OBJECTIONS ANSWERED, 21 
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 ; ascertaining the names of such as are 
already described ; describing new ones; and arranging the whole in their 
cabinets under certain families and genera? And can a study with these 
sole ends in view deserve a better epithet than trifling? ven if the en- 
tomologist advance a step further, and invent a new system for the distri- 
bution 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 bigger than a pin’s head, and of which probably not a hundredth 
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 Natural History as at present studied, well deserves a full con- 
sideration, 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 Linné, 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 Roxburgh, &e. But I do not wish to conceal that though a large pro- 
portion of entomologists direct their views much further than to the mere 
nomenclature of their science, there exists a great number, probably the 
majority, to whom the objection will strictly apply. Now I contend, and 
shall next endeavour to prove, that entomologists of this description are 
devoting their time to a most valuable end ; and are conferring upon society 
a benefit incalculably greater than that derived from the labours of many 
of those who assume the privilege of despising their pursuit. 
Even in favour of the mere butterfly-hunter—he who has no higher aim 
than that of collecting a picture of Lepidoptera, and is attached to insects 
solely by their beauty or singularity, —it would not be difficult to say 
much. Can it be necessary to declaim on the superiority of a people 
amongst whom intellectual pleasures, however trifling, are preferred to 
mere animal gratifications? Is it a thing to be lamented that some of the 
Spitalfields weavers occupy their leisure hours in searching for the Adonis 
butterfly (Po/yommatus Adonis), and others of the more splendid Lepidop- 
‘era’, instead of spending them in playing at skittles or in an alehouse ? 
Or is there in truth any thing more to be wished than that the cutlers of 
Sheffield were accustomed thus to employ their Sainé Mondays ; and to 
recreate themselves after a hard day’s work, by breathing the pure air of 
their surrounding hills, while in search of this “ untaxed and undisputed 
game*;” and that more of the Norwich weavers were fond of devoting 
1 Haworth, Lepid. Brit. 44, 57. 
2 Oft have I smiled the happy pride to see 
Of humble tradesmen in their evening glee, 
When of some pleasing fancied good possest, 
* Each grew alert, was busy. and was blest: : 
Whether the eall-bird yield the hour’s delight, 
Or magnified in microscope the mite; 
Or whether tumblers, croppers, carriers seize 
The gentle mind; they rule it and they please. 
c3 
