After all, I like nothing so well as working two or three large

cyanide bottles in this manner: Get some 6 oz. or 8 oz. bottles, with

as large mouths as possible--a confectioner's small and strong glass

jar is about as good a thing as you can get. To this have a cork, cut

as tightly as possible, sloping outwards above the bottle some little

distance, to afford a good grip. Fill with cyanide as before directed,

putting in enough to make the bottles work quickly. When you see one

of the restless hovering kind of insects at your sugar, aim at him

stealthily, as it were, with the mouth of your bottle, and when near

enough rapidly close the mouth over him--ten to one he flies to the

light, and with a little management you can contrive to get the bottle

recorked. Let him remain in the bottle until stupefied, meanwhile

using another bottle. When this is tenanted and the insect drops,

gently shake him into the first bottle, using the last to capture the

next insect, and so on. By using three bottles you can always have one

disengaged, and the bottled insects can thus be allowed to remain a

sufficient time to go dead before pinning.

Many insects sit very quietly at the sugar, but some few have a nasty

trick of "dropping" at the least alarm; to prevent this, the whipcord

of the net (Fig. 43 or Fig. 46), should be always pressed close to the

tree to receive them. The cyanide bottle should be held with the left

hand, and the insect gently "flicked" in with a disengaged finger, the

cork held in the right hand to close the bottle as quickly as

possible.

My readers will say, How is the necessary lantern held all this time?

Between the teeth by a piece of wood, or leather, fixed round the top

or swinging handle; or by being strapped on the chest at the height of

the sugar patch. This is, of course, on the assumption that you work

solus--not too pleasant if in a lonely wood for three or four days and

nights. Unless you are greedy, therefore, and wish to make a regular

trade of your loneliness, you will find that a friend, holding the

lantern or net while you "bottle," is not by any means prohibitory to

enjoyable collecting. Two working together can get over more ground

than one, and what one friend misses, the other stops.

From dusk to eleven on a favourable night in the summer months the fun

is fast and furious; thousands of moths of the common sorts come and

go; now and then a "good thing" to sweeten the toil. The "Peach

Blossoms" and "Buff Arches" slacken at about half-past nine, and do

not reappear until exactly the same light reappears in the morning,

going on well into the daylight. In fact, I have taken them still

coming to the sugar as late as a quarter past three, when the first

rays of the sun were just appearing.

This is one of the most curious things about sugaring. The swarming of

one species at a certain hour of the night, their almost total

disappearance, and their replacement by moths of quite a different

genus, giving way again to others; then comes a lull--remarked by

everyone--between half-past eleven and one or half-past, then a rush

again up to daylight, when they all disappear, save one or two, who

remain until they tumble dead drunk off the tree--a shocking example

to the wood fairies, who are popularly supposed to draw the line at

rum!

Another curious thing is that you may sugar in a wood for years and

will always find certain trees unprofitable. I remember one tree in a

favourite wood, which tree I sugared for years without taking a single

moth from it. You can assign no reason for this, as the unproductive

tree may be precisely similar to others on which insects swarm. As a

rule, however, rough-barked trees are the best; and smooth, or dead or

rotten ones, the worst. Still there is no hard-and-fast line in this.

Failing trees on which to put your sugar, paint palings, walls,

bushes, leaves of plants, and even flower heads: or, if working on the

seashore, on which several rare and local species are found, "sugar"

flat stones, rocks, or even make bundles of the mat weed, as you will

have to do on the "denes" of Norfolk or similar places, and sugar

them. If you are entirely at a loss for bushes or grasses, soak some

pieces of cloth or calico, before leaving home, in the sugar, and peg

them down on the ground, or stick them in the crevices of the rocks,

if the latter are, from any cause, too wet to hold the sugar.

It often happens that moths will come to sugar, even when not freshly

painted on the trees. I remember once taking several Crimson

Underwings (C. promissa), and several other things, on sugar which was

painted on the trees by a collector four nights before I arrived at

the spot. Butterflies and several other things are often attracted by

sugared trees, whether old or fresh; and Dr. Knaggs says that by day

several butterflies, chiefly Vanessidae, a group comprising the

"Peacock," the "Tortoiseshell," the "Red Admiral," the "Painted Lady,"

and the "Camberwell Beauty," have a penchant for the sugar, and may,

by this means, be enticed within our reach; and the "Purple Emperor"

has thus been frequently entrapped.

Sugaring constantly in the same tract of woodland is certain

ultimately to yield something out of the common, for moths have been

proved to fly many miles in search of natural or artificial sweets,

and even a barren locality may be made exceedingly productive by

perseveringly sugaring it.

Some very curious things come to sugar now and then. Such insects as

beetles, woodlice, slugs, etc, are expected as a matter of course, but

toads, dormice, and bats--all attracted, however, I suspect, as much

by the insects as the sugar--you do not expect, nor the sundry

caterpillars which you occasionally can catch sipping at the sweet

juice. The Hawk moths and Bombyces are popularly supposed not to come,

but I have a distinct recollection of catching, near Woolwich, many

years ago, a "goat moth" certainly "inspecting" the sugar, and

analogous but isolated instances now and then occur.

In the grey of the morning, when sugaring is finished, it will be as

well to keep your eye on the hedgerows or heaths you may pass, as

occasionally certain insects swarm at an early hour, and now and then

important captures may be made.

Before dismissing the subject of sugaring, it may be as well to say a

few words on lanterns and chip boxes. With regard to the first, bull's

eyes are generally recommended. Possibly, I may be prejudiced against

them when I say that I think they concentrate the glare of light too

suddenly and in too narrow a focus, causing thereby many insects to

drop, which the broader stream of light from an ordinary lantern does

not appear to do to such an extent.

I recommend, therefore, a medium-sized ordinary lantern, about 7 in.

high by 4.5 in. by 3.5 in back to front, fitted with a double-wicked

reservoir, holding sufficient oil to burn seven or eight hours. A

screw cap should be fitted over the burners to prevent the oil running

out and spoiling everything with which the lantern may be packed when

travelling. The usual plate glass door should be made to open from the

front, the glass sides, however, being replaced with bright metal,

converging the rays from a strong reflector at the back; a swing

handle should be fixed at the top and two at the back, all folding

close to the lantern when not in use.

Plenty of ventilation, without allowing actual wind to penetrate,

should be provided, and only the best colza oil be used. If made to

order, a great advantage will be found in having the right-hand side

to open outwards (from the back) instead of opening on the front, as

the lantern can then be more easily trimmed when strapped on the body

without the necessity of its removal for that purpose.

The chip boxes, which some entomologists use instead of the cyanide

bottle to take the moths off the trees, are simply the various sized

ointment boxes of the druggist, strengthened by papering, or by pieces

of glued linen crossing them. Many use them, chiefly those of the old

school, in preference to anything else--De gustibus, etc.

The objections to a general use of these boxes are many. First, you

must provide yourself with a large bagful or pocketful of these boxes

on starting out, as one moth only goes in each box, leaving one pocket

empty on the reverse side of your coat to receive the boxes when

filled, in order not to mix the empty with the full ones. Second, you

are not quite sure at night as to "rubbed" or "chipped" specimens, and

may find in the morning your boxes filled with worthless things, which

a brief introduction to the cyanide bottle would long before have

revealed.

Third, the most important fact, that though there are many insects

which rest quietly when boxed, there is a large percentage which pass

the time of their captivity in madly dashing themselves against the

walls of their prison, and a boxed insect of this turn of mind

presents a sorry sight in the morning, many stages, in fact, on the

wrong side of "shabby-genteel." Then when, after a night's severe

work, you are limping home in the morning, thinking how cold it

is--until roused to action by the appearance of some unexpected

insect--then, indeed, how much more cold and hollow seems the world,

when, suddenly catching your tired foot in a stump or tangle of grass,

you roll over on the full pocket side and hear (and feel) the boxes

burst up on the unhappy moths within. I have gone through it all, and

I don't like it!

ASSEMBLING--I had almost forgotten to mention another extraordinary

way of catching moths (chiefly Bombyces), by what is called

"assembling," which is exposing in a gauze-covered box a virgin

female, who, by some mysterious power "calls" the males of the same

species around her in so infatuated a manner that they will even creep

into the collector's pocket in their quest of the hidden charmer.

In a highly interesting paper in the "Country," of 2nd Oct, 1873, Dr.

Guard Knaggs gave a very full account of the theory and practice of

"assembling," so interesting, indeed, that I venture to reproduce it

in extenso. He says:

"The generally accepted theory is that each female should, at one or

other period of her existence, captivate at least one of the opposite

sex, though it will be found by experience that some species possess a

far more potent influence for this purpose than others.

"It may be set down as a rule that females which are captured at rest

during the time of day or night at which they should naturally be upon

the wing are unimpregnated, and may be used for attracting with fair

chances of success. There may be exceptions to this rule; my opinion

inclines to the belief that the butterflies take wing before

impregnation; but of this I am certain, namely, that the females of

butterflies--at any rate of certain species--have considerable

influence over the males.

Doubtless, too, there are many skittish Geometrae or slender-bodied

moths, and Pyrales, or Pearls, which are easily frightened, the

females of which will rush from their places of concealment even

before they are prepared to start on the mission of ovipositing. The

converse of this rule, that female insects captured on the wing are

almost invariably impregnated, may be taken as an axiom, at least so

far as the moth tribe is concerned.

Of course females which have made their appearance in our breeding

cages are the most eligible for the purpose of attraction; but

whenever we breed these with the intention of using them for

attracting, we must bear well in mind that the rearing process,

whether from the chrysalis, the caterpillar, or the egg, must be

conducted under surrounding conditions of temperature, etc, as nearly

as possible resembling those to which they would be subjected in their

natural state. Otherwise, if we retard their appearance by keeping our

breeding-cages in too cool a situation, we shall be too late for our

sport, or at best capture only worn specimens; while, if we force them

by an unnatural state of warmth, the males will not have made their

appearance at large by the time we are ready to arrive upon the

hunting-ground.

Having furnished ourselves with a bred female, the next procedure will

be to construct a cage for her reception in such a manner that the

males will be compelled to keep within a respectful distance, and

formed of such material as will permit the air to readily permeate the

sides of the prison.

Fig. 55--Assembling cage.

The cage (Fig. 55) adapted to our requirements is a very simple

affair; it is formed by bending our three strips of cane of about

equal lengths each into the form of a circle, and fixing them in that

form by means of twine; these three circular pieces are then placed in

such a manner that they cross one another at right angles (Fig. 55),

thereby forming the rudimentary outline of a hollow sphere, over which

it is an easy matter to stretch and tie a piece of leno. When required

for use the female may be put in, either loose or clinging to a twig

of the length of the diameter of the globe, and the leno tied

afterwards.

"The theory of the peculiar action of the female upon the senses of

the males is usually considered to be due to a subtle scent which

emanates from her, and is wafted on the breeze to distant parts; and

it is believed that by means of this scented track the males are

enabled to discover the whereabouts of the object of their search. And

that this would appear to be the true solution, no one who has

witnessed the grand spectacle of the 'Kentish Glories' or the

'Emperor' moths coming up against the wind can, I should say, for a

moment doubt.

"To be attractive the female must be in that condition which is known

by the fraternity as 'calling,' that is, she should be slightly

convulsed with tremor, and the last segment of the body should be

denuded of fur. Then, if the weather be propitious--bright for such

males as fly in the sunshine, warm at dusk for those whose hour of

flight commences with the shades of evening--and if also the wind be

blowing steadily from a favourable quarter, such as west, south, or a

gentle south-west, we may reasonably hope for success.

"But the young collector must remember that it does not by any means

follow that because he captures a female, say an 'Oak eggar,' on the

wing in the evening, he has detected the time of flight of the males.

