He W: BATES?”

The monograph on the AZantide, to which reference was made

Ixxx MEMOIR.

in previous letters to Darwin, was followed in June 1865 by an elaborate paper on an allied group of orthopterous insects, the Phasmide (phasma,a spectre), familiarly known as “walking-sticks.” Although low in the scale of development of the Insecta, that family affords excellent examples of protective adaptation in the resemblance of its members to dead twigs, withered leaves, smooth stems of grass, lichen-coloured bark, etc., so that the paper is an instructive supplement to that on mimetic analogies.*

Bates’s monumental labours as a coleopterist are embodied in Godman and Salvin’s great work—a munificent outcome of private enterprise—the Biologia Centrali-Americana.t Of the first part of his contribution, which deals with two large families, the Czczxdelide, or tiger-beetles, which stand at the head of the whole order; and the Carabide, or ground-beetles; a reviewer in ature (November 26th, 1885) wrote as follows:—

‘Its author has long been known as an entomological systematist, for itis now nearly twenty-five years since he inaugurated a rational classification of the Rhopalocera, or butterflies. He has been recognised, since the death of Baron Chaudoir,{ as the one entomologist possessing an extensive yet intimate knowledge of the Carabid@ of the whole world. But Chaudoir died without leaving behind him any general work on the classification of that family. It is therefore a matter for congratulation that the author of this beautiful volume has presented us with a systematic arrangement as complete as the faunistic nature of the work permitted.. The family Caradzd@ is of such enormous extent—12,000 species being known, with a vast number of others to come—that the necessity of some series of intelligible aggregates, subordinate to the division, but superior to the tribe or sub-family, is undeniable, and Mr. Bates’s attempt to furnish such a series is therefore of great value.”

In a couple of papers printed in the 7vansactions of the Enio-mological Society, 1890-91, the additions to the Carabide of the Mexican fauna since the publication of the first part of the Biologia are described, and corrections of “the descriptions and identifications of known species, by the light of the more complete material since received,’ are made. At the time of his death Bates was engaged on an improved classification of that family Dr. D. Sharp, F.R.S., to whom the manuscript has been entrusted, reports that the value of this latest work of Bates’s lies not in

Descriptions of Fifty-two New Species of Phasmidz, from the Collection of Mr. W. Wilson Saunders, with Remarks on the Family.” Zrans. Linnean Soc., vol. xxv. + Insecta: Coleoptera.—Vol. i. part 1, Geodephaga; vol. ii, part 2, Pectinicornia and: Lamellicornia; vol. v., Longicornia { In 1881.

introducing the use of new characters, but in selecting what is best in the various older systems. “ While doing this he has been able, from his wide knowledge, to settle the proper positions of a number of forms that have been discovered and described in recent years, but whose affinities had been left more or less doubtful.”

The foregoing far from represents the extent of his literary work. Although he was the author of only one book, he was the editor or reviser of nearly a dozen others. He took in hand the materials furnished by his friend Paul du Chaillu, after his return from Ashango-land, and put them into shape for publication (1867); revised Mrs. Somerville’s Physzcal Geography throughout (1870); saw Belt’s Naturalist in Nicaragua through the press (1873); edited Humbert’s Japan and the Japanese (1873); Kolde-wey’s German Arctic Expedition of 1869-70 (1874); Warburton’s Journey across the Western Interior of Australia (1875); Hellwald’s Central America in Stanford’s Compendium of Geography and Travel (1878), and also a series of [//ustrated Travels,efor which last-named task he had little relish. The last work from his pen is an introduction to the Supplementary Appendix to Mr. Edward Whymper’s Travels amongst the Great Andes, published by Mr. Murray in the spring of the present year. Bates’s remarks in this contribution are of special interest, as showing how the materials collected in the Andes confirm his early views as to the nonextension of the glacial epoch to the tropics of the New World.*

Dealing mainly with the Coleoptera, he discusses the nature of the insect fauna of high altitudes in the equatorial zone of the Andes, and its relation to the faunas of Chili and the temperate zones of North America and Europe. Darwin’s theory of the migration of species along the highlands of the Old World, from north to south, is supported by the identity, or close alliance of “ products of high altitudes within the Old World tropics and those of low lands near the Arctic zone and the mountains of temperate latitudes.” Is there, Bates asks, any similar proof of glacial migration in tropical America? ‘There is a remarkable relationship between the plants and animals of Chili and those of high latitudes in North America, and even Europe; “in insects, for example, numerous genera are common to the three regions which are totally absent from the intervening tropical and warm temperate zones of America.” No answer to the question was possible

Ante, p. xxxi. a

Ixxxii MEMOIR.

until the high Andes had been explored at elevations near the snow line. This Mr. Whymper has done so thoroughly that, “if there had been any distinct element of a north temperate or south temperate coleopterous fauna on the Ecuadorian Andes, the collections he made, inexhaustive though they may be, would have shown some traces of it; but there are none.”* Bates, therefore, answers the question in the negative. “It seems to me a fair deduction from the facts that no distinct traces of a migration | during the lifetime of existing species, from north to south, or véce versa, along the Andes, have as yet been discovered, or are now likely to be discovered. It does not follow, however, that the Darwinian explanation of the peculiar distribution of species and genera on mountains in the tropical and temperate zones, and in high latitudes of the Old World, is an erroneous one. The different state of things in the New World is probably due to the existence of some obstacle to free migration, as far as regards insects, bétween north and south, both during and since the glacial epoch.” | Such an obstacle might exist in “a breach of continuity of the land in glacial times at the Isthmus of Panama,” or in the lower altitude of the.tropical Andes during that epoch, which, while favouring “the spread of tropical forms over the whole area, would successfully resist the invasion of high northern or southern species.” This reference to Bates’s latest contribution to the problem of geographical distribution, further goes to show how unslackened was his grasp of the philosophical side of any question that he handled. In an age of excessive specialisation of every department of science, when, like the builders of the Tower of Babel, a man knows not the language of his fellow-worker, Bates will have a larger place, not so much for his classification of materials, as for his insight into their significance. In his second presidential address to the Entomological Society of London, delivered January 15th, 1879, he speaks of a deceased member of the Society as follows:—

