OEJECTIOXS ANSWERED. £1 



this course ? Do they not in reality wholly disregard the economical 

 department 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 en- 

 tomologist advance a step further, and invent a new system for the distri- 

 bution 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 con- 

 sideration, 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 econonn'cal observations; and 

 in proof of my assertion, I might refer abroad to a Linne, 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, &c. But I do not wish to conceal that though a large pro- 

 portion of entomologists direct their views much further than to the mere 

 nomenclature of their science, there exists a great number, probably the 

 majority, to whom the objection will strictly apply. Now I contend, and 

 shall next endeavour 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 labours of manv 

 of those who assume the privilege of despising their pursuit. 



Even in favour 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 (Pu/t/ommafiis Adonis), and others of the more splendid Lepidop- 

 tera^, instead of spending them in playing at skittles or in an alehouse? 

 Or is there in truth any thing more to be wished than that the cutlers of 

 Sheffield were accustomed thus to employ their Saint Mondays ; and to 

 recreate themselves after a hard day's work, by breathing the pure air of 

 their surrounding hills, while in search of this " untaxed and undisputed 

 game^;" and that more of the Norwich weavers were fond of devoting 



1 Ila worth, Lepid. Brit. 44. 57. 



' Oft have I smiled the happy pride to see 



Of humble tradesmen in tlieir evening glee. 



When of some- pleasing fancied good possest. 



Each grev alert, was busy and was blest : 



Whether the call-bird yield the hour's delight. 



Or magnified in microscope the mite ; ' . 



Or whether tumblers, crojjpers, carriers seize 



The gentle mind ; they rule it and they please. 

 c 3 