In fact, it very frequently happens that the males fly in the daytime

and the females in the evening.

"In the case of species which inhabit open parts of the country, such

as moors, mosses, commons, chases, fens, and fields, we should take

care that no obstacle is in the way to prevent the current of air from

carrying the scent freely over the locality. On the other hand, if it

be the inmates of a wood or copse which we are desirous of attracting,

we must either select a ride down which the wind finds its way, or

else we shall have to allow the breeze to convey the scent from some

part of the surrounding country to the outskirts of the wood.

"As a rule, it is quite sufficient for our ends to lay the baited cage

upon the ground, and then to lie down at a little distance off and

keep watch. But in some cases it is advisable to tie the cage to the

trunk or branch of a tree, or to fix it in a bush. I have found the

latter very effective with the red-belted apple clearwing (Sesia

myopiformis), and no doubt it would also prove so with other species

of the class.

"Any Londoner who would like to judge for himself can easily manage

it. He has only, in the first place, to hunt about in his own or some

one else's garden for a handsome little caterpillar, of a blackish

colour, spotted with pink, with four rows of thick tufts of yellowish

hairs resembling brushes upon its back, with two long tufts of

blackish hairs pointing forwards in front, almost like horns, and a

similar one behind pointing backwards, something like a tail. It eats

almost anything, and is easily reared.

When full fed it spins a web, in which it changes to a chrysalis; and,

in time, from some of the cocoons thus formed, spider-like creatures

will emerge and attach themselves to the outer part of the web. These

should at once be removed (web and all), and placed securely in the

cage already mentioned, when, if there be any males about, I will

warrant it will not be long before the proprietor has a very tolerable

idea of what is meant by attracting by the bred female."

COLLECTING AND REARING LARVAE.--Very many insects are more easily

collected in the larval or caterpillar stage than in the perfect one.

Every tree, bush, or plant, the grass, and even the lichens growing on

trees or walls, produce some larvae feeding on it. It would, I feel,

be a work of supererogation to attempt to give detailed descriptions

of food-plants and the insects feeding on them, when we have a book so

good and cheap to fall back on as "Merrin's Lepidopterist's Calendar,"

which gives the times of appearance of butterflies and moths in all

their stages, with localities and the food-plants of the larvae, and

this for every month of the year.

For bringing caterpillars home, a larvae box is necessary; this

should, if possible, be made of a cylinder of wire gauze or perforated

zinc (see Fig. 56), capped top and bottom with zinc, the bottom a

fixture, the top to lift off, dished inward towards an orifice with a

tube soldered in it, which is kept corked until it is wanted to drop

larvae down it. The tube coming well through into the cylinder, and

narrowing inside to half its diameter at the top, prevents anything

escaping, even if the cork should be left out, and also prevents the

swarming out of the enclosed larvae, which would take place if the top

were lifted off bodily.

Wooden canisters, such as tobacco is often stored in, make very good

substitutes if small holes are bored in the side. Tin canisters, or,

indeed, anything made entirely of metal, unless plenty of ventilation

is afforded, as in Fig. 56, have a tendency to cause the enclosed

larvae to sweat.

Some few hints as to collecting larvae may not be unacceptable. In the

spring, just as the buds of various low plants and bushes break forth,

they should be searched by night, by the aid of a lantern, for the

larvae of various noctuae and geometrae then feeding. The best plants

to search will be the mountain ash, bilberry, honeysuckle, and

bramble, given in their order of merit. Many other plants may be

advantageously searched, in fact, all low plants and bushes ought to

be well looked over by the persevering collector.

Later on, sweeping, i.e, pushing a strong ring net through the grass,

may be resorted to. The net for this should be made of strong wire in

the shape of the net at Fig. 46, or 43, if without the joints, a bag

of strong dowlas and a stick are attached, and the front square-ended

part is pushed by the collector through the grass, in order to trap

any low feeding or invisible insects. When the leaves are fully out on

the trees, beating will shake many larvae, pupae, certain moths,

beetles, etc, into the net or sheet spread to receive them, Both

sweeping and beating may be practised by night as by day.

The situations in which larvae are found are many, some rolling

themselves in nettle, oak, or other leaves; others boring into the

substance of the wood itself, and some feeding in the stems of various

bushes, plants, reeds, etc. For life histories of such consult the

pages of the Entomologist's Monthly Magazine, or Entomologist, both

published every month at 6d. each; or Newman's "British Butterflies"

and "British Moths," published as complete volumes at. 7s. 6d. and

20s. respectively. These latter are the finest works at the price in

any language whatever, giving figures--perfect specimens of the wood

engraver's art--of the whole of the Macro-Lepidoptera, backed up by

exhaustive descriptions.

Fig. 56--Cage for collecting larvae.

"Digging" in the dead months of the year, when the weather is mild,

for pupae, is another method of getting insects. Corners where roots

meet or spring from the trunks of trees, are good "harbours of refuge"

for pupae; so are inner angles of walls, underneath sheltered

hedgerows, or under isolated trees in parks or meadows, and a host of

other spots.

The best places for "digging" are not always, as you would suppose, in

the thickest parts of woods or shrubberies, but under skirting trees

or in avenues. The best times for pupae are from October to January.

Many people attain great proficiency in finding--the Rev. Joseph

Greene, to wit. For my own part I must confess that I have never

"earned my salt" at it, but that is possibly due to want of skill or

perseverance.

The tools required are simply a trowel, a curved piece of steel fitted

in a handle, or a three-cornered instrument similar to, but smaller

than, the scraper used by shipwrights; anything, in fact, handy to

carry, and efficacious in scratching up the sod at the roots of trees,

or tearing off the pseudo-knots of bark which veil the pupae of

various moths.

When larvae or pupae are brought home, it will be necessary to place

them in something which, though retaining them in captivity, yet

allows them as natural conditions of living as is possible in a

circumscribed space. Pupae, may be kept in a flower pot covered with

earth, or in moss damped from time to time with water of not too cold

a temperature. Over the flower pot may be strained two pieces of wire

or cane, crossing each other in the form of arches, the whole covered

with muslin; or a handier plan to get to the insects quickly when

emerged, or to damp the pupae, is to procure from the glass merchant

the waste cylinders of glass cut from shades, pasting over one end

with "leno" or muslin, and placing the other in the flower pot on top

of the earth or moss.

This also makes a cheap substitute for the breeding cage for larvae,

if a little earth only is put in the flower pot in which a bottle of

water is placed containing the food plant. Wire gauze cylinders are

handy as affording plenty of air to delicate larvae. Bandboxes with a

square piece cut out from the top lid, the hole thus made covered with

muslin, will do very well for breeding a quantity of a hardy common

sort.

Fig. 57--Insect breeding cage

The usual wooden breeding cage is shown at Fig. 57. This requires

hardly any explanation: A is a glass door, B B B are sides and top of

perforated zinc, C is a tray fitting inside, where dotted lines are

shown, to hold the earth in which the bottle of water holding food is

placed, or where the larvae bury themselves to change to pupae.

Properly, the inner tray of box C should be constructed of zinc

perforated with a few holes at the bottom, in order that it may be

lifted out to allow the pupae to be well damped when "forcing."

[Footnote: For those larvae of butterflies and moths which do not

require earth, it will be sufficient to have a zinc pan, with covered

top perforated with holes, in which the stalks of the food plants be

inserted in the water which fills the pan, whose covering prevents the

insects from drowning themselves therein.]

"Forcing" is a method adopted to cause any moth to emerge at the

collector's will, and several months before its proper time, it having

been proved that certain moths more than others die in the chrysalis

or pupa state if left to go their full time, notably the "Death's

Head," the "Spurge," and other hawks. The best time for forcing is

about Christmas, and the conditions are simply heat and moisture, the

pupae being placed over a spirit lamp, in a hothouse, on the kitchen

mantelpiece, or by the fire grate even, kept for a week or so at a

temperature of 85 deg. or thereabout, and constantly damped with moss

wrung out in warm water. Bear in mind that heat without moisture will

not do by any means.

The breeding cage itself need not be used, but only the tray, provided

that gauze is stretched over in such a manner as to allow room for the

moth to dry its wings on emergence. But if the whole of the breeding

cage were made of framed zinc (such as aquaria are made of), and the

glass and perforated zinc fixed in, the cost, though greater at first,

would be more than counterbalanced by its greater strength, with

lightness and capability of resisting wear and tear, added to which is

the advantage of being used as a whole during the operation of

"forcing," wood not standing, of course, the heat and moisture

necessary. Breeding cages should not be painted.

Fresh food, and plenty of it, should, if possible, be supplied to the

larvae. Dry food is, as a rule, the best, though the larvae of one or

two of the foreign Saturnidae require their food to be sprinkled with

water, and sometimes even with the addition of salt, to make them

thrive. Moths on emergence should not be killed at once, as they are

then too flaccid, and have not sufficiently purged themselves. Yet

they should not be left too long or over night, as they often fly at

that time, and knock themselves about in the cage, to the detriment of

their beauty; destroying, in fact, the whole aim and end of breeding,

which is of course, instituted to procure specimens for the cabinet as

fine as it is possible to get them.

In collecting insects it is always as well to bear in mind that a

"worn" female, though not of the slightest use to the entomologist,

unless she can be induced to lay in confinement, may become the

progenitor of many, and may thus afford you during the next season

great pleasure in collecting. This being so, I should like to impress

upon my readers (the young especially) the propriety of giving all

insects, not actually noxious, heir liberty, if on examination they

prove to be useless as specimens. These remarks apply also to the case

of hybernated females. Many female insects, though unwilling to lay in

confinement, may be watched at large, and the flowers and plants on

which they have from time to time rested, searched for their eggs.

In concluding this chapter, I feel that I might have said much more

upon nearly every section--have explained many new "dodges," and so

forth, were it not that the limit of space has been reached. One

thing, however, may be noted as an omission, and that is the

recommendation as to what books should be procured by the young

entomologist. This is so difficult a matter--depending entirely upon

the aim of the individual--that I prefer to leave it an open question,

merely making the general statement that nearly all our advanced

systems are founded upon the labours of German and French

entomologists. [Footnote: Mr. Wm. Wesley. Essex Street Strand, London,

publishes monthly a "Natural History Book Circular," which he will

send to naturalists if asked.]

CHAPTER XVI.

ON NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUMS, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO A NEW SYSTEM OF

PICTORIAL ARRANGEMENT OF VERTEBRATES.

I MUST confess that, at one time, the consideration of the best method

of dealing to advantage with the limited space usually existing in the

older provincial museums would have dismayed me. Even at that time,

however, I had glimmerings of the brighter light which has since

illumined the way, and I was, perhaps, aided by the persistent manner

in which I haunted museums both abroad and at home, until at last I

never went on a journey without managing to break it, or to make it

end at the then summum bonum of my happiness--a museum. Like

Diogenes, I went about with my lamp to find, not an honest man, but an

honest museum--a museum with some originality, and with some definite

idea as to its sphere of work. Leaving out, of course, such complete

and technical institutions as the Museum of Geology, the Museum of the

College of Surgeons, and such institutions which really have a motive

in view--steadfastly adhered to--I saw, then as now, that every

provincial museum was nothing if left to its own devices, and, if

"inspired," was, at the best, but a sorry and servile imitator of the

worst points of our national museum.

Everyone must have observed, no doubt, in any provincial museum which

dates back thirty or forty years, that the great curse of the

collection, so to speak, is sketchy versatility. In walking through

the usually "dry-as-dust" collections you find numbers of very

atrociously-rendered mammals, a greater sprinkling of funereal and

highly-disreputable birds, some extremely-protracted fishes, some

chipped insects, and a lot of shells, chiefly marine, which suggest

association with the word "stores." I allude to those odds and ends

which people do not want themselves, and which are, therefore, so

kindly brought as an offering--would I might say a "burnt" one--to

any institution so reckless of consequences as to admit them.

