OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 57 



But I must not conceal from you that there are objectors who will still 

 return to the charge. They will say, " We admit that the pursuits of the 

 entomologist are important when he directs his views to the destruction of 

 noxious insects ; the discovery of new ones likely to prove beneficial to 

 man ; and to practical experiments upon their medical and economical 

 properties. But where are the entomologists that in fact pursue this 

 course ? Do they not in reality wholly disregard the economical depart- 

 ment of their science, and content themselves with making as large a 

 collection of species as possible ; ascertaining the names of such as are 

 already described ; describing new ones ; and arranging the whole in their 

 cabinets under certain families and genera ? And can a study with these 

 sole ends in view deserve a better epithet than trifling ? Even if the 

 entomologist advance a step further, and invent a new system for the dis- 

 tribution of all known insects, can his laborious undertaking be deemed 

 any other than busy idleness ? What advantage does the world derive 

 from having names given to ten or twenty thousand insects, of which 

 numbers are not bigger than a pin's head, and of which probably not a 

 hundredth part will ever be of any use to mankind ? " 



Now in answer to this supposed objection, which I have stated as 

 forcibly as I am able, and which, as it may be, and often is, urged against 

 every branch of Natural History as at present studied, well deserves a 

 full consideration, I might in the first place deny that those who have the 

 highest claim to rank as entomologists do confine their views to the 

 systematic department of the science to the neglect of economical observ- 

 ations ; and in proof of my assertion, I might refer abroad to a Lihne, a 

 Reaumur, a De Geer, a Huber, and various other names of the highest 

 reputation ; and at home to a Ray, a Lister, a Derham, a Marsham, a 

 Curtis, a Clark, a Roxburgh, &ic. But I do not wish to conceal that 

 though a large proportion of entomologists direct their views much further 

 than to the mere nomenclature of their science, there exists a great num- 

 ber, probably the majority, to whom the objection will strictly apply. 

 Now I contend, and shall next endeavor to prove, that entomologists of 

 this description are devoting their time to a most valuable end ; and are 

 conferring upon society a benefit incalculably greater than that derived 

 from the labors of many of those who assume the privilege of despising 

 their pursuit. 



Even in favor of the mere butterfly-hunter — he who has no higher aim 

 than that of collecting a picture of Lepidoptera, and is attached to insects 

 solely by their beauty or singularity, — it would not be difficult to say 

 much. Can it be necessary to declaim on the superiority of a people 

 amongst whom intellectual pleasures, however trifling, are preferred to 

 mere animal gratifications? Is it a thing to be lamented that some of 

 the Spitalfields weavers occupy their leisure hours in searching for the 

 Adonis butterfly (Polyommatus Adonis), and others of the more splendid 

 Lepidoptera^, instead of spending them in playing at skittles or in an ale- 

 house ? Or is there in truth any thing more to be wished than that the 

 cutlers of Sheffield were accustomed thus to employ their Saiiit Mondays ; 

 and to recreate themselves after a hard day's work, by breathing the pure 



1 Haworth Lepid. Brit. 44. 57. 



