1924 ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY 21 



between the families and orders in the biological fauna has been greatly inten- 

 sified. While many have striven, none have succeeded in proving or 

 disproving the theories of Darwin to the satisfaction of all and there we will let 

 the matter rest. It has been mentioned merely because of the great influence 

 it has had upon entomological studies. 



From the time of Linne entomologists have attempted to perfect a classi- 

 fication of insects without avail. To-day we have a classification which is, if 

 anything, worse than that of the founder of our science. We have advanced, 

 yes, but in our progress we have become so enmeshed in the complexities of 

 nature that we know not which path to take to find relief. There is no stability in 

 our classification; nor is there any relief in sight so long as the present tendencies 

 prevail. It is safe to say that all the paths which appeared traversible to the 

 students of fifty years ago have been fairly well surveyed, and, in so far as 

 progress is concerned, we have been, until recently, almost at a standstill. It 

 is true that we are finding new forms — new connecting links — in fact, a great 

 many new things to add to the complexity of our problems. 



During the past few years new fields have been explored. W T e have realized 

 the value of the genitalia as a guide to species. Many have over-emphasized it. 

 Just what its ultimate value will be in the tracing of relationships, it is impossible 

 to surmise. Dealing now with the flies in particular, I must say that a great 

 deal has been accomplished quite recently. There has been some effort devoted 

 by American Dipterists to the discovery of new characters which would serve 

 to definitely limit certain groups. Such researches have not been in vain and 

 it appears likely that within the next few years these discoveries will be embodied 

 in a reclassification of the Order which will greatly simplify the determination 

 of species and result in more sharply defined groups, and another step taken 

 towards stability in classification. 



It is remarkable, when we look back, to observe that during the past half- 

 century or more, entomologists have been playing the game of "follow the 

 leader." Dipterists have followed Meigen and have used the same means of 

 separating families as prevailed in 1820. Once more I do not mean that we 

 have not advanced, but entomology as a science must be considered as one of 

 the least progressive of all. To-day the implements of agriculture do not in 

 any way resemble the primitive methods of a century ago. In agriculture we 

 have different types of seed to those employed even by our great-grandfathers, 

 but in systematic entomology we are using the same seed and securing the same 

 uncertain results. 



Many systems for the classification of the wing veins of insects have been 

 devised and many names have been proposed, but to-day we are no more certain 

 about the origin of a vein in Diptera than was Linne, and probably he did not 

 even consider the matter. For example, the anterior crossvein in the Syrphidse, 

 or at least in some of them, is not wholly a crossvein, but is a fusion of what is 

 termed the fifth radius and the crossvein. This may not be true in the Muscoid 

 groups, but we have no proof that it is or that it is not, but it is certainly true 

 in the Syrphid genus Stilbosoma Philippi from Chile. No classification of the 

 wings of insects is possible without thoroughly considering the world fauna, 

 and anything based upon a regional fauna must be erroneous and misleading, 

 and can only be a centre of controversy. But, nevertheless, all such systems 

 are a means to an end — they do their bit towards attaining the final goal. At 

 the same time most of us prefer a simple terminology, and such must, in the 

 long run, serve the larger number of people and result in greater interest and 

 advancement. 