Nearly all museums of early days were imitators of the British Museum,

whilst those of later days affect the newer treatment of South

Kensington. Hence, in walking through any museum, a technical observer

can easily detect the sources of inspiration and the lines of

demarcation between the old and the new. Really it amounts to this,

that hardly any institution in England thinks for itself. Museum

authorities, like sheep, follow the lead of the most ancient

bell-wether; and the reason of this is not far to seek. Curators, as a

rule, are men with one hobby--"one-horse" men, as the Americans so

aptly put it--"sometimes wise, sometimes otherwise," but in many cases

totally devoid of that technical education so much needed in

reconciling the divergent atoms of the institutions they represent; in

fact, head and hand seldom work together.

Often, owing to the want of technical advice, money is wasted in more

than one department, cases are too highly paid for, and have not been

thought out sufficiently as to their fitness for their future

contents, or the position in which they are to be placed, or the more

fatal error has been perpetrated of considering them as merely units

of a certain department instead of parts of a whole. I contend that if

it be necessary for a civil engineer or other professional man to have

mastered the various technicalities of his profession, it is also

incumbent on curators to have done or to do likewise, in order that

they may grasp the treatment of their museum as a whole, and not fall

into the grave fault of working up one department whilst ignoring the

others.

Nothing is more distasteful to my mind than that a man in the position

of a curator should impertinently ride one single hobby to death, to

the utter exclusion and detriment of all other branches of knowledge

entrusted to his care. What is the sum total of this? In looking

around any museum of old standing we see twenty different styles and

colours of cases, which may be briefly summarized as representing the

eocene, miocene, and pliocene formation of cases; space has been

wasted, or not utilized as it might be, and the result is a confused

jumble of odds and ends, consequent on some persons considering that

the end and aim of a museum should be the preservation of "bullets"

collected by "Handy-Andy" from the field of "Arrah-na-Pogue," "My

Grandfather's Clock," and so on.

This is certainly not the mission of any museum, nor should it lay

itself out with avidity to collect disjointed scraps of savage life,

such as portraits of the "ladies" who ate cold savage and

who--horresco referens!--"drank his blood." [Footnote: A fact!]

Such a museum object as this, awfully, yet ludicrously, reminds me of

that showman who enticed his audience in with--"Here you'll see the

Duke of Vellington at the battle of Vauterloo, with the blood all

a-runnen down his fut,"' or of poor little "Totty" (in "Helen's

Babies"), who loved to hear about "B'liaff" and his headlessness, and

the sword that was all "bluggy." This is, I think, one of the mistakes

which most museums fall into. They collect a vast quantity of rubbish

utterly useless to anyone but a schoolboy or a showman, and in

consequence they find valuable space wasted to make way for tops of

teapots, bits of leather, Kaffirs' or Zulus' knives made in Sheffield,

native ornaments, in beads and brass, made in Birmingham, and

such-like members of the great family of "curios." All such as these

should be firmly and respectfully declined without thanks. [Footnote:

When I first came to the Leicester Museum I was requested to present

to the Museum and enclose in a suitable receptacle--No. 1, a piece of

thick leather, which the donor thought "just the right thickness for

the heel of a boot;" and No. 2 a teapot lid with no particular

history, only that--as the dame who brought it phrased it--"maybe it's

summat old."]

I have spoken, in somewhat sacrilegious terms, of imitation of the

worst points of the old British Museum and of South Kensington (I

don't mean the new Natural History Galleries, but artistic South

Kensington); but perhaps I may be forgiven when I state that I

consider, and always considered, the weakest part of our old natural

history galleries at Bloomsbury was the arrangement of all the

mammals, birds, etc, in that provokingly "fore-and-aft" manner (spoken

of before), on uninteresting stands or perches (hat-pegs) such as the

skeletons in Plates II. and III. are represented on.

This, which was, perhaps, inevitable in a national collection

professedly showing to the public every species of bird and mammal in

the least possible space, is unpardonable in a provincial museum,

which has not the task imposed upon it of attempting to vie with the

national collection in point of numbers. Provincial museums, then, if

electing to show only animals collected in their immediate vicinity or

county (which some authorities--of whom anon--say is the only raison

d'être of a provincial museum), or, if electing to supplement these by

showing a few foreign forms of striking appearance, fall into grievous

error by mounting the necessarily few specimens they can get together

on "hat-pegs," simply because the national collection, with which they

are not on "all fours," sets them the bad example in this.

Now for South Kensington: the imitation I decry is that of black, or

black-and-gold cases, suitable the exhibition of art treasures, but

objectionable for natural history objects, which, usually dreary

enough in their abject condition on pegs, are rendered more funereal

by their black, or black-and-gold surroundings; yet, with these

obvious disadvantages, what do we see in some provincial museums?--a

servile adoption of South Kensington "ebonized" cases, without any

reference to fitness. It is positively painful to see elaborately

carved and gilded cases, costing, perhaps, a hundred guineas a-piece,

entombing a few wretchedly-mounted specimens worth, perhaps, less than

£5 the lot.

I have technical objections to "ebonized" cases, which I am sure have

been lost sight of by all but the makers of such articles. These

are--first, that if deal, or pine, or common cedar is used to make the

cases with, they will shrink, lose colour, or be easily chipped or

dinted, becoming in a short time useless and shabby; and, on the other

hand, if made by first-class makers out of good mahogany, afterwards

blacked or "ebonized," their price is enormous, and out of all

proportion to their appearance, added to which they get worn on their

edges in a short time and show the mahogany underneath in reddish,

rust-coloured streaks on their most prominent parts.

How ridiculous, then, does it seem to cover up serviceable and

handsome (and expensive) mahogany with a coat of black simply for the

sake of getting an effect which is, to say the least, depressing!

Well, you will say, you have fallen foul of the fundamental principles

of nearly all museums--black cases, and animals on "hat-pegs." What do

you propose?

I propose, in the first place, mahogany, walnut, or oak cases; and, in

the second place, the pictorial mounting of all specimens, and not

only do I propose it, but I claim in the Leicester Museum to have done

on a large scale what has hitherto been applied to small matters only.

First, as to the wood; I delight in oak, and, although I know how much

more liable it is to "twist" than first-class mahogany, yet if of good

picked quality, dry and sound, and properly tongued and framed, there

is not much to fear, and its light and elegant appearance is a great

gain in a large room, added to this it improves by age and is

practically indestructible.

Now for the pictorial mounting of specimens; and here let me say that,

for any person to lay down a hard-and-fast line as to what natural

history specimens should be, or should not be, collected by provincial

natural history museums as a whole, is about as sensible a plan as

saying that a nation as a whole must drink nothing but beer or nothing

but water. It is apparently forgotten that general principles cannot

apply to museums ranging in size from 20 ft. by 12 ft. to that of

Liverpool with its several large rooms, each one larger than the

entire "museum" of small towns.

I think it may be laid down as a common-sense proceeding that, if a

provincial museum consists of only one or two rooms of the size above

given, the managers should strictly confine themselves to collecting

only the fossils, animals, and plants of their own district. If,

however, like Leicester, they possess a zoological room 80 ft. in

length by 40 ft. in width, and of great height, together with smaller

rooms, then the proposition to strictly confine themselves to local

forms is unwise in the extreme. How would it be possible to fill so

much cubic space with the few specimens--even if extended

unwarrantably, and elaborately mounted--which many years of arduous

collecting might obtain? Taking the list of vertebrates of any midland

county, how many of them do we find could be collected if we left out

of count the "accidentals?" Here is a list: Fishes, 26; reptiles, 10;

birds, 110; mammals, 26 (the fox being the largest of these).

[Footnote: About 80 only, of the 110, breed in any given midland

district.]

It would be impossible to fill the wall-cases, if properly

proportioned, with these few, even given all the favourable conditions

of procuring the "accidentals" and varieties, under ten years. It is

quite true, also, that the contemplation of purely local fauna, though

giving interest to, and holding undue importance in the eyes of a few

men, who narrow their views to their own county (which, perhaps, they

believe in to such an extent as to seldom pass its boundaries), is

misleading and even possibly damaging to the student of biology, who

must be shown, in the clearest possible manner, the affinities--say,

of such a well-known bird as the heron, which a local collection will

tell him, by means of a huge and unblushing label, is a "Blankshire

bird," shot somewhere in the vicinity; not a word is said as to its

being also a "British" bird and also a "Foreign" bird, the heron

ranging throughout every county in Britain, throughout Europe, the

greater part of Africa and Asia, and even penetrating into Australia.

The remedy for this is a typical "general" collection--running around

the room, let us say--and a "local" collection entirely distinct and

separate.

First, in the structural necessities of a museum, I place well-lighted

rooms--preferably from the top. Of course, side windows, though giving

an increase of light, yet by that very increase become objectionable

by making cross lights, which the sheets of glass enclosing the

various objects tend to multiply; next, the colour of the walls--this

is very important. Some museums have blue or Pompeian-red walls, under

the impression that it suits certain objects; in the instances of

pictures or statuary, etc, it may be right, but, for natural history

objects, nothing suits them and shows them up better than a light

neutral tint--one of the tertiaries--lightened considerably, until it

arrives at a light stone, very light sage, or pale slate colour.

[Footnote: The Leicester Museum, when I first came to it, had the

walls of its chief room, the then "Curiosity shop," painted dull dark

red, cut up by twenty-four pilasters of ad deep green in imitation of

marble; the ceiling bad not been whitened for twenty years, and the

birds and animals on "hat-pegs," in cases with small panes of glass,

etc, were frightfully contrasted by a backing of crude, deep

ultramarine-blue! Three primary colours. Could human perversity and

bad taste go much further?]

The pilasters, if any, must be ignored, and blended into the walls by

being painted of the same colour as the remainder; otherwise, the

first things which strike the observer on entering are the walls and

pilasters, and not the objects; whereas the impression to be secured

on the mind should be exactly the reverse of this, for be sure that,

if the colour of the walls be noticed at all by the casual visitor,

something is radically wrong. This is one of the reasons why I prefer

light oak wall-cases to anything else, by their being so unobtrusive,

and not dividing the room so sharply into squares as the black and

gold. I venture to say that the first thing noticeable on entering the

zoological-room at Leicester is the form and colour of the objects,

and this is as it should be.

Having now got light in the rooms from the top and, possibly, from the

north, supplemented by, and radiating from, the light walls and

ceiling, we, having our oak cases in position, must glaze them with as

large sheets of plate glass as are manageable or as we can afford; a

very handy size is-say, 8 ft. in height by 5 ft. 4 in. in breadth,

this prevents cutting up the enclosed specimens by many bars,

enclosing small panes, so prevalent in the older museums, also, of

course, adding greatly to the general effect. The backs of the wall

cases should be, if the specimens are mounted on pegs, of some light

tint slightly contrasting with that of the walls, or, if the specimens

are to be pictorially treated, with softly graduated skies applicable

to each group.

Perhaps a sketch of the treatment of the zoological-room of Leicester

Museum would help the reader to grasp the facts of the case better. In

the first place, the walls were cut for more windows, at a height of

12 ft. above the floor, the top light not being sufficient nor

properly available, nor end lights obtainable, owing to the structural

defects of the existing building; the ceiling was then whitewashed,

and walls painted of a nice warm stone colour, quite unobtrusive in

itself; the artificial light was provided for by twelve gas pendants

of twenty-four lights each, i.e, eight arms, each holding three

burners. The heating--a most important matter, not only for the

comfort of visitors, but for the proper preservation of the

specimens--was managed by hot-water coils running around the walls

under the cases. [Footnote: I am not at all sure if the artificial

lighting of wall cases is not best managed by gas arms shaded from the

eye of the spectator, and throwing their light into the cases by a hi

similar arrangement to that adopted for lighting jewellers' and other

shops from the outside.]

