382 THE entomologist's eecobd. 



"Notes pour la classification des Coleopteres " (by Aug. Lameere, 

 Professeur a I'Universite cle Briixelles. Ann. de la Soc. Entom. de 

 Belijique, Tome xliv., 1900). — -These notes are the first real attempt at 

 a natural classification of Coleoptera, and although we are not prepared 

 to admit all the innovations which occur in this paper, we do not hesitate 

 to say that on the whole we agree with it, and welcome it as a step in 

 the right direction. As M. Lameere says himself, a zoologist entirely 

 ignorant of entomology and approaching the study of insects at the present 

 day, would deplore the absolutely rudimentary state of their classifica- 

 tion ; whereas, in other groups of animals, naturalists have for some 

 time past based''= their classification on genealogy, the only natural 

 mode of classification, entomologists, with a few rare excep- 

 tions, do not seem to realize the immense progress outside their 

 domains, and perpetuate the errors of the past. This, alas ! is 

 undoubtedly true, so far as coleopterists are concerned, although the 

 leading lepidopterists are not likely to assent to such a sweeping 

 assertion. As long as arbitrary and unnatural characters are 

 used for classificatory purposes, or species are divided on one 

 character alone (which must in itself be arbitrary and unnatural, 

 as the workings of evolution cannot be tied down to any one 

 character) classification will remain practically in the state in which 

 Linne left it. M. Lameere truly says that, in spite of such improvements 

 as have been made, the classification of Coleoptera remains perhaps 

 the most difficult problem in systematic zoology, and points out 

 that his notes are intended to direct the attention of specialists to 

 this subject. This is an end to be devoutly hoped for, as many 

 coleopterists appear to think that the alpha and omer/a of the study of 

 Coleoptera is to form a collection, others, the description of new species, 

 whilst all the interesting problems presented by the life-histories of 

 beetles, their habits, courtships, parasites, mimicry, dwelling-places, &c., 

 are as nothing to these great objects. They think that, because the 

 older collectors collected in a certain way they must do likewise, strike 

 out no new lines for themselves, present all difficulties to the autho- 

 rities by reputation pro tem., never try to sift or find out truths for 

 themselves, follow like sheep in each other's footsteps, and, in fact, as 

 M. Lameere says, perpetuate the errors of the past. A friend of ours, 

 a coleopterist, who like ourselves, only keeps such beetles in his own 

 private British collection as he takes himself, was accused of being 

 selfish (when he gives away every insect he takes, except a small series) 

 and unscientific ! When he explained that he could always study 

 whatever insects he wished in the museums or in friends' collections, 

 and that if it were absolutely necessary to have a type collection he 

 could buy one to-morrow, he was told that he had better study some 

 other order. This could only mean that the one object of any value 

 was to amass a collection no matter how, and that the experience and 

 knowledge obtained in the field was worth nothing. However, 

 " revenons nous a nos moutons." In these admirable notes the thing 

 that strikes one at once is the amount of study displayed and the 



* This calls to mind Professor Poulton's words in his learned address to the 

 Zoological Section of the British Association at Liverpool in 1896 : " Since the 

 appearance of the ' Origin of Species ' the zoologist, in making his classifications, 

 has attempted as far as possible to set forth a genealogical arrangement." 



