238 STUDY OF NATURAL HISTORY. 
search, by dividing and subdividing; and because, 
when that is done, we are left without any ulterior 
result or generalisation. Let us look to a case in 
point. A modern German entomologist, taking the 
old genus of Curculio, or snout-beetles, divides it 
into what he calls genera, amounting to about two 
hundred. Now these divisions, in a family so vast, 
may very probably facilitate our search after a par- 
ticular insect ; and so far may be very useful to the 
mere nomenclator. But the first questions which 
the philosophic entomologist will ask, are these ;— 
Upon what general principles are these groups 
founded? and how far are the same principles ap- 
plicable to other families? What are the results 
obtained by this new mode of arrangement? and 
how do they bear upon other approximating assem- 
blages? If no general principles have been aimed 
at, or can be deduced, and the only result obtained 
is that we may more readily find the name of an 
insect, it is clear that the very first principles of true 
science have been lost sight of ; and that if groups 
are to be so formed, natural history is but a study 
of words and names. Another writer, coming after, 
and choosing to draw his characters from a different 
set of organs, may divide this family into four 
hundred such genera; and, if we annex no definite 
meaning to the term, who can object to this? IR=fa 
timely check is not given to this mania for making 
divisions, and calling them genera, we may very 
probably see the above supposition actually verified. 
(164.) It is seen, by reference to all the best 
classifications, that scarcely two writers, even in the 
same department of zoology, agree in drawing their 
— 
_ 