The cases themselves were framed in oak, rising 10 ft. from the floor,

thus--1 ft. 3.5 in. of plinth and frames, enclosing panelled gratings

to allow the hot air to escape; on this the wooden bottoms of the

range was built; then 3.5 in. and 3 in. frame at bottom and top,

enclosing 7 ft. 6 in. space for glass, and 8 in. frieze moulding; the

divisions of each were arranged to suit the space at disposal to

represent all orders of vertebrates.

The doors or sashes were round-headed and glazed with plate glass,

three plates of which were 7 ft. 6 in. by 4 ft. 4.5 in.; eight, 7 ft.

6 in. by 4 ft. 6 in.; eleven, 7 ft. 6 in. by 5 ft. 1 in.; eleven, 7

ft. 6 in. by 5 ft. 2.5 in.; one, 7 ft. 6 in. by 4 ft. 7.5 in.; and

three, 7 ft. 6 in. by 4 ft. 1 in.; thirty-seven plates in all. All but

twelve of the cases were 2 ft. 6 in. from back to front, these twelve

being 3 ft. from back to front, all glazed at the top, to admit light,

by glass fixed in iron T-pieces at intervals of 2 ft. 6 in, making two

divisions.

To these, two cases were subsequently added; one, 7 ft. 6 in. by 2 ft.

6 in.; the other, 7 ft. 6 in. by 6 ft. The division frames, being

rebated and lined with "moleskin," had the sashes, previously glazed

from the inside, lifted in and screwed to them, the screw heads being

hidden by turned "buttons" of oak. I objected to these doors or sashes

being hung in the ordinary manner, it being so difficult to hinge

large and weighty frames without danger of "twisting" or of straining

the surrounding parts, to say nothing of the almost impossibility of

keeping dust from getting in through hinged doors; accordingly it was

felt that, although there might be a little inconvenience in

unscrewing the eight or ten screws which held them in their places,

yet that the trouble of their removal, not being an every-day

occurrence, in any instance, would be more than compensated by the

increased strength, and air and dust-proof advantages.

(That these predictions were justified is proved by the fact that the

cases, being filled, were opened at the end of 1883 to allow of their

contents being photographed-without the intervention of glass-and the

air which then issued from them was strongly charged with turpentine

and other agents used about the birds, and the rockwork, nearly two

years before, whilst not a particle of dust was observable anywhere.)

These cases were, as regards workmanship, strongly and well made by a

local man, working under my direction, and although, of course,

lacking the minute finish of such champions of case-making as Sage,

yet, taking into consideration that quite 300 pounds was saved in the

construction, we may be fairly proud of our success.

Regarding the classification of the vertebrates, it was admitted on

all hands that we might take Huxley as our standpoint; but I felt

that, in this age of specialists, we ought to be guided by those who,

taking the labours of the leading physiologists and men of science for

their groundwork, compiled, so to speak, from these results, and being

anatomists and men of great learning themselves, were generally

accepted throughout the world as the leading exponents of the branch

of biology they represented.

Accordingly the plan was sketched out, and, selecting Professor W. H.

Flower, F.R.S, the president of the College of Surgeons, for the

mammals; Dr. P. 1. Sclater, F.R.S, secretary of the Zoological

Society, for the birds; and Dr. a. C. Guenther, F.R.S, chief of the

British Museum, for the reptiles and fishes, I submitted my plans to

each gentleman, who did me the honour to return them corrected where

necessary. Since then I have slightly modified where the latest views

of these great men have undergone some slight change; and now the

scheme of our zoological room is as in the accompanying plan (see

Plate).

Of course, for purposes of convenience and reference, a linear

arrangement has been adopted, but it will not be necessary to point

out that no actual linear arrangement can exist in nature, the chain

being broken, not only in links, but by large portions being twisted

off. Rather may we liken biology to a tree whose branches ramify in

many directions from the main trunk of life.

The classification--superseding the old, unscientific Vigorsian and

other systems, founded on external characteristics--being decided on,

the style of mounting of the specimens had to be settled. The "peg"

system was to be discarded; but here occurred the most serious hitch

of all. In accordance with the plan now being pursued in many

provincial museums, it was wished by one party to elevate the local

exhibits into undue importance, at the expense of general zoology, by

taking up much more of the room at disposal than was practicable or

necessary.

Plate V. Arrangements of vertebrates in Zoological Room.

The suggestion was to furnish cases of a certain size, one or more of

which was to be devoted to each order of animals. Taking birds (for

convenience) as the standpoint, we were to place on the ground line

"local" birds, male and female, with nest and young, and eggs, mounted

with appropriate accessories, in the most complete and artistic

manner. This division taking up 3 ft. 6 in. in height out of a

possible 8 ft, leaving 4 ft. 6 in. to be disposed of thus--another

division for "British" birds which have never been found in the

locality.

These "British" were to be in pairs, but not very well mounted, and

without nests and young. Above these, again, another line, exhibiting

a few of the most striking typical foreign birds. These "Foreign"

birds were not to be well mounted, but plain "stuffed." It was claimed

for this that "each order would be distinct, and that there would be

the best opportunity of comparing the local birds with those of

Britain generally and of the whole world, while a real notion of the

life of birds would be conveyed by the full portraiture of those forms

with which the local visitors would be most familiar, making them

distinct items of knowledge in a manner scarcely ever attempted, and,

in fact, almost impossible with the usual methods of arrangement.

It is an elastic system, admitting of many variations, while retaining

the fundamental principle; and of all really effective systems it is

the least expensive, because it depends mainly upon objects

procurable in the locality. The Leicestershire species should occupy

the ground line, and come up to the front. The British species should

be set back 8 in. to 12 in, and the Foreign 15 in. to 18 in.; but

these limits might be occasionally infringed where it seems

necessary."

To give the reader an idea of how disproportionate these divisions

would be when comparing "local" with "foreign," see the diagram (Fig.

58), representing one division or "bay" marked on Plan.

Fig. 58--Projected arrangement of a biological collection by "Scheme

A."

Again, it was urged that "The three sections should be divided

horizontally, but the lines of division need not be straight. They may

be broken so as to preserve the pictorial effect, but not to destroy

the division."

Regarding this part of the contention, it is only necessary to point

out that no "pictorial effects" were possible under such a system,

which is really a lucus a non lucendo.

By this scheme, we have "local" birds at bottom (very well arranged),

"British" next (not so well arranged), and "foreign" at top (not well

arranged at all), and these arbitrary and totally unnatural divisions

were supposed to "drive home the truths of natural history into the

minds of casual visitors," to be "applicable to all the departments of

a museum, so that, if it were adopted, a uniform plan might be carried

through the collections from end to end, giving a systematic

completeness which is rarely found in museums at the present time. It

utilises the breaks and blank spaces in every series."

Never was there a more impracticable theory broached. The whole

arrangement was based on an utter disregard of the requirements of

science, leaving out art altogether, and, worse still, upon an utter

ignorance of first principles of zoology. May I ask if anyone can

define a "local" bird from a "British" bird, or a "British" bird from

a "foreign" bird? Lastly, every one should know that every bird found

in Leicestershire is a "British" bird, and that every "British" bird is

a "foreign" one; and that each of these imaginary divisions is being

constantly recruited from the division immediately above it.

[Footnote: There are but two birds belonging to the Paridae (Titmice),

which are claimed as being peculiar to Britain; and these merely on

the ground of being climatic varieties--hardly sufficient to warrant

the founding of new "species."]

For instance, the golden eagle is not a "local" bird, but it may be

so to-morrow, should one stray from North Britain, as they sometimes

do, and be shot by some person within the boundary of the county. It

then becomes "local"! This bird, which is as distinctly

"foreign"--being found in Europe, North Africa, America, etc.--as it is

"British"! Put this in, or leave it out of the "local" division, and

what does it teach?

Arguing per contra, the osprey has been killed in our own county more

than once; it is thus "local;" it is also "British," nesting in North

Britain; it is also distinctly "foreign," being found positively in

every quarter of the globe--in Australia even--sharing with the common

barn owl the distinction of being actually cosmopolitan.

In which division are we to place this? It is "local," and yet cannot

be mounted in that division, with its nest and young, because it has

never bred in the Midlands; but it has bred in North Britain, and

might be shown in the "British" division fully displayed; but, says

this contention, which I have called "Scheme A," no "British"

specimens shall be mounted with nest and young!

Being "foreign," it should also come in the "Foreign" division. What,

then, can this teach? Either the bird must be repeated in all three

divisions, or it must, according to the foregoing, appear only in the

"local" division, thus acting an ornithological lie, and leading the

unlearned to believe that it is a very rare bird, peculiar only to

Leicestershire. These examples might be repeated ad nauseam. The

sparrow, the swallow, the kingfisher, the heron, the wild duck, the

wood-pigeon, the pheasant, the coot, the woodcock, the terns, the

gulls, etc, are some common forms which occur to me.

Again, there are five orders of birds not represented in

Leicestershire, nor in England even. These contain nearly five hundred

species. Are these to be entirely eliminated from the collection? or

does it teach anything to put cards in the "Local" or "British"

divisions of the parrot cases to say that no parrots occur (out of

cages) in either Leicestershire or Britain? Again, what can this

teach?

Well, we will take a representative group--say, the order Gallinae, or

game-birds, and, taking our own county of Leicestershire as an

example, we shall find that, although there are nearly four hundred

species of this order known, but eleven at the very outside are

claimed as having occurred in Britain, whilst but three of these are

commonly found in the county. I give their names and values under each

heading:

LOCAL.

BRITISH.

FOREIGN.

Ptarmigan

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Red Grouse

Has occurred.

Yes.

Yes.[Footnote: Formerly indigenous to Britain, but now found in

Sweden, etc.]

Capercaillie

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Black Grouse

Has occurred.

Yes.

Yes.

Pheasant

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Red-legged Partridge

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Barbary Partridge

Said to have once occurred

Doubtful.

Yes.

Partridge

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Virginian Colin

No.

Doubtful.

Yes.

Quail

Has occurred.

Yes.

Yes.

Andalusian Hemipode

No.

Doubtful.

Yes.

Or, putting it into a tabular form, as if supposing that the whole

four hundred known species could be shown, we should have it presented

thus: ORDER--GALLINAE.

(400 SPECIES.)

389

. . . . . . . .400

FOREIGN.

8 . . . .

. . . . 11

. . . . . . . . . . . .

BRITISH.

3 . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

LOCAL.

That is to say, that, although it was wished to claim the 3 ft. 6 in.

division in height, of indefinite length (really ten feet when worked

out) for the three "local" birds, yet it will be seen by the foregoing

tables that those three "locals" would do equally as well if placed in

the "British" division, and the sum total of the "local" and "British"

might be placed correctly with all the rest in the "foreign." Why,

then, should valuable space be wasted for three birds, simply to

perpetuate an error in working out a crotchet?

The question again arose, What could such a "model" system as this

teach? This was effectually answered by a specimen case, representing

the above, being fitted up, when the glaring errors of the proposed

system were at once evident, there being fully a space of 10 ft. x 3

ft. 6 in. x 2 ft. 6 in. = 87.5 ft. cube, devoted to five birds

only--three of which were not now found in the county. These

represented the "locals." In the "British" division, of 10 ft. in

length x 2 ft. 6 in. in height x 1 ft. 6 in. back to front, viz, a

cube of 37.5 ft. there appeared but six others--three of which were

doubtful. Furthermore, as if to point to the crowning absurdity of the

whole scheme, but 10 ft. x 2 ft. x 1 ft. = 20 ft. cube, was provided

for the great remainder of the "foreign" specimens, nearly

thirty-seven times as numerous as both "local" and "British" combined.

