Produced by Thiers Halliwell, deaurider and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive) Transcriberâs notes: Except for the spelling corrections listed below, the text of this book has been preserved as in the original, including inconsistent punctuation, hyphenation and accents. Lepidotera â Lepidoptera coccoon â cocoon subtances â substances BÃ¼tchsli â BÃ¼tschli In this plain-text version, paired underscores denote _italicised text_, paired asterisks denote *bold text*, a ^ (caret) indicates ^superscripted text and an underscore denotes _subscripted text. Footnotes have been positioned below the relevant paragraphs and illustration captions adjacent to the relevant text. THE COCKROACH An Introduction to the Study of Insects STUDIES IN COMPARATIVE ANATOMY--III THE STRUCTURE AND LIFE-HISTORY OF THE COCKROACH (_PERIPLANETA ORIENTALIS_) An Introduction to the Study of Insects BY L. C. MIALL PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGY IN THE YORKSHIRE COLLEGE, LEEDS AND ALFRED DENNY LECTURER ON BIOLOGY IN THE FIRTH COLLEGE, SHEFFIELD LONDON: LOVELL REEVE & CO. LEEDS: RICHARD JACKSON 1886 STUDIES IN COMPARATIVE ANATOMY. I.--THE SKULL OF THE CROCODILE. A Manual for Students. By Professor L.Â C. MIALL. 8vo, 2_s._ 6_d._ II.--THE ANATOMY OF THE INDIAN ELEPHANT. By Professor L.Â C. MIALL and F. GREENWOOD. 8vo, 5_s._ III.--THE COCKROACH: An Introduction to the Study of Insects. By Professor L.Â C. MIALL and A. DENNY. 8vo, 7_s._ 6_d._ IV.--MEGALICHTHYS; A Ganoid Fish of the Coal Measures. By Professor L.Â C. MIALL (_In preparation_). MAY BE HAD OF LOVELL REEVE & CO., LONDON; RICHARD JACKSON, LEEDS. PREFACE. That the thorough study of concrete animal types is a necessary preliminary to good work in Zoology or Comparative Anatomy will now be granted by all competent judges. At a time when these subjects, though much lectured upon, were rarely taught, DÃ¶llinger, of WÃ¼rzburg, found out the right way. He took young students, often singly, and made them master such animal types as came to hand, thereby teaching them how to work for themselves, and fixing in their minds a nucleus of real knowledge, around which more might crystallise. âWhat do you want lectures for? Bring any animal and dissect it here,â said he to Baer, then a young doctor longing to work at Comparative Anatomy.[1] It was DÃ¶llinger who trained Purkinje, Pander, Baer, and Agassiz, and such fame cannot be heightened by words of praise. In our own time and country DÃ¶llingerâs methods have been practised by Professor Huxley, whose descriptive guides, such as the Elementary Biology and the delightful little book on the Crayfish, now make it easy for every teacher to work on the same lines. From the description of the Cockroach in Huxleyâs Anatomy of Invertebrated Animals came the impulse which has encouraged us to treat that type at length. It may easily turn out that in adding some facts and a great many words to his account, we have diluted what was valuable for its concentration. But there are students--those, namely, who intend to give serious attention to Entomology--who will find our explanations deficient rather than excessive in detail. It is our belief and hope that naturalists will some day recoil from their extravagant love of words and names, and turn to structure, development, life-history, and other aspects of the animal world which have points of contact with the life of man. We have written for such as desire to study Insects on this side. [1] Baerâs account of DÃ¶llinger is to be found in the Leben und Schriften von K.Â E. von Baer, Â§ 8. Whoever attempts to tell all that is important about a very common animal will feel his dependence upon other workers. Much of what is here printed has been told before. The large number of new figures is, however, some proof that we have worked for ourselves. It is a pleasant duty to offer our thanks for friendly help received. Professor FÃ©lix Plateau, of Ghent; Mr. Joseph Nusbaum, of Warsaw; and Mr. S.Â H. Scudder, of Cambridge, Massachusetts, have very kindly consented to treat here of those parts of the subject which they have specially illustrated by their own labours.[2] Mr. E.Â T. Newton, of the Jermyn Street Museum, has lent us the wood blocks used to illustrate one of his papers on the Brain of the Cockroach. A number of the figures have been very carefully and faithfully drawn for us by Miss Beatrice Boyle, a student in the Yorkshire College. We are much indebted to Dr. Murie, the Librarian of the Linnean Society, for procuring us access to the extensive literature of Insect Anatomy, and for answering not a few troublesome questions. [2] Prof. Plateauâs chief communications will be found on pp.Â 131 and 159; Mr. Nusbaum has furnished the account of the Development of the Cockroach, pp. 180 to 195; and Mr. Scudder the Geological History of the Cockroach, chap.Â xi. Five articles on the Cockroach were contributed by us to Science Gossip in 1884, and some of the figures were then engraved and published. In issuing a book which has been long in hand, but which can never hope to be complete, we venture to adopt the words already used by Leydig concerning his Lehrbuch der Histologie:--âDie eigentlich nie fertig wird, die man aber fÃ¼r fertig erklÃ¤ren muss, wenn man nach Zeit und UmstÃ¤nden das MÃ¶glichste gethan hat.â CONTENTS. CHAP. PAGE I.--WRITINGS ON INSECT ANATOMY 1 II.--THE ZOOLOGICAL POSITION OF THE COCKROACH 9 III.--THE NATURAL HISTORY OF THE COCKROACH 17 IV.--THE OUTER SKELETON 28 V.--THE MUSCLES; THE FAT-BODY AND CÅLOM 71 VI.--THE NERVOUS SYSTEM AND SENSE ORGANS 86 VII.--THE ALIMENTARY CANAL AND ITS APPENDAGES 113 VIII.--THE ORGANS OF CIRCULATION AND RESPIRATION (including a section on the Respiratory Movements of Insects, by Prof. FÃ©lix Plateau, of Ghent) 133 IX.--REPRODUCTION 167 X.--DEVELOPMENT (including a section on the Embryonic Development of the Cockroach, by Joseph Nusbaum, of Warsaw) 181 XI.--THE COCKROACH OF THE PAST, by S.Â H. Scudder, of the U.S. Geological Survey 205 APPENDIX:-- PARASITES OF THE COCKROACH. SENSE OF SMELL IN INSECTS. â Where the species is not named, it is to be understood that the figures are drawn from the Cockroach. LEEDS: MCCORQUODALE & CO. LIMITED, BASINGHALL STREET. STUDIES IN COMPARATIVE ANATOMY.--No. III. THE COCKROACH. CHAPTER I. WRITINGS ON INSECT ANATOMY. Marcello Malpighi. 