THE ENTOMOLOGIST’S WEEKLY INTELLIGENCER. 167 
No. 5, label and re-insert in your cabinet, 
and register another specimen of JBras- 
siccc as No. 5. Where is the confusion? 
Each specimen having its separate entry 
precludes confusion, supposing of course 
that any change in the cabinets is im- 
mediately noted in the register. 
I confess I do not see the force of the 
argument that a great many No. Is are 
objectionable. 
I must again repeat that scheme A 
applies only to known species arranged 
in a cabinet, and consequently not likely 
to undergo much shifting and alteration, 
now that our catalogues of arrangement 
are so completely worked out; and this 
furnishes an answer to Mr. Tyrer, jun. 
I do not propose to number unknown 
specimens according to scheme A, but 
I should number these according to 
scheme B, and subsequently, when 
known, enter them in my cabinet, re-label 
and register according to scheme A ; and 
I think this will be conceded to be a 
better mode than a blind adherence to 
any one plan, regardless of the advan- 
tages of the other. 
My objections to scheme B are — 
1. The numerals will soon reach 
10,000; the numeral will then occupy 
a large space of paper, and its appearance 
under the insect will offend the eye 
of those who prefer neatness in their 
cabinet. In scheme A, the label being 
very small (a quarter of an inch in 
diameter) is concealed, except in the 
smaller species, unless when the drawer 
is lifted up to allow the eye to range 
under the insect. 
2. It will be necessary to take each 
insect up to make sure of its numeral 
(vide Mr. Tyrer’s letter). This is a great 
objection, not only because it takes up 
much time, but because many dislike ex- 
ceedingly to take off the glass lids of 
their drawers, thereby admitting air, 
dust, ova, — perhaps breaking their nails 
or a delicate wing of a small insect by 
the draught, — added to which an insect 
is often damaged or destroyed by being 
taken up and replaced, especially if 
minute or fragile, or if the pin be small ; 
whereas in A the labels, though small, 
yet can be discerned from above, without 
removing the lid, if the drawer be held 
at an angle to the eye. The specimens 
also being arranged and numbered in 
order, the fifth insect will be No. 5 in 
the register, and no need occurs to 
remove the glass. 
3. If the first insect of my series of 
Mamestra Brassicce be numbered 1016, 
the second insect 1099, the third 4008, 
how can T readily compare the records 
of their captures, unless I have two 
register books, one arranged numerically 
naming the species, the other arranged 
specifically giving the numerals of the 
specimens of each species and their 
history ? Or how else could the capture 
of Catephia alchymista be conveniently 
registered for reference, if it occurs as 
the 16000th capture, while the preceding 
(C. Fraxini ) is the 300th, and the sub- 
sequent species the 4000th ? 
Scheme A therefore not only saves 
the trouble of a second register, but 
makes new species or new specimens to 
be introduced anywhere without incon- 
venience or disarrangement of existing 
entries, while it affords instant reference 
to the history, without the trouble of 
removing the lid of the drawer, or re- 
moval of insects. 
Doubtless to others other objections 
may occur to either scheme; if so, I 
shall be glad to hear them, as my object 
is to elicit the very best method of 
arrangement and registry for myself and 
others. 