Now for the cheapness of the system advocated. In the first place,

local specimens of rare birds are not cheap. For instance, anyone can

get a foreign specimen of--say, the honey buzzard--for about 8s. but a

locally-killed specimen would be very likely to cost several pounds.

As for the "elasticity" of such a system, if it is meant that it will

stretch any way but the right, I agree, but if meant to be applied to

any department of natural history it is distinctly wrong.

Let us take the case of the invertebrates, nearly all of which, as the

birds, have a wide range. Many instances occur to me, but one will be

sufficient, Vanessa Antiopa, the "Camberwell Beauty" butterfly. Now

this insect has been taken three times (perhaps more?) in the county,

and I suppose it has occurred in nearly every county in England, but

as it is found also commonly throughout the greater part of Europe,

parts of Africa, Asia, and America, we are confronted by the

unpleasant reminder, "what shall we do with it" under the system

proposed?

It is, according to that theory, "local," "British," and "foreign;" it

is rarest as "local," being, of course, of accidental occurrence; yet

it is proposed to show it only in that division, to the extent of

ignoring the two other divisions which have manifestly a greater claim

on it. If this, then, were adhered to, the student would at once have

presented to him an incorrect view of the distribution of species.

One other way only is there out of the difficulty, which is to show a

specimen of the same insect in all three divisions; but this would,

though more correct, be as embarrassing to understand, to say nothing

of the loss of space involved, because the same thing would have to be

repeated with nearly every invertebrate possessed by a museum arranged

on these lines.

The proper way, I contend, to give real information is to shake off

all insular prejudice and not call things by their wrong names, i.e.

claim as "British," things which are not essentially so. To this end I

have labelled the butterfly in question:

VANESSA. ANTIOPA, 1.

(Camberwell Beauty.)

Range: Asia, Africa, America,

Europe generally, including Britain (rarely),

and has occurred in Leicestershire three times.

This, I am quite sure, is the proper method to educate the public, who

cannot understand, or are misled by, such crudities as placing

specimens in arbitrary divisions such as "Local," "British," and

"Foreign."

The same rule applies to the plants; and I remember a case occurring,

but a short time since when a young botanist, wishing to name a few

plants collected abroad (in Europe), came to our herbarium, modelled

on these misleading lines, and at once turned to the "Foreign"

division to find specimens by which to compare his own. An hour was

wasted in trying to puzzle some of them out, and he then came to me

saying, "You hav'n't got them."

At once I saw he had things of world-wide distribution, and turning,

much to his amazement, to the "Local" division, found them for him.

All this comparison, and waste of time and temper, might have been

saved had the plants been arranged in their proper orders and

families, irrespective of imaginary divisions, with a label attached

stating their range and if occurring locally.

Leaving biology now, we shall see how this "elastic system" can "be

carried through the collections from end to end." Take the rocks as an

example. Is it real science--or what is it--which would label syenite

a "Leicestershire" rock? Such queries and replies could be multiplied

ad infinitum, for it will be observed that I have said nothing about

the mammals, where the loss of space and want of cohesion in such a

group as the carnivora--best represented of all in "local"--are

patent. The fishes--fancy a "local" salmon! yet they occasionally run

up the rivers.

But I need not enlarge on this, further than to say that under this

"elastic" system it was gravely proposed to pictorially mount the

"local" freshwater fishes under the sea fishes, not because it was a

direct violation of the physics of salt and fresh water, but because

the "local" division must come in its place at the bottom of the range

of cases! I had almost forgotten to say that these precious divisions

were to be made self-evident to the bucolic intellect even, by means

of colour--thus, "Local" was to be brownish-red rock; "British,"

green; and "Foreign," blue; and these colours were, without reference

to any artistic considerations such as the laws of contrast in colour,

or light and shade, to be rigidly adhered to, and to be carried in

distinct, if "wavy" bands, all around the room.

Fortunately, it was pointed out that shelves of wood would carry out

that idea more effectually than playing with science and art in such a

manner, therefore these absurd propositions were promptly discarded.

And now, having described what I take to be the evils to be guarded

against in plain or "pictorial" mounting, if founded on such lines as

those in the scheme I have called "A," I will briefly sketch out what

I take to be the lines of the museum of the future.

I must confess I had thought a great deal of arranging the vertebrata

in zoo-geographical order, in a manner founded on a. R. Wallace's

great and concise work on the "Geographical Distribution of Animals."

It seemed to me a fairly comprehensive and scientific, certainly a

novel, method of treatment, and I had gone so far as to sketch out

several of my groups, when I was confronted by difficulties, and saw

that it was not a system which was thoroughly coherent throughout the

whole of the collections, and I finally abandoned it, on the advice of

Dr. Sclater, the originator, I believe, of the "zoo-geographical

divisions."

I wanted a system which might be carried out throughout the whole

biological collections, and this end was best gained by arranging them

in zoological order, so far as is possible in these days, when the

microscope tells us that a plant may be an animal, or vice versa, or

that an organism may be a plant now and something very like an animal

a short time after (see Saville Kent on the "myxomycetes").

With the plants and invertebrates this was comparatively easy, for

though, as I have before pointed out, no linear arrangement is

correct, yet in a small museum the "table cases" for invertebrates

must run on in lines, and the mounting, owing to their enormous

numbers and usually small size, must be tabular, and not pictorial

(except, of course, in rare instances).

I was aware that several naturalists had "laid down the law" as to the

position to be taken by local museums, and that notably Mr. John

Hopkinson, of the Watford Natural History Society, had written his

views upon the subject; but these views are, I think, probably

somewhat narrowed by the small size of the museum he had in mind

whilst writing. Though agreeing with him in the main, I considered

that very few provincial museums, excepting Liverpool, could boast of

having anything like so large a space for the exhibition of specimens

as we possessed in our zoological room.

It may be taken, therefore, for granted, that what was written

specially to suit the requirements of Watford is not of the slightest

use when sought to be applied to larger museums. When, however, Mr.

Hopkinson quotes the opinions of such well-known scientists as

Professors Flower, Rudler, Dr. Sclater, and other practical workers,

his compilation becomes of some value.

Professor Rudler, it will be seen, points out that, however full and

perfect a local collection may be, it would teach nothing if narrowed

down to purely local limits, and that, therefore, it must be broadened

for the sake of comparison; and he very properly says: "Whilst we

should patriotically aspire to render the local collection as perfect

as possible, I would not by any means have the usefulness of museums

stop here. Comparing any local collection with a general collection,

it will, of course, be found that many important groups of 'animals,

vegetables, and minerals, are but imperfectly represented, whilst

others are altogether blank. There is, consequently, great danger of

very limited and inadequate notions of the great system of Nature

being formed by the student who confines his attention to local

natural history. To counteract such a tendency, it is eminently

desirable to form, under proper conditions, a general collection,

which will give the visitor some notion of, at any rate, the larger

groups in which natural bodies are classified. There should,

consequently, be two departments to our central museum---one local and

the other general--each with distinct aims, and each appealing to a

distinct class of visitors."

These being exactly my views, but with the radical change of wishing

to mount both collections pictorially, I considered that, although the

newly-erected wall-cases in oak, with single sheets of plate-glass, 7

ft. 6 in. by 5 ft, were, when filled as I projected, admirably suited

to interest the general public, who comprise, perhaps, nine-tenths of

museum visitors, yet that the claims of the respectable minority of

students, artists, and quasi-scientific people should not be

neglected, and for these the local fauna, etc, should be perseveringly

collected and mounted with all the appliances which science and art

can suggest. To do this properly, and to preserve groups for an

indefinite time, it is necessary, and indeed indispensable, that each

group of male, female, nest and eggs, or young, should be mounted in a

separate case, or in separate divisions of a row of cases quite

distinct from the general collection.

Although I had assumed, and, indeed, had the courage of my opinions,

that the pictorial method of displaying natural history specimens was

a great improvement upon the old peg system, I recognised the

difficulties attendant upon this and also that many excellent

authorities were adverse to any pictorial arrangement whatever. And,

indeed, if we come to the consideration of "true science," I

unhesitatingly assert that end is best served by a collection of

properly authenticated birds' skins scientifically arranged in

cabinets, and not mounted in any way whatever; but although this

method might satisfy a few workers, I very much fear that the general

bulk of the ratepayers would be hardly satisfied with a museum

arranged on so severely scientific principles.

It must be considered that a public museum differs from a private one

in a very material point. In the former there is a diversity of tastes

to please, and it is often difficult to know the exact point where the

line should be drawn; in a private museum, on the contrary, there is

but one person to please, and that the owner, consequently he may

indulge his crotchets without fear of doing damage to anyone but

himself. I considered that public museums must always be affected by

matters of expediency and local feeling, and that the will of the

majority must always be studied, when it has common sense for its

basis.

To this end I worked, and not wishing to be so much in love with my

own system as to be blind to advice, I wrote to ten of the most

eminent men of science--men of European reputation, and whose dictum

on museum matters cannot be questioned--setting forth, under the

heading "Scheme A" and "Scheme B," the pros and cons of both, not

favouring one or the other in the slightest, giving no clue whatever

to my leaning to either, and resolving to be guided entirely by the

opinion of the majority, or, should it be a close tie, to refer it to

an umpire.

Of these ten, eight returned unqualified approval of having a general

collection for Leicester, and also of that plan which kept the

"general" and "local" collections entirely distinct; one gave no

opinion, and one eminent man suggested an alternative scheme of a

typical collection somewhat like Professor Owen's "Index Museum" at

South Kensington, and which could be carried out afterwards without

reference to the question at issue.

As regards the pictorial mounting of the specimens in zoological order

--the thing I was most doubtful about--both for the "general" and the

"local" collections, five out of the ten unhesitatingly favoured

pictorial mounting--if well done--of both collections, and four more

said nothing for or against it.

Nearly every one of these gentlemen wrote me a lengthy letter, giving

most valuable advice--advice which has in all cases been acted on

where practicable. Dr. a. C. Guenther, F.R.S, etc, at one time the

Keeper of Zoology, British Museum, has kindly allowed me to quote his

views embodied in a letter to me. He says:

"I should recommend you to adopt the following plan: Arranging the

general and British collections together, strictly systematically,

receiving, of the foreign animals, typical forms only, but making the

British series as complete as possible, and choosing in preference

Leicestershire animals when practicable.

Excluding from the general series specially mounted objects, such as

groups of birds showing nidification, change of plumage, or

illustrating the habits of animals--such groups to be mounted on

separate stands in the middle of the room.

I believe this plan would best meet the requirements in your museum."

Having now something to work upon, the Museum Committee rejected

"Scheme A." whose weak points have been detailed at length, and

sanctioned "Scheme B" being carried out, which not only separated

"local" from "general," but provided for the pictorial mounting of

both.

Taking, therefore, any of the orders marked on the plan (see Plate) as

an example, the best known, and therefore "local" or "British" species

of the first family (or genera) of that order is selected, then the

least known or most striking "foreign" species of the same family (or

genera) to compare with it, and so on throughout. Space being limited,

however, species closely allied are not always represented, but are

collected as skins to fill up the unavoidable blanks. In all cases,

however, typical specimens of the families and genera of animals are

attempted to be shown, and as many species as possible are collected

as skins.

The highest form of each order is placed at the top, the next

underneath, until the bottom of the case is arrived at, then ascends

again, forming a serpentine line, which, taking the first order,

Passeres, as an example, begins at the top of the first case, and

takes the song thrush--one of the "locals"--as being of the first

genera of the first family; this is contrasted by a "foreign" form of

the same family (and genus), the "American Robin," and thus runs on

throughout the whole of the wall-cases on that side of the room

devoted to birds (see Plan), until it ends at the ostrich, as being

the last.

