158 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



— Laurel-hox disadvantages. (1). The insects are longer 

 dying (I do not believe myself that insects feel pain, so this 

 is no objeclion on niy part). (2). The insect often recovers 

 when on the board, though apparently quite dead when put 

 there. (3). In autumn, winter and early spring the laurel- 

 leaf loses much of its strength. (4). To be efficacious new- 

 leaves should be used every day, which is often inconvenient 

 at the lime when wanted. (5). The advantages lost in not 

 using chloroform. — These, then, are my reasons, pro and con. 

 The most subtle against laurel-box are (2), under the head 

 "Pill-box advantages," and (2) and (3), under the head 

 *' Laurel-box disadvantages." I gave up laurel for chloro- 

 form for these reasons, but I lose some moths from their 

 beating the tips of their wings ofi'in ihe pill-boxes before the 

 morning: instance Diloba caernleocephala and Poecilocampa 

 Populi. I never carry chloroform in my pocket. It is diffi- 

 cult to use out-of-doors, and too expensive to waste. — [AVr.] 

 E. Halleii Todd ; Windrush, Burford, Oxon, December 29. 

 98. Pill-box versus Laurel-box. — Through the kindness 

 of the writer of the above, I was enabled to see his commu- 

 nication before it was sent to the ' Entomologist,' and can 

 therefore at once make one or two short observations upon 

 it. I will commence with the disadvantages which Mr. 

 Todd thinks the use of the tin box entails. (1). The insects 

 are longer in dying. This is true, if laurel-leaves be used for 

 the purpose of killing insects. But 1 ne\er employ them in 

 that way. They are only intended to stupify. When thus 

 stupified they are killed instantaneously with oxalic acid, 

 and, if it be desired to kill the insects on the spot, a small 

 glass stoppered bottle of the acid may be carried in the 

 waistcoat pocket. (2). " The insect often recovers," &c. 

 This I can easily believe ; but an insect killed as above [i. e. 

 stupified with the laurel-leaves, and then pierced with oxalic 

 acid) never recovers ; at least I never knew an instance. I 

 was rather surprised to find this particular objeclion brought 

 forward by Mr. Todd, as I had always understood that it was 

 admitted, by the admirers of chloroform, that insects killed, 

 or rather supposed to be killed, by it, frequently came to life 

 again. Thus Mr. Crewe, writing against chloroform, alleges 

 that, in nine cases out of ten, insects submitted to it re- 

 cover again after a time. 1 have myself seen this over and 

 over again. Objection (3), True to some extent ; but, 



