RD /i W 1 nof; o 6 Bulletin British Museum (Natural History) Historical Series VOLUME 17 NUMBER 1 25 MAY 1989 IF' The Bulletin oj the British Museum ( .\atuial History), instituted in 1949, is issued in four scientific series. Botany, Entomology, Geology (incorporating Mineralogy) and Zoology, and an Historical series. The Historical Series is edited in the Museum's Library Librarian: Mr R. E. R. Banks Editor: Miss P. Gilbert Papers in the Bulletin are primarily the results of research carried out on the unique and ever-growing collections of the Museum, both by the scientific stalT and by specialists from elsewhere who make use of the Museum's resources. Many of the papers are works of reference that will remain indispensable for years to come. A volume contains about 256 pages, made up of two numbers: published Spring and Autumn. Subscriptions may be placed for one or more of the series on an Annual basis. Individual volumes and back numbers can be purchased and a Bulletin catalogue, by series, is available. Orders and enquiries should be sent to: Sales Department, Natural History Museum Publications, British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road. London SW7 5BD Telephone: 0\-93S-93S6 Telex: 929437 NH PUBS G Fa.v. 01-938-8709 World List abbreviation: Bull. Br. Mus. luit. Hisi (hist. Ser.; © British Museum (Natural History). 1989 ISBN 565 09011 9 Historical Series ISSN 0068 2306 Vol 17. No. 1. pp. 1 165 British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road London SW7 5BD Issued 25 May 1 989 Typcici by J & L Composition!^. Filcy. Nonh Yorkshire Pnnicd b> Hcnrj Ling Ltd, at ihc Dorset Press. Dorchester Doreci Bui! Br Mm. Niir Hisi (hist. Sc-r ) 17( 1 ) I-Ih5 Issued 25 May 1989 Notes on Insects, 1692 & 1695 By Charles duBois Edited with an introduction b\ L. JESSOP Department of Entomologv, British Museum of Natural Cromwell Road. London 'SW7 5BD CONTENTS Introduction 1. .®'!^/?".'SH. MUSLUM Life of Charles duBois f . . . . l>l*J!'!'.' ! . 'jl VP/;ri Notes on the Manuscript | "a-Hi*-! Further Reading j .4.v!vW.!.9,6v. References i ti..>cf-^M^„„. . . Appendix (duBois correspondence) ; . i .1. .,. ^-^^y. i;u"-A-e,'.- Facsimile and Transcription of the "■■^■■f-npt "' . ■JUlrj, X 1 2 13 21 21 23 29 INTRODUCTION Entomology in the seventeenth century is most commonly exemplified in the modern mind by Mouffet's Theater of Insects. That work, with its wealth of superstitions and ridiculous remedies, provides a strong reinforcement of modern prejudices about the inadequacies of past scientists, yet in reality it is atypical of the entomological scene of the times when it was published. When both manuscripts and serious published works of the period are examined, what is constantly surprising is the straightforward, common- sense approach of most of the naturalists of the time: John Ray, for instance, wnMe to Hans Sloane in April 1699 (teste Lankester, 1898) The most I have done is in observing the generation and transmutations of the papilionaceous tribe, of which I have found at least 2IH1 species near my own habitation, necdum finitae, every year bringing new ones to my knowledge. Of these, as many as I could get the eggs or caterpillars of, 1 have fed and endeavoured to brmg to their changes, though I have failed in many. This hath taken me up no small time and pains. Apart from the archaic language, these sentences may well have been written by a naturalist of the late twentieth century. The notebook reproduced here belongs to the tradition of John Ray rather than Thomas Mouffet. It is the work of Charles duBois, who is now chiefly remembered as a botanist and horticulturalist. When he wrote the work, duBois was a reasonably wealthy London merchant involved in the silk trade, and he was then in his mid thirties. His social circle at the time he was writing probably already included several of the leading naturalists on the London scene, whose activities seem lo have been as much social as scientific. Why duBois wrote the notebook is not known; it may have been an attempt lo dehne what he knew of the insects as a whole or of the insect fauna local to Milcham, but there was probably also an additional element of enjoyment in drawing the figures that 2 L. JESSOP accompany the descriptions; considerable time must have been spent in their production, and they are of tine quahty. These notes may originally have been intended for publication (although there is no evidence of such an intention). If so. duBois may have deferred to Petiver and to Ray, who was in 1695 working towards his Historia Insectorum . It must be remembered that at the time the notebook was written there were no identification guides available of the sort that we have now. In the absence of books to help him. it is probable that duBois turned to other naturalists for assistance — men such as James Petiver, for instance, who contributed a specimen that is figured in the notebook, kept his own insect collecting diary and published some of his collecting records in the Monthly Miscellany and elsewhere. The present work reproduces duBois" text in facsimile and as a transcript, and transcripts are also appended of his surviving correspondence. A summary is given of what is known about Charles duBois' life and times. This summary has no pretentions to being complete: there are probably a number of further references to the man buried among the mass of letters in the Sloane MSS and in the Journal Book of the Royal Socieiv. and there may be further information to be gleaned from census and ta.\ records in the Public Record Office. A detailed account drawing on all sources was thought inappropriate to this publication, which is primarily concerned with presenting the text of the notebook. The Spelling, and Possible Pronunciation of duBois' Name: In his letters and will Charles duBois always signed his name with a lower case d and without a space between the u and B. and this usage is followed in the present publication. Other authors have given the name as Dubois or Du Bois, and their orthography is followed when the text of works is cited. A note on the verso of Add. MSS 22,851 f. 186 spells the name as Du Boys. If this was written by someone who had heard the name but not seen it written, it could be an indication of how it was pronounced. References to Entries in the Notebook Where entries in the notebook are discussed below, they are numbered according to their place in the various sections. Thus 'notes 5' is the fifth entry in the notes section. 'Papilio 9" the ninth in the genus Papilio, and 'Tunbridge Wells 4' the fourth species described from Tunbridge Wells. LIFE OF CHARLES DUBOIS The following account is broadly based on that of Foster (1924: 113-124). Unfortunately. Foster did not provide references to many of his sources of information, and his account is here taken at face value. Where additional information has been obtained in the course of the preparation of the current work or where facts quoted by Foster have been checked to their source, the source is cited. CHARLBS DUBOIS INSECT NOTES i Background Charles duBois belonged to a Huguenot family that had already been living in England for at least two generations. He was the eldest son of John (aka Jean) duBois, who described himself in his will as citizen and weaver of London (P.R.O. 1 1/378 [169 Hare]). Charles" date of birth is usually given as 1656 (Foster, 1924 claimed it was 1653): his gravestone indicates that he was 83 years old when he died, which was on the 20 or 21 October 1741), and that places his date of birth between the 22 October 1656 and the 19 October 1657. No record of baptism has been traced. The records of L'Eglise de Londres in Threadneedle Street report a marriage on the 1 1 January 1652 between Jean duBois, son of Jean, native of Canterbury and Anne Herle, daughter of Charles Herle, 'Ministre de la Parolle de Dieu", native of Winwick in the County of Lancaster. Anne Herle was probably Charles" mother, and she must have died while he was still a boy, since his father re-married in 1662. Foster (1887) in a register of London marriage licences recorded that John duBois of the parish of St Mary Aldermanbury, a widower aged 40, took out a licence on the 10 September to marry Sarah Waldo, a spinster aged 22, daughter of Anne Waldo, of All Hallows, Honey Lane, London, widow, who consented, the marriage to take place at All Hallows aforesaid, or St Faith, London (dated 10 Sept. 1662). It would appear that the marriage took place neither at All Hallows nor at St Faith, as the register of L"Eglise de Londres (Threadneedle Street) records the marriage occurring there on 27 July 1662. John duBois was still described as a native of Canterbury, and Sarah Waldo as daughter of Daniel Waldo, native of London. There are seven sons and one daughter mentioned in John duBois" will. The Waldo family had been living in England since the mid sixteenth century and contained several wealthy merchants among its members (Jones, 1863). The only Waldo listed in the 1666 hearth tax records for All Hallows Honey Lane was Edward, a mercer of the Streete Syde, who was taxed for seven hearths (P.R.O. E179 252/32). A note in the same set of records says that there was no collection in St Mary Aldermanbury because the collector was 'appointed to begin his collection on Monday the 3rd day of September, 1666 but was prevented by the fire". The duBois and Waldo families could probably be classed as fairly wealthy members of the London community. The parishes they lived in were themselves well-to-do areas of the city (St Mary Aldermanbury had been described by Stow in 1603 as follows: 'In this Alderman bury streete be diverse faire houses on both the sides, meete for marchants or men of Worship, and in the midst thereof is a fayre Conduit"), whilst the seven hearths of the Waldo household is a mark of substantial prosperity, as is the situation of their house (not in a yard or lane, but in a street) (see Power in Beier & Finlay, 1986, for a discussion of indicators of wealth in seventeenth century London). Their profession was not unusual: about 20% of the population of the city was employed in the cloth trade at that time (Beier in Beier & Finlay, 1986), about half of those listed in the All Hallows Honey Lane parish in the 1666 hearth tax return being silkmen (P.R.O. E179 252/32). Charles duBois himself later also joined the cloth trade, being bequeathed in his lather's will a share in a mercer's business and the silk trade. These businesses were also part-owned by his fathers brother, also called Charies (PRO. wills 1 1/378 [169 Hare]). Charles duBois" knowledge of the silk trade is implied in the description of the species 'notes 43", the tail of which he describes as being 'large and very hairy, blunt at the end like that of the papilio of a silk worm". Assuming that Charles duBois spent his childhood in London, among his early memories would have been the outbreak of plague in 1665, which killed almost one-fifth and incapacitated up to one-third of the population of London (see Slack in Beier & Finlay, 1986) and the great fire of 1666, which destroyed almost all of the City of 4 I . JESSOP London, including the whole of the parishes of St Mar>' Aldermanbury and All Hallows Honey Lane. Unfortunately no evidence relating to his early life has vet conic to light, the earliest record of his existence being in 16S4. when he was mentioned in his father's will, at which time he would have been about 28 years old. Presumablv he was then already occupied somehow in the cloth trade, as he was considered fitted b\ his father to take over part of the famiU business on his death. No evidence has been found of Charles duBois ha\ insi married. John duBois and Politics John duBois is known to have been involved in the political life of the City of London. In 1682 there was a political struggle between the Royal Court and the Whigs, who were determined to exclude the Duke of York from the succession. It was felt by the Court that it was important that the government of the City of London should be in svmpathetic hands. In the election of two Sheriffs. John duBois and Fhomas Papillon (who were probably old friends, both being chosen in \b>7 by the French Church in Limdon to remonstrate with the committee appointed by Cromwell to settle disputes in that bod\ ) were nominated by the Whigs in opposition to two candidates fa\oured bv the Lord Mayor (who supported the Court). The candidates were presented to the citi7cns on Midsummer Day. and as the meeting was in the favour of the Whig candidates, the Lord Mayor declared the meeting adjourned. The citizens, ignoring the order of adjournment, declared Papillon and duBois elected. This election was declared void and a fresh one ordered, which resulted in Papillon and duBois again being returned, but the Lord Mayor ignored the decision and announced that the two Court candidates had been chosen. In February l(iS4. Papillon and duBois issued writs against the Lord Ma\or lor making a false return, and on his refusing to enter an appearance, he was arrested and detained in custody for six hours. After the action had been abandoned, the Mavor retaliated by claiming £10. ()()() damages for false impnsonment. The trial took place under the notorious Chief Justice Jeffreys, who secured a verdict for the lull amount claimed. Papillon tied to Utrecht until the Revolution made it safe for him to return to London. The Lord Mayor would probably then have turned his attention to duBois. but by that lime the latter was dead: his burial is registered at the parish church of St Mary .Aldermanbury on the 30 October 1684 and his will was proved on the .^ November. John duBois was elected a Committee of the East India Company in 1681 (Committee was the title given to each of the 24 directors elected annually by the East India Compaiu to manage its affairs), possibly through the inlluence of Papillon. who was Dcputv Governor and at that time fighting the Lory section of the Companv. Papillon was replaced as Deputy Governor b\ Robert Thomson in 1682 and retired in 168.^. but John duBois remained a Committee until his death. John duBois' Son.s and the East India Company In April 1691 John duBois' son. also called John, became a Committee of the I-^ast India Company. He had married in July 1690. and the licence describes him as 'about 25", which would place his date of birth at about I66.S and thus make him the step-brother of Charles. John duBois the younger remained a member of the Court of the Company for six and a half years, and on M) September 1697 was appointed to the post of Cashier- (ieneral (usually called Treasurer) at a salary of £200 plus £100 a year gratuity. This appointment necessitated his retirement from the Court of the Company. CH \R1 1 sin IU1IS INSllMNCVnS 5 John iliiHois tlic \oungcr died in 1702. ;uul on 27 October 1702 ("luiilcs duRois \v;is appointed to the post ot C'ashiei-Cieneial. Charles diiBois ua\e seeinilv ol 14,|I00 tor the faitlilul diseliari;e of his duties. A Charles duBois was a Conmiittee Ironi April Id'-'S initil 17(W. but unless he was given permission to continue in that post at the same time as beini; Treasurer, this must have been a second person with the same name. During the tenure ol John duHois the younger, .ind ol Ch.irles duHois as Treasurer, the East India Company underwent tremendous ditticulties. The following sequence of events is taken from Hunter (UMl.S): \in^H 1-nemies of the Old I'ast India Conip.my formed an association allied lo ihe Whigs in Parliament, to break the nionopolv of trade Id'-'.i Sir Josia Child, In bribes 'on the most lavish se.ile', procured ,i tr.idmg ch.irtei liom the Crown. 1 (i''4 The I louse of Commons passed a resolution that all the subjects of England hav e a right to trade with the East Indies unless prohibited by Act of Parliament. l(i'*5 .An inquiry into briberv and corruption concerning the affair ruined several politicians. lO^^'S .-Xn .issocKition constituted bv .in .Vet of I'arli.inient. the '(ieneral Societv' (also known as the New Company), was granted exclusive trade with the Fast Indies, saving the rights o\ the C)ld Conipanv . which were due to expire in 17111 Ib^S Ihe Old Compain subscribed t.^l.s.OOO m the name of John duHois to the New Company, thus giv ing them a major uiterest in it. There followed a bitter struggle between the OUt and New Companies, both in Hngland and Indi.i. 1702 Under pressure from Crown and Parliament tlie two companies were forced into a union. I70S The union was made .ibsolute. The only reference to these struggles in Charles duBois' surviving manuscripts can be found in the letter he wrote to Ciovernor Pill in September 1702 (Add, MSS 22,851, ff. 1S4-IS.S — see appendix). Some records exist of Charles diiBois' saUirv (lOR llti7). In 1710 he was paid f20() a vear. and in I72.s £201) salary plus f'lOO graluitv His standing in the (\impany can be deduced from the fad thai in 1710 onlv two home ofticers were paid a higher salary: the Seeretarv (£240) and the .•Xcconiplant Cieneral (i;2.s(l). T'oster ( l'>24) mentions that on 27 March 172.^ Charles duBois was given a gratuity of >00 guineas and on S March 17.^2 a similar amount, with an allowance of t'.sO a year for house rent. 1-urther indicators of the wealth of the duBois family are that at the time of the union of the two companies Charles duBois held stock to the value of £2.885 12s,. while almost £5.000 worth of stock was held by three of his step-brothers. The final amalgamation of the Old and New Companies required a reconsideration of the ofticers employeil, but Charles duBois must have proved satisfactory, as he was eonlirmed in his post on 2*1 May 1704. In addition to his position as Treasurer of Ihe United C\inipanv. Charles duBois was one of Ihe seven Trustees of the Old Company, becoming sole Iruslee in 17Vi on the death of the only other Trustee then surviving, T^dward Ciibbon. 6 L. JESSOP Financial Scandals In the later years of his life, Charles duBois was involved in two financial scandals in his work for the East India Company. First, on 5 August 1730. the Chairman announced at a General Court that six of the supercargoes of the fleet lately returned (including Charles" nephew. Waldo duBois, who was third supercargo) had been found to have conspired to falsify their accounts, despite the fact that the chief supracargo might fairly and honestly gain upon the success of one voyage from eight to ten thousand pounds, and the rest in proportion". An action brought against the culprits in the Court of Chancery resulted in them paying the Company almost £l.'i,(HH). On 12 June 1734 the Committee of the Treasury of the Company reported that they had found a deficiency in the cash of about £1 1 .()()(), arising from the officers" practice of taking buyers" notes instead of cash in clearing goods (despite strict orders to the contrary) and of lending money to officials of the East India Company. Charles duBois and a clerk named Tullidge (who seems to have been chiefly responsible) were examined, and Tullidge was suspended. Charles duBois was accjuitted of dishonesty, but was found guilty of lack of supervision and dereliction of duty in not acquainting the Court of the Company with the state of affairs. On 24 July 1734 a general court was held, at which a memorial from Charles duBois was read, pleading his great age (he was now about 78) and long service. He placed all blame on Tullidge. declaring that the latter had. four years back, without his knowledge accepted notes from merchants to an amount between £30.()()() and £40. ()()(). and that on discovering this he had been frightened to disclose the facts in case the position of the debtors should be irretrievably shaken and the money lost to the company altogether. He had himself managed to get in the greater part of the amount, and the total deficiency would not much exceed £3.000. Further, he declared that although £60.000.000 had passed through the treasury during his tenure, he had never drawn any illicit profit, and that in the year of the South Sea crash he had saved the company many thousands. His employers were merciful, and accepted £300 from him in full discharge of his liability. That his position in the Company was not compromised is shown by a gratuity of £150 given to him in December 1737 and another one in April 1740. duBois and Mitcham In his will. John duBois senior bequeathed to Charles "my house and land in Micham in Surrey with all the appurtenances thereunto belonging except the furniture in the best chamber there which 1 give & leave to the disposal of my executor" (P.R.O. 11/378 [169 Hare]). Mitcham at the turn of the eighteenth century appears to have been a pleasant area. It was described by Aubrey (1718: 142) as being 'situate about nine miles from London, and well inhabited, and much frequented by the citizens of our Metropolis". The house was situated on the south side of Upper Green East, and the grounds were about 15 acres in extent. The original house was pulled down towards the end of the eighteenth century, and replaced by another (The Firs), which has also been demolished, the site currently (1987) being occupied by a number of houses and shops. The boundarv of the I-'irs site is clearly shown in the Ordnance Survcv 25 inch: 1 mile map of 1867. Charles duBois was verified in the Mitcham vestry minutes of 18 June 1738 as being entitled in his own right to a pew in the north aisle of the parish church which the owners and occupiers of his house had enjoyed 'since time immemorial' (Surrey Record Office. Court Rolls of the Manor of Biggin and Tamworth: teste E. N. Montague, per. comm.). CHARLES DUBOIS INSECT NOTES ,~fT!if^li"\ -^■y, ,;*.', .).i^ .ttfc f .\' THE DU BOIS TOMB He is remembered for his generosity in donating £200 for the purchase of Queen Anne's Bounty to augment the meagre income of the vicar of Mitcham (Jones, 1863). Charles duBois lies buried in the family grave in Mitcham churchyard (Church Road, Mitcham) close by that of the Waldos on the north side of the church: his will specified that he should be buried on the side of the church 'where the fewest graves are" (P.R.O. 11/705 [264 Browne]). The inscription on the tomb slab indicated thai he died '20 Oct. A.D. 1740, aetat. 83' (although the Gentleman's Magazine for 1740 (p. 325) says the death was on the 21 October). The tomb stone was also inscribed with the names of Waldo duBois (his brother's son, who died on 20 February 1746), Ebeneezer duBois (Charles' stepbrother, who died on 14 April 1747) and Sarah Charlotte duBois (his niece, who died on 12 April 1757 — not to be confused with the Sarah Waldo who married Humphrey Sibthorp and who died on 1 August 1756). A figure of the grave was given in Foster (1924), and is reproduced above. Foster described the inscriptions as being barely legible and the slab as being broken into six pieces: in 1987 only two of those pieces could be located, one being face-down on the ground beside the grave and the other (bearing part of Sarah Charlotte's name and eulogy) lying at an angle on the grave site. In 1716 the court baron of the Mitcham manor of Biggin and Tamworth was notified of the death of Mary duBois, and approved the admission of her son Charles as a tenant of the manor holding land in 'the Commonfield of Mitcham called Blacklands'. This seems to indicate thai a second Charles duBois was living in the area at thai lime (E. N. Montague, pers. comm). It is not known which man leased from Mary Bait in 1736 'two parcels of customary land containing by estimation 10 acres more or less called Blowers or Cold Blows formerly in the occupation of Philip Gardner'. 8 L. JESSOP The Mitcham Garden In Loudon (1838: 62-63) is a reference to an account prepared bv the Society of Gardeners, which indicates duBois' importance as a horticuhurahst. It says that duBois 'has . . . not only been very industrious to procure plants from abroad, but also as generous in communicating whatever his garden would afford, as also many useful observations relating both to their culture and uses." Loudon also gave a brief account of the state of duBois" garden in Mitcham in 1835. and listed some of the trees planted by him that still remained: a very large weeping willow; a nettle tree, with branches covering a space 50ft in diameter and a trunk 6'M" in circumference; a pinaster with a clear trunk about 4011 high and a girth 3ft from the ground 4ft. and a total height of 60ft; an old. large and handsome mulberry tree, the branches of which covered a space 60ft in diameter; very old and large scots pines [hence the name of the house built on the site]; a very large stone pine; a large Prunus Mahaleb; a fine Pleleci irifoliula; a stag's horn sumach, with a trunk 6ft in girth, and an old Bignomia radicans and a large Arbutus (names as given by Loudon). Anon (1812) claimed that duBois 'was a great and celebrated botanist, and had an excellent botanic garden to his house on the upper green, where the fair is kept, at Mitcham, in Surrey", and Lambert's manuscript note about famous gardens (MS in the library of the Linnean Society of London) says that duBois had 'a Great Collection of stove plants &c in great perfection" (stove plants are plants that were grown in heated houses). duBois" reputation as a botanic gardener is indicated by entries in the minute books of the Royal Society reporting that he was being given batches of imported seeds to raise and then reporting back to the Society on his success (two entries seen: I March 1698/9, and 3 December 1701). Perhaps another indication of his standing is the dedication to him of the third decade of Bradley's Historia Plantarum Succulentarum in 1725. It would appear from Peter Collinson's letter to William Byrd II in 1730 (from a contemporary transcription in the Westover manuscripts, Virginia Historical Society. teste Dr A. W. Armstrong) that Charles duBois carefully observed different methods of cultivation, and passed his observations on to others. Collinson says: I will close this long relation with an observation of a very curious gentleman Mr Charles Dubois who in his travels thro' the South parts of France & Spain was very agreeably entertained in their gardens from variety of fruits growing together being regularly planted with cherries apples & pears and against every tree grew a vine which run up into the tree and was supported by its branches. & when he was there, was picntilully hung with fruit, and ripen'd to great perfection and a moderate skill in pruning served. A little can be deduced about duBois' garden from his insect notebook. For instance the references to 'The Rasps" (Musca quadripennis 1, Musca 5 & 15 and notes 28 & 36), 'Currans" (Scarabeus 14, Musca 7. Musca 15, Vespa 2 and Notes 1), an apple tree (Scarabeus 32), cherry leaves (Apis 4), 'Aprecock Leaves" (Musca 13 and notes 8) and a gooseberry bush (Scarabeus 29) indicate that he probably grew those fruits. Scarabeus 8 is described as being taken on a rose. Scarabeus 1 and 3 were taken whilst digging the ground in September, Scarabeus 24 out of new-dug earth in April, and the chrysalis of Phalaena 25 out of new-dug earth at the beginning of June. Thysanoptera (notes 29) are described as being associated with hot-beds, Scarabei aquatici 1 was taken in water in a pond, and this could have been the pond in the garden marked on the 1867 Ordnance Survey map. The garden probably also contained a water tub (Scarabeus 10), a woodshed (Phalaena 28) and an outside privy ('necessary house', notes 33). CHARLES DUBOIS INSECT NOTES 9 Scientific and Social Activities Towards the end of the seventeenth eentury, there was a group of naturaHsts in the London area, who possessed a considerable body of knowledge about natural history. It is unfortunate that because they published very little about their activities and findings, their knowledge perished with them, and as a corollary many of these figures now lie in relative obscurity Several of these naturalists were of a similar age: for instance, Joseph Dandridge (baptised 1664); James Petiver (born 1663); William Sherard (born 1659); Adam Buddie (born approx. 166(1); Sir Hans Sloane (born 166(1); Samuel Doody (born 1656); and of course Charles duBois (born ca 1656). Leonard Plukenet, who was born in 1641, was slightly older than the others. Fortunately a lot of the private correspondence of the participants in the natural history scene of that time found its way into the vast assemblage of papers now known as the Sloane manuscripts, and in recent years some historians have researched into these papers and presented interpretations of the activities of some of Charles duBois' contemporaries. Fasti (1950) (a doctoral thesis, a copy of which is in the BMNH), for instance, studied one of duBois' known associates, William Sherard. and Stearns (1952) summarised the life and activities of another associate, James Petiver. Fasti's work in particular contains much information on the naturalists of that time. The activities of the group of friends included meetings in coffee houses (Sloane MSS 4067, f.7), where they are known to have examined botanical specimens (Sloane MSS 4037, ff. 102-103). and in taverns (Sloane MSS 4066, f. 283-284). They also made botanical excursions (e.g. to Chislehurst bogg: Sloane MSS 4066, f.283). The group of naturalists was referred to by Pasti and Stearns as the Temple Coffee House Club, and as the Temple Coffee House Botany Club, but there is no evidence of contemporary use of these names. It was Pasti who first discovered the existence of a club at the Temple Coffee House, the earliest certain reference to which is in a letter from William Vernon to Sloane dated July 1698 (Sloane MSS 4037, ff. 102-103) in which Vernon says that he will bring a collection of plants every Friday night to be discussed. Only one other letter so far discovered (Sloane MSS 4067, f.7: undated) refers to a club at the Temple Coffee House. Stearns claimed that duBois was a member of the Temple Coffee House Botany Club, the evidence cited for this being Sloane MSS 4067, f.81 and Sloane MSS 4020, f.l()7 (the mayoral permit that allowed duBois and several friends to travel to Gravesend on a Sunday) (sec appendix for text). Sloane MSS 4067, f.81 is a letter from Petiver to Breynius, dated Christmas eve, 1692, and includes the sentence "Yesternight aft a Meeting of Botanick ffriends, amongst whom were present y^' Ingenious Dr Plukenett. Dr Sloan, Dr Robinson. Mr Newton, Mr Doody, Mr Dale, Mr Du-Bois &c, who all dranke & wisht y' health.' As neither of these letters refer either to a club or to the Temple Coffee House, there is no firm evidence presently known that proves duBois was a member of that club. Other than the letters cited in the appendix and Sloane MSS 4067. f.81 (quoted above) the only references to Charles duBois' participation in the scientific life of the group that have so far come to light are three letters cited in Nichols (1817); Mr Tillcman Botiart was with mc; and presently came Mr Maningham. with Mr Rand; and soon after that, Mr Dubois and my Brother. It is the first lime so many (lor there are few more) have met together since I came into England . . . wc remembered all our Botanic Friends. (10 May 17IU. William Sherard to Richard Richardson) I fear Mr Dubois has suffered as much as others. Not having been at Mitcham all the winter, till within this ten days, having been long ill: I called in on him this evening. 