I 



186 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



present recollected, who prosecuted our science with any zeal and who 

 contributed to its progress by the descriptions of species. There were 

 others who collected insects, but they made no claim to be scientific 

 Entomologists. I remember distinctly when Melsheimer, Haldeman, 

 Zeigler and I used to meet several times a year at our respective homes 

 to read papers, discuss questions, exhibit new species, recite our Ento- 

 mological adventures and then adjourn to a well appointed table. We 

 regretted that we had no collaborators within two hundred miles, for the 

 LeContes, in New York, were our nearest neighbors. In that day there 

 was not a man in Philadelphia who studied insects. We then established 

 " The Entomological Society of Pennsylvania," and after electing all our 

 confreres in this country as honorary members, we had the audacity to 

 confer the same distinction upon some great men abroad, whose letters 

 of grateful acceptance indicated that they thought that the Society was 

 something more than a club of four comparatively unknown men meeting 

 in Haldeman's study on the banks of the Susquehannah ! 



And now look at the mighty change. In the Naturalist's Directory 

 for 1880 there are no less than 436 names reported as pursuing our 

 science. Now, whilst it is true that many of these may be collectors 

 only, still they are more or less useful. They all must be interested in it 

 to a greater or less extent or they would not have reported themselves as 

 such. Be this as it may, the increase is simply wonderful and very 

 encouraging. Doubtless there are numerous others in the country 

 engaged in the same delightful employment whose names do not appear 

 in the Directory. 



There is no other distinct branch of science that has so many repre- 

 sentatives in that book as ours, excepting Botany and Geology, and in 

 Zoology specially we are ahead of the Ornithologist by over 50 ; the 

 Conchologists are fewer than 100 all told, and all other specialists in 

 Zoology are behind us. All this is cheering, and we are sure that the 

 number of collaborators is growing every year. 



But there is a still more encouraging view of the subject, which is 

 founded not only on names, but on fiicts, and I am sure it will gratify the 

 Section to hear of the number of the published contributions of our 

 fellow workmen. True, they are not all members of this Section, but they 

 belong to the family and we hail them as brethren of the same household. 



Most of us have, of course, kept our eyes upon the various journals 

 and have been pleased to see so many papers, and yet perhaps few of us 



