88 
whelming mass of conservatism and contempt, and have emerged 
victorious from the ordeal. Probably some of our young entomologists 
do not know with what contempt The origin of species was received by 
entomologists. If they would like to know, we would recommend a 
perusal of kind-hearted Stainton’s remarks in The Entomologist's 
Weekly Intelligencer, vol. ix., pp. 78-79. Here, reviewing a work in 
opposition to Darwin’s views, he says, “ Occasionally, Mr. Darwin’s 
propositions are held up to ridicule: we believe that this will give 
great offence to the followers of Mr. Darwin, but is it really possible 
altogether to avoid doing so ? ” whilst the cynical ditty, “ The origin of 
species,” from Blachcood's Magazine for May, 1861, is reprinted in 
full in the Intelligencer, vol. x., pp. 78-80. Evidently the entomologists 
of the day enjoyed slating Darwin. 
VALUE OF CORRECT AND INTELLIGENT DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES. 
The turn of the tide with regard to philosophical entomology has 
been most marked, and one observes, with a little regret, a tendency 
to underestimate the plodding work of the men who have gathered 
the facts which we can now manipulate for our generalisations, and 
one frequently notices a tone of contempt towards those workers, who 
are contemptuously described as “ species-describers,” by their fellow- 
workers in the more intellectual branches of our science. In the 
course of the year, we have noticed in a scientific contemporary, 0 
a reference to the description of species as “a most unprofitable kind 
of work,” whilst another contemporary,f referring to a well-known 
work on mammalia, says “ This work, which consists in enumerat¬ 
ing and describing species, which is within reach of the most mediocre 
intelligence, this fastidious care, which should be left to those who are 
not capable of ideas, is this the only work that tempts American 
zoologists ? Are there not other occupations for their scientific 
activity ? ” 
I am inclined to look upon such criticisms as these as rather out¬ 
side the province of the critic. Every author is aware that every 
irresponsible critic knows better than he himself, what he ought to 
have written, and how he ought to have written it, but, when all is said 
and done, I venture to think that the author is the man who knows best 
what he can do, and what work he can do best, and so long as species 
have to be described, the work must be done by competent men, by intelli¬ 
gent men, by men of wide knowledge. It may be true that the more 
mechanical toilers at our work may be capable of describing species, 
but whether these men, with “mediocre intelligence,” who are “ not 
capable of ideas,” would do the work so well as an intelligent man 
with ideas, and with a wide knowledge of his subject, is open to 
question. We, in Britain, have suffered much from the description of 
species by men of “ mediocre intelligence,” and men “ not capable of 
ideas,” and we still suffer for their want of ability. Surely our 
philosophical work must be built on as solid a foundation of fact as it 
is possible to construct, and, if this be so, it appears to me to be 
useless to complain that the quality of that foundation is too good. 
It appears to me, also, that those “ hotspurs of biology,” as 
Weismann terms them, wish to advance rather too hastily. Eestina 
lente should be the naturalist’s motto. They also overlook the fact 
* Natural Science, t Le Revue Scientifique, 
