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 ? If a 

 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 