It win be seen by this that, although the so-called "local" birds are

often, nay nearly always, represented, they have no fictitious value

given to them, but simply take their place in the great scheme of

Nature in a proper manner, being often close to so-called "foreign"

forms, with which they are easily compared. The whole arrangement of

accessories is "pictorial," birds being represented on trees or on

"rockwork," many of them swimming, or flying, or eating, surrounded by

mosses and the few dried plants available for such purposes--in fact,

represented in as natural a manner as is possible under the

circumstances.

Exception may be taken to the close contiguity of an American or

Indian form with an European, sometimes "British" form, which, though

scientifically correct, is artistically and topographically wrong; and

this certainly was a crux of mine until I reflected that, under the

old peg system, the same state of affairs existed. I have endeavoured

to isolate as much as possible such incongruities one from the other,

often by partially surrounding them with ferns, etc, of their native

habitat, and by leaving little blanks here and there. Apart from this,

the general opinion of both scientific [Footnote: In this category I

may place Sir Philip Cunliffe Owen, C.B, etc.; Mr. R. Bowdler Sharpe,

F.L.S, etc.; Mr. Smith Woodward, all of South Kensington; Sir J. A.

Picton, F.S.A, etc of Liverpool; Professor St. George Mivart, F.R.S.

etc.; Professor 1. O. Miall; Professor Wm. Knight; Professor A.

Schuster, etc.; Mr. Jas. Orrock, Member of the Royal Institute of

Water-colour Painters; and several other gentlemen who have done me

the honour to speak in most flattering terms of the new arrangement.]

and unscientific people is that the scheme is a success, and that such

trifling and inevitable irreconcilements are amply condoned and

compensated for by the increased beauty of the groups, and by the

pleasure it affords, not only to artistic people, but to the general

public; indeed, if vox populi be vox Dei, there is no doubt upon the

subject whatever.

Other defects there are; for instance, repetitions of grasses in

"fitting-up," which proves how little can be done with dried things,

and how much better it would be to replace them by modelled foliage

(mentioned in Chapter XIV). [Footnote: One would-be critic wrote to

the papers condemning the whole arrangement, because, in one of the

cases, one plant was about a foot nearer the water or a yard nearer to

another plant than it should be! The same wiseacre, or his friend,

wrote quite an article upon some supposed "fir twigs" which, much to

his confusion, were nothing of the sort, but a plant quite proper to

its place in the case.]

I would now wish to point out why I object so much to carefully-managed

groups of so-called "local" birds, their nests and eggs, being

introduced in a general collection, especially if the latter be

arranged in a pictorial manner.

First, because small groups, such as of necessity the greater number

of pairs of local birds would cut up into, would be lost amidst their

larger surroundings, and be really as if an artist were to paint a

small, highly finished picture in the corner of some large, "broad"

subject; secondly, the great difficulty there is in protecting such

choice groups from moth if exposed in, say, a cubic space of 100 ft.

filled with other specimens, some of them old and doubtful as regards

freedom from insects. A general collection, even should great care be

taken, requires constant watching to seize upon any specimen showing

signs of damage; but why a choice group of young birds in their nest,

with parents--birds in change of plumage, surrounded by accessories

which perhaps have cost hundreds of hours to execute--should be

exposed to all the evils imaginable when isolation is so much more

practicable and practical, passes comprehension.

No; I am convinced that the only way to manage, in a museum of

sufficient size to have a general collection, is to arrange it as I

have sketched out, and to make a separate collection close at hand, if

need be, for comparison of the animals collected in the district.

Now for labelling. It was proposed originally in Scheme A in this

form:

"It will be essential to have labels in the cases. These maybe made

simple, however, with references to a descriptive catalogue. The

labels should bear the English name, with 'Resident,' Summer

Visitant,' or 'Winter Visitant' on all British species. Nothing more.

"The three sections should have labels of distinct colours--say,

yellow for local, pink for British, white for foreign. The labels will

probably be best glued on to some part of the stand or setting. They

should be as small as possible, so as to be legible,

"Local species maybe distinguished as 'Native' and 'Casual, or

Accidental.

"The latter might have a dark line above, and below the name

on the label--thus, Stork, or be marked 'Casual--Spring,' or

'Casual--Autumn.'"

To this I objected that if the arrangement was to be "pictorial," the

"spotty" appearance of labels, especially if of light tints, was

destructive to the effect sought to be gained; that yellow is not

distinct from white by gaslight; and that pink often fades to yellow;

also that to colour-blind people these labels would have no

significance whatever.

In addition, I submitted that there are educated people as well as

people of the other class, and that the system of labels written with

common names inside the cases is not only unscientific but ugly in the

extreme, for these reasons--that there are many birds whose "English"

names are just as puzzling as their scientific to the uneducated;

whereas, for those who care to learn, the scientific name is a factor

of knowledge.

Regarding their inexpedience and ugliness, such a word as the

"Lesser-spotted-Woodpecker" with the marking underneath it of

"Resident," would fill up a large label if it were to be read at any

height or distance. Taking it as a whole, the proposition was behind

the age, and was commonplace also.

To dispense altogether with the necessity for labels, I proposed that

a chart might be made for every group--a picture, in fact, of the

contents of each case, every bird numbered, and a list prepared, whose

corresponding number would give the whole history of each specimen;

but, in any case, the adoption of a mass of printed matter clumsily

introduced amidst pictorial effects must be condemned.

That all this was practicable is now proved by the present state of

the Leicester Museum, provisionally finished in its general zoological

collections so far as the birds and fishes are concerned. [Footnote:

That is to say, that many of the ill-mounted and old specimens will

ultimately be replaced by better ones of the same species, and that

some modelled foliage will take the place of many of the dried

grasses, rushes, etc, which are not quite truthfully arranged.]

The reference to species in the general collection is now managed as I

proposed. (See list, on p. 337, of part of the Order Anseres, printed

on sage-green cards.) This is, I contend, a great advance on the old

system of labelling, which has this defect, that the labels, even if

small, are "spotty" and obtrusive near the eye, and if placed 10 ft.

from the floor, as they must be in many instances, it is impossible to

read them unless both label and type be very large, which is an

absurdity in a pictorially-mounted collection. [Footnote: When I first

came to Leicester the birds, mounted on stands and perches 9 ft. from

the floor, were labelled by slips of yellow paper pasted on the

stands, the type being that known as Pica and Bourgeois!]

Fancy Ramiphomicron microrhynchum, Boiss. (one of the humming-birds),

peeping over a label long enough to take his name--say, 3 in. x 1 in.!

Multiply this by fifty, and fancy a typical collection of

pictorially-mounted humming-birds labelled in this manner! A

well-known naturalist and scientific zoologist, personally unknown to

me, to whom I wrote, advised, as usual, the labels to be of different

colours as distinguishing marks. I sent him one of my lists and

charts, and he wrote: "I return the printed description which seems to

me admirably calculated to convey instruction in a becoming and

sightly way. It is undoubtedly an advance upon labelling."

Again, a scientific gentleman of local celebrity wrote an article on

the museum, and did me the honour to especially note the substitute

for labels. He says: "Affixed to the front of each group case, and on

a level with the eye, is a neatly-printed explanatory tablet, suitably

framed, comprising a list of the specimens (numbered), class,

sub-class, order, family, etc, with their scientific terms. The literal

interpretation of these several terms is then given. Then follow the

scientific names, with sex (where determined); and, lastly, the known

range of each species--a matter of acknowledged importance. This is

supplemented by an artistically-coloured chart, representing each

example (also numbered), in the corresponding position which it

occupies in any given group case. Thus is conveyed, in a concise and

intelligible form, all the information which can fairly be embodied in

the limited space at command.

Another redeeming feature, consequent upon this instructive and unique

method, is the dispensing with the formidable array of labels mounted

on unsightly coils of wire dotted about, reminding one of the labels

displayed in the shop window of a hatter or haberdasher--'The Latest

Novelty,' 'New this Season,' etc. They are not only obtrusive to the

eye, but have a decided tendency to mar the neat effect and

appropriate mounting of the general collection, and materially

interfere with the surroundings, outline, and beauty of the objects to

which they are appended, and their multiplied form only enhances this

confusion. Beside which, these labels are of necessity frequently

placed at such a height that, in order to decipher them, the head of

the observer needs to be perched on a neck somewhat like the giraffe.

So forcibly impressed am I with the soundness and value of this

newly-devised plan, that I am led to predict that its adoption will

sooner or later find favour among other kindred institutions even of a

larger growth."

LIST OF THE SPECIMENS CONTAINED IN THIS GROUP.

(Arranged from the most highly specialized to lowest form.)

For Reference see coloured CHART below.

ORDER--ANSERES. From the Latin Anser--a Goose,

INCLUDING GEESE, SWANS, TREE-DUCKS, DUCKS, MERGANSERS, etc

Total number of Species of this Order known to inhabit the World 185

Of this number there are as visitants to, and residents in Britain,

but 44, 19 only of which remain to breed.

Of these 44 for Britain, there are as visitants to, and residents in

Leicestershire 13

3 only of which breed in the County.

Family--ANATIDAE.

From the Latin Anas--a Duck.

(Ducks, Geese, etc.)

No.--EGYPTIAN GOOSE

Chenalopex aegyptiaca (1). RANGE--Africa.

Domesticated in many parts of Europe, including Britain and

Leicestershire.

Shot at Withcote Hall, near Oakham (probably escaped from

confinement), and presented by F. PALMER, Esq.

No.--BLACK-NECKED SWAN.

Cygnus nigricollis (Gm.). RANGE--Antarctic America.

From River Plate, S. America.

Presented (in the skin) by C. J. MUSSON, Esq, 1876.

No.--BLACK SWAN.

Cygnus atratus (Lath.) (Immature) RANGE--Australia

From Sydney, New South Wales.

Presented by W. M. SQUIRES, Esq, 1875.

No--SHELDRAKE. Tadorna cornuta (Gm.). RANGE--N. Africa, Asia, as far

east as Japan, Europe including Britain, and has occurred as a rare

straggler in Leicestershire.

From Scotland, by purchase, 1881.

No.--WILD DUCK OR MALLARD.

Anas boscas (1.). Range--North Africa, Asia from the far North to

China and Japan, N. America to Mexico, Europe generally, including

Britain, and commonly occurring in Leicestershire.

From Barston, Warwickshire. Presented by the Curator (M.B.), 1882.

The animals collected in the district are now being placed in the

middle of the room in oak cases, with plate-glass all around, on the

tops of table-cases holding at present the invertebrates, and will

show the male and female, young in nest, the eggs, birds in change of

plumage, all surrounded as in nature by carefully-modelled plants and

other accessories, the food, and the skeleton. The labelling of these

latter groups requiring a mass of information, as being of local

interest, is in this wise (on light sage-green coloured cards):

TOWN MUSEUM, LEICESTER.

Studies illustrating the Habits, etc, of Animals collected in the

County.

CLASS--Aves ORDER--Passeres FAMILY--Turdidae

GROUP No. .--Illustrative of the Life-History of the Whitethroat

(SYLVIA CINEREA, Bechst), a Bird of Passage, or Spring Migrant to

Britain (winters in Africa).

No. C1A--Male Whitethroat

No C1B--Female Whitethroat

No C1--Nest Of Whitethroat

Nos. C1.50 to C1.53--Four Young Of Whitethroat

The whole collected by the Curator at Aylestone, August, 1883.

The Male and Female are the actual builders of the nest, and parents

of the young birds here shown.

