62 
THE ENTOMOLOGIST’S WEEKLY INTELLIGENCER. 
publication it might have been worded 
so as not to wound the amour propre of 
the persons referred to, — a very neces- 
sary precaution when alluding to mem- 
bers of that genus irritabile called 
entomologists. 
I have heard all sorts of motives 
attributed to me for expressing the 
opinions I did, but you know that I have 
no personal feeling in the matter, that I 
do not care a button for either of the 
Lists, and that I take no interest therein 
beyond the effect they may have on the 
study of the insects they refer to. I know 
by long observation how prone Lepi- 
dopterists are (more than other entomolo- 
gists) to follow a leader blindly, and I 
never lose an opportunity of stirring 
them up to enquire and think for them- 
selves why they do this or that. This 
was ray idea in talking to B. and C., 
and perhaps you will have the goodness 
to publish the remarks on the other List 
which I made to these two young men 
on a subsequent occasion, if they are re- 
ported to yon ; if they should not be, 
then I may forward them myself, 
couched (if possible) in terms that will 
not give offence. Still I hope that what 
is already published may do good by 
letting the fraternity of moth- men see 
what is thought of their scientific at- 
tempts by those zoologists who live 
beyond the little region of mothdom. It 
is, in fact, the contracted amount of 
knowledge possessed by Lepidopterists 
that lies at the bottom of their narrow 
notions, and we cannot hope for a better 
state of things until some one with a 
general knowledge of Entomology (and 
it is to be hoped also of Zoology) shall 
bring the Science so acquired to bear 
upon the objects of their attention. Then 
only shall we see Lepidoptera looked 
upon as a portion of the great animal 
creation, divisible into sections, genera 
and species, by the laws, both of arrange- 
ment and nomenclature, which are uni- 
versally applicable to all forms of organi- 
zation, and not (as now) viewed as if 
they were things which might be treated 
empirically by rules pertaining only to 
themselves. 
I am, Sir, 
Your obedient servant, 
A. 
EUROPEAN LEPIDOPTERA. 
To the Editor of the ‘ Intelligencer.' 
Sir, — While reading yesterday Pro- 
fessor Frey’s article, in the ‘ Annual’ for 
1858, I was thinking how his glowing 
description of the Rhopalocera failed to 
produce the effect he probably imagined 
it would on his English readers. Why 
lose its effect ? Because most Lepi- 
dopterists, like myself, do not know a 
single Butterfly except our paltry sixty- 
six — I suppose sixty-seven now. We 
make a guess what Erebia Melampus , 
E. Gorge, Melilcea Cynthia, Merope, Par- 
thenie and Colias Phicomone are like ; 
but what are Chionobas A 'ello, the delicate 
Pheretes and Orbitulus, the magnificent 
Parnassius Delius and beautiful Eurybia, 
we cannot tell. 
Now is it not time we opened our eyes 
and set to work to break through this 
great barrier to entomological progress in 
this country — this isolation that shuts out 
all the world except our own country ? 
As a beginning, cannot you, or some one 
who has a little more lime, give us a 
‘Manual of European lthopalocera F ” 
I will not say, as a correspondent did a 
few years ago, “omit the British spe- 
cies,” but let us have the British species, 
with their Continental localities. 