1628â1694. Jan Swammerdam. 1637â1680. Pierre Lyonnet. 1707â1789. Hercule Straus-DÃ¼rckheim. 1790â1865. The lovers of minute anatomy have always been specially attracted to Insects; and it is not hard to tell why. No other animals, perhaps, exhibit so complex an organisation condensed into so small a body. We possess, accordingly, a remarkable succession of memoirs on the structure of single Insects, beginning with the revival of Anatomy in the 17th century and extending to our own times. The most memorable of these Insect-monographs bear the names of Malpighi, Swammerdam, Lyonnet, and Straus-DÃ¼rckheim. _Malpighi on the Silkworm._ Malpighiâs treatise on the Silkworm (1669) is an almost faultless essay in a new field. No Insect--hardly, indeed, any animal--had then been carefully described, and all the methods of work had to be discovered. âThis research,â says Malpighi, âwas extremely laborious and tediousâ (it occupied about a year) âon account of its novelty, as well as the minuteness, fragility, and intricacy of the parts, which required a special manipulation; so that when I had toiled for many months at this incessant and fatiguing task, I was plagued next autumn with fevers and inflammation of the eyes. Nevertheless, such was my delight in the work, so many unsuspected wonders of nature revealing themselves to me, that I cannot tell it in words.â We must recall the complete ignorance of Insect-anatomy which then prevailed, and remember that now for the first time the dorsal vessel, the tracheal system, the tubular appendages of the stomach, the reproductive organs, and the structural changes which accompany transformation were observed, to give any adequate credit to the writer of this masterly study. Treading a new path, he walks steadily forward, trusting to his own sure eyes and cautious judgment. The descriptions are brief and simple, the figures clear, but not rich in detail. There would now be much to add to Malpighiâs account, but hardly anything to correct. The only positive mistakes which meet the eye relate to the number of spiracles and nervous ganglia--mistakes promptly corrected by Swammerdam. Had the tract De Bombycibus been the one work of its author, this would have kept his memory bright, but it hardly adds to the fame of the anatomist who discovered the cellular structure of the lung, the glandular structure of the liver and kidney, and the sensory papillÃ¦ of the skin, who first saw the blood-corpuscles stream along a vessel, who studied very early and very completely the minute structure of plants and the development of the chick, and whose name is rightfully associated with the mucous layer of the epidermis, the vascular tufts of the kidney, and the follicles of the spleen, as well as with the urinary tubules of Insects. All that we know of Malpighi commands our respect. Precise and rapid in his work, keen to discover points of real interest, never losing himself in details, but knowing when he had done enough, he stands pre-eminent in the crowd of minute anatomists, who are generally faithful in a few things, but very unfit to be made rulers over many things. The last distinct glimpse which we get of him is interesting. Dr. Tancred Robinson, writing to John Ray, from Geneva, April 18th, 1684, tells how he met Malpighi at Bologna. They talked of the origin of fossils, and Malpighi could not contain himself about Martin Listerâs foolish hypothesis that fossils were sports of nature. âJust as I left Bononia,â he continues, âI had a lamentable spectacle of Malpighiâs house all in flames, occasioned by the negligence of his old wife. All his pictures, furniture, books, and manuscripts were burnt. I saw him in the very heat of the calamity, and methought I never beheld so much Christian patience and philosophy in any man before; for he comforted his wife, and condoled nothing but the loss of his papers, which are more lamented than the Alexandrian Library, or Bartholineâs Bibliothece, at Copenhagen.â[3] [3] Correspondence of John Ray, p.Â 142. _Swammerdam on the Honey Bee._ Swammerdamâs great posthumous work, the Biblia NaturÃ¦, contains about a dozen life-histories of Insects worked out in more or less detail. Of these the May-fly (published during the authorâs life-time, in 1675) is the most famous; that on the Honey Bee the most elaborate. Swammerdam was ten years younger than Malpighi, and knew Malpighiâs treatise on the Silkworm--a not inconsiderable advantage. His working-life as a naturalist comes within the ten years between 1663 and 1673; and this short space of time was darkened by anxiety about money, as well as by the religious fanaticism, which in the end completely extinguished his activity. The vast amount of highly-finished work which he accomplished in these ten years justifies Boerhaaveâs rather rhetorical account of his industry. Unfortunately, Boerhaave, whom we have to thank not only for a useful sketch of Swammerdamâs life, but also for the preservation of most of his writings, was only twelve years old when the great naturalist died, and his account cannot be taken as personal testimony. Swammerdam, he tells us, worked with a simple microscope and several powers. His great skill lay in his dexterous use of scissors. Sometimes he employed tools so fine as to require whetting under the microscope. He was famous for inflated and injected preparations. As to his patience, it is enough to say that he would spend whole days in clearing a single caterpillar. Boerhaave gives us a picture of Swammerdam at work which the reader does not soon forget. âHis labours were superhuman. Through the day he observed incessantly, and at night he described and drew what he had seen. By six oâclock in the morning in summer he began to find enough light to enable him to trace the minutiÃ¦ of natural objects. He was hard at work till noon, in full sunlight, and bareheaded, so as not to obstruct the light; and his head streamed with profuse sweat. His eyes, by reason of the blaze of light and microscopic toil, became so weakened that he could not observe minute objects in the afternoon, though the light was not less bright than in the morning, for his eyes were weary, and could no longer perceive readily.