Pierre-André Latreille

Originally published in volume 33, Exotic Moths.

---

As the names of Swammerdam, Linnæus, and Fabricius, have been respectively used to indicate particular epochs in the earlier stages of Entomology, so may that of Latreille be employed to signalize the most flourishing period of the science in more recent times.

Almost from the date of his first publication till his death, his superiority in this department of Natural History seems to have been admitted by the general consent of all competent judges; every student was accustomed to look to him as a guide and instructor; and the most skilful, as well as the most inexperienced, have every where united in doing him homage as the “facile princeps entomologorum.”

It is much to be regretted that no detailed biography of an individual so celebrated for his attainments in the branch of study to which he devoted himself, has yet been laid before the public. M. Audouin, an eminent student in the same department of science, has promised a historical notice of Latreille for the Annals of the Entomological Society of France, of which he was the honorary president, but we are not aware that this has yet made its appearance. The following sketch will, therefore, be deficient in regard to the less important incidents of his life, which, in such cases, are seldom considered destitute of interest, although they have no immediate connexion with the causes of the individual’s celebrity. Latreille lived in most eventful times, and it is not to be supposed but that many occurrences affecting his interests and the tenor of his life befell him besides those with which we have had an opportunity of becoming acquainted, and which might be well worthy of relation.

Pierre-André Latreille was born on the 29th November 1762, at Brives, a small town on the river Correze (a tributary of the Dordogne), in the department of the same name, which formed a part of the province of Limosin. His parents were descended from an honourable family; but their death left him an orphan at an early age, and apparently with very slender means of subsistence. Indeed he himself says that he seemed born to misfortune and obscurity. But the gentleness of his disposition, and attractive manners, secured for his boyhood several affectionate protectors, who did not relax their exertions in his favour till he was enabled, in some measure, to provide for himself. A medical practitioner in his native town, M. Laroche, took a paternal charge of him, and Latreille was indebted to the friendship of this gentleman and his family for the comforts and amenities of a home. At a somewhat later period, a merchant of the same place, M. Malepeyre, showed him much kindness, and it appears to have been this generous minded individual to whom the merit is to be ascribed of first developing his taste for natural history. His love for it, which must have been deeply implanted in his nature, probably showed itself at an early age, and little more would require to be done than to fan the flame already kindled. This M. Malepeyre did by supplying him with books on the subject, and giving such instructions as he was competent to offer. That under the care of these and other friends who felt an interest in his welfare, must have been laid the foundation of a sound literary education, may safely be inferred from the proofs he afterwards gave of his proficiency.

Besides the individuals mentioned, another of his early patrons was the Baron d’Espagnac, governor of the Invalides, at whose request Latreille went to Paris when he was about sixteen years of age. Soon afterwards he had the misfortune to lose this friend, who loved him as a son, by death; but the loss was in considerable part supplied by a sister of the deceased, the Baroness de Puymarets, and his nephews, particularly M. Charles d’Espagnac. Through the influence of this family, Latreille was placed in the college of Cardinal Lemoine, where he continued for a length of time, prosecuting various branches of education. While here, he had the good fortune to acquire the friendship and good offices of the celebrated crystallographer and mineralogist Haüy. Our sources of information do not supply us with any intimation as to his progress, during this period, in natural history; but there can be no doubt that he was attending to the history of insects, from the knowledge he soon after showed that he had acquired in that department.

He retired to the country in 1786, and during his residence there, devoted himself entirely and with the utmost zeal to the study of insects. The fruit of some of his researches appeared a few years afterwards in a Memoir on the Mutillas of France, insects belonging to the order Hymenoptera. This essay, which we believe to have been the first of his publications on Entomology, appeared in the “Actes de la Soc. d’Hist. Nat. de Paris,” vol. 1, and it was not long in being succeeded by several others. On the termination of his literary studies, it was designed by Latreille’s friends that he should enter the church, and his education had been in some measure directed with that view. His constitution was not robust, and they probably thought that the tranquil duties of the sacred office were better suited to him than the active and laborious exertions required in most secular pursuits. It was little supposed that, in making such a selection, they were taking the very step which was destined at an after period to expose him most to persecution and outrage.

In 1788 he visited Paris, where he formed a friendship with many individuals of similar tastes with himself, of whom the most eminent were Fabricius, Olivier, and Bosc, afterwards his associates in the Academy of Sciences. The presentation of a few rare flowers to M. Lamarck was the means of introducing him to that eminent naturalist, and the warmest friendship ever after subsisted between them; so much so, indeed, that Latreille was in the habit of calling Lamarck his adopted father. The entomological memoir above mentioned, and his devotion to the science, which was now becoming known, procured him the honour, in 1791, of being elected a corresponding member of the Society of Natural History of Paris, and a short time afterwards, a similar mark of approbation was conferred on him by the Linnean Society of London.

About this time he was employed in drawing up various articles on entomology for that voluminous and valuable work, the Encyclopédie Méthodique. An article Sur la variété des organs de la bouche des tiques, appeared in 1795 in the Magazin Encyclop. (vol. iv. p. 15); and another, entitled Mémoir sur la phaléne caliciforme de l’eclaire, in the same volume of that work. But it was not till 1796 that his independent career of authorship can be said fairly to have commenced, by the publication of a work which formed the basis, if we may so speak, of his future operations, and at the same time laid the foundation of the great fame he afterwards acquired. This was the Precis des Caractères génériques des Insectes, disposés dans un Ordre naturel, published at Brives in the year just mentioned. In order to make the design and merits of this work better understood, it may be desirable to say a few words respecting the state of entomological science when it made its appearance.

