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