10 L. JF.SSOP and was told he was returned mueh heltcr. but was lain down. (28 March 1721. Sherard to Richardson, discussing gardens) Dr Dillenius ... is to go to Mitchain to view what Mr Dubois has. (Dillenius was preparing a book on Lichenes. Musci &c) (7 December 1721. Sherard to Richardson) Apart from the insect notebook presented here, which is dated 1692 and 1695, there is no evidence of Charles duBois" involvement in these activities before his letter to Sir Hans Sioane dated 29 May 1697 (Sloane MSS 4036, f.316: see appendix). An analysis of the Sloane correspondence, Collinson (1766) and Nichols (1817) as well as the duBois insect notebook provides us with a list of some of the naturalists of that time who were Charles duBois' acquaintances. The known names are: Tilleman Bobart, Joannes Philippus (aka Jacobus) Breynius, Peter Collinson. John Cox, Samuel Dale, James (?=Joseph) Dandridge, Dr J. J. Dillenius, Samuel Doody. Richard Fildon, Rev. Thomas Maningham, Joseph Miller. James Newton. James Petiver, Leonard Plukenet, Isaac Rand, Richard Richardson, Tancred Robinson, William Sherard and his brother James, Sir Hans Sloane, William Stonestreet and John Verdy. The only one of these scientific associates mentioned in Charles duBois' will was Isaac Rand, who was bequeathed £10, but as his profession (apothecary) was stated in the will, he may have served the duBois family in a professional capacity, as did Sloane (Sloane MSS 4056, f.62 — see appendix). duBois' friends outside the scientific world must have included men of considerable power, as in 1702 he described Robert Harley, then Speaker of the House of Commons, and Sir Francis Wyndham as being 'both my very kind friends' (Add. MSS 22851, f. 186 [see appendix]). Foster (1924) noted that a Charles duBois attended the funeral of Samuel Pepys in June 1703 and was given a ring value 15 shillings, but there is no evidence that it was this Charles duBois. duBois provided observations to John Ray, as Ray (1724: 364) includes the statement: Violae canlnae varietatem, si non speciem diversam ohservavit D. Du-Bois . . . Maio mense in pc2scuis circa Miicham. There is, however, no evidence that the two men ever met, although they did have mutual friends, e.g. Petiver & Sloane (see Raven, 1942 for information on Ray's associates), nor that he met Dr Buckley, who sent him curiosities from India (Add. MSS 22851, f.184-185 [see appendix]). The Introduction of Rice to Carolina Collinson (1766) gives an account of the introduction of rice into the (then) British colony of Carolina. It reads: In the year 1696. my sagacious friend Charles Dubois, then |sic| treasurer to the Ea<:t India Company, told me often with pleasure, that he first put the Carolinians on the culture of rice. He happened one day, in that year, to meet Thomas Marsh, a Carolina merchant, at the coffee house, to whom he said, 1 have been thinking, from the situation, nature of the soil, and climate, that rice may be produced to great advantage in Carolina: But says Marsh, how shall we get some to try? Why. says Dubois. 1 will enquire for it amongst our India captains. — Accordingly, a money bag full of Fmsi India rice was given to Marsh, and he sent it to South Carolina; and in the year 1698. he told his friend Dubois, that it had succeeded very well. A briefer account of Collinson's recollection is to be found in a draft letter from Collinson to Samuel Eveleigh dated 22 April 1737 (in the library of the Linnean Society, teste Dr A. W. Armstrong), which reads: CHARLES OLIBOIS' INSECT NOTES 11 Mr Dubois. Treasurer to the E. India Comp, who is yett Living, has Several times told Mee that att the request of Mr. Marsh a Marchant He Procur'd for him a Hundred pound Money bag of Rice to send to Carolina . . . Foster (1924) claims, however, that it was not Charles duBois but his step-brother John who was responsible for the introduction of rice to Carolina. It is of course possible that Charles utilised John's influence in the East India Company to help him in his scheme and John thus obtained some of the credit. It should be noted that rice did succeed very well in Carolina (see Collinson, 1766), but that further introductions were initially necessary before it became properly established. duBois and the Royal Society Charles duBois was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1700. At that time, election to Fellowship was not an honour conferred usually upon exceptionally outstanding scientists as it is now, but seems to have been open to anyone with a serious scientific interest. An index exists for entries in the Journal Book of the Royal Society up to the year 1700. Those concerning duBois are as follows: 13 April 1698; 'Mr Cha", Dubois presented an entire Cocode Maldivia [?Coco de Mer, Lodoicea maldntca] for which great rarity it was ordered y' he should have the thanks of the Society and that Mr Hunt should make an Exact Draught of it to represent it in sev' postures and y' it sH be carefully preserved in ye Repository.' 1 March 1698/9: It was reported that seeds from the East India collection had been examined by Sloane and given to Dr Uvedale. Mr Doudy [= Doody?). the Bishop of London, the Duchess of Beaufort, Mr Dubois and Mr Bobart, who would try to grow them and report back to the Society on their success. 30 November 170(1: Mr Charles Dubois, Capt. Edmund Hally and Mr John Chile of Oxford were also ballotted & Chosen Members of the Society.' Another entry has been seen in the Journal Book, dated 3 December 1701: a report that seeds from Virginia were to be divided between the 'Duchess of Beaufort, the Bishop of London, Dr Uvedale. Mr Waller, Mr Dubois and Mr Doody.' On 27 May 1714 it was reported that: Mr Charles DuBois some time since Chosen a ffellow of the R.S. being put to the ballot his Election was Confirmed, and being present sealed the Bond paid his Admission money Subscribed the obligation and was Admitted a Fellow of the R.S.' It is not clear why duBois waited 14 years between election and admittance. The Genus Duboisia The genus Duboisia (Scrophulariaceae) was described by Robert Brown (Brown. 1810). It has been claimed (e.g. in the Charles duBois entry in the Dictionary of National Biography) that Duboisia was named in honour of Charles duBois, yet there is no evidence in the original description to support the theory. Don (1838: 479) stated that Duboisia was named after Louis Dubois. 12 L. JESSOP Charles duBois' Collections In his will (P.R.O. 1 1/705 [264 Browne]), Charles duBois bequeathed to his brother-in- law Ebeneezer all of his books and also: all my Books of specimens of Dryed plants the cases and drawers in which the same are all my natural and artificial curiosities and samples of all my Roman and other coins and medalls and whatsoever shall be in my closet at Mitcham ... or in the gardens there to be held and enjoyed by him . . . except and rescr\ing unto my heire Sarah Charlotte duBois the liberty of taking to her own use such Books Coins and other curiosities in the said closet as she shall think fitt Concerning the library, several books are mentioned in the insect notebook and duBois' correspondence, but it is possible that he had seen some or all of these in the libraries of his friends. The only work that can be said with certainty to have been owned by duBois is Albin ( 1720) A Natural History of F.nglish Insects, as his name is among the list of subscribers. The next mention of the collection was in Anon (1812), which comprises notes made by Mendes da Costa on collections of naturalists. Da Costa says of duBois that "he had collections of shells, fossils &c of which I saw some at Mr Waldo's, junior, about 1760." Presumably on the death of Ebeneezer duBois the Closet and its contents had passed on to the nephew Waldo duBois. The present whereabouts of the Roman and other coins, books, shells, fossils etc. is not known: they may still exist or they may not, but the specimens of dried plants did survive and are now located in the collections of Oxford University, possibly being acquired by that institution through the influence of Sarah (grand-daughter of Samuel Waldo, Charles duBois' Stepmother's brother), who had married Humphrey Sibthorp, the Sherardian Professor of Botany in 1740 (Jones, 186.^: 16). The herbarium was described in detail by Druce (1928), who described the way in which it was badly treated under the direction of Professor Balfour. Druce also listed the British plants contained in the herbarium and some of the botanists who contributed specimens: most of the known British collectors of the period are represented as well as foreign botanists such as Pitton de Tournefort. Collections of plants from India and the Cape are mentioned as well as their collectors. The herbarium also contains specimens that Mark Catesby collected in America, which indicates that Charles duBois was one of those who provided the money for his expedition. He also subscribed to W. Houstoun's expedition to the Spanish colonies in the Americas in 1732 (Sloane MSS 405.3, f. 167). Charles duBois contributed specimens of plants to the Sloane herbarium, and these are discussed by Dandy (Dandy. 1958). If duBois had a collection of preserved insects and if they had been incorporated in the Sloane collection, they would almost certainly have perished in the "periodical bonfires of Sloanian specimens' held by W. E. Leach. By 1833 it was reported that "literally not a vestige' remained of Sloane's insect collection (Stearn, 1981:205-206). Charles duBois' Character It is usual in biographies to give some indication of the character of the person portrayed. In the case of Charles duBois there is not much on which to base a character analysis: his correspondence reveals very little about his private life, and he did not commit to paper any of those violent differences of opinion that generally cast light on historic personalities. CHARLES DUBOIS' INSECTNOTES 13 Although Charles duBois often signed his letters as 'your humble and obedient servant", it is to be doubted that this was any more than a formula: letter-writers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries had no more humility and obedience than twentieth century writers have sincerity or fidelity. No portrait is known to exist, so we cannot read his character from his features. The contemporary references to duBois" character are few. Petiver calls him his 'worthy friend' (Sloane MSS 2347 item 77), while Peter Collinson refers to him as 'a very curious gentleman'; curious in those days meaning full of curiosity, not implying strangeness as it does today (letter to William Byrd II, 1730 in Virginia Historical Society) and on another occasion calls him 'my sagacious friend' (Collinson, 1766). Because of the frequent references in his correspondence to meetings (at Coffee Houses or Drinking Houses or at the houses of his friends), Charles duBois leaves an overall impression of being a fairly 'clubable' character, yet it should be remembered that there is only a handful of such references in a life span of 83 years. Foster (1924) painted the following pen-picture: To myself 1 Hgure him as a kindly old gentleman in spectacles, riding down from London on a Friday evening, and reining in his nag to a walk as the lavender fields of Mitcham come into view; or later on, seated in his library over a cup of tea, telling his niece the news of the town and turning over the leaves of a botanical treatise to settle some question which has occurred to him during his journey; or next morning, in a shabby coat and with a bandanna handkerchief tied round his head, pottering about his sunny garden and in and out of his greenhouses, marking the progress of his latest importations and scribbling additions to his notes. Attractive as such a romantic picture of the man is, we should not forget that there is no evidence to support it. To the present editor, the deepest insight into Charles duBois' character is the phrase that occurs in the last paragraph of his will (P.R.O. 11/705 [264 Browne]), which was dated 29 April 1737, three years before his decease. It says: 'and now heartily and sincerely forgiveing all and every person whatsoever that have in any way injured me I most humbly recommend my Soul unto thy hands. ' What is most telling is not that he is remembering his friends, as most people would at such a time, but at the last remembering his enemies kindly. This marks him as an essentially good man. NOTES ON THE MANUSCRIPT Introduction The manuscript reproduced here in facsimile is now located in the Entomology Library of the British Museum (Natural History), where it has the press mark S.B.o D.I2 A. Notes on the hrst and last pages indicate that the work was purchased from Professor J. Percival of 'Leighton'. Shinlield Green, Reading, Berks by the British Museum (Natural History) on the 28 February 1945 for £4.00. The history of the manuscript is otherwise unknown. Professor John Percival (1863-1949) worked at the University of Reading between 1902 and 1932 where he was first lecturer in, and later Professor of Agricultural Botany (obituary by Brierly. 1949). The authorship of the manuscript was anonymous until 1986. when work on editing it for publication began. There are two indications supporting the belief that it is the work 14 L. JESSOP of Charles duBois: first, the handwriting, which agrees strongly with that contained in his autograph letters, and secondly, there is an entry in James Petiver's collecting diary (not the work of James Plukcnel, as claimed by Hammond, 1975 — the handwriting is definitely that of Petiver) which says "77 Papilio aurora marmorea oculata . . . This I caught Sept 23. 1695 going to my worthy Friends Mr Ch: Du-Bois's at Mitcham . . .' (Sloane MSS 2347). This last entry agrees with Papilio 9 of the present notebook, which was reportedly 'given me by M' Petiver 23"" September who took it v"^^ Same day coming to Mitcham'. In 1986 the pages of the work were thick and hard, having been at some time painted with starch, but in that year they were treated to remove the starch; that process also resulted in the writing becoming a little fainter. The book was also disbound (it was not at that time in its original binding) and currently comprises single sheets, the exception being the two folios containing the sideways-written notes, which are joined together. It is the intention of the British Museum (Natural History) Entomology Library to have the book rebound in the near future. The manuscript comprises 64 folios of Charles duBois' work and a title page added later by a different hand, which is also reproduced here. Some comments on the contents of the work by an unknown hand are associated with the manuscript, but are not reproduced here. Also not reproduced are the 20 sides that are completely blank. The folios are sized 145 mm by 181-183 mm in the first part of the work (as it was found in 1986) and from the folio beginning with Notes 14 to the end of the work the pages are sized 145 mm by 186 mm. The manuscript is in sepia coloured ink on cream coloured paper, and is reproduced here in slightly greater contrast than the original. A small part of the manuscript, for instance the page containing Scarabeus 33-35, is in blacker ink. At one stage, when the work was ordered as it was found in 1986. the pages have been numbered, a number being written in pencil at the bottom right hand corner of alternate sides. The order of the pages in 1986 did not present a logical progression of notes, and the order has been re-arranged in the present work. There is no evidence that the sequence of pages then or now is as Charles du Bois intended. The order as bound was: Papilio 1-12 Notes (sideways) 21-33 Tunbridge Wells 4-5 Apis 1^ Tunbridge Wells 1-3 Cimex Muscac quadripennes 1-3 Musca 1-11 Musca 12-17 Palaena 1-30 Scarabeus 1-11 Notes 1-20 Scarabei aquatici Notes 34-79 Pseudo-Scarabei Vcspa 1-10 Gryllotalpa Miscellany thoughts about vegetables. Notes (sideways) 28-31 The manuscript is capable of division into four parts: 1. Notes upon Insects, which contains 79 entries, and is dated 1692-1695. One part of these notes is written sideways, and does not interpolate well with the other pages (note 20 is on the reverse of a page starting with note .34, so the sideways-written notes cannot be inserted in numerical order). 2. Several sections of descriptions of insects arranged systematically by genus, but not systematically within genus. 3. Descriptions of five insects collected in Tunbridge Wells CHARLES DUBOIS' INSECT NOTES 15 4. Miscellany thoughts about vegetables. Some species occur twice in the notebook, once in Notes and once under their genus. Where this is the case there is a spot of ink present at the end of each line of text of Notes, and in some cases a vertical line is drawn through the text. This, and the general untidiness of Notes when compared to the sections arranged systematically leads naturally to the conclusion that Notes was a rough piece of work that was later re- organised, the generic arrangement being the final version. It is not clear, however, why some of the species were re-worked and some were not. In the present work the generically-arranged section is presented first, in the order: Papilio; Phalaena; Scarabeus; Scarabei aquatici; Pseudo-Scarabei; Gryllotalpa; Muscae quadripennes; Musca; Vespa; Apis; Cimex. This section is followed by the five Tunbridge Wells specimens, then Notes and finally the miscellaneous thoughts on vegetables. Places and Dates of Capture The year of capture of individual species is not known, except for the indication of 1692 and 1695 on the first page of Notes, and for Papilio 9, which the Petiver collecting diary (Sloane MSS 2347) confirms was caught in 1695. The dates in the diary are not those of the modern calendar, as 11 days were omitted from the year 1752 in order to bring the British into line with the Julian calendar. All of the dates in the diary are therefore 1 1 days later in the modern calendar (1 April old style is equivalent to 12 April new style). In duBois' time, the New Year began on the 25 March, which is why some of the dates given in correspondence written early in the year are given two years, e.g. 2 February 1712/3 (Sloane MSS 4065, f. 100)— this date would be the 13 February 1713 new style. The places of capture given in the notebook are as follows: between London and Mitcham (Papilio 9); by the riverside (Papilio 11 and Scarabeus 11); Tunbridge Wells Common (Tunbridge Wells 5 and Phalaena 19); the Lane near East Field [now Eastfields Lane, Mitcham?) (Musca 14 and Phalaena 26); Greenwich town (Scarabeus 9); in the street in London (Scarabeus 40); the gravel pits (Scarabeus 41); 'about our house in London' (Pseudo-scarabeus); 'in my brother's garden at Hackney' (Musca 1) and Mr Stonestreet's house at Carshalton (Phalaena 26). It is probable that most of the remaining specimens were collected in the vicinity of Mitcham, but it should be borne in mind that there is no concrete evidence for that assumption. Literature mentioned in the Manuscript Notes 57 and 60 mention Dni Hook Micrograph. This is: Hooke, R. 1665. Micrographia: or some phvsiologwal descriptions oj miiuite bodies made by magnifying glasses. Notes 29 and Phalaena 13 mention Mouffet, and question its accuracy. Mouffet is quoted in Latin and not English, which may indicate the edition duBois used: Mouffet, T. 1634. Insectoruni sive minimorum Animaliiim Theatnim, not the 1658 translation. Pseudo Scarabei mentions Swammerdam. This is: Swammerdam, J. 1669. Historia Insectoriim generulis. Apis 1 (Bombylius) mentions Purchas's Theatre of flying insects. Anno 1657. This is: Purchas, S. 1657. A Theatre ofpoliticull Flying Insects. Wherein especially the nature . . . and the manner of right-ordering of the Bee. is discovered and described. 16 L. JESSOP duBois' Assumptions Part of the attraction of old works is the amusement to be gained from the sometimes outlandish assumptions and prejudice they contain. Thence the continued attraction of works such as the bestiaries and Mouffets Theater of Insects. The duBois manuscript contains little that is ridiculous: it is a work of sound common sense about a mundane (rather than exotic) subject, and there are no unicorns or other fantastic beasts. Probably the only outlandish notion in the notebook is that the head of the caterpillar is that end which is the tail of the butterfly (Phalaena 14). This notion is not original, for it is contained in Mouffet's discussion of silk molhs where he says: 'This is a pleasing thing and worthy to be noted, that the head of the Silk-worm, makes the tail of the butterfly in that golden coloured metamorphosis, and the tail the head; which also happeneth in all other catterpillars that are changed into an Aurelia." The belief possibly arose from seeing the head of the butterfly emerging from the free end of a hanging pupa, and assuming that head end of the caterpillar attaches to the pupation site (whereas in fact they attach by the tail end). The belief had already been refuted by Ray in 1660, who says (translation by Ewan and Prime): It will not be proper (for the matter can be easily observed) to draw attention to the mistake which Moulet and others make in asserting that the head of the caterpillar is changed into the tail of the moth: for in every caterpillar that I have seen the exact opposite is fact.' Some of the instances where duBois leaves plain description and indulges in supposition are: Papilio 8: The first pair [of legs are] plumose serving to brush the eyes and head I suppose. Phalaena 25: the female soon lays her eggs whether she doth coire or not. though in this last case they are sterile. Scarabeus 2: Perhaps this may be the female, which in most cases is the biggest. Pseudo-Scarahei: It appears they grow after exclusion. Notes 14: The mouth is like a lobster's claws, opening sideways and one going over the other so that it seems to be an insect of prey in armour. Notes 26: Query if kin to the cuckoo spit (note that duBois does not describe the cuckoo spit bug — perhaps he thought it was too common to include). Notes 49: This contrivance is to preser\e the true wings from being wetted when they swim. In some cases duBois questions his own identifications, or gives reasons for them. For instance, in the description of Musca 1 he says that the way of flying and looks of it would make one suspect it a bee, but that it has but two wings and a head of the make of a fly. This distinction between Hymenoptera and Diptera was probably made after he had described Notes 18 (which is hymenopteran) as a dipteran (Musca respoides . . .). The distinctions between Hymenoptera and dipterous mimics of Hymenoptera suggest that duBois was familiar with the notion of looking beyond superhcial appearances and at the underlying structures of an animal when classifying it. List of Determinations The help of various members of the staff of the Entomology Department of the British Museum (Natural History) in arriving at the following determinations is gratefully acknowledged. Abbreviations used in this section are: Dipt., Diptera; Col., Coleoptcra; Hym., Hymenoptera; Lep., Lepidoptcra. CHARLES DUBOIS' lNSr;CT NOTES '^ (Jenus Papilionaeum (all I>epldoptera) 1 NympliuliJjc-' /l,i,'/i"v iinuiic (Small Idrloiscshcll) 2 Pieridac. Pieris rapae tcmalc (Small While) 3 Satyridac. Lasiommiitii megera {WM) 4 Nymphalidac. Vunc.sra a(u/rt«M (Red Admiral) 5 Pieridac. Gonopleryx rliamm (Brimstone) 6 Nymphalidac. Polygoma c-alhum (Comma) 7 Pieridac. Pifru hra.vs/iaf (Large White) 8 Nymphalidac. Cv«'/i(« <"«/"' (Painted Lady) 9 Lycaenidae. /.yiucmj /i/i/ucu.v (Small Copper) 10 Satyridac. Maniola jitrtiini (Meadow Brown) 1 1 Satyridac. Aplumuipm hvpeninlhiis (Ringlet) 12 Satyridac. Maniohi iiiriiim underside (Meadow Brown) Genus Phalaenaceum 1 Lep.. Pyralidae. //v/«nno species. 23 Lep., Geometridae. Xamlunhiie jimiuala (Garden Carpet) 24 Lep., Geometridae. Campiogrumma bilmeata (Yellow Shell) 25 Lep. indet. 26 Lep, Geometridae. 77;m«(/ra gnsfudj (Blood-vein) 27 indct. 28 indct. 24 indet. 30 indet. Scarabinum Genus (all Coleoptera) 1 Carabidae. 7 Nebna hmicoUis 2 Carabidae. Calalhiis fuscipes 3 Carabidae. Carahns sp. 4 Chrysomclidae. Timanha tenehricosa 5 Anobiidac. ? Slegohium pankeum 6 Elateridae. Melamiliis villiisiis 7 Elateridae. '} Atliom hacmorrhiitdalis 8 Cerambycidae. SlentKorus meruiianus '^ Scarabaeidae. Ceioma aiirata 10 Chrysomclidae. Gaslrophysa vindula 11 Chrysomelidac. Phaedon farmoriciae 18 L. JESSOP 12 Chrysomelidae. "? Prasocuris jimci 13 Mordcllidac. MordelUstena abdominalis 14 Canlharidac, Cantharis pellucida or C. nigricans 15 CaiMhdTidaQ. Cantharis lividaoT C. cryptica 16 Canlharidac. Rha^onycha fidva 17 Oedemeridae. Ischnomera caendea or Oedetm-ra lurida 18 Curculionidac. Ciuniis sp. 19 Coccinellidac. Adalia bipunciaia 20 Scarabaeidae. Phyllopertha horlicola 21 Cerambycidac. Clylus arielLs 22 Curculionidac. Phyllohius ?pomaceiis 23 Tcnebrionidae. Blups muvronata 24 Carabidae. Harpalus affinis 23 ? Dermestidac (Dermesies sp.) or Anobiidae (Xesiohium rujovdhsum) 26 Coleoptera indet. 27 Scarabaeidae. -4p/i(>(^'w5 sp. 28 Carabidae. Notiophdiis ? higuttaius 29 Pyrochroidae. Pyrochroa serraticomis 30 Carabidae. Pleroslichus madidiis 31 Carabidae. Cicindeia campeslris 32 Curculionidac. "!Ph\llohius urgentatus 33 Coccinellidac. Adalia '^bipunciaia or decempunclala 34 Cerambycidac. "^Grammoptera mjicornis 35 Tcnebrionidae. Cylindrinolus laeviocloslrialus 36 Tcnebrionidae. Cylindrinolus laeviocloslrialus 37 Chrysomelidae. Gaslrophysa viridula 38 Scarabaeidae. Melolonlha meloloniha 39 Melyridac. Malachtus '.'bipuslulalus or vindis 40 Silphidae. /"/id/idto/j/ii/Hj species, probably 5mH(i/i« 41 Carabidae. "^Bembidion species, or Asaphidion species Scarabei aquatici 1 Col.. Dytiscidae Probably -4^a/j(ts species Pseudo-Scarabei 1 Dictyoptera. Blatla orienlalis Gryllotalpa 1 Orthoplcra. Gryllolalpidae. Cirvllotalpa sp . if Bnlish then G. gryllotalpa Muscae quadripennes 1 Mecoplcra, Panorpidae. Panorpa sp. 2 Ncuroptcra. Chrysopidae. Chrysopa sens. lat. 3 Neuroptera. Chrysopidae. Chrysopa sens. lal. Musca (all Diptera) 1 Syrphidac. ?Lucozona lucorum. Volucella inflala or V.pellucens 2 Syrphidae. '!Syrphus sp. 3 Syrphidac. ?Syrphus ^p. 4 Syrphidae. 'JPlaiycheirus sp. 5 ?Sarcophagidac, 'JSarcophaga 6 Sarcophagidac. Sarcophaga sp. 7 Stratiomyiidae. Sargus sp. 8 Syrphidae. 9 Syrphidae. Erislalis lenax 10 Straliomyiidae. '^Beris sp. 1 1 Mmpididac. F.mpis livida male. 12 Muscidac. Helinasp. 13 Diplera indct. CHARLES DUBOIS' INSECT NOTES 14 Syrphidac. Chrysoloxum caulum 15 Dolichopodldac, Ptn-iiliihothnis nohililattis 16 lUiciUa (Calliphoridac) or Dohehopodidae 17 Syrphidac. Rhmgia campeslris Vespinum genus 1 Hym., indet. 2 Hym.. indet. 3 Hym.. '.'Myrmosidac. Myrmusa 4 Hym., Ichneumonidac 5 Hym , Ichneumonidac 6 Hym., Ichneumonidac 7 Hym., Ichneumonidac 8 indet. 9 Hym., Ichneumonidac 10 Hym., Ichneumonidac Apinum genus 1 Hym., Apidae. Bomhiis llucorum 1 Hym., Apidae. IChelosumw 3 Hym, Tcnlhrcdmidac. 'Alhiilia 4 Hym. Chrysididae. Genus Cimicinum 1 Hemiplcra, Pentalomidac (immature). Tunbridge Wells 1 Hym., Apidae. Romhiis f.p.. 'lapidariiis or niderariiis 2 indet. 3 Lep.. Pieridae. Pieri.s napi (Green-veined White) 4 Lep., Satyridae. Pyroma liihonus male (Gatekeeper) 5 Col, Geotrupidac. Geolrupes ?spiniger or slercorarius Notes upon Insects &c. 1 Dipt.. Empididac. F.mpis Ifs.tt'lhua male 2 Lep., Geomctridac (immature) 3 Lep. (immature) 3 (repeated number) indct. 4 jScarabcus 6] 5 Hym., Tenthrcdinidac. 6 IScarabeus I8| 7 Lep., Noctuidac. Cm ullia verhasci iMu\]c'in) 8 Lep. (immature) 9 Dipt. Tahanidae. Haemalopota sp., probably H. pluvialis 10 Hemiptcra, contlalion of aphids and typhlocybine Cicadellidac 11 Lep., Cossidae. 7? Zeuzera pyrina (Leopard Moth) 12 |Phalaena9| 13 mdet. 14 [Vespa 1| LS jcimex 1| 1(1 IMusca 15] 17 IScarabeus 13| 18 Hym, Tenthrcdinidac. IMacrophya^p. 19 IScarabeus I7| 20 [Vespa 4| 21 IScarabeus 21] 22 IScarabeus 14| 23 IScarabeus 15| 24 IScarabeus 201 19 20 L. JESSOP 25 Hym., Tenthridinidac. Nemalm ribesii (immalurc) 26 Hemiptera, Miridae. Lygocoris sp. 27 indct. . possibly the same as Notes 26 28 Col.. Njtidulidac. Mfligethes aenetts 29 Thysanoptera. Phlaeothripidae 28 (repeated number) Odonata. Libetlulidae. LiheUula depressa 29 (repeated number) Odonala. '^ Platycnemu pennipes (Platyencmididae). or Coenagrionidae 30 ?Diplopoda 31 ?Coleoptera 32 Col.. Carabidae. Agonum dorsale 33 Dipt.. Anisopodidae. Sylvicola fenesiralis 34 C'Vcspa 5] 35 |'.'Vespa4J 36 Hym., Tenthredinidae. '^Tenthreda 37 IMusca 10) 38 Dipt-, Conopidae, Myopa sp,. probably ;V/. testacea 39 Dipt. Syrphidac. Myolepta luleula 4(1 Dipt-. Syrphidae. Chrysogaster sp. 41 Dipt.. Platystomatidae. Platystoma senunationis 42 |Scarabeus8] 43 jphalaena 16| 44 Hemiptera, Cercopidae. 1 Phdaenus spumarius 4.^ Dipt indet. 46 Dipt. ■^'Syrphidae 47 Dipt.. '.'Syrphidae 48 Dipt.. 'Syrphidae 49 (Scarabei aquatici 1| 50 jphalaena 12] 51 jphalaena I3| 52 jPhalaena I4| 53 |Scarabeus9| 54 jscarabeus 10) 55 Dipt, indet. .56 IPhalaena 15| 57 Dipt., Calliphoridae. Calliphora sp.. probably C. vicitw 58 Dipt.. ?Lonchaea sp. (Lonchaeidae) 59 Dipt, indet. 60 Dipt, (there are figures in Hook's Micrographia of Culex) 61 IPapilio 10| 62 IScarabeus 5] 63 IScarabeus 4| 64 (Pseudo-Scarabei l| 65 [Scarabeus 33] 66 (Scarabeus 6| 67 [Scarabeus 7| 68 jphalaena 17] 69 jPhalaena I8| 70 jScarabeus 16] 71 Dipt, indet 72 Dipt.. Syrphidae. Platycheirus sp. 73 Dipt, indet. 