In the classification of insects, to which alone this work referred, there were several different principles at that time followed by different authors. Such of them as approved of Swammerdam’s views, assumed the metamorphoses as the soundest basis of arrangement, and considered these to be the most important characters they afforded. A greater number adopted the opinion of Aristotle and Linnæus, and sought for principles of arrangement in the organs of motion; regarding characters derived from the immature or preparatory states of insects as unsatisfactory and of comparatively little value. Indeed, the arrangement of Linnæus, or the alary system, as it was sometimes called, recommended by its extreme simplicity and an admirable system of nomenclature, had been extensively adopted, and seemed so entirely to occupy the field as to preclude, at least for a time, the success of any rival. Although Fabricius found fault with these arrangements as founded too exclusively on the consideration of one point or one set of organs, he cannot be acquitted of having fallen into a corresponding error, by confining his attention too closely to the structure of the organs of the mouth. Yet the use he made of the diversities found in these parts is surprising, enabling him to effect many important improvements, and give a more explicit definition of groups and genera, particularly the latter. The zeal with which he laboured, for upwards of thirty years, to render the classification founded on this basis as perfect as possible, travelling into most of the countries of Europe in order to examine collections and describe new species, as well as its intrinsic merits, all tended to give considerable celebrity to the Fabrician arrangement.¹

But whatever merits these and other methods, into the consideration of which we cannot now enter, may possess, they are all artificial; or if at any time, in certain of their subordinate parts, they make an approach to the natural system, it is rather the result of accident than the object at which they aim. To Latreille almost exclusively is to be ascribed the praise of having applied the principles of the natural system to insects, and this he did for the first time in the work mentioned above. S0 early as 1689, the celebrated A. L. Jussieu had applied them, with the most fortunate results, to the vegetable kingdom; and others were labouring with the same view in several of the higher departments of zoology.² Indeed, the conviction had now become general among naturalists, that this was the only way in which the study of natural objects could be prosecuted with advantage. Latreille himself³ says, speaking in reference to the natural arrangement of insects,

The road, it is true, had already been traced by great masters, and the series of principal groups had been tolerably well established; but they had neglected the study of those relations of affinity by which these groups are connected; they had never compared the characters of the one with those of the other. Struck with this deficiency, I conceived the idea of uniting the genera into families, a project which I first carried into effect in my “Precis des Caracteres,” &c. That was only a mere sketch, and I again took up the subject in a more extensive sense, and accompanied with all the details of which it was susceptible.

But the conception which our author had formed, even at the early period of which we speak, was a very accurate one; and although in several respects it was afterwards modified, some parts of it required nothing more than to be fully developed and applied. A pretty close resemblance can be traced to the Linnean system; and the Crustacea, Arachnides, and Myriapodes are included, as in the latter, among insects. The most important change in the classification of true insects, is the addition of Orthoptera to the orders of the Swedish naturalist; but the order Aptera of the latter is divided into the seven following:—

1. Suceurs. Pulex.
2. Thysanoures. Lepisma and Podura.
3. Parasites. Pediculus with the Recini of De Geer.
4. Acéphales. Spiders, Scorpions, and Acari.
5. Entomostracés. Cypris, Daphnia.
6. Crustacés. Kleistagnathes and Exochnates, Fabr.
7. Myriapodes, Scolopendra, Julus, Oniscus, &c.

The order Aptera was therefore entirely suppressed, but this had previously been done by Fabricius; and the most remarkable feature in the work was the selection of the characters on which the new orders were founded, and their division into natural families.⁴ In fact it formed the germ of what was afterwards so fully developed in Latreille’s various publications; and although, of course, completely superseded by these, it is still of great interest, when viewed in relation to the history of entomological science.

It has already been mentioned that Latreille was exposed to much persecution in consequence of being regarded as a member of the ecclesiastical body. The dates which we have incidentally given will at once apprise the reader that about this time the French revolution was at its height. All the restraints by which human beings are usually influenced, had now been completely thrown off,—

and the giant Frenzy,
Uprooting empires with his whirlwind arm,

threatened to involve all that adorns humanity in one common ruin. Among the multitudes condemned to deportation, as it was called, Latreille was included, and sent to prison at Bordeaux, till the time should arrive for carrying his sentence into effect. The incident, in itself so trivial, by which he was saved from a fate to which so many others as innocent as himself became victims, has been often described, and it shows very strikingly on how small a point the most important events may turn. The surgeon who visited the jail where Latreille was confined, one day observed him carefully examining a small insect⁵ which had found its way into his place of confinement, and upon making inquiry he was informed by the prisoner that the insect was very rare, and that he was desirous of sending it to two young naturalists then residing in Bordeaux. His wishes were complied with, and the insect was transmitted to MM. Dargelas and Bory de Saint-Vincent. Latreille’s eminence as an entomologist happened to be previously known to these individuals, and they immediately exerted themselves in his favour, and that with such success, that he was ultimately released. He has gratefully commemorated this singular incident in more than one of his works. A figure of the insect is engraved on his tomb; and most of the entomologists of France preserve, in a conspicuous part of their cabinets, the Necrobie-Latreille, in gratitude for the service it rendered to their master. Nay, the more sentimental of them, feeling even this to be an inadequate indication of the emotion of their hearts, have an inscription attached to it, intimating that they asked and obtained from the hands of their honoured master, the specimen exhibited, in commemoration of so miraculous an event.⁶

Latreille incurred a similar danger in 1797, when he was again proscribed as an émigré; but the favour of his fellow citizens, and the influence of his friends, of whom he always had the good fortune to possess many, proved sufficient for his protection. The names of those influential individuals, to whom he owed his safety on this occasion, are General Marbot, Lachaize, judge of the courts of Cassation, and M. Malès.

The events of the Revolution caused him entirely to abandon his views towards the church; and he devoted himself, without restriction, to the prosecution of his studies in Natural History. He seems to have taken up his abode permanently in Paris in 1798; and was at first received with great kindness by M. Antoine Coquebert and his family. He was soon after nominated a corresponding member of the Institute, and on the strong recommendation of MM. Lamarck, Lacépède, Cuvier, and Geoffroy St. Hilaire, he was employed in the Museum of Natural History in the congenial task of arranging the insects. This brought him some small emolument, and the addition he made to it by writing numerous small works of a popular kind, sufficed for all his moderate wants.

