IJOt 6. ] yi Cons2')ectus of Instds. 147 



often so mncli like eacl> otlier that entomologists are sometinaes unable 

 to determine ])recise]y what an insect is, unless they are able to examine 

 mature specimens. Mature specimens, however, are often diflicult to 

 get, for some insects take years in devel(ii)iag', while others are not 

 easily reared under artificial conditions. Even Avhen the mature form 

 is foithcoming, the determination of the species does not b}' any means 

 follow as a matter of course^for many insects, when full grown, still have 

 much superficial resemhlanee to other insects, tlion^h in reality they may 

 differ fr<im them in important points. ^\gain, the coiifiision which has 

 been widely introduced into entom.ological writiniis, owing to the indis- 

 criminate manner in which new species have ao;ain and again been 

 described on evidence obtained solely by examining limited collections 

 of dried specimens, has added' what is at present perliaps the greatest 

 stumbling-ldoek in the way of anivinu' at the correct identification of 

 Indian insects. It is generally impossible therefore to identify a 

 species with certaintv from a description, unless the description is a 

 very uiinute one, and even then mistakes are always liable to occur, 

 unless comparison can. be made with authentically identified specimens. 

 A treatise, therefore, of some length would be required to give sufl^cient 

 descriptions to make it possible even to attempt the identification 

 of all the insects that are noticed in this paper; and as the principal 

 object in the present in!^tance is to give a list of the species which 

 affect crops, it has been thought best merely to notice roughly what a 

 few of the more important of them look like superficially, disregarding 

 the fact that the same remarks would very often ai'ply equally to other 

 insects with different habits. 



Much reliance cannot be placed in the accuracy of the Native names 

 The extent to wliicli the that are quoted ; for, although some names 

 ^'ative names are reliable. appear to be used with great constancy for 



denoting particular insects (as, for example, gandlii for the rice sapper — 

 Leptocorisa acuta of Bengal), in many instances they seem to be used 

 loosely and to have little more significance than such popular English 

 terms as caterpillar, weevil, grtib, and locust, all of which cover a multi- 

 tude of distinct s})eeies — many of them with very different habits. 

 Besides the inaccuracy due to the indefinite significance of many of the 

 names themselves, great carelessness has also been noticed in the namino- 

 of som.e of the specimens that have been sent to the Museum, as, for 

 instance, where some butteifly caterpillars and red Hemiptera were sent 

 in one bottle under a single Native name, tliough it is scarcely credible 

 that any one could have su})po?ed that such different creatures were 

 forms of one and the same animal. Again, what is apparently one name 

 often appears under several forms [e.g ., pamari, paruli^ and pavali, all 