74 IScarabeus 11| 75 jScarabeus 12] 76 jPapilio 11 1 77 jpapilio 12i 78 Ephemcroptera. Baetidae. Kloeon dipierum 79 Lep., Noctuidac (Vrani/rflpi.vi (Broom Moth) CHARLES DUBOIS' INSECT NOTES 21 FURTHER READING Allen (1976) is the best general introduction to the history of natural history in Britain, and if possible this should be supplemented by reading through back issues of the Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History (later Archives of Natural History), which contains some very readable articles. Raven (1942) is an excellent work, which describes the life and achievements of John Ray, some of whose friends and correspond- ents were either probably or certainly acquainted with Charles duBois. On the entomological side Lisney (196(1) contains biographical notes on those entomologists who published during the 17th and 18th centuries, as well as a detailed bibliography of the period. Gardner (1930) deals in detail with the compila- tion and publication of Mouffet's Theater of Insects. Allen (1967) and Bristowe (1976) discuss the entomological activities of duBois" contemporaries, especially Joseph Dandridge. Bodenheimer (1928-29 — in German) discusses extensively entomology before Linnaeus. Several British naturalists contemporary with duBois, mainly known as botanists, are discussed in Pasti (1950), a microfilm of which is lodged in the library of the British Museum (Natural History). The best description of the botanical scene of the period is contained in Henrey (1975). Dandy (1958) contains accounts of those botanists who are known to have contributed to the Sloane Herbarium, many of whom must have been friends of duBois. Most of the references to duBois as a botanist were first traced through Britten and Boulger (1931), which was revised by Desmond (1977). The social history of 17th-century London is covered excellently in Beier and Finlay (1986), which contains a large number of references to papers on the state of the metropolis in duBois' time. The history of the East India Company is covered by several works, but the most detailed account by far of the duBois family involvement in it is contained in Foster (1924), which also contains a drawing of Charles duBois' grave. Acknowledgements. I would like to thank the lollowing for their assistance in the production of this work: the Entomology Librarians of the British Museum (Natural History) (Miss J. Harvey and Miss P. Gilbert); the librarians of the British Library. Guildhall tJbrary, India Office Library, Linncan Society of London, Public Record Office and Royal Society; Mr D. E. Allen; Mr E. N. Montague; Dr A. W. Armstrong, and my colleagues in the Entomology Department of the British Museum (Natural History). Special thanks are due to the Photographic Unit of the British Museum (Natural History) for their excellent work in photographing the manuscript. Thanks are due to the British Library and the Royal Society for granting permission to publish transcripts of manuscripts in their collections. reff;rences Unpublished References: abbreviations used Add. MSS: British Library, London, Additional Manuscripts. I. OR.; Records of the East India Company now held in the India Office Library and Records, London. P.R.O.; Manuscripts in the Public Record Office London. Sloane MSS: Sloane manuscripts in the British Library, London. 22 L. JESSOP Published References [Anon] 1812. Notices and Anecdotes of Literati. Collectors. &c. from a MS by the late Mendcs de Costa and collected between 1747 and 1788. The Gentleman's Magazine and HislorUal Chronicle 82: 205-207. Allen, D. E. 1966. Joseph Dandridge and the first Aurelian Society. The Entomologist's Record and Journal of Variation 78: 89-94. 1976. The Naturalist in Britain, a Social History. London (Allen Lane) xii + 292 pp. Aubrey, J. 1718. The Natural History and Antiquities of the County of Surrey. London (Curll) Volume II. viii + 307 pp. Beier, A. L. & Finlay, R. 1986. The Making of the Metropolis. London 1500-1700. London & New \ork (Longman) x + 283 pp. Bodenheimer, F. S. 1928-29. Materialen zur Geschichie der Entomologie his Linne. Berlin (Junk) Volume 1, X + 498 pp; volume II. vi + 486 pp. Bristowc. W. S. 1967. The life & work of a great English naturalist. Joseph Dandridge (1664- 1746). Entomologist's Gazette 18: 73-89. Brierly, W. B. 1949. John Percival. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London 161: 248-251. Britten, J. & Boulger, G. S. 1931. A biographical Index of deceased British '' border of y'^ wing is Sad; The inner wings are Sad w"" a border of full Orange, Seallopt with Sad, & fringed, y" under Side is paler Sad. Set with several Specks, w'" y'' Scallopt border. 10 Papilio fusca, alis externis oculo nigro insignitis. Taken y" beginning of July on the Grass in y'' Fields. The Eyes are reddish Sad; The whole head, horns body, & under wings Sad, & somewhat Shining, the upper wings are Sad, shaded & clouded with Orange about the middle of them, towards y^ Corners of each Stands a full black Spot, with 2 Small white Specks in it. The under side of both pairs of wings is the most vivid, that of y' upper wings is finely parted in wavy with a lighter colour near the ends. 11 Papilio fusca alis subtus 16 maculis oculatis notatis. Taken 4'" July by The River Side. The Head, horns, body & upper side of y" wings arc all Sad colour'd, these last are Set with many long hairs especially near y"' head, the I.eggs are browner. The under Side of y^' wings is marked with Eyes as in y'' Figure. Three in each upper wing. & Five in each under wing; In these Spots the Hrst ring is Orange, within that Black, & in the Center a white Speck. 12 Papilio fusca. alis internis oculatis 11) quodammodo accedens. Mouf. n"4. p.lfl."!. fig: Taken with y' last. This is darker all over than N" 10, The Orange appears not so much on y"' back of y*-' upper wings but more underneath, where it is almost all Orange, y"" under part of the under wings is mostly sadder. & y"^ Ends lighter, w"' ?> black Spots in each towards y'' bottom The Eyes are black w"' white Edges behind. & before just by the nose, brown; I have one just like this but only with two spots in each under wing. Genus Phalaenaceum The Notes of a Phalaena. whereby it seems chiefly to differ from a Papilio. speaking generally, are 1. To fly by night or after Sunset. 2. To sit with its wings dependent, or horizontal, & not erect. 3. To be heavyer & duller, at least to appear so by day. 4. To be more hairy, to defend y"' from y'' Injury of Night-dews. 5. To have weaker, & Slenderer horns, ending in a point, without a knob at y' End; & to be m some kinds plumose. 1 . Phalaena minor alis ex fusco & rubro mixtis, maculis Strammeis. Taken 2.^ July in y'' morning. The Head & Horns are light Tawny, the Eyes greenish, y'' body & tail light-Tawny, & Shining, y"' legs also, & Set w"' 2 or .^ stiff hairs about y' middle the wings underneath arc reddish Straw colour; above they are redder, y" upper wings have each 2 straw colour spot at y'^ outward Edge y'' under, two small lines each of y'' Same colour, they arc fringed w"" a light Tawny. 2 2. Phalaena alba parva graminea. The Grass Moth Taken 2^ July. They fly in meadows in the Evening in Numbers, keeping near y' ground making short flights, & lighting a Stalk, where they arc not easily seen because their wings lye close one on another along their body. The whole body & wings arc of a light ash Silvery colour & Shining, y^' Eyes arc black, from y'' Nose 2 long productions come forth, y" horns are Slender & blackish, y' legs arc long & Somewhat branched. CHARLES DUBOIS' INSECT NOTES 33 3. Phalaena alba parva graminca minor Taken at y"' Same time & place. The difference between these is only That this is smaller, & y" underwings deep ash, fringed with white, perhaps this is the male; 4. Phalaena minor splendens eapite fusco, alis ex purpurea & fusco mixtis Taken 23 July in y^ morning early, flying. The head is almost black, y^' Eyes Sad & shining, y'' horns of y" coulour of the head, y' body & tail light ash, with a Shew of purple. Shining, y^' legs Sad. shining and a little branched The wings underneath of y^ colour of y'' Tail, but Sadder towards y" outer Edges; Above, y^" upper wings are marbled with Sad & a pale purple, the inner wmgs light ash, fringed, & Shining. The Hgurc is a little less than the life. 5. Phalaena minor, alis ex fusco & cinerea mixtis Taken flying at y'^^ Same time. The head is ash colour, y'' Eyes black, y'^ body & tail y'" Same, the Eyes of the Rings on y'-' Tail are whitish, underneath all Shining ash, y" legs small & a little branched, y''' upper wings are ash, with 4 marbled darker Spots on each, v'^^ under wings Shining ash, & folded as are those of most Small Phalaenaea 6. Phalaena cinerea minor alis macula fusca obscure notatis. Taken w"* y"' last. The Eyes Sad, y" whole upper part is Sad ash & shining. & lighter underneath, marked as (2) w'^'' is y"' underside of y" upperwing. On y'^^ upperwing are 2 small dull Sad Spots, y" ash colourd Legs are long. & Somewhat branched. 7. Phalaena cinerea media dorso nudo. Taken in y'' evening about y' middle of July, It flyes very swift, & plays about y^' flowers. The Head & Thorax are thick & bluff, cover'd wth long ash colourd hair, except the midst of y' back w''' is naked Cover'd with an Orange shining Skin. I am in some doubt least I rub'd off y^' hair when 1 took it, but I caught 2 or 3 Since & when I look on them they are all so. The upper wings have 2 white spots like a (Y) & are Shadowed with dark upon ash as in the figure, under y^' Thorax is very long hair, y" legs are Sad. a little branchy; This kmd is not dorso nudo. M' Petiver calls it y" Gamma, from y^ form of y' Letter on its wings. ft 8. Phalaena media alis ex fusco fulvis. dorso nudo. Taken 23"' July in the Evenmg. It is such another as y'' last but not so big. w"" a naked back like y'. The head body & legs sad. y" Eyes black, y'' upper wings marked sad & light brown as in y' figure, the under wings all Sad; underneath it is all Sad, with a Shew of reddishncss, 9. Phalaena alba plumata Taken in y*^^ evening July 23"' Hying. The Eyes are black The Tail hath a Shew of greenishncss. about 1/2 an inch long. & Slender. The Legs are very long. & branched, y"^^ 2"" Joynt short, y" last to y'^ toes very long. Each of y^' wings is made of 2 perfect Feathers joyned together near their Origine, y'^ Antennae + an inch long. 10. Phalaena cinerea alis maculatis. cornubus plumatis. Taken 26 July in y'^ night by a Candle. It is all over dirty ash colour wth Sad colour marks on y^' upper wings as in y"^ lig'. y^ horns are brownish & appear thick, but in a good light are made like an herring bone or thin Set feather as (2) not directly oppt)site but Setting downwards ' The legs are long & a little branchy. 1 1 Phalaena minor cinerea alis marmoreis. Taken in y"" night by a Candle July 27 It is all ash colour except y^ upper wings w'^'' are marbled w"' Sad Strokes as in y*" fig', y^' Nose is long, y^' horns small & Short, y^' Legs long, & a littly branehy. y" whole under Side is Sad ash. 12. Phalaena pratensis Mouffeti 3'' p. 98. Taken about y'^ midst of June flying in a medow by day; The whole body. head, horns & legs are 34 L. JESSOP very black, the wings extend beyond the End of y" Tail, each of y'' upper wings is almost black, with long Scarlet Streaks where the black is in y'' picture, & 2 Scarlet Spots at the end of each wing. y^' inward Spot biggest, y' inward edges arc Scarlet also the underwings are wholly cherry colour'd. except y'' lodges, which are Sad. y'' under & upper Sides of both pair are alike. & they are all linely fringeil at v' Fnds. 13. Phalaena pratensis Mouffeti prima p-g. 97. Taken 29"' June in Coitu on a Stalk of Corn; there is no visible difference between y*" Male & Female; It is like y' last, but y'-' body & Tail is much bigger. The horns also grow thick towards y" Ends, the Sad of y'' wings Shines more greenish. & the Scarlet on y^ upper wings is disposed into 5 fair Spots. & in some 2 more on y" inner edges, the wings hang down. y° under wings are much less y" y'' upper ones, w'*' is not observed in Mouffcts hgure 14 Phalaena albo-fusca alis variegatis About y'' End of June I found an Aurelia hanging upon a Twig. «'•■ 1 put into a box. & when I came to look on it. it had produced y' Phalaena above named The whole body & under wings arc of a pale cloth colour, the upper wings are variegated, both wings underneath are of y'' Same cloth colour with y' body. The Aurelia w''' is drawn too little, was left thus & Seems to confirm y' Notion, y'' the head of y'' Catterpillar. is that end w'^*' is y" tail of y' Butterfly. l.>, Phalaena fusca alis 4 maculis insigni reniissi notatus Taken flymg about a Candle m the (iarden. m the beginning of July. It is all sad colour'd except the under wings which are ash. the upper wings are marked as in the hgure with a Sadder colour, the Eyes are near black & prominent; when it Stands, y" wings lye horizontal, and the under t)nes are quite covcr'd by the upper lb. Phalaena media grisea. alis maculis. cruciformibus notatis. oculis atris Taken y" last of June on a Ladyes clothes The head is Short & pointed, y'' Eyes prominent & very black, from each runs a black stroke to y' Shoulders, y^ horns are white at y'' Setting on. & after black, small & ending in a point. The back between y" head & wings is very hairy the upper wings are light grey with Cross like marks of sad w"'' are Edged with white, the Ends are Scallopt; y'' under wings are white, t^i Shine like Sattin. & scallopt also. & saddish colour'd at v' Ends, y'' under Sides of y" upper wings have some sad Spots on y"' The Tail is Large & very hairy, blunt at y" End like y' of y"' Papilio of a Silk worm. & grey, but whiter along the middle of its underside The Thighs are thick set with white hairs, y^ Legs black & white in Small alternate Spots. 17 Phalaena media straminea Taken in y' night by a Candle amongst Nettles Julv s"'. The whole is straw-colour'd. the Eyes black; The upper wings have faint reddish undulated Lines on y'". The under wings are as long & near as large as the upper, y'' Leggs are pretty large, strong. & brown; when it was stuck down to a box with a pin. it laid many very small, round, white Eggs, w'*" Stuck not to y' box. but rowTd away as they came out. w'^'' Eggs in ,^ hours time turned black. The Tail is darker colour'd. especially towards y*^ End. It Sits with its wings hanging down. 18 Phalaena alis ex fusco virescentibus maculis nigris notatis. Taken with the last; The head is ash colour ending in a long proboscis, v'^ Eyes sadder, v'' horns pretty long & ash color'd. The upper wings are greenish towards y'' upper Edges, towards v'^ ends turrow'd. w"' Small black specks at y^' ends of y" Furrows, y^' middle parts of y*" wings are of a shining purplish Sad. on y" upper part of w''' are two black spots a bigger & a lesser in each wing; The under wings are ash colour'd A: Shining; The Tail sad ash. the legs are long, ash eoL'. & somewhat branched. While it was stuck down with a pin it laid many small oblong white Eggs, w*^^'' CHARLES DUBOIS' INSECT NOTES 35 was performed by its thrusting out at y" End of its Tail a long white transparent Tube, w'^^'' it wriggled about & thrust out & drew in often. & now & then one might see the Egg come through it, w"'' it stuck to y^' box whereon it was fixt. 19 Phalaena lota alba. Taken in August upon y" Grass on Tunbridg Wells Common It is all over white; The Eyes only w^'' arc brown, y^' Legs very hairy. After it was stuck down with a pin, it excluded much brown woolly matter, wherein it laid its Eggs, w*^'' were there hatcht in 2 or 3 dayes. I fed them with young lettuce leaves, but they dyed in a week or 10 days, they were of the hairy kind of Cattcrpillers. 20 Phalaena major clcgans tricolor, Goedartij W. This sort I hatched, & fed y'' Catterpillar w''' they commonly call Shepheards Dogs The Eyes are sad brown, y' head & body, thick set with brown hair, just at y' juncture of y"^^ Neck & Sholders, Scarlet; The horns come out of a Small scarlet knob, they are white set with 2 rows of very line brown hairs, in manner of a feather. The ground of y' upper wings is pale Isabella marked with large sad intorted Spots, underneath y" Isabella is deeper; The under wings are pale Scarlet spotted with fair black spots, underneath y^' ground is pale Orange, The upper side of y'^ Tail is deep Orange, y' under Side sad except at y^ junctures of y' rings w"'' are deep Orange; The Legs are Strong, Sad, & a little branched, the upper part of y" Thighs' Scarlet. 21 Phalaena lo Pae;in mihi. Taken on y^' (iround y^ beginning of June. It is all hairy, much so about y" head, y"^ Eyes Sad, y" whole except y^ whitish undcrwing of a dirty sad colour, y' lind of y'^^ Tail thick & brushy. The uppcrsides of y"^ upper wings are marked w"' a Streight black stroke, & 2 round ones less black, & are Saddest towards the Ends where runs across them a lighter undulating Stroke. The Horns are long and linely lealherd. 1 suspect this to he the male of 2.'i, when it was taken it was on y" ground, & could not yet lly, being as I suppose newly gotten out of its Chrysalis, w''' perhaps was buried as was that of 25. 22 Phalaena aliquatenus purpurascens, uniolor .Splendens. Margarita, mihi. Taken y' beginning of June. The Eyes are black, the head not very big. y^' horns slender & pretty long, the whole Body Sad. y" upper Sides of the upper, & y^ Ends of y'^ upper Sides of the under wings are of a Shining Sad colour mixt with a faint purplish colour Towards y^' upper part of y'' under side of y^ upper wings, & towards the upper end of the underwings on y'' upper Side is a fine mother of pearl colour. 23 Phalaena cinerca, maculis fuscis variegatis magnis notata. Taken y'^^ beginning of June, The head is small &. sad colour'd, as is also y' Thorax, y^ horns small, the Tail ash colourd, y^ Wings also, upon y^ upper wings on the outward edge Stand 3 large Sad, mixt. Spots, y' upper two, when the wings are near, making an equilateral triangle, the fringe of y'' upper wings alternately black & white 24 Phalaena fulva striis tranversis undulatis notata, interdiu sub arborum foliis degens. Taken y^ middle of June, at which time if one Shake y'' boughs of bushes one may see y'" frequently fly out & make to y' underside of a Leaf of the next bush. The whole is Tawny yellow or buff. The uppcrsides of y^ wings are finely marked with waved Lines of white or Sadder buff running tranversely as far as about 2/3 of y" Length of the wing the rest to y" end is of a lighter buff, & more obscurelv undulated 36 L. JESSOP 25 Phalacna fusca c Chrysalide in terra supulta prorumpcns. About y' beginning of June I found in the new dug Earth several thiek sad brown ChrysaHs's, w'^^'' put up in a box one of them produeed this Phalaena about 14 days after The Eyes are black, y'^ head Short set on a thick hairy bluff Thorax. Cover'd with reddish Sad hairs, y' Tail thick. & hairy with rings of whitish at y^' annulary junctures. The horns long. fine. & brown, y' wings sad. with paler strokes on their Ribbs. y"' upper part of y' under wing in soine positions shining like peacocks feathers, but it had battcr'd it self in the box & was not curiously perfect; It had laid above 100 Round yellowish Eggs in the box, w''' it had finely fix'd by the glutinous matter about y"' in the quincunx order. & therefore is a female & by the by. One way of knowing the males from y" Females in this papilionaceous Species is by halchmg their Chrysalis's for the Female soon lays her Eggs whether she doth coire or not. tho' in this last case they are Steril. :6 Phalaena alis angulosis. I.inea tranversa alas in duas partes dividens l.inca acquinoctialis mihi Taken by M' Stoncstrcct at night by a Candle Set in his window at Carshalton, It is of a brownish Cream colour, y^ head & horns small, y' Eyes very black, the Ends of all the wings arc pink colour, a reddish brown fair Line crosses all the wings. & below it a Smaller sadder line undulates almost from end to end of y'^ other line, underneath it is Set w"' innumerable small Specks. & y^ aforemention'd 2 Lines are Sad appearing on this side also. 27 Phalacna 1 1 cognata si non eadem alis pulchre pictis. Taken about y' End of May in a Lane in East Field. It is a Small Moth, pale ash colour, the under wings Saddest, the ends of y"^ upper wings are prettily marked. 28 Phalaena pulchra fusca, alis tribus portiunculis undulatis, divisis. Taken about y'' middle of July in y^ Woodhouse amongst y"^ Loggs. The head us yellowish brown, y*^ Eyes paler. & Shining, the Lcggs (w'-'*' are long) & the edges of y*"' upper wings on y*^ under Side of a Reddish brown, y'' tail on the under Side Sadder. & as it were variegated. & Shining the upper part of the Thorax Tail. Sad. only y' end of the Tail reddish brown. The outer wings arc divided into .'^ portions next y'' head. & y'' Ends reddish Sad. that in y*^ midst between them brown edged w"' a waved white Line on each Side, the inner wings sad with white variegations, y^ ends of all y' wings have a Small white stroke cross them. 29 Phalaena alba cucullata. alis duobus maculis majoribus ornata Taken about y^ middle of July. The Eyes are small & black, the head, horns Thorax, & beginning of y^' 1****1 Sad mixt so as to make a triangle, a large round Spot of |**'*] is on each wing on y^ outer Edge, The wings otherwise are white, save that towards y' Ends they are more ash colour'd & blackish at y^' Tips, y' inner wings underneath have a Small black Speck in y' midst of each, y^ Leggs arc Speckled. .^0 Phalaena ochroleuca cucullata mmor This is y" Sort y' is bred of those animalls that eat y' feathers of the Skms ol y' Stuft birds, they fly about them all y" Summer in the Evening Scarabinum Genus 1 1. Scarabeus Terrestris nigro fuscus Taken 9"' September out of y'' ground as it was digging, it is all over almost black; somewhat CHARl.FSDLIBOIS' INSECT NOTES 37 inclining to Sad brown y^' head is flat almost of y" figure of an heart, furnished at y" mouth w"' small feelers, y'^^ Eyes small & black, below which Stand y'' two horns near 1/2 an inch long, & appear joynted if attentively lookt at, y'^^ Thorax is tlat & sharp edged, y" Edges somewhat turned up, y" Vaginae smooth, Shmmg & furrow'd lengthwaycs, the leggs towards y'' Ends are brownish, somewhat longer than is common y*^^ hinder ones especially, w'^'' are Slenderer also. 2 Idem major vaginis non Splendentibus I remember not where or when taken. This differs not from y' last, except y" the Vaginae are of a Sad dark colour, not so black as y" last, & Shine less, & y^' legs are wholly brown; This hath on y*^^ under Side of the Thorax, just before y" Setting y'^^ forelegs 2 small, round, brown, shining prominent knobs, w"''' y'^' other hath not. perhaps this may be the female, w'^^'' in most insects is y^ biggest. 3 3. Scarabeus terrcstris. corpore nigro oblongo tumido. Taken 10 September, digging in y'" Garden it came out of the Ground, it runs nimbly the figure is somewhat bigger than the life. It is all over of a dusky black, 4 large Feelers hang at y^ mouth, just under y" Forceps, y' 2 uppermost longest, & having each 3 joynts. y'^ 2 undermost Shorter & jointed also, all ending in knobs, above y"' Stands y'' forceps or pincers, w"' which it bites Strongly, y"^ Eyes arc Small, & black, under them the horns come out near an inch long each, Rings; underneath it is flatfish. & y'" Edges round turn downwards. & y''" Glass shews it to be finely punctate; The Legs are Sad brown. The wings are longer than y' Tail. & brownish all over. 1 1. Musca longa gracilis. 3 Striis nigris in dorso notata. aliis fusco-fulvis. Taken N"' May on y^' Flowers of panax Heracleum where many of y"' sit together ihrustmg down their long proboscis into y'' hollow of y^' Flowers. The head is round & Small y*^^ Eyes not easily discernable. being of y" Same sad colour with y" rest of y^' head. 2 small stiff horns come from one Original in y' fore part of it. y' body is ash on y"' back are 3 fair black Stripes, y^' tail & Legs sad & hairy, y^ wings long & brown, y" 2 parts under y"" wings common to all flyes are Small knobs set on a slender thred. 12. Musca media fusca. cauda 4 maculis nigris notata. Taken 19"' May upon y*^ Flowers of Panax Fleracleum; Its Eyes meet & are sad. y" nose Silverish. w"* 2 small hairy horns thereat, y' body is dark grey, y" Tail Lighter w"' 4 fair black Spots thereon, very hairy & underneath parted lengthwise with a broad black line, y" membranes under y"" wings are whitish. 13. Taken 2.'^"' May on Apricock Leaves. The Head & back is Sad, y'^ Eyes large almost meeting. The upper Side of y'^ Sharp pointed Tail black & shining, divided into 4 rings by white Circles, y'' belly yellow, at y"^ End black. The 4 Leggs before Yellowish, y^' hinder ones sad. with a brown Spot in the midst of y"^ 2 upper joints. The division between the 2 Eyes white. 14. Musca apiformis velox luteo et nigro varius. Cauda Scorpii. Taken L' June in y^' Lane near East Field. It is a very beautifull Fly. The head is large, y' Sad Shining Eyes meet atop, between them in the fore part of y' face are 2 large long yellow Spots parted by a black line y' 2 horns black, thick & indifferently long, y'' Thorax is black two small yellow lines run down y'" Length of it in the midst. & on each side are 4 irregular yellow Spots, 2 about y'' Setting on of y^" wing & twii below it between y' thorax & y^' Tail is set a Small oblong black body circled round with yellow, y' Tail hath .S Rings y' 3 Hrst have yellow rings upon black but they meet not in y'' midst, y^ lowest most yellow, a broad list of yellow on y^ Sides divides y" upper & under parts of y'-" Tail, under it is black & yellow in alternate rings, at y'' End of y'' Tail is a yellow Scorpion like Tail w''' it clapt up to y^ under part of y" Tail, armed w"' brown Claws, visible in a glass. 15. Musca pavonina gracilis splendens. Taken y" beginning of June & 17 July on Rasps. & Curran bushes. It shines green all over, the Eyes especially, between which is a white Spot. & just above that, come out 2 Short horns standing out two ways. The wings are long & large towards y'' End sad. & while at y'' very end; The Legs are brown; towards y'' Ends Sad. & pretty long. 16. Musca media tota viridis splendens. Taken y" first of June on y"^ Hedges in y"" Lane near East Field, where were many of them. It is all over green, except a Small white Stroke divides y'^ Eyes, y' horns are black & end in a hne hair, the Thighs are brown y" rest of y^' Legs black. CHARLES DUBOIS' INSECT NOTES 45 17. Musca fusca Nasicornis. Taken w"' y" last. The Eyes arc reddish brown, parted on the top with a pretty black division, a Streight brown shining horn goes streight out at y"' Nose under w^'' hangs a Streight black thickish tongue, y" true horns are brown. The Thorax is Sad, with 3 black stripes thereon, y"^^ appendent knob to y"' thorax between y"' Setting on of y'' wings, sad chesnut colour the Tail is chesnut, the Edges of the Rings black, & divided lengthwise by a black Stroke, y^ Tail is almost circular, flat, & sharp at y"" Edges, underneath brown in y"^^ middle, &. blackish at y' Edges the Legs arc Sad. The wings arc brownish Genus vespinum. The Wasp kind. I reduce those Insects of my own observation to this kind, that have 4 wings, & whose Tailes or hinder part of the body is joyned to y"' breast or chest by a Small thread, as Mouffet speaks page 42. Corpus vesparum medio pectori tenuissimo quodam Hlo alligatur; whether they have Stings or not; I. Vespa minor duobus aculeis, annulis in cauda flavis, macula insigni tlava in fronte notata. Vespa Brachmanica nobis. The Bramine Wasp. Taken y'-' beginning of June, The Head is large & black, as also are y"' Eyes, w''' are black, the Horns come out of y"' forehead, arising from two Originals. & seen in a Glass appear joynted, & grow bigger & bigger from y'' head to y'' Ends, the Mouth is furnished with a Serrate Forceps, one part of w"'' in Shutting goes over the other, & opens Sideways, & bites very hard; just above the mouth & between y'' lower part of the Eyes, is a fair yellow Spot rising above the Surface like a Studd. The Thorax or body is black; & that & the Tail are cover'd with a hard Shell, the Tail is composed of 7 or 8 Rings of yellow upon black, w''' go one under another when it Shrinks in its Tail, as the plates do in Armour; The Tail is Set to the body by a very Slender juncture, as in this kind is common. The legs arc yellow & indifferently long. It hath 4 Wings, long & Slender, the inner ones not above 1/2 the length of the outer ones. With much irritating at length it thrust out 2 Stings set at some little distance from each other, several times. I call it by this Name from y" Bramine Custome of making a yellow Spot in the foreheads of their Votaryes. 1. Vespa Brachmanica. 2 Vespa Brachmannica altera, ore aura micante The Golden mouth'd Bramine wasp. Taken \9 July on y' Currans. The Eyes are larger than the former & black, between them are 2 Small lines of yellow, where y'' horns come out. y^' bottom parts of y"' stands up against y' Face & arc yellow, & y' upper parts bend off forward & arc black. y° mouth Shines like Gold, under w''' plate is a small forceps; In y'' hinder part of the head, stand 3 Small Shining knobs triangular-wise. Scarce visible without a little Assistance from a Glass. The Thorax is all black on both Sides except 4 yellow spots next y' head; The Tail is slenderly Set on made of 6 yellow rings set upon black, w"'' appear but obscurely underneath. The Thighs arc black, y" rest of the Legs yellow, except y'' Toes, w^ are black, the 4 wings are Sad transparent, & have a Shew of rainbow colours on them 3, Vespa minor tota nigra The small black wasp. Taken 19 July, It is all black, except a Small Silver plate at y*^^ mouth; & y" wings, w''' have a Saddish tincture on y"', the inner ones are much less y" y'^ outer ones. 4. Vespa longa. pectore & dorso nigris, cauda & dorso macula alba notatis, cornubus trcmulis in medio albis. Taken in y" beginning of June on y*^^ flowers of Tithymalus Tingitanus lunato fl. Moris. The head. 46 L- JESSOP Eyes. & Thorax are black, except one w"' Spot between y"' Setting on of y'' wings, on y'" back. The Horns are more y" 1/2 an inch long, curled at y" Ends, & black except a portion of w"' in y" middle, trembling incessantly when it goes; The Tail hangs on by a Slender thread, the first ring black, y'' 2 next Orange, y" remainder black, w"' a white spot at y^' End; when lirst taken, by thrusting the Tail towards the Head, came out a black point or Sting from y' middle of y" under part of y"' Tail; The under part of the body is colour'd like y" upper, but y' Tail is flatter, with a ridge in y"' midst of y'' rings running lengthways; The Legs are long, y"^ first joynts black, then lighter orange, then black. then brown to v' Toes. Vide N" 7 5 Vespa longa pectore & dorso nigris, minor absque aculis albis. Taken on y" Same flowers & at the same time with the last. The head Horns & Thorax arc black the Tail long. & Slenderer than y"' last, made of 7 rings of w'*' y"' hrst is black, the .1 middle ones Orange. & y' 3 at y' end black, the leggs are browner than the former, it hath not the Spot on y^' back & Tail. & the Horns curie not so. The figure is a little bigger than y"' life & the Tail too thick. 