40 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 



are important when he directs his views to the destruc- 

 tion of noxious insects ; the discovery of new ones likely 

 to prove beneficial to man ; and to practical experiments 

 upon their medical and economical properties. But where 

 are the entomologists that in fact pursue this course? 

 Do they not in reality wholly disregard the economical 

 department of their science, and content themselves with 

 making as large a collection of species as possible ; ascer- 

 taining the names of such as are already described ; de- 

 scribing new ones ; and arranging the whole in their ca- 

 binets under certain families and genera? And can a 

 study with these sole ends in view deserve a better epi- 

 thet than trifling ? Even if the entomologist advance a 

 step further, and invent a new system for the distribution 

 of all known insects, can his laborious undertaking be 

 deemed any other than busy idleness ? What advantage 

 does the world derive from having names given to ten or 

 twenty thousand insects, of which numbers are not big- 

 ger than a pin's head, and of which probably not a hun- 

 dredth part will ever be of any use to mankind?" 



Now in answer to this supposed objection, which I 

 have stated as forcibly as I am able, and which, as it 

 may be, and often is, urged against every branch of Na- 

 tural History as at present studied, well deserves a full 

 consideration, I might in the first place deny that those 

 who have the highest claim to rank as entomologists do 

 confine their views to the systematic department of the 

 science to the neglect of economical observations ; and 

 in proof of my assertion, I might refer abroad to a Linne, 

 a Reaumur, a De Geer, a Huber, and various other 

 names of the highest reputation ; and at home to a Ray, 

 a Lister, a Derham, a Marsham, a Curtis, a Clark, a 



