262 [April, 



care about "science"? Why! many of them have not even the credit — which be- 

 longs, at any rate, to the poor man — of collecting their own specimens ! Is it not as 

 great an enjoyment to the hard-working mechanic to look at his "picture," collected 

 by himself with much pleasurable toil, and arranged so as to gratify his eye, as it is 

 to the rich man to look over his " rarities," purchased probably, and arranged, not 

 from his own scientific knowledge, but from information imparted by others more 

 experienced and " better up " in the subject than himself ?* Why debar the poor 

 man from this enjoyment? Why sneer at his ignorance? Why "ridicule" his 

 idea, simple perhaps, yet genuine, of beauty, and harmony ? In these days of 

 "strikes" and enforced idleness, when thousands flock to the public house and beer 

 shop — when, as is admitted on all hands, there is no greater social dilEculty than 

 that of providing suitable amusement for the working man in his leisure hours, it 

 appears to me that those who, by ridicule or opposition, turn him away from one 

 (however limited in its extent) of the purest, healthiest, and most harmless recreations 

 within his reach, incur a very grave responsibility indeed. For thirty years I have 

 been a " collector," and during that period I have visited, in a collecting sense, many 

 of our manufacturing towns, as Sheffield, Manchester, &c., and also many country 

 places. Whenever, during those visits, I have seen a " butterfly picture," I can 

 honestly and conscientiously say that I have seen it with unalloyed pleasure. In 

 such cases, whether seen in the labourer's cottage or the mechanic's shop, I can al- 

 ways say with much confidence, " this man at any rate loves the fields and the woods 

 " more than the public house and the beer shop." But the Editors urge farther that 

 it is not merely a waste of time, but that it involves the " needless destruction of 

 " myriads of beautiful insects." Surely this cannot be intended as a serious argument. 

 I might take exception to the somewhat exaggerated estimate of " myriads " of insects, 

 but let that pass. Whether we coimt them by thousands or tens of thousands, the 

 Editors must know that the whole of them, in the ordinary course of nature, 

 perish in a few weeks, whether captured or not, and with the exception of a few 

 hibernating specimens, vanish as completely as if they had never existed. Why not, 

 then, preserve these " beautiful " insects to be " a joy for ever." If fantastically and 

 unscientifically arranged, why not ? " Non cuivis contingit adire Corinthum." We 

 cannot all be learned or scientific." An ignorant man, who thinks that the sun and 

 not the earth moves, may admire a glorious sunset as much as a Newton or a Laplace 

 — perhaps more ; and so, I humbly conceive, may a man admire and enjoy his 

 " insect picture," though he be no Linnseus, and be unable to say to what division, 

 genus, or species, each specimen may belong. I might add much more, but I indulge 

 myself with the hope that these few remarks may induce the Editors to modify, to some 

 extent, the severity of their condemnation, considering that such unqualified condem- 

 nation may tend to discourage and dishearten — a result wliich, I am sure, they neither 

 wish nor aim at. But be this as it may, " liberavi animam meam," and I would say 

 to every working man who may read this, and who, without one jot of scientific 

 knowledge, collects and arranges insects for his own amusement, " You have my best 

 " wishes, and your 'pictures' will always find in me a w^arm admirer and supporter." 

 — J. Greene, Rostrevor, Clifton, Bristol : March 6th, 1878. 



[It is only fair that " counsel's opinion " in favour of the manufacture of 

 " pictures " should be given due publicity. Mr. Greene objects to the word 

 * The comparison drawn by our correspondent is a very just one. — Eds. 



