THE ENTOMOLOGIST’S WEEKLY INTELLIGENCER. 
191 
LABELLING INSECTS. 
To the Editor of the 1 Intelligencer 
Sir, — Your plan for a journal is de- 
cidedly the best, and I intend to adopt it 
during the coming season. Allow me, 
however, to make a suggestion, which 
appears to me to be an improvement, or 
rather a saving of journal room, time 
and labour. It is, in fact, an idea taken 
from Mr. Stephens to add to yours. I 
would suggest, then, that all insects of 
the same species, obtained under the 
same circumstances, time, place, &c., 
have the same number, adding an addi- 
tional column in your journal for the 
number of species. Thus 
236. P. Machaon. 6. Bred from puprn 
obtained from Cambridge. 
237. A. Lunosa. 1. At light, &c. 
Other columns for dates, &c., at 
pleasure. 
By this plan you have all the ad- 
vantages you name in your leader, with 
a saving of time and labour to a great 
extent, as desired by Mr. Stephens. Your 
journal could be prepared before-hand, 
so also could a corresponding set of 
numbers for labels. The only disad- 
vantage is that you would have to pre- 
pare duplicate labels day by day ; but 
this would be more than compensated 
for by the great number of entries you 
are saved in your journal. Thus, in the 
above example, you would have five labels 
No. 236 to prepare when you wanted 
them, instead of making six entries in 
your journal. But I will not take up 
your space by argument or further illus- 
tration ; if it needs that I doubt the plan 
is not the improvement it seems to my 
mind to be. 
Yours, &e., 
John E. Robson. 
Hartlepool ; Feb. 29. 
[In reply to the above we remark that 
our plan does not necessitate six entries 
for six specimens of a species caught at 
one time. Our journal is ruled, and to 
each line is prefixed a number, thus — 
10. Papilio Machaon. 
1 . 
2 . 
3. 
A. 
5. 
6. Gonepteryx Rhamni. 
7. 
8 . 
9. Colias Edusa. 
20. Anthocharis Cardamines. 
1 . 
2 . ... ... ^ , 
We trust this is explicit.] 
Sir, — It might be thought presump- 
tuous in such a novice as myself ex- 
pressing an opinion upon the relative 
merits of the respective systems advocated 
by Mr. Wallace and yourself, but I may 
be permitted to offer a suggestion. 
I would suggest that a circular label 
be used, that the units, tens and hundreds 
occupy the centre of the label, thousands 
the space above, and alphabetical letters 
to distinguish any particular specimen 
the space below; thus 
2 
199 
a 
which I propose to signify 2199 a. 
Labels of this description might, I 
imagine, be applied to a very high 
