32 THE entomologist's record. 



Vanity and jealousy will not soon be unknown amongst men of 

 science, any more than in the natural man, but I think there is 

 considerable evidence amongst entomologists that Darwin's teaching 

 and example have done something to produce a greater brotherhood 

 amongst us, and have diminished very much the expressions of 

 contempt that were not uncommonly used by workers in one field about 

 those in another. "A mere systematist," "a mere collector," are 

 expressions not felt by those who use them or hear them to have now 

 any stronger meaning than a little petulance, and in fact are heard 

 much less frequently than they were a score or more years ago. "The 

 mere collector" has his uses, in gathering material, and is perhaps 

 more numerous than formerly, in so far as we may define him as having 

 as his chief aim getting together a lot of handsome and rare specimens, 

 in order to outvie other collectors. " The mere systematist," on the 

 other hand is extinct, i.e., the man who wants to range things in a line 

 and seizes to do so the most obvious, rather than the most important, 

 characters. The object of the systematist is now seen to be to discover 

 the precise line of descent of each species. This is, in fact, now, a 

 mere truism. The work of every entomologist, who is not an avowed 

 systematist, is at least to amass knowledge to further this purpose. 

 No doubt many entomologists have no other desire than to enjoy the 

 pleasure of observation, and to marvel at the wonderful facts unfolded 

 before them, and they have no further conscious object ; yet these often 

 add most important items to our knowledge. 



Perhaps the fact, that feAV systematic works appear, without a 

 phylogenetic table, a genealogical tree, or some such definite means of 

 showing precisely the conclusions the author considers probable, 

 indicates unmistakably the point of view that is now taken. Such 

 tables have met with much ridicule. There are few now who ridicule 

 the whole idea as absurd. That that comes from those who disagree 

 with the conclusions set out, is also diminishing, because the critics 

 have themselves felt the necessity of handling the subject in the same 

 way and have realised the difficulties involved. The difficulty arises 

 chiefly in this form, that before you begin to make the table you think 

 you understand the whole matter clearly, but you do not proceed far 

 before you find you have involved yourself in some obvious contradic- 

 tion, and have to begin again ; nor have I met with any tables, the 

 subject of which I knew enough of to understand them, that did not 

 appear to me to contain such contradictions. They are excellent things 

 for defining precisely Avhat our systematic knowledge of their subject 

 is worth. Those who now avoid giving them, merely show that 

 discretion that is the better part of valour. Probably a hundred years 

 hence our detailed phylogenetic trees, will be regarded as miserably 

 inadequate. There is considerable reason already to suspect that just as 

 a tree founded on British species only, would in not a few cases be 

 hopelessly wrong, when an attempt is made to apply it to all the species 

 of the world, so, our present tables founded on a few characters, Avill 

 need much alteration when our knowledge is more complete. Even 

 now we find such trees are rather contradictory Avhen constructed 

 from different data by different people ; yet there are many items of 

 structure and habit that have not yet been used for this purpose, when 

 they are, no doubt further instances of contradiction will arise. Yet 

 all such trees must, in a sense, be correct, No doubt there is much 



