ENTOMOLOGY, EVOLUTION, AND ROMANCE. 309 



ready at hand to form a great work on the degeneracy of the science ? 

 Take a glance at nomenclature by way of illustration. Degeneracy 

 can be traced both in the man and the succession of men. Linnaeus 

 started well. Taken at random, we have Iria, Sibi/lla, Comma — ideal 

 names. Tithonus, Betnlae, Ziczac — pronounceable names. Derasa is 

 sweet. Batis — you can almost hear those lovely spots dropping on 

 that beautiful ground colour. Take a jump to the Micros — one 

 example is enough — Siramiiwrdammella. A little later we have Sa-am- 

 mcrdammia, as a generic name from Hiibner, which is an atrocity, 

 besides giving occasion for the vulgar to blaspheme. All idea of the 

 ridiculous is lost. These examples are taken from South's list, and 

 above the last a family name appears, which is too difficult to pro- 

 nounce, and too long to spell, from Stephens. All idea of utility had 

 fled. After this, for the most part, is a mad riot of type, and if 

 there are two out of the lot who deserve special mention for doing 

 their best to make entomology stink in the nostrils of practical men, 

 they are Zeller and Fischer Edler von Rosier stamm. 



Nothing so commonplace as the necessities of the cabinet, or 

 economy in writing and printing ever entered the heads of the workers 

 among the Micros, with one or two exceptions, and that monument 

 of folly, " The Entomologist " Synonymic List, has done its best to 

 perpetuate the iniquitous, Ui confnrmitii irith the law of prloritij. The 

 sooner nonconformity establishes itself the better. We want some 

 nomenculturalists, and we want them badly. 



Professor Huxley, speaking of technical terms, says, " There are 

 two ways of producing them, one by phrasing, and the other by the 

 invention of new signs," and adds, " the practice of sensible people 

 shows the advantage of the latter course, and here, as elsewhere, 

 science has simply followed and improved upon common sense." 



On a most cursory examination of entomological literature it 

 appears that the better known the division, the more intricate the 

 present treatment, which seems to be due to the probable excess of 

 leisure possessed by the authors, rather than the special necessity or 

 proportional usefulness of the work. In the less known divisions 

 practical men have some credit left. Is not what is here termed 

 degeneracy owing to the gradual and deplorable disregard of uses ? 

 You remember the " Spiritualist," Dickens encountered in America, 

 who informed him of some marvellous communications from the 

 other world. One of great interest was a new rendering of an old 

 proverb, " A bird in the hand is worth two in the boi^h." " They meant 

 ' bush,'" said Dickens. After referring to his notes the other replied 

 solemnly, " It came to us ' bosh.' " This kind of person should be 

 sent into the field to observe and collect facts. He can be absolutely 

 trusted not to add any ideas of his own, nor will he try to make bosh 

 plausible. 



Professor Huxley defines evolution employed in biology as a 

 general name for the " history of the steps " by which any living being 

 has acquired the morphological and physiological character which dis- 

 tinguishes it. Mr. Herbert Spencer defines it as : "A chant/e from an 

 indefinite incoherent homogeneity to a definite coherent heterogeneity 

 through continuous difierentiations and integrations. Professor 

 Drummond, in his amusing scaftblding chapter on the "ascent of 

 man," says: " That evolution should leave such clues lying about is. 



