177 



the species from its nearest known ally. But figures are never 

 necessary ; it is language which must convey conceptions. And 

 experience has shown that figures — more especially what I have 

 called " pictures " — encourage neglect of the true medium of 

 language. Pictures leave us in the dark regarding structure, 

 leave the species unarrangeable systematically, and in cases of 

 misidentification by their means may lead to misidentification 

 of the most disastrous kind. The figuring of every named form, 

 moreover, is absolutely superfluous, and therefore a wasteful 

 expense, because (particularly in the case of subspecies and 

 aberrations) a slight deviation from " type " is much more easih' 

 and simply brought out b}- verbal diagnosis. No new rule is 

 therefore necessary, unless it be one which shall tend to limit 

 faulty descriptions or lack of description by demanding certain 

 information as to structure, and unless at the same time it be 

 acceptable to zoologists as a whole. 



I have not rehearsed certain arguments on the grounds of 

 convenience, which have already appeared in The Entomologist' s 

 Record, such as that of Mr. Bethune-Baker,^ that historical 

 study (or the past of Entomology) would be thrown into chaos, 

 or my own, ^ that the floodgates would be opened for a series 

 of similar upheavals (endangering the future of Entomology) as 

 standards of " goodness " in iconograph}' advanced ; but I trust 

 I have already said enough to show that to mc, at an\' rate, the 

 acceptance by scientific lepidopterists of such a law as is pro- 

 posed is absolutely unthinkable. 



^ Ent. Record, xxiii., 271. 

 2 Tom. cit., p. 264. 



23 



