10 THE entomologist's RECORD. 



the student would become plain. The present want of uniformity in 

 the terminology brings the whole study of the genitalia into discredit, 

 and daunts the hearts of many would-be students. 



In making the above critical remarks I am moved only in the hope 

 and wish that better things are coming. 



•' Notes on the Taxonomic Value of the Genital Armature in 

 Lepidoptera." A Reply. 



By G. T. BETHUNE-BAKER, F.L.S., F.E.S. 



Mr. Pierce's criticism of a paper of mine is interesting as a case of 

 special pleading for his own views to be generally adopted. I fear, 

 however, that be and I look at things from different points of view 

 and I think I know that he is not likely to come to my point of view, 

 whilst with my very long experience in this section of morphology, 

 backed up as it is b}' some of the ablest insect anatomists on the 

 Continent, I am not at all likely to accept his statements. 



Mr. Pierce says, " it is a little belated to set out to prove the long 

 established fact that genitalic differences in lepidoptera have both 

 specific and generic value." My critic's statement is true as regards 

 many lepidopterists, but he is evidently ignorant of the fact that many 

 do not at all believe in them and that among them will be found 

 systematists who are really eminent to-day. This is, moreover, proved 

 to some extent by the small number of subscribers to his volume, viz. 

 132, which number includes 20 copies to two publishers which have 

 been counted as twenty subscribers. I will now consider his criticisms 

 in his own order. 



(i.) Photography. Mr. Pierce's criticism that superimposed masses 

 give a confused picture is true : " that the organs cannot bediscerned" 

 is entirely incorrect, whilst " many important features do not appear 

 at all " is generally speaking equally incorrect, though of course in 

 some figures where I have wanted to bring out certain particulars it 

 may be true that I have let them disappear in the reproduction. 

 The real point of the photograph, however, is that it shows all the 

 organs (under ordinary circumstances) in their proper proportion, in 

 their proper place, and in their natural position if the profile view is 

 taken. The drawing shows, as Mr. Pierce himself practically says 

 " what the master's eye sees," or rather what he wants his readers to 

 see. Mr. Pierce's own drawings convict him absolutely. Look at his 

 books and they show in the plates the gradual change and formation 

 of his opinions, he emphasises his views in the view he gives his 

 readers in the figures. We see what Mr. Pierce's hand has brought 

 prominently into view, such a prominence would not be given by 

 photography and does not exist in the object. All the parts are 

 co-ordinated together, and their relativity is shewn in a photograph, 

 while it is quite decidedly abeent in Mr. Pierce's drawings by hand. 

 From the point of view of scientific value there is certainly no 

 comparison between a photograph and a drawing. 



(ii.) " The profile position." I had no intention of ever attacking 

 Mr. Piei'ce's method, feeling that every man must work on his own 

 lines — some years ago, I think, before his book on the Xactxae was- 

 published, I wrote to him pointing out the value of the profile view 