6. Vespa nigra minor gracilis, eauda in 2 Setis aculcum inscrvicntibus desinentc. cornubus praelongis tremulis Taken w"' y' last; It is all black, save y' orange thighs; when it goes y' horns tremble exceeding fast, feeling what is in y'' way; The outward edge of y" bigger wings hath a Small Spot on it. a long Sting or point comes out under the tail about y'' midst, w'''' when y'' Tail lyes strcight remains between y"' 2 Setae in w"" the Tail ends, w''' Seem a guard to it. & when y"' Insect pushes w"' it. in bends y" Tail downward & towards y' head, & thrusts the said sting strongly towards y'' head, as that N" 4 also doth. 7 Vespa oblonga maxima pecore & dorso nigris. cauda 4 & dorso tribus albis maculis notatis.cornubus tremulis. in medio albo notatis Taken 14 September. It is very like N" 4 but 3 or 4 times as bigg. & besides y^' Spot which that hath in y'' middle of y" back, this hath one at y" Setting on of each of y' bigger wings; y'' white Spot at y'' end of y" Tail is here distinguish into 4. one on each of y" 4 last rings, in y" other y'' Tail is flatter, in this very turgid, opening on each Side, which apperture or Slitt is supplyed by a thin yellow Skin, in all other things this is like y'. Vespa Cauda corpori Hrmius adhaerente 9. Vespa nigricans graculis N" 6 similis ast major, cauda absq Setis. Taken 25''' May on y" Flowers of Panax Heracleum. It is every way like N" 6 but bigger. & hath not the Sting, or Setae w"'' that hath; perhaps it is y" female to that. 10. Eadem fronte flava. Taken in y'' Lane by East Field. June V . This differs in nothing from y'' last but in y'' Square yellow Spot it hath between y" Eyes. & y" finely jointed horns are yellowish before, & black behind. Apinum Genus Bombylius Dni Purchas. Viviparus. He describes it p. IKS. & gives an Anatomical account of it. & also of its being viviparous p. 191 . Purchas's Theater of political flying Insects Anno lfi.S7. In y' figure y' first white ring is yellow in y'' Bee y^' w"' ring in y"' midst of the Tail is yellow also. Ji. the end white. The figure is a little loo big. I took one of this sort May 10"' three times as big. 2. Apis fusca Cauda glabra. Taken upon Poppy flowers 17"' July. It is all of a dark Sad colour, y" face & back, thick set with line CHARLES DUBOIS INSECT NOTES 47 Brownish hairs, the horns short & strcight, y" Tail Smooth & Shining, under w'^'' was much yellow matter like bee bread, y" wings brownish, w"' a deeper brown Stroke on y"-' outward Edge of each of y'^ bigger wings near the End, y"' Legs middling; Just at y" Setting on y' wings, on each Side is a remarkable small round black shining knob. 3. Apis minor fulva, alis praelongis, Iridis modo splendentibus I have forgot when & where taken, & it is described dead. The head, horns, & middle of y'' back is black. The Tail on both Sides Orange, & y*" Legs also except y'^ last Joints w'^ are speckt with black All 4 wings are very large & much longer than the Tail, y*" outward Edge of y'= upper marked with a black Stroke, They shine fmely with Rainbow colours. 4. Apis gloriosa Taken on Cherry Leaves, May 24 The whole forepart & Legs is of a beautifuU bluish green; & y' Tail especially y" upper part shining copper, on the Sides changeable into yellow, gold & green, all foraminulous. when urged it puts forth a long flexible Sting. The wings are sad Genus Cimicinum. 1. Cimex subviridis variegatus, odorcm gravem spirans. Taken in the beginning of June; It moves slowly, when it stands still the head is raised like y' of a Frog, & if laid on its back, it can hardly recover its feet, which after much Struggling it does by turning over its head. It smells very Strong, & very ill; & when dead turns all black, & shrinks up to meer Skin. The head is like a Tortoises; y" two Small Eyes arc black; y' horns have three Joints, white at y"-' Junctures, elsewhere blackish; The Thorax & Tail greenish; it hath neither Wings nor Vaginae. Round y'' Skirt of y"' Tail part on both Sides it is marked with little V's The middle is regularly mark'd wth Spots the 4 largest & middlemost are copper colour'd & in bas-relieve. y'' others black & not raised, the belly is green with a black line running cross its length. The legs are greenish also, but blackish at y^ Ends. Taken at Tunbridgc Wells 1695 1. Bombylius niger, eauda in acumen aurantii coloris desinente Taken among y'' Corn upon y' flowers of Panax Coloni Aug. 3. The figure is too long; it is all over black except the 3 last Rings of y' Tail, w'-'' are Orange, being thick set with hairs of y' colour, deeper above, & more remiss underneath; A shining black Small knob on each Side of y" Thorax at y' Setting on of y" wings, y"' legs arc Strong & hairy 2. Phalaena Splendens ex aureo-fulva Taken flying in y" day 5 August, It is all of one light-brown colour Shining as if varnisht with a dilute gold colour; The Eyes are round, prominent & very black, y'"' horns short & Slender; It hath a particular way of flying, y*" wings moving fluttering, & by turns quicker & slower. 3. Papilio alba, alis maculatis corpore nigro. Taken 12"' Aug. flying, y' middle of y*^ Thorax black, as is y'' upper part of y"' Tail, y^' Eyes very black & prominent, round y" Thorax &. about y^' head, is set w"' w"' hair, y*^ under part of y'^ Tail & y" legs cover'd with a mealy whiteness, y"^ horns black tipt at y'"' ends with white, y'"' wings on y" upper sides white with black as in y'' flgure. y" ribs of y' wings blackish, y' under wings on y" under Side brimstone y'^ ribs large & blackish, y^ under Side of y' upper wings w'" except y'^ Ends, w*^*" are also brimstone colour'd. 4. Papilio minor alis ex fulvo fuscis, macula nigra in media alba insignitis. Taken 12 Aug. on y" Common, y*^ upper wings are pale orange for y'' most part, except round y" Edges & in y" middle where they are Sad, y' under wings arc only orange in y' middle, & 48 L. JESSOP underneath all Sad. Sadder towards y'' Setting on. & y^' lower 1/2 lighter, y'' upper wings have each towards y"" End. a fair black spot wth a Small white Spot in y" midst of it, y' whole body head & horns very Sad. y'' horns have not a knob set on y' End, but near y° End grow thicker only. 5. Scarabeus major terrestris ater splendens vaginis Striatis. Taken on y'' Common 13"' August creeping in y^' paths There arc 2 Sorts, a less w*^"* I take to be y" female, y' under part of w'*" is purple Shining as Steel, y" bigger Shining green, w*^^'' I suppose to be y' male, y'^ first pair of Legs is set on y'^ Thorax, y'^^ Second on y' part of y" tail next y' Thorax. & y^' S** pair in y^' midst of y" Tail, w"' Strong thighs. Notes upon Insects &c. 1692 & \695 Their Genus See under 1. Musca corpore & alis fuscis. cauda in longum acumen desinente, capite parvo, 4 bicorni. proboscidi recto, pedibus longis pilosis, this is a dull heavy fly taken 28 May. on y'' Currans. 2. Eruca parva viridis striatus Geometer, this is that w'^ eats up y"^ Filbeard leaves, it hath 3 pair of feet before. & only one pair behind, besides those holders at y' tail, by which it will Stand erect & reach out its whole body to lay hold on what is in its reach, v^' head is almost transparent; fine small whitish Striae run along y' length of y" back; taken off y" Filberds 28 May. 3. Eruca viridis major se contorqucns &c. taken off y' grass in the common, its head is green, hath 3 pair of feet before. 4 pair in y' middle. & y" 2 holders at y' Taile. on each Side just above y'^ insertion of y"^ feet runs a pale pretty broad yellow stripe the whole length of y^' body, along y'' upper part of this yellow stripe runs a fine line of white Ai on \' top of y^' white a broader line of Cinamon colour, with white Spots in it. w''^ Spots stand one in y" midst of each ring; On each side of y"^ back runs one other Small pale yellow stripe y^' length of its body, in the middle of y^ back at y' insertion of one ring into another is a Small spot of Cinamon colour, about fi or 7 in all. those rings towards y" head & taile having none; when it creeps the body seems to move within y^' Skins before y"^^ Skin, y^' rings are inserted almost Scalewise. when 'tis disturbed it roals it self round, falls on one Side. & puts y^' Taile over y"^ head by way of security. I fed it with Aprccock leaves. 3. Eruca major fusca eaudii protubcrante. found under y" Coping of a brick wall, it seemed near its change, (lost) vide 66 4. Scarabeus medius fuscus Saltans, when taken it counterfeits its Self dead. A; when & 67 turned on its back it will leap up. by a Spring in the neck; Mr Doody calls it y" Castanet Fly, from y' Snap it makes, w" it Springs. 1. Adde to N" 1. y'^ Taile is bifurcate if narrowly viewed, it hath 3 black Stripes on the back, y^ outward Edges of y" wings near y' insertion are brown, y'^ legs & back arc furnished with small fine hairs, y"' back is gibbous, y'' head hangs lower y" it, y' Eyes are larger & rather more chesnut cold than y^ rest of y^' head. 5. Musca flava corpore producto. capite. & dorso nigro. bicorni. taken .^ or 6 June, y" colour is a vivid orange yellow, y^' 4 wings arc of y" Same colour only towards y'' Ends more transparent & y" outward Edges of them black almost to y'' End. y" 2 under wings arc not black at all. y'' leggs are yellow too. only y"^ lower parts spotted black, y' 2 horns arise not out of y*" Same origine as in some others, 2 small yellow threds hang from y'" mouth y'' horns stand as in (ioats. y'' very point of y^ Taile is black. It is but a dull fly, or Bee rather 6. Scarabeus minor rotundus griseus macula nigra in dorso & altero in Cauda notatus, proboscidi producto aniennis pra["***] I took it June l.'i on Verbascum. it is grey with exceeding little Spots, on y'' back a fair round black Spot appears. & another near y*" Tail, it is about y*" bigness of a common lady Cow they were in Coitu. the Male it Female are perfectly alike. ( H ARl.ES DUBOIS' INSECT NOTES 49 7 Eruca cicgantissima, flavjs & nigris maculis notata, iracundus The ground of their body is a pale blewish white, the body is eomposed of 12 or 13 rings, on y'' top of the back, & in y"" middle of each ring IS a large yellow spot, upon w'^'' yellow Spot are 4 small black spots set in a Square, on each side of y" body along its length are smaller yellow spots one on each ring, upon & about w'^'' are many bla spots of several figures & bignesses, y" head is bleak yellow spotted wth very small black spotts, it hath 3 pair of Feet before, 4 pair in y^' middle & y" 2 holders at y' Tail, it feeds upon y" leaves of Verbascum, I found many of them about y' End of June but not on any other plant, when touched it Springs & jerks like a ttsh newly out of y'' water, & throws it body round Securing its head with its tail, it is a little hairy, y'^^ hairs are long but thin set. 8. Eruca striata quasi oeulata, about 1 1/2 inch when at biggest Somewhat hairy, y^' head is blewish with 2 black spots seated in y"^^ place of Eyes, a white line runs y'' length of it just in y" midst of y' back, on each Side are slender Stripes of orange blew & Sad, y" blew y^ broadest, y' rings of y'' body are longer & flatter, it hath 3 legs before 4 in y' midst & 2 holders, I fed it with Aprecock leaves, & after 20 dayes in y*^ middle of June it Spun a long hne white Silk web. See after ') Musca sanguisuga, y''" Horse fly, y" Eyes arc very like an Opal in y*^ fine changeableness of its colours, y" head very wide, extending on each side beyond y" Sholders, y'^ wings grey, y" proboscis blunt & flat at y" end as a leeches mouth 1(1. Musca minima viridis, saltans alis praelongis, this is y" production, y' appears upon y"" backsides ol leaves & stalks in Clusters like Lice, it hath 2 very small black Eyes, 2 long horns & 4 wings, y' outermost are as long again as y'' body, y'^ 2 innermost much less, it tlyes hovering in the Evening, & when it lights if touched skips as a Grasshopper a great Length, probably it is necessary it Should be thus furnished to throw it self into y'^ Air when it is about to fly, y'" length of y"^^ wings hindering its more immediate flight from y"' place where it stands. 11. Phalaena media ex albo & nigro varia, alis ultrinquc eodem more notatis, y" head & Shoulders are yellow w'*" bla Spots, y" Eyes black, y^' rings of y'' tail end in a yellow Circle going round it, y"^ legs are branch[ed] & ash colour'd Shining, y" antennae more than 1/2 an inch long Sordid, y'^ wings are finely marked with black or near it, y' ground w'", all four wings are nearly alike. 12. Phalaena tota alba plumata, y" body is slender, about 1/2 an inch long, y'^ legs very long & branched, y'' wings each are composed of 2 perfect feathers joyned together near their Origine, y" eyes very Small & black, y'^^ antennae about 1/8 of an inch long. 13. Phalaena fulva 14. Vespa minor duobus aculcis, annulis flavis in eauda, insigni macula flava in fronte notata. Taken y" beginning of June, The body is black & y' tail also but divided in rings w"*" go one under another when it Shrinks in y"' tail (y'' whole body being cover'd not w"' a thin Skin but a hard Shell) as in y' joints of armour y'' rings are bright yellow, y' body is set to y"' tail by a very small juncture as in wasps & hornets, y'' head is large as are the Ey's which are black, y'' horns come out of y" forehead & Set before y" Eyes, arising from 2 originals, seen in a glass are jointed, but smooth, & grow bigger to y" End, just above y'" mouth & between y'' lower part of the Eyes is a fair yellow Spot, like a Stud, y' mouth is like a Lobsters Claws opening Sideways & one going over the other, so y' it Seems to be an Insect of prey in armour, y'' legs are yellow and indifferently long, with much irritating at length it thrust out 2 Stings at a distance from each other, several times, & bites hard with its serrate Jaws, y"' hgure is not slender enough, & the wings to long. Its 4 wings are long & Slender, y" under one but 1/2 the length of y" upper ones. l.S. Cimcx sylvestris subviridis variegatus odorem gravem Spirans, taken y" beginning of June, it smells very ill & very Strong, round y"' Skirt of y*" back marked with little u's on both its sides, y' 4 middle most of y" Spots on y" back appear like copper bullae y" belly is green a line of blackish running through y'' midst of it from y"" tail, it has neither wings nor Vaginae, when it Stands Still y" head is raised like a frog, & when turned on y"' back, it can hardly raise its self up, & then it turns 50 L. JESSOP over its head, y" legs are of y'' colour of y" body, but more blackish towards y" end. y^' head like a Tortoise, w"" 2 Small black Eys. y'^ horns are joynted w"" 3 joynts. white at y' junctures elsewhere blackish, it moves not fast. 16. Musca pavonina gracilis Splcndens. it Shines green all over the Fycs especially between which is a white spot. & just above that comes out two horns Short & standing two wayes. the legs are brown, towards y° Ends Sad. & pretty long; taken beginning of June & 17 July on currans on y'' Rasps, y'" wings are long & lar[ger?] towards y" End Sad. & y' very End. 17. Scarabeus minor oblongus niger cauda aculeata. gibbosus. Taken y'' beginning of June, when laid on a Table it leaps & jerks very often, the Vaginae are deep Sad or blackish. & to the Eye appear Smooth, but by the Glass have innumerable small puncta all over them, y'' whole Tail is deep Orange, made up of .'i rings inserted one under another Scale wise. & in y'' glass thick Set with down, v'' Tail ends in a long point like a Sting y^ part between y'" head & wings is \° Same Orange colour v'' head black like y" Vaginae, w^'' it goes hanging down perpendicularly, by the reason y'' back rises high. & gibbous y' horns are Small & appear joynted in y^ glass, the head is Set on to y' Edge of y" Neck slenderly, a black shell covers y"^ breast on each Side from under w^'' y' Tail comes out y'' hinder legs are Set on y*^ Edge of this Shell, with Strong thighs. & are pretty long, by which it leaps, the legs are of y' Same Sad colour with y' Vaginae, taken upon Panax Heracleum. 18. Apis longa Subtus flavescens. Taken at \° Same time & place with y'' last y^' black Eyes arc large taking up almost all y' head. & in y' Glass appear as a flyes pitted, y'' 2 bla indifferently long horns appear jointed 1/2 way also, y'^ wings are 4 the 2 biggest lye over y"^ lesser, w^'' biggest reach beyond y^ tail y' upper part of y' tail is black except where one ring of yellow crosses it. y° legs arc long, y' upper part of w'^'' are bla. y"^ foremost least, y' middle ones more, y'' hindermost most the whole under part of y" Insect is of a pale Yellow, between y'' Eyes hangs down a yellow part in w''' is y'' forceps. & behind it a Strange apparatus of parts for y'^ Service of y" mouth. 18. A rude draught of y"^ apparatus of y'^ foremention'd Bees mouth. 1 y'^ forceps 2 wipers 3 a kind of trifid tongue under w'^'' Seems to lye the Gula. 19. Scarabeus minor oblongus obscure viridis, & remisse splendens. Taken at y'' Same time & place with y" last It is of y" duller green shiners, y' 2 feelers have knobs at y'^ Ends, & in y" glass appear to have 3 joints y"^, the horns are jointed to y' naked Eye, the whole body & vaginae arc of one colour, y' toes end as flyes. & appear a little white. 20. Vcspa pectorc & dorso nigro. cauda & dorso macula alba notatis. cornubus etiam in medio albis. The head Eyes & body is black, save y' in y"" midst of y^' back between the Setting on y'' wings is a white Spot, y' horns are more than 1/2 an inch in length curled at y'' ends, all black except in y*" midst of each horn is a portion of w'", y" Tail is set on by a Slender black thred. & is black toy'' first ring, y'' Second & third ring are Orange colour. & y" remainder to the End is black save a white Spot at y*^ End. the legs are long y' first joints black, then comes a lighter orange, y" bla. y" brown to y''" toes, when it goes y" horns move incessantly, taken y' beginning of June on y"^ Tithymalus Tingit. lunato flore Mons. when first taken it thrust its tail towards y'' head & from y" under part of y" Tail about y'' middle not y" End came out a long black point or Sting, but it Seemed black, y'' under part of the body is in coulour like y' upper, but y' tail is flatter under neath, with a Ridge running in the midst of y"" rings length wayes 21 . Scarabeus minor oblongus fuscus lineis flavis notatus. Taken 28"" May, its length is about 3/4 of an inch, y*^ head large, dusky, w"' a bright yellow ring round between y'-' fore pan of y' neck & y*^ Eyes, y"-' 2 homes about .3/4 of an inch long, orange near y' head, & growing darker to y" End, y' t H ARLES DUBOIS' INSECT NOTES 5 1 Vaginae dusky prettily marked with yellow thus, the legs dusky orange, y' hinder ones very long, w"' Stronger thighs as if designed for leaping, tho, I did not see it leap. 22. Scarabeus medius fuscus corpore fulvo. taken 2X May it's very common about Curran's y^' head is flattish w"' Small blaek eyes, y'' horns arc 1/2 an inch long joynted all y'' way, & bending downward towards y'^^ Ends, at ly"] mouth are set four small Short feelers y*" 2 outer ones longest w^'' 2 continually tremble, between y' head & the setting on of y" wing is a dark orange colour'd plate y'^^ edges of w'^'' turn up a little, y'' Vaginae dark musk colourd, y'' wings under but a little longer than their cases, y' thighs orange, the rest of the legs musk, the latter joynts to y*" toes jointed & indented on each side y" body 23. Idem fulvus. taken y*" Same time y" Same with y*" former only all yellow tawny, except y"^ horns & the joints of y*-* Legs, it hath a Small black stroke on y^' forehead a little above y'' Eyes, w" touched I****] from y*" place where it stood, it hath a Sharp pair of forceps w"' which it bites at everything w" taken. Scarabeus Maialis minor, taken at y'' Same time. It is just like y' may beetles save y' it wants |****] Sides, y'^ male is the less & rounder bodyed, the female bigger & flatter [****] between y*" head & wings is in y" male more purple, & in the female [****] at y" End of May when y" greater sort go out, & eat young [****) are only trifid [**•*] taken y"" Same time eating Curran Leaves, y" head black circled |****] but one next y*" tail yellowish, y*^ rest of the body greenish, & almost [ ] small black spots are set on each ring & a larger black spot in y" midst |****| it hath a few very short small hairs on y'^ body, it moves not as the [****] a worm, it hath .3 pairs of Legs before, 6 pair beyond y" & the 2 holders at y"' tail [**'*| it throws its body over its head standing on it 6 forefeet like y^ Tumblers (*••*] l & 1/2 inch in Length, the fault in this picture is 1 pair of Legs too much, & too many rings, the last pair of Legs being set on y*^ next ring but one to y' tail this is y" better draught, only y*" legs are too long. 26. An Scarabeus ex minimis totus viridis imperfectus, taken y" Same time about 1/6 of an inch, with very Small dark colour'd Eyes, long horns, & pretty long legs, imperfect wing stick upon y' back about 1/2 way its length, tis nimble, qu" if of kin to y" Cuckow spit this is somew' bigger y" the Life 27. Eadem alba, just y' Same only w'^ w"" a faint shew of greenish upon it, phaps not so ripe 28. Scarabeus ex minimis chalybis colore & Splendore, hypocritica, vel ex motu se mortuum fingens taken 26 May, it retires into y" hollow recesses of Flowers. Dandelion, Hyacinth. Angl. &c y'' Vagina are like Steel in colour & shining, the wings w" extended near as long again as y" Vaginae, transparent, & as they are differently objected to y" light have a faint Shew of rain bow colours, two small antennae w"' knobbs at y" Ends, w" toucht it falls out of y'' flower & counterfeits its Self dead. 29. Vermiculus mihi punctum Saliens dictus. 26 May extending a Sheet of white paper near y" hot beds, one may see Small black animals light on it, about the bignesses of these points which run indifferently fast, if disturbed they Skip out of sight, viewed by a glass they appear worms annular rings forming y' length, & at y'^^ head 2 horns feelers, they move with 6 legs in y' middle of y" body or K they were too Small tV: nimble for observation 2S. Musca maxima quadripennis fulva, Labella taken 28 May on y" Rasps, this is y" 4th in Mouffet p. 66. in his description y' wings are Said to be argentei coloris, but they are w" held on one Side aurei coloris otherwise transparent. 29. Labella ex minimus, an 4a Mouffeti, taken y' Same time. If it be Mouffcts his description & ^ figure are not exact. It is blew y' head large & Eys prominent a broad bar of black cross y'' top of y' head from Eye to Eye, 3 bars of bla. run lengthways from y"^ head to y*^^ Setting on of y" wings the middlemost y' broadest, y' tail is divided into 6 or 7 joynts markt black as in y"' figure, on y' upper 52 L. JESSOP side of the legs a bla slender stripe runs lengthwise, y" fibers of y" wing cross each other at right angles. 30. Centipes lulus, about y' root of Tulips between y^ Coats of y^ rotten ones are many of | ' * * * | Sizes. I am of opinion y' they are hatcht there of y' Eggs deposited by y-^ |*'**1 y' least are whitest, they have 2 joynted antennae, their feet end in Sharp points 31. Scarabeus ex minimis, fuscus progressum analis imitans [****] it light on my book as 1 was reading in y' Garden, 32. Scarabeus ex minimis capite Chalybcata ex fulvo fuscus pedibus fulvis agilis taken 27' May digging it came out of y" ground, y'' head & sholders shine like Steel, it hath 2 long horns jointed with long joints scarce to be Seen well but by a glass & 4 feelers about y" mouth, y^' legs indifferently long, & pale [****] body almost black, y" vaginae towards y' Sholders fulvous towards y' tail blackish Shining Steely, y' Vaginae appear Striate in a glass it runs very nimbly, 32. figure as it appears by a Glass 33. a Small fly in y" Gnat Shape but without featherd antennae, y' head almost all taken up by y" Eyes, vi"'' are like a Common flyes. a Slender Neck, y"' back gibbose. & Elegantly marked with 4 black Spotts. of w'''' this is y"' better figure, y" body dark colour'd y" legs greenish. & long this hgure is 6 times bigger than y^ life, this is to be referr'd to y^ brown long legs in y" meadows. & not to y^ Gnats, they are to be found on y" Cieling of y^ Necessary house. Musca Culiciformis dorso quatuor maculis notato. 34. Vespa peetore & dorso nigro. minor, sine maculis. Taken on y" Same Tithymale at the same time, the difference between these is, this wants y" Spot of white on y^' back. & taile, & y'' white on y' horns, which are longer & not curled at y"' Ends, y'' legs are browner, perhaps this is y"' Male, v,"" is the lesser in many insects. 35. Vespa minor gracilis nigra cauda in duobus seris, aculeum inser\'ientib. desinente, cornubus praelongis tremulis. Taken at y"' Same time on y'' Same Tithymale; It is all black, except y' thighs w'-'' are Orange, when it goes y" horns by w"'' it feels are moved trembling exceeding fast, there is a Small Spot on y" Edge of each of the bigger wings, a long kind of Sting comes out from near y'' middle of y*" tail underneath, w'^'' when the tail lyes Streight remains between y^ 2 Setae in w' the tail Ends, w'"" Seem made for a Guard to it, & when y' Insect pushes with it, it bends its tail inwards, & y" thrusts it very Strongly, as one may feel with a pin. See N" 2(1 36. Musca Vespoides nigra, capite magno, ore albo, cornuorum etiam extrcmitatibus albis. Taken y' beginning of June on the Rasp bushes, y'' head wth y'' Eyes is large, y' 4 wings dusky, y"' whole black, except y^' mouth, ends of y'' horns, which are white & two white Spots on each side under y' wings at y'' juncture of y' taile & chest, this moves as y^' last with its horns tho' not so quick, & would be nearer of kin but y' y" body is set on to y'^ tail more Strongly, & not by so Slender a thread. 37. Musca Splendens cauda compressa, alls ex fulvo fuscis. Taken in y"' midst of June upon y"' flowers of Podograria. The head is wholly taken up by the Eyes w"'' meet together, & shine greenish, & appear finely pitted in a glass, 2 Small horns come out before under w''' is a Small black shining Spot, y'' body is vivid green Shining & in a glass appears full of brown hairs, y' tail is a brown green Shining, appearing to be full of brown down in y'' glass, it Spreads broad toward y*^ End, & comes off round & hath .S rings, underneath tis flattish. & y"' edges round turn down & in a glass looks finely punctated, y" legs are Sad brown, y' wings are longer y" y^ tail. & brownish all over 38. Musca fulva cauda villosa. alls in medio parva macula insignitis. Taken at y^' Same time & place. The Eyes Stand prominent on each Side y' head of a Sad colour, w"' 2 paler edgings on y'' (HARLES DUBOIS' INSECT NOTES 53 inside, or before y"^ face, in y"-' middle of w"'' between y" Eyes is a reddish Spot, y'' body is indifferently large, & somewhat gibbous, of a Sad grey mixt eolour inclining to brown, the Tail is very thick Set w"' fine brown long hairs, as are the legs, & all y'-' under part of y' body. The wings are pretty large, & longer than the body, with a Small Sad or brown Speck in y" midst of each. 39. Musca oblonga, cauda et alis nigrofulvis ore argenteo. Taken at y*" Same time & place. They Eyes take up the whole head, in y' midst of y"" come out 2 blunt orange colour'd horns arising from a black original, y^' mouth & parts under the horns arc white & Shine like Silver, the body is a dark Shining copper colour, down y" length of y'-" tail runs a broad black line, y'' End of y^ tail above & underneath is Sad & shining, & at y" End underneath stuck a flat substance like wax, y'' rest of y" under part of y*^^ tail to y' body is yellowish white, the legs are all black, pretty long & thick, y"" inside of y'^ toes white y"^ wings lye over on another as it Stands, & are of a blackish brown, shaded darker about y'' middle 40. Musca chalybeata, corpore caeruleo cauda viridi, Splendentibus, capite fusco. vide 4.S Taken at y'= Same time & place with y" last the head is taken up wholly with y" Eyes w''' are Sad y^ nose or mouth whitish y'' 2 little horns black, y" body shines lively like Steel, & y" Tail is shining green, & somewhat downy, y' legs are black, & not long. 41. Musca fusca, alis griseis, compressa lata, cauda lata obtusa. Taken at y'" Same time & place. The head is dark, y" Eyes also about y"' on the back sides is a line of white y" body is Sad, y'' Tail dark grey w'" Some more whitishness about y"' Setting on than towards y' End w"'' is blunt & Squarish, under y'' Tail next y*^^ body tis yellow qu'' if y" colour or some waxy foreign matter Stuck there for y'' flyes use, the legs are Small & black, y'' wings pretty broad, longer than the Tail, & when y" fly sits they hang down a little on each Side, they are speckled Sad upon white y' Sad thicker in two cross barrs on each wing. 42. Scarabeus fulvus oblongus, pedibus & Cornubus praelongis. Taken on a Road about y' middle of June. The head is longish, y' Eyes on each side small & black between w'^^'' a furrow lyes on y' top of y'' head below y'^ Eyes come out 2 long horns bending round towards y"' Ends Sad orage towards y' head & growing Sadder upwards jointed all y' way, & growing more whitish at y' End, y'= Scapula or body part is cloth colour & unequall, y" tail part is square at y" Setting on & broad & tapers to y'" End where it is blunt the Vaginae are pale Chesnut smooth & Shining, the whole under part is cloth colour & Shining except at y"" End of y" tail, where it is Sad Orange, as are the legs except the joints of y"' four formost & y"" thighs of the hindmost, they are long & end in one long toe at y^' end of each of w'*" are two crooked Claws. 43. Phalaena media grisea, alis maculis cruciformibus notatis, oculis atris. Taken at the End of June on a Ladyes clothes. The head is short & pointed y'= Eyes prominent & very black, from each runs a black stroke to the sholders, y" horns are white at y" Setting on, & after black. Small, & ending in a point, y"" back between y'' head & wings is very hairy, y"' wings are light grey with Cross like marks of sad which are edged with white, y' Ends are Scallopt, y' under wings are white & Shine like Sattin, & Scallopt also, & Sadish at y" Ends, y" under Side of y" upper wings, have Some Sad Spots on y"\ y' tail is large & very hairy, blunt at y'= End like y' of y"' papilio of a Silk worm, & grey, but whiter along the middle of its underside, y' thighs are thick set with white hairs, the legs black & white in small alternate spots. 44. Apis ex sordido virescens alis supernis variegatis, infernis ex albo transparentibus. Taken y'' middle of June, the head is flat faced w'^'out horns, or other furniture but what is under y' beak at y" mouth, 2 is y'' appearance the face makes in a Glass, out of y'^^ mouth come three Setae, it looks of a greenish Sad colour, y"' upper part of the body & tail is black except just at y'' neck where a pale or whitish Circle goes round it y' edges of y' Tail are fueillemort, the 2 upper wings w" are longer than the body are Sad with 2 whitish marks on the outer edge as in 3 the 2 under wings are whitish & transparent, y" leggs are greenish, & black points at y" Joints, prettily inserted as in 4. The Glass discovers Short Setae at the End of the Tail. 54 L. JESSOP 45. Eaiiem (cum 40) tota viridis this differs in nothing but that is wholly green without any blew as that (40) hath, perhaps the diversity of Sex in y" Same fly. Taken middle of June. 46. Taken y' Middle of June, This is very Near of kin to n° 39. The difference. The head of this is a little rounder, y' back shines more blackish, the tail is slenderer & the whole is of one colour. & the wings shine more with rainbow colours I suspect it the male to .