â Comparing Swammerdamâs account of the Bee with the useful and amply illustrated memoir of Girdwoyn (Paris, 1876), it is plain that two centuries have added little to our knowledge of the structure of this type. Much has been made out since 1675 concerning the life-history of Bees, but of what was to be discovered by lens and scalpel, Swammerdam left little indeed to others. It is needless to dwell upon the omissions of so early an explorer. Swammerdam proved by dissection that the queen is the mother of the colony, that the drones are males, and the working-bees neuters; but he did not find out that the neuters are only imperfect females. In this instance, as in some others, Swammerdamâs authority served, long after his death, to delay acceptance of the truth. It is far from a reproach to him that in the Honey Bee he lit upon an almost inexhaustible subject. In the 17th century no one suspected that the sexual economy of any animal could be so complicated as that which has been demonstrated, step by step, in the Honey Bee. _Lyonnet on the Goat Moth._ In Lyonnetâs memoir on the larva of the Goat Moth (TraitÃ© Anatomique de la Chenille qui ronge le bois de Saule, 1760[4]) we must not look for the originality of Malpighi, nor for the wide range of Swammerdam. One small thing is attempted, and this is accomplished with unerring fidelity and skill. There is something of display in the delineation of the four thousand and forty-one muscles of the Caterpillar, and the authorâs skill as a dissector is far beyond his knowledge of animals, whether live or dead. The dissections of the head are perhaps the most extraordinary feat, and will never be surpassed. Modern treatises on Comparative Anatomy continue to reproduce some of these figures, such as the general view of the viscera, the structure of the leg, and the digestive tract. Nearly the whole interest of the volume lies in the plates, for the text is little more than a voluminous explanation of the figures. [4] Copies dated 1762 have a plate representing the microscope and dissecting instruments used by the author. It is not without surprise that we find that Lyonnet was an amateur, who had received no regular training either in anatomy or engraving, and that he had many pursuits besides the delineation of natural objects. He was brought up for the Protestant ministry, turned to the bar, and finally became cipher-secretary and confidential translator to the United Provinces of Holland. He is said to have been skilled in eight languages. His first published work in Natural History consisted of remarks and drawings contributed to Lesserâs Insect Theology (1742). About the same time, Trembley was prosecuting at the Hague his studies on the freshwater Polyp, and Lyonnet gave him some friendly help in the work. Those who care to turn to the preface of Trembleyâs famous treatise (MÃ©moires pour servir Ã lâhistoire des Polypes dâeau douce, 1744) will see how warmly Lyonnetâs services are acknowledged. He made all the drawings, and engraved eight of them himself, while Trembley is careful to note that he was not only a skilful draughtsman, but an acute and experienced observer. When the work was begun, Lyonnet had never even seen the operation of engraving a plate. Wandelaar, struck by the beauty of his drawings, persuaded him to try what he could do with a burin. His first essay was made upon the figure of a Dragon-fly, next he engraved three Butterflies, and then, without longer apprenticeship, he proceeded to engrave the plates still required to complete the memoir on Hydra. Lyonnet tells us that the larva of the Goat Moth was not quite his earliest attempt in Insect Anatomy. He began with the Sheep Tick, but suspecting that the subject would not be popular, he made a fresh choice for his first memoir. Enough interest was excited by the TraitÃ© Anatomique to call for the fulfilment of a promise made in the preface that the description of the pupa and imago should follow. But though Lyonnet continued for some time to fill his portfolio with drawings and notes, he never published again. Failing eyesight was one ground of his retirement from work. What he had been able to finish, together with a considerable mass of miscellaneous notes, illustrated by fifty-four plates from his own hand, was published, long after his death, in the MÃ©moires du MusÃ©um (XVIII.âXX.). _Straus-DÃ¼rckheim on the Cockchafer._ In beauty and exact fidelity Straus-DÃ¼rckheimâs memoir on the Cockchafer (ConsidÃ©rations GÃ©nÃ©rales sur lâAnatomie ComparÃ©e des Animaux ArticulÃ©s, auxquelles on a joint lâAnatomie Descriptive du Melolontha vulgaris, 1828) rivals the work of Lyonnet. Insect Anatomy was no longer a novel subject in 1828, but Straus-DÃ¼rckheim was able to treat it in a new way. Writing under the immediate influence of Cuvier, he sought to apply that comparative method, which had proved so fertile in the hands of the master, to the Articulate sub-kingdom. This conception was realised as fully as the state of zoology at that time allowed, and the ConsidÃ©rations GÃ©nÃ©rales count as an important step towards a complete comparative anatomy of Arthropoda. Straus-DÃ¼rckheim had at command a great mass of anatomical facts, much of which had been accumulated by his own observations. He systematically compares Insects with other Articulata, Coleoptera with other Insects, and the Cockchafer with other Coleoptera. Perhaps no one before him had been perfectly clear as to the morphological equivalence of the appendages in all parts of the body of Arthropods, and here he was able to extend the teaching of Savigny. His limitations are those of his time. If in certain sections we find his collection of facts to be meagre, and his generalisations nugatory, we must allow for the progress of the last sixty years--a progress in which Straus-DÃ¼rckheim has his share. It is the work of science continually to remake its syntheses, and no work becomes antiquated sooner than morphological generalisation. It is therefore no reproach to Straus-DÃ¼rckheim that his treatise should now be chiefly valuable, not as âConsidÃ©rations GÃ©nÃ©rales,â but as the anatomy of the Cockchafer. Long after his theories and explanations have ceased to be instructive, when the morphology and physiology of 1828 have become as obsolete as the Ptolemaic astronomy, the naturalist will study these exquisite delineations of Insect-structure with something of the pleasure to be found in examining for the hundredth time a delicate organism familiar