4 
ON THE CETONIIDiE OF SOUTH AFRICA. 
the species which the authors could procure a sight of, whether in England, or on the 
continent. If it was a happy thought to undertake a catalogue of such extent, we the more 
regret the way in which the undertaking has been executed. In fact, MM. Gory and 
Percheron had every thing in their favor, except the acquirements necessary for the task. 
The subjects of their monograph are large, handsome, and easily preserved. They were 
therefore more likely to be brought from abroad than perhaps any other insects. The 
Buprestida are also handsome insects, but as the species of this family often are very 
minute, and always very active, so complete a collection of them is of more difficult 
attainment. Indeed, we may fairly say, that with the exception perhaps of Central Africa, the 
world contains of CetoniicL v few species unknown, at least in comparison with those which are 
known. MM. Gory and Percheron appear never to have seen the noble collection made by my 
father ; and if their work had been more ably executed, I should have deeply regretted my 
absence from England at the time they were studying the museums of our Metropolis. 
Nothing, however, affords me a better conception of the extent of their labours, than to see so 
few generic forms, and even species in my collection, which do not find their portraits, such 
as they are, in the Monographic des Cetoines. 
It will be easily understood, therefore, why I now commence with the description of 
the Cetoniidee of South Africa. It is not only because the Cape of Good Hope is the richest 
of all countries in the species of this beautiful family, but because every person who is in pos- 
session of the Monographic des Cetoines may, to a certain degree, have the power of studying 
analytically the affinities and analogies which I am about to explain, and of observing the 
manner in which, I trust, the whole of organized nature will one day be wrought out. 
I have also another object in commencing with the Cetoniidee, which is, that having 
been long sensible of the great confusion existing between the words genera, sub-genera, 
sections, sub-sections, &c. I am naturally anxious to explain the meaning of these words, as 
I shall in future use them. 
Every one knows that sometimes sub-genera, and at other times even sub-sections of 
genera, are in the most unphilosophical manner published as genera. Too often we find every 
thing a genus which some gnathoclast, with Scapula in hand, has thought proper, in his good 
pleasure, to call so. Some persons again there are, who on a first inspection can oracularly 
decide that this groupe is a sub-genus, and that another groupe is of “full generic value.” To 
such clearness of vision I can lay no claim ; yet I cannot help thinking that there is a mode of 
discovering the true subordination of these several kinds of groupes — nay, I am sure this 
discovery will ever be the result of calm patience, of keeping before our view a great number 
of the species of any family, and finally of following up that aphorism of a distinguished 
botanist, which says, “ Omnis sectio naturalis circulum, per se clausum, exhibet.” When I 
described the Geodephaga of the Animlosa Javanica, I had not that knowledge of a 
sufficient number of the species, which was necessary to enable me to work out my sub- 
ordinate groupes, and therefore I could only state that I did not exactly know which were 
genera, and which were sub-genera. If any one, for instance, were to publish a complete 
monograph of the Linnean genera Cardbus and Cicindela, after the manner which MM. Gory 
and Percheron have adopted for the Fabrician genus Cetonia, it might be possible for the 
entomologist to distinguish the genera, sub-genera, sections, and sub-sections of Geodephaga, 
as well as to shew their reciprocal relations of affinity and analogy. I hat, however, which 
most tends to prevent young naturalists from taking this, the most honourable path of 
