NOTES ON COLLECTING. 271 



writes it " C. W." on p. 113) Boyd, the former of whom has been a 

 Fellow of the Ent. Soc. London, since 1852, and the latter was so 

 from 1867 till 1894. There is no reason why he should be puzzled 

 by the list of localities for D. rainbiirialis, given in Leech's British 

 Pijraliih'H: Mr. Leech obviously received information about unpublished 

 captures, and entered the localities where they were made. An author 

 would indeed be behind the times if he had to depend for localities 

 entirely on published records, for nowadays those of us who are " in 

 the swim " know additional localities, beyond those published in the 

 magazines, for numbers of rare British species. 1 am fully aware 

 that a good many reputed British specimens of D. rauiburialis and E. 

 catalawialis (as well as of most other species that are very rare in this 

 country) have passed through the sale rooms in the last 20 years, 

 and equally well aware that an enormous percentage of them was 

 imported from the Continent, and that neither species is a " resident 

 native, in sufficient quantities to supply the demand." No one would 

 dispute this last remark, and I may add that I do not believe either 

 insect to be a resident native at all, but consider both to be occasional 

 visitors only, which cannot continue their race in England for more 

 than perhaps a generation or so. All this makes no difference to the 

 statements in my note (ante, p. 67), in Avhich I showed that the 

 reason why both species are considered British is because examples of 

 both have been captured in Britain. Sterrha sacraria and plenty of 

 other species are unable to permanently establish themselves here, 

 but they must not on that account be excluded from the British list. 



The answer to " John Bull's " question about Mecijna poli/i/onalis 

 is so simple, that one wonders at his asking it. The two individuals 

 in the Tugwell collection realised 95/- and 63/- respectively (the 

 difference in price marking the difference in condition), because it was 

 well-known that they were genuine British specimens, taken by Mr. 

 Tugwell himself in Kent, whereas the example in the Fry collection 

 fetched, with many other insects addjd, only 16/-, because no one, 

 whose opinion was likely to be correct, believed it to be British ; it 

 was catalogued as coming from Warren's collection, which was 

 certainly not the case, for Mr. Warren had no specimen, and the 

 fact of its having been in Waring' s collection was considered no 

 guarantee of its being British. 



I am sorry to have to dissent entirely from " John Bull's " dictum 

 that " no professional collector who sells 0. hmaris, and equally rare 

 species, without recording such, can be above suspicion." I know a 

 few professional collectors who are regarded by all competent judges 

 to be absolutely reliable and above suspicion, and of whom the captor 

 of the unrecorded Brighton specimen of 0. lunaris, in the Fry collection, 

 is one, who never record their captures, for the reason mentioned in 

 my first note, viz., that they know they can get as good a price for 

 them without doing so ; the fact of the matter is that they have plenty 

 of customers who know them to be trustworthy, and will at once give 

 them large prices for any rare insects they take. And it is extremely 

 fortunate that this is so, for if " John Bull's " statement were true, a 

 published record would mean so much more money into a dealer's 

 pocket, and the dishonest dealers would be constantly sending up to 

 the magazines notices of fictitious captures in order to secure laiger 

 prices, and an increased demand for specimens imported from the 



