islands have been verified by subsequent records. Nevertheless, there remains a small percentage of species 

 which have never been verified. As to be expected from this book and from any literature of this period, the 

 systematics employed is grossly outdated and bear little resemblance to the taxonomic placements presently 

 in use. In analysing these lists a modern taxonomist requires access to information on the systematics of the 

 taxa involved, plus the ability to discern possible misidentifications, emendations and the many misspellings 

 that are abundant throughout the lists. In consequence, when analysing the Ansted & Latham lists, instances 

 are found throughout of species duplication, rendering the total number of species somewhat smaller than 

 was first visualized. Nevertheless, a figure of about 500 species being recognised at this time is quite 

 impressive, particularly as the list covers many smaller moths, now regarded as microlepidoptera, which at 

 that period in the 19th century were very poorly understood. In consequence it is to be suspected many 

 identifications made at this time were incorrect. 



During a recent meeting with Mr A.C. Howell, the Natural History Officer of the Guernsey 

 Museum & Art Gallery (G.M.A.G.), it was revealed that the historical Guernsey collections of the Victorian 

 period that were originally part of the Guille-Alles Museum collections, are now in the care of the 

 G.M.A.G., bequeathed to the States of Guernsey in 1907 by Francis Du Bois Lukis (Howell, 1989: 5-19 & 

 1991: 182-197). The author is grateful to Mr Howell for the following information concerning this historical 

 material. It had been estimated that the insect collections from the Guille-Alles Museum amounted to about 

 20,000 items. The core of the G.M.A.G. collection was compiled by W.A. Luff, which was purchased from 

 his heirs by the Guille-Alles trustees in 1913. Various small collections were also obtained at this time from 

 several sources. In 1926 the G.M.A.G. was presented with the insect collection of Dr F.C. Lukis that 

 originally belonged to the Lukis family museum. Mr Lukis, the father, was born in 1788 and died in 1871. 

 Potentially therefore his specimens could form the oldest material known from the island. Importantly, they 

 would appear to have formed the basis for the checklist produced for the book by Ansted & Latham. The 

 collection of Rev. F.E. Lowe, a contemporary of Luff, was presented to the Guille-Alles Museum before 

 1933 by Dr R. Le Pelley. Also at the G.M.A.G, are the donated collections of more recent entomologists' 

 from Guernsey, one of which was from Mr Harman, a collection from Switzerland and Guernsey donated 

 during 1970-71. Though originally of high quality with full data, it was destroyed by dermestid activity, the 

 data survives but has not been documented. The collection of CJ. Shayer of local Lepidoptera was presented 

 to the G.M.A.G. by his widow and consists of an 1 1 -drawer cabinet. 



Until 1986, none of these historical collections had been the responsibility of a trained full-time 

 natural history curator at the Guernsey Museum & Art Gallery. The Guille-Alles Museum was overseen by a 

 series of part-time honorary curators, with the practical care of the collections being entrusted to periodic 

 visits by contracted specialists. In earlier years this was undertaken by the Jersey based J. & J.W. Sinel, 

 succeeded by the London based naturalist S.G. Finch until his death in 1955. Other curatorial participation 

 had been undertaken by members of the Societe Guernesiaise, particularly by C.J. Shayer in the period 1945- 

 46. Further activities followed until more recent times. 



It is noticeable that the older 19th century insect specimens were as typical for that period, not fully 

 documented. The majority did not carry individual data labels, so there was never any way of knowing their 

 individual origin or dates. While specimens were still in their original state, as parts of the collections of 

 Lukis, Luff and others, the cabinets and store boxes themselves would have been distinctive and it might 

 have been easier to associate specimens with record data. The collectors had sometimes labelled the store 

 boxes or cabinet drawers outside with information on the contents. Presumably more informative details on 

 specimen data may have been traceable from their private files or notebooks. After the deaths of the 

 Victorian collectors when the collections were passed on to the Guille-Alles Museum and later to the 

 Guernsey Museum & Art Gallery, the collections, or parts of them, were submitted to a succession of 

 alterations and attempts at amalgamation. First, damaged specimens due to Dermestes or other insect pests, 

 or just periodic trauma, were discarded. Secondly, damaged specimens were arbitrarily exchanged for more 

 recent material, in neither case were accurate records kept of what had been lost nor exchanged. Through the 

 efforts of several well-meaning volunteers, large amounts of rearranging, replacement of damaged material 

 and amalgamation had taken place within the historic and the more recent collections. No exact records were 

 kept of the changes. This meant that the individual characteristics of especially the older material were 

 evermore difficult to reestablish. Apart from the few specimens that were for one reason or another 

 independently labelled, it probably means that it would now be impossible to apply data to & vast majority of 

 the historical voucher material. In addition, it has to be considered, there is no certain guaranty the 

 specimens used as replacements were conspecific with the original voucher specimens, or that they even 

 originated from the same islands. It seems that merely having Channel Islands specimens available, which 

 (hopefully) depicted the species concerned, was a sufficient aim and that the older original voucher 

 specimens were not regarded as having any importance, historically or scientifically. It was unfortunately a 

 mistake to submit individual 19th century collections to any form of unsupervised alterations, especially to 

 personnel who were untrained or not qualified to deal with the more problematic demands and procedures of 



I 1 