No. A Male, and No. Female, in Spring plumage. To be procured

RANGE.--N. Africa, Western Asia, Europe generally, common in Britain

(except in the North), and also in Leicestershire.

FOOD.--Caterpillars, various small insects, and occasionally small

fruits.

EGGS.--Four or five. Builds its nest amongst nettles or brambles, in

low bushes near to the ground. (N.B.--Eggs shown at back of group.)

Duplicate Skin and Skeleton.

PLANT EXHIBITED.

BRAMBLE (Rubus fruticosus, 1.). VAR.: discolor

RANGE.--Whole of Europe except extreme North, Russian and Central Asia

and Northern Africa (Not high Alpine). Common in Leicestershire.

Flowers and leaves modelled from Nature by the curator

Now for the invertebrates. Not having a special room at present for

these, they are best displayed in the centre of the vertebrate-room,

if possible, in table-cases, which are--for convenience, though,

incorrectly in science--arranged in linear order, beginning at the

Protozoa and running on to the Cephalopoda. As I before pointed out, a

tabular arrangement is inevitable except in some rare cases, where a

group might be taken to be pictorially displayed to give an idea of

the creature's mode of life.

By far the best arrangement of invertebrates I have ever seen is that

adopted at the Liverpool Museum under the auspices of the Rev. H. H.

Higgins, M.A, whose views on the invertebrates are very clearly

defined in his Introduction to a "Synopsis of an Arrangement of

Invertebrate Animals" contained in the Liverpool Museum. He says

therein:

"The series had to be conformed to a linear arrangement. In some

respects this was a serious disadvantage. The classes of invertebrate

animals cannot well be represented in a single ascending or descending

series. Probably it would not be possible on any symmetrical plan to

assign to them their proper positions relatively to each other; but

some palpable incongruities might be avoided by the use of table-cases

on a ground plan resembling a genealogical tree, one proposed form of

which is represented by a diagram in a work published by Professor

Rolleston.

"The importance of a suitable ground plan for cases in museums seems

to be much underrated. When a class of students visit a museum

frequently, the localities of cases containing special groups become

indelibly impressed upon the memory. This might be turned to good

account.

"In preparing the first scheme of the collection, it seemed essential

that plain and moderately-simple printed descriptions of the

life-history of the animals should accompany the specimens; therefore,

as it was clearly impossible to describe every genus, it became

necessary to fix on some mode of associating in groups a number of

examples to which the descriptions might apply. Such divisions as

'classes' and 'orders' were manifestly too large, whilst 'families'

varied from a single genus, including a solitary species, to an army

of more than a thousand genera--e.g, the Linnaean families

Cerambycidae and Curculionidae in the Coleoptera. It was with some

regret that the idea of attaching a readable sketch to each division

of a given rank in recent systems of classification was relinquished;

but it was found to be impracticable, and the life-history sketch thus

became the foundation of the arrangement eventually adopted.

"Whether it might be a few species, or a genus, or a family, or an

order, that seemed to afford suitable scope for a page of readable and

instructive matter, it was decided that, throughout the entire

collection, such a group should be segregated, so as to form the unit

of the series. Eventually, in order that the sketches, which it was

proposed to print for that purpose on tablets, might all be in

positions where they could conveniently be read, it was found to be

expedient that each group or unit should occupy an equal space; and as

the blocks on which the table-cases rested were to be fitted up with

trays or drawers, twelve of which would occupy the table-case without

loss of room, these trays or drawers were adopted as the receptacles

and boundaries of the groups.

"The entire plan of the table-cases, and the limits of many of the

groups, were committed to writing before any considerable advance had

been made in procuring specimens. In one respect this circumstance was

found to be very advantageous--our desiderata were at once well

defined. It was an object that each of the groups should be

illustrated by carefully-selected specimens, and, until this could be

attained, other acquisitions need not be sought for. In making

purchases, such an object, steadily kept in view, exercises a powerful

influence against the seductive attractions of 'great bargains,' which

often turn out to be great misfortunes to a museum. Moreover, in

accepting donations, it is sometimes convenient to be able to refer to

a fixed plan. Where room is scanty, as in most museums, nothing is

more subversive of order, or more fatal to an instructive arrangement,

than the gift of a collection, coupled with a stipulation that it must

be displayed in some special way. [Footnote: We possess in the

Leicester Museum a very fine collection of the whole of the "British"

Birds (totally devoid, however of a history of the specimens) called

the "Bickley Collection"--bequeathed to the town under these

conditions--which, could we have used it to embellish our present

arrangement, would have saved money, and, what is still more

important, the entire wall space of a small room now devoted to them.]

It is far better to forego the possession even of a valuable series of

specimens than to sacrifice order for their sake . . . .

The following is the plan of arrangement adopted in connection with

each group: Wherever circumstances permit, the plan for each group

includes (1) A printed schedule, (2) Exotic species, (3) British

representatives, (4) The printed tablet, (5) Earliest fossils, (6)

Diagrams and other illustrations, (7) Species and varieties on a more

extended scale."

The schedule, of which an example follows, is printed in large type,

and is attached conspicuously to the drawer:

GROUP 222.

SUB-KINGDOM

PROVINCE

CLASS

SUB-CLASS

ORDER

SUB-ORDER

FAMILY

Annulosa

Arthropoda

Insecta

Metabola

Lepidoptera

Rhopalocera

Papilionidae

Skeleton external, ringed.

Limbs jointed.

Legs, six.

Transformations complete.

Wings with scales.

Horns clubbed at the apex.

Middle nerve of fore-wing 4-branched.

The whole "Synopsis," published at a shilling, by the authorities of

the Liverpool Museum, is well worth reading. It contains a store of

information, not the least interesting being the Greek and Latin

derivations of the scientific names. I am especially glad to see that

the Greek characters are not barbarously replaced by English

"equivalents," which nearly always fail to give the key to the roots.

[Footnote: I noticed "Ocnai gunaike" written in a scientific work

lately, and I thought I never saw a sentence so ugly and so unlike

what it would be if written in Greek characters or properly

pronounced.]

The cases themselves are excellently adapted to show the specimens,

and the plan--if we except the division labelled "British," which

might be advantageously altered, I think, to "Animals belonging to the

above group (etc.), found also in Britain"--is admirable. Not only are

objects dried, mounted, or shown in spirits, but first-class coloured

drawings of such creatures as Medusae, etc, are provided. This is, I am

sure, a step in the right direction, and I so recognise the importance

of this, that I am preparing charts of parts, etc, of animals as keys

to their structure, and also enlarging minute forms under the

microscope, to be placed in position in the invertebrate cases for the

Leicester Museum.

Another very fine feature of the Liverpool Museum, and worthy of

imitation, is the manner in which the osteological preparations are

managed. Not only are complete skeletons of mammals shown, but parts

for comparison--that is to say, there is a large series of skulls of

various mammals, birds, reptiles, and fishes, and, again, leg and arm

bones, and their parts, arranged side by side; hence you may compare

the fore-limb of the human subject with that of a monkey, a lion, a

whale, a marsupial, a bird, a reptile, or a fish. [Footnote: Of

course, all this may be seen in the Museum of the College of Surgeons,

or at Oxford or Cambridge, etc, but these are special institutions, and

I am merely taking provincial general museums as my standpoint.]

It is needless to say--taking into consideration the fact that these

are prepared under the direction of the curator, Mr. Moore, and his

accomplished family--that all are beautifully arranged and classified.

In short, Liverpool is to be congratulated on its collections of bones

and invertebrates. Turning, however, to the vertebrates, we see that,

although the management begins to recognise the importance of

"pictorial" mounting, it is done in a half-hearted manner--isolated

groups here and there, on square boards, placed in the general

collection amongst the birds, on pegs, serving only to render the

latter more conspicuous in their shortcomings. This system of

Liverpool is being copied at Nottingham, Derby, and other places, and

was being copied also at Leicester, but not being, to my mind, half

thorough enough, has been discarded for the more ambitious--certainly

more effective--and quite as scientific method of arranging the

vertebrates pictorially, and in their proper sequence in orders and

families, endeavour being made to represent specimens of each genus

also, where practicable, in this manner.

As will be seen, in making a brief résumé of what has gone before, I

am in favour of large, top-lighted rooms, painted in a light neutral

tint, well warmed; cases built in oak, with single sheets of

plate-glass not less than 7 ft. 6 in. by 5 ft. or 8 ft. by 5 ft. 4 in,

artificially lighted by pendants shaded from the eye; the vertebrates

to be pictorially mounted both in the "general" and "local"

collections, but, of course, zoological sequence and science not to

suffer in consequence; I think that the "local" and "general" typical

collections should be entirely distinct though close to each other in

the same room for comparison; that extreme care should be taken in the

collection and mounting of the animals inhabiting the district, and

that no opportunity be lost of making this latter as complete as

possible; that anything for which the locality is famed, be it fossils

or antiquities, be the chief motif of any provincial museum; that,

failing this, some groups or forms be collected to establish a

monograph, such as Norwich is doing with its Accipitres; that, where

practicable, bones and complete skeletons of animals should be

collected, as being, of the greatest service to all students, be they

medical or biological.

Also that explanatory charts and lists take the place of labels for

the vertebrates, and that all information as to range and distribution

of species be given. Further, that anatomical diagrams and figures

explanatory of the structure and form of animals be provided, together

with all facilities for the study of biology from a scientific

stand-point. I have also laid down the axiom that a very small museum

must and should confine itself to objects collected in its immediate

vicinity, but that a fairly large museum would ever be in a disjointed

and unfurnished state if it relied solely on such specimens. It must,

therefore, have a general collection; and care should be taken in the

selection of specimens so that they may fill up the blanks occurring

in the "local."

Another thing I am quite assured of; it is that the management should

exercise a wise discretion in refusing unsuitable objects (chiefly of

ethnology) or duplicates of common forms, and never receive a

collection if fettered with the condition that "it must be kept

separate." Order, method, neatness, and careful cataloguing I say

nothing about, for I assume that all principals must practise these

virtues to do any good whatever with the collections entrusted to

their care.

============================

Scanner's remarks.

This book seems to have been printed about 1885. I got my copy when I

was still a teenager (nth-hand; I am not really as old as all that!)

and have greatly enjoyed the enlightened, yet practical and

down-to-earth attitude of the writer. It seems to me a fine example of

late Victorian instructional material of the unpretentious persuasion.

Some of Browne's views were ahead of his time in terms of compassion

and conservation, so I urge modern readers not to sneer at what they

see as his out-of-date interest in "stuffed animals". Nor should they

take too patronising an attitude to Browne's long paragraphs and

occasionally strained concordances; he was not a professional writer

and he produced a fine, readable, and useful work. Both to the

biologist and historian of science, the book remains useful to this

day, and, as books of that period disappear for good, I hope, in

scanning it, to prevent a sorry loss to our generation and to those

who follow us. Though I nowhere edited his wording or punctuation in

any other way, no matter how much self-control this occasionally

demanded, I did split a lot of paragraphs, especially when they

spanned pages and thereby confused lines of thought.

In transcribing this book I have generally kept as truly to the

original as I could, including when Browne's (or possibly his editors')

conventions for the use of quotes and parentheses set my teeth on

edge. However, for lack of convenient font characters and sophistication

of scanning software, I have converted most of the vulgar fractions to

decimals. The others I have represented with slashes, so that say,

a value of one third might appear as 1/3. Similarly, I have split

ligatured characters such as the ligatured "ae" and "oe" frequent

in late Latin in particular. Also, following a practical and common

convention, I have replaced the umlaut with a following letter "e".

Thus "Möller" becomes "Moeller".

Browne frequently cross-referred readers to pages in the book. As

pages got changed in scanning and editing, I have changed such page

references mainly to chapters or similar references.

