ON THE CETONIID^ OF SOUTH AFRICA. 



5 



entomological science, is impatience. It is impatience which makes them dislike the study 

 of affinities, which makes them delight in the grovelling task of making insulated descriptions 

 of new species, and idly fancy that harmony does not exist in the creation, because, forsooth, 

 they cannot immediately and intuitively perceive it. To this branch of natural history, indeed, 

 there is no royal road. 



In order to exhibit the vagueness which hangs about the expressions — families, 

 genera, and sub-genera, I cannot do better than cite from one of our late periodicals, the 

 following words of an author: "These families which M. Wesmael has since raised to sub- 

 genera, but which I consider of full generic value," &c. Here, the dispute obviously is, 

 whether a certain groupe be a family, a genus, or a sub-genus ; and the first question that 

 presents itself to the mind is, what was the writer's particular standard ? He certainly seems 

 to have had some vague standard in his mind, for he talks of " full generic value." But 

 has this value ever been accurately defined, either by himself, or any one else ? Nay, has 

 the word genus any signification which is universally deemed definite ? I fear in all such cases 

 of assertion, there is a latent disposition of the human mind to erect an arbitrary standard, 

 founded on the supposed value of some point of structure. Thus one person says that the 

 genera of Mammalia ought to be estabhshed on the differences in their system of dentition ; 

 and yet there are some genera of Mammalia where almost every species varies in the number 

 and form of its teeth ; so that to adopt the rule, we must consider every species of such genera 

 to be a genus itself. Another person will tell us, like Linneus, that there are as many genera, 

 as aggregations of different species present similar constructions of some arbitrarily selected 

 organs, such as those of fructification in phsenogamous plants, or the teeth in Mammalia. In 

 this sense it is evident that a genus may be made to signify any groupe whatever; as its 

 extent will depend on the nature of the structure selected. The black and yellow Cetonice of 

 South Africa will even form a genus, according to the Linnean definition of the word ; and so 

 also will all vertebrated animals. Cuvier's definition of a genus is, that it is a certain number 

 of beings so nearly allied, that they differ from each other only in the least important points of 

 their conformation — that is, specifically. A genus is, in fact, according to this naturalist, the 

 smallest natural groupe of species we can find. Such indeed is the idea of a genus which 

 prevails in the minds of most naturalists. We see every little groupe of species for which they 

 can discover a character, immediately dubbed a genus ; the absurdity of which is, that we 

 often find these very same persons again sub-dividing their " genera," although, according to 

 their own definition, the groupes were already in rank only immediately above species. Even 

 Cuvier himself calls Sus a genus, or, in other words, according to his definition, a collection 

 of beings that only specifically differ from each other. Yet, inconsistently enough, he 

 proceeds to name and characterize a part of Sus under the name of Dicotyle, as a still smaller 

 groupe of species, and repeatedly makes mention of sub-genera. 



Let me be understood on this head. I do not object to giving the name of genera to 

 sub-genera, nor that of sub- genera to sub-sections. The word genus may be applied as by 

 Linneus to mark out all Petalocerous insects, or as by M. Dejean to designate only the 

 Dorysceles of Madagascar. To either proceeding I have not the slightest objection ; if we 

 only understand each other, and that the word genus is to have a similar value in all cases. 

 It is not to be defined the smallest possible groupe of species here, and in another place 

 considered as a groupe which contains many other groupes of species. This cannot be a 

 correct mode of using the word ; although it may, from our ignorance of created species, 



