280 CLASSIFICATION OF BRITISH LEPIDOPTERA. 



found a resting-place for a year or two more. Meanwhile no one attempts 

 to re-arrange the PteropJiidcB, and the Cramhidce are removed from the 

 Tineidce, and placed at the end of the Tortrices. 



In 1856, we have a new work, entitled "A Manual of British Butter- 

 flies and Moths," in which Doubleday's arrangement is not only ignored, 

 but not even alluded to. In the Butterflies, Sphinges, and Bombyces, we 

 find the old names that we had well-nigh forgotten for years; families which 

 had been united are again divided and split up, while in the last number 

 this arrangement is left off, and that of M. Guenee is adopted for the 

 Noduina. 



In the meantime the puzzled student wanders from book to book to find 

 out his species. He finds in Westwood one name for his insect, and in 

 Wood he sees it described by another. In Doubleday he probably cannot 

 find it at all, and in Stainton he becomes utterly lost. Well may the 

 Neophyte exclaim "Alas! what hard work is this study of Entomology!" 



Now what is the plain matter-of-fact cause of all this absurd trifling 

 with Science? Simply that we want able leaders — we have no head — no 

 leading master mind to extricate us from the increasing diflBculties produced 

 by incompetent guides. Take for instance this Manual. It ought, as the 

 latest, to be the best. Is it so? I do not wish to press upon a hard- 

 working man who has done some good service in the cause; but if I mistake 

 not, this Manual will be found deficient in practical correctness. For in- 

 stance, the larva of Lithosia griseola is described as "unknown." Imme- 

 diately we have two entomologists come forward who know it perfectly 

 well. In the last number the larvae of Cymatophora ridens and flavicornis 

 are stated to be found in September. A friend of mine writes me word 

 that they are neither of them ever seen in that month, and rarely, if 

 ever, in August. Now such mistakes as these are quite unpardonable in 

 a practical descriptive work. If errors of this kind are discovered in a 

 work at random as it were, our confidence in it as a whole must be 

 shaken. 



The unsettled state of the classification of our British Insects has been 

 incidentally alluded to by the reviewer of Mr, Dallas's "Elements of En- 

 tomology," in the "Gardener's Chronicle" of October 11th., wherein the 

 necessity of uniting under one competent head in each division, for the 

 purpose of attaining a univeral arrangement, is strongly urged. British 

 Insects, of course, form but a small portion of the insects of the world, 

 and this it may be urged is one reason why our classification is unsatis- 

 factory — Granted;* but that is no reason why we should obstruct the 

 desirable attainment. If we cannot build up, we should not pull down. 



* See what I have said to the same purport in the Introduction to my "History of British 

 Birdd."— F. 0. Mobbts. 