There were several places where changes (generally advances, I hope!)

in technical biology, or possibly slips that Browne made in matters

outside his speciality, led to errors. I have not corrected these in

the text of course, nor do I discuss many of them. After all, most

readers who can recognise the errors in modern terms do not need my

assistance in correcting them, and to the other readers they would

hardly matter. Here however are comments on a few arbitrarily chosen

points, in no particular sequence:

* Browne seems to have worked before hydrogen peroxide became

generally available, or possibly before its bleachng powers were

recognised. For bleaching most biological specimens, especially

bones and the like, hydrogen peroxide is in every way better, less

offensive, less corrosive, and less damaging to tissues, than

hypochlorite. Soaking even badly yellowed teeth in say, a "five

volumes" concentration (about 1% to 2%) of peroxide for a few days or

weeks, whitens them beautifully without damage or rotting of tissues.

You might find that other peroxide compounds, such as perborates,

work better still, but I have not yet had occasion to use them.

Other methods of bleaching only are worth trying when the specimens

happen to contain a particular pigment that does not respond well

to peroxide bleaching. Some such pigments are better bleached with

other chemicals, such as sulphites or hypochlorites.

* It takes some trawling through the book to discover that by "mites"

in insect collections, Browne probably means "booklice", i.e.

Psocoptera.

* Earwigs (Dermaptera) are not Hemiptera, as Browne classed them.

Dermaptera and Hemiptera are not even closely related. The error is an

interesting one however. It presumably arose from a nineteenth-century

confusion of the hemelytra of the Hemiptera, with the short tegmina,

the covering fore-wings of the Dermaptera, that protect their hind

wings when they are not in flight. Hemelytra of Hemiptera are not

really half-wings anyway, but protective fore-wings armoured for only

about half their length. The two orders do not even resemble each other

in appearance, anatomy, habits or ecological significance.

* Browne uses a few terms not easily to be found in every dictionary

nowadays. Dowlas is (was) a coarse kind of linen, but probably Browne

referred to a strong calico in imitation of such linen. For "filister"

read "fillister"; according to more or less contemporary dictionaries,

it is a misspelling. It turns out to be a type of rabbet plane used in

making window frames and similar structures.

* For setting insects on a setting board, I was slightly surprised at

Browne's use of "braces" and the like. Nowadays everyone I know uses

strips of smooth, non-sticky, translucent paper or similar material for

the purpose, and I had not realised that any other methods had been

used in the past. The use of such strips is easy, fast and effective.

It permits one to set large numbers of insects almost in an assembly

line fashion, working from the far end of the board towards oneself,

laying the tape over the wings, blowing or gently dragging the wings

into position, pinning down the tape, and proceeding to the next insect.

* If you get a small fish alive, then there is absolutely no way to

set it more perfectly than by dropping it alive into rather strong

acetic acid. This is not generally practical for say, a large salmon,

but for anything of manageable size, it leaves the gills, jaws, and

fins fully and stiffly extended. Strong formaldehyde has a similar

effect, but not as good. Immediately the specimen is stiff and dead (a

few seconds at most) remove it from the acid and rinse it gently with

clean, cold water, then transfer it to a solution of ammonium

carbonate, lime water, or similarly gentle alkaline material, to

neutralise the acid before proceeding with whatever means of

preparation you intended. See also the means I describe for preventing

acid damage.

* If you happen to use hypochlorite or any other compound that

releases chlorine, and you then wish to remove the residues, first

rinse your specimens clean as well as is convenient, then soak them in

very weak peroxide for a while. Hypochlorite and peroxide react with

each other to produce free oxygen (harmless) and chloride (also

harmless in any plausible concentrations). The effect is to neutralise

any harmful or irritating residues or smell of chlorine.

* In at least one place I was surprised to see that Browne speaks of

pinning insects exactly through the middle. Nowadays this is not

widely done because one risks damaging structures on the median line

of the specimen. Instead the common convention is to pin specimens

somewhat to the right of the median, so that anything damaged on the

right can generally be seen undamaged on the left. When setting

beetles or the like, this usually means pinning them through the right

elytron. Commonly one then may set the specimen with the left elytron

and wing spread. Not all beetles will permit this of course, as many

flightless species have their elytra fastened down, and some, such as

many Scarabaeidae, flip their flying wings out pen-knife-like without

noticeably raising the elytra.

* No doubt the non-toxic soaps and so on that Browne describes do work

as advertised, but for keeping pests of dried material at bay, for

protecting hides, preserved insects and so on, do not copy the recipes

from this book. Though many of Browne's observations are in every way

practical and intelligent, our current knowledge of safe, persistent,

effective insecticides would not emerge for some fifty or sixty years

after his death. And, please, please! Though Browne was realistic in

his assessment of the dangers of the chemicals he describes, bear in

mind that even his precautions were insufficient for modern purposes.

Above all, be very wary of the mercurial recipes he mentions!!! It is

true that mercuric chloride is very effective, but I cannot think of a

single modern reason to use it. Today we have much safer, more

appropriate, materials at our disposal, including some very effective

fumigants that Browne would have coveted.

* Note that among the substances that Browne fails to warn us against,

are those that certainly are of low acute toxicity, but present

serious risks of chronic medical conditions or cancer, unrecognised in

his day. His much beloved "benzoline" seems to have been largely

benzene, which nowadays is regarded as a carcinogen, and for many

purposes too dangerous to handle. Before this became generally known I

personally handled benzene in totally unacceptable ways, but so far I

seem to have been lucky, and I seem to have given up tempting fate

before I incurred dangerous symptoms.

* Browne seems to me a bit too cheerful about high-pinned insects

being protected from some museum pests. High pinning might help a

little, but it most certainly is nowhere near adequate. I have

seen entire cases reduced to labelled pins standing among Dermestid

beetle frass. Use modern insecticides and carefully sealed drawers

or cases. I like the new pyrethroids, but keep in touch with museums

to be sure you know the best current means of protection. Grease

from pinned insects has caused me less of a problem than Browne

describes, but possibly that is because I always have used the

high-pinning techniques, never having known any other.

* When it comes to setting insects Browne was no doubt very artistic

and very competent at producing a presentable specimen no matter what,

but some of his procedures for cheerfully snipping insects and

re-assembling them should be avoided. Such expedients could ruin

specimens intended for the use of professional entomologists. For the

requirements of biological studies, it is far more important to have

a fully genuine specimen, no matter how badly disfigured, than a

hopefully reconstructed mosaic, no matter how artistic. For some

purposes one could use more radical "relaxing" procedures instead.

Browne seems to have used only cool water vapour or sometimes liquid

water. Careful application of hot steam can relax most specimens that

otherwise could not be re-set. One good trick (Beware of the risks of

cuts and scalding if your apparatus should burst!) is to boil water

in a closed vessel, leading the steam out into a tube, preferably of

silicone rubber, tipped with a drawn glass tube or the blunted needle

of a syringe. Direct steam at the parts that need relaxing. With

practice you often can relax legs or wings one at a time, stopping

as soon as they reach the desired position.

* Note too, that Browne is cheerful about mounting some insects by

gumming their feet (tarsi) to card. For entomological purposes this

has severe disadvantages. Nowadays professionals hardly ever use any

means of setting that prevent one from examining a specimen from all

sides. Even mounting them on a transparent material tends to interfere

with proper examination. For most purposes pin the insects using what

Browne called "flat" setting, high on the pin, with the label beneath.

Where this is not practical, such as for tiny specimens, there are

other methods, which you may see described in manuals or used in

museums.

* Note: Browne wrote in pre-decimal days, using largely the so-called

Imperial units. This might raise difficulties in understanding his

quantities. E.g. his dram or drachm (drm) probably was 0.125 ounce

(roughly 3.5 grams). His pound would be sixteen ounces (oz.) of 28.35

grams, but his pint would be twenty fluid ounces (not 16 as in

American pints!) Correspondingly his gallon would be ten pounds, not

eight. A grain would be about 65 mg. Of other units and utensils

apparently common in Browne's day, such as "six-pound Australian meat

tins", or "goffering-irons", make what sense you may. A

"wine-bottleful" was probably about 700 cc.

* Note: I have had little use for hexavalent chrome compounds but

one thing I did notice in experimenting with a few of Browne's

recommendations ("bichromates", "chromic acid" etc), is that the

merest few drops of such compounds (typically as a solution of potassium

dichromate or chromate) added to water containing soft creatures such

as molluscs, generally will kill them gently by paralysis and

leave them relaxed. Usually almost anything else one uses, short of

illegal or expensive drugs, causes such specimens to distort or

contract into useless lumps. Once the chromate has thoroughly killed

and relaxed them, say after an hour or two, the specimens can be fixed,

preserved, or manipulated as required. You may wish to compare this

method with the method that I describe for killing molluscs with

boiled water.

* One effective way of killing molluscs, particularly gastropods,

snails and the like, whether terrestrial, freshwater or marine, in

fully extended form, is to put them into cool or barely lukewarm,

freshly-boiled water that has been kept closely covered in airtight

containers for cooling without permitting a lot of oxygen to

re-dissolve in the water. First rinse the live specimens in fresh

water to clean away superficial dirt and slime, then submerge them in

the de-oxygenated water. Place some sort of grid or other barrier to

ensure that they cannot get near the surface, and re-seal the

container to keep air out. Leave them for at least twenty-four hours

before transferring them to a preservative fluid or otherwise

proceeding to deal with them. This method leaves them fully extended

and firm, ready for dissection or for preservation for display. If you

remove them too soon, they at first seem dead, but contract say, when

a scalpel stimulates a still-living nerve.

* The cyanide bottle for killing insects certainly could be very

useful, though I am not certain how widely such a dangerous substance

would be available nowadays. Many forms of killing bottle have been

used in the last century or so, and several are described in many

handbooks. An old favourite handbook of mine is the British Museum

Instructions to Collectors (Insects). Most killing bottles depend on

some volatile liquid soaked into plaster, rubber or cotton wool. My

own favourite was ethyl acetate, which is safe, inoffensive, and has

several advantages, as long as the bottle and fluid are kept free from

moisture. For some reason the presence of water seems to reduce its

effectiveness at quickly immobilising specimens. Dry ethyl acetate

paralyses most insects very quickly, even if it takes longer to kill

them. For example, unlike many popular components of killing bottles,

ethyl acetate leaves dead specimens relaxed.

* When you have treated wet specimens with anything acid, do remember

to neutralise the acid residues as soon as possible. The same applies

if you have preserved them with anything that gradually produces acid;

For example, formaldehyde gradually reacts with oxygen to produce

formic acid. In due course it destroys shells, and even fine bones and

teeth. As a buffer, ammonia is cheap, effective and safe in reasonable

circumstances. However, it is too volatile to be a reliable buffer

against long term acidity. Specimens preserved in formaldehyde can be

protected in the long term by adding hexamethylenetetramine (otherwise

known as hexamine, the product of ammonia and formaldehyde) to the

liquid. A practical proportion is to add 100 grams of hexamine to a

litre of concentrated formaldehyde solution (formalin). Dilute this

solution before use, according the requirements of your particular

application. If you cannot get hexamine, you can use strong ammonia

(about 36%) solution, about 150 ml to 1 litre of formalin. In preparing

to use such formalin, allow for the fact that in adding the ammonia you

diluted the formalin by about one sixth. Alternatively, though usually

less effectively, you could add some ammonium carbonate or sodium

bicarbonate to the container. Sometimes a little oyster-shell grit

or chalk will do for long-term buffering; it can be used together

with the hexamine and can go on working after the hexamine is exhausted

if the collection is poorly maintained. Use your good sense in adapting

your measures to your needs.