It is not our intention to allude particularly in this place to all the works he published at different times; the very full list of them attached to the end of this biographical notice will indicate the extent of his labours, and prove useful, it is hoped, to the student who follows in the same track. Most of them appeared in periodicals, and all were received with great favour, as indicating extensive knowledge, sound and enlightened views, and no small degree of learning. The work which definitely fixed his reputation as the first entomologist of the age, was the well known Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum secundum ordinem naturalem in familias disposita, &c. published at Paris in 1606–1809, in 4 vols. 8vo. It is a luminous exposition of the principles of natural arrangement laid down in his first work on the subject, and ever since its appearance las formed a principal guide to the student of Entomology. In this work the Linnean Insecta are divided into two groups or classes of equivalent value, Crustacea and Insecta, the former of which he characterises as possessing a heart and breathing by bronchiæ, and the latter as breathing by trachæe. The class Insecta, the arrangement of which we shall give in a synoptical form as an example, is divided in the following manner:—

1. Insects without wings. Aptera.
   1. With segments bearing seven or more pair of legs.
      1. Head separated from the thorax.
         1. Four antennæ. Last segments of the body without legs. Legion 1. Tetracera.
         2. Two antennæ. All the segments except the last with legs. Legion 2. Myriapoda.
      2. Head connected with the thorax. No antennæ. Legion 3. Acera.
   2. With three segments bearing legs. Legion 4. Apterodicera.
2. Insects with wings. Legion 5. Pterodiera.
   1. With elytra and wings. Elytroptera.
      1. With mandibles. Odontata.
         1. Wings folded transversely. Order 1. Coleopiera.
         2. Wings folded longitudinally. Order 2. Orthoptera.
      2. With haustellate mouth. Siphonostoma. Order 3. Hemiptera.
   2. Without elytra, but having wings. Gymnoptera.
      1. With mandibles. Odontata.
         1. Nervures reticulated. Order 4. Neuroptera.
         2. Nervuresramose. Order 5. Hymenoptera.
      2. With haustellate mouth. Siphonostoma.
         1. Four wings covered with scales. Order 6. Lepidoptera.
         2. Two wings and. two halters. Order 7. Diptera.
         3. No wings or halteres. Order 8. Suctoria.

Many parts of this arrangement must be allowed to possess the highest merit, but there are others to which this praise cannot be awarded, and of this the author himself seems to have been conscious, as he afterwards introduced material changes. Burmeister says,⁷

We may oppose to this arrangement, which, as it does not regard the entire being of insects, is still merely artificial, that it is not sufficiently strict, for the order of the Suctoria is an apterous group, not in its right place among the Insecta Pierodicera. And also the groups which are here considered as equivalent to the Tetracera, Myriapoda, Apterodicera, and Pterodicera, are by no means of equal value, but the two first and two last are most closely allied; the former are the subordinate members of a higher group, and the latter also could at most be placed as equivalent to the orders of the Insecta pterodicera.

Before leaving this subject, it may be desirable to show briefly, in juxta-position with the above, some of the various changes our author afterwards made in his arrangement, for in every successive work important alterations were effected. In his “Considérations générales sur l’Ordre Naturel des Animaux composant les Classes des Crustacés, des Arachnides, et des Insectes,”⁸ the Linnean Insecta was divided into three equivalent groups, Crustacea, Arachnides (including the Insecta aptera of the former system), and Insecta. Such was likewise the arrangement which appeared in Cuvier’s Régne Animal,⁹ but the groups were differently defined, and some of the contents of each transferred to another. There was likewise the necessary addition of the order Strepsiptera, recently discovered by Kirby. After several other changes, of more or less importance, in different works, we come to that embodying his latest views, published in his “Cours d’Entomologie,”¹⁰ which was completed only a short time before his death. Of this the following table will afford a pretty accurate view. The articulated animals are here designated by the common name of Condylopes.

1. Apiropoda. Candylopes with more than six legs.
   1. Class 1. Crustacea.
   2. Class 2. Arachnides.
   3. Class 3. Myriapoda.
2. Hexapoda. Condylopes with six legs.
   1. Class 4. Insecta.
      1. Without Wings.
         1. No metamorphsis.
            1. With mandibles, Ord. 1. Thysanoura.
            2. With suctorial mouths. Ord. 2. Parasita.
         2. Metamorphosis complete. Ord. 3. Siphonoptera.
      2. With Wings.
         1. The upper covering the lower like a sheith. Elytroptera.
            1. Gnawing insects.
               1. Elytra corneous. Metamorph. Complete. Ord. 4. Coleoptera.
               2. Elytra corneous. Metamorph. incomplete. Ord. 5. Dermaptera.
               3. Elytra coriaceous. Metamorph. incomplete. Ord. 6. Orthoptera.
            2. Suctorial insects. Ord. 7. Hemiptera.
         2. Wings alike. Ghymnoptera.
            1. Four wings.
               1. Organs of the mouth formed for gnawing.
                  1. Wings reticulated. Ord. 8. Neuroptera.
                  2. Wings with ramose nervures. Ord. 9. Hymenoptera.
               2. Organs formed for suction. Ord. 10. Lepidoptera.
            2. Two wings.
               1. With moveable appendages on the prothorax. Ord. 11. Strepsiptera.
               2. With halteres. Ord. 12. Diptera.

Latreille became a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences in 1814, having succeeded his friend Olivier. His name was the first, as elected by the Academy, submitted to Louis X VIII. for his approbation on his return to France. He was likewise, during the latter period of his life, elected an honorary member of most of the principal academies of Europe, established for the promotion of physical science. In 1821, the king evinced his regard for him, and the sense he entertained of the value of his services, by conferring on him the distinction of Chevalier of the royal order of the Legion of Honour. It was late, however, before he obtained such an appointment as his abilities and reputation may be considered as entitling him to hold. At last he was appointed to the Professorship of Entomology in the Museum of Natural History, a situation which completely realized all his hopes and satisfied his ambition. He devoted himself to the duties of this office with unwearied zeal, and engaged in numerous laborious works, at a time when his health was beginning to fail, and would have required almost entire cessation from labour.

One of the distinctions which he received towards the close of his life, and which he valued most highly, was that of being elected, under very flattering circumstances, Honorary President of the Entomological Society of France. This society may be said to have been formed, in a great measure, by his own pupils; those who had been attracted to the study, and guided in the prosecution of it by his writings; and not a few of them enjoying the advantage of his personal intercourse and instructions. In any case, he was the individual to whom all eyes were necessarily turned, as most worthy of presiding over such an association; and he deeply felt the honour thus conferred upon him. He said, in his opening address to the Society

There are certain days of happiness which Providence bestows on us, to console us for those others, alas! too numerous, in which we are tried by adversity. Such shall I always reckon that day on which I had the honour to preside over you. Yes, my dear associates, the remembrance of the proof you have given me of your esteem, in raising me to this presidency by your unanimous votes, will follow me to the tomb, and will alleviate the sufferings which are the fruit of my study and labours rather than of my years.

