ON THE ABUSE OF PRINTS. 
9 
is the most valuable ? I have heard, however, of graphic descriptions of towns 
written by a traveller whose only observations were made whilst being whirled 
through in a post-chaise at midnight! And you and I, Mr. Editor, have heard 
of naturalists (so-called) who being supplied with names to their skins of birds, 
fishes, &c., have (without any further trouble or investigation) written learned 
disquisitions on the habits and classification of the animal kingdom. The former 
may be considered an exception to the simile of the travellers, and the latter fact 
equally strong against the case I am about to submit to your readers. 
Mr. Lees remarks that 44 many naturalists seem strongly to object to the name 
of a species being discovered by the student in an 4 easy way,’ as if a person was 
not more likely to pay attention to the minutise of an object whose name he was 
certain of, rather than to direct his attention to what he was entirely unac¬ 
quainted with.” (Vol. III., p. 298.) My experience leads me to agree with 
the 44 many naturalists” here referred to, and to object to Mr. L/s conclusion. In 
all the instances which have come under my notice, those students who have had 
their specimens named by kind friends , although they have admired the tout 
ensemble of the species, seldom trouble themselves with the details; and as 
^infrequently have they any clear perception of differences, or substantial know¬ 
ledge of classification. Whilst, on the contrary, the student who relies upon 
descriptions for the determination of species, is far more likely—in fact is compelled 
—to 44 pay attention to the minutise” of the object whose name he seeks. And 
in doing this, there is a fourfold advantage : the peculiarities of the structure are 
impressed on the mind ; the terms used' in describing them are made familiar; 
the relations of the species to others are investigated (hence a thorough knowledge 
of classification); and lastly, the perceptive faculties, and with them a tact for 
observation and an appreciation of differences, are strengthened. These are far 
from being despicable advantages, and they may readily be shewn to be the 
natural results of the system I am advocating. When a student, for instance, 
takes up an insect for examination, previous to arriving at the specific descriptions, 
every organ used in classification has to be carefully noted; and in most cases he 
will find it advantageous, and even necessary, to compare the insect under ex¬ 
amination with allied species. Nor is this course one of bare unmitigated toil, 
as a student might suppose from Mr. Lees’ remarks. A considerable amount of 
pleasure accompanies such an investigation. Peculiarities of structure (unobserved 
by the dependent upon plates, or obliging friends) delight while they instruct 
the investigator: the pleasure resulting, undoubtedly, from the gratification of 
the perceptive faculties, which being healthfully exercised cannot afford sensations 
other than agreeable. And when the process is over, the name discovered, and 
the species determined, there is a calm philosophic pleasure (to say nothing of the 
VOL. iv.— no. xxv. c 
