112 
Wood engraving is better. It is not open to any of the objections 
against etching and lithography. It can be easily and cheaply dupli- 
cated. It yields a clear, neat figure when printed on only fair paper. 
It can be used in plates, or scattered in text. But it has one serious 
defect, namely, that the original drawing must be reproduced on the 
block and engraved by one who may not render it exactly. This is 
not so serious an objection when the engraving is in good hands, and 
especially when it is done by one who is accustomed to engrave for 
scientific men. But the best of engravers are liable to misinterpret 
some detail of a drawing, making the result far from satisfactory. At 
the same time it must be said that of our published figures woodcuts 
are the very best. The figures published by Prof. Riley in his Mis- 
souri reports are still among the best we have. We have none that 
have been so universally accepted and used in writings of all sorts. 
Even in so excellent a work as the Century Dictionary we find copies 
of some of these figures holding their own in quality with anything 
appearing there. It may be true that their success is not entirely due 
to the fact that they are woodcuts, but it is equally true that they would 
never have become so well known and universally used if they had been 
produced by any other method. 
If the entomologist could transfer his drawing to the block and 
engrave it there, he might stop with woodcuts and bide his time until 
something better was produced. But life is too short. He ean not 
afford to spend time learning to engrave. He knows that the man 
who attempts to make his own shoes and hat will get behind his 
fellows. 
But the plain truth is that, with its disadvantages, wood engraving 
remains our most satisfactory method of making illustrations. 
Cheap process* figures have of late all but displaced wood cuts in 
current literature, and appear likely to occupy most of the field. Their 
cheapness and the quickness with which they can be produced are 
their strong points as compared with wood engravings. For the news- 
paper and other transient literature they are appropriate and useful. 
For permanent literature, and especially scientific writings, it may be 
questioned if they have yet proved their right to be. They are often 
hard on the eyes, parts being too obscure for ready interpretation. 
The shaded figures sometimes impress one as if they were a little out 
of focus. 
A good clean outline, almost or quite as good as a woodeut enti 
can be obtained by some of these processes, if the original drawing is 
well made with a pen and good black India ink. Some of the figures © 
in Dr. W. K. Brooks’s Handbook of Invertebrate Anatomy areexamples — 
of good work of this kind, though the drawings are sometimes faulty, : 
*I do not include under this head heliotypy and other processes yielding blocks — 
costing more than 20 cents per square inch of printing surface. Some of these give ¥ 
good results, but are too costly for general use. : 