He always manifested the deepest interest in the welfare of this Society, and exerted himself to the utmost of his power to further its ends; and nobly did the Society return, as we shall have occasion to show, the obligations 1t owed him. His health was never robust, and for many of the last years of his life he suffered much from pain and debility. M. Audouin says,

His life had by no means been exempt from disappointment and sorrow; his wife having died several years before him, and being childless, he seemed condemned to a melancholy and insulated old age; but a niece who had been brought up by him, soothed his sufferings even to his last moment. He often told us that, as being the object of the most assiduous and tender care, he was happy in spite of his sufferings and infirmities. This devoted affection was never for an instant relaxed, and he saw renewed, in his own case, that beautiful example of filial piety which he had so often witnessed in the same place which he himself inhabited in his turn. In fact, in the very same house, the tenderness of a daughter had prolonged the days of a blind and infirm father. This old man was De Lamarck, the friend of M. Latreille, whom he succeeded, and whom he called his adopted father, when taking a last farewell of him when he was on the brink of the grave.

But his increasing debility did not prevent him altogether from prosecuting his favourite occupation. In fact, several memoirs on insects, and no inconsiderable portion of his last work, the “Cours d’Entomologie,” were written as he lay in bed propped up with pillows. Even in the beginning of the week on which he died, eager to withdraw his mind, if possible, from his sufferings by engaging in study, he corrected the proofs of his last production, namely, a description of a new genus of Crustacea, which he named Prosopistome. But this could not last; nature at length gave way, and he died on the morning of the 6th February, 1832, aged seventy years and three months.

Among the many individuals and learned societies who bewailed Latreille’s death, the Entomological Society claimed the preference in doing honour to their late president. It was determined that the coffin should be borne by the members of that Society, and M. Audouin was appointed to address the final adieux of the members to the illustrious deceased. The funeral took place on the 8th February. The bier was conveyed to the cemetery of Est (Pére la Chaise), supported by the members of the Society; the Institute, the Administration of the Jardin-du-Roi, and the Entomological Society, were respectively represented by MM. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, Dulong, De Blainville, and the Count Lepeletier de Saint-Fargeau, who supported the corners of the pall. An immense concourse of naturalists and men of learning and science composed the cortége.

After the military honours, which were paid to the deceased as a member of the Legion of Honour, three discourses were pronounced over his tomb: the first by M. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire in the name of the Institute, the second by M. Cordier in the name of the professors of the Jardin-du-Roi, and the third by M. Audouin for the Entomological Society of France. The following is a translation of that by the first-mentioned individual:—

Gentlemen,

Of the friend, the rival, and colleague of Lacépède, Lamarck, and Cuvier, nothing now remains to us but these ashes, already placed among these tombs where so much intellectual greatness has terminated. The loss of M. Latreille to zoological science, which he illustrated for so many years by the energies of his truly superior mind, has left amongst us a great and irreparable blank; for preeminence of this nature is not a favour which Fortune grants twice to the same country in the course of the same century. With this first rank among the entomologists of our age, Fabricius, like another Elias, had invested the heir of his talents while alive, for I have heard this solemn designation from the mouth of the Professor of Kiel himself; and this acknowledgment of the superiority of my venerable friend, M. Latreille, confirmed by the universal assent of men of science throughout Europe, has been the solace of the latter portion of a life of so much diligence and useful labour; and how agreeable to him has been the just homage with which you, my fellow members of the Entomological Society, whom I have seen so affectionate and ardent in testifying your filial grief, have surrounded his latter days! You conferred inexpressible happiness on a heart which received the most delightful impressions from the regards of friendship, when you formed yourselves into a society, in the beginning of last year, under his honourable patronage, and surrounding your Honorary President as affectionate and devoted children, confidently and respectfully sought his distinguished guidance.

At this moment of sorrow and regret, and when paying our final homage, it may be asked what could have been the commencement of a life the recollections of which henceforth belong to the history of the Sciences? Was M. Latreille called upon to derive celebrity from the fame of his relations, or to create it for himself? He has himself affirmed that fate had destined him, from birth, to misfortune and obscurity, and he ascribed his first success to that protecting Providence, which happily raised up for him devoted friends and proctectors. We know that the attractiveness of his manners, when a child, obtained for him the regard and good offices of some generous citizens of Brives, his native place. M. Laroche,¹¹ a skilful medical practitioner, and his family, took an affectionate care of the young orphan; and after their example, a merchant of Brives (let us give the name of such a judicious and benevolent Mecenas), M. Malepeyre, took the warmest interest in him; lent him books on natural history, and never ceased to encourage and foster the rising taste which his young friend already showed for the science he was one day to illustrate. Let us hold this benevolent individual in honour. Perhaps had it not been for his mild and useful benevolence, France might not have had the honour of possessing the first of her entomologists!

When he had terminated his literary studies, M. Latreille was intended for the church; it was hoped that the advantages of a calm and peaceable profession would thus be obtained for him; as it was, he was only delivered over to persecution and terror. Having been arrested at Brives, M. Latreille was sent to one of the prisons of Bordeaux, and there condemned to deportation. Afflicted with the same misfortunes as the illustrious Haüy, whom he had met in Paris and made his friend, Science and its consolations in like manner became to him the avenue to safety.

The medical attendant on the Bordeaux prisons was one day surprised to see a prisoner absorbed in the contemplation of an insect at a time when his life was in danger. “It is a very rare insect,” M. Latreille replied to the questions he put to him; the insect was asked for and obtained for a naturalist of Bordeaux, then a young man of high promise, and now our fellow-member, M. Bory de Saint-Vincent. The latter, flattered by obtaining this gift from an entomologist whose name was already known by honourable works, undertook the task of liberating M. Latreille from the danger which threatened him, and soon had the happiness to see his exertions and those of their common friend, Dargelas, crowned with the most complete success. Latreille was restored to liberty and to Science. One trembles to think that, a month later, he might have perished with the companions of his misfortune, swallowed up by the waters of the Gironde. The deliverance was truly miraculous, if we refer to its cause, the accidental discovery of an insect; and our illustrious co-member has taken care to commemorate the circumstances in the most important of his works, the Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum.

