196 THE entomologist's record. 



internal structure or wliatever peculiar characteristics the imago might 

 possess, it would almost certainly be placed among the Geometers, and 

 from this it follows that a heterogeneous mixture becomes packed 

 together into one group ; in fact, a similar mistake was originally made 

 by Swammerdam, and subsequently l)y Lamarck and Newman, in 

 employing the degi'ee of metamorphosis as the sole ground for their 

 primary divisions of insects, and in these cases it was soon found that 

 closely allied forms, such as LihelluUdae and Neuroptera Avere separated, 

 while other cpiite remote forms, e.cj. Rhyncota and Orthoptera were 

 brought together, and although insect classification is even now in a 

 very undecided condition, the tendency seems to be not towards a system 

 based on any one particular set of characters like those already men- 

 tioned, or that of Fabricius based on the structure and function of the 

 mouth parts, or that of Linnaeus based on the comparative development 

 and form of the wings, but towards a system which has for its foundation 

 a combination of all these characters and others besides, such as that of 

 Latreille or of Westwood. In consequence of this, naturally related 

 forms are now brought closer together, and the groups now recognised 

 are more uniform and more homogeneous than in the past; but, 

 nevertheless, even now too little attention seems to be bestowed on the 

 internal organisation of insects and, perhaps, especially of Lepidoptera, 

 and I need hardly remind any of the readers of this magazine that 

 perhaps the most dangerous maxim for a scientific man to follow is 

 that of resting on the laurels won for him by his forefathers. — F. P. 

 Bedford, 326, Camden Koad, N. July 7th, ] 894. 



I print the above because it purports to be a criticism of what 

 I myself have written, and I do not wish to appear to act unfairly by 

 suppressing such criticism ; but I must own that I have not the slightest 

 conception of the way in which the criticism cuts, or how it is sujiposed 

 to touch the facts that I dealt with. It is interesting to learn that 

 " entomology is the only branch of zoology which has clung tenaciously " 

 to Haeckel's famous phrase ; as a matter of fact, entomological writings 

 as a rule, are wonderfully lacking in even the simjjlest rudiments of such 

 scientific assumptions, and I should be pleased to have references to 

 articles in which this '* tenacious clinging " is expressly shown. Is 

 there any entomologist, thoughtful or otherwise, who believes that 

 " moths have sprung from ancestors each of which resembled the egg 

 that the imago now developes from " ? The suggestion that some do, 

 shows that the person who could imagine that any entomologists believe 

 such a thing, either denies the possession of common sense by entomo- 

 logists, or else is stating his own peculiar views on Haeckel's biological 

 principle. 



" Nevertheless, there seems to be an undercurrent to consider 



Lepidoptera, with similar ova, as more closely allied than those with dis- 

 similar ones ; this I hold to be unsupported by ' facts.' " I am pleased to 

 hear that there is such an undercurrent, for there can be no doubt of 

 its general truth ; of this, a suigle season's observation in the field would 

 convince anyone with average powers of observation. 



" These facts indicative of a completely different fundamental 



organisation in tlic larva? of undoubtedl^r allied genera, etc." If there 

 is a completely different fundamental organisation in the larvas of two 

 undoul )tedly allied genera, I should be interested to know why they are 

 so " undoubtedly allied." My notion of relationship or alhance has 



