25 
with the same subject, and as it has also come up for discussion at 
one or two of our more recent meetings, I think it may be well to let 
it rest on the present occasion. I will only remark that in the main I 
agree with Mr. Kaye that a perfect classificatory scheme should be 
capable of showing every grade of relationship of which we are 
cognizant, but that we should probably find a more convenient, and 
perhaps even more logical method, by creating other classificatory 
groupings between the genus and the species, rather than by multiply¬ 
ing generic names, and thus constantly altering the standard of generic 
deviation. Those who think this course untenable, on the ground 
that “Genus” must necessarily he the next grade to “Species,” surely 
overlook the fact that this was not even the case in the works of the 
founder of binomial nomenclature. Linne himself erected only three 
yenem in Lepidoptera ( Papilio , Spkin.v, Phalaena), as he most explicitly 
states; but he subdivided all of these into sections in some way or 
another. 
Having decided, however, not to follow up this question of genera 
on the present occasion, and having also had unusually little time of 
late to devote to the subjects which I had not already at my fingers’ ends, 
I am afraid I have nothing better to offer you this evening than a few 
notes on some of the entomological and other natural history work of 
1901, with a few random thoughts suggested thereby. 1 believe the 
usual plan in the “ Retrospect of a Lepidopterist,” which was at one 
time an annual feature of the Entomologist's Record, was to com¬ 
mence the survey with some notes on the field-work of the year, 
and thence to pass on to the closet-work. The latter is, in the very 
nature of the case, of so much more permanent value scientifically (of 
course I am including all literature in the “ closet-work,” what¬ 
ever its subject may he), that it might at first glance appear more 
just to place it first. But I think the order adopted in the said 
Retrospects was really logical, and as it seems to “ point a moral,” 
even though it be rather a trite one, I will, in passing, indicate my 
reasons for defending it. 
We, as a “ Natural History Society,” are studying Nature ; and it 
is self-evident that if there were no objects or operations of Nature 
round about us, our science would be simply non-existent. The genesis 
of all our descriptive work is found in observation, and even our much- 
abused museum workers are dependent upon the field-naturalist, and 
still more inevitably upon the productivity of Nature, for the supply of 
their material. Observation, too, is the basis (or at least it should be 
so) of all our philosophising, and our best philosophers have ever been 
those who have most delighted in a first-hand intercourse with Nature. 
Again, in considering field-work w r e are considering, as it were, the 
first stages of an evolutionary chain of operations which leads us on 
to the highest consummations possible in our branch of study; and 
it is only logical to follow' at all times the method which has obtained 
for nearly a century (probably from the time of Okeu) in all the more 
philosophical Natural History w’orks, of beginning at the lowest forms 
of the scale and working upwards. I emphasised in my address last 
year the value of the practical collector to the scientist, but 1 would 
now add that the value of the reliable observer to the scientist is even more. 
No doubt our own personal observations of what w 7 e are writing about 
are the best of all ; but w r hen some large branch of scientific research 