to many generations of microscopic observers. The fidelity and love of anatomical detail which characterise the description of the Cockchafer are not less conspicuous in Straus-DÃ¼rckheimâs Anatomie Descriptive du Chat (1846). Both treatises have become classical. We have seen how, in Straus-DÃ¼rckheimâs hands, Insect anatomy became comparative. New studies--histology, embryonic development, and palÃ¦ontology--have since arisen to complicate the task of the descriptive anatomist, and it appears to be no longer possible for one man to complete the history of any animal of elaborate structure and ancient pedigree. As a method of research the monograph has had its day. The path of biological discovery now follows an organ or a function across all zoological boundaries, and it is in the humbler office of biological teaching that the monograph finds its proper use. _Later Insect Anatomists._ It is impossible even to glance at the many anatomists who have illustrated the structure of Insects by studies, less simple in plan, but not less profitable to science, than those of the monographers. If we attempt to select two or three names for express mention, it is with a conviction that others are left whom the student is bound to hold in equal honour. Dufour[5] laboured, not unsuccessfully, to construct a General Anatomy of Insects, which should combine into one view a crowd of particular facts. The modern reader will gratefully acknowledge his industry and the beauty of his drawings, but will now and then complain that his sagacity does not do justice to his diligence. [5] Dufour. Rech. anat. et phys. sur les HÃ©miptÃ¨res (1833) les OrthoptÃ¨res, les HymenoptÃ¨res et les NeuroptÃ¨res (1841), et les DiptÃ¨res (1851). MÃ©m. de lâInstitut, Tom. IV., VII., XI. Also many memoirs in Ann. des Sci. Nat. Newport,[6] a naturalist of greater weight and interest, is memorable for his skill in minute dissection, for his many curious observations upon the life-history of Insects (see, for example, his memoir on the Oil-beetle), and especially for his early appreciation of the value of embryological study. [6] Newport. Art. âInsecta,â in Cycl. of Anat. and Phys. (1839), besides many special memoirs in the Phil. and Linn. Trans. Leydig[7] was the first to occupy fully the new field of Insect histology, and point out its resources to the physiologist. In all his works the student finds beauty and exactness of delineation, suggestiveness in explanation. Leydigâs contributions to Insect anatomy and physiology, valuable as they are to the specialist, are not isolated researches, but form part of a new comparative anatomy, based upon histology. Incomplete so vast a work must necessarily remain, but it already extends over considerable sections of the animal kingdom. [7] Leydig. Vom Bau des Thierischen KÃ¶rpers (1864), Tafeln zur vergl. Anatomie (1864), Untersuchungen zur Anat. und Histologie der Thiere (1883), &c., besides many special memoirs in MÃ¼llerâs Archiv., Zeits. f. wiss. Zool., Nova Acta, &c. CHAPTER II. THE ZOOLOGICAL POSITION OF THE COCKROACH. Sub-kingdom ARTHROPODA. Class I. Crustacea. " II. Arachnida. " III. Myriopoda. " IV. Insecta. Order 1. Thysanura. " 2. _Orthoptera._ " 3. Neuroptera. " 4. Hemiptera. " 5. Coleoptera. " 6. Diptera. " 7. Lepidoptera. " 8. Hymenoptera. The place of the Cockroach in the Animal Kingdom is illustrated by the above table. It belongs to the sub-kingdom Arthropoda, to the class Insecta, and to the order Orthoptera. _Characters of Arthropoda._ Arthropoda are in general readily distinguished from other animals by their jointed body and limbs. In many Annelids the body is ringed, and each segment bears a pair of appendages, but these appendages are soft, and never articulated. The integument of an Arthropod is stiffened by a deposit of the tough, elastic substance known as Chitin, which resembles horn in appearance, though very different in its chemical composition. In marine Arthropoda, as well as in many Myriopoda and Insects, additional firmness may be gained by the incorporation of carbonate and phosphate of lime with the chitin. However rigid the integument may be, it is rendered compatible with energetic movements by its unequal thickening. Along defined, usually transverse lines it remains thin, the chitinous layer, though perfectly continuous, becoming extremely flexible, and allowing a certain amount of deflection or retraction (fig.Â 1). The joints of the trunk and limbs may thus resemble stiff tubes. Muscles are attached to their inner surface, and are therefore enclosed by the system of levers upon which they act (fig.Â 2B). In Vertebrate animals, on the contrary, which possess a true internal skeleton, the muscles clothe the levers (bones) to which they are attached (fig.Â 2A). The whole outer surface of an Arthropod, including the eyes, auditory membrane (if there is one), and surface-hairs, is chitinised. Chitin may also stiffen the larger tendons, internal ridges and partitions, and the lining membrane of extensive internal cavities, such as the alimentary canal, and the air-tubes of Insects. [Illustration: Fig.Â 1.--Diagram of Arthropod limb extended, retracted, and flexed. Graber has given a similar figure (Insekten, fig.Â 8).] [Illustration: Fig.Â 2.--Vertebrate and Arthropod joints. A, Vertebrate joint, the skeleton clothed with muscles. B, Arthropod joint, the skeleton enclosing the muscles.] In most Arthropoda the body is provided with many appendages. In Crustacea there are often twenty pairs, but some Myriopoda have not far from two hundred pairs. Some of these may be converted to very peculiar functions; in particular, several pairs adjacent to the mouth are usually appropriated to mastication. One or more pairs of appendages are often transformed into antennÃ¦. The relative position of the chief organs of the body, viz.:--heart, nerve-cord, and alimentary canal, is constant in Arthropoda. The heart is dorsal, the nerve-cord ventral, the alimentary canal intermediate. (See fig.