YOUNG ENTOMOLOGISTS. 
11 
logy, “ with good coloured figures of all the species, and 
with good descriptions.” Such a book would be cheap at 
£100; there is no such booh , nor do I anticipate there ever 
will be one possessing such qualifications. On several orders 
and groups of insects we possess no systematic British work, 
but for Lepidoptera we have “ Stephens’s Illustrations of 
British Entomology,” and for Coleoptera , u Stephens’s 
Manual of British Beetles;” and faulty as both works have 
long since been ascertained to be, they have not hitherto been 
superseded by any later works on the same subjects, and how¬ 
ever awkward it may be to use a book as an authority which 
we are well aware is no authority, we must use such tools 
as we have, and where that cannot be selected which is 
actually good, we take that which is the best, remembering 
that “ parmi les aveugles un borgne est roi.” 
But no doubt I shall be asked are there figures in these 
works. In the u Illustrations” there are a few, in the 
“ Manual ” none. Now my readers are probably more 
anxious for a book full of figures, than for one containing 
only descriptions. About twenty years ago a work was pro¬ 
jected for figuring all the British Lepidoptera , and it did 
figure all the species known at that time. I allude to Wood’s 
ex ntomologicus. This work, from the facility with 
ic 1 it enabled isolated collectors to name their specimens, 
has probably contributed more to promote the study of 
ne Entish Lepidoptera than any other work ; the figures of 
many of the species are excellent, and, except in some of the 
cnsoui e groups, and the Micro-Lepidoptera, there are few 
7 ■ may beea?ily reco S’ lize(L • Unfortunately, 
adontmn P f b 1Cat,0n the pr ° s '' ess of the scienee llas le( l to the 
with th at ° “ “Proved nomenclature, more in accordance 
that on the continent (for twenty years ago an insect 
athird b ° re °"t “* ^ another in F ™nce, and 
m Germany, so that the Entomology of one country 
