2 THE ENTOMOLOGIST S RECORD. 



development and perfection of those appliances — microscopes, dissect- 

 ing instruments, &c. — that go to aid more perfect work in the biologi- 

 cal branches of our science. We have been overpowered, as it were, 

 through the greater part of the century with the Linnean shibboleths, 

 and every embryo entomologist has been taught that the be-all and 

 end-all of entomological science was the easy determination of known, 

 and the detection of unknown, species. The study of the wider 

 phenomena of nature has been carried on by comparatively few, 

 and these have done it not because of, but in spite of, their environ- 

 ment, yet it was clear that, by the middle of the century, many 

 British lepidopterists felt that a continuance of the application of 

 Linnean methods to the work done, so far as the study of British 

 lepidoptera was concerned, was largely wasted time. Haworth, Stephens, 

 and finally Stainton, in the Manual, had catalogued the British 

 lepidoptera on the Linnean lines in the most complete manner, and 

 Stainton evidently felt that the further waiting for species to place in 

 the catalogue was indefensible, and that the placing could be done when 

 the species were found. The transference of his energies to biological work 

 in The natural historij of the Tineina was an evident result, and the slow 

 groAvth of similar work, mostly very superficial and useless biologically, 

 in the newly-fledged magazines, was due to a similar cause. It is only 

 quite at the end of the century that Dyar, Chapman, and others have 

 taught us the lines on which this work may be most usefully done, 

 and one may expect in this direction a vast expansion of our work in 

 the immediate future, the field being so vast. 



Has the overwhelming preponderance of attention that has hitherto 

 been given to systematic entomology reached its high-water mark? 

 There can be no doubt that an affirmative answer can be given with 

 only few qualms of doubt in the case of the study of the so-called 

 macro-lepidoptera, and evidence is not wanting that the students of 

 odonata and coleoptera are foUoAving suit, but the students of 

 orthoptera, hymenoptera, diptera and certain branches of hemiptera, 

 are still in the gestation period, although signs are forthcoming 

 that some are hastening to a wider scientific birth. There is, 

 however, much yet to be done in the systematic work relating 

 to exotic micro-lepidoptera, in which branch, undoubtedly, Walsing- 

 ham and Durrant are the most successful and intelligent workers. 

 On the whole, lepidopterists have been most moved by the 

 possibilities that Darwin opened out to biological science, and for a 

 quarter of a century they have been in the van of forward movement, 

 proving by close and detailed observations, and testing by careful 

 experiment, the theories brought forward to account for the pheno- 

 mena of life. Prominent in this direction among entomologists are 

 Weismann, who stands practically alone on the continent, and Wallace, 

 who is happily still with us — the king of all. Otherwise the leading posi- 

 tion is held by the American and English specialists — Bateson, Bodine, 

 Chapman, Comstock, Dixey, Dyar, Jordan, Mayer, Meldola, Packard, 

 Poulton, and Trimen— whilst among the experimenters Merrifield and 

 Standf uss hold the premier place. It is a remarkable fact that these men are, 

 as a rule, only systematists in the most limited sense. Nor must Scudder 

 be omitted, although his work is more distinctly systematic than that of 

 the others, for he combines with an excellence in systematic work 

 rarely attained, a marvellous power in dealing with biological problems, 



