Snail.Generic Character.—See Pl. 103.Specific Character.
The annexed figures of this hitherto undefined species will clearly show its distinction from Amp. globosa, (pl. 119); and the specific characters now framed for these two shells, will, I think, sufficiently distinguish them from each other. In comparison with A. globosa, this (even in the young state) is a wrinkled, not a smooth shell, having the umbilicus placed near the middle, not towards the base, of the inner lip: the spiral whorls are elevated and ventricose, not depressed, and slightly convex; and the basal volution, instead of being very wide on the upper part, (near the suture,) is widest only in the middle. In young shells, the wrinkles and the marginated aperture are less defined. When divested of its epidermis, the colour is blueish white, with a few narrow bands of obscure purple. A specimen in my own collection has the epidermis so thin, that the colours beneath it are very conspicuous. The mouth inside is dark chesnut, with blackish bands; the margin being pale yellow and slightly reflected. The umbilicus, both in this and in A. globosa, is small and contracted, while in the real A. rugosa Lam. (Helix urceus Lin.) it is very large, round, and deep. This latter shell, also, differs from both of the former, by having a thin, and not a margined aperture. Mr. Sowerby appears the only writer who has figured this shell, which he has mistaken for the A. rugosa of Lamarck. I am informed by Mr. Humphreys it is a native of India. CINNYRIS Javanica,Javanese Creeper.Generic Character.—See Pl. 95.Specific Character.
Under the full conviction that nature has defined, in the most complete manner, the geographic limits of the various tribes of birds subsisting on vegetable juices, I am particularly anxious to rectify any mistakes that may shake this hypothesis, in which I find myself supported, in the fullest manner, by the opinion of Professor Temminck, in the last edition of his Manuel. Dr. Horsfield, in his account of the birds of Java, describes two species under the names of Nectarinia Javanica and Pectoralis. It happens, however, that specimens of both these birds are in my own cabinet, and have enabled me to ascertain that they are both decided species of Cinnyris, perfectly agreeing with the characters laid down by Cuvier, Temminck, and myself, for this group. It is difficult to say how this oversight has occurred, because Dr. H., just before, introduces the genus Cinnyris, and describes under it two new species. In short, no doubt remains in my own mind, that Cinnyris is a genus as strictly confined to the tropical latitudes of the old, as Nectarinia is to the new world. The figure is the size of life; the outline of the bill will illustrate the generic characters, of which one of the most important is the nostrils. Nothing can exceed the richness and variety of tints with which this splendid little creature is ornamented; particularly on the head, which is glossed alternately with lilac, sea-green, and violet, and appears as if covered with some metallic substance; the blue on the wings, back, and edges of the tail is very deep, shining, and glossed with purple; all the wing-feathers are edged with olive, and some of the lesser quills with chesnut. ACHATINA virginea, var.Common Striped Achatina, var. 2 and 3.Generic Character.—See Pl. 30.Specific Character.
The shell generally known as the Ach. virginea (Bulla virginea Lin.) is so common, that few collectors do not possess it. The varieties, however, of this species are rare, and differ so remarkably in their colouring, as to require illustration. Several kindred species of this family I have already described; and on the same principle of establishing specific distinctions from formation instead of colour, I shall now endeavour to point out those characters which are common, more or less, to all the varieties of this species, and which distinguish it from its allies. A. virginea may be known by the comparative shortness of the basal whorl, which in general is broader than high; the margin of the outer lip is entire, and sloping in an oblique direction; the aperture is wide, and nearly round; the lower part of the columella takes a concave direction, and between its base and that of the outer lip is a very deep notch. The basal whorl is so broad that the shell, if placed on a table with its mouth downwards, will remain erect. Both these and the two next varieties are in Mr. Dubois' cabinet. Their locality is unknown; but my young friend, Mr. Frederick Parkes, has recently sent me shells of the common variety, found by himself near Kingston, Jamaica. ACHATINA virginea, var. 3 and 4.Generic Character.—See Pl. 30.Specific Character.—See Pl. 122.