A life so long exposed to agitation, at last obtained the means of settling, peaceably and happily, to literary labours. I shall limit myself on this occasion to mention their extent and high importance; what can I communicate to my present audience respecting writings which have become classical for the study of the science of which M. Latreille so long held the sceptre. Their number in 1822 exceeded eighty, and since that period how many other works, always worthy of the name of their author, have to be added to the list; among these I shall only name his co-operation in the Règne Animal, two volumes with which M. Cuvier had the good fortune to enrich his monumental conception.

However, even all these entomological works were not sufficient to exhaust M. Latreille’s indefatigable activity; his Recherches sur le premier Age du Monde et l’Accord des Théogonies Phénicienne et Egyptienne avec la Génèse; his Dissertation sur l’Expédition du Consul Suétone Paulin en Afrique; his Considérations sur l’Atlantide de Platon; finally, his Vues sur l’Origine du Systeme metrique dans l’Antiquité et sur quelques Points de Geographie Ancienne, would give M. Latreille the title to be considered one of our most distinguished philosophers, even if Entomology did not place his name above that of all other contemporaries.

Society knew how to honour such eminent services. Our colleague attained to all the high stations connected with the subject in which he excelled. Since 1810, he was a member of the Academy of Sciences, then Professor of Entomology in the Museum of Natural History; almost all the academies of Europe were eager to obtain, as an associate, the eminent Naturalist, consulted and venerated by zoologists of every country as the supreme legislator in Entomology.

His simple and invariably kind manners gained him the hearts of all who approached him; it was his greatest delight to receive true proofs of affection, and to allow himself to give way to the lively and tender emotions of his heart. The intensity of his last sufferings had only the effect of exalting the ardour of his friendship and his paternal regard for his adopted children,¹² whose tender and devoted anxiety alleviated his last moments.

Adieu, my learned and virtuous associate! adieu, the oldest of my friends! Your name will live in our memories with those of Lamarck and Cuvier, of whom you have been so long the worthy fellow-labourer, and with those of Reaumur and Fabricius, to whose renown you will add the equitable voice of posterity, thus confirming a judgment which you had the happiness to hear pronounced during your life-time.

---

The Entomological Society, immediately after the funeral, determined to raise a monument over the tomb; and for this purpose a subscription was entered into, not confined to the members, but open to scientific men of every description in all countries. Although there are a considerable number of members of the Society in Britain, of these the only names included in the subscription list are those of Kirby and Spence, and two sons of the latter. The necessary funds, however, were obtained, and the monument completed in the autumn of 1835. It stands in the cemetery of Est or Père la Chaise, piece du Protestant, 39th division, No. 90, and is placed near the margin of the path. It is in the form of a truncated obelisk, nine (French) feet in height, composed of a monolith of polished Chateau-Landon stone, resting on a pedestal of the same, and surmounted by a bronze bust of Latreille. The whole is surrounded by an iron railing.

On the front is the following inscription:

Petrus Andreas
Latreille.
Scientiarum et Artium
Instituti Gallici
Socius
in Museo Parisiensi Entomologiæ
Professor,
etc.
Natus in Briva-Curretia
XXIX. die Novembri
MDCCLXII.

Parisiis Obiit
VI. die Februarii
MDCCCXXXII.

Entomologiæ Principi
Parentes Sodales Discipuli
Præsidique suo
Entomologorum Galliæ
Societas
Ex Ære Collato
Ædificaverunt.

The figure of an Egyptian Scarabzeus (Ateuchus sacer) is placed at the commencement, and that of a Moth (Saturnia Pyri) at the end of the above inscription.

On the left face of the obelisk are the following words:—

Précis des Caractères des Insectes,
1797.¹³
Genera Insectorum,
1806.
Regne Animal, Crustacés, Arachnides et Insectes,
1817–1829.
&c.

And on the right:—

Expedition de Suétone Paulin,
1807.
Notice sur les Séres et l’Atlantide,
1817,
&c. &c.

The bronze bust, which is of the natural size, has the name Latreille carved on its base. On one of its sides is a highly magnified figure of Necrobia ruficollis, surrounded by these words: Necrobia ruficollis Latreillei salus anno mdccxciii.; and on the other P. Merticux 1833; the name of the sculptor whom M. Valade Gabel, M. Latreille’s nephew, employed to make the model which the Entomological Society caused to be cast in bronze.¹⁴

A number of papers connected with the history of Latreille’s life, &c. were enclosed in a double box of lead, and deposited in the foundation of the monument.

The inhabitants of Brives likewise intended to have a monumental structure, surmounted by a bust, erected there in honour of their distinguished townsman.

On the occasion of the bust of M. Latreille being presented to the Entomological Society by his nephew, M. Walckenaer, the president, delivered the following inaugural address, which, although some of the information it supplies has necessarily to a certain extent been anticipated, we have thought it advisable to give entire, both for its own sake, and as an example of a kind of oratory seldom practised in this country.

Gentlemen,

The only consolation we can obtain for the loss of a friend who was dear to us, is the opportunity of conversing about him with those who share in our grief, or who can at least understand it.

On the occasion of the bust of M. Latreille being presented to you, I again congratulate myself on the honour of having been elected to preside at your meetings for the ensuing year, since I am thereby called upon to express, in your name, the satisfaction we all enjoy in contemplating the likeness of that individual whose works gave such an impulse to the science you cultivate. For the same reason I likewise become the medium of expressing your gratitude to the gentleman whose affectionate regard has enriched the place of your meeting with so precious an ornament.

The sight of it reminds me of the well merited eulogium the individual it represents received from his associates in the Academy of Sciences, as well as from many of yourselves, and intimates to me in particular to be cautious how I add my own, which can neither possess the same authority nor be expressed with the same eloquence.

But it may be affirmed that the highest panegyrics on M. Latreille, the most beautiful flowers that can surround his bust, or can be placed on his tomb, are those which it is in your power, gentlemen, to offer. It is your labours in the branch of human knowledge to which he owed his celebrity; it is your successful efforts daily to extend its boundaries, which confer more honour on the name and memory of this illustrious man than can be done by the best expressed eulogies.

