110 
THE ENTOMOLOGIST’S WEEKLY INTELLIGENCER. 
acquaintance with it was, I believe, made 
last week, when he found it in a collector’s 
box at Whitehaven, any information he 
can give us as to the appearance and 
habits of the larvte, which Guenee states 
to be unknown to him, will at all events 
be curious, as well as “ original.” 
Yours, &c., 
Edwin Birchall. 
Oakfield Villa, Birkenhead; 
Dec. 22, 1860. 
JERSEY INSECTS. 
To the Editor of the * 1 Intelligencer 
Sir, — I have some fine specimens of 
Deilephila Euphorbice, which were bred 
this year at Jersey. I showed them to 
an entomologisi, a few days since, and 
he said they cannot be considered British. 
Would you be kind enough to inform 
me whether they are classed with foreign 
or British insects? The larvae were 
found feeding on the sea-spurge at 
J ersey. 
I am, Sir, 
Yours, &c., 
G. G. 
Ipswich, Dec. 26, 1860. 
[The insects of the Channel Islands 
are not considered British. If “ G. G.” 
will look at the map he will see that 
these islands (the remains of the Duchy 
of Normandy) are on the coast of France. 
Were we to call the insects from Jersey 
and Guernsey British, we might equally 
claim as British insects from Heligoland, 
Gibraltar, Malta, — nay, from all the 
British dependencies. 
French entomologists consider as 
French insects those found in Corsica, 
and we believe even in Algiers: in so 
doing they miss the proper meaning of 
the words “ French insect.”] 
BARTER : 
Gkeedjness, Hypocrisy, Underhand- 
Dealing and Falsehood. 
To the Editor of the * Intelligencer.' 
Sir,— At Dr. Wallace’s suggestion, I 
subscribe my own name for that of 
“Anti-Barter.” It was from no fear of 
being “ pulled to pieces” by the Barnes 
family that I withheld it. 
I do not write against “ Exchange 
proper,” indeed I could say a word in 
favour of quid pro quo, for many are so 
constituted that, though willing to effect 
a fair exchange, they cannot bear to 
be under an obligation, especially to a 
stranger. I can fully enter into their 
feelings, but it is not my purpose to 
recommend for general use a system 
which (while straightforward in itself) is 
in dangerous proximity to that which I 
have already denounced, and which, in 
unprincipled hands, too frequently de- 
generates into Barter, with its attendant 
vices. 
I see that Dr. Wallace considers your 
leading article of the 15th of December 
to be applicable to me; but I cannot 
think that this is quite the case, and for 
the following reasons: — 
First. Because it would be rash, not 
to say fatal, to “the other side” to 
attempt to defend its vices. I neither 
expected it to do so, nor did I hope to 
convert a single confirmed barterer, but 
simply represented a dark and a fair — a 
rough and a smooth — side for the choice 
of the “ waveriDg and incipient,” as ex- 
pressly stated. 
Secondly. Because your article refers 
to “ terrestrial objects,” questions con- 
cerning which are determinable by the 
aid of “ the senses,” and have nothing 
in common with questions of morality, 
