j i - 72 
[Reprinted from the Entomologist’s Record, Vol. XIIT., No. 2.} 
The Influence of Darwin upon Entomology. 
By Professor EDWARD B. LOULTON, M.A., F.B.S., F.Z.8., &e. 
The published letters of Charles Darwin show that he had a very 
poor opinion of systematic work in zoology. His labour in preparing 
the Monoyraph on the Cirripedia showed him that a large proportion 
of the descriptions of species are slovenly and superficial, and he thought 
that this bad work was encouraged by the custom of appending the 
describer’s name to the species. Thus he wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker (then 
Dr. Hooker), October 6th, 1848 :—‘‘I have lately been trying to get up 
anagitation . . . . against the practice of Naturalists appending 
for perpetuity the name of the jirst describer to species. I look on 
this as a direct premium to hasty work, to naminy instead of 
describing. . . . Botany, I fancy, has not suffered so much as 
zoology from mere naming; the characters, fortunately, are more 
obscure. . . . Why should naturalists append their own names 
to new species when Mineralogists and Chemists do not do so to new 
substances?”’? (Life and Letters, London, 1887, vol. i., pp. 864, 
865.) A little later he carried on a correspondence with Hugh Strick- 
land on the same subject. I quotea large part of his concluding letter. 
He writes on February 4th, 1849, ‘‘of the evil done by the ‘ mihi’ 
attached to specific names; I can see most clearly the excessive evil it 
has caused; in mineralogy I have myself found there is no rage 
merely to name; a person does not take up the subject without he 
intends to work it out, as he knows that his only claim to merit rests 
on his work being ably done, and has no relation whatever to naming. 
I think a very wrong spirit runs through all Natural History, 
as if some merit was due to a man for merely naming and defining a 
species; I think scarcely any, or none is due; if he works out minutely 
and anatomically any one species, or systematically a whole group, 
credit is due, but I must think the mere defining a species is nothing, 
and that no injustice is done him if it be over-looked, though a great 
inconvenience to Natural History is thuscaused. Ido not think more 
credit is due to a man for defining a species than to a carpenter for 
making a box. But Iam foolish and rabid against species-mongers, 
or, rather, against their vanity; it is useful and necessary work which 
must be done; but they act as if they had actually made the species, 
and it was their own property’’ (loc. cit., 1., 3870, 371). Again 
writing to Sir Joseph Hooker, on April 9th, 1849, he speaks of ‘ the 
miserable and degrading passion of mere species-naming ”’ (cc. cit., 
1., 376). Although these strong opinions and expressions were roused 
in Darwin by the contemplation of bad systematic work in the 
Crustacea, the future student of the Insecta will find his task much 
lightened if they are considered to have a general bearing. Systematic 
labour is certainly ‘‘ useful and necessary work which must be done,’’ and 
there are reasons of expediency why the authorship of a name must 
be readily available (as Darwin himself felt compelled to admit). But 
if this ‘‘necessary’’ entomological work is not to lose much of its 
usefulness due regard must be paid to the warning conveyed in 
these early letters of our great English naturalist. 
\ 
