3Ir. Bicheno's Paper on Systems and Methods. 411 



is the general process of investigation. Nay, it so happens, that this 

 system of combining has hitherto been pursued principally in various 

 artificial systems, although the searchers after the natural system have 

 no reluctance to apply the knowledge of natural groupes, that happens 

 sometimes to be thus acquired, to their own more particular object. In 

 the same way the natural system is not essentially an ascending series, 

 for it is equally true, whether it ascends or descends ; being equally the 

 plan of the Deity, however we may please to study it whether by analy- 

 sis or synthesis. 



Next you say, " If we find a large genus agreeing in some well- 

 " marked characters of structure, form, station, and properties, it ap- 

 " pears contrary to the end proposed by the natural system to divide 

 " and subdivide the species into small groups, and to give each of these 

 " the same value as is now possessed by the whole. This is frittering 

 " away characters which are essential to the use of a genus, and destroy- 

 " ing our power over it when we wish to generalize." On this passage 

 I would first remark, for the third time, that the natural system proposes 

 no end, but is itself the end proposed ; next I would say, that no one, 

 except yourself, ever indulged the idea of giving the same value to a 

 part as to the whole ; that neither you nor I can possibly know a priori 

 what characters are essential to the use of genera, so as to deny the pro- 

 priety of their being subdivided ; and lastly, that so far from your power 

 being thus destroyed when you wish to generalize, the genus remains, 

 although possibly under another name, a groupe as much connected as 

 before, and as much in your power for further combination, or even in 

 a greater degree, inasmuch as by the more accurate examination of it 

 in the process of subdivision, you must have become more definitely 

 acquainted with its external limits, and its interior typical qualities. 



Allow me here to ask two questions, First, Have you in your volumi- 

 nous investigation of genera never broken up a Linnean genus ? Se- 

 condly, How is it that you, who object to the combination of genera, 

 should now complain of your power over them being destroyed when 

 you wish to generalize ? 



Entomologists have to regret, that you who, in so kind and polite a 

 manner have pointed out their defects, should not have attempted to 

 remedy them. The only specimen which as yet you have given of the 



