HEVIEWS. 
95 
purpose, and the space which such descriptions would take up in print, tend to 
set bounds to the ambition of being the author of a host of new species, 
all sorts of excuses are found—as the nature of the publication, or want of 
room, &c.—to evade the performance of what is admitted to be obligatory 
in theory. The style of some published notices almost suggests the sus¬ 
picion that there was a secret intention to escape critical scrutiny, by not 
being too particular in the description of species assumed to be new, and 
forthwith ushered into the world as such, without the trouble of deliberate 
examination. There is, indeed, a class of Entomologists-—the number of 
them, however, is daily diminishing—who do not conceal their fears that 
the publication of such ample descriptions will lead to an excessive enlarge¬ 
ment of the literature of Entomology. With some, this apprehension seems 
to arise out of the mistaken supposition that all the species are to be de¬ 
scribed with the same prolixity in every distinct work; which was never 
intended. It is only about the publication of new species that we are con¬ 
tending. Others, again, who start the like objection, might find a ready 
answer to it of themselves, if they would only consider in what way they 
would serve the interests of science most effectually, and not how best to 
glorify themselves in the paternity of new species. They would then see, 
in its true force, the obligation to characterize the species to the very best 
of their ability, for the satisfaction of other inquirers. The points in which 
a species differs from the others known, important as they are, are not 
alone sufficient for the purpose; but the most complete description is 
desirable, in consideration of the number of species probably yet undis¬ 
covered. Every such description precludes, by anticipation, a mass of 
critical questions and debates likely to arise for want of it, and enables us 
to dispense with the useless, but, unfortunately, prevalent fashion of 
describing the same species over and over again; as a distinct reference 
to the original description, in this case, would serve to determine the 
species with more certainty than any separate abridged description. The 
most detailed description of all the European insects of this order known 
up to the present time, if printed in a medium type, would not fill double 
the space taken up by Zetterstedt’s Diptera of Scandinavia. And what 
a ground-work such a publication would afford for the future progressive 
investigation of the Diptera of Europe ! With such a standard of refer¬ 
ence, how concise the author of a Fauna might be in many cases, in 
which, at present, the unsatisfactory character of certain species obliges 
him, as he thinks, to be diffuse; and still he cannot afford to be particu¬ 
lar enough not to leave room for fresh doubts and misapprehension. It 
L 
