GO TDK KNTOMOLOGIST S KECUKi). 



in that of Mr. llaworth. ■\vho informs nie that he ol)taint'(l it many 

 years since from an ohl cabinet that was formed hy a jfentleman 

 residing in Kent, and "which contained scarcely any insect that was not 

 the production of that county, thence called the ' Kentish Cabinet,' 

 which renders it probable, as Mr. Haworth surmises, that the true 

 locality of the insect is Kent." 80 little care was taken in those early 

 days to separate ]^)ritish and Continental specimens, that one is driven 

 to conclude that this must have been an importation. That either 

 Stephens' or Haworth's specimen was a Kentish one, we do not for a 

 moment believe. The description siiggests that the sj)ecies is indeed 

 the vHtilns form of ('. (li.yiar. 



There is something to be said in favour of considering these to be 

 really British specimens of the nitilns form, for ]\Ir. (t. J3ethune-Bakor 

 states that this form was undoubtedly taken in Britain. He writes: — 

 '' I have known for many years that my father took both ordinary 

 ( '. ilisjKir and var. rntilHs some time between 182;") and 1834. My 

 father tells me he captured all his specimens (eight in number) 

 himself, all of which are in may collection, rh., five J and three ? . 

 One male is typical n(tili(s<, another almost typical, but with slightly 

 larger spots, whilst a third is midway between ili.yjar and rutilus, the 

 remaining tAvo are true ilii^par. Of the females, one is fairly typical 

 riftihis, another is on the upper side like the darker specimens 

 occasionally taken on the Continent, ri:., with larger spots on the 

 upper wings, but the spots beneath are decidedly larger than any of 

 my var. iiidlux. whilst the third is true ilispar'" (J\.M.M., vol. xxviii., 

 p." 190). 



I^ut the day of extinction was not very remot(% for in 1847 or 1818, 

 the last capture of this species in Britain was made by Mr. Stretton, 

 who took five specimens in Holme Fen. Thenceforth, all references to 

 ]>ritish C. disfnir are in the nature of I'eminiscences of what the insect 

 was. 



Many of these re)niniscences are interesting. One of these was 

 recently penned by that entomological Nestor, Mr. Sam. Stevens, now 

 undoubtedly t/i<' Father of P)ritisli entomologists. He writes, " I well 

 r(>member, at the meeting of the British Association at Cambridge, in 

 the yoar, I think 1844 or 1845, I was introduced by Mr. Vernon 

 Wollaston. or Rev, Hamlet Clark, to a man of the name of Rawlinson, 

 the " Bie-man," as he was called. He used to go out for gentlemen of 

 the University, to collect for them in the Fens — plants, insects, and 

 other objects of Natural History — in the summer time, but in thv 

 winter he sold pies. Rawlinson asked me if I wanted caterpillars of 

 the Large Copper ; 1 said I could do with a few. Two days after- 

 wards he brought me a dozen ; I told him six woiild be enougli, which 

 I purchased of him at the price he asked, sixpence each, I took them 

 home and bred five fine and perfect specimens. At that time one 

 could Iniy the butterfly, from Argent and other London dealers, at Is, 

 and 2s, each. If one could only have anticipated what has happened, 

 1 should certainly have taken tlie dozen caterpillars and laid in a large 

 stock of Viutterflies, for a little fortune might be made out of them,"'-'* 



Another reminiscence, which, written as it was by a professional 

 collector ("old Harding," of Deal), has a pathetic interest, as it tends 



• Science Gossip, 1895, p. 20. 