What, moreover, can I say to you respecting the works he has left, with which you are as well acquainted as I am myself.

I should not certainly, in such a case, before other men and in the presence of any other assembly, have been silent respecting the works of genius which procure for this inanimate bust the honour of such an inauguration.

But before conveying a full comprehension of the merits of him whom it represents, it would have been necessary to show the importance of the science, so much despised by the vulgar, to which he devoted his long and laborious life.

I should have been obliged to point out how all the parts of natural history are incomplete without that of insects, not only because itis in itself the most considerable by the number of the individuals which it embraces, but also because it is connected with all the rest.

It would have been necessary for me likewise to prove that it is at once the most difficult, the most extensive, and the most philosophical of them all; since it is it which shows the phenomena of life and all the mysteries of instinct under the most singular and varied aspects; since it is it which best reveals to our view the fecundity, power, and resources of Nature, along with its innumerable diversities in form and colours.

I should then have to direct attention to the fact, that the greatest geniuses who have cultivated natural history; that those who have rendered their names celebrated by the most useful discoveries in physics, medicine, and the practice of the arts; that the Swammerdams, Linnæuses, Geoffroys, Reaumurs, De Geers, and Fabriciuses, had been drawn by a particular attraction to this interesting study, in such a degree that many of them at last devoted all their time to it, and occupied themselves with it exclusively.

It would then become my part to point out by what labours the indefatigable Latreille submitted all the observations of these great men to a new test,—a more exact and complete analysis; how prodigiously he added to the number of their observations; and how at last he succeeded in uniting into a body of doctrine such an immense number of facts, as to form at once a guide to the philosophical naturalist in this difficult department of science, and facilitate the study of all the authors who have treated of it.

But such a demonstration is useless in reference to you, gentlemen, since it belongs to the history of a science with which you are familiar, and the annals of which you are daily continuing to enrich.

However, although all of you know that Latreille was one of the most eminent men whom study has formed, you are not all aware that he was likewise one of the best whom Nature has made.

Let one who has had the happiness to enjoy his friendship for the period of nearly forty years be permitted to pass upon him that simple eulogy. It would, I am certain, be more satisfying to his heart than all those called forth by his genius or talent.

Deprived by the first of our revolutions of the support of a noble and powerful family, whose protection he had acquired, and on which he had some claims by birth, Latreille was thrown alone into the world, in the midst of political tempests, without property or means of any kind, with a well finished education, an ardent passion for study, a quick and sensitive heart, and a delicate frame of body.

Having escaped the proscription (who is there who has reached our times, after passing through these dreadful periods, without escaping the proscription oftener than once!) he was called, in a more favourable era to the Museum of Natural History to arrange the insects contained in that institution. He there found the means of perfecting himself in this branch of his studies, which he had always preferred to every other. In a short time he became in this department the competitor, then the rival, and finally the superior (not unquestioned although the fact was so undisputable) of those whom he called his masters.

He must needs obtain books. Many had already been published in Germany on the science in which he excelled: the library of the Museum, now so rich, was then very poor, possessing very few on insects, and no additional ones were purchased. Latreille, whose slender appointments scarcely sufficed for his most urgent wants, wrought for the booksellers in order to procure for himself what was necessary to extend the limits of the science to which he had devoted himself. He published various works on many branches of natural history, and likewise on geography. All these writings, although bearing marks of the rapidity with which they had been composed, display intelligence, a methodical mind, and great variety of knowledge. But the works treating of entomology always evinced his new and ee progress in this science, until at last the publication of the Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum placed him in the first rank of the entomologists of Europe.

Thus, by his labour alone he was able to satisfy all his wants. In truth, his philosophy was such that he could be content with little; he indulged in no excess but for study, and this excess weakened his feeble constitution. He counteracted its bad effects by a frugality seldom practised, by an absence of all the pleasures of the world, including even those of society. But he was not on that account less feelingly alive to any thing, whether sad or joyful, which might happen to his friends, nor less obliging and kind to all.

He was deeply afflicted at the calamities of his country; he detested wars, civil commotions, party animosity, and revolutions of whatsoever kind. Great catastrophes depressed his spirits, and made him nervous and unhappy, particularly in winter. He did not recover his vigour and freedom of mind until, on the return of spring, he could give himself up to the study of nature according to the manner which pleased him best, that is to say, not in the galleries or ateliers of the Museum, nor in his own confined chamber, but in the boundless extent of the fields, in the woods and meadows. It was there, under the vault of heaven, that the greatest number and most valuable of his observations were made. It was on his return from these frequent and laborious excursions that he meditated on the relations of the creatures he had studied, hastening, as soon as he had entered, to verify anew and commit to writing the result of his thoughts and studies, which he did on the corner of a pretty large table, which he had scarcely ever time to put in order, and which was almost always encumbered with books lying in disorderly heaps, along with boxes of insects, pincers, magnifying glasses, and all the other implements of the entomologist.

He spoke with difficulty, owing to a mal-formation of the lower jaw, which advanced beyond the upper; but his conversation was lively, instructive, and animated, indicating great sagacity, soundness of judgment, and, above all, a candid, sincere, and upright heart.

He was late in obtaining an appointment, which at last secured him what every other person would have considered a position of moderate importance, but which was to him brilliant and splendid.

Respexit tamen, et longo post tempore venit.

Like the old man in Virgil, he might likewise have reposed under the shade of his small possession, and left to a young and skilful professor, already accustomed to supply his place, all the fatigues of instruction. After so many labours, no one apparently could have had any thing to object. But his delicate conscience would not allow him to enjoy all the advantages of a place without filling it. Perhaps also he was not insensible to the glory of this new career of professorship which was opened before him. In order to pursue it with success, he engaged in extensive works, when his health, which had been for a long while much altered, would have required the most absolute repose. Then, also, a new and entire overthrow in the state, which no one had foreseen (not even those by whom it was brought about), gave him a new shock, and all these things combined, at last crushed the energies of a constitution already enfeebled by so much watching and fatigue. I shall here transcribe the last note I received from him, because nothing can show better the state to which he was reduced when he wrote his last work, and evince his prodigious perseverance, when he had set himself to the fulfilment of his duties.

