332 THE ENTOMOLOGIST ’'S RECORD. 
‘‘ NOTES POUR LA CLASSIFICATION DES CoLEopTERES”’ (by Aug. Lameere, 
Professeur 4 l'Universite de Bruxelles. Ann. dela Soc. Hntom. de 
Belgique, 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 atthe 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 
Linné 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 omega 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, 
‘‘revyenons 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.” 