‘‘In judging of his position as an entomologist, we must consider him chiefly as an zconographer; but in this useful sphere he was faczle princeps. I am not aware that he advanced any views as to classification, and he rarely even described new genera. The structural characters of the fascinating objects of his study he for the most part ignored; and it was amusing, to those who knew him, to observe how persistently he declined to accept the great aid to classification and estimate of natural affinities afforded by the form of

gf IGE Mon ee Tt Licey P+ 5-

the anterior legs, on which his contemporaries were founding a really natural arrangement of the Diurnal Lepidoptera. In a similar way he set his face against the teachings of geographical distribution and the formation of varieties and races under the influence of local conditions. His generally accurate delineation of the nervures arose, not from an appreciation of their real scientific importance, but from their relations to the colours and markings in figuring the species.’’

This description—of which examples are still not infrequent-exactly defines the limitations from which Bates had escaped before he sailed for the Amazons. The acuteness of his eye for details and structural differences was remarkable; not less remarkable was his insight into fundamental resemblances and differences, which placed him in the foremost rank of naturalists to whom form is subordinate to function. His bent of mind and continuous inquiry into significances prepared him to accept without qualification the Origin of Species. In fact, that book gave expression to convic-tions which had been slowly ripening within him during his long sojourn in the Amazon forests. He was among those whom Grant Allen aptly describes as “ Darwinians before Darwin.” While Owen, Lyell, and Asa Gray accepted the new doctrine, but with reservations; while Agassiz, Murray, J. E. Gray, and Harvey would none of it; while Adam Sedgwick wrote a long letter of protest to Darwin, couched in loving terms, and ending with the hope that they would “meet in heaven”;* while Henslow and Pictet walked one mile with him, but refused to go twain,t Bates was with Hooker, Huxley, and Lubbock as immediate adherents. He did not share the surprise felt by many when his old fellow-traveller Wallace refused to apply the theory, the honour of formulating which he shares with Darwin, to man in his ‘out ensemble, because he knew how prone Wallace had shown himself to become entangled in the meshes of the bastard science of spiritualism and its kin.t{ When the collected papers entitled Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection appeared, Bates wrote to Darwin as follows:—

‘¢15, WHITEHALL PLACE, S.W., day 20¢h, 1870. ‘‘T have been having some conversation with the editor of the Academy about Mr. Wallace's last book, and the appearance of backsliding from the

Cf. Darwin's Live and Letters, ii. 250. t lbid., ch. v., ‘On the Reception of the Origin of Species,” by Prof. Huxley. t See Mr. Wallace’s article on ‘‘ Spiritualism” in Chambers’ Encyclop., vol. ix., 189 edition.

Ixxxiv MEMOIR.

Darwinian theory which it contains. Other sincere friends of the pure truth have expressed a little surprise and bewilderment at the same phenomenon. The views of friend Wallace are so plausible, and suit so well widespread prejudices, that you, no doubt, think with me they ought to be controverted. But who is to criticise them? No one but yourself. I do not think any one else would have the present insight into the fallacy but yourself: to others it would require much study and labour to marshal the arguments. I said so to Mr. Appleton, and he begged of me to write to you in support of a request he is going to make to write him a short article as a review of the book.* ‘¢ When you were last in town I spoke to you about some sentences I had written on man, interwoven in last chapter of Mrs. Somerville’s book. It weighs on my conscience to think that you took too much notice of what I said; for I do not really think there is much in the matter worthy of your attention., “Yours sincerely,

“H.W. BATES

Bates’s breadth of mental “beam” permitted inclusion of interest in the most varied branches of knowledge—interest with which he would be scarcely credited by those who knew him only in connection with his official work, and his special field of research. He loathed the inanities of “society,” but he loved good fellowship, although his chronic bad health compelled him to live a more or less eremitic life. To the few who met him at the Kosmos Club, or the gossipy luncheon table, to which the latest explorer was welcomed, the polygonal, or many-sided, aspects of his mind were the striking features of his unassertive individuality. But, perhaps, to know him at his best, and pierce the thick husk of his modesty, was to be his companion when, the evening work of “beetle-sticking” over, and the frugal supper eaten, the pipe was lit and talk started, sometimes on some “topical” subject, but, more often, on matters suggested by his wide and varied reading. Unlike Darwin, who tells us, in the autobiography which is prefixed to his Lzfe and Letters, that for many years he “could not endure a line of poetry, and found Shakespeare intolerably dull,” even music disconcerting him, and natural scenery giving him little delight, Bates revelled and rejoiced in all these ministers to the completeness of life. He was, in fact, far the richer of the two both in mental grasp and equipment, and, as foregoing extracts show, such letters of Darwin’s to him as have survived destruction evidence that Bates’s “ power

Page 17 of 120