26 
ledged master, whose place it will not be easy to fill. It is encouraging 
to see, however, how many younger men are becoming yearly 
better known for their excellent work, and we need entertain no serious 
anxiety as to the prospects of the science and art of entomology for the 
coming century. 
Perhaps you will have been thinking that I take too serious and 
exalted a view of a pursuit which, after all, has been taken up by 
most of us for mere recreation ; it may be well, therefore, that I should 
state more explicitly the exact nature of my opinions upon what is 
often spoken of as the “mere collector” question, and the justifiableness 
or otherwise of the existence of such a class. Let me say then most 
emphatically that I do not expect nor even desire all our entomologists 
to throw themselves equally deeply into the scientific side of the study. 
Having had practically no scientific training myself, and being far 
from well versed in the higher walks of biology, I have much reason 
to sympathise with those who dread its making itself the be-all and 
end-all of our work among the insects. I am, therefore, ready to 
concede to my fellow entomologists the full right to be “mere 
collectors ” if they please—with one or two reservations, however, 
which I feel bound to make. I take it that it should be expected of 
every collector, however modest his pretensions, that he should care¬ 
fully authenticate every specimen he takes, by providing notes of the 
locality, date, &c. Thus much he owes to his brethren, who will 
thereby be enabled to use for their purposes the material he has 
collected; and if he be unwilling to take even this amount of trouble, 
it is his plain duty to confine himself to the collecting of pretty 
pictures or rare autographs or something else equally harmless and 
equally unscientific. Considering the many and important problems 
which hang to a great extent upon circumstances of geographical 
distribution and of phenology, it is little short of lamentable that 
specimens should be preserved without a reliable “ history.” It is 
noteworthy that the late Henry Walter Bates, the “ Naturalist on the 
Amazons,” who commenced his career as a mere collector, took pains 
to label his coleoptera from the very earliest days of his col¬ 
lecting ; can we suppose that he would ever have worked out his great 
discovery of “mimicry” so perfectly, had he not habituated himself 
to this precision of method in dealing with the material which came 
to his hand ? Fortunately lepidopterists have of late awakened from 
their apathy on this subject—in which I believe they were far behind 
other entomologists and zoologists generally, not to mention botanists. 
Even during the few years in which I have been collecting and 
exchanging, I have noticed a considerable change. When I commenced, 
I had constantly to ask my correspondents for data, and never dared 
to assume that they would furnish them unasked, indeed, it not 
infrequently happened that specimens came to me without data 
after all, and 1 had to write a second time in order to obtain them. 
But now all our lepidopterists of any position at all supply this 
information whether I expressly ask for it or not, and it would seem 
almost superfluous that I should further emphasise the subject. That 
it is not absolutely superfluous, however, the following statements will 
show'. A year or two ago I sent to our best English professional for 
some specimens which I wanted, and when he sent them he of course 
gave localities so far as he "was able; but there was one species of 
