1878 ] 261 



the knowledge of the natural history of any insects — such an exhibition as this 

 " National " one was quite useless; and, therefore, entirely failed in accomplisliing 

 60 much of that part of the programme which said it was to be " of interest to those 

 " who devote their attention to this branch of the Science." They knew all before, 

 or could not learn here. 



With regard to the other part of the programme that the exhibition was to be 

 " interesting and instructive to the public generally." Well, " a thing of beavity is 

 " '^ j*^y ^^^ ever," a poetic dictum which is true enough if the impression of the 

 beauty be not a mere transient emotion, but becomes part of the mental treasury of 

 an individual. In this sense the exhibition of exquisitely formed and coloured in- 

 sects might result in aesthetic advantage, both positive as an occupant of men's minds, 

 and negative in assisting to shut out unworthy objects therefrom for the time being. 

 To what extent this may have been effected in this instance is one of those hypo- 

 thetical things that may be affirmed or denied, but neither proved nor disproved. 

 We think that without any illustrative lectures or explanations calculated to inform 

 the spectators of the natui-e and value of entomology as a science such a miscellaneous 

 exhibition as this was only "caviare to the general," — that is the uninstructed mul- 

 titude. We also think it was a mistake to place it in connection with such sights 

 as " Zazel the renowned," and all the other sensational attractions of the Royal 

 Aquarium ; and we heartily pity those of the exhibitors of any pretensions to science, 

 who must have seen themselves and their favourite objects of study advertised in 

 the streets of London as a further attraction to the Westmiiister show " free of 

 " charge." 



Devoid as this exhibition was of true scientific interest, almost the only result 

 we can expect is an increase of mere butterfly- and beetle-butchers, of whom too 

 many already exist. 



" Butter/!!/ Pictures." — In the last number of the E. M. IM. appears an address 

 from the Committee of the "West-London Entomological Society," protesting 

 against the severity of some of the remarks made in that Magazine on their recent 

 exhibition of insects, &c. To this address the editors append a foot-note, from which 

 I make the following extract, " We repeat that ' such things only excite the pity of 

 " 'scientific men, and the ridicule of others.' The manufacture of 'pictures' only 

 " represents so much time thrown away." I not only deny this hitter statement but 

 I assert the exact converse. I assume that the " pictures " are the collections and 

 handiwork of poo)- and ignorant men — of men in a humble station of life, whether 

 in town or country — I assume, also, that humble and "unscientific" though they be, 

 they are, nevertheless, capable of appreciating beauty, form, colour, and ornament. 

 Am I then to be told it is " a waste of time " for these poor men, on one of their 

 rare holidays, to go out and catch " butterflies," or, after a liard day's work, to walk 

 miles into the woods, and spend the night there (as I have known them do) in search 

 of " moths " ? Tliis, I tliink, will scarcely be maintained. IJut tlun the subsequent 

 "arrangement" of their spoils! the "geometrical" and "fantastic" pictures! How 

 are they to know better ? To whom or to what are they to apply for information ? 

 Is there any harm in such a picture on tlie wall of a poor man's room ? Which is 

 the more " ridiculous," such a picture, or that of whole " rows " of rare species in 

 the wealthy collector's cabinet ? What do the vast majority of these latter know or 



