THE ENTOMOLOGISTS 
No. 202.] SATURDAY, AUGUST 18, 1860. . [Price Id. 
LAWS. 
A coiiRESPONDENT lately begged us to 
lay down the “Laws of Sugaring.’’ 
We have always understood that ento- 
mologists were very wasp-like, always 
ready to take offence, and always fully 
charged with venom, and we should 
never have been surprised to hear that 
one entomologist had kicked another 
for taking moths off his sugar; but 
really when we are asked to state 
what the Unvs of sugaring are we are 
posed. If the good feeling of the 
fraternity will not allow trees to be 
sugared in peace and quietness, we 
fear we cannot help them. We have 
consulted Blackstone, but he is silent 
on the subject of sugaring trees for 
moths, and we fear that unless a 
special bill is introduced (and it is too 
late this session) that the stigarers of 
trees will find that they are beyond 
the protection of the laws. 
Many of our readers will stare to 
hear that there should be contention 
on such a subject, but, unless we are 
mistaken, the difficulty arises thus; — 
Where trees are numerous and ento- 
mologists are not over plentiful, pro- 
bably no one would think it a hard- 
ship that he who first sugared a tree 
should have a right to the moths on 
that tree, (except those which the bats 
take) during the whole evening. We 
believe that is a common sense view 
of the case. If A sugars a tree, the 
moths that come to the sugar belong 
to A, if he can catch them, and not 
to B ; but in some parts of the North 
of England, near our manufacturing 
towns, trees are scarce and entomolo- 
gists are plentiful ; the first comer 
sugars a whole row of trees, the only 
ruiv for miles, and then all who come 
to that spot after him on that evening 
find the trunks of the trees pre- 
occupied and already sugared. Here 
then arises a difficulty: is C to main- 
tain his right to all the moths that 
come to his trees, and thereby debar 
D, E, F and G from doing any 
sugaring that evening? or is he to 
abate somewhat of his rights? 
If the trees are limited in number, 
that entomologist is certaitily greedy — 
certainly Barnes-like — who takes pos- 
session of the whole to the exclusion 
of other entomologists. “First come, 
X 
