I'ROC. ENT. SOC. WASH., VOL. 23, NO. 4, AI'RIL, 1921 75 



plished. It must he admitted, however, that the path of the 

 entomological draughtsman not seldom is bestrewn with conflict 

 and trouble, especially if he be required to work under the direc- 

 tion of a specialist who knows little or nothing of drawing. 

 Where the entomologist "knows that he knows not" and is con- 

 tent to permit the draughtsman to represent the insect as nature 

 made it, all may be well. But when, as is sometimes the case, 

 the entomologist "knows not that he knows not" and insists, 

 for instance, that parts of the model actually seen in perspective, 

 be projected as appearing in a single plane, or that appendages 

 be twisted at impossible angles in order to reveal concealed 

 anatomical peculiarities, etc., the results are likely to be painful 

 as well as unfortunate. The skilled draughtsman is apt to be 

 a self-respecting person who is in the habit of representing his 

 model as seen from a single viewpoint, and who, when called 

 upon to violate the laws of optics, is troubled immediately with 

 an outraged sense of propriety which might be interpreted as an 

 exhibition of the so-called "artistic temperament." In such a 

 case, the greater the knowledge and skill of the draughtsman, 

 and the larger the ego of the specialist, the louder the noise and 

 the denser the smoke of the battle. It is to be regretted that 

 such conflicts have in some cases caused the separation of skilled 

 workers whose amicable association would have led to the most 

 valuable of results. The well trained entomological specialist 

 undoubtedly should be competent to criticise a drawing with 

 respect to the representation of important morphological 

 characters, but unless he have a thorough knowledge of drawing, 

 it will be the part of wisdom for him to stop there and permit his 

 draughtsman to follow the dictates of his own mind, in the 

 strictly pictorial phases of the work. In my personal experience 

 I have met with very few persons indeed, not themselves 

 draughtsmen, who were able to criticise unfinished drawings 

 properly and helpfully. The bare outline of a drawing, for 

 instance, may seem to unskilled eyes badly proportioned or even 

 misshapen, when, in point of fact, it may be quite correct and 

 merely require skillful modeling to make it assume the proper 

 appearance. It is obviously true, of course, that one who is 

 devoid of technical knowledge as regards drawing may through 

 reading, observation, and the study of pictures themselves, 

 acquire a thorough appreciation of the good and bad qualities of 

 a drawing and be able to recognize good finished work at sight; 

 but such knowledge can not and does not enable him to criticise 

 drawings in the making. Such powers are conferred only by 

 personal experience with the pencil and only then on those 

 having the requisite sense of form, mass, and color. 



I mention these things not in a spirit of captious criticism, but 

 rather with the hope that my remarks may lead to a better 

 understanding regarding such matters, between the artist and 



