164 THE entomologist's hecoed. 



gi'eater value the wider the l)asis on which they rested, and he there- 

 fore suggested that the question might also be taken into consideration 

 as to how far it was justifiable to draw conclusions from the considera- 

 tion of one Division or one Order only. He did not offer these 

 observations in a spirit of adverse criticism, but simply with the object 

 of setting the discussion going. Dr. Sharp remarked that Geographical 

 distribution consisted of two divisions ; firstly, the facts ; secondl}^ the 

 generalisations and deductions that may be drawn from them. He 

 thought that as regards insects generally our knowledge of the facts 

 was not yet sufiicient to warrant many generalisations. Still the 

 impressions of those who have paid attention to particular groups of 

 insects are even now of some importance, though at present based on 

 incomplete knowledge. He thought the lihopalocera would prove to 

 be a somewhat exceptional group in their distribution. Notwith- 

 standing that Australia and New Zealand are so poor in them, this was 

 by no means the case as regards Coleoptera, Aiistralia being very rich 

 in them and its fauna very distinct. He thought that if Ijepido2)tera 

 generally were well collected in Australia and New Zealand, it would 

 be found that there were more species than was supposed. He 

 instanced the case of the Sandwich islands, where there were supposed 

 to be very few species of Lej^idoptera, and yet some 500, or perhaps 

 more, had been recently found there by Mr. K. C. L. Perkins, who had 

 been sent to investigate the islands by a committee apjiointed by the 

 Koyal Society and the British Association. Mr. McLachlan said he 

 was of opinion that no definite demarcation of regions existed, but that 

 all the regions overlapped ; in any case the retention of the Palffiarctic 

 and the Nearctic regions as separate provinces was not warranted on 

 entomological data. He thought that at the close of the Glacial 

 period some insects instead of going north were dispersed southwards, 

 and that the present Geographical distribution of some forms might 

 thus be accounted for. 



The February meetings of the North London Natural History 

 Society were very interesting ones. On Feb. 14th, the President, Mr. 

 L. B. Prout, who is making his way to a very high position in the 

 ranks of scientific entomologists, read a paper on " Specialists and 

 Specialism." Having stated that the tendency of the present day is 

 towards a more and more restricted specialism, he said that this move- 

 ment is one to be encouraged, and laid stress upon the fact that the 

 whole sequence of the history of the rise and progress of the study of 

 the Natural Sciences necessitates such a course. After a jiassing 

 eulogistic reference to Gravenhorst's work in connection with the 

 Ichenumons and to Dr. F. Buchanan White, who " was a specialist of 

 the highest rank in certain branches of Natural Science," but " never 

 allowed his specialism to interfere with his api)reciation of Nature as a 

 whole," Mr. Prout proceeded to express his own views on the sul)ject. 

 The collection of general facts must historically precede specialism. 

 The age of collecting such general facts is practically past. Our 

 store-bouses of knowledge are now so vast, that it would be vain 

 to attempt the acquisition of a sufficient acquaintance with their 

 contents to make us really all-round naturalists. Specialism, 

 even a very restricted specialism, is therefore to be highly com- 

 mended. Nevertheless, an exclusive specialist is in a far worse 

 plight tlian a naturalist who is not a specialist at all. Therefore, he is 



