73 
i.e.y all those which precede maturity, say they, are those which point 
out to us most strongly the changes through which animals have de¬ 
veloped in the far past, and unless entomologists are to fall outside 
the line of biological advance, they must accept the dictum. But this 
entails enormous work. Where is the material on which such a classi¬ 
fication can be built ? We have not got the material yet, we have it to 
collect; we know that the work will be slow, but in such an important 
matter it is necessary to progress slowly. Festina lente must ever be the 
naturalist’s motto. Then vested interests step in. Classification has 
always been considered the special perquisite of namers and describers 
of new species. The family and generic names (which represent in a 
large degree our classification) may want changing, and then the 
synonymy bogey steps in. What is the advance of science, compared 
with the erroneous use of a name ? says the stickler. Are not names a 
part of the science, indeed are not names the science ? asks bogey; and 
if we don’t agree, the synonymy man says what fools we are. Our 
catalogue-makers and synonymy men, as a rule, know nothing of em¬ 
bryology or of the deeper parts of biology. The very nature of their 
labour prevents them from getting the necessary information, or making 
the necessary observations on the early stages, which would enable them 
to work out a system of classification on the new lines. They do not 
offer active resistance as a rule, but go steadily on in the old groove, 
perversely overlooking the overwhelming facts that should show them 
at once that they are nothing but obstructionists to science, that they 
are even belying their scientific existence and becoming propounders 
of error, preferring to live in darkness rather than in light. 
But this passive resistance,^ not all. Occasionally one hears the 
wail from'a conscience-smitten individual—“Well, we are biologists 
after all, are we not ? Do we not study nervures, palpi, genitalia, 
wings, etc ? How dare anyone say we are not the elect, that we are 
not fitted to continue as prophets to our generation ? From such, one 
question only needs an answer : “ What is biology ? ” They entirely 
overlook the fact that biologists are agreed that it is the embryological, 
the immature stages of the animals, which must give us their true 
history through time. So they go on, until at last there is almost open 
war between the closet naturalist who studies nothing but dried bodies, 
and the practical man who rears, observes and experiments on the 
living insects in all their stages. What the final end must be is evident. 
Truth must conquer prejudice. We shall look to the Museum men to 
name our insects, to the biologist to classify them. The superficial, 
one-sided, slip-shod work of kalf-a-century ago, will not do for the go- 
ahead scientific spirit of to-day. The truth must ultimately prevail, the 
foes of progress must be defeated. 
I feel strongly on this matter. It is high time that someone took 
up a strong line thereon. So far as the imaginal characters confirm the 
biologist’s Avork, well and good ; so far as any individual, for his own 
personal glorification tries to supplant biological work with superficial 
imaginal characters, small mercy must be meted out to him. Entomo¬ 
logists, if they wish to be considered other than dilettanti scientists, must 
fall into line with the workers in other branches of biological science. 
The characters of half-a-century ago may or may not be of service ; at 
any rate, they must be considered in the light of the progressive science 
we know to-day. Progress, as I have said, must necessarily be slow, 