^9. because tis less, y' nose is bla. 47. Taken at y' Same time. This is not much unlike y' last but not 1/2 so big. y" back is not so big in proportion nor doth it Shine so. y" wings are not so long as y*^ tail & dusky 48. Musca fusca cauda fulva. Taken in y" middle of June, much of y" Shape of 40 & 49. & y"' wings lye horizontal like them. The Eyes are Sad & take up all y^' upper part of the head, & meet the nose is black with a white Edging. The body or Chest is Shining black, y'' wings Sad at y" Setting on, & longer than the Tail, which is dark Orange with a black line down the length. & y"' Edges of y"-' rings black. & underneath all sad yellow except y' tip w'" is black, the whole tail is downy, the legs are black. & the toes white. 49. Scarabeus minor fuscus compressus aquatilis Taken in y" water in our ponds, about y'' middle of June. The whole is of a Sad colour. The head not to be discerned from the plate or Thorax having 2 very slender horns which by a glass appear joynted. & by y^ Same help 2 Small black Eyes are Seen on each Side the head. The Vaginae Shine. & are especially near y' Setting on bent inwards wth a fold to go under part of the body this Contrivance is to preserve the true wings from being wetted when they swim, the under part is Sadder than y'' upper, the 4 forelegs are brown & armed wth 2 Claws at y" toes, to Creep with. & issue out of y' fore part of the Thorax together the hinder legs issue out of y' Tail pretty low & end in flat fins, to swim with, w'*' they do very nimbly diving down to the bottom as soon as one approaches them, they will lye frequently at y'^ top in the Sun, very still to bask. 50. Phalacna pratensis Mouffeti 3a p. 9H Taken about y'' midst of June flying in y'' day w"*' it frequently does in meadows tho' in y' day. The whole body head legs & horns are very black the wings extend beyond y' End of the tail; each of y" upper wings is near black w"" a long scarlet streak where y" black is in y"" picture and 2 Scarlet spots at y' end of each wing, y' inner spot biggest, y' inner edges are Scarlet also, y*" underwings are Cherry colour, except y' edges v/'*' are Sad, all 4 wings are finely fringed at y" Ends. 51 . Phalaena pratensis Mouffeti prima p. 97. Taken 29 June in Coitu on a Stalk of Corn. There is no visible difference between y'' male & female. It is like the last, but y" body & tail is much bigger, y^ horns also arc thick at y' Ends, y" Sad of y' wings shines more greenish, & the Scarlet on y" upper wings is disposed into 5 fair Spots, & 2 smaller on y'' Edges, w'*" last is not in all. y" underwings are much less than y"^ upper, w"'' Mouffets figure observes not the wings are pendulous & not extended as in y" figure 52. About y" End of June 1 found an Aurelia hanging upon a twig, w^*" I put into a box, & w" I came to look on it. it had produced a Phalaena. v,'*' 1 call Phalaena albo fusca variegata. The whole body is a pale cloth as arc y^' under wings, the upper ones are variegated as 1 w"'' is done by y' life, y' Aurelia was left thus with a rictus where the fly comes out, & confirms me yet more in my opinion y' v^ head of y'' Caterpillar is y' tail of y*^ Butterfly, 53. Scarabeus Maialis gloriosa Splendens Grenoviensis. Taken flying in Greenwich Streets, y"= end of May; It Shines green all over y'' upper Side. & copper under y' Tail; It is of y'' May bug kind, y' head is Small & square, y'' Thorax or Sholdcr plate larg & almost Shaped like an heart from y' hinder part of w"'' in y" middle a triangular plate goes down between y'' Vaginae, these are marked w"' 3 Strokes of a whitish or Straw colour each & reach not to y' End of y" tail w"" hangs down, y'' under part of y' Thorax shines between Copper & green, & is thick Set v,"' brown hair y^ under part of y'' Tail is copper, & round y*" Edges hairy, vj'*' hairs imitate y' white marks in y' common (HARLES DUBOIS' INSECTNOTES 5S hrown May bugg. The 2 first Joynts of all y'^ legs are hairy & large with many points or prickles set on y"', & y'^ last joynts are Small & weak as in y" common one. 54. Scarabeus minor Ovalis splendens, tardipes, vaginis punctatis. Taken y" beginning of July on y" water Tub. It is an oblong Lady bird, y'' head is Small & Stands down & shines green, y' Thorax plate Shines more gold like. & y' Vaginae between green & copper, y" back rises round & gibbous y'' Vaginae appear w"" a Small help of a glass pitted full of small holes y" horns arc pretty long black tV lointcd in a glass y^' true wings arc large, & of a fine red. except y"^ transparent ends, y'' whole under part of y*" body is black; it goes slowly. 5.S. Musca media fusca; Taken y" middle of July upon y" flowers of Lcwage. The head is pretty round y'^ Eyes reddish, & do not quite meet, a Small white Circle going round y' Inward Sides of y"", y'" whole is of a Cloth colour body & tail, y'' legs are pretty long & black, y" wings somew' brownish just at their Setting on. .5(1. Phalaena fusca, alls 4 maculi insignioribus notatis. Taken flying about a Candle in y' Garden y' beginning of July, It is all sad colour'd except y' under wings w"*" are ash, y" upper wings are marked as in the figure with a Sadder colour y' Eyes are near black & prominent, when it Stands y" wings lye horizontal, & y' under ones are quite cover'd by y' upper 57. Musca Major caerulescens. Dni Hook. Micrograph. Schem. 26. where there is a full description Microscopical [****! |cut off) 58. Musca parva nigra Splendens. cauda tumida aculcata Taken about y" 7"' of July, y" head is taken up by the Eyes w"" arc reddish Sad & meet, y' 2 little hanging horns are black, y"' whole is black Steely shining, y*" tail swells out on each Side & ends in a Sharp point, y" wings are shining with Iris colours. 59. Musca parva nigra Splendens sine aculeo, capite rotundiore, taken Same time, on y' flowers of Levisticum. This differs from y" last in being longer, y" head rounder & Set further from y" Sholders, y° Eys Stand on each Side, & arc redder & Shining, the body or Thorax shines not so much, y'' tail is Set more slenderly as in y" wasp kind, & Shines of a remiss copper colour, & hath no point at y'^ End, y' legs are long, slender & browner. 60. Culex cornubus plumosis D. Hook Micrograph. Schem . . . where is a figure & Description 61. Papilio fusca, alls externis macula nigra quasi oculata insignitis. Taken y'^ beginning of July on y'= Grass in y" field. Two Short brush come forth between y"^ Eyes, w"'' are redish Sad, the whole head body horns & upper wings Sad, & Somewhat Shining, y' Under wings are orange in the middle most parts Shaded & Clouded wth Sad, at y"' Corners Stands a full black Spot w"' 2 Small white Specks in it, y" under part of y" inner wing 1 is y*" most vivid Side, as is the under part ot the upper wings, finely parted in wavy w"" a lighter colour near y" Ends. 62. Scarabeus ex minimis, ex fusco aurantius, found y' beginning of July, a Small oblong dark orange colour'd Slow paced Small Beetle, among Indian Seed Dustoa Vitlu 63. Scarabeus melanocyaneus Mouffeti p. 160 Taken in y' End of June, It is all over very black, the figure is sufficient for y'' rest, only tis made not round enough. 64. Blatta Mouffeti p. I.^N ubi|?| icon habitur tarn maris quam faeminae. Taken about our house in London, where are multitudes of various Sizes, so y' it appears they grow after exclusion, vide Swammcrdam 65. Scarabeus minor rotundus ruber, vaginis 2 maculis insignitis. taken 8 July, a Small Lady bird, y"" Thorax plate is bla. w"' a white Spot on each Side, & an oblong one next y' neck & two very Small ones next y' mouth as in 1. y" under side is all black, y" true wings brown. 56 L. JESSOP 66. Scarabeus elasticus major, this is imperfectly mentioned in N" 4 ot these papers taken in June, y"^ whole is a dirty Sad colour, y" head Small, y" Eys Scarce discernable y" Thorax plate larger than y" figure & pitted in next y"' body, y" Vaginae a little Striate, y" under part of y'' Tail, smooth & strongly armed divided by ."^ or 6 Shells of armour y' legs of a middling length when toucht it falls down as if dead. & when laid on y'' back will Spring up by a Spring Seated in the neck, w"*" Snaps when put in action. 67. Scarabeus elasticus minor. This hath y" Same Springing property with y' last, y^ head very Small, w"' 2 Small black Eys. y'' Thorax plate blackish, y" Vaginae chesnut. & reach all round lower than y" edges of y'' body, y^' under pan of y" tail of y'' Same colour, y" Thorax plate is continued part of y' way on y'^ Tail 68. Phalaena media Straminea. Taken at night by a Candle among nettles July 8. The whole is of a Straw colour, y"' Eyes black, y'' upper wings have faint reddish undulated lines on v"'. y^ under wings are as long & near as large as y"' upper, the legs are pretty large Stronger & brown, as I stuck it down it laid many very Small round white Eggs, y' stuck not the tail is darker colour'd especially towards y^' End. it sits w"' its wings hanging down in 2 or .^ houres the Eggs turned black. 69. Phalaena alis ex fusco virescentibus maeulis nigris insignitis. Taken by night in y'' Same manner, the head is ash ending in a longish proboscis, y" Eyes Sadder y'^ horns pretty long, ash colour'd & Standing at right angles w"" y"" head, y' upper wings are greenish towards y" upper edges. & Ends w"' lines running toward y" End not colour'd but a wrinkle & end in a black Spot y' ends fringed brown, y" middle parts of a Shining purplish Sad. on y^ upper part of w"'^ are 2 black Spots, y'^ legs are branched, y" under wings ash Shining, y'' tail Sadder, as it was Stuck with a pin it laid many oblong white Eggs, w''' was done by thrusting out a long Tube a good way from y" End of its Tail, w'-''' it wriggled about & one might See y" Egg come through it. w"'' Stuck to y"' place where it was laid, this Tube it pull'd in & put out many times before an Egg came. 70. Scarabeus medius fulvus. vaginarum extremitatibus nigris. Taken 8 July in coitu On y' flowers of Levisticum. It agrees exactly with y" description of N" 23. e.xeept. y' in this y" toes are only black. & the ends of y" Vaginae & it hath no black on y*^ forehead. 71. Musca alis subfulvis. Taken 9"' July by the River The Eyes almost meet, are of a Sad chesnut & large, the nose is Steely shining, the Thorax is sad. the tail a little lighter & Shining remissly on both Sides. & ending in a yellowish point underneath the wings are brown, especially near y^' Setting on. y' legs Sad. 72. Musca media Cauda ex luteo & nigro variegata alis Iridis modo splendentibus. take w"' 71. The head pretty large as are y'^ sad chesnut Eys y*^ parting between w"'' is Steel Shining, y"^^ back shines blacker, y" upper part of y" tail is yellow crost with bla. y" underpt yellow . y' legs browner yellow . the wings w" objected to y^ light Shine vivid w"" red & green 73. Musca fusca media, pedibus longis, alis macula insignitis. Taken with y" last, y^ head is not big. y' Eyes reddish Chesnut w"' a large ash colour'd division between The Chest is gibbous Sad strip'd wth Sadder, the tail lighter above & Shining ending in a point. & underneath almost wholly bla. y'' wings are pretty large brown & Shining with a black Spot in each as in v' figure this is verv different from N" 38 74. Scarabeus ex minimus chalybis colore & splendore alter, alis caeruleo linctis Taken with y*" last. The whole Shines blew as Steel, y'^^ under part black, y'' horns have no knoks but are somcw' thicker at y"' End. y^ true wings look blewish. w"' Iris colours & have a Small black speck on y" middle of y' outward Edge. 7.S. Idem longior ex utroque splendens cornubus longioribus. Taken with y" last both sides & every part Shining the blew is Somew' greenish, it is longer, & the horns longer also. 76. Papilio fusca alis Subtus 16 maeulis oculatis notatis. Taken by the River w"' y' last. The upper Side of y*= wings is all Sad, w"' long hair especially near y" head, the under Side of the wing is I HARLBS DUBOIS INSHCI NOTES 57 marked as in y'' figure, 3 in each upper wing & 5 in each under wing, in these Spots y^' first ring in orange, w"'in y'^ black, & in y"^^ Center a white spot, y'^^ body head & horns are Sad, & y^' legs a little browner. 77. Papilio fusca alis internis oculatis 61 . quodammodo accedens. Taken by y' River with y'^ last, This is darker all over than 61 . The Orange appears not so much on y' back of y" upper wings, but more underneath, where it is almost all Orange The under part of y'-' under wings is y" greater 1/2 Sadder, & to y'' Ends lighter with .^ black Spots in each towards y"" bottom. The Eyes are black. Edged w"' white backwards, & before just by y" Nose brown. 1 have one just like y^ Sort only w"" 2 Spots on each under wing 78. Musca bipennis ditricha; an an 3'' Mouffeti p. 63. Taken 22"' July floating on y" water, from whence I suppose it was newly emerged, being produced as I guess in the water, y" whole is greenish Orange, except y" end of y^' tail which is deeper, the Eyes are Small & black standing on each Side of y' head before w"'' are 2 very small fine horns, the Thorax is pretty thick, paler on y' Sides, as is also between y"' Thorax & y" tail the End of w"*' grows thicker, & at y'' Extremity come out 2 long Small hairs a inch in length marked w"" Sad Specks upon white. Scarce visible without a glass, (perdicei colons Mouffet) the under part of y"' body is brown; the legs are but 4 & green in y"" forepart of y' Chest under y'' head come 2 Small Stumps as if they were legs broken off. The wings are very large, y" upper Edge greenish, y'' rest transparent. 79. Eruca elegans flavis striis. Taken y"" End of Aug. in a Clover field a very Sad brown broad Stripe runs down y' length of y" back on each Side of w^'' runs a narrow yellow Stripe edged with white, y*" on each Side another broad lighter brown Stripe edged with black, under that on each Side a yellow Stripe like the former, y^ upper part edged with white & y'' under edged with grey, y'' head & legs are of a reddish flesh colour, y^ Legs are 6 Sharp ones at y" head, 8 flat ones in y" midst & y'" 2 holders at y" Tail, after it had fed some time upon Lettuce it hid it self under one of the Leaves w''' it fasten'd to y^ box, & changed to a very dark brown Aurelia. w^'' in Some day turned black Miscellany Thoughts about Vegetables. The consideration ofthe Infinite Power, wisdome and goodness exhibited in the Immense Variety of beings wherewith the Great Creator has furnished this world naturally leads us to y' admiration of those adorable Perfections so eminently display'd in his works. Amongst others the Vegetable Kingdome affords instances in as vast a Variety as the Plants are which He has made, whether we consider their Numbers, differences. Figures diversity of ways of vegetation & producing their kinds. Structures, Vertues & Uses, In all which Since a regular distribution of what might be said will be operose & difficult to reduce to a good method. Such thoughts and Observations as occur are here set down for y*^ present till they can be brought into a more just Order. 1. The universal [♦***] tends to preserve (****] & perhaps of all other Animals. 2. The flowers being of different colours does at a great distance direct Bees. & divers other flying Insects, whither to repair for Food. 3. Perhaps Plants may serve amongst other Uses, to strain & correct some noxious Juyces before they come abroad into y^' Air, by their passing through their Vessells. 4. I do not remember any Tree to have down on it's Seed, Such as pappescent Plants have , they not needing such ways of Conveyance for their Seeds to be sown at a distance from them, their Tallness_ putting their Seeds so high into y"^ Air that y*^ wind can carry them remote enough 5. The same of water Plants, whose Seeds are Sufficiently dispersed by bare falling down into y" water y'' flowing of which carryes them into distant places. 6. [**•"■] generally very smooth y' the water may slide easily off them without any way bruising their Vessells 58 L. JESSOP 7. The flowers of water Plants stand above y^' Surface, & the Seed y' follows which would not otherwise be dry to ripen. 8. Birds do often supply the place of a Sower in Berrys especially that have stonv seeds, which pass through their Bodies, without losing their aptitude to grow again, & being dung'd into the Bargain. y. The surface of the Leaves of Herbs good for Food are Smooth & free from down, which would be unpleasant in the mouth, & not easy to digest, as Cabbage, Lettuce, Beets, purslane Parsley, Endive &c . CHARLES DUBOIS INSECT NOTES 59 A^:^^.. " ' c ■*-■ " 60 L. JFSSOP ,vSv^ ^\.-- .^^ 6- /i CHARLES DUBOIS" INSECT NOTES 61 *: .......x"- M .. O- 07^ I- ,1 / . - 1.-' J\ 62 L. JESSOP i CHARLES DUBOIS INSECT NOTES 63 n " r/.. /,.?„.,, ^(,„„^ ^'^r,\, . ' /. *?•» -«»-■ 5>r^^,-,,^ »»j4iA' 64 I,. JESSOP ^ T i V ..^/ i/Jy reMf^^jl <■ «.>^ ■t 'X4/r ^ s kf'^-^'Ctf A4r< • r* I. • »-t CHARLES DUBOIS INSECTNOTES 65 v v-^ >=v t ■ *■ 1 'JI//0 - / 1 „^ /• l-Ct^M-./rf nil ran f I,- / ' , „\y J" •'.•»v w ,'„ -. ... ,*•. /I. 7/^ ti~/My> • •' ' t. \j i CHARLES DUBOIS" INSECT NOTES 67 :> \ \ v ,^-:^ >^.v..,.., 0./,..,^ ^^„,,,^^ •;/ jt:- -^-'■- ^-'^-^. •■' '•" '■ ■■ •■'" v' ^ ■:..x /• ''/-—,, .■;.^.^,^, .>,w.:, 68 L. JF.SSOP f O y'.ipilio n'lA laeiiiia^tiJ Zl .y J''rrt>.* Colour .jcf.'i»^,v f tf>a oj ^y kno(ri ix''^ are i>t(lti , »inffj c^n_ if titi}Ay fi^Tja^ 'i (HARl.ES DUBOIS' INSECT NOTES 69 > I , ,.f f «t .K. t 'J 70 L. JESSOP c? '♦«-> i.«,jfA» v-Afi/J' •■ /i/.". c/j:^tl,>>- i./in»S- tiiAT/tJ L.ra.'iji, 1,1 ^rn.e y>.'» -'.T") ■»»» '»^ t/v.S-. wtVV.' o^j'V* ii«i.*T lifii'fJ ■'11 »/<« ? loil-A -tfrtiJt ' t'r. . It :! Ota." 4"^ v'jx.M.*-!? ci'i/A ri.«r^, y n>. ^^V Jt'jLc i^ -fiU.X-v ti'" *^ r-4 i^^ CHARLES DUBOIS' INSECT NOTES 71 'Ha 9 " /■' I II - Hi',,, I • J. ^-' . fj*,'! 72 L. JESSOP I. , Hi." I jJtU'o -ItcJctL- , alio ^j(iS-rn.<.i> Vii'ikA*;^-' rt-rfi-* fl'dOijfl JetX;*.'!^ n>A^^ ktnJ, fitrrnj nc^cnxJ- H^ rrCnfiii of nu.m , tiMfn-r^/ y*^ Gyrn<>rj of 6a c A . ^Ira.^^ -- y^./^ QCc^clZ S^otr, uAHl 2 X«// H^A^V^ ^,^.^ % L CHARLES DUBOIS INSECT NOTES 73 9^ ■hue,: a.1,: ^Uitltii JO »'.nf«Aj ociidilii ne>tn.ttj t r 74 L. JESSOP 12 ~ >-/ ce. ,K, ,.., t.,, i„A... $Z. Tj ^•"'" '■ ' '•'■• J 75 CHARLES DUBOIS' INSECT NOTES '\ t 9c I J^» 76 L. JESSOP .^..j /yg.^ ^jr. 5^n.X!./2>-..r '''i^'.W' CHARLES DUBOIS' INSECT NOTES 77 '\ «^. -jtijto f> I <^ /•' -' V« /'.r^y «■• /*.? f.-i/?(. ^ji, ...•I'AC A i^lr^,, cC f ! rtxAttyfii fa-r.-^''^ .!...<. . fl » r\ ^t. 78 L. JESSOP •,- o> ■.l,'.f' "^ ■""" '"■•"■• ■'^■^ --"V.y;...^ „;,, ^-'.;^ ;:./^.„ ^.^,, ^z:^..:., S *^-^.A f/!y ^../ .oc^fi'JZ 'J, y >f-^ ../^^ yV..>'.,: I.., ,/ ■ ' ^ •" --"•' '^-.Z' ^.„^A J'„.^ ''■#»* flil|/|- .^>- '.•;^ ^,, j-;;^ rt ,,.,/^ ^, ^Ao .».„, „ „,; 7,,^^ ^ j^ ^^^ •^'/...v .•„,:., Ay ^,7, ^ CHARLES DUBOIS INSECTNOTES 79 , J c l\ <' C C. ' /« , *■<> A. nnK^r. vat A. Tim* y , »-^^t ftii«.' 'V uHalj/nA It '(fa^ iJitifii, ^j, tern), S' i/&>rvJjr. •./& ^^^•' '^^' *''''7}/ ^'*'-9 I ^ ^^nr/i.' c^ \ 2_^ « '<-i,nJ t.f^'^i-,^'"^'^^ tr y' f'-'-.f v-e-ri/ (*»i^. Cnr/T 0/-;^ ft« rivy/ Or> <*«*- 1 5 "J- r<^?*«.-HV«' K'Af-'f*''-'- 2- 80 L. JESSOP u iPu... •-^t £.^ "».," r«>X>- ^ ^ i^„ ^ ^ ^ ^^i-//^.>.wL. .S,^,,^ 'ff^ iTic/y "2^ I »'''£vi <./C^i. ,«-^.-?i,. ^ o> ^ / -^'^ ''l<' Jln.< -/li^'^i y ayi. CHARLES DUBOIS' INSECT NOTES 81 £n'ij ifu ifa.ft 'f-^ tuintj jAt'n>J tnrtt:.- n N ^ ifivr ^X f^pJ'^J' t^/'ff-^- on^'J-, tJ^i'i v-i o-C^tivT) ^, //;««^>/.--/7^»t,< 't ^"a^rfni a.l{ro~J\i4eA. ail UCA. aUj v~a/r\y4 attJ iydt AuYttW (?^yin^ t,p,r^^ ^n'^f , i'>'<^J t,ut- ", li ^7 82 L. JESSOP /.o ■^ ma cu lt4 f/;".- un>^^ tifittfj w^ich. f f/u, k ''pt''^ "'"'9'' "ri friA-r^O-r/ ivj |^ f^ /',.iT.. i..,7/^«. J'nclJ^ ^''H^ Ltirae^ , kftrcn-a, i>' (yien'ri. ; "-'"'■■i it n'aj tfttccK. dtrittn. trt, a. tiox Ufi)/i '^ /"" , «/ Irtii Kir. 7i_./ sf-ini JtfUiU. , |-io-n>if\ »if/it/t. Cdo^, tu^' VhifK Hoi- /e,V* "^> , '•'"' d )8 fijh. cfttnAt'a V Oh<■ y^x.-t h,/rA f in O ^ n f ■? /^ , ^ i'// ' HA^>f ^O. ^ -'^o-bi tin. ij fc,/9.v . /AT. -^ /"'■'. '*'<>>.•-, »!.>„//' CHARLES DUBOIS" INSECTNOTES 85 ',f'ix *-'^ *,"jtatL. nUhi . ^^"^y , ^Witf ^> S' U-.j^j^ fe,,^^ i),H>r, tn4 t- o^f 'fs ^*yf^ , -".j '.■'''* 0.2 \'h(tlcf no. aU All A.iJ*n lU* hi'f^jyuj ri-/r**/i,', ii.7ji"or*^ \WjUt,,y- 6*jll.nnims »f-A-'un^. Jh. fyjrf a.o-t Cfmr/., f"j .iiG.'wR.^t Z^?" ' -^'^ •'►'^ "f/"'^ '^'■^''■' ^^'- '«^V , f^y* -'T^ f^^* '/».V •'i.V.V if- /^' 'i,,7>r Ti.',',,f4 .,>, „^^ tCufii^l li^il !rr-ti>i„itJ .^(-t.,^ ^'- "/'/'■■ •/«*-/«: '*' 4# I'A*" ^»:*r/>r.% /■' arc <-/- Vi 5(1 86 L. JESSOP o, -24 ' ^ ""■*»«»- ^•"•-n itr-it's tmxnt'^rtlj i4^uCntiJ »ori,J «x.y;;,><; m^nd'i ..N/jf .^kO V^.Vtj ^^ .v.//;V/, tS<^ .7 /CO Q«H^ \t- ^J-f-f v,\ ^ S.x ^ ./• fr^ . (Jrw. »i^V o^C Xrr.,,vl„f ^ *».- (^V j/«r^ ^y I^Wja^ :, < %rtym,-<.0 •^rrt ^*y^ «-*»- '^f* ti>^/A^ tOi. QoW •^^i-rc trr I fi j^.K .-1 M^^ riv/ C*J€ fftly ai't t/'A^rrZ . nvt-U^ri^f «'»♦ ^t«^ Crffr/^^-r^ * t^^)i4K t-»v«*»-Ti ^f*»*v- •V'lTtt O^-^/.V *«^^ /iG /* 88 L. JESSOP ay • tl>^ » ,ij .a» •• fyf. y/J - f m^' 2S 'Hum ■&irti>t tfft' IO^"~ i u>«» •'.•(/ /I'/uVo -U-tnt. on tarA*J<'rtc^ //.. , CHARLES DUBOIS' INSECT NOTES 89 ^f^C^tk^fniJff- <,J^tM^e£-,^^4.sjf^»j cure KtWc^^itS. 3o Pn-i^ev^y •j^-^ jy^«/^'-.; ^./ /.^ ^^^^._^^ ^^^ .^y^/;,.,.^ .. 90 a** i > • ' tAr ah i n'l m Ci eitu J. L. JESSOP /V- CHARLES DUBOIS' INSECT NOTES 91 /. Kak.'n iy^\'. lit-.Ht C>r ft'/ "/ y f>ir-i>ri^ y' /f.-.^rfj- !•/?.•/ ty^pt-cSntCy , lii^ rt->-« I't^/.T^* ■>-«»- />.'!<■/» 92 L. JliSSOP 3 T ^<2-'-' ^-^- -«A-r,.H,.-r.^.;r>f C«- c^.yf, <^/Vy „ /.O . /^'« . /5r CHARLES DUBOIS" INSECT NOTES 93 b- i6o. ' f %) tJcaTao ,' nj S-y »,, /n.y..:^ .o'^ u ^ S[;>^U-n */Cl^//.*^.5- 94 L. JESSOP Va^tnrf Ch^n^ii- ec/'^n.t^, w''^ trtncA ri If re^nn) , C»t.oir f/tmiu n^.V *i- i/JW^y ^J .27/, ^/ u»D^ 0«^f y!^*- .^/ rj «,/*,,• 8 Jc^ra.6*U^ :£<.i(x^cj t>^c-no„.t CHARLES DUBOIS' INSECT NOTES 95 <. 5 uJt;-. % I.. JESSOP fc. '7 J CHARLES DUBOIS' INSECT NOTES 97 7 2 ' 7~r ' 98 L. JESSOP f3. » ''./.;, J ^, /.,,,. /i^ A^ /■ ^''r/:.,,^ j^u i^j^rjr^' \Tr-' '^f^y'^'J ^r^.f 100 1-. jussop f6~ \.'Ai-tTx.' -j-xi-'%rxij , \'-n<)i'tia.ri*ni Jr_y frerni Jn Ul'nJ t-'*.A<-n ^ S op- Ju.^1) ^loxo}-yj of- -^ ci'i.i 1 1 c n /,, '7 i/i.r.S.' ai-^ '))lf^■ Al VniC b<,.ri'. 102 L. JESSOP 2o. . ^ceLra-bciw C iLainltj min.^r' .'/■^/^ «« ^ ;;:/.v^ ^^y £^S,cf-C^ ^ ^.^^ y.l j/ZA^ (■4yn . / F *-^'' CHARLES DUBOIS INSECT NOTES 103 ^1.6 caretu< ^••»?r..O y-/c^,„ ,,.y ^,„^^ 'r *'""" t''^'^-^' '""^ ^ i'-'^ ^^ ^i; ^.^s l^Xz:L »• CHARLES DUBOIS' INSECT NOTES 105 J.^_!iyi^-_.-_ :_[^jfiir!;:i'>'.',:i '.1. 106 L. JESSOP ^J "^^ralrtuj timnUi co^'ffri^ ,Ju(>U J % y Ja-ki-n. al^^ioAf on a. ^e-*tf ^.'rry tuxj/l ; J fit. iO ^farAieiU ni^.< tijini^ jfrt^itri >.* CHARLES DUBOIS INSECT NOTES 107 -> niacuU'j fri2L4_l\ J A ^'cxr^enj arSx ''vrCicJ rn^'rin-Qi/tift.- p9( ♦ <4u»it/t# "» - n^t-. 108 L. JHSSOP 33 OfarA^tnV minor rctuni rtcStr '^«.K>n. ffPf/l^j , St i'i i> a. iltr^al Jfu. kfj^i^ ■Jho-ra.je laLaJk-z. U mrUtrt^ ^tt- utt'ttZ tar^' > vCa.fA ^potj 3A-Sc^a/;^^ m^^_^^,^^ Cnj,^,^;^,^ 3: fl^ninff fl-n. A.*r t'l\f^ '^S- Sc^^r^euy „u„^ rcmz/Je y..„Q,«^, J-^,„l^ ;«f«. . §^ Jlr-.^U,. 9^„f.^„t, AG., .„^^ ^^ f^ ^^^^ f^y ^^ >-l CHARLBS DUBOIS INSECT NOTES 109 3^ 110 L. JESSOP »'.< mn tk oj Jr ^ naat. ^^ Jiit^ id f/H -tto /7 . y^ i»S- nit'' rfX'iff' , 'if JrAAl- jAi'm'nf ,^ i,0/ef^y ^nfiutt n.x. /t/»^ |t>« /A \J.rn^U*h jint-t<.n)yr \f''*f}Hln^ n. tf fA!ctvin«4 . ^-'Ac nut U-in*j /i / v If?.' '>u£fn.t^tuy (^rt^ir^ tii y Jh*»i-M, tO-rOtnti- a^~.A^"- /TjQQ^i of f^Uy ^ (ni^y- 'Mm^ fCifc <> A^rvJ tr Hanf,/ rt'^i-^y* t^iUl*r, fr evfry «>■/ / o,^,.M.*..-,y A, pi^f/cc^r^ ^/cr£a-,"/€'/ ^ ^c^^,/ «-»-«. yj//.^„ ^-. r,_ ^ J^ r^o\^r, , J.y),^ ^.,,, P,, . ^,,^^ .,. /^^^ J^.^ £^^ , ^ A'''-,Vfy 116 L. JESSOP CHARLES DUBOIS' INSECT NOTES 117 n irvscioiJ lyvict. 1/ i'fnn'A. 1 .''7' <^i'j «^-. >V*c ''^' --C-rnJ-r •/^^ 'J'?*^ <7 ' '^'■'^•^ _4 ■-:. 118 L. JESSOP ..'Syr ■..r,h\^-fir^J>^^J,^^;^^.lip.y-C^^^^,^ ^r/,;./, g.- ./' -»•..•. f 'i.; ys^j,**.-^ .-,7.4./ «i/»c. t <^».-i^ tu •ji-Cfa .c- A.:i iir^j tn- ry • '»< ^ *•*( 7 ' ** *5'' ^''7*^ uyih uyA,t< rv« « l4»-n*»«. yO^'^-c* r«^y t# t*»-ri4 ^-*— », .^ \ >i->Jn~+ < A< '•It' V --.,1,, „•.? tVf/y /:>. SOul, •? .'ff/.., 5S- L jirsaiii__.. lU^ 1 CHARLES DUBOIS' INSECT NOTES 1 19 :';f'-_jP''f^^lenarik.,n^„ ,. •1^ TT, V. ./". % A. - - . M . ■ f /j L'ttLC. 'Th tV ea /ri r ; '• i^ / - /- '-' ?^ ' ~ '^'^ "'"•'* <- ' AC' f/?? 120 L. JESSOP <) C-Vtili»fl ixpi+e-f-trtiO -j-ii-^e o :-j til v-tL "'^r^'' ,-/?^", ,<:?«. Oat A'.f.t,', .'-•/ (-''M-'j/Tn. 'ii-.'^r.,/ f'njtit,^'^ ty.\ .1, \f'-*a.et.ii f^t'e/Z nfM- tu^ i^ti't ^rr^ti Ain't tr ^ ^ tffi^ 'r ■>■.■, <' '-rnry /?„lry ^„ .. /t , /,'//. V , y* •^''^"^ (''^ ^^ ifo ^ i7i A , A ,.' .,. fun yV^y rt^y-^"/^ •/ Ktno.^J '>f> V ^.w-'// aJ if it ^ \ Vfi ti xj cs€?.^ r 122 L. JESSOP tl .\ .n !j) Jna^ ui>i>^i jf- tJrCm'.^r »(! \f^nny K.H *rn els ti,,, ■ i'trt :..' m^y^ ,urt J^.yrvtn.*. StCvyr^)fi xv'^ ^ ^,„*& i^^ /?€rrr,j ,, -^^-o-rtJ S-CatK CcnA^.J/ /"iS/vAn^i .••/ ntt.}h ^IfttifJ /»r* !•■•/> i i.'jh. uf>^ »v^ ^ry JT^-rj,'i,^\„K^ j^ie ^l y j^nc„^:X\^^^ ,nh J^ 7.V.4/ ^ n-^iU, CytCiJ ,j^ -i^lfy y^fCtfu), rtA y f«0 i-CtLfj^ ^ ^ryia A- 'Ct^'tt ■^y^'- W^^trun'jX. ^ fu'nt'j-r- fnej j/H^, to^tiC it. i^oxi^r, Joeh \ I4- L'liu>cn.ai}ifirrr„,'j v^leye {litre e^tiifrt, imn'tcj , • '»/./i Z-* ti'cifit. in jv" •C^'vM. nt^r i1*h i/ljCj . .i'f f'.. <, I'.Hy t>,r„^'/,.., y 2 A-mV SCiLti., I^ie£ V i'^{f*'iKt(^ Cc^ _y i^Djc ,i <.' > • / i J.*- J 1 1 4 1 11 LA -i CHARLES DUBOIS' INSECT NOTES 125 YeJpa-, tnlnor ^dm>^tu) mtu£*la^ a^rvu,£iU t »v ca.<^ tv , ■^ffoAf^ , >--j rt^c«/«r.; t«^t^/ri, ^fC^Z. l*t. -JrtfnJt^ tt^ttx/ti TTO^m f / 126 I.. JESSOP \ (^'^I'tl^ 'A CHARLES DUBOIS' INSECT NOTES 127 / eJiOi\ I. v ) / ^^; 'y;^:"^•/^ -^r/^^' ^'rr^*-%-cf'nrt^' ^ Aoi-Je n'lar^} cnnan. A- .S^ ttrr^o , »«J -iretnuUVj lii >itiLj(0 Alto n^ta-tlj cr> o \ ^ 132 L. JESSOP lf*'VJ Cauca corhX^rt T'-^i imtiuj \ ,'> CHARLES DUBOIS INSECT NOTES 133 isvsfsrTST^; .^: ^ iM 134 L. JESSOP ^^fpthlf m ^ • /. ' 6- ■"'' "" ^^-^-^ •'-'- '^^v /..< ^;^ a c-ii>c,j'uj.^ca.7ii.e^g^ 2. i CHARLES DUBOIS" INSECT NOTES 135 -y C /^i'.> 9L rce^a. •--<. / 136 L. JESSOP [jCntlJ Citntc'inum if J CHARLES DUBOIS" INSECT NOTES v- Wi.'/ in the UC attimrio oj »,'«*»i.(t; Ut tn oi't>.( J Loi'^'^ly , ' I, U Jl-fyii^j ^tifl tfijL /uia^ V rctij^A Cifie^-^Ki of a.^ai), t' It InjOfrt i tj b^/iefi , il-eein Fmri'i, rCCc^vfr i tj —feel' ^ Ix'ht'efi. •A U^i.'-ttsv.^ Jh-cn^ ,9/vytx, III ; S' nrJltri ^edll turn.i clIL '■"««■, 0< J^iinfij till t-o mti£.r J/Im. • 'X< /•/<»•) ii uAx. £>_ I rtf iVt'^^-^V*" At^o ihtTit/L fl,f^ are ^Ca.cK.,\y hcrn^ Aatte. M rc^. >• 'j^rny fr i/eiiC a-rec'.t'jj^ ; il- fieJn ncihtcr- fVtiioJ nor- Vtnft:t>C. V i»t./i/ y JAiTt e- y t/ni'l hn^irt- <^n ihot-h t/i««'y it- IJ me^^tJtc^ t.-« *ft fV/HL v.'. i^« friT^S^^ li rt^nlarfy mAn-Ji'J ui"^ xft> oh /fi-i 4 Ca^j.^j/- i/ ntTi'^UtriiSff- ate, {o'^b.'r- ctyfeni'tV ^ in &etJ - 137 ir-or/i 138 L. JESSOP « A A .V , « rf^f/. / ;;^\:.:"^'-'^>;^<^?;i7^;'''^';,7^'^^'> .. ■ .'T. fe*'^. ^"^".'L^ v&c/i,.ri .; ^ /i^^^ . ;i ^ i^, ^^^ ^^^ iVvrrt^ <''' A^O 1, I" CHARLES DUBOIS' INSECT NOTES 139 m o A / / I'^zr'p^ C -la ^~- > '3 c/.T^^,//., ailfK,..L-4 tr,^,,.: vV"^"^<^^a>''''^'*/ .>-'.■' {.» . y -Did ,^\y ^/,',,,, J-,;, ^/ y <.^y.\r V-Sy *^fl f- (•rr'f.in.^t, .,-..,,2 v' *■*'»■'« ^''/.; C^ *y^ J /e f, 140 L. JESSOP \ X ^'V^ ■ ■?. ^^pr -..^y ^^-.v-i (^A^,y .^^.^ '.-.;..//::: J '/w/«. 4^A ..; ."•^ •/- CHARLES DUBOIS' INSECT NOTES 141 »-' « '<-,iriX '• (■ f<.' >>:ttl'^ ■ ■ ft • I ' ' ■ «!•»»« lit/ %^f/ I il 1 1^ , . ■ ') ../Ivi <-,t ,v* i2^^«i^,i /^ t^t.^i.^'- eyt'lf t'y ,'•' y ['"^ r * .1 * • .'A .-•.., /■■..VA, 142 L. JESSOP '7 /yr/'^oOy ^,,..v /.;»-.^* U.7...: vvx:.5/ "i/^,;,- -/-"v: ;^-«-- 1 A 143 CHARLES DUBOIS INSECTNOTES / /^ . - /7 2-aX. fy-a^U f^cvunl ?/^^ W A .u.,;? r;'^^^ ,Ji POr^ ^e^^ ^&r^J- io ^y- C^ ,^t ^yr- aJ *" /t>-»iu rfnJTV , .'Z ftntL,tt. Af(U!«u> rhit^f Kj>.*^1^ rf^xrr'^^ trT^^xxJ-K- '.Vv^£. fZ, rr t/3 'yi-n*J , mv^y '^ ^ fni. (hlC/C, 3^in'u\ c/«tr^ mi^ tyn/t eAcK. -r mj, n»Wi. (^ o-QtuJ- u>^ a^y^. truly 1^6i. c^/r t^ ,f€i\K» al-^^ c>t> ^- &L.r.j»^ A^ ,i^;t ^v^_ „^^ f/ff^ ^>V^^y ««r/^rt fmtjjit) /. alt-v I "^ niLtyi a^re. ti/rui, «>-uV- ffCt^i •/^er-. '^' 144 L. JESSOP Q b7l.u>ra. ^*«^,, ,l/«^«. , ^^Jhrf^j^y , / iy.Sr «t^ ^h yy C^/f^ ^A Ce^hr^ 6.-^,.Mc^, 1-4- ka-fPz ■o^^y-jrr.^.rf'f fuel ^^v/'.' ^2^,V.' i^l CHARLES DUBOIS INSFXT NOTES 145 v^o^ fl-£l..«- JhCij y /n*-«/l ■*^.ru^A^., 9^ ti'<. jH^nfj A (i,i>.' .5^A/ » ^/7 upfi^ r rnJ.t, 1 .»)■ 'til f/yft/Kf kOt-c^nf, yx.ii « ml j'-^'Q. V'T^' ^-''^ 'u:- >>i. <• ^"^ .«-f CjIV. •V 1^ /w-»-». ^^fj' 7/ 64iu?/*ii>7r , »A/"|v^ HfJhiy*^^ - 146 L. JESSOP f- ■IJaC I V ••4U .^;Wy^ ^'^<-^^^ fAi^^^ ''x^^itJ^yity ^ ^ 4^,i jl^c^it <^j^ f*.hi£2nf t^^^mtftf-iUi ' '>G^, ..,.'* ■^,- '.'/ 4/. CHARLES DUBOIS' INSECT NOTES 147 Tg . 4 r: '■'-t. .,,ff^:;js^- fij/u*. A«J *''n-»r-V 4»te! A,/ j^?^ ' ' ' J'' »^^.^ /» n,c^rD, auuA. 6' ^^ r ■(^.'y w '.•'Ack.^ Ja.vy^ \ii ^^ J1->'^Ji- Of-^ .Tar • y 'f-9 'It %/. ».i-^^'' U^rirf/,. tt-n'jj^ . ^/- **t f^ •'X'j '"-^y-"--'^ »v«.^■*^>^^. ». ^;„,5 ASA .r-^t^j ,>fu,' •/"^'f- i^^/-^— ;«".-v/v^,' -'''^.•'V^-^ >«4 .(t^fC^lrt.,.;^ tx^v^^' ■ »«i;- /^r.-^' «i4i- «»Yi*. /» J. xa*/ 26 ' '^ . /■ ■•;' ■ -'' :^ ■ CHARLES DUBOIS' INSECT NOTES 149 29 A? eye, 5 *afl^ af ^Ql.. tun CSt^M ^'^ ■V c/^ *»-»/ *i^/: /-Arr^ ^ 1^ (^itx-zt tir.y Y?^J- ,;,-,' ,»;,. "»,»■/ i, ^^ 150 L. JESSOP 3S-'">.o *//ff: irr. -i ^ .-/ . '- fa cfc. . T-' V X'A^. *^ l.,"' >6i^i^' ,„ U>r, ^/j-y' Jj^f. ^ l,t ^r -^^^, - » .. ^•^ >^^.^^ ^-^^K- 27'^ ' CHARLES DUBOIS INSECT NOTES 151 '/y'cr^nu' -<C^V -^ /' ^' fl At ' * ^^""-'^ ^'"-''^ O^r...... t,Wr.-'' .^'/^< 'iTt-t/ / 152 I . JKSSOP ffx^)ifXiL^, ^rt'-i ' J.-.'.,.t.. A^ i^.b£^tj-,ufitfi^^ ^1- 4/ J' .J hjK. l^cA , >-- n»^ ^trn^_. - f J. - ., » ■ , .'> «/»mc Ufclj^ -frrtifh. trm ■(( ^y- u%lc^ f£ht- fny^ r r, 4 ' /jii Va^tnX ay^^p^ft- ChljnlU-i(i " if/cUxt^no , /)U_U'^V6l »i*C*J^ (Ia / ,1/ 0^ ^"^ ^in^tn^al-i jHa-j a-*-^ t*n..f S^ e &nV <-«-"f foij CHARLES DUBOIS INSbCT NOTES 153 ^/^•y"^; yi yJtjA'£irp I , t>yi ■' '• '■■/-•/ '"' - ■ .^•h/'-lrj A (i CaJj ) r^tA~«J- ^ rrnruA'i. CM^xt. fn»i:t- ut^f-dl , •7 ^ cr.'>pi Ui-*l~*.J^*^ ni5( (>-- •'- /^n-t 0-0(1 V 4^ 4'.: -iJ.J-J-i A.' 1^ '"<>»- ^-• ■fj- a/^e I A^ J ttCti ■^i 4 4o^ /" ■ c> t i ''my V' /^i 154 L. JESSOP 46 . cu^- CCtt<>.' h^' ^"^^ ,J.ff?^ u .t. ti'ftt^ rrvc^^jA^ , v^ dado, J, i^ tTx^^ , v^ w!c un^tfj JAA^nS rMOT-<_ UH/-fL. tTX^M ftM.u tf-t-tcijy ■;v/- e\* .uo^ -t v/o 1^ J y '^~'- li;wc f^rAi em. nvr-Ooi£^ iMt^ ^»,^ urinifj .., »,,.^ , . *■ ,1. e T^ '^ /- ^\ "^ , // '^ , Vd ^ •c ^ri lt\ ^y • bi».titnr %/hlinnt^ kmAfi^^ "Z I^mv jC~y^'^>T ^rrnj f'A~,'cA^ ^<^et«-^ •••i; 'i>«Vi// ,-/*v»>t ^4.'nf Utiiti. .,«<«^ i/lut- ^ ' -^ '■'■ CHARLES DUBOIS INSECT NOTES 155 joj'.',:,(\tr^ py,j,.^,, i |??^,,.'?>A-a^.^-. C^yr^y CjrCyt^r. hraY^i y-Ol^^ . '"*^^*. vC"*, rt-'f , , -• ^jiU/t aA-^ COj, ^)p^^ '/^W*- f "{»'/•' '^■^-'i*-' I -f-^f^i ^ J, / , to , v •TV^;", '^'"\'^''i*y)fyNcliyu.t^,<'^.)r*f^ kii~_ m ^^^■'■^■ ■% > J V 156 L. JESSOP rrJh Jld^ir^ ^5-ii ../I/- taJ'n h--m.lt. *«>/ .Vu-a ^eAuctn, /y*' ^/ if'^'it.