68 THE entomologist's record. 



based on broad and comprehensive data, and these generalisations apply 

 to all branches of animal life. The l)iologists tell us that the only system 

 of classification which can be natural, must be based on those stages in 

 which we may read the past history of the insects, so that the system of 

 classification becomes, when thoroughly worked out, as it were a genea- 

 logical tree of the insects. The linear arrangement, they say, is evidently 

 unsound to the most cursory observer. The embryological conditions, 

 i.e., all those which precede maturity, say they, are those which point 

 out to us most strongly the changes through which animals have de- 

 veloped in the far past, and unless entomologists are to fall outside 

 the line of biological advance, they must accept the dictum. But this 

 entails enormous work. Where is the material on which such a classi- 

 fication can be built ? We have not got the material yet, we have it to 

 collect ; we know that the work will be slow, but in such an important 

 matter it is necessary to progress slowly. Festina lente must ever be the 

 naturalist's motto. Then vested interests step in. Classification has 

 always been considered the special perquisite of namers and describers 

 of new species. The family and generic names (which represent in a 

 largo degree our classification) may want changing, and then the 

 synonymy bogey steps in. What is the advance of science, compared 

 with the erroneous use of a name ? says the stickler. Are not names a 

 part of the science, indeed are not names the science ? asks bogey ; and 

 if we don't agree, the synonymy man says what fools we are. Our 

 catalogue -makers and synonymy men, as a rule, know nothing of em- 

 bryology or of the deeper parts of biology. The very nature of tlieir 

 labour prevents them from getting the necessary information, or making 

 the necessary observations on the early stages, which would enable them 

 to work out a system of classification on the new lines. They do not 

 offer active resistance as a rule, but go steadily on in the old groove, 

 perversely overlooking the overwhelming facts that should show them 

 at once that they are nothing but obstructionists to science, that they 

 are even belying their scientific existence and becoming propoundcrs 

 of error, preferring to live in darkness rather than in light. 



But this passive resistance is not all. Occasionally one hears the 

 wail from a conscience-smitten individual — " Well, we are biologists 

 after all, are we not ? Do we not study nervures, palpi, genitalia, 

 wings, etc ? How dare anyone say we are not the elect, that we are 

 not fitted to continue as prophets to our generation ? From such, one 

 tp;estion only needs an answer : " What is biology ? " They entirely 

 overlook the fact that biologists are agreed that it is the embryological, 

 the immature stages of the animals, which must give us their true 

 history through time. So they go on, until at last there is almost open 

 war between the closet naturalist who studies nothing but dried bodies, 

 and the practical man who rears, observes and experiments on the 

 living insects in all their stages. What the final end must be is evident. 

 Truth must conquer prejudice. We shall look to the Museum men to 

 name our insects, to the biologist to classify them. The su})erficial, 

 one-sided, sli})-shod work of half-a-century ago, will not do for the go- 

 ahead scientific spirit of to-day. 'I'lic truth nuist ultimately prevail, the 

 foes of progress must be defeated. 



I feel strongly on this matter. It is higli time that someone took 

 up a strong line thereon. So far as the imaginal characters confirm the 

 biologist's work, well and good ; so far as any individual, for his own 

 personal glorification tries to supplant biological work with superficial 