Â 3.) The Åsophagus passes between the connectives of the nerve-cord. Not a few other animals, such as Annelids and Mollusca, exhibit the same arrangement. Arthropoda are not known to be ciliated in any part of the body, or in any stage of growth. Another histological peculiarity, not quite so universal, is the striation of the muscular fibres throughout the body. In many Invertebrates there are no striated muscles at all, while in Vertebrates only voluntary muscles, as a rule, are striated. The circulatory organs of Arthropoda vary greatly in plan and degree of complication, but there is never a completely closed circulation. The development of Arthropoda may be accompanied by striking metamorphosis, _e.g._, in many marine Crustacea, but, as in other animals, the terrestrial and fluviatile forms usually develop directly. Even in Insects, which appear to contradict this rule flatly, the exception is more apparent than real. The Insect emerges from the egg as a fully formed larva, and so far its development is direct. It is the full-grown larva, however, which corresponds most nearly to the adult Myriopod, while the pupa and imago are stages peculiar to the Insect. It is not by any process of embryonic development, but by a secondary metamorphosis of the adult that the Insect acquires the power of flight necessary for the deposit of eggs in a new site. [Illustration: Fig.Â 3.--Longitudinal section of Female Cockroach, to show the position of the principal organs. _Oe_, Åsophagus; _S.gl_, salivary gland; _S.r_, salivary reservoir; _Cr_, crop; _G_, gizzard; _St_, chylific stomach; _R_, rectum; _Ht_, heart; _N.C_, nerve-cord. Ã 7.] _Characters of Insects._ Insects are distinguished from other Arthropoda by the arrangement of the segments of the body into three plainly marked regions--head, thorax, and abdomen; by the three pairs of ambulatory legs carried upon the thorax; by the single pair of antennÃ¦; and by the tracheal respiration. Myriopods and Arachnida have no distinct thorax. Most Crustacea have two pairs of antennÃ¦, while in Arachnida antennÃ¦ are wanting altogether. Crustacea, if they possess special respiratory organs at all, have branchiÃ¦ (gills) in place of tracheÃ¦ (air-tubes). In Arachnida, Myriopoda, and Crustacea there are usually more than three pairs of ambulatory legs in the adult. The appendages of an Insectâs head (antennÃ¦, mandibles, maxillÃ¦) are appropriated to special senses, or to the operations of feeding, and have lost that obvious correspondence with walking legs which they still retain in some lower Arthropoda (_Peripatus_, _Limulus_, _Arachnida_). The thorax consists of three[8] segments, each of which carries a pair of ambulatory legs. No abdominal legs are found in any adult insect. The middle thoracic segment may carry a pair of wings or wing-covers, and the third segment a pair of wings. [8] In some Insects there are traces of a fourth thoracic segment. The lower or less-specialised Insects, such as the Cockroach, have nearly as many nerve-ganglia as segments, and the longitudinal connectives of the nerve-cord are double. In the adult of certain higher Insects[9] (_e.g._, many Coleoptera, and some Diptera) the nerve-ganglia are concentrated, reduced in number, and restricted to the head and thorax; while all the connectives, except those of the Åsophageal ring, may be outwardly single. [9] So also in some larvÃ¦ (_Calandra_, _Åstrus_, &c.). The heart, or dorsal vessel, is subdivided by constrictions into a series of chambers, from which an aorta passes forwards to the head. Air is usually taken into the body by stigmata or breathing-pores,[10] which lie along the sides of the thorax and abdomen. It circulates through repeatedly-branching tracheal tubes, whose lining is strengthened by a spiral coil. Air-sacs (dilated portions of the air-tubes) occur in Insects of powerful flight. [10] In some aquatic Insects the exchange of gases is effected by âpseudobranchiÃ¦,â and the tracheal system is closed. The generative organs are placed near the hinder end of the body.[11] Most Insects are oviparous.[12] The sexes are always distinct; but imperfect females (âneutersâ) occur in some kinds of social Insects. Agamogenesis (reproduction by unfertilised eggs) is not uncommon. [11] Dragon-flies have the male copulatory apparatus, but not the genital aperture, in the fore part of the abdomen. [12] Aphis and Cecidomyia are at times viviparous, and a viviparous Moth has been observed by Fritz MÃ¼ller (Trans. Entom. Soc. Lond., 1883). _Orders of Insects._ The orders of Insects are usually defined with reference to the degree of metamorphosis and the structure of the parts of the mouth. Five of the orders (3, 5â8) in the table on pageÂ 9 undergo complete metamorphosis, and during the time of most rapid change the insect is motionless. In the remaining orders (1, 2, 4) there is either no metamorphosis (_Thysanura_), or it is incomplete--_i.e._, the insect is active in all stages of growth. Among these three orders we readily distinguish the minute and wingless Thysanura. Two orders remain, in which the adult is commonly provided with wings; of these, the Orthoptera have biting jaws, the Hemiptera, jaws adapted for piercing and sucking. The name of Black Beetle, often given to the Cockroach, is therefore technically wrong. True Beetles have a resting or chrysalis stage, and may further be recognised in the adult state by the dense wing-covers, meeting along a straight line down the middle of the back, and by the transversely folded wings. Cockroaches have no resting stage, the wing-covers overlap, and the wings fold up fan-wise. _Further Definition of Cockroaches._ In the large order of Orthoptera, which includes Earwigs, Praying Insects, Walking Sticks, Grasshoppers, Locusts, Crickets, White Ants, Day-flies, and Dragon-flies, the family of Cockroaches is defined as follows:-- Family _Blattina_. Body usually depressed, oval. Pronotum shield-like. Legs adapted for running only. Wing-covers usually leathery, opaque, overlapping (if well developed) when at rest, anal area defined by a furrow (fig.Â 4). Head declivent, or sloped backwards, retractile beneath the pronotum. Eyes large, ocelli rudimentary, usually two, antennÃ¦ long and slender. [Illustration: Fig.Â 4.--Generalised sketch of Cockroach wing-cover.] About eight hundred species of Cockroaches have been defined, and to facilitate their arrangement, three groups have been proposed, under which the different genera are ranked.[13] Group 1. Both sexes wingless (_Polyzosteria_). Group 2. Males winged, females wingless (_PerisphÃ¦ria_, _Heterogamia_). Group 3. Both sexes with more or less developed wings (about 7 genera). [13] For descriptions of the species Fischerâs Orthoptera EuropÃ¦a (1853) or Brunner von Wattenwylâs Nouveau SystÃ¨me des Blattaires (1865) may be consulted. The classification adopted by the last-named author is here summarised. BLATTARIÃ. A.