188 THE entomologist's record. 



deposited a batch of ova. These hatched in a few days, and took 

 kindly to sallow. Imagines appeared August 26th, September 5th, 7th 

 and 25th, November 2nd and May 20th, 1891. Some of the larvse I 

 gave a friend emerged the same season, but as far as I know only one 

 successfully hybernated through that terribly hard winter. — Harry 

 Moore, 12, Lower Road, Rotherhithe. [This must be quite unusual 

 in this species. I have never seen during 20 years' experience in our 

 Kent woods, where the species swarms, a specimen of a second brood 

 in nature. — Ed.] 



Entomological Pins. — The "Pin" correspondence is very interest- 

 ing to all entomologists ; let us hope that some changes will result 

 from it. Without doubt Tayler's pins are the best, barring the heads. 

 It is a good suggestion to cut these off, but why not sell some at a 

 cheaper rate without them ? Another drawback to their pins is the 

 confusing way in which they are numbered. A fault I find with both 

 makers is that the fine pins are too fine, and the coarse too coarse. 

 With the former it is hardly possible to move an insect either with 

 pliers or fingers in safety. Who uses such pins as 2 and 3. (Tayler), 

 or II, 12, and 13 (K.B.), and what for? For micros, pins must be 

 fine ; but could they not then be made of steel, either blued, bronzed, 

 silvered or varnished in some way to prevent rust ? Then at any rate 

 they would not double up at a touch. For macros, any one who 

 values their specimens must use coarse pins, but they need not be so 

 coarse. Take Kirby Beard's, 10 is a very nice pin for Lyccenidce^ 

 Hesperidxe, and small Geometry, but it barely leaves enough room 

 above the thorax to catch hold of with pliers, and fingers are out of 

 the question ; whilst if it were made also in Nos. 8 and 9 length, it 

 would do for all the medium sized Noctu/E and larger Geometry. 

 No. 9 is of quite sufficient thickness for 4, 5 and 6 length, and No. 5 

 (juite thick enough for 2 and 3 length. The same with Tayler's : No. 

 8 the thickness of No. 10, and Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 17 the thickness 

 of 8, would give us very serviceable pins. As to the black varnish, 

 whether it prevents verdigris or not, it certainly makes the pins softer 

 and look coarser than they really are, yet looking down on a drawer 

 they certainly catch the eye less on account of their dark colour (this 

 is particularly the case with the flat-headed ones, Tayler's). But this 

 would be better met by a brown bronzing, the present pins are too 

 black; no insect is jet black, whilst the majority have the thorax more 

 or less brown. In effect, I suggest that entomological pins should be 

 firstly, brown bronzed ; secondly, headless (this apparently would 

 improve the points of Kirby Beard's) ; thirdly, the coarse ones less 

 coarse ; fourthly, the fine ones made of steel or some harder metal. — 

 K. M. HiNCHLiFF, Instow, N. Devon, June^ 1892. 



I am glad to see the discussion anent pins. So far as I am con- 

 cerned, the mere colour of the pin is not, to my mind, of any great 

 importance, though I prefer gilt or black to white as less liable to 

 verdigris. I like Kirby Beard & Co.'s best, and use the following sizes 

 in macros (black). No. i for insects the size of ^. atropos ; No. 4 for 

 F. machaon, S. tilice, etc. ; No. 6 for Arctia villica, T. pronuba, etc. ; 

 Nos. 8 and 9 for the Noctu^ (excluding the very large and very 

 small) and for most butterflies; No. 10 for small Nociu^, and 9 and 

 TO for GEOMETRyE. according to size. The great thing to my mind is 



