126 THE entomologist's RECORD. 



collaborators, which would otherwise not have been done. As one of 

 these, I have sometimes felt a grievance that I elaborated material for 

 Tutt, when I would have preferred to have worked on lines of my own 

 selection, but I have little doubt that Tutt's continual demands for 

 facts, opinions, and what not, supplied a whip that would have been 

 wanting in other directions. He concentrated himself very much on 

 the point in hand, and he often asked for material (facts, or discussions, 

 etc.), at quite too short notice to work it out properly. In systematic 

 discussions crude and imperfect replies had often to be given and were 

 liable to be quoted as my opinions, whilst more fully thought out 

 results took their place in the general conclusions arrived at. 



The Britis/t Lepidoptera, quite apart from its greater fulness, sets 

 a much higher standard in the treatment of the subject than any 

 previous English work, a comparison with Barrett's large work, 

 perhaps the most ambitious work we have, makes this evident. Un- 

 completed as it is, it gives a standpoint from which future treatises 

 must start. Its influence is therefore to be observed in the future, 

 but hardly to be measured in the present. 



It is possibly outside my brief, but perhaps the greatest effect in 

 British Entomology has been to convince our continental confreres 

 that it is by no means such a negligable quantity as to a great extent 

 they had held it to be. 



The study of the British micro-lepidoptera has fallen largely into 

 abeyance, gradually more and more as the influence of Stainton has 

 become less felt as years go on. Tutt had a very good knowledge of 

 the British micros, and two volumes of the Dritish Lepidoptera are 

 devoted to them (Micropteri/x, Nepticula, Plumes), yet it is not clear 

 that the decadence of the cult of micros was not assisted by him 

 rather than otherwise. 



His immediate, as distinguished from his permanent influence, 

 was largely the effect of his great popularity in the Societies, especially 

 the " South London." This popularity on its scientific side Avas founded 

 on the readiness and clearness with which he could set forth any 

 subject that interested the Society, explain its details, and show the 

 direction of scientific advance, to which the latest available facts pointed. 

 These subjects very rarely had reference to the micro-lepidoptera, and 

 the attention and enthusiasm of members were thus led largely into the 

 macro section. 



Though he did not originate, he added an impetus to the very 

 detailed recognition of varieties and aberrations, bestowing names on 

 all specimens that can be differentiated from their fellows. This is 

 an evil from some points of view, but it is a very desirable and 

 necessary refinement in the opinion of the only person perhaps who 

 ought to count, viz., the man who is closely and intensively studying 

 the group of forms involved. It ought, however, to be left to him to 

 define what forms are worth naming, and the hurrying forward with 

 a view to priority, by any one who meets with an aberration, but about 

 which he knows nothing further, is much to be deprecated. — Betula, 

 Reigate. March, 1911. 



