ON THE USE AND ABUSE OF PRINTS. 357 
my observations. In the article referred to will be found the following remark:—* 
u Plates may be necessary sometimes , and the assistance of friends at the onset 
may be beneficial, but neither should be depended upon for the determination of 
species/’ The question naturally arises,'—■“ When are plates necessary ?” Mr. 
L/s expressive language supplies the answer :—■“ In cases of doubt, uncertainty, 
or inadequate descriptions,”—“ when probabilities seem nearly balanced,—-when 
descriptions are so faulty and ambiguous that discrimination itself is bewildered,* 
—when, in fact, the student has carefully examined his specimen, is perfectly 
conversant with its structure and peculiarities, and is only driven to plates by the 
defects of his text-book. The use of plates under these circumstances can do 
do harm ; nor in such cases could a charge of empiricism be sustained, or a habit 
of superficial observation cultivated. The main point in dispute is this :—Is the 
student most likely to be benefited by the constant determination of his specimens 
by a reference to plates, or to descriptions ? I feel convinced that Mr. Lees will 
agree with me in the opinion that an accurate knowledge of the species under 
investigation is far more likely to be obtained by a comparison of it with descrip¬ 
tions than by the examination—in nine cases out of ten a superficial one—of a 
plate. What then should be the advice given to a student ? To make a point of 
determining the species to which his specimens belong by examining figures of 
them—that being the easiest mode of obtaining the knowledge he seeks ? Or 
should we impress upon his mind the importance of never making use of plates 
except when circumstances rendered it absolutely necessary ? The latter will be, 
in my opinion, by far the best course to pursue. “ I can readily conceive and 
understand,” says Mr. Lees, “ that Mr. Rylands is only anxious that the young 
student'shall obtain the habit of examining for himself ‘peculiarities of structure,’ 
and not as a matter of course resort in all cases forthwith to plates. So far I 
admit the propriety of investigation to every inquirer.” I am glad that Mr. 
Lees admits this, but in so doing does he not “ sink his ensign to half-mast high?” 
Compare the above with the following sentence (Vol. III., p. 298), which con¬ 
stitutes, in my opinion, “ the very point of contention.” “ Many naturalists seem 
strongly to object to the name of a species being discovered by the student in 
an c easy way,’ as if a person was not more likely to pay attention to the minutiae 
of an object whose name he was certain of ,‘ rather than direct his attention to 
what he was entirely unacquainted with.” Now if this last remark of Mr. Lees 
be correct, it is obvious that the student should be recommended to “ resort in 
all cases forthwith to plates as a matter of course .” I fear too many students do 
thus, as a “ matter of course,” obtain the names of their specimens, and in conse¬ 
quence know little of the subject they appear to study, or of the peculiarities of 
the objects they collect. If my remarks have the desired effect of lessening the 
number of these scientific “ quacks,” I should indeed be gratified. 
3 a 2 