--Femora spinous (_SpinosÃ¦_). Fam. 1.--_EctobidÃ¦._ Seventh abdominal sternum undivided in female. Sub-anal styles absent in male. Wings with triangular apical area. _Ectobia_, including _E. lapponica_ (_Blatta_) and other genera. Fam. 2.--_PhyllodromidÃ¦._ Seventh abdominal sternum undivided in female. Sub-anal styles usual in male (0 or rudimentary in _Phyllodromia_). Wings without triangular apical area. _Phyllodromia_, including _P. germanica_ (_Blatta_) and other genera. Fam. 3.--_EpilampridÃ¦._ Fam. 4.--_PeriplanetidÃ¦._ Seventh abdominal sternum divided in female. Sub-anal styles conspicuous in male. _Polyzosteria_, _Periplaneta_, &c. B.--Femora not spinous (_MuticÃ¦_). Families.--_ChorisoneuridÃ¦_, _PanchloridÃ¦_, _PerisphÃ¦ridÃ¦_, _CorydidÃ¦_, _HeterogamidÃ¦_, _BlaberidÃ¦_, _PanesthidÃ¦_. Many useful references will be found in Scudderâs Catalogue of N. American Orthoptera, Smiths. Misc. Coll., viii. (1868). In Group 3 occur the only two genera which we shall find it necessary to describe--viz., _Blatta_, which includes the European Cockroaches, and _Periplaneta_, to which belong the Cockroaches of tropical Asia and America. Genus _Blatta_. A pulvillus between the claws of the feet. The seventh sternum of the abdomen entire in both sexes; sub-anal styles rudimentary in the male. Genus _Periplaneta_. Readily distinguished from Blatta by the divided seventh abdominal sternum of the female, and the sub-anal styles of the male. Two species of Periplaneta have been introduced into Europe. These are-- 1. _P. orientalis_ (Common Cockroach, Black Beetle). Wing-covers and wings not reaching the end of the abdomen in the male; rudimentary in the female. 2. _P. americana_ (American Cockroach). Wing-covers and wings longer than the body in both sexes. CHAPTER III. THE NATURAL HISTORY OF THE COCKROACH. _SPECIAL REFERENCES._ HUMMEL. Essais Entomologiques, No. 1 (1821). CORNELIUS. BeitrÃ¤ge zur nÃ¤hern Kenntniss von Periplaneta orientalis (1853.) GIRARD. La domestication des Blattes. Bull. Soc. dâAcclimatisation, 3^e SÃ©r., Tom. IV., p.Â 296 (1877). _Range._ The common Cockroach is native to tropical Asia,[14] and long ago made its way by the old trade-routes to the Mediterranean countries. At the end of the sixteenth century it appears to have got access to England and Holland, and has gradually spread thence to every part of the world. [14] LinnÃ¦us was certainly mistaken in his remark (Syst. Nat., 12th ed.) that this species is native to America, and introduced to the East--âHabitat in America: hospitatur in Oriente.â He adds, âHodie in RussiÃ¦ adjacentibus regionibus frequens; incepit nuperis temporibus HolmiÃ¦, 1739, uti dudum in Finlandia.â Perhaps the first mention of this insect in zoological literature occurs in Moufetâs Insectorum Theatrum (1634), where he speaks of the BlattÃ¦ as occurring in wine cellars, flour mills, &c., in England. It is hard to determine in all cases of what insects he is speaking, since one of his rude woodcuts of a âBlattaâ is plainly _Blaps mortisaga_; another is, however, recognisable as the female of _P. orientalis_; a third, more doubtfully, as the male of the same species. He tells how Sir Francis Drake took the ship âPhilip,â[15] laden with spices, and found a great multitude of winged BlattÃ¦ on board, âwhich were a little larger, softer, and darker than ours.â Perhaps these belonged to the American species, but the description is obscure. Swammerdam also was acquainted with our Cockroach as an inhabitant of Holland early in the seventeenth century. He speaks of it as âinsectum illud Indicum, sub nomine Kakkerlak satis notum,â and very properly distinguishes from it âthe species of ScarabÃ¦usâ (_Blaps_), which Moufet had taken for a Blatta.[16] [15] This must have been the âSan Felipe,â a Spanish East Indiaman, taken in 1587. See Motley, United Netherlands, Vol.Â II., p.Â 283. [16] Biblia NaturÃ¦, Vol.Â I., p.Â 216. The American Cockroach is native to tropical America, but has now become widely spread by commerce. An Australian species also (_P. australasiÃ¦_) has begun to extend its native limits, having been observed in Sweden,[17] Belgium, Madeira, the East and West Indies,[18] Florida,[19] &c. In Florida it is said to be the torment of housekeepers. [17] De Borck. Skandinaviens rÃ¤tvingade Insekters Nat. Hist., I., i.,Â 35. [18] Brunner. N. Syst. d. Blattaires, p.Â 234. [19] Scudder. Proc. Boston Soc. N.H., Vol.Â XIX., p.Â 94. To the genus _Blatta_ belong a number of small European species, which mostly lurk in woods and thickets. Some of these are found in the south of England. _B. lapponica_ is one of the commonest and most widely distributed. It is smaller than the common Cockroach, and both sexes have long wings and wing-cases. The males are black and the females yellow. It is found on the mountains of Norway and Switzerland as high as shrubs extend, and when sheltered by human dwellings, can endure the extreme cold of the most northern parts of Europe. This is the insect of which LinnÃ¦us tells, that in company with _Silpha lapponica_ it has been known to devour in one day the whole stock of dried but unsalted fish of a Lapland village. _B. germanica_ also has the wings and wing-cases well developed in both sexes. Two longitudinal stripes on the pronotum, or first dorsal plate of the thorax, are the readiest mark of this species, which is smaller and lighter in colour than the common Cockroach. It is plentiful in most German towns, and has been introduced from Germany into many other countries;[20] but it appears to be native, not to Germany alone, but to Asia and all parts of central and southern Europe. Where and how it first became domesticated we do not know. [20] For example, the Russians often call it _Proussaki_, the Prussian Cockroach, and believe that their troops brought it home with them after the Seven Yearsâ War. The native Russian name is _Tarakan_. In Finland and Sweden the same species is called _Torraka_, which appears to be a corruption of the Russian word, and confirms the account of LinnÃ¦us quoted above. _B. germanica_ is found in the United States from the Atlantic to the Pacific. It is generally known as the Croton Bug, because in New York it is often met with about the water pipes, which are supplied from the Croton River (Dr. Scudder). The other species of Cockroaches which have been met with in Europe are _Panchlora maderÃ¦_, said by Stephens to be occasionally seen in London, and _Blabera gigantea_ the Drummer of the West Indies, which has often been found alive in ships in the London Docks. _Blatta germanica_, _Periplaneta orientalis_, and _P. americana_, are so similar in habits and mode of life as to be interchangeable, and each is known to maintain itself in particular houses or towns within the territory of another species, though usually without spreading. _Orientalis_ is, for example, the common Cockroach of England, but _germanica_ frequently gets a settlement and remains long in the same quarters. H.