41 
was, that “ the number of persons whose talents are sufficiently great 
to enable them to steer a straight course through the numerous 
difficulties, and contradictions, and doubts which constantly surround 
such inquiries, is very limited.” The first objection we have already 
dealt with. The second is an important one, but apt to be over-stated 
and over-estimated, for there can be no doubt that the great attention 
that has been given to these subjects during the last few years, the 
great amount of what one may call educative material on these lines, 
which all who care to read have had brought within their reach, has 
given even our younger workers an excellent groundwork on which 
to base their studies. Besides this, all such speculative work is 
quickly submitted to criticism by competent experts, and if the 
hypothesis brought forward does not really enable us to explain the 
facts for which purpose it has been formulated, it soon joins the vast 
mass of wreckage, and is heard of no more. There can be no doubt 
that theory often helps us to discover new facts. We wish to see the 
time and energy of our active workers utilised in the best way for the 
advancement of knowledge. This being so, it appears to be infinitely 
better to encourage speculation in scientific entomology, even in young 
students, rather than to discourage it, remembering that their chances, 
if they are well-read men, of arriving at a mature judgment early, 
have been so much greater of recent years, and that often most 
valuable suggestions are made by young and energetic workers. 
I have previously referred to the distinct public recognition which 
has been given to the philosophical branches of our science during the 
year now drawing to a close. I here refer to Professor Meldola’s 
address to the Fellows of the Entomological Society, which he styles 
“ The Speculative Method in Entomology,” and to Professor 
Poulton’s address to the Zoological Section of the British Association. 
The former fortifies himself by the personal encouragement with 
which Michael Faraday used to stimulate himself :—“ Let us encourage 
ourselves by a little more imagination prior to experiment,” and then 
goes on to prove what advantages have already accrued to biological 
science by speculation. The latter enquires into the theories of 
physicists and mathematicians as to the probable age of the habitable 
earth, and after discussing their disagreements and probable errors, 
considers that we are “ free to follow the biological evidence fearlessly ” 
on this point, and then enters fully into the general evolutionary 
principles underlying modern zoological classification. 
In his address, Professor Meldola, after stating that we “ have 
passed beyond the fact-collecting stage,” proceeds:—“It appears to 
me that, in entomology, we have arrived at a state where we are 
suffering from a plethora of facts; if we are not in a position to 
explain everything connected with the development, life-histories, 
instincts, classification and distribution of insects as a class of animals, 
we are, at any rate, in a position, speaking paradoxically, to know 
what we want to know, and I do not see how we are going to advance 
unless a more generous use is made of hypothesis as a scientific guide.” 
He afterwards points out that, if we compare the results arrived at in 
the taxonomy or classification of the Lepidoptera under the old 
empirical, fact-amassing method of work, which, after a century and a 
half, brought us no nearer to a natural classification of the Lepi- 