The two varieties of A. virginea on this plate, are still more removed from the type of the species than those last figured; they are both much larger in size, and var. 4 presents a slight difference of formation, in having the basal volution somewhat carinated round the middle; but as in every other essential character it agrees with the rest, I have refrained from separating it as a distinct species. The four varieties I have now illustrated of Ach. virginea, tend to establish, in a very complete manner, the correctness of the principles on which I have framed the specific characters of this genus; here are four shells, with a total difference in the colouring of each, yet all agreeing in the same formation. It should be observed likewise, that A. pallida, figured at pl. 41 of this work, and A. virginea, var. 4, are nearly the same in colour, while in formation they are completely at variance. I do not think it has been hitherto remarked, that the elegant green lines which ornament the common variety, are only external; they resemble, in this respect, the epidermis of other shells, for they may be taken off by a knife without any injury to the enamel. M. Ferrusac has figured several other varieties in his beautiful work on Land Shells. LICINIA Crisia.Generic Character.—See Pl. 15.Specific Character.
The extraordinary difference existing between the sexes of exotic Lepidoptera, and particularly among the Butterflies, (PapilionidÆ Lin.) is a subject which hitherto has received but little attention; nor am I aware of any entomological writer who has described those characters which absolutely distinguish the sexes: characters which, I am persuaded, will hereafter be found of the first importance in a natural arrangement of these insects. But in the prosecution of this desirable object, the naturalist, as far as regards foreign Lepidoptera, will have to encounter serious obstacles; many individuals must be examined of each species, and some of these dissected. It falls to the lot of few to pursue their inquiries in the native regions of these insects. Collections in this country are very few, and some of these are not always open to the scientific labourer; neither can specimens be sacrificed for dissection, where there are not more than two or three individuals of a species. This is in general a very rare insect; observed for the first time by Dr. Langsdorff and myself early in June (the tropical autumn), in a wood adjoining the Organ Mountains at Rio de Janeiro. From its local abundance, we were able to ascertain the sexes. The two upper figures are of the female, and the lower of the male insect. PAPILIO Nerius.Generic Character.—See Pl. 92.Specific Character.
I have figured this insect, principally because it will fully illustrate the first section (a.) in the arrangement of this beautiful family proposed at plate 92. The two divisions there adopted, after the manner of LinnÆus, (GrÆci et Trojani) I am fully aware, are purely artificial; but the facility this distribution will give to the student, in searching after a particular species, is so obvious, that it need hardly be pointed out. I have only had the opportunity of examining the individual from which the figure was taken. It is a male, having the anal valves rather lengthened and obtuse, with a small hook between them, which projects from the last segment of the abdomen. This circumstance proves the error of Cramer, in having mistaken the sexes of this species, both of which he seems to have figured. That which I apprehend is the female (Cramer, pl. 378, fig. F. G.) I have not myself seen. The blue-green on the upper surface of the wings is very resplendent and changeable, and the palpi and thorax beneath are covered with numerous whitish spots. On the under side of the inferior wings, near their base, is a paler band, rayed with the nerves, and in some lights shining with a pale silvery reflection. Mr. Smeathman sent this species from Sierra Leone, in Africa, to Mr. Drury. The locality, therefore, of India, given by LinnÆus and Fabricius, must be incorrect. CONUS vitulinus, var.Orange Fox Cone,Brown-tipp'd variety.Generic Character.—See Pl. 65.Specific Character.
I received this very uncommon shell from the Island of Amboyna; and although in size and colour it is widely different from the usual appearance of C. vitulinus, I have no hesitation in considering it as a remarkable variety only of that species. C. vitulinus in general is a small shell. The best representation of it I have seen is given by Knorr; an author not in general very accurate in his figures. It varies considerably in colour, and approaches very near to C. vulpinus Lam. from which it principally differs in having an elevated, though short, spire, instead of one nearly flat: the base is granulated, and generally white; C. vulpinus also has the body whorl carinated and thickest round the upper margin, whereas, in Vitulinus, it is gently swelled in the middle. M. Lamarck is, I think, mistaken in the synonyms of this shell, which is represented in the Ency. MÉth. plate 326, fig. 2 and 4.. The shell at fig. 8. appears to me as the granulated variety of C. vulpinus. Inhabits the Asiatic Ocean. CONUS Maldivus,Spanish Admiral Cone.Generic Character.—See Pl. 65.Specific Character.
