167 



" we may hold the most strongly divergent opinions and yet 

 remain good friends." 



I have already stated in an earlier note ' that I fully recognise 

 the value of illustrations as a supplement to the descriptive matter 

 — always provided the illustrations be accurate enough to prove 

 a help rather than a hindrance, and that the author of the species 

 is willing to make himself responsible for them. The latter proviso 

 is essential, for the author is rarely his own artist, and cases are on 

 record in which he has absolutely repudiated the " illustrations " : 

 in such an event any increased value set on them by the laws or 

 principles of nomenclature is merely a delusion and a snare. But 

 speaking generally, I believe we may reasonabl}' hope for unan- 

 imity in the affirmation of the principle of the utility of illustra- 

 tions, and even in a definite resolution recommending to authors 

 a larger use of such helps. 



Beyond this I feel we cannot go without injury to the best 

 interests of the science. This may appear a strong statement 

 to make, but I base it on well-considered reasons, which I shall 

 proceed to set forth to the best of my ability. But first let me 

 point out — as I have already in part done in the note above 

 referred to* — that the advocacy of "illustrations" is a totally 

 different thing from adhesion to M. Oberthür's idea, even in any 

 less drastic form than his own. In my early entomological days, 

 lepidopterists were, I remember, somewhat looked down upon 

 by the students of other insect orders for their comparative neglect 

 of structural characters in their studies ; but surely we have long 

 outgrown the days when we thought that a butterfly or moth 

 had no important parts but its wing-scales, and have come to 

 recognise, in common with our brother-entomologists, that the 

 cfitirc morphology of an insect has a bearing, even on its identi- 

 fication, to say nothing of its classification. At any rate, even 

 if we lepidopterists are still somewhat behind the times, being 

 subverted from more strictly scientific paths by the wonderful 

 variety of colour and pattern disi)layed by our favourites, it 

 is inconceivable that a Congress of Entomologists (not " Le}:)i- 

 dopterists ") will regard "illustration" as signifying merely a 

 sort of bird's-eye view, so to speak, of the insect as seen from 



' Eut. Record, xxiii., 264. 

 « Ibid., 263-5. 



