320 Mr. W. Arnold Lewis on 
All this array of authors of first-rate repute followed 
the order which, by the new arrangement of 1859, it was 
sought to re-model. The works of a few of the number 
must receive a brief consideration; but I will first and 
once for all present this view, which must occur to 
anyone who reflects much on the subject. The names 
of the Lepidopterists just mentioned at least equal in 
respectability any known in entomology. ‘Those authors 
of different times and nationalities, with minds of dif- 
ferent bents, as zealous for science as at least their suc- 
cessors, have proceeded to their conclusions by different 
and original methods; and their concurrence in one order 
of arrangement must be accepted as most notable. I 
will not enlarge on this view, because it is one which 
everybody can appreciate the moment it is presented, but 
I will merely recall here some facts showing its perti- 
nence. Itisacommon-place to say that the classification 
of genera may depend on a great variety of details; all 
entomologists know that a genus may be defined by the 
characters of its larva, pupa, or imago, and by (1) the 
structure, or (2) the habits of either of the three. The 
differential characters in the perfect insect for instance, 
may be found in the palpi, in the neuration of the wings, 
in the legs or in the antenne, &c.; and a variety of 
systems have been devised for classifying msects from 
some one or more of these characters. Thus Linnzeus him- 
self, after the wings, considered the antenne of chief 
importance, and the order which he originated was 
arrived at from those characters; the Vienna Catalogue 
was founded entirely on the differences of the pre- 
paratory states, and that arrangement again is the same 
as that arrived at by Linneus. [Jabricius used as the 
basis of his classification the characters of the mouth- 
parts; he also agrees in the Linnean order. Latreille 
lastly with the ‘‘ eclectic” system which he devised, also 
agreed in that order, though with a variation presently 
to be mentioned. Therefore, I repeat, the concurrence 
among these and the other first-rate writers is a very 
significant fact. There is no such thing in my mind as 
a suggestion, that these authors may not all have been 
wrong; but the fact of their concurrence would prompt 
anyone to examine narrowly a proposal of radical changes, 
and, one would have hoped, would stimulate the proposers 
of changes to submit their reasons for them to our judg- 
ment. 