^ Kit^t- o.n.m^.vnS^ 0l^/'J'.'-' !»'*■ ^Lyn^fO,,,^ ^ u 3 ^ p.Wt- .(Lf^ JtCn,^ Jj(L^^J f & //■ P^'il^n^iK. ifu •fTTx' ■_>>.- >rij_.,jA.^ v-f -i-* rt*^ — ^^tK.nveti~^ W Jr,j^(t »tr/l'(t. it>-e*j. Q^>^j «ilj 4 6 f 9 wi.n^v't^ t ^ fr/^f* f > •"' 'Til I YyvV Itii'rL*/ rrr etSruU/lu^U ^ni fhn^4..k-f>',nt li. pa: CHARLES DUBOIS INSECTNOTES 157 / rr V.^' ~e<.»-^^J. r ^ U>^p it*d/ ?»■ »/C;...'v af'-'i^-'^^A ''-Jf-^ curti-uT-, y/uJ^ "«r f^e^rtt- *A- ■. c^^l&t ... '^w^f* ti «- ,y«^"*f l^-^tf- ■'-''. : " -LfVy Ml'^ »- *^7"^-<'\ C-^-Qj-n/r "ntA/py^ vy (y'Z, . JtMti^tiU iyfrl^^nl 63. tirnmi^ ,„. (? ^- '^A?^.---/^;.^ vAs.T y,-;. l^ \^^r ill M" I 158 L. JESSOP rF4 1/31, itn. }n^, [[Mi fc . -o ^ • /«■'" «KM.>t« ^V«.*ri yjZrtitii L. •l»l^» 9,. ^v«. ♦l^U. .65-. 'et/^ti . /^. ,v ,A^^ j^ ^t^^ jz..^ J f^^^ ^; ^^. C7 ' J" **-♦' *^>> \ii^ CHARLES DUBOIS INSECT NOTES 159 •-'»'a a./- A. kI hrmAAj k. -^ , //T^ > , < ^.jtfy i,^ ^^ ^. j^ ^^;^_^ -a •v^ . f.^Ul^Qu^ rxl,>x'j , 'X£; '% ••« C/»,' /„ //...,.,. 160 L. JESSOP 73 . fn*Vi«,-, ' C "iiicx ^^cc fn*Ji«.-, /»'«'fritj!^**P**'"J cotton f^tt4 -' 'jUkC- / ■,-^ii.'^''"Klj'ruJ- w*' ajAi 'o^UH itfhifi^n iA^KjdAK /^ 9»#|0l?tO ^ ..y®'-?. ifAcL CHARLES DUBOIS' INSECT NOTES 161 -5 ^'^'^^"^ ^.v.^^ /^.-t^.,/, ,, t'-'" ^""-^ V -cr' -^^„:^^ ^;^..,, . ^^^£ -5:f^;;^: %-^r^..: r^t^ ,? ■' f 't ■ lira fCu Cin?/ n.i id V «Q mi ra / er^ "fi^xryA.' %.ntrttyn^j-t- o //i3rj trie L'fj^etat'^tt ' fp-z^/t. rt-r'ttr-o/ vn /r n?i e,*J tn n J itiyi- a L/rnriB/y furt h ^^TtJetti^ -{ I (i 'Af^ '■■in '^'^ l^ffni f/t/- ttrhci A f/jiyrc fuy?- \ CHARLES DUBOrs' INSECT NOTES 163 "TTICT^ *„ /'t iJ . I- At trt,iArJ t-ft'rif flr ai'^ti i.,.c fii/tl,<^ k'^TiJSel^, *\>/{t//Ceyr~ to re f,n/i tr / V> /y&y * ■^rto-»g/t oM^*, S. >■ <^e .r^'^ic />/" /in A*r- t.''t1t ni^^ , ■fi^/^'^ye. L^t^dj nye ** ^ /\6 • /? /* /^ Z ''^ * 164 L. JESSOP / n < ' 1/ *' 1. .. ^^irnj do ot'I»n Jiif>f>€u the pilte^^ f - n i ><■".'»' •^%?frryJ CJf>feJrt-fCy t/iff- Aaf* j/trny ^c'Ci}^, Ij'/'(f4. 1'^ m C\ y ir*4.f iXjBf a ■/i^'f> iM/r A/)-if «n-rL ^7 CHARLES DUBOIS' INSECT NOTES 165 ^ ^ Revista Latinoamericana de Historia de las Ciencias y la Tecnologia Editor: Juan Jose Saldafla (University of Mexico) Quipu (Latin American Journal of History of Science and Technology), is devoted to the history of science and tech- nology in Latin America. Founded in 1984. it is published three times a year. Contributions are welcome and articles are accepted in Spanish. English, Portuguese and French, Quipu has become indispensable for all those who study Latin Ameri- can science and technology as well as for scholars interested in the diffusion of science in different cultural contexts. Suscription rates for 1989, including postage and handling: Latin America: Individual US $25 Institutional US $40 All other regions: Individual US $25 Institutional US $60 A complementary collection of Quipu is: QUIPU NOTEBOOKS The price of each volume, including postage and handling: Latin America: US$10 All other regions: US $ 1 5 El perfll Jl de U clcncla M «a America S£ Orders and suscnptions by check or money order: Quipu. Apartado Postal 21-873, 04000 Mexico, D F.MEXICO CONTENTS 1 Notes on Insects, 1692 & 1695 By Charles duBois Edited with an introduction by L JESSOP *' 9*tLt ^Bulletin British Museum (Natural Historyj HISTORICALSERIES Vol.17, No. 1, May 1989 Bulletin British Museum (Natural History) BRITISH MUSEUM NATURAL HISTORY) 1 8 DEC 1989 PPF/^E^ITF^ Historical Series ■- VOLUME 17 NUMBER 2 30 NOVEMBER 1989 The Bulletin of the British Museum of Natural History, instituted in 1949, is issued in four scientific series. Botany, Entomology, Geology (incorporating Mineralogy) and Zoology, and an Historical Series. The Historical Series is edited in the Museum's Department of Library Series Head of Department: Mr R. E. R. Banks Editor: Miss P. Gilbert Papers in the Bulletin are primarily the results of research carried out on the unique and ever-growing collections of the Museum, both by the scientific staff and by specialists from elsewhere who make use of the Museum's resources. Many of the papers are works of reference that will remain indispensable for years to come. A volume contains about 256 pages, made up of two numbers: published Spring and Autumn. Subscriptions may be placed for one or more of the series on an Annual basis. Individual numbers and back numbers can be purchased and a Bulletin catalogue, by series, is available. Orders and enquiries should be sent to: Sales Department. Natural History Museum Publications, British Museum of Natural History, Cromwell Road. London SW7 5BD re/e^one.- 01-938-9386 Telex: 929437 NH PUBS G f^.v.- 01-938-8709 World List abbreviation: Bull. Br. Mus. iiat. Hist (hist. Ser.) © British Museum of Natural History. 1989 ISBN 565 09012 7 Historical Series ISSN 0068-2306 Vol 17. No. 2. pp 167 -258 British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road London SW7 5BD Issued 30 November 1 989 Typeset by J&L Composition Ltd, Filey, North Yorkshire Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (hist. Ser.) 17(2): Ifi7-25X Issued 30 November 1989 Mrs Elizabeth Gray (1831-1924): a Passion for Fossils R.J. CLEEVELY j 118 DEC 1989 Department of Palaeontology, British Museum (Natural History)! prfiCC^f.jyCJ^ Cromwell Road. London. SW7 5BD ,, , , \;:;:\' ,'.:... R.P.TRIPP L_ 41. Kirk Drive. Thornhill. Ontario. UT 3KB. Canada Y. HOWELLS 12. Ashmore Drive. Silverdale. Newcastle-under-Lyme. Staffs. ST5 6RL CONTENTS 1. Introduction 169 2. Biography of Mrs Elizabeth Gray and her family 1 70 3. The Gray Collection 175 ( i ) Collecting Methods 1 75 (ii) Mrs Gray's Localities 178 (iii) The Use and Users of the Gray Collection 180 (a) Thomas Davidson 180 (b) Charles Lapworth 183 (c) H. A. Nicholson and R. Etheridge. Jnr 185 (d) F. R. C. Reed 187 (e) Other Users: W. K. Spencer 188 Mrs. J. Longstaff 189 W. H. Hind 190 T. H. Withers .A 190 (f) Visitors ■ 191 4. Biographical account of F. A. Bather 192 5. The Correspondence between Mrs Gray and Dr F. A. Bather ... 194 6. Aquisition of the various Gray Collections 204 (i) Original Collections 204 (ii) Subsequent Collections 209 7. The Girvan Fauna 210 (i)The Ordovician Age in relation to the Girvan Fauna 210 (ii) The Silurian Period & its relationship to the Girvan Fauna jcontribution by Dr L. R. M. Cocks] 212 (iii) Interpretation of the Girvan Fauna 214 (iv) The Starfish Bed, Lady Burn 219 8. Conclusions 221 9. Acknowledgements 225 10. Footnotes '. 226 1 1 . References 234 Appendix 1 Letters between Mrs Gray and Thomas Davidson recorded in Davidson's Letterbooks between 1847-1884 241 Letterbooks in Palaeontology Library Archives, British Museum (Natural History) 241 Chronological summary of entries relating to Mrs Gray 242 168 R. J. CLEEVELY. R. P. TRIPP ANRY. HOWF.LLS i^^iifi^^^^iO^, Mrs Elizabeth Gray, still tollccting at the age ol 92, this photograph was taken on a family visit to Balclatchie in September 1923. MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 169 Appendix 2 Mrs Gray Correspondence in Palaeontology Library Archives, British Museum (Natural History) 244 Summary of Contents 244 Mrs Elizabeth Gray Correspondence Vol. I, 1874-1914 245 Mrs Elizabeth Gray Correspondence Vol. 2, 1915-1923 248 Appendix 3 Alice Gray letters in General Files, British Museum (Natural History) 251 Alice Gray — F. A. Bather Correspondence 253 Summary of All Alice Gray Correspondence 253 Appendix 4 List of Gray Localities in the Girvan district 254 1. INTRODUCTION Amateur fossil collectors have always made a valuable contribution to palaeontology. Inevitably, during the early days of the science their collections augmented the material gathered by the professional geologists and made a substantial contribution to its development. The various specialists and professional geologists were able to make only occasional forays into the field and either employed local residents to gather specimens, or had arrangements with quarrymen, or else had to rely upon the collections of amateurs to resolve the problems they encountered. Other naturalists, like the Sowerbys, who produced the early reference books encouraged such collectors to submit material to them for determination with the hope that they might have "something new", which could then result in recognition of their effort by being named accordingly (Allen, 1976; Cleevely, 1983). In his history of Scottish Palaeontology, Clarkson (1985: 1) has shown how the discovery & description of the rich fossil assemblages of the Palaeozoic sedimentary rock sequences of Scotland was largely conducted by self-taught amateurs. This was particularly the case with the thick sequence of Ordovician rocks, mainly elastics and limestones of shallow water origin with their rich, often unique faunas occurring around Girvan, Ayrshire. Mrs Elizabeth Gray, wife of the ornithologist Robert Gray, amassed consider- able collections from this district and has been described 'as one of the foremost fossil collectors of all time' as a result of her redoubtable activities over a period of more than fifty years (ibid: 1). Her initial efforts were encouraged by the research interest & need for Palaeozoic brachiopods of Thomas Davidson and subsequently, by Charles Lapworth, who utilised the fossil faunas she helped to reveal to interpret and correlate the stratigraphy of the Girvan region. Miss Etheldred Benett (1776-1845) is regarded as the first woman geologist (Cleevely, 1983: 54) through her wide involvement in collecting British fossils, particularly from the Cretaceous exposures of Wiltshire. The Philpott sisters ( 1833-40) were amongst the first to collect Jurassic fossils in Dorset on behalf of the specialists and were soon joined by the more widely known Mary Anning (1799-1847), partly to provide themselves with additional income. However, a decade later, Mrs Gray began a lifetime of collecting in the Girvan district of Ayrshire solely out of interest. She was a woman of extraordinary character and considerable determination, who as a result of these activities left a lasting name in Scottish geology (see Flett, 1937). 170 R. J. CLEEVELY. R. P. TRIPP ANO Y. IIOWELLS The Gray Collections have become of particular value because: (a) a careful record as to the exact geographical location and geological horizon from which each fossil was obtained had been maintained; [this was also augmented by Mrs Gray"s phenomenal retentive memory of each specimen!]: (b) it was also one of the earliest collections containing information as to the relationship of the specimens to one another; or attempting to ensure that part/counterpart were kept together; (c) the collections formed the basis for many of the earlier descriptive papers and monographs by significant Palaeozoic palaeontologists [principally owing to its uniqueness]; this material also formed the basis of the fossil lists published by the officers of the Geological Survey in their Memoirs. As a result, the Gray collection contains many type specimens of British fossils and is also significant in the nomenclature of higher taxa. Together with her daughters, Mrs Gray formed three collections of Girvan fossils; the first is now in the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow, the second in Edinburgh and the third, by far the most significant, was purchased by the BMNH in 1920. Later, her daughters contributed substantial material fo the BMNH to augment the original collection. Apart from providing information on the accumulation of the fossils by the Gray family and their subsequent acquisition by institutions and their use by palaeontologists, the main purpose of this paper is to indicate Mrs Gray's relationships with these scientists. The extensive correspondence now preserved in the Palaeontology Library of the British Museum (Natural History) through the efforts of her daughter Alice and the co-operation of two former Keepers of Geology. Dr W. D. Lang & Mr W. N. Edwards, has enabled us to attempt this appraisal. In fact, examination of her lengthy correspon- dence with Dr F. A. Bather over a period of thirty years, reveals Mrs Gray's single- mindedness. To attain her objective of ensuring the description of 'her Girvan fossils" as quickly as possible, ideally in a series of monographs based on the Gray Collection, she somewhat overlooked the other tasks and difficulties that might beset the busy specialists, whom she had persuaded to undertake the work. Recognition of the significance of the Gray Collection and the qualities shown by Elizabeth Gray in accumulating such a wealth of material, has led to several earlier attempts to write a short biography and record the history of the collection. However, neither the original attempt made by Alice Gray', nor a later effort by W. N. Edwards of the Department of Geology. BMNH" was ever published'. Fortunately, although W. N. Edwards' notes cannot be found. Alice Gray's earlier drafts have been preserved amongst the Gray papers'*. In many respects, she might almost be considered as another author of this paper, for in addition to her biographical account of her mother, Alice was also responsible for the organisation of the Gray Correspondence, various family photographs and other relevant material into several bound volumes before presenting them to the BMNH in 1938. Furthermore, much of our own information on the Gray family and their collecting has been gleaned from the occasional reminiscences that Alice Gray made in her letters to the staff of the Department of Geology. 2. BIOGRAPHY OF MRS ELIZABETH (;RAY AND HER FAMILY The little biographical information available was provided by her daughter Alice in a brief account of Mrs Gray's life written at the request of the Geological Survey, after her mother's death''. MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 171 Elizabeth, the younger daughter of Thomas and Mary Anderson, was born at the Burns" Arms Inn, Alloway, nr. Ayr on 21 February 1831 according to baptismal records (pers. commun. Danielia Shippey, 17 October 1985). However, Elizabeth Gray and her family always recognised 21 March 1831 as her birthday [see Biography MSS and letter 18 March 1913]. In 1836, her parents moved to the Girvan district when her father decided to leave his occupation as an innkeeper and become a farmer. At the age of fifteen, after education 15 20 25 T 1 1 r N Shalloch Mlll^ Woodland Poinl.< Whilehouse Bay. Ardmillan Brae v-S >6S, South Threaver Drummuck •^^ — — • Newlands e^!5V Mulloch Hill • Craighead Quarry^ a\e' , „t Gir>!25' fNEW DAILLYV Camregan Wood* »GIRVAN • Dow Hill -^0. cTT-Af^- '''fc^^^C^^Balclatchie Benan Burn» lUinuntion Quarry / Aldons Quarryi A714\ 1 MILE I 1 Map of the Girvan area. 172 R. J. CLEEVELY, R. P. TRIPP AND Y. HOWELLS at a small private school in Girvan, Elizabeth was sent to a boarding school in Glasgow for a year. She then returned to the farmhouse at Enoch to assist her mother in looking after her six younger brothers. During this period, her interest in the local fossils was aroused by her father, who gathered specimens when travelling around the neighbour- hood, particularly material extracted from nearby sites used in repairing the roads. Thomas Anderson was a keen naturalist, and in their monograph on the fossils of the Girvan district, Nicholson & Etheridge (1879: 165) dedicate a trilobite BronieiLs andersoni to this "intelligent and enthusiastic collector' and later named a coral after him (p. 273)*'. Left: Robert Gray (1825-1887); pi. V from obituary published in Glasgow Naturalist. Vol. 4. Right: Family photograph of Mrs Elizabeth Gray in iy()5 when she was 74 and there appears to have been a lull in her geological correspondence. When Elizabeth was twenty-four she met Robert Gray', at that lime a branch inspector for the City of Glasgow Bank and one of the typical gentlemen-naturalists of that era, whose interest in ornithology had brought him to Girvan to study the birds of the Ayrshire coast. Much later, in 1869, he was to publish a joint paper with his falher-in- law on the birds of Ayrshire and Wigtownshire. Robert Gray also assisted Elizabeth in collecting her Girvan fossils, particularly from the easily reached Penkill and Balcletchie localities and together they made a substantial collection. They were married in 1856 and although living in Glasgow were able to continue their bird and fossil excursions by visiting Girvan each summer. The scientihc partnership was helpful to both, for Robert Gray became a keen fossil collector and from the evidence of Davidson's letlerbooks, possibly the instigator of their family fossil forays. It would appear from the numerous contributions that Robert Gray made to the Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Glasgow, that he was frequently travelling throughout Scotland and Elizabeth had to learn to skin and preserve the bird specimens required for their bird cabinet. In 1864, MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 173 Robert Gray read a paper in Glasgow on 'Observations in various branches of Natural History during the past summer", which referred to these fossils. The original Gray Collection was presented to the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow University in 1866. Various short papers and accounts of exhibits based on the joint work of Mr & Mrs Gray were published in the Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Glasgow between 1868 and 1878, several of them dealing with the fossils. It was shortly after the first of these, in 1868, that Professor John Young, one of the authors, instituted a class in geology for women at Glasgow University**, and presented a ticket to Mrs Gray. Apparently, she greatly enjoyed this opportunity - her only formal geological education - which provided some understanding as to the scientific value of the fossils she had collected' [Alice Gray MSS: 3]. A mixture of collecting, field observation and participation in local society activities is a predictable pattern of life for any young couple with a joint interest in natural history. However, it would appear that the Girvan fossils gradually became an absorbing pursuit. The growing family continued to spend its summer holidays at Girvan, presumably benefitting economically from family associations in the area, and each of the children were gradually introduced to assisting with gathering material for the collection. Alice Gray in writing about her sister Agnes [16 October 1937] recounts: Like all the other members of the family, she began to help our Mother in her childhood; at the age of 5 or 6 years she was a trusted worker. It was this same sister, who picked up the first Cothurnocystis ever found. In another letter [18 March 1924], written after the death of her mother, Alice states: We hope to carry on collecting as the work at Girvan has been our principal recreation ever since we can remember. It is not surprising that in such circumstances, with all the children occupied in finding material, the Gray collection increased rapidly. In retrospect it appears that Robert Gray may have shown good judgement when in 1874, he accepted a post at the head office of the Bank of Scotland in Edinburgh. Although he eventually became their chief cashier, his decision to move was of more significance in that his former employers the City of Glasgow Bank ceased business some 4 years later on 2 October 1878. The auditors reported that the Bank had lost its capital amounting to £1 million, the Reserve Fund of £450,000 and a further sum exceeding £5 million. The Directors, Manager and Secretary of the Bank were committed for trial and all were given periods of imprisonment. The Gray's involvement with natural history and local societies was still continued for, following the offices and role he had held with the Natural History Society of Glasgow, Robert Gray became prominent in the various societies of Edinburgh (see Obituary Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb. 15, 1887 and DNB 23: 19). In particular, after being appointed its Secretary, he was responsible for re-vitalising the Royal Physical Society, one of that city's oldest scientific bodies. About 1880, according to Alice Gray's account, Dr Traquair, Keeper of Geology at the Royal Scottish Museum had suggested to Mrs Gray that she should describe her own material and had offered to teach her to do such work. However, she declined his offer, feeling that she could not hope to equal the authority of those who had devoted their lives to investigating particular branches of palaeontology. Instead, she preferred to devote her own energies to provide such specialists with ample material to complete their descriptions and interesting specimens upon which they could conduct their research, since her real enthusiasm lay in discovering and collecting fossils. 174 R. J. CLEEVELY. R. P. TRIPP AND Y. HOWELLS Galleryl No. 59, George Street, the home of Mrs Gray and her daughters from the 189()s until 1945. TTiis photograph shows the property in 1971 when the premises were occupied by the Dunfermline Building Society and the publishers T. & T. Clark (2nd floor). Alterations to the building had been made to provide the necessary separate access. No. 59 extends from the drain pipes (right centre) to a point above the doorway to the left of the Building Society's front. Reproduced with the permission of The Royal Commission on Ancient & Historical Monuments of Scotland. Map section showing part of central Edinburgh to indicate the relationship of George St. within the city. Robert Gray died in February 1887 having made his own particular contribution to natural history with the pioneer work on Clyde ornithology The Birds of the West of Scotland published in 1871. Unfortunately, its companion volume The Birds of the East of Scotland which he was preparing with William Evans at the time of his death was never published. Although ranging widely over the whole of the West of .Scotland, the bulk of Gray's book provides the first genuine account of the birds of the Clyde area. The book has become a minor classic and one to which modern ornithologists are indebted. J. A. Gibson, to-day's specialist in Clyde ornithology, has written of the work (1981: 71): 'One of the masterly bird books of all time. As the years pass, being more and more highly regarded. . . . Gray brings the birds and bird-watching a century ago magically to life.' It was only after her husband's death that the Gray family began their long residence at what was to become the familiar address of 59. George Street . and which was occupied by various members until 1944 (see p. 210). Mrs Gray survived her husband by thirty- seven years and maintained an interest in the Girvan fossils throughout that time and resolutely collected further material with the help of her daughters for all but the last few months of her life'". In 1903, she was awarded the Murchison Geological Fund by the Geological Society for 'her great services to geological science". It was fitting that Professor Charles MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 175 Lapworth was the President to do this for in his address he was able to record 'that Mrs Gray had devoted the leisure hours of almost half a lifetime' to dealing with the fossils of the Ordovician and Silurian rocks of the Girvan district. Lapworth himself had accompanied her in the field, had benefitted from her collection and the precision of its accumulation, all of which he personally acknowledged in his address. (Proc. Q. JI.Geol. Soc, Lond., 59: xlvii-xlviii). In her letter of reply, Elizabeth Gray wrote that her work had given her 'lifelong pleasure" and particularly the knowledge that it had been of service to many geologists. She emphasized that initially, her husband had shared in the pursuit of the fossils and in working them out, and greatly regretted that he too could not share her satisfaction in the recognition of their joint work. Mrs Gray was elected an Honorary member of the Geological Society of Glasgow, where she was regarded as the first and foremost of all the 'Silurian' workers (MacNair & Mort, 1908: 122); she also became a Fellow of the Royal Physical Society of Edinburgh. Mrs Gray died of heart failure on 11 February 1924 following six days of acute bronchitis and within six weeks of her ninety-third birthday, her elder daughter Mary died the following week and in both death certificates bronchitis is given as the major cause. Alice Gray writing to Dr F. A. Bather about her mother shortly afterwards wrote {24 February 1924): The last day she was downstairs she looked over some fossils that she thought it might interest you to see . . . they were packed up ... a letter was drafted & she was to write it next day. 1 now enclose a copy of it and hope to post the box of fossils tomorrow. 3. THE GRAY COLLECTION (i) Collecting Methods The methods adopted in collecting have been described in detail by Alice Gray (Mss p. 5). From the quarrying tools shown in the available photographs it would appear that substantial digging operations were often undertaken. Although Alice has written: 'that no rock was ever taken down needlessly and that every piece of rock was carefully broken up and if a specimen was not found immediately, examined to the last fragment.' Every effort was made to ensure that part & counterpart were kept together, particularly after several of the specialists who had utilised the collection had emphasized this point (see letters of Bather, 14 March 1900 & 31 July 1900). Alice Gray commented that they considered that: 'a fossil without its counterpart was little better than half a fossil" and if loose specimens were picked up, time was often spent searching for its other part. It may be that Bather's comment to Mrs Gray on the need for having both parts had influenced their practice, since in his view: 'having only one side merely raises the question without affording the means of settling it!' Certainly, the earlier descriptions based on Gray material do not contain many examples of counterparts (see Nicholson & Etheridge, 1878-80, in which only 5% of the trilobites described fall into this category). In another letter. Bather (14 March 1900) comments on the particular value of specimens of starfish, where with impressions of 'both sides' available, excellent examples could be obtained in contrast to the material described previously by those authors. Every specimen found was, at once, firmly wrapped up in paper and placed into a bag, or vasculum. In the evening, the day's work was not considered to be finished until that day's collection had been packed into small parcels and labelled with a locality. When the material was back in their home, the specimens were trimmed by means of fine chisels, or 176 R. J. CLEEVELY, R. P. TRIPP AND \. HOWELLS f^.Bll. ^^ 1. Alice & Agnes Gray at Threave Glen, below the farmhouse at South Threave in 1922. 2. TTie family at the Starfish Bed, Lady Burn in October, 1922; from left to right: an unknown friend. Agnes, Mary, Mrs Gray, and Alice. 3. Alice & Agnes Gray at a roadside quarry, Balciatchie in October 1922. a saw, so that space could be saved. All these trimmings were examined further in the search for additional specimens; [ — in a letter to Bather (7 November 1907) she asks for the return of any trimmings from a specimen of Cydocystoides he had agreed to develop for her]. Later letters of Alice Gray (4 May 1937) and her sister Edith (4 August 1942) mention boxes of un-examined material that they had been unable to process; the latter asks the BMNH for help in dealing with this material, pointing out that her sister had 'often come across unknown treasures on splitting stones ... in the house". Subsequently, each separate piece was then labelled with its locality and horizon — often small printed tickets were used — , before the specimens were classifed and placed in cabinets, or stored temporarily in boxes. Yet, for some reason, Mrs Gray had decided not to resort to numbering her specimens. There is no indication why such normal practice was not adopted and one can only assume that her phenomenal memory made MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 1 77 this un-necessary. Evidence of her amazing recall of individual specimens is provided by several letters (to Bather: 16 April 1904, 12 March 1914, 2 August 1915; to Lapworth: 20 November 1898, 30 September 1919) when she enquired after particular specimens that they had not returned after their research, by describing distinctive features shown by each of these specimens, which frequently enabled them to be recognised. Another aspect of this, is the family's involvement with the collection through their use of 'pet names' for particular forms e.g. 'the boot' was a reference to Cothumocystis (8 November 1911); 'the hat & feather' (11 August 1915); 'plated slugs' (4 May 1937); 'trumpet' for the columella of a gastropod (6 May 1937). Elizabeth Gray had undoubtedly been encouraged by one of her advisers, or companions to adopt meticulous methods in her collecting. It is possible that since such information was so critical for Lapworth's research on the succession in Girvan, that he was responsible for instilling the need for such precision. As a result the collection, in addition to being relatively unique and one of the few available from the richly fossiliferous deposits of that district, was scientifically reliable. Lapworth and Reed took pains to praise Mrs Gray for this aspect of her collection arising from her thoroughness. Much later, Lapworth (10 June 1914) when asked to advise over the value of the trilobites stressed that: It was the very first collection in which the exact localities and horizons of every individual fossil . . . was written down at the time of collection . . . Reed (23 February 1909 and 1909: 220) emphasized the value of having material, which enabled him to describe things 'with much more minuteness' and also that the regular visits and careful collecting over so many years enabled him to make conclusions as to the relative abundance of the taxa occurring at the various localities. Spencer (1914: 2) also echoed earlier remarks as to the value of having the counterparts, for . . . 