INVESTIGATION OF INSECTS. 555 
their punctate surface, so different from that of other 
Harpalide. Errors of this kind however, it is but fair 
to observe, are chiefly to be attributed to the circum- 
stance that both Linné and Fabricius rarely employed 
a microscope in making descriptions; though no one now 
attempts this, except where insects are large, without 
such an aid. 
If you ask, How am I to acquire this delicacy of tact 
which is to decide when the terms of a specific character 
are to be rigidly adhered to, and when taken with a cer- 
tain latitude? I answer, In the same way in which a 
connoisseur attains the faculty of discerning the works 
of different masters in painting ;—by such careful study 
of your author as will make you master of his style. 
Thus you will soon perceive in what cases expressions 
are to be taken literally and strictly, or with some al- 
lowance and abatement. 
There yet remains more distinctly to be adverted to, 
the assistance that may be derived in the investigation of 
insects from figures. Generally speaking, these should 
never be referred to in the first instance, but be regarded 
as a resource when the ordinary methods leave the sub- 
ject of inquiry doubtful. ‘Those who begin their ento- 
mological studies by turning over figures usually end 
them there, and never attain to that nameless tact in 
making out insects that can only be the result of patient 
study. Indeed figures, though often very useful, and 
sometimes indispensable, can scarcely ever exhibit those 
nice characters, particularly as to sculpture, that distin- 
guish some insects. Our modern artists, indeed, are re- 
medying this defect of the art, by giving in many cases 
the thorax or elytrum apart, with all its sculptural pecu- 
