OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 41 



sue this course ? Do they not in reality wholly disre- 

 gard the economical department of their science, and 

 content themselves with making: as large a collection 

 of species as possible; ascertaining- the names of such 

 as are already described ; describing new ones ; and 

 arranging the whole in their cabinets under certain fa- 

 milies and eenera ? And can a study with these sole ends 

 in view deserve a better epithet than trilling? Even if 

 the entomologist advance a step further, and invent a 

 new system for the distribution of all known insects, 

 can his laborious undertaking be deemed any other than 

 busy idleness? What advantage does the world derive 

 from having names given to ten or twenty thousand in- 

 sects, of which numbers are not bigger than a pin's 

 head, and of which probably not a hundredth part will 

 ever be of any use to mankind?" 



Now in answer to this supposed objection, which I 

 have stated as forcibly as I am able, and which, as it 

 may be, and often is, urged against every branch of 

 Natural History as at present studied, well deserves a 

 full consideration, I might in the first place deny that 

 those who have the highest claim to rank as entomolo- 

 gists do confine their views to the systematic depart- 

 ment of the science to the neglect of economical ob- 

 servations; and in proof of my assertion, I might refer 

 abroad to a Linne, a Reaumur, a De Geer, a Huber, 

 and various other names of the highest reputation; and 

 at home to a Ray, a Lister, a Derham, a Marsham, a 

 Curtis, a Clark, a Roxburgh, &c. But I do not wish 

 to conceal that though a large proportion of entomolo- 

 gists direct their views much further than to the mere 

 nomenclature of their science, there exist a great num- 