In order that my fellow-member and friend, M. Walckenaer, may consult my memoir on Bombyx, forming part of my Cours sur l’Entomologie, I have had a copy prepared of twenty-three leaves of the first volume of my lectures. This memoir commences at page 94 and terminates at page 115. M. Latreille will afterwards complete the copy. He entreats his confrère to excuse him for the many mistakes and inaccuracies he will find in it. This work has been drawn up in the midst of the most cruel sufferings, moral as well as physical. His bed has served him for a table, and being unable to consult collections, he has been often forced to trust to his memory alone.

However, he has said in the same work (t. i. p. 132),

I believe that I may affirm, without violating propriety, that I have given a proof of my devotion to science. More than half a century has elapsed since I began to cultivate it; but it has amply rewarded me for the efforts and sacrifices I have made on its behalf. There exists only one chair of Entomology in Europe, and I am the first who has filled it.

Yes, but the indefatigable labour of half a century was necessary to obtain it!

Thanks to you, Gentlemen, Latreille could have said, at a later period,

There exists only one Entomological Society in Europe, and I am the first who presided over it.

If it be true that the life of a man ought to be estimated only by the use he has made of it, that of Latreille is worthy of envy, since it was spent so worthily. Let us cherish his memory, and study his writings.

---

Latreille’s Collection of Insects, which was extensive, was sold after his death. The Coleoptera were purchased by Mr. Noris of Manchester.

Chronological List of Latreille’s Publications¹⁵

• Mutilles decouvertes en France; Actes de la Soc. d’Hist. Natur. de Paris. (1792, in fol., tom. i. p. 5).
• Observations sur la Variété des Organs de la Bouche des Tiques; Magas. Encycl. (1795, in 8vo, tom. iv. p. 15).
• Memoire sur la Phaléne caliciforme de l’Eclaire; Magas. Encycl. (1795, in 8vo, tom. iv. p. 304).
• Precis des Caractères génériques des Insectes disposés dans un Ordre naturel. Brives, 1796, 1 vol. 8vo.
• Description du Kermès male de l’Orme; Magas. Encycl. (1796, tom. ii. p. 146, reprinted in the continuation of the Histoire Naturelle des Fourmis. (Paris, 1802, 1 vol. 8vo.)
• Observations sur les Organs de la Génération de l’Iule aplati (Iulus complanatus); Ancien Bulletin de la Société Philomatique (1796, in 4to, vol. i. part i. p. 103), reprinted in the continuation of the Hist. Nat. des Fourmis, and Magas. Encycl. (1796, t. ii. p. 291).
• Mémoire sur le Genre Diopsis de Linné; Magas. Encycl. (1797, tom. vi. p. 433).
• Description d’une nouvelle Espèce de Tiphie; Magas. Encycl. (tom i. p. 25 205).
• Découverte des Nids des Termes; Magas. Encycl. (1794, tom. vi. p. 550).
• Mémoire sur les Salamandres de France présenté à l’Institut; Bulletin de la Soc. Philom. (1797, tom. i. 2d part, p. 33).
• Essai sur l’Histoire des Fourmis de la France. Brives, 1795, in 8vo.
• Observations sur l’Histoire naturelle de la Puce; Rapport général des Travaux de la Soc. Philomatique (Paris, 1798, in 8vo, tome ii.).
• Mémoire pour servir de suite à l’Histoire des Insectes connus sous le Nom de Faucheurs; Ancien Bulletin de la Soc. Philom. (Paris, 1798, tom. i. 2d part, p. 114).
• Mémoire sur une nouvelle Espèce de Psylle (Kermes, L.). Ancien Bulletin de la Soc. Philom. (1798, tom. i. 2d part).
• Observation sur la Raphidie ophiopsis; Ancien Bulletin de la Soc. Philom. (1799, tom. i. 2d part, p. 153).
• Description dune nouvelle Espèce d Araignee; Ancien Bulletin de la Soc. Philom. (1799, tom. i. 2d part, p. 170).
• Mémoire sur les Araignees mineuses; Mémoires de la Soc. d’Hist. Natur. (Paris, 1799, in 4to, p. 118).
• Observation sur l’Abeille tapissière de Réaumur; Ancien Bulletin de la Soc. Philom. (Paris, 1799, in 4to. t. ii. p. 33).
• Mémoire sur un Insecte que nourrit les petits d’Abeilles domestiques; Ancien Bulletin de la Soc. Philom. (1799, t. ii. p. 49).
• Description de la Fourmi fongueuse de Fabricius; Ancien Bulletin de la Soc. Philom. (1799, t. ii. p. 1).
• Sur une nouvelle Espèce d’Ichneumon; Ancien Bulletin de la Soc. Philom. (1799, t. ii. p. 138).
• Description Gun nouveau Genre aInsecte sous le Nom de Pelecine; Ancien Bulletin de la Soc. Philom. (1799, t. ii. p. 155).
• Observation sur les Meurs et Industrie dune petite Espèce d’Abeille; Magasin Encyclop. (1799, t. iv. p. 230).
• Histoire Naturelle des Salamandres de France, précédée d’un Tableau methodique des autres Reptiles indigènes. Paris, 1800, 1 vol. 8vo.
• Mémoire sur la Vrillette striée; In the Rapport des Travaux de la Soc. Philom. from 1799 to 1800, by M. Sylvestre (1800, t. iv.).
• Histoire Naturelle des Singes, faisant Partie de cette des Quadrupèdes de Buffon. (Paris, 1801, 2 vols. 8vo.)
• Histoire Naturelle des Fourmis, et Mémoires et Observations sur les Abeilles, les Araignées, &c. (Paris, 1802, 1 vol. 8vo.)
• Description d’une nouvelle Espèce de Fourmi (Formica coarctata); Ancien Bulletin de la Soc. Philom. (1802, t. iii. p. 65).
• Mémoire sur un nouveau Distribution méthodique des Araignees; Anciens Bulletin de la Soc. Philom. (t. iii. p. 103).
• Histoire Naturelle des Reptiles, faisant Partie du Buffon de M. Castel. (Paris, 1802, 4 vols. in 18mo.)
• Observations sur quelques Guèpes: Annales du Muséum d’Hist. Nat. (1802, t. i. p. 287).
• Description d’une Larve et d’une Espèce inedite du Genre des Cassides; Annales du Muséum d’Hist Nat. (t. 1. p. 298 295).
• Observation sur quelques Guèpes qui, quoique à peu près semblables, produirent des Nids tout à fait differens; Ancien Bulletin de la Soc. Philom. (1803, t. iii. p. 147).
• Tableaux méthodique des Reptiles, des Poissons, des Mollusques, des Anniledes, des Crustacés, des Insectes, et des Zoophites; In the 24th vol. of the first edition of Deterville’s Dictionary of Nat. Hist. (1804, 8vo.)
• Observations sur l’Abeille pariétine de Fabricius, et Considérations sur le Genre auquel elle se rapporte; Annales du Muséum d’Hist. Nat. (1804, t. iii. p. 251).
• Des Langoustes du Muséum d’Hist. Nat.; Annales du Mus. Hist. Nat. (t. iii. p. 388).
• Mémoire sur un Gâteau de Ruche Cune Abeille des grandes Indes, et sur les Differences des Abeilles proprement dites, ou vivants en grandes Sociétés de Vancient Continent et du nouveau; Annales du Mus. d’Hist. Nat. (1804, t. iv. p. 383).
• Notice des Espèces des Abeilles vivant en grande Société et formant des Cellules hexagones, ou des Abeilles propremént dites; Annales du Mus. d’Hist. Nat. (1804, t. v. p. 161).
• Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum secundum ordinem naturalem in familias disposita, &c. Paris, 1806–1809, 4 vols. 8vo.
• Notice biographique sur Jean-Chrétien Fabricius; Annales du Mus. d’Hist. Nat. (1808, t. xi. p. 393).
• Mémoire sur le Genre Anthidie (Anthidium) de Fabricius; Ann. du Mus. d’Hist. Nat. (1809, t. xiii. p. 24).
• Nouvelles Observations sur la Maniére dont plusieurs Insectes de lOrdre des Hymenoptéres, pourvoient à Subsistance de leur Postérite; Ann. du Mus. d’Hist. Nat. (1809, t. xiv. p. 412).
• Considérations générales sur l’ordre naturel des Animaux composant les Classes des Crustacés, des Arachnides, et des Insectes. Paris, 1810, 8vo.
• Description des Insectes de l’Amérique équinoxiale recuillis pendant le Voyage de MM. de Humboldt et Bonpland; Printed in the Natural History department of Humboldt’s Travels, Paris, 1811.
• Numerous articles in the Encyclopédie Methodique, conjointly with Olivier. 1811, 4to.
• Mémoire sur un Insecte qui les Anciens réputaient venimeux, et quils nommarent Bupreste; Ann. du Mus. d’Hist. Nat. (1812, t. xix. p. 129).
• Observations sur les Organes respiratoires des Cloportes; Magasin Encyclop. (1815, t. i. p 80).
• Description de certain Crabes de la Méditerranée, 1814; Magasin Encyclop. (1816, t. i. p. 53).
• Nouveau Dictionnaire d Hist. Nat. All the articles on the Crustacea, Arachnides, and Insects. Paris, 1816, &c. 8vo.
• Règne Animal de M. Cuvier, 3d vol. Paris, 1817, 8vo.
• Introduction à la Geographie générale des Arachnides et des Insectes, ou des Climats propres a ces Animaux; Mémoires du Mus d’Hist. Nat. (1817, t. iii. p. 37).
• Considérations nouvelles et générales sur les Insectes vivant en Société; Mémoires du Mus. d’Hist. Nat. (t. iii. p. 391).
• Centuries des Planches de l’Encyc. Meth. Crustacés, Arachnides, Insectes. Paris, 1818, 4to.
• Des Insectes peints ou sculptés sur les Monuments antiques de l’Egypte; Mémoires du Mus. d’Hist. Nat. (1819, t. v. p. 249).

