30 THE entomologist's RECOKt). 



a thing, the result of synthesis, r.//., imago, is presented to us in various 

 stages of its synthesis, r.;/., pupa, larva, and ovum, and all the varied 

 states of each of them, we can, hy analysing each stage of its 

 existence, arrive at some sound data upon which to form " the interpre- 

 tation of the synthesis of the thing." Surely if entomology be a 

 science, " the means are justified by the end proposed," the furtherance 

 of truth. "What are the ends proposed by entomologists to-day? 

 Are they not many in number ? " Yes ! " And chaotic in 

 direction'?" No! They are retried in direction. One may be 

 studying the embryology of insects, another the differences in imaginal 

 structure, yet another tlieir habits in a state of nature. But all who 

 are entonwhKjhU are endeavouring to add some new fact or sound 

 theory to help explain the why and how of life. 



" The man in the street " knows little, and cares less, of the doings 

 of the vanguard in any branch of science. The names of the great 

 leaders — the Huxleys and Tyndalls — are known to him ; the lesser 

 lights working each in his own special line are unknown. Hence the 

 difference. 



On the subject of nomenclature I will not touch, as it is somewhat 

 outside the title of the essay. 



The suggestion that Dickens' American spiritualist possessed the 

 right type of mind for a practical naturalist, the " kind of person " 

 that " should be sent into the field to observe and to collect facts," is 

 truly beautiful ! "He can be absolutely trusted " to fail to distinguish 

 " bosh " from sense, even when the bosh is palpably due, as bosh ever 

 is, to error. 



Then in the next paragraph we meet once again the old ! old ! ! 

 story of the certainty of the theories of philosophers being sooner or 

 later contradicted. Where are the philosophers of to-day who contra- 

 dict tlu' laws of gravitation ; the spheroidal form of the earth, or the 

 fact that the earth revolves round the sun, and not rice rrrsa ! Of 

 course, when a great new philosophy begins, there are siire to be among 

 its exponents some who make mistakes, and such mistakes are certain, 

 sooner or later, to be corrected ; but the truth of tlie original philosophy 

 is not thereby shaken. 



The " Will of the Wisp " metaphor is not a happy one, because, as 

 I have endeavoured to show in the last paragraph, facts do not 

 decompose. 



In support of his argument the essayist goes on to mention the 

 fossil insects that have been found in the Kainozoic and Mesozoic 

 rocks, and after telling us that all such insect remains are referable 

 to well-known recent groups, he adds, " These facts are suggestive. 

 How far beyond the Palaeozoic epoch must we look for the parent types 

 of each division, letting alone their common parent ? " I quite agree 

 that these facts are suggestive, but other equally suggestive facts are 

 omitted. It is quite unnecessary to go " beyond the PaUeozoic epoch," 

 wherever that may be, but if such insect remains as have been found 

 in the Paheozoic deposits be examined, they will be found to be of very 

 generalised and archaic types. Such remains have only been found, 

 so far as I know, in the Devonian and Carboniferous formations. The 

 vast ages represented by the Laurentain, Cambrian and Silurian rocks 

 tell us nothing except that the period occupied in depositing them 

 was infinitely greater than that occupied by the whole of the 

 Secondary and Tertiary periods together. 



