80 
multiplication of species, or subspecies, in botany. Said he, “ I suppose 
as our research proceeds and our knowledge increases this tendency is 
sure to manifest itself, and though it is perhaps possible to overdo it, 
yet it cannot be denied that it is in the main correct and beneficial ; 
doubtless you have observed the same tendency in entomology?” I 
had to confess with shame that a great many entomologists were doing 
just the reverse, and seemed to delight in obscuring the careful work 
of their predecessors by “ lumping ” everything which they possibly 
could. I do not care whether we prefer to use the name species, sub¬ 
species, race, variety or any other name to designate the difference of 
which we are conscious; but if there is an appreciable difference, then, 
in the name of scientific accuracy, do let us recognise that by some 
distinctive title which enables us to record the observed habits, &c., 
under their right heading. 
I do not at all condemn theorising, or the formation of definite 
opinions as to the distinctness or otherwise of allied forms. In a 
never-to-be-forgotten address delivered at the meeting of the Entomo¬ 
logical Society on January 20th, 1897 (Proc. Ent. Sue., 1896, pp. lxii), 
Professor Meldola argued in favour of the holding of an hypothesis as 
a stimulus to definite research, and I most cordially concur in his view; 
but do not let us make the mistake of regarding such hypothesis as a 
proven fact, or of trying to force it down the throats of our fellow- 
workers. Again let me plead for an open mind in all branches of 
research, and for a provisional acceptance of all differentiations which 
are at all capable of comprehension and expression ; in this way alone 
shall we clear the ground for the work of the generation that is to 
come. 
Had time permitted, I should have referred again to some of the 
still more difficult and indefinite questions of (jeneric separation. It 
must suffice to say that I am coming to agree more and more with an 
opinion expressed here some months ago by my good friend Dr. T. A. 
Chapman, that our binomial system of nomenclature is by no means 
so perfect as it has been held to be, and that there is cause for regret 
that it is impossible to establish a mononymic usage throughout an 
order, i.e., so as to be able to write Lepidnpteron machaon, Lepidopteron 
caia, and so on throughout, thus avoiding all the worries of generic 
nomenclature. If we are going to take the view which is advocated by 
some, that “ genus ” is absolutely the next grade above “ species,” we 
shall soon arrive at that state in which nearly every species requires a 
separate generic appellation; for it is seldom indeed that any large 
assemblage of species has branched off simultaneously from the common 
stock, and that, therefore, its constituents show amongst themselves no 
closer relationships in one direction than in another. 
In conclusion let us turn our attention more particularly to the 
concerns of our own Society. I think we may congratulate ourselves 
that our year has been on the whole a satisfactory one, though we 
could wish for a larger attendance, and a larger increase of our balance 
in hand ; as you will have observed from the Treasurer’s statement, 
this has been about doubled — a state of things infinitely better than 
a decrease — but when we recollect at how low a figure it stood at the 
end of 1899, we realise that there is not even now very much to be 
proud of, especially as I believe there are several books awaiting 
binding, and the need of a new bookcase is making itself urgently felt; 
