PRINCIPLES OF SCIENTIFIC ARRANGEMENT. 125 



suit any extension of the genus, and in fact exacts it at 

 the hands of all who describe new species. This many- 

 naturalists undertake without any apparent conscious- 

 ness of the scientific responsibilities that attach to it, 

 and whence results the confusion so much to be deplored, 

 of the synonymy that prevails, constituting, as it does, 

 such a Daedalian labyrinth. The describer of a new 

 species is bound to cast around, and endeavour to know 

 all that has been previously done upon the subject of 

 the genus. He has to revise all the specific characters 

 within the genus, and mould them to those he introduces, 

 and he must insert these closest to their evident affini- 

 ties. Thus, therefore, the describer's labour is not light, if 

 to be of any value. The specific character, although thus 

 varying, becomes a permanent utility, and only so fulfils 

 its object, that of rapidly showing, at a glance, the 

 known species of a genus, and thereby permitting the 

 speedy determination of the identity or distinctness 

 of a compared object. If doubt should exist from this 

 brevity, the specific description is at hand to solve it, by 

 the amplitude and completeness of its details. Of course 

 this mode of treatment is only suitable to monographs, 

 or portions of the science discussed separately, and not 

 to a general or universal survey. 



The amount of toil thus saved to the describing na- 

 turalist, and to those who wish to name their specimen, 

 the experienced only can estimate. This brevity of spe- 

 cific character is one of Linnseus's terse and valuable 

 axioms, who limits its length to twelve words. The best 

 examples, I think, that I can adduce in entomology, of 

 valuable and exemplary specific descriptions, is Gyllen- 

 haPs ' Insecta Suecica/ which contains exclusively a de- 

 scription of Swedish Coleoptera; Gravenhorst's large 



