1 1916.] 183 



Mr. Druce amiably suo^gests that I " sliould without delay examine the 

 types, redescribe them carefully, and correct their synonymy." Much as I should 

 like to oblige Mr. Druce, I am afraid that this is impossible under present 

 jircumstances. Surely we can accept Dr. Sharp's very common sense view and 

 treat as non-existent any species that are "described" (most of these, if I re- 

 member right, are nomina nuda pure and simple) in little known newspapers, 

 like the " British North Borneo Herald " and the " Sarawak Gazette " ? 



With regard to the 19 new species named by Pryer and Cator in 1894, the 

 probability is that most, if not all, have been described since, and I for one 

 should be very much averse to upsetting the present nomenclature in favour of 

 such unacceptable species as those under discussion. The Pryer collection (or 

 a large portion of it) went to the Oxford Museum, so it should not be difficult 

 for Mr. Druce to find out if the types of these 19 new species are there and to 

 describe any that still remain unknown to us. 



I take strong exception to Mr. Druce's concluding remarks : " the nomen- 

 clature of the Bornean butterflies is probably in a worse state of chaos than 

 that of any other country, and this fact is due to the writings of gentlemen 

 who have lived in this island at various periods during the last 22 years." 



It has already been shown clearly enough that the two papers by Pryer, 

 Cator and Bartlett should be ignored for the future as they have been in the 

 past. If they are not ignored, then I admit that there is quite a lot of work 

 to be done to correct synonymy. The only papers published by residents in 

 Borneo since 1896, as far as I know, are those by Shelford and myself. A 

 careful study of Shelford's work has shown me that, so far from reducing the 

 nomenclature of Bornean butterflies to a chaotic state, he helped enormously 

 to bring it to its present state of accuracy. In my own writings I can also 

 claim to have advanced the work of bringing our nomenclature up to date. 



This criticism of systematic work done on the borders of civilization, 

 instead of at the centre, leads me to hope that the present is a good opportunity 

 to ventilate a grievance of much wider interest. It is this : time and again the 

 naturalist abroad is accused of wasting his time and opportunities by doing 

 systematic work which ought to be done more satisfactorily and certainly more 

 easily by more competent people at home. The reply is always the same : there 

 is no up-to-date work on this subject ; no one at home will work it up ; these 

 species must be named; no one will do it, therefore I must find time to try. I 

 have waited ten years for the name of a beetle ! 



There is no great pleasure in sitting in an office on the equator^ working 

 out a key for identification, while perspiration drips monotonously on to the 

 floor, and a small but devoted band of mosquitos hums contentedly in your ear. 

 Outside, the tropical forest beckons, reeking of unsolved mysteries in the great 

 insect world. Beyond, rise those mountain tops, ever fruitful source of some- 

 thing new, something xinexpected. There is air up there, too. But no, the 

 continual amassing of unnamed and unnameable material, and the labour of 

 observation and notes on the same must wait awhile until some means are pro- 

 vided for introducing order into chaos. Those means are the grammars and 



