56 THE entomologist's RECORD. 



A Reply to the Rev. C. R. N. Burrows, F.E.S. 



By G. T. BETHUNE-BAKER, F.L.S., F.E.S. 



I am unfeignedly sorry that my friend and brother editor should 

 think that I have called in question his honesty, or Mr. Pierce's either, 

 I can quite truly assure both that no such motive ever entered my 

 thoughts. The latter gentleman attacked my method of work and my 

 method of illustration, and if I carried my defence into the opposing 

 camp I do not think there is just cause for complaint, but in so doing 

 I certainly have impugned no one's honesty of purpose. 



" What the master's eye can see " is Mr. Pierce's own expression — 

 the full sentence reads thus : — 



" The latter (a drawing) reveals to the student what the master's 

 eye can see, and whilst obscuring and nnimiiortant parts can be omitted, 

 it is possible to present with clearness every feature and organ that is 

 of characteristic and distinctive value." 



That sentence is quite conclusive justification for my conclusions 

 as regards this particular point. There are one or two things that 

 Mr. Burrows refers to that I had better further elaborate, and explain. 

 He evidently thinks that I prepare my "mounts" quite fiat in the 

 profile position, though I should have thought that every one, who 

 looked over my papers and read my arguments, would have under- 

 stood that such was not the case ; all my preparations are mounted in 

 as deep cells as possible, with the cover glass laid over them so as only 

 just to keep them in position. In this method the natural position is 

 accurately maintained, and it is possible to examine the whole cavity 

 within, and as I stated at first the correlation of all the parts is before 

 the observer. I have been fortunate enough to get some specimens 

 mounted thus " in coitii," in cases where I have been able to kill them 

 suddenly before separation, and so have been able to compare the actual 

 position in use with the i^osition at rest — the two positions are natural 

 as in life. To obtain the natural vertical position would involve the 

 genitalia, being mounted edgeways in such deep cells, that generally 

 speaking the venter would be out of focus when examining the dorsum, 

 and in addition to this it would be impossible to mount the majority of 

 insects thus without using considerable pressure and thus distorting the 

 organs. Mr. Burrows will no doubt bear in mind in the future that I 

 never do and never have used any pressure to my profiles, and that 

 therefore they are trulj' in their natural positions as at rest. He must, 

 I think admit that the Hat spread position, wbich I say is distorted, 

 can never be assumed in nature. 



Mr. Burrows says I accept the authority of Dr. McDunnough. I 

 nowhere said so, and in one special point I expressly disagreed with 

 him. I quoted him as being accepted by Mr. Pierce, and then went on 

 to show that he accepted him where it was convenient and ignored him 

 in other cases. With these exceptions my previous article covers, I 

 think, all the material points raised by my brother editor, and in 

 closing I will only say one word which is to express again my sincere 

 regret that he should think for a moment that I called in question 

 either his or Mr. Pierce's honesty of purpose, on the contrary, I rather 

 pointed out the latter's thorough openness in showing us so plainly by 

 his drawings how his opinions were materialising. 