Â C.Â R., in Science-Gossip for 1868, p.Â 15, speaks of it as swarming in an hotel near Covent Garden, where it can be traced back as far as 1857. In Leeds, one bakerâs shop is infested by this species; it is believed to have been brought by soldiers to the barracks, after the Crimean war, and to have been carried to the bakerâs in bread-baskets. We have met with no instance in which it has continued to gain ground at the expense of _orientalis_. _Americana_ also seems well established in particular houses or districts in England. H.Â C.Â R. (loc. cit.) mentions warehouses near the Thames, Red Lion and Bloomsbury Squares, and the Zoological Gardens, Regentâs Park. It frequents one single warehouse in Bradford, and is similarly local in other towns with foreign trade. Many cases are recorded in which _germanica_ has been replaced by _orientalis_, as in parts of Russia and Western Germany, but detailed and authenticated accounts are still desired. On the whole _orientalis_ seems to be dominant over both _germanica_ and _americana_. The slow spread of the Cockroaches in Europe is noteworthy, not as exceptional among invading species, but as one more illustration of the length of time requisite for changes of the equilibrium of nature. It took two centuries from the first introduction of _orientalis_ into England for it to spread far from London. Gilbert White, writing, as it would appear, at some date before 1790, speaks of the appearance of âan unusual insect,â which proved to be the Cockroach, at Selborne, and says: âHow long they have abounded in England I cannot say; but have never observed them in my house till lately.â[21] It is probable that many English villages are still clear of the pest. The House Cricket, which the Cockroaches seem destined to supplant, still dwells in our houses, often side by side with its rival, sharing the same warm crannies, and the same food. The other imported species, though there is reason to suppose that they cannot permanently withstand _orientalis_, are by no means beaten out of the field; they retreat slowly where they retreat at all, and display inferiority chiefly in this, that in countries where both are found, they do not spread, while their competitor does. It may yet require some centuries to settle the petty wars of the Cockroaches. [21] Bellâs Edition, Vol.Â I., p.Â 454. It is also worth notice that in this, as in most other cases, the causes of such dominance over the rest as one species enjoys are very hard to discover. We cannot explain what peculiarities enable Cockroaches to invade ground thoroughly occupied by the House Cricket, an insect of quite similar mode of life: and it is equally hard to account for the superiority of _orientalis_ over the other species. It is neither the largest nor the smallest; it is not perceptibly more prolific, or more voracious, or fonder of warmth, or swifter than its rivals, nor is it easy to see how the one conspicuous structural difference--viz., the rudimentary state of the wings of the female, can greatly favour _orientalis_. Some slight advantage seems to lie in characteristics too subtle for our detection or comprehension. _Food and Habits._ As to the food of Cockroaches, we can hardly except any animal or vegetable substance from the long list of their depredations. Bark, leaves, the pith of living cycads, paper, woollen clothes, sugar, cheese, bread, blacking, oil, lemons, ink, flesh, fish, leather, the dead bodies of other Cockroaches, their own cast skins and empty egg-capsules, all are greedily consumed. Cucumber, too, they will eat, though it disagrees with them horribly. In the matter of temperature they are less easy to please. They are extremely fond of warmth, lurking in nooks near the oven, and abounding in bakehouses, distilleries, and all kinds of factories which provide a steady heat together with a supply of something eatable. Cold is the only check, and an unwarmed room during an English winter is more than they can endure. They are strictly nocturnal, and shun the light, although when long unmolested they become bolder. The flattened body enables the Cockroach to creep into very narrow crevices, and during cold weather it takes refuge beneath the flags of a kitchen floor, or in other very confined spaces. The Cockroach belongs to a miscellaneous group of animals, which may be described as in various degrees parasitic upon men. These are all in a vague sense domestic species, but have not, like the ox, sheep, goat, or pig, been forcibly reduced to servitude; they have rather attached themselves to man in various degrees of intimacy. The dog has slowly won his place as our companion; the cat is tolerated and even caressed, but her attachment is to the dwelling and not to us; the jackal and rat are scavengers and thieves; the weasel, jackdaw, and magpie are wild species which show a slight preference for the neighbourhood of man. All of these, except the cat, which holds a very peculiar place, possess in a considerable degree qualities which bring success in the great competitive examination. They are not eminently specialised, their diet is mixed, their range as natural species is wide. Apart from man, they would have become numerous and strong, but those qualities which fit them so well to shift for themselves, have had full play in the dwellings of a wealthy and careless host. Of these domestic parasites at least two are insects, the House-fly and the Cockroach; and the Cockroach in particular is eminent in its peculiar sphere of