312 Preservation of Botanical Specimens. 



feet entomopolis, in which no one would venture to deposit 

 a dried plant which he was not pretty confident had been by 

 some means secured from danger. The result of long expe- 

 rience induced me to run the risk; and my collection, made 

 up into between seventy or eighty packets, was deposited in 

 the room, in the month of May, 1836. Contrary to my in- 

 tention, the heap into which the packets were formed rested 

 immediately on the floor. The summer was warm, and pecu- 

 liarly favourable for the increase of the insect population ; and 

 my plants remained in this situation till the month of De- 

 cember. It was not until the end of January that I had 

 leisure to commence the examination of the herbarium, which 

 I did with certain feelings of anxiety, and with the following 

 result. That the amount of damage may be compared with 

 the extent of the herbarium, it may be nesessary to premise 

 that the number of individual specimens may be assumed as at 

 least 30,000 ; and that, with a view to revisiting the attached 

 plants, every one which bore the slightest indication of having 

 had an insect in the paper containing it was noted. They were 

 as follows : — 1. Aconitum intermedium D. C, several speci- 

 mens ; one only slightly gnawed on the edge of the helmet of 

 one of the flowers. 2. Potentilla multifida Z,., a few speci- 

 mens; one of them attacked at the root. 3. Pyrus Malus L. 9 

 one attacked in the flower. 4. Angelica scabra Petit, three 

 specimens; one of them with traces of an attack in the root. 

 5. Ferula glauca L., a single plant, with a slight attack on one 

 of the rays of the umbel. 6. Sonchus Plumieri L., a few 

 plants; one nibbled at the base of one of the flowers. 7. 

 Sonchus oleraceus L. (including asper), many plants; one only 

 gnawed in several places : the only plant in the collection at- 

 tacked in the stem, near which was the depredator, wriggling 

 away as if he did not like either his quarters or his commons. 

 8. Sonchus laevigatas : a small quantity of dust in the paper; 

 but, as I cannot detect any injury in the plant, it has, most 

 probably, fallen from .some other paper. 9. Lactuca virosa 

 L. 9 many plants ; one with a single flower attacked. 10. Lac- 

 tuca perennis L., several plants ; one slightly gnawed on one 

 of the peduncles. 11. Prenanthes viminea L., a Pyrenean 

 specimen, with a small trace of injury at the tip of a branch; 

 many Valesian specimens untouched. 12. HypochaeVis macu- 

 lataX., several specimens, no one of which shows any damage ; 

 but a small quantity of dust was in the paper. 13. Scrophu- 

 laria canina L., many specimens, of which only one had two 

 or three of its flowers attacked. 14. Tris fcetidissima L. One 

 of the specimens, in seed, had a good deal of insect excrement 

 inside of one of the capsules, which had opened since the plant 



