46 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



of those who go in for foreign insects as well." This is correct, but 

 the inconvenience to the collector of extra-British insects under the 

 present system is so great that it is hardly right to pass over it as un- 

 wortiiy of attention. I have for many years collected British and 

 foreign insects. As it is impossible, without exchanging (or buying) 

 specuneng, to obtain anything like a good collection, I naturally 

 resort to exchange on a fairly large scale. What is the result ? My 

 collection is a heterogeneous mixture of high, medium, and low-set 

 specimens, witli wings curved or fiat, sloping up or down or arranged 

 horizontally. Short of resetting everything this is unavoidable. Now, 

 if it be Mr. Sabine's intention (and that of those who argue with him) 

 to discourage the collection of any but British Lepidoptera, he is 

 undoubtedly right. But does he realise that the excellent worli done 

 in Britain, by the comparison of local varieties with one another, is but 

 half complete if they are not compared with the continental forms of 

 the same insects ? We are blessed with such a wide variety of climate 

 and weather in our happy isles, that a very large range of variety, in 

 many species, may be found without crossing the Channel ; but why 

 throw obstacles in the way of those who would complete the series by 

 adding, say, polar or southern forms of the same species ? It is im- 

 material, in my opinion, whether entomologists set insects high or 

 low ; both ways have advantages ; high-set are safer to pack for 

 posting, and extremely convenient for putting locality and other labels 

 beneath. Personally, though I admire a well-set English specimen, 

 curved wings are to me the 7ie plus ultra of artificiality ; it is, however, 

 very material that lepidopterists all the world over should adopt a 

 uniform system ; and as we are hardly likely to convert the rest 

 of Europe, America, the colonies, in fact all the world, except our own 

 little islands, to our method of setting, the sooner we abandon it for 

 the universal one the better. As to English setting being the " hall- 

 mark" of a British insect, if the hall-mark is not written on the 

 insect by Nature's hand it is not worth much, except perhaps from a 

 pecuniary point of view. If an English specimen differs in any way 

 from a foreign one, the hall-mark is not needed ; if it does not so 

 differ, a locality label meets the purpose equally well. As Mr. 

 Jacoby points out, setting is no guarantee against fraud. One distinct 

 and immediate advantage of uniform setting would be the greater ease 

 with which good specnnens which are common abroad [Cinxia, for 

 instance) could be obtained, which would help to save many of our 

 rarities from extinction. In conclusion, let me state that I am not 

 arguing on the merits of the two opposing systems of setting, as I 

 have, alas ! hundreds of both in my collection, but simply on the ad- 

 visability of the general adoption of the uniform system obtaining all 

 over the world. The following are the advantages I claim : — It would 

 facilitate foreign exchange, and increase the knowledge of the distri- 

 bution of British species outside Britain, if not of extra-British species. 

 It would give greater facilities for the determination of new British 

 species, the guesswork handling of which at present is rather woeful. 

 It would give collectors of Europeans fair play, both in regard to the 

 beauty of their collections and in exchange abroad (the continental 

 collector objects to English-set specimens as much as the hardened 

 Britisher to high-set ones). It would bring us in line in this matter 