The general similarity existing between the Spanish Admiral, and two other cones, figured in this work, I have before alluded to; it has been placed by the LinnÆan writers as a variety of C. Generalis, from which, however, it invariably differs, in being a much thicker shell, with a shorter spire, and the whorls without any concavity. The colour of the two species varies considerably in different individuals, but C. Maldivus is always destitute of the dark brown longitudinal stripes at the top of the body whorl, peculiar to C. Generalis; the white bands are either broken into somewhat triangular spots, or are banded with minute dots; these triangular white spots are sometimes scattered in other parts of the shell, and the white band in the middle varies much in breadth; of all the varieties I have yet seen, the middle figure is that which makes the nearest approach to C. Generalis. The very applicable name given to this shell by Mr. Humphreys, in the Museum Calonnianum, I should have adopted, had not Bruguiere previously affixed to it that of Maldivus, as being a native of the Maldivian Islands. CONUS Maldivus, var.Spanish Admiral Cone,Chesnut variety.Generic Character.—See Pl. 65.Specific Character.—See Pl. 127.
As a further illustration of the last plate, I have been induced to figure this very rare variety, from a specimen I met with at Mrs. Mawe's. In the disposition of its markings, it approaches near to the shell represented in the Ency. MÉth. plate 325, f. 6, but the white band in the middle is narrower, and quite destitute of the circular dotted lines there expressed. No shells require a greater accuracy of delineation than the Cones, particularly in expressing the peculiarity in the form and sculpture of their spires. I am well persuaded that a great number of the mistakes committed by authors have originated in the wretched figures contained in Favanne's work, and in the early volumes of Martini. Those of Favanne are generally so loose and inaccurate, (although remarkably well engraved,) that I do not wish, by quoting, to make them any authority; and most of the Cones figured by Martini are equally bad. Bruguiere and Lamarck have both given the character of spir canaliculat to this species, which is altogether a mistake. The spiral whorls are all but perfectly flat, and the suture is quite closed up, although sometimes uneven; originating, as in many other shells, either from the inequalities of growth, or from an accidental sea-break, which the animal may have repaired. MELLIPHAGA torquata,White-collared Honeysucker.Generic Character.—See Pl. 43.Specific Character.
An elegant, though not a richly coloured bird; remarkable for the bright red of the skin above the eyes, and the milk-white collar at the back of the head. It is from New Holland, and, like others of its tribe, derives its nourishment chiefly from the nectar of flowers; as more particularly mentioned in my first observations on this genus at pl. 43. The figure is of the natural size: excepting the crown and sides of the head (which are deep black), the whole upper plumage is olive yellow: the shoulders, quills, and tail brown; the two latter margined with olive, but the exterior quills with white: the throat, breast, and collar round the nape pure white; skin of the eyebrows red. The Lunated Creeper of Dr. Shaw (Le Fuscalben of Vieillot, Certh. pl. 61. p. 122.) is, I apprehend, a distinct species. It is described as being cinnamon brown above, with a bright red spot of feathers behind the eye. In the temperate climate of New Holland, that variation from the usual colouring of particular species, so frequent in tropical birds, is seldom met with; neither can these two birds be sexes of one species, because Lewin, who wrote on the spot, particularly remarks that the female of this is like the male; he further adds, it is found near Paramatta, and the Hawkesbury river, in thick bushy woods. Lewin's figure is so excellent, that I should not again have represented this bird, had not the plate been prepared previous to the publication of his work. The outline figure of the bill will show more clearly the uncommon length of the nostrils, a character which is peculiar to this genus. TROCHILUS latipennis,Grey Sickle-winged Humming Bird,Male and Female.Generic Character.—See Pl. 82.Specific Character.
The opinion I expressed on the unusual formation of the wings in two species of Humming-birds, figured at pl. 83 and 107, appears to receive the fullest confirmation from the birds here represented. One of these (pl. 131) is clearly the T. latipennis, or Broad-shafted Humming-bird of authors; while the other presents not the slightest difference except in the shafts of the quills, which, instead of being thickened and dilated, are of the ordinary size. Not having myself dissected these birds, I cannot decidedly say they are male and female; but I think no reasonable doubt can remain that such is the fact, and that these singular quill-feathers are characteristic only of the male sex. Both the birds are represented the size of life, and may be included in one description: the upper plumage obscure blueish green, glossed with a coppery or golden tinge and shaded with brown, the plumage beneath entirely grey; ears and sides of the neck the same, the latter with some spots of greenish. Tail large, even, and broad; the two middle feathers green, tipt (in the male) with blackish; the next pair black, with the base green, and the extreme points whitish; the remainder black, with their ends more or less white. Wings violet brown, the shafts of the three outer quills, in the male, dilated and compressed, but simple in the female. Said to inhabit Cayenne. Although the bill of this species is all but straight, it belongs naturally to the curved-bill division. |
|