'the casts are usually much easier to interpret than the specimens preserved in original calcite". After each Gray collection had been acquired by an institution, the family had immediately renewed their collecting activities during their annual summer and autumn visits to Girvan. In 1922, erect of figure and with sight undimmed, Mrs Gray was photographed at all her favourite collecting spots (Balcletchie, Whitehouse Bay, the Starfish Bed, Thraive Glen, Mulloch Hill, Woodland Point) and a last visit was even made in September 1923 at the age of ninety-two. During her almost seventy years of field collecting Mrs Gray had seen localities come and go; some became exhausted, others became overgrown, or unworkable in other ways, or, as in the case of two limestone quarries Craighead & Tramitchell commercialised beyond recognition so that the fossils were lost in the processing. The keeness of their collecting is demonstrated by an annotation made by Alice Gray (Sheet LXVI NW) concerning the locality 'Bougang': In 19(K), when my mother, her brother and I went there the quarry was almost full of water. Having been forewarned by Dr. Home, we took a thin rope with us. It was then attached to me, held by my uncle and lying flat on the brink, I was just able to reach down and quarry stone to hand up to my mother to break up. The stretch of time between 1855 and 1936 is a long one and it is safe to say that the work . . . during that period has been carried on in the same way . . . (Alice Gray, letter 4th May 1937). After Mrs Gray's death, the surviving daughters had made the annual pilgrimage to continue their mother's work, — even during the difficult years of the Second World War. From her letters, it would seem that the summer of 1940 was the last occasion they had 178 R. J. CLEEVELY, R. P. TRIPP AND Y. HOWELLS made any real finds, when Alice recorded (15 June 1941) that their local driver had promised to do his best to overcome the petrol shortage 'rather than see us beat". Eight months later Alice died and her surviving sister Edith then wrote: I fear the continuity of collecting must now stop, as I have not my sister's scientific knowledge and was only her helper. A family tradition from the summer of 1855 to September 1941 , had ended after eighty- six years! (ii) Mrs Gray's Localities The first reference to the Gray's Girvan localities was that made by Mr J. Young (TD notebook 25 January 1865) which tells of the Grays collecting from a site they had newly opened near Penkill farm. Robert Gray adds further details in his own letter to Davidson (29 July 1865) and later (17 September) refers to Balclelchie. Craighead, and Penkill". Davidson mentioned each of these in his monograph on the brachiopods. Another early indication of Mrs Gray's localities is obtained from a list she drafted for Lapworth's approval (see Gray Correspondence, Vol. I, No. I), litis is also accompanied by the draft of his covering letter which suggests that the information is provided for Thomas Davidson's work on the brachiopods and also indicates their uncertainty as to the precise age of the fossils. Dear Mrs Gray. Nuneaton Am writing this in train. Would have answered your former note but not a moment for anything, just now — even sleep! The above list is now correct. I should recommend you to ask Mr Davidson to use I.landeilo — not Upper Llandeilo. — We don't know what Upper Llandeilo is just now. The beds are Llandeilo but that is all we can be sure about. Will write whenever I've a moment. Kindest regards to all Kindly excuse calligraphy. Will post this at Atherstone Yours very sincerely Chas. Lapworth P.S. Please be careful about Thraive Dyke bed. and sec that fossils from true Starfish Bed arc not mixed with the Mcristclla beds. The former are Upper Bala. The latter are Lower Llandovery. The record of a letter from Lapworth (24 February 1882) in the Davidson notebooks dates this list and confirms the reason for its compilation. The lengthy faunal list that Mrs Gray provided later for inclusion in the memoir published by Peach & Home (1899) contains more localities, while Nicholson & Etheridge (1880: 7) had referred to forty localities in the Girvan district (see Appendix 4 for L,ist of Gray localities)'^. Owens (1973: 3) pointed out that the main drawback is that all these original sites are only vaguely localized and other recent workers (see Howells, 1982; Harper, 1984: 7) have shown that these sites have often been confused, joined, or generally misunderstood by the specialists describing the Gray Collection and subsequent collectors. Full detailed lists of the localities for particular fossils have been provided in the monographic studies made by Williams, 1962; Howells, 1982; Harper, 1982; and Paul, 1984, who have all listed them under the relevant stratigraphic formation. The first Gray collections were undoubtedly obtained from local sites around Girvan Ji MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 1 79 within walking distance of the home of their relatives. It must have taken at least an hour to reach Drummuck, where many of the specimens described hy Nicholson & Etheridge were found. Horse and carriage, and later rail were the only transport available for longer journeys; later Alice Gray refers to their use of a hired car (see letters to W. N. Edwards c. 1941 ). The lack of material from rich fossiliferous sites in the Stinchar Valley, suggests that Mrs Gray did not venture into that area; there is only one trilobite from Aldons [the unique harpid mentioned by Reed, 190.^], little from the highly fossiliferous basal Superstes Mudstones, and only two pygidia of the trilobite Pliomerella craigensis (Reed, 1906) in her collection from the enormously rich Auchensoul Quarry. She is unlikely to have visited any of these sites without coming away with abundant material. There is also only a handful of specimens from the localities of Benan Burn. Doularg, Minuntion and Tormitchell, all of which were know to Lapworth (1882)". It is possible that the Gray family were quite satisfied to concentrate on the places that they knew and had always exploited. There was some sense in this for it is now known that the Gray family's locality 'Bargany Pond Burn' was not that of other collectors, but a quite different locality that they had discovered as a result of following and mis-interpreting directions to the original site. Mrs Gray never recorded her localities on any map, but in 1937 Alice Gray endeavoured to record them all from memory on six-inch Ordnance Survey maps, which she presented to the BMNH. In her letter to W. N. Edwards (4 May 1937) she wrote: ... I found that the present generation of geologists, who have worked in the Girvan district, are not so well acquainted with some of the localities as we are . . . She provided the set of maps'** marked with all the localities from which my mother collected her fossils ... in case of any doubt or dispute. It would appear from her letter that comment by current geologists over Lapworth's account of the exposure of a particular bed had prompted this action for Alice Gray continued: Professor Lapworth was right and to-day's geologists wrong! We worked at the bed in question before to-day's geologists were born and for many years it has been overgrown'^. However, despite her own assurance, it would appear that at times her memory was at fault, or more likely, that she was unfamiliar with reading maps to establish the sites of localities, for several of those marked are quite impossible for the horizons of the material (see Howells, 1972: 4, for several instances of this). Her annotations to the maps indicate that she had considerable uncertainty: see sheet LVI NW where several localities are marked 'to the best of my recollection' and Sheet LVI SE where she has written against the locality 'Auchensoul': on the Auchensoul Burn somewhere — I myself was never there! Harper (1984: 7) has provided a method for differentiating between the localities 'Drummuck', 'South Thraive', 'Starfish Bed' and 'Cliff Section' as used by the Gray family and subsequently treated as one by Reed. Howells (1982: 3) has shown how to distinguish specimens obtained from several sites denoted as 'Mulloch Hill', the general area from which they were collected, on the basis of their lithology and differences in 180 R. J. CLEEVELV. R. P. TRIPP ANfJ Y. MOWELLS weathering. A photograph in the Gray Album of the three sea stacks at Whitehouse Bay, enabled Ingham to identify the site despite its now being worked out. (iii) The use and users of the Gray Collections A glance at the accompanying bibliography will reveal the principal users of the material that Mrs Gray and her family had collected. These were relatively few and somewhat alarmingly, most were essentially institution-based palaeontologists. Only Lapworth had any real interest in, or knowledge of the Girvan district and of the others perhaps only Davidson & Nicholson (and later Spencer) had any real field experience, consequently mistakes were made in naming taxa and determing relationships and age. Comparison of Mrs Gray's relationship with the various users of her collection from the few surviving letters and other records indicates that, in many respects, the degree of affability was governed by the extent and speed with which these palaeontologists fulfilled her goals for the determination and description of the fossils. Although obviously any personal, rather than just scientific acquaintance, affected the level. One of Mrs Gray's earliest correspondents was Thomas Davidson'*, who was probably the first specialist worker to utilise her material when describing several new species from her collection in his monograph on the British Fossil Brachiopoda (1866-71 ). Alice Gray, in her biographical Mss states: 'as far back as . . . 1860, she was in correspondence with Thomas Davidson'. This is unlikely, for as Mrs Gray herself apparently wrote in a later letter to Davidson (8th April 1882): 'I may mention that it was in 1863, I first collected fossils . . .' and in even later letters to Dr Bather (27 March 1913 & 15 October 1914) this period is indicated! There is undoubtedly some confusion as to the time the collection was begun, for in other letters Alice Gray refers (24 January and 4 May 1937) to 1855 as being the year that the family custom of collecting fossils at Girvan was begun by her mother, in fact this would be the year that she met her husband! It is possible that Mrs Gray's comment quoted above referred to the time that she began to collect in a more precise manner, for some of the Hunterian material was undoubtedly collected earlier. (a) Thomas Davidson (1817-1885) Davidson was born in Edinburgh (17 May 1817), the son of a wealthy Scottish landowner, but was educated in Europe. His inclination for the fine arts was encouraged through attending classes in Paris, while his interest in natural history was influenced by access to the various institutions and the guidance of Constant Prevost'^ in accumulating a collection of geological specimens from the Paris Basin. This new interest in geology was maintained by his attending lectures in Britain, surveying in Scotland and sub- sequent field work throughout Europe. After making the acquaintance of l.eopold von Buch"* during a visit to Italy in 1837, Davidson was persuaded to undertake a comprehensive study of both living and fossil Brachiopoda. As a man with private means he was able to devote much of his time to such research in his own home, first in London and subsequently at various places in Brighton. Davidson's artistic abilities enabled him to overcome one of the main problems in dealing with a wealth of material and ensuring its recognition. His working methods have been described elsewhere (Cocks. 1978; Mancenido & Cocks, 1986) but the letterbooks demonstrate that Davidson endeavoured to just concentrate on particular taxa at any one time. For that period, his correspondence is only with other interested parties and solely devoted to that subject until it had been resolved. Davidson's role and scientific achievements were widely acknowledged during his lifetime by numerous society awards. Professor Young (26 October 1882) had recognised that it was Davidson's enthusiasm which encouraged everyone to assist in the provision of material, particularly that from the strata of 'Dear Auld Scotland'!''' MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 181 (S)-(^-^ A page from Davidson's notebook showing his notes on Triplesia grayii and other specimens borrowed from the Gray collection during the preparation of his monograph; Mss held by the Brachiopod section. Department of Palaeontology, BMNH. Davidson's notebooks"", preserved in the Brachiopod section of the Department of Palaeontology, [for further description see Cocks, 1978: 4) contain some indication of his use of her material in the preparation of his monograph, through the annotations he made to the drawings of the specimens he had borrowed, but give no clear evidence of the dates. However, another series of letterbooks preserved in the Palaeontology Library, in which Davidson listed all his correspondence and appointments, provides definite evidence concerning his collaboration with Mrs Gray during the period between 182 R. J. CLEEVELY, R. P. TRIPP ANDY. HOWELLS 1867-1884 and an idea as to the frequency of their communications. These references also indicate, not surprisingly, that "Mr." John Young"' provided the introduction through his association with Robert Gray at the Natural History Society of Glasgow. They also demonstrate that, initially. Robert Gray himself, was also more directly involved in collecting the fossils than had been thought. It was in January 1865. that Young informed Davidson of the Gray Collection in which ". . . many of the Brachiopoda were in a fairish state of preservation . . . only wanting a little trimming & cleaning ... to make them worthy of figuring." Robert Gray confirmed his readiness to let Davidson examine all their Girvan brachiopods (22 July 1865) and gave an account of his activities in opening up various exposures to obtain the fossils (e.g. Penkill: 29 July & 17 September). The promised box of specimens arrived on 13 September and Davidson promptly returned them a month later. This pattern was repeated in subsequent years after the Grays had returned from their summer forays to Girvan and. at that time, they willingly agreed to Davidson having any duplicate specimens he required and undertook to search for anything else he needed. Virtually all the references to this correspondence record the receipt, or despatch of specimens. The year 1882 was particularly busy as Davidson borrowed many of the brachiopods in the Gray collection in a series of Lots sent over a period of four months, during the preparation of the Supplements to his Monograph. Contrary to Alice Gray's assertion, the first letter written by Mrs Gray appears to be that of 7 October 1867. when from Girvan, she sent a complete specimen of the Triplesia that was eventually named after her. Left: Professor H. A. Nicholson. FRS (1844-1X99) photograph in Palaeontology Library Archives, BMNH. Rif;hl: Thomas Davidson (1847-1885) photograph in Challenger Expedition Archives held by the Mineralogy Library, BMNH. MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 183 Thomas Davidson very probably set the pattern by which Mrs Gray subsequently judged everyone else, while his research on the Palaeozoic brachiopods may also have led to Mrs Gray devoting her life to the acquisition of the Girvan fossils. His prompt treatment of the various consignments sent for examination in the preparation of the Palaeontographical Society monograph on the Brachiopoda, gave her little anxiety; the material was always sent back within a few months and usually a few weeks and occasionally within days. The inclusion of several rare forms in the earlier samples encouraged the Gray family to search for other examples e.g. Triplesia Grayi. As pointed out above, initially Mrs Gray — or very probably her husband — was also far less possessive over the material and their collecting activities were undertaken to provide the specimens that might be of assistance to Davidson. The fact that he utilised their observations also added to their pleasure and gave a feeling of involvement with the science. Impressed by the quality of Davidson's figures, Mrs Gray promised to supply him with a set of duplicates. She repeated this promise frequently, until, in 1884, it was eventually fulfilled and their correspondence apparently ended for there is no further reference to her in his letterbooks. In view of her pleasure with Davidson's work and thoroughness, it is odd that Mrs Gray did not preserve many of his letters - only a single example has survived and that is not really of any consquence! The protracted promises about duplicates made by Mrs Gray suggest that her acquisitiveness — even at that early stage — was far stronger than any obligation she may have felt towards him. It is interesting to note that although Davidson made frequent visits to Scotland and embarked on occasional field trips, he seldom visited the Gray family. (b) Charles Lapworth (1842-1920)" In 1873, — a few years after Mrs Gray's introduction to Davidson and the subject of geology, — Charles Lapworth began work in the Girvan District. Mrs Gray assisted in his exploration of the area and provided many of the fossils cited in his faunal lists and upon which his work of correlation was based. Often at Lapworth's instigation, her collecting forays were in search of particular taxa that he predicted, or expected careful collecting should reveal, as occurring at certain horizons. References in later letters indicate that their association was enjoyable: Those were happy days (in spite of the hard work) when the geology of the Girvan district was being worked out . . . and your family put in such fine work among the fossils; all of which was of the greatest service to myself then; and to the Geological Survey and Geological science in general ever since. (Lapworth, 12 February 1917) In other letters there are frequent reference to the 'dear old Girvan land' and Lapworth's interest in particular beds. (T. Davidson: 26 October 1882). Lapworth's early life was spent in the Home Counties, born at Faringdon, educated in Buckland and then becoming a pupil teacher at his own school, before entering a training college at Culham, near Oxford. In 1864, he chose to take an appointment at Galashiels in the Border country and his first paper 'On the Silurian Rocks of Galashiels' was read to the Geological Society in 1870. After being appointed to Madras College, St Andrews, he became friends with Professor H. A. Nicholson and D'Arcy Thompson. Soon after, he published ( 1879) the paper in which he founded the Ordovician System and which has been considered to be a masterpiece of moderation and persuasive writing. In 1881, he was appointed to the newly established chair of Geology at Mason College (now Birmingham University), and this enabled him to undertake several seasons of arduous field work, but his health suffered under the strain. He was able to complete a paper on 'The Girvan Succession' (1882), in which he made use of Mrs Gray's collection and also 184 R. J. CLEEVELY, R. P. TRIPP AND Y. HOWELLS confirmed the zonal value of graptolites which he had established in his eadier paper on the Moffat Series (1878). In due course, after considerable argument, the officers of the Geological Survey adopted his structural interpretation in the preparation of their memoir on the Southern Uplands (Peach & Home. 1899); Mrs Gray's collection was also the basis for several of the lists given in this work. Lapworth went on to investigate the Northwest Highlands and his work helped to resolve the controversy over the structure of this area. In the last phase of his career, he investigated the rocks around Birmingham, in particular the Cambrian of the Lickey Hills. Although his field ability and interpretative insight enabled Lapworth to make significant contributions to British structural geology, official recognition of his achieve- ments has also emphasized the influence made by his teaching concluding that his original ideas had fertilised the research of generations of geologists (1899; xl; Watts, 1939; 277). His main characteristic was an intense mental and bodily energy, which were so great that they frequently overtaxed his health. A burning enthusiasm to discover the truth and a delight in overcoming obstacles contributed to this driving force. Having made a substantial contribution to British Geology, he died on 13 March 1920 after another long illness. Undoubtedly, Mrs Gray"s contact with Charles Lapworth was conducted on a friendlier level than most of her other correspondence. Their letters to one another are much longer and frequently mention other personal matters. On each occasion that she considered selling her collection to the British Museum, Mrs Gray sought advice from Lapworth"'. He, in turn, went to a considerable amount of trouble to assist her and sent a lengthy letter outlining all the possibilities but concluded with a suggestion as to the course she should follow. Yet, despite their good relationship, when there were problems over her specimens, Mrs Gray was still capable of chasing him for missing material. Their last surviving letters concern Lapworth"s embarassment at the loss of several graptolites over the years, probably occurring during the transfer of his Department into new premises'^. It would seem that Lapworth was also involved in Davidson's later arrangements to use the Gray Collection, for he endeavoured to co-operate with Davidson's revision by completing his own contribution on the geological succession occurring in the Girvan district (see TD: 24 February 1882). Lapworth also wrote to Davidson (TD; 27 Febuary 1882) assuring him over certain specimens; T doubt not that Mrs Gray is right in her locality'. Mrs Gray repeated this assurance herself (TD; 2 March 1882), when she had; . . . much pleasure in sending the rest of the Brachiopods Horizon by Horizon according to Prof. Lapworth's work. You may feel assured I shall be the most particular with respect to the localities of all the specimens I send you . . . and the plan you have chosen . . . will I think, render mistakes impossible Yet, a number of letters during September and October 1882 concern her finding a specimen of Triplesia grayi at the locality of Minuntion, which Mrs Gray finally admits was a mistake (TD; 26 October 1882). Within a few months, Davidson had dealt with much of the material, for Professor Lapworth wrote (TD; 25 May 1882) to congratulate him on the 'magnificient table of Mrs Gray's shells' and declared; 'it is the most brilliant useful bit of work from another palaeontologist that has ever fell to my assistance & benefit". According to later entries, Davidson had completed his examination of the Gray material by the end of 1882; even in June, Lapworth had written; 'I was certainly amazed at the work you had done during the past 5 weeks." MRS ELIZABETH GRAY (c) H. A. Nicholson and R. Etheridge. Jnr 185 The three fascicules of the first major monograph (1878-80) on the fossils of the Girvan district by H. A. Nicholson and R. Etheridge " were also largely based upon material in the 'Gray Collection' as is indicated by the title of the work. The Preface acknowledged their debt for 'the free and uncontrolled use of her cabinet' and 'for providing the most complete series of the . . . fossils of Ayrshire". Subsequent collecting by Mrs Gray in the succeeding summer seasons, often at new localities, led to description of the additional material in a further fascicule (see Benton, 1979: 7). It is not quite clear, how Nicholson & Etheridge became aware of the Gray collection, but a clue is provided by their reference to her father's collection being well known to all Scottish geologists (see p. 172) and a considerable number of the species are named after members of the family"''. However, none of their correspondence has survived and the only evidence for a visit to Mrs Gray is provided in a letter by Etheridge to Davidson (TD: 22 November 1881) reporting that he had borrowed some brachiopods, which he felt Davidson should also examine. Although, in their monograph, it is mentioned (1878: p.vi) that: 'a visit to the ground in person has resulted ... in giving us a direct knowledge of the rocks.' ^J^'^::- PI, lit XII. /!£i> Left: Original figures of Proems girvanensis published by Nicholson & Etheridge (1880) in Silurian Fossils of the Girvan District in Ayrshire, pi. XII, figs. 7, 8 & 9. Right: Lectotype of Paraproetus girvanensis (N. & E.). BMNH In. 21926 x 1, Upper Ordovician, Ardmillan Series, Drummuck Group Mudstoncs, Drummuck, Mrs R. Gray Coll'n. 1920. Henry Alleyne Nicholson (1844-1899) had been appointed to the chair of Natural History at St Andrews in 1875 and later, in 1882, became Professor at Aberdeen. His palaeontological work ranged over most fossil invertebrate phyla and remains of fundamental taxonomic importance; he specialized in stromatoporoids and corals (see Benton 1979: iii-v; Cleevely, 1983: 214). Benton (ibid: iii) established that Nicholson 186 R. J. CLEEVELY, R. P. TRIPP AND Y. HOWELLS was one of the earliest workers to use thin sections for determining internal structures of bryozoans and corals and to then utilise this information for taxonomic work. Since it is thought that Nicholson cut many of the sections himself, we can only assume that the Gray material was dealt with at St Andrews. His collaborator. Robert Etheridge. Jnr (1847-1920) had begun his career as a held geologist in Australia with the Geological Survey of Victoria. When this organisation was disbanded in 1873, he returned to the U.K. joining the Geological Survey of Scotland. At the time of his work with Nicholson. Etheridge had been appointed to the staff of the British Museum (Natural History) and both father and son were engaged in dealing with the transfer of the collections from Bloomsbury to South Kensington. He worked principally on Palaeozoic invertebrate fossils. Subsequently, in 1887. Etheridge returned to Australia, holding several Survey and Museum appointments, before becoming the Director of the Australian Museum, Sydney in 1917 (see Rec. Aust. Mus. 15: 1-27. 1926). Their Girvan publication was supported by a grant from the Royal Society of Edinburgh and in the Preface of the first Fascicule, the two authors also recorded their gratitude to Robert Gray for providing additional financial help towards publication (see p. vi). Later, in a letter (TD: 19 November 1881) Mrs Gray reported that progress on 'Nicholson's Ayrshire work' had stopped owing to lack of a further grant from the Royal Society [of Edinburgh]. The following year, in another letter (TD: 25 March 1882) Mrs Gray expressed her obligation to Davidson for having 'worked out' her Girvan material, unlike Nicholson & Etheridge, who had decided not to continue. Mrs Gray seems to have gradually become disenchanted with the progress of their monograph and its eventual abandonment caused her to seek the help of other specialists to deal with the undescribed mollusca. Both Henry Woodward"^ and his friends Professor T. Rupert Jones'^ provided notes to be used in the second fascicule (see pp. 211. 216) and as a result were later, briefly involved again. Woodward (1885) described two specimens collected by Mrs Gray at Left: Professor Charles Lapworth (1842-1920) portrait in Geol. Mag., 1901. Dec. IV. Vol.8: opp. p. 289. Right: F. R. Cowper Reed (1869-1946) photograph in Palaeontology Library Archives, BMNH. MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 187 Thraive and named a new chiton after her in recognition of her contributions to palaeontology; this species Helininthochiton Grayiae has since been recognised as the type species of the genus Sepiemchiton Bergenhayn (see Rolfe, 1981). T. R. Jones dealt with several of her specimens of Ostracoda in later papers (1886, 1893a, ft). (d) F. R. Cowper Reed (\i(,9-\9A€) It would appear that Bather was responsible for suggesting that Reed should deal with Mrs Gray's trilobites, following Nicholson's reluctance to continue"''. Reed later succeeded Davidson in dealing with her brachiopods and the high quality of his revision of these Palaeozoic fossils is reflected in its relevance and acceptance to-day. A letter from Mrs Gray (c. Feb. 1911) concerning her reluctance to allow the use of the Girvan material by any researcher, mentions his involvement. Her reaction to the use of 'her specimens' by O. T. Jones without 'her permission', prompted a stream of letters to various geologists. By way of explanation, Mrs Gray argued that since the specimens 'were never trusted to him [O. T. Jones] ... for examination' she should refuse her consent to any proposal that might rob Reed's future work of 'some of its interest' — by this we infer she meant the chance of describing new taxa. Reed spent the greater part of his life in Cambridge, arriving as an undergraduate in 1888, then later obtaining an appointment as an Assistant to the Woodwardian Professor of Geology in 1892. He retained that post, essentially curatorial, for a further twenty-five years while T. McKenny Hughes held that Chair. Reed's doctoral thesis (? 