THE WEEKLY ENTOMOLOGIST. 
103 
the same Cognomen? In the latter 
ease I would say, let all the forms 
hear one name corresponding to what 
we now call the specific name, but 
which would be better termed the 
race name, adding to that name the 
name of the district in which the dis- 
tinctive form occurs. When however 
allied forms are separated by a wide 
ocean, and there is consequently no 
opportunity of tracing the relationship 
of consanguinity, and thereby of as- 
certaining whether the divergence has 
become so great that there exists an 
inability to interbreed, it is better to 
give distinctive specific or race names, 
however strong may be the suspicion 
that the difference would break down 
were the two forms supplied with the 
means of intermingling. The ques- 
tion resolves itself pretty much there- 
fore into a Geographical one, and as 
such it will ultimately be treated. 
We need not dwell upon those indi- 
vidual varieties that occur in the same 
broods of insects, nor on the question 
of the limits of genera. All are 
agreed that chance varieties should 
bear no common race or specific name 
and it is manifest, that if specific 
forms are found to be mutable, the 
limit of genera cannot be more stable. 
Itecent researches of Entomologists 
prove the great differences existing 
between the external organs of gener- 
ation of closely allied species. To 
this circumstance probably may be 
mainly owing the fact, that we find 
so few mules between races inhabiting 
the same district. This inability to 
interbreed may possibly prove to be 
one of the laws of A ature, by which 
excessive variation of individual forms 
is prevented. 
In our reseaches in the nature of 
species, we need not attempt to go 
back to the origin of all things. Let 
the question of permanancy or muta- 
tion of species he discussed as geolog- 
ical phenomena are reasoned upon by 
modern Geologists, beginning at the 
known and working backwards as far 
as reason and facts will safely carry 
us leaving all anterior to that to spec- 
ulative icorlcl builders. 
The question of the primary origin 
of species has the same relationship 
to the question of the mutation or 
permanency of forms, that Cosmogony 
has to Geology. One is a mere spec- 
ulation ; the other a precise science. 
We shall never know more about the 
first forms of the animals and plants 
that occupied the earth, than we do 
about the origin of this planet itself, 
but we may surely entertain a doubt 
about the permanency of species 
without being ranked us dangerous 
Schismatics. If however fair induc- 
tion lead to the conclusion that all 
animal life evolved by slow degrees 
from some individual monad I will 
not shrink from that conclusion. 
Surely it gives a worthier notion of a 
Creation to suppose that he foresaw 
all contingences rather than that he 
should be ever remaking and re- 
creating by the direct interposition of 
his providence. 
In the eloquent language of an 
American writer the scheme of Crea- 
tion “is a question of will a id not as 