• Mémoires sur divers Sujets de (Hist. Nat. des Insectes, de Géographie ancienne et de Chronologie. Paris, 1819, one vol. 8vo.

  This volume contains his treatise Du premier Age du Monde, &c.; Dissertation sur l’Expedition du Consul Suétone Paulin en Afrique; Observation sur l’Origine du Système métrique des Peuples anciens; Notice sur les Peuples désignés anciennement sous le Nom de Sères, &c. &c.

  The following are likewise printed in the Mémoires of the Museum of Nat. Hist.:—De l’Atlantide de Platon; Considerations générales sur les Insectes vivant en Société; De la Formation des Ailes des Insectes.

• Passage des Animaux invertébrés aux vertébrés, Paris, 1820, 1 vol. 8vo.
• Rapport sur deux Ouvrages manuscrits de M. Savigny, présentés a T Académie des Sciences; Memoires du Mus. d’Hist. Nat. (1820, t. vi. p. 93).
• Des Rapports généraux de l’Organisation exterieure des Animaux invertébrés articulés, et comparaison des Annélides avec les Myriapodes; Mémoires du Mus. d’Hist. Nat. (t. vi. p. 116).
• De quelques Appendices particuliers du Thorax de divers Insectes; Mémoires du Mus. d’Hist. Nat, (1821, t. vii. p. 1).
• Affinités des Trilobites; Mémoires du Mus. d’Hist. Nat. (t. vii. p. 22).
• Des Habitudes de l’Araignée aviculaire; Mémoires du Mus. d’Hist. Nat. (t. vii viii. p. 456).
• Origine et Progrés de l’Entomologie; Memoires du Mus. d’Hist. Nat. (t. vii viii. p. 461).
• Recherches sur les Zodiaques Egyptiens. Paris, 1821, 8vo.
• Various articles in the first vol. of the Dict. Class. d’Hist. Nat. Paris, 1822.
• Familles naturelles du Régne Animal. Paris, 1825, 8vo.
• Régne Animal de M. Cuvier, nouv. ed. 2 vols. on Insects, Paris, 1829.
• Cours d’Entomologie, 8vo. with an Atlas of Plates, Paris, 1832.
• Distribution methodique et naturelle des Genres de diverses Tribus d’Insectes Coléopteres, de la Famille des Serricornes; A posthumous publication, in the third vol. of the Annales de la Société Entomologie de France. Paris, 1834.

Besides the above, various memoirs appeared in different periodicals, between the years 1823 and 1832, which we have not at present the means of enumerating.