8252 Northern Entomological Society. 



mediate forms to bear the same cognomen ? In ihe latter case, I would say, let all 

 the forms bear one name corresponding to what we now call the specific name, but 

 which would be belter termed the ' race name,' adding to that name the name of the 

 district in which the distinctive form occurs. When, however, allied forms are 

 separated by a wide ocean, and there is consequently no opportunity of tracing the 

 relationship of consanguinity, and thereby of ascertaining whether the divergence has 

 become so great that there exists an inability to interbreed, it is better to give 

 distinctive specific or race names, however strong may be the suspicion that the 

 dififeience would break down were the two forms supplied with the means of inter- 

 mingling. The question resolves itsell' pretty much, therefore, into a geofjraphical 

 one, and as such it will ultimately be treated. We need not dwell tipon those individual 

 varieties that occur in the same broods of insects, nor on the question of the limits of 

 genera. All are agreed that chance varieties should bear one common race or specific 

 name, and it is manifest that if specific forms are found to be mutable the limits of 

 genera cannot be more stable. Recent researches of entomologists prove thai great 

 differences exist between the external organs of generation of closely-allied species. 

 To this circumstance probably may be mainly owing the fact that we find so few mules 

 between races inhabiting the same district. This inability to interbreed may possibly 

 prove to be one of the laws of Nature, by which excessive variation^, of individual 

 forms is prevented. 



" In our researches into the nature of species we need not attempt to go back to 

 the origin of all things. Let the question of permanency or mutation of species be 

 discussed as geological phenomena are reasoned upon by modern geologists, — 

 beginning at the known, and woiking backward so far as reason and facts will safely 

 carry us, leaving all anterior to that to speculative world-builders. 



" The question of the primary origin of species has the same relationship to the 

 question of ihe mutation or permanency of forms that Cosmogony has lo Geology. 

 One is a mere speculation, the other a precise science. We shall never know more 

 about the first forms of the animals and plants that occupied the earth than we do 

 about the origin of this planet itself, but we may surely entertain a doubt about the 

 permanency of species without being ranked as dangerous schismatics. If, however, 

 fair induction lead to the conclusion that all animal life evolved by slow degrees from 

 some individual monad, I will not shrink fiom that conclusion. Surely it gives a 

 worthier notion of a Creator to suppose that he foresaw all contingencies, rather than 

 that he should be ever remaking and recreating by the direct interposition of his 

 providence. 



" In the eloquent language of an American writer, 'The scheme of creation is a 

 question of luill, and not, as the insanity of logic has assumed, of power. Ii is not 

 that the Deiiy cannot modify his laws, but that we insult Him in imagining a 

 possible necessity for modification. In their origin these laws were fashioned to 

 embrace all contingencies which could lie in the Future. With God all if NiiW.'" 



Mr. Birchall did not see how the views of Mr. Brown differed from Mr. Darwin's 

 theory. 



The Rev. Josejih Greene remarked that East and West would produce forms of 

 the same insect that, at a distance of time, would be mistaken for different species, 

 and that before we can say an insect does tliis and does not do ibat, our observations 

 jiiu-t be much more extended than they are now. 



It was also remarked that the wonder is that species have not varied more than 