activity. The successful competition of Cockroaches with other insects under natural conditions is sufficiently proved by the fact that about nine hundred species have already been described,[22] while their rapid multiplication and almost worldwide dissemination in the dwellings of man is an equally striking proof of their versatility and readiness to adapt themselves to artificial circumstances. In numerical frequency they probably exceed all domestic animals of larger size, while in geographical range the five species, _lapponica_, _germanica_, _orientalis_, _americana_, and _australasiÃ¦_, are together comparable to the dog or pig, which have been multiplied and transported by man for his own purposes, and which cover the habitable globe. [22] British Museum Catalogue of BlattariÃ¦ (1868) and Supplement (1869). It is probable that the number is over-estimated in this catalogue, the same species being occasionally renamed. _The Cockroach a persistent type._ The Cockroach is historically one of the most ancient, and structurally one of the most primitive, of our surviving insects. Its immense antiquity is shown by the fact that so many Cockroaches have been found in the Coal Measures, where about eighty species have been met with. The absence of well-defined stages of growth, such as the soft-bodied larva or inactive pupa, the little specialised wings and jaws, the simple structure of the thorax, the jointed appendages carried on the end of the abdomen, and the unconcentrated nervous system, are marks of the most primitive insect-types. The order Orthoptera is undeniably the least specialised among winged insects at least, and within this order none are more simple in structure, or reach farther back in the geological record than the Cockroaches. The wingless Thysanura are even more generalised, but their geological history is illegible.[23] [23] Brongniart has just described a Carboniferous Insect which he considers a Thysanuran (_Dasyleptus Lucasi_), though it has but one anal appendage. See C.Â R. Soc. Ent., France, 1885. _Life-History._ The eggs of the Cockroach are laid sixteen together in a large horny capsule. This capsule is oval, with roundish ends, and has a longitudinal serrated ridge, which is uppermost while in position within the body of the female. The capsule is formed by the secretion of a âcolleterialâ gland, poured out upon the inner surface of a chamber (vulva) into which the oviducts lead. The secretion is at first fluid and white, but hardens and turns brown on exposure to the air. In this way a sort of mould of the vulva is formed, which is hollow, and opens forwards towards the outlet of the common oviduct. Eggs are now passed one by one into the capsule; and as it becomes full, its length is gradually increased by fresh additions, while the first-formed portion begins to protrude from the body of the female. When sixteen eggs have descended, the capsule is closed in front, and after an interval of seven or eight days, is dropped in a warm and sheltered crevice. In _Periplaneta orientalis_ it measures about Â·45Â in. by Â·25Â in. (fig.Â 5). The ova develop within the capsule, and when ready to escape are of elongate-oval shape, resembling mummies in their wrappings. Eight embryos in one row face eight others on the opposite side, being alternated for close packing. Their ventral surfaces, which are afterwards turned towards the ground, are opposed, and their rounded dorsal surfaces are turned towards the wall of capsule; their heads are all directed towards the serrated edge. The ripe embryos are said by Westwood to discharge a fluid (saliva?) which softens the cement along the dorsal edge, and enables them to escape from their prison. In _Blatta germanica_ the female is believed to help in the process of extrication.[24] The larvÃ¦ are at first white, with black eyes, but soon darken. They run about with great activity, feeding upon any starchy food which they can find. [24] Hummel, loc. cit. [Illustration: Fig.Â 5.--Egg-capsule of _P. orientalis_ (magnified). A, external view; B, opened; C, end view.] The larvÃ¦ of the Cockroach hardly differ outwardly from the adult, except in the absence of wings. The tenth tergum is notched in both sexes, as in the adult female. The sub-anal styles of the male are developed in the larva. Cornelius, in his BeitrÃ¤ge zur nÃ¤hern Kenntniss von Periplaneta orientalis (1853), gives the following account of the moults of the Cockroach. The first change of skin occurs immediately after escape from the egg-capsule, the second four weeks later, the third at the end of the first year, and each succeeding moult after a yearâs interval. At the sixth moult the insect becomes a pupa,[25] and at the seventh (being now four years old) it assumes the form of the perfect Insect. The changes of skin are annual, and like fertilisation and oviposition, take place in the summer months only. He tells us further that the ova require about a year for their development. These statements are partly based upon observation of captive Cockroaches, and are the only ones accessible; but they require confirmation by independent observers, especially as they altogether differ from Hummelâs account of the life-history of _Blatta germanica_, and are at variance with the popular belief that new generations of the Cockroach are produced with great rapidity. [25] The use of the term _pupa_ to denote the last stage before the complete assumption of wings in the Cockroach, is liable to mislead. There is no resting-stage at all; wings are developed gradually, and are nearly as conspicuous in the last larval state as in the so-called pupa. There seems no reason for speaking of pupÃ¦ in this case. It is preferable to designate as ânymphsâ young and active Insects, immature sexually, but with mouth-parts like those of the adult. See Lubbock, Linn. Trans., 1863, and Eaton, Linn. Trans., 1883. [Illustration: Fig.Â 6.--Young nymph (male). Ã 6.] The antennÃ¦ of the male nymph resemble those of the adult female. Wings and wing-covers appear first in the later larval stages, but are then rudimentary, and constitute a mere prolongation of the margins of the thoracic rings. Cornelius says that the round white spot
{'title': 'The Structure and Life-history of the Cockroach (Periplaneta orientalis) by Denny et al.', 'source': 'Project Gutenberg', 'lang': 'en'}