LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

often has led, to the means of guarding against their injuries. At the same time we derive from them both direct and indirect benefits. The honey of the bee, the dye of the cochineal, and the web of the silk-worm, the advantages of which are obvious, may well be balanced against the destructive propensities of insects which are offensive to man. But a philosophical study of natural history will teach us that the direct benefits which insects confer upon us are even less important than their general uses in maintaining the economy of the world. The mischiefs which result to us from the rapid increase and the activity of insects are merely results of the very principle by which they confer upon us numberless indirect advantages. Forests are swept away by minute beetles; but the same agencies relieve us from that extreme abundance of vegetable matter which would render the earth uninhabitable were this excess not periodically destroyed. In hot countries the great business of removing corrupt animal matter, which the vulture and hyæna imperfectly perform, is effected with certainty and speed by the myriads of insects that spring from the eggs deposited in every carcase by some fly seeking therein the means of life for her progeny. Destruction and reproduction, the great laws of nature, are carried on very greatly through the instrumentality of insects; and the same principle regulates even the increase of particular species of insects themselves. When aphides are so abundant that we know not how to escape their ravages, flocks of lady-birds instantly cover our fields and gardens to destroy them. Such considerations as these are thrown out to show that the subject of insects has a great philosophical importance—and what portion of the works of nature has not? The habits of all God’s creatures, whether they are noxious, or harmless, or beneficial, are worthy objects of our study. If they affect ourselves, in our health or our possessions, whether for good or for evil, an additional impulse is naturally given to our desire to attain a knowledge of their properties. Such studies form one of the most interesting occupations which can engage a rational and inquisitive mind; and, perhaps, none of the employments of human life are more dignified than the investigation and survey of the workings and the ways of nature in the minutest of her productions.

      The exercise of that habit of observation which can alone make a naturalist—“an out-of-door naturalist,” as Daines Barrington calls himself—is well calculated to strengthen even the most practical and merely useful powers of the mind. One of the most valuable mental acquirements is the power of discriminating among things which differ in many minute points, but whose general similarity of appearance usually deceives the common observer into a belief of their identity. The study of insects, in this point of view, is most peculiarly adapted for youth. According to our experience, it is exceedingly difficult for persons arrived at manhood to acquire this power of discrimination; but, in early life, a little care on the part of the parent or teacher will render it comparatively easy. In this study the knowledge of things should go along with that of words. “If names perish,” says Linnæus, “the knowledge of things perishes also:”[J] and, without names, how can any one communicate to another the knowledge he has acquired relative to any particular fact, either of physiology, habit, utility, or locality? On the other hand, mere catalogue learning is as much to be rejected as the loose generalizations of the despisers of classification and nomenclature. To name a plant, or an insect, or a bird, or a quadruped rightly, is one step towards an accurate knowledge of it; but it is not the knowledge itself. It is the means, and not the end in natural history, as in every other science.

      If the bias of opening curiosity be properly directed, there is not any branch of natural history so fascinating to youth as the study of insects. It is, indeed, a common practice in many families to teach children, from their earliest infancy, to treat the greater number of insects as if they were venomous and dangerous, and, of course, meriting to be destroyed, or at least avoided with horror. Associations are by this means linked with the very appearance of insects, which become gradually more inveterate with advancing years; provided, as most frequently happens, the same system be persisted in, of avoiding or destroying almost every insect which is unlucky enough to attract observation. How much rational amusement and innocent pleasure is thus thoughtlessly lost; and how many disagreeable feelings are thus created, in the most absurd manner! In order to show that the study or (if the word be disliked) the observation of insects is peculiarly fascinating to children, even in their early infancy, we may refer to what we have seen in the family of a friend, who is partial to this, as well as to all the departments of natural history. Our friend’s children, a boy and girl, were taught, from the moment they could distinguish insects, to treat them as objects of interest and curiosity, and not to be afraid even of those which wore the most repulsive appearance. The little girl, for example, when just beginning to walk alone, encountered one day a large staphylinus (Goërius olens? Stephens; vulgo, the devil’s coach-horse), which she fearlessly seized, and did not quit her hold, though the insect grasped one of her fingers in his formidable jaws. The mother, who was by, knew enough of the insect to be rather alarmed for the consequences, though she prudently concealed her feelings from the child. She did well; for the insect was not strong enough to break the skin, and the child took no notice of its attempts to bite her finger. A whole series of disagreeable associations with this formidable-looking family of insects was thus averted at the very moment when a different mode of acting on the part of the mother would have produced the contrary effect. For more than two years after this occurrence the little girl and her brother assisted in adding numerous specimens to their father’s collection, without the parents ever having cause, from any accident, to repent of their employing themselves in this manner. The sequel of the little girl’s history strikingly illustrates the position for which we contend. The child happened to be sent to a relative in the country, where she was not long in having carefully instilled into her mind all the usual antipathies against “everything that creepeth on the earth;” and though she afterwards returned to her paternal home, no persuasion or remonstrance could ever again persuade her to touch a common beetle, much less a staphylinus, with its tail turned up in a threatening attitude, and its formidable jaws ready extended for attack or defence.[K] We do not wish that children should be encouraged to expose themselves to danger in their encounters with insects. They should be taught to avoid those few which are really noxious—to admire all—to injure none.

      The various beauty of insects—their glittering colours, their graceful forms—supplies an inexhaustible source of attraction. Even the most formidable insects, both in appearance and reality—the dragon-fly, which is perfectly harmless to man, and the wasp, whose sting every human being almost instinctively shuns—are splendid in their appearance, and are painted with all the brilliancy of natural hues. It has been remarked that the plumage of tropical birds is not superior in vivid colouring to what may be observed in the greater number of butterflies and moths.[L] “See,” exclaims Linnæus, “the large, elegant painted wings of the butterfly, four in number, covered with delicate feathery scales! With these it sustains itself in the air a whole day, rivalling the flight of birds and the brilliancy of the peacock. Consider this insect through the wonderful progress of its life—how different is the first period of its being from the second, and both from the parent insect! Its changes are an inexplicable enigma to us: we see a green caterpillar, furnished with sixteen feet, feeding upon the leaves of a plant; this is changed into a chrysalis, smooth, of golden lustre, hanging suspended to a fixed point, without feet, and subsisting without food; this insect again undergoes another transformation, acquires wings, and six feet, and becomes a gay butterfly, sporting in the air, and living by suction upon the honey of plants. What has nature produced more worthy of our admiration than such an animal, coming upon the stage of the world, and playing its part there under so many different masks?” The ancients were so struck with the transformations of the butterfly, and its revival from a seeming temporary death, as to have considered it an emblem of the soul, the Greek word pysche signifying both the soul and a butterfly; and it is for this reason that we find the butterfly introduced into their allegorical sculptures as an emblem of immortality. Trifling, therefore, and perhaps contemptible, as to the unthinking may seem the study of a butterfly, yet when we consider the art and mechanism displayed in so minute a structure—the fluids circulating in vessels so small as almost to escape the sight—the beauty of the wings and covering—and the manner in which each part is adapted for its peculiar functions—we cannot but be struck with wonder and admiration, and allow, with Paley, that “the production of beauty was as much in the Creator’s mind in painting a butterfly as in giving symmetry to the human form.”

      A

Скачать книгу