SOCIETIES. 165 



the ideal naturalist who has an open mind towards all natural objects, 

 but who gives special attention to some circumscribed department of 

 Nature. The intcr-dependence of tlie different dei)artments should he 

 met by corresponding inter-dependence amongst students of Nature. 

 Mr. Prout then went on to describe his own ideal with regard to the 

 study of Natural History. Every naturalist should have a general 

 knowledge, accurate if not })rofound, of Nature as a whole. Every 

 naturalist should have a speciality in some direction. Specialists should 

 be known as such to their fellow-naturalists. They should 1)6 the 

 depositaries of knowledge in their special departments, by aid of their 

 brethren, who should communicate to them any facts in tliose dei)art- 

 ments of which they might become cognisant. They should place 

 their knowledge at the service of any true working naturalist who 

 might re(piire it. It was recognised that this was a high ideal, but 

 Mr. Prout had great faith in the elevating power of a high ideal, and 

 his own intercourse with Natural History workers led him to hope for 

 excellent results if a larger nund)er of them could be brought to realize 

 the advantages of a defined s})ecialism. Every naturalist should be a 

 specialist, recognizing himself as such, and recognised also as such, at 

 least by his own circle of acquaintances, if not more widely. In 

 opposition to the views of the author it might be objected: (I) That 

 many naturalists have little leisure for Natural History, and no inclina- 

 tion to take up any special group during sucli time as they have. Mr. 

 Prout was of opinion that even such would find their interest in the 

 subject increased if they confined themselves to some small province. 

 (2) That those who have plenty of energy for actual field-work, object 

 to be saddled with some special group and the concomitant responsi- 

 bilities of attention thereto. Mr. Prout held that there is plenty of 

 room for general work in Natural History conjointly with specialism in 

 some one special group. (3) That many have no distinct leaning 

 towards any particular department. Mr. Prout said he was no advo- 

 cate of undue haste in the matter ; all he desired at present was to 

 arouse interest in the subject. (4) That the whole scheme was too 

 quixotic. Mr. Prout believed that inability to do much was no reason 

 for refusing to do the little we could. The able and interesting paper, 

 which we have only been able to summarise, led at once to practical 

 results. Mr. Kose announced his intention of taking uj) the genus 

 Eupithecia ; Mr. Battley, the "Thorns:" Mr. Kobbius, Ferns; Mr. 

 Wheeler, the Rananculaceae and Snails ; Mr. Prout, the genera 



Melanthia, Melanippe, Coremia and Anticlea. On Feb. 28th, 



1895, Mr. Battley opened a discussion on the genus Tueniocavipa. 

 He was dissatisfied with the arrangement of the species in 

 the Entomologist Sijnonymic Lint, ])referring the following: T. gothica, 

 T. munda, T. incerta, T. opiiiui, T. gracilis, T. popnleti, T. stabilis, T. 

 pnlrerulenta, T. miniosa. The eggs of T. popnleti are laid in batches on 

 twigs and soon hatch ; the larvje are met witl) on trees in spring and 

 early summer: the pupte are subterranean and frequently gregarious; 

 the imago develoj)S in the autumn underneath the pupa-skin. T. 

 pukerulenta emerges in March, T. gracilis in May, and the otliers at 

 times intermediate between these two, being usually on the win"- at 

 the time the sallows are in bloom. The moths come to sugar, and 

 frequent blackthorn and other blossoms. Mr. Bacot recorded the 

 emergence of T. mnnda on Feb. 24th, 1S'J4. Mr. Nicholson thouirht 



