SCIENTIFIC NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS. 197 



always been that it is indicated by a connection, similarity or resemblance 

 in fundamental organisation. 



'' Tliese .... show, I think, the absurdity of basing any classification 

 on such points of similarity in ova, as the number of the ribs, &c." 

 Will Mr. Bedford kindly give us the name of any entomologist who 

 has based a system of classification on the number of ribs in ova. 



" In fact, entomologists are far too apt to rely on embryonic peculi- 

 arities for purpose of classification." This is refreshing. I have been 

 working for a long time at entomology now, but have never come 

 across any writings (at least, in Britain) in which this has been done. 

 I may have overlooked them, in spite of a very strong desire to read 

 such, and shall be very glad to be furnished with the names of a few. 

 With regard to the assertion that if a larva were found to-morrow with 

 four claspers, &c., it would certainly be placed in the Grcometers, I 

 would recommend that Mr. Bedford should write to Dr. Chapman or to 

 Professor Poulton, or even to a few less-well-known giants, and propound 

 to them the following conundrum : — " If a larva were found to-morrow 

 with four prolegs : In spite of its internal economy, where would you 

 place it ? " I have no doubt the final destination of that larva would 

 be a matter of profound interest to many. 



The next phrase " that a heterogeneous mixture is placed in one 

 group " based on such assumptions as these is very ingenuous. Does 

 Mr. Bedford mean to say that the Geometers are such, and if so, will he 

 kindly give us the exi^erimental evidence from their " internal struc- 

 ture " which separates them, and tell us how they should be separated. 

 We are willing to learn, but we cannot pick up much from such bald 

 statements as these. 



I am quite willing to believe that Swammerdam, Lamarck, and 

 Newman were very naughty men, and did much to trouble the minds 

 of those who should follow after them, but I am pleased to hear from 

 Mr. Bedford that something has been done, and I am not even much 

 alarmed to find that " insect classification " is now in a very undecided 

 condition. 



How joyfully I subscribe to the next sentence need hardly be said. 

 " The tendency seems to be not towards a system based on any one 



particular set of characters but towards a system wliich has for 



its foundation a combination of all these characters." Such a statement 

 as this, I welcome from any and every source. I have proclaimed the 

 same truth in season and out of season, wherever and whenever I have 

 had the cliance, and so have a number of other entomologists as well. 



How Mr. Bedford can consider that the class of people, who would 

 put any caterpillar with four prolegs into the Geometers in spite of 

 internal peculiarities, who have learned from observation that certain 

 great resemblances are to be found in the early stages (eggs, larva? and 

 pupa?) and give broad clues for classification, and who have hammered 

 away at these points, can possibly have produced a system in which 

 " naturally related forms are now brought closer together," so that " the 

 groups now recognised are more uniform and more homogeneous than 

 in the past," is beyond my comprehension, considering the general 

 contempt he shows for them in the first part of his article ; I would add 

 that when Mr. Bedford (whose work I am sorry to say I do not know) 

 has worked out and publislied an account of the " internal organisation " 

 of one small genus of insects that will bear even a remote comparison 



