curation at museum level. Dr R.H. Le Pelley, who had been a professional entomologist in Africa, and a 

 director of the Guille-Alles library, had before his death in 1979, made certain recommendations regarding a 

 reorganisation of the entomological collections. These recommendations were followed by C. David in 1969 

 and involved sorting the material into authentic Channel Islands insects, presumed C.I. material, British, 

 European and tropical insects. From the categorisation of the Channel Islands material it has to be implied 

 that Le Pelley was to an extent aware of the problems caused by previous rearrangements. By which time the 

 damage had already been done. 



In 1989 Mr A.C. Howell had an interview with a granddaughter of W.A. Luff to discover if there 

 was any information available concerning documentation of Luffs collection and the following details 

 emerged. W.A. Luff had built an extension to his house at La Chaumiere, Brock Road, to house his desk, 

 library, insect collection and stuffed animals. Members of his family were only allowed to enter the 

 extension when he was present and as treats were given the task of dusting the curios within. Luff sometimes 

 came back from collecting excursions with live butterflies inside his hat. After his death in 1910, his wife 

 apparently kept his 'museum' room intact for many year's, with all his papers and correspondence in the desk, 

 and the family were again not allowed to enter. At some stage R. Durand of the Priaulx Library organised 

 the sale of some of Luffs books in England. The insect collections were sold to the Guilles-Alles Museum 

 in 1913. Subsequently in 1936-37, the youngest son E.A. Luff moved into La Chaumiere. His wife was 

 apparently unsympathetic to the preservation of the extension as a virtual mausoleum to the memory of 

 William Abridge Luff, and apparently wanted to be rid of the old contents of the room. After the wife of 

 W.A. Luff had died, the room was indeed cleared and according to the family tradition, all his papers 

 [presumable also collection notebooks] were destroyed on a bonfire in the garden. 



Today the collections are on a care and maintenance basis. There have been persistent problems 

 caused by infestation and since 1986 the annual application of Vapona is placed in all drawers and 

 storeboxes. It is attempted to safeguard the collections for future generations and to develop a curatorial 

 program between the museum and the private collectors, based upon more realistically researched lines of 

 procedure for the development of the collections than has until now been displayed. In 2002 the Guernsey 

 museum commenced employing advice from requested visits of members of the curation staff at the 

 Department of Entomology, Natural History Museum in London. It is possible that the section in this book 

 on the individual Bailiwick records may eventually prove to be helpful in reassociating some historical 

 voucher specimens with their original data. 



Some historical Victorian material is housed in the Societe Jersiaise Museum in St. Helier, Jersey, 

 but there is little or no published information available on these specimens. 



Early Jersey collectors 



In 1871 the Jerseyman and insect collector J. Piquet published a short note on two rare butterflies, 

 but, as far as the present author is aware, published nothing else on the Lepidoptera. Presumably he was 

 related to F.G. Piquet, who in 1873 published an account of Jersey butterflies, and had also contributed to 

 the Jersey list in Ansted & Latham's 1862 important work. J. Piquet possessed a local insect collection, and 

 probably he would have maintained a natural history diary. From the literature, little or no information has 

 been published on Lepidoptera records from either source. Undoubtedly at least some of this historical 

 material, along with material from F.G. Piquet and other early insect collectors, still exists in the Societe 

 Jersiaise Museum collection. Regrettably, it must be kept in mind that it was a typical feature in 

 entomological collections of the 19th century that individual specimens earned little or no data. This 

 especially applied to private amateur collections. It is very likely that specimens in the two Piquet collections 

 were maintained in this state, with very inadequate labelling, if they even carried individual data at all. Such 

 material will therefore pose a major problem to the present day curators. These specimens are still however 

 important from a historical point of view. If they do not carry individual data, they maintain little value for 

 record purposes, unless they can be correlated to original collecting notebooks or other documentation. It is 

 highly likely that the older Jersey material is of the same vintage as the earlier specimens from the Guernsey 

 Bailiwick. A detailed listing of reliably associated Piquet specimens would be worth producing. Such 

 material combined with updated identifications, would prove useful for comparative purposes to the 

 recorders studying the existing fauna of today. It would also show that specimens of this antiquity were 

 actually still in existence. J. Piquet also refers to other collectors, so it seems that insect collecting had 

 become an established hobby shared by several enthusiasts in Jersey, and from Guernsey. Apart, however, 

 from F.P. Johnson & F.G. Piquet in 1862, J. Piquet in 1871, contributed a 9-line note on Jersey butterflies 

 (1871: 442); W. Poingdestre in 1872, provided an 8-line note on two butterfly species (1872: 235) and F.G. 

 Piquet in 1873 contributed an account of known butterflies in Jersey (1873: 399-401). all published in The 

 Entomologist. These were the last published accounts on Lepidoptera contributed by any resident recorder 

 from Jersey in the 19th century. Records on Jersey Lepidoptera were invariably noted by Luff and published 

 in Guernsey. Other known records from Jersey relied upon visits from English entomologists. Entomological 



12 



