( Sexxix 2) 
does), but only cuts.” We may or may not be told that 
really it is “not one saw, but a pair of saws,” and that these 
play alternately, and help each other, one making a cut 
and the other deepening it; and this duplication is, some- 
times—perhaps not actually said—but at least hinted, to be 
an additional mark of superiority to the human saw. Again 
it may or may not be told us that the saw is a “ tenon saw,” 
one which has a solid support, or back-piece, to prevent it 
from being deflected, and possibly broken, as it travels along. 
In the usual descriptions of its form, I think I may say 
without exaggeration, that no aspect of it is ever alluded to 
except the lateral—that in which practically all entomological 
objects are presented in ordinary microscopical preparations. 
It seems to be tacitly assumed that, as is really the case 
with an ordinary saw, a sufficient notion of its shape for all 
practical purposes can be given by disregarding the question 
of its thickness and representing it as an object of only two 
dimensions. Finally, we learn that the saw, when not in 
use, is concealed within ‘a sheath.” 
In this 7éswmé, no doubt I have accidentally made 
omissions, and probably done less than justice to some of the 
authors whose works I have in mind. But I have really tried 
to give a faithful picture of the sort of impression which as 
a whole they would leave on a reader not caring too much to 
inquire into minutiae, but desiring to have a broad general 
notion of the facts. Such a broad general notion of pheno- 
mena outside the sphere of his own particular studies, is all 
that even a professed entomologist can fairly expect, or be 
expected, to possess, And as long as the main facts com- 
municated to him are true and the inevitable omissions and 
ignoring of exceptions and difficulties and apparent incon- 
sistencies in the story are not sufficient to put a really false 
colour on the substantial import of the phenomena described, 
he has perhaps no reason to find fault with the description. 
But I think that, as I proceed, I shall be able to convince 
you that the narrative which I have tried to summarise, and 
which, to the best of my belief, generally passes current as 
substantially correct, contains along with a great deal of fact 
much also which is fantastic in its exaggeration, omissions 
PROC. ENT. SOC. LOND., v. 1911. I 
