NOTES AND OBSERVA.TIONS. 15 



their specimens more level, I have always found that by setting the 

 insect on a board one or two sizes above that of its own, an entirely 

 satisfactory and inoffensive elevation is attained without going to the 

 extreme of using the foreign board. I can only conclude these simple 

 suggestions with the sincere hope that unadulterated continental 

 settiug may never come to be it la mode in England. — C. J. Nash; 

 Pitnacree, Culver Road, Reading, Dec. 9th, 1896. 



Entomologist v. Collector. — It will probably be considered by 

 the editor, and by the unhappy " collector," if by no one else, to be 

 about time that this discussion ceased. As I initiated it, and seem to 

 have been elevated into a land of champion of the class, I may, 

 perhaps, be allowed a few words before the matter drops. It does not 

 seem to me that anything of much value has been elicited, beyond the 

 courteous and considerate tone which, with one exception, has marked 

 the correspondence ; but still one point appears to come out pretty 

 clearly, namely, that collectors themselves may be divided into two 

 classes, or, as the anti-collector would probably put it, that beyond the 

 lowest depths there is a lower depth still. In the first class would be 

 placed those who, while not trying to obtain scientific rank, yet do, 

 through their collecting, gain some knowledge of general principles. In 

 the second class would come those, probably not many, who regard 

 their collection simply as an aggregation of specimens, and have 

 no intention beyond the desire of making it as complete as possible. 

 Well, no doubt the whole question was more a matter of sentiment 

 than of practical significance from the first, but still there is satis- 

 faction in knowing how one stands, and so I submit that the position 

 may be exhibited in a tabular form thus : — 



I. — Entomologist Studies scientifically from the outset. 



II.-Sub-Entomologist ] Collection his first object, but gains some 

 1 scientiiic knowledge in the process. 

 III. — Collector Has no object beyond amassing specimens. 



Now I maintain that all these classes are interdependent, and form 

 parts of one great Avhole, and that no one of them has the right to 

 express or feel contempt for the others, but that all may and should 

 work harmoniously together. — Rev. W. Claxton ; Sunnyside, Wool- 

 ston, Southampton. 



[This discussion is now closed. — Ed.] 



The Geographical Varieties of Parnassius apollo. — Mr. Elwes 

 (Entom. xxix. 856) does not coincide with my suggestion that the 

 geographical varieties of the above-named species are worthy of dis- 

 tinctive cognomens. At the same time he does not furnish any clear 

 argument in support of his objection. Although I consider paltry 

 aberrations — such, for instance, as the slightly deviating form of 

 Ijijccena icarus, known as ivarbms unworthy of a special name, well 

 marked geographical varieties (such as those I have defined of P. 

 (ipollo), as well as seasonally dimorphic forms, are surely of sufficiently 

 elevated rank. If they were mammals, they would, indeed, according 

 to the modern tendency of zoologists, most likely be made to rank as 

 species. Witness, for instance, the recent re-classification of the North 

 American VrsidcB (cf. ' American Naturalist,' 1896). Mr. Elwes's 