1890) was on volcanic intrusives, and he received the Sedgwick Prize for work on the geological history of the rivers of East Yorkshire. But, after writing on the geology of the Fishguard district (1895), Reed appears to have concentrated on palaeontology. According to A. G. Brighton (pers. commun.) his chief duties as assistant were the curation of the collections at the Sedgwick Museum. When the Chair became vacant c. 1917, Reed was so disappointed at J. E. Man's appointment that having independent means, he relinquished all his official duties with the Sedgwick, but maintained his room for research work. It was through earnings from his research and descriptive work, mainly undertaken for the Geological Survey of India, that Reed was able to augment his private income. Consequently, although he was primarily concerned with Palaeozoic fossils, in such circumstances, he did not hesitate to investigate much younger faunas. As a result. Reed covered a very wide field, dealing with many groups of invertebrates, but was especially interested in the brachiopods and trilobites. He frequently sought advice from his contemporaries, while correspondence with Dr Bather from 1904-1925, shows that they collaborated in describing and obtaining foreign echinoderm material""'. During his life. Reed made numerous journeys overseas, mainly visiting countries forming part of the British Empire in collaboration with his work for the Colonial Survey and leading to the publication of a textbook The Geology of the British Empire (1921). Immersed in his work. Reed gave the impression that he lead a somewhat solitary existence, e.g. James Begg considered him to be a recluse. Although married but with no children, it may be that his wife's habit of kitting him out each day with a spare pair of socks (carried in a binocolar case) and his practice of arriving and leaving his room in the Museum without seeing anyone, contributed to this view. His use and knowledge of geological literature was extensive; it is said that although he was seldom seen in the Geological Society's library, he used and borrowed more of their books than anyone else. Over the years Reed produced a steady stream of papers describing Girvan fossils, but it would appear that he never visited the area. In a letter to Mrs Gray (23 February 1909) following the completion of a paper on hyolithids, he commented that her material had enabled him to describe new species 'with much more minuteness than is generally possible' and that the meagre accounts of other British species made comparison very 188 R. J. CLEEVELY, R. P. TRIPP AND Y. HOWELLS irritating! He quickly dealt with all material, seldom developed a specimen and relied upon his memory and previous publications; the ready availability of his own first rate artist, who was experienced in presenting the essential features of any specimen contributed to his quick turnover. Once he had "retired'. Reed's time was solely devoted to such research. Inevitably, it was this fast rate of progress that led, in 1911 (see p. 198), to Mrs Gray asking Reed to undertake the description of her cystids, after experiencing years of exasperation with Bathers promises and the protracted loan of her material. However, even Reed took time dealing with her specimens when preparing his various contributions for his Palaeontogaphical Society monograph on the Girvan Trilobites (1903-35). Apparently, Mrs Gray had such a good impression of Reed, that in 1917, when his position at Cambridge lapsed, she sought Lapworth's help to obtain another post for him. Lapworth readily appreciated his palaeontological work and promised to bear him in mind, musing that were he a millionaire Reed would be just the man to pay for as the first Professor, researcher and lecturer in palaeontology in Britain (20 November 1917). (e) Other Users The problem of determining the starfish specimens is frequently mentioned in surviving Gray correspondence. Nicholson & Etheridge (1880: 318) stated that her first starfish specimens were found in 1879 at Thraive Glen. Initially, J. R. Gregory^' had undertaken to deal with them, but upon leaving the BMNH in 1899 for a post in Melbourne he returned everything to Mrs Gray (19 December 1899), suggesting that he would have preferred to have dealt with a larger series in order to distinguish their specific characters. Shortly after, Charles Schuchert then at the U.S. National Museum, Washington used casts of new Gray material provided by Bather, which were far better than those originally figured by Nicholson & Etheridge. In 1908, after Mrs Gray had again raised the matter. Bather (1 December 1908) suggested the names of W. K. Spencer (see below), a school inspector, and Dr F. Schondorf of Hannover, but admitted that he did not have sufficient confidence in Spencer's ability to tackle the difficult Palaeozoic forms. Schuchert. after having moved to the Peabody Museum, Yale University, wrote (31 March 1911) that museum duties at Washington had prevented him from producing a monograph on the Palaeozoic starfish, but he now hoped to complete a descriptive list of their taxa'~. The same year, following the cystid confrontation"". Bather also had occasion to amend his opinion of Spencer's competence (8 April 1911) and considered that this 'seemed the best chance of getting the work accomplished" and it was arranged for Mrs Gray's material to be sent to the BMNH on his behalf. William Kingdon Spencer (1878-1955). On completing his degree, he had served as demonstrator/lecturer at Oxford in 1903, and it was during this period he first became interested in Palaeozoic echinoderms. Shortly after his marriage, and then lecturing at Bangor, Spencer joined the Board of Education as an Inspector of Schools in 1904. and was eventually appointed as Inspector for East Suffolk (1914-38), becoming a significant figure in the world of education through his methods and schemes. His research on Palaeozoic and Cretaceous starfishes was carried out during his leisure and consequently, he had little opportunity for fieldwork. Spencer's ingenuity in preparing the natural casts of the Palaeozoic material contributed to the success which enabled him to become a world authority"''. On being approached to deal with the Gray material, Spencer responded immediately (15 May 1911) and gave his opinion that the valuable Gray collection was: 'in many respects the best collection of Palaeozoic Asteroids in existence.' A few years later, Mrs Gray wrote to Bather (27 March 1913) reporting that the Palacontographical Society had MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 189 m^ W. K. Spencer, FRS. FGS (1878-1955) portrait I in Biogr. Mem. Fell. Rov. Soc, London, 2, 1956: opp. p. 291. accepted Spencer's monograph on British Palaeozoic Asteroidea and exclaimed: "I owe you a debt of gratitude for introducing him to me." Whether Mrs Gray remained pleased is doubtful, for Spencer emulated his sponsor and never completed the monograph, although various parts were published between 1914—1940. Yet, he did fulfil his original promise to Mrs Gray by producing a general paper to provide due recognition of her contribution to science (Spencer, 1929). From correspondence with Bather, it would appear that much of Spencer's work was achieved by means of casts made from the Gray material held at the BMNH, only ocasionally did he find it necessary to see and ask for the originals (see FAB file: 16 September 1915, 12 October 1916). Mrs. J. Longstaff (nee Donald) (1855-1935). Jane Donald was encouraged to undertake research on Palaeozoic gastropods by J. G. Goodchild (1844-1906) of the Geological Survey, who had incidentally provided Dr Bather with Mrs Gray's address in 1892. L. R. Cox, in her obituary notice (Q.J.G.S. 91: xcvii-xcviii), wrote that 'possessing the necessary means of leisure she was able to carry out her work in a painstaking manner' and after marrying the entomologist Dr George Blundell Longstaff in 1906, she was still able to find time to continue. Consequently, in response to another plea from Mrs Gray (10 April 1904), Bather had earlier provided the name of Jane Donald as the only possible person in the country who could work on her large collection of Gastropoda, but again expressed doubts because her previous work, although excellent, had been limited to a few genera ( 1 1 April 1904). He also commented that inducements for palaeontological work were not very great causing the few, who did undertake it for love, to be overburdened. Mrs Gray reported that Miss Donald was already working on her Murchisonia specimens. In fact, she had already published several other papers prior to this, all mentioning the Girvan material. This association was also maintained after her marriage and move south to Sussex and then on to various places in Surrey, in fact lasting until 1924, when Mrs Longstaff was 190 R.J. CLEEVELY, R. P. TRIPP AND Y. HOWELLS nearly 70. Many of her papers dealt solely with material in 'the magnificient Gray Collection'. Following Mrs Gray's death, she wrote: I shall often think of the pleasant visits I paid . . . she always gave me such a hearty welcome. . . . she has made the most wonderful collection . . . and being in the British Museum it forms a grand memorial of her. Many of her Girvan taxa were only represented by a few specimens, most were crushed, some being founded on unique specimens, while some features that Jane Donald described now appear to be questionable (see Brookes Knight, 1941: 298). Wheelton H. Hind (186O-1920)-'\ Apart from a letter of J. Home's to Mrs Gray there is no evidence as to how Wheelton Hind became involved in describing the bivalves from Girvan. However, MacNair & Mort (1908: 138) mention his name in discussing the wide influence of John Young; since they also refer to Hind's palaeontological work elsewhere, and list his election as an Honorary member in 1909, it must be assumed that Hind had a close link with the Geological Society of Glasgow. Home's letter (9 January 1908) informed Mrs Gray that Hind had virtually completed his examination of her Girvan material and suggested that the Royal Society of Edinburgh should publish the results. This idea was followed (Hind, 1910) and in his introduction, the author declared that: the task of . . . determining the fine series of lamellibranchs collected by Mrs Gray . . . has been no light one! The number of specimens which I could refer to no known species is comparatively large. Hind went on to remark that he had been compelled to describe new taxa on single specimens. The indifferent preservation of this material undoubtedly contributed to his difficulty, for comment by subsequent workers frequently alludes to this lack of features e.g. 'hinge not visible', 'really unrecognisable!', only a shape'. In retrospect. Hind was less successful in dealing with this Lower Palaeozoic material, and confused matters by ascribing specimens from quite different ages and horizons to the same species e.g. Goniophora antiqua (p. 539). Various letters in the Gray Correspondence relate to material that Dr Hind had borrowed, shortly before his death, for comparison with specimens in the BMNH and which Bather had to 'unearth' for return. Thomas Henry Withers (1883-1953)''*'. Stearn (1981: 240) has briefly outlined the career of this 'jaunty cockney character', who after entering the museum as a boy attendant in 1898 and later given encouragement by Bather, became a world authority on the virtually neglected group of fossil barnacles. It took several years of negotiations by both Smith- Woodward and Bather before the Treasury sanctioned his appointment to the scientific staff as an Assistant in 1925. Withers became another of Bather's later recommendations to Mrs Gray, although she had been made aware of his presence in 1915 when Bather had borrowed a specimen on Withers' behalf, as well as through replies by him to her letters whenever Bather was absent. A joint work on the Palaeozoic Cirripedes was internipted by Withers' transfer to the Ministry of Munitions for the duration of the war (7 December 1916). Withers eventually completed a paper on the Ordovician specimens, naming a species Lepidocoleus grayae (1922), which prompted an appreciative note from Mrs Gray to which a hard- pressed chagrined Bather curtly replied (17 June 1922): Mr Withers, not being Deputy Keeper, can find plenty of time to do scientific work. I on the other hand can hardly get time at all, even by staying here all day! MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 191 Later, Withers recognition that these 'strange-stalked" fossils warranted the establish- ment of a new group, resulted in the publication of Catalogue of the Machaeridia (1926)^^. This included further references to Gray material, (see p. 219). Subsequently, Withers completed his Catalogue of Fossil Cirripedia. which dealt with all the material held by the BMNH. At the time the Gray Collection was purchased by the BMNH, Gregory"*** had borrowed the coral & bryozoan material, including the specimens described by Nicholson & Etheridge, but there is no evidence that he made any significant contribution with it before it was retrieved (8 March 1921 ). Much earlier, Ida Slater utilised specimens from Mrs Gray's collection for her monograph on the British Conulariae (1907) — another bizarre columnar fossil invertebrate — describing three new species and figuring examples of two other European species. The eventual purchase of the Gray Collection overcame possible later problems from figured material being in private hands, that could have resulted from Mrs Gray's policy of encouraging specialists to undertake their research on her material and then insisting that it was returned to her. Although the collection was adequately labelled and the figured specimens marked, the fact that Mrs Gray did not always adopt a system of numbering the specimens, meant that describers and subsequent users had no means of referring to, or identifying particular specimens. Such practice would not have been condoned by present-day editors of geological publications, nor the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature. (/) Visitors Apart from the specialists known to have worked on her material, there is documentary evidence for only two other scientific vistors^^. The Gray/Bather correspondence reveals that Miss Elsa Warburg, the eminent Swedish trilobite worker, visited her in Edinburgh during 1913 (27 August 1913) but did not have time to go to Girvan. Another Girvan fossil collector, A. S. Alexander, provided a colourful account of a visit during 1904 in his autobiography (1939: 54): Ouarrymen told me the aged widow might still be seen in early Spring sitting alone the whole day, breaking the hard limestone of Craighead, and searching with unwearying patience for fossils. As I longed to see her collection, I called at 59. George Street; was welcomed and ushered into her private 'sanctorum sanctorum', workshop, fossil store, and scientific library — all in one compact form. The one back window looked North and down on the grandly-wooded grey capital and over Forth waters to the green, sunny fields of Fife — a quiet suitable room for microscope work. Cases of specimens, or cabinets covered the greater part of available space of the other three walls. On the left, or West wide of the window was a small but strong wooden bench, with a powerful winch affixed in front. On the bench were rough specimens, hammers, chisels, and other geological tools for dressing the specimens. She pointed to the winch [? = vice] and said 'this has been of great service.' She opened a cabinet, fully taller than herself, and there appeared a tier of drawers of various depths from one inch in the higher to two or more inches in the lower Beginning at the top she pulled out a draw and placed this on the broad window-sill which served as a table — there being a single chair in front which she requested me to occupy. The specimens in the drawer were arranged in rows. Each specimen, thinned and shaped, has a cardboard fastened on the lower surface. On the cardboard was written the name of the specimen, the name of the expert responsible for the naming, the locality where obtained, and other information or remarks anent. Some very special specimens had notes of experts, correspondence, illustrations, or publications in journals and science magazines. She directed my attention to special points of interest, and chatted in a free, homely, humble, modest 192 R. J. CLEEVELY, R. P. TRIPP AND Y. HOWELl^ way about the specimen shown. Certain localities I had searched, but failed to find fossiliferous beds, I inquired about. This she satisfactorily explained and rendered the reason. The burn in once case had altered its course and grass now overgrows the outcrop of the bed [Penkill. see note]. In another case, the locality should be searched at low tide as the bed is covered with water and sea- weed every tide. She seemed to know every curve and cranny of the Girvan district. We roamed in thought over the old haunts; and she expressed a hope to revisit and continue to search for trilobites or other. Drawer after drawer was placed thus on the window-sill for an hour without her resting or sitting. Finally, she pointed to another cabinet and explained that it contained the corals that my Professor Nicholson described in the Monograph of the Silurian Fossils of Girvan. We chatted to the door and gratefully bade good-bye. but to be held in memory while memory lasts. There is a slight suspicion that this is not altogether an authentic account and could represent a compression of events, whether real or imagined, for Mrs Gray continued to visit Girvan most years and ocasionally went to London, even travelling to Europe in 1907. If the date is correct, only a few specialists had used the Gray Collection, at this stage, although the significance of her work had been recognised by an award of the Geological Society. Later (1 March 1914), Alexander requested Alice Gray for photo- graphs of her mother for use in his book but before acceding to this she asked to see what he had written. 4. BIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT OF F. A. BATHER W. D. Lang in tributes to his predecessor (1934)'"' provided adequate evidence of the multifarious interests and abilities of Francis Bather, in addition to recording the stages of his professional career. Bather's personal qualities and characteristics may have contributed to the difficulties in dealing with Mrs Gray and her material (see p. 198), for his intellect appears to have required a wide range of activity. W. N. Edwards, writing later (29 May 1937) to Alice Gray commented that: 'Dr. Bather was extremely able, but had far too many irons in the fire.' This phenomenal range of interests led to acknowledgement by his associates that he was an enjoyable companion; all accounts mention his kindly, witty and urbane nature, but although it is said he was beloved by his staff, there is a suggestion that Bather's occasional impishness, abruptness and precise fussiness caused problems. His trait for establishing exactly the correct procedure for any task'", whether sketching, making tea, an omelette, or to write a sentence, arrange an index, or a collection, might be thoroughly commendable in theory for most museum work, yet, could be very irksome to those who had to endure such tuition, or comply with his succession of maxims, however pertinent and rewarding. Apparently, at times, the Geology Department had the atmosphere of a schoolroom! It is conceivable that the delays he experienced in processing specimens may have been the result of staff relationships, even though discipline at that period was more severe. Several references in surviving correspondence to mislaid specimens, or delays in dealing with other matters, also imply that Bather may have ignored his own standards, although Raymond (1953: 173)^" had vouched that every needed specimen was readily accessible. All biographies of Dr Bather refer to his devotion to research on fossil Echinodermata throughout his life, resulting in an acknowledged position as a world authority, particularly on the Crinoidea, the group in which he became especially interested. He made significant contributions to the understanding of the morphology of echinodcrms MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 193 Dr F. A. Bather FRS. FGS (1863- 1934). From BMNH staff photograph June 1924. and, although not a field geologist, never lost sight of the effect of the environment, or the role of palaeoecology. nor the fact that the organisms he dealt with were once living animals. In some respects. Bather was an innovator of the current practice of applying biological concepts and evidence to fossil studies''\ There is ample evidence of his willing assistance for contemporary workers; frequent letters from both Reed and Spencer seek Bather's valuable advice, help or comment on all aspects of their work. In addition to the involvement with Mrs Gray, Bather had much friendlier correspondence with other amateur collectors, notably W. R. Billings of Ottawa, who supplied most of the material described in Bather's various shorter papers. Such correspondence was often the result of Bather's immediate response to reports of new, or significant specimens, for he sought to borrow anything that might be of assistance to his studies of the Echinodermata. Lang has commented on Bather's talent and leaning for writing reviews and popular articles — a task that he found more congenial since it enabled him to utilise a wide knowledge of literature, art and language. The length of Bather's scientific bibliography is adequate evidence of his prolific pen;'*'' with more than 212 papers, half of these on Echinodermata, and more than half of those on the Crinoidea, several being significant long-lasting contributions; this list alone would refute any contention as to the neglect of his official duties! Other facets of Bather's aptitude for the written word was a willingness to act as editor, both official and un-asked, or his co-operation in the production of various journals. Finally, the evidence of countless index cards forming part of several different systems — one the Catalogue of Cystids and Crinoids that caused the reaction of Mrs Gray in 1911 — survived for many years and their compilation must have occupied a considerable amount of his time'*'^. 194 R. J. CLEEVEl.Y, R. P. TRIPP AND Y. HOWELLS His efforts to popularise geology and demonstrate the usefulness of palaeontology by exhibition, arose from a lifelong involvement with most aspects of museum administra- tion. Bather's realisation of the importance of informative exhibits to interest every category of visitor, led to visits to most major museums in the world, in order to examine their techinique and galleries. This concern for museum management & development, together with his flair for writing, also led Bather to produce a defence against the philistine political criticism of museums during the period of the First World War. In many respects. Bather might be considered the most learned and versatile of those appointed to the position of Keeper of Geology, being familiar with most of the different aspects entailed in that office. Yet, his significant influence to the curation and administration of the BMNH was achieved before his appointment to that post (in 1924), which he was only to hold for four years'"'. The situation became even more difficult once he was made President of the Geological Society of London in 1926, which imposed further arduous duties upon such a responsible and dedicated individual. Although the cause of Dr Bather's death in 1934 could be attributed to an illness arising from his participation in a local dramatic production that winter, it was generally believed that his health had suffered during these appointments and contributed to the situation, as well as limiting his research output after retirement. There is evidence that Bather attended almost every annual conference of the Museums Association, participating as an able and witty debater, or a capable chairman. He was keen on amateur dramatics; Bather is also known to have been a zealous champion for the cause of Woman's Suffrage (very probably at the period Mrs Gray was berating him for not dealing with her crinoids!); and also very involved with local matters in the area of Wimbledon where he lived'*^. Two letters^** from Bather's home librarian and secretary mention other occupations. These ranged from the compilation of an index to the puns by Shakespeare, to the more practical tasks of binding the books in his library and establishing a Private Press ['FABO'] to publish specialized reference works on echinoderms. Throughout his correspondence and publications, Dr Bather complained that his 'official duties' occupied most of his time and hindered scientific work, but our re- appraisal suggests that it was very likely the range and volume of his interests and activities that impeded progress. In our view, the papers he did accomplish, together with his numerous professional achievements and official museum administrative function, demonstrate that Francis Bather fulfilled every responsibility required by each of his roles. The understandable chiding of an enthusiastic elderly Scottish gentlewoman, although justified in part, was the result of her own anxiety and lack of understanding about the environment of her eminent professional collaborator. In fact, the many facets of Bather's life and work, as/well as the hints of his acquaintances concerning 'that Lonely Intelligence' who had an impish personality, indicate that he probably warrants a more detailed biography. 5. THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN MRS ELIZABETH GRAY AND DR F. A. BATHER The correspondence between Dr Bather and Mrs Elizabeth Gray spans a period of over thirty years, from October 1892 until her death in February 1924. It forms seventy percent of the letters forming the two volumes of the Gray Correspondence and is primarily concerned with the identification, borrowing and return of her numerous fossil specimens belonging to the phylum Echinodermala in which Bather specialised However, MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 195 1JPJTI8I1 MUaEUM (NATUliAL HLSTUiiY;, ^*t - '"':::a?::^, tS^ f oSt U.?^ -despondence: D. Bather's request ,„ borrow .he Gray 196 R. J. CLEEVELY, R. P. TRIPP ANDY. HOWELLS that Statement although broadly summarising the theme does not convey anything of the difficult relationship produced by two such differently motivated people. Their dissimilar environments, interests and responsibilities caused considerable friction and the letters reveal a pattern of highs and lows in their working relationship, largely arising from mis-understandings over comments and intentions. Although Dr Bather partly understood Mrs Gray's wish to have various specialists examine and describe the material in her collection, he had no conception that this was almost an obsession. Nor did he realise that the need to relinquish her cherished specimens to achieve this caused her considerable anxiety. In the circumstances, her patient forbearance of his, to her, apparently dilatory approach in dealing with 'her fossils' can be appreciated. Equally her own narrow outlook and selfish preoccupation led to her failure to fully realise that someone in Bather's position'*'' — an administrative scientist at an intemationaly-renowned museum — would have many other duties and calls on his time. Although, in part, this complete lack of understanding by Mrs Gray can be excused by her age and social background; while on Bather's side, Mrs Gray herself had encouraged him to examine much of the material. The tone of their correspondence is very polite, but although they exchanged greetings and enquired after each others families, it cannot be considered really friendly. In fact, the frequency of the letters reflects the current state of their 'business' relationship; only occurring at close intervals during a period of difficulty, or on those occasions when Mrs Gray's concern prompts her to seek drastic remedies to achieve her life-long aims. Such alarums are in contrast to her more normal procedure of making brief periodic enquiries as to the progress that Bather might have made with any of the main projects he had undertaken. TTie letters convey the full nature of their reluctant collaboration and as W. D. Lang has remarked (12 February 1938): "the complete sequence . . . makes an interesting story'. It began with Bather requesting the loan of the Ordovician and Silurian echinoderms in the Gray collection (3 October 1892) and commenting that he: "would find much pleasure and profit in their examination'. Mrs Gray responded immediately: 'Thank you for your kindness in offering to examine the Echinoderms in my collection", but was unable to despatch the material for several weeks owing to illness. Bather within weeks of having asked for this material wrote (20 October 1892) that he had very little time available owing to the approach of winter and the fewer hours of suitable daylight when such private work could be accomplished. Two years later, Mrs Gray offers new crinoid material for him to study, refers to her fossils and comments that she would be glad to hear from him. Bather replied promptly, explaining that for almost all the intervening time he had been unable to work, owing to an eye problem, but re-assured her that the specimens were quite safe. In fact, during that period. Bather had taken a voyage to Japan to recuperate and had also been to Scandinavia where he had met his future wife. Next, presumably in an attempt to gain information, Mrs Gray used the pretext of listing all her fossils from Girvan to make another request (17 May 1896) about the specimens with Bather; which brought an immediate reply that he had not the time to deal with them and since most were only fragments of crinoid stems, he would not venture to name them. Thus the pattern of enquiry from Mrs Gray and the plea of 'too little time' from Bather was established almost from the outset. The real practical problem of adequate light in which to examine the specimens occurred again when Mrs Gray supplied specimens of a new PIcurocystid in the early months of 1899''". In March 19()0, a few months after J. W. Gregory had declined to undertake the description of Mrs Gray's starfish. Bather wrote to ask her permission to send casts to Dr Schuchert at Yale, since he had taken over responsibility for the Museum's starfish collections following Gregory's departure for Australia. At the same time. Bather informed her that he had begun a Catalogue of all Cystidea and Crinoidea and would MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 197 work systematically through her collection (and many others), returning specimens when they had been finished with. Mrs Gray took the opportunity and sent all the specimens of starfish that she had, having concluded from his remarks that Bather had also taken up their study. Although retaining this excellent new material. Bather pointed out she was mistaken and asked: 'please remember, at present, my whole energies are — or should be — devoted to the Cystidea?' That summer, Mrs Gray responded by sending her finds of cystids and crinoids, asking that the latter should be placed with the others still with Bather 'in the hope that they may ere long find an interpreter! ' To help her understand- ing of these cystids. Bather referred Mrs Gray to his contribution on the Echinodermata in Lankester's Treatise on Zoology, which had been his principal task during that period. Over the next few years, it would appear that there were only brief exchanges between them. In January 1901 , prompted by a request for a list of her fossils from the Geological Survey to update their Memoir, Mrs Gray used this as an excuse to spur Bather, who responded by suggesting that the best course was for him to update the Survey list himself as conditions at the BMNH 'were getting much worse, not better as he had hoped!' The following year, with F. R. C. Reed reporting that he had nearly finished dealing with her trilobites, Mrs Gray was anxious to learn whether Bather had made any progress with his examination of her Crinoids — (and starfishes!), stating that she also wished to put her collection in order. Bather, having then just been appointed Assistant Keeper, pleaded that his official duties did not allow time for private work, but promised to return everything that was not of immediate use. It was at this time that Bather had become fully involved with other facets of museum work, introducing his ideas on curatorial practice into the Department of Geology, establishing himself as an authority on zoological nomenclature, and eventually with his active interest in the developing Museums Association, becoming that organisation's President in 1903. Apparently, after explaining that pressure of work prevented him from dealing with her material, — much of it in fact stemming from these additional interests. Bather decided that the best course as Mrs Gray was so anxious about her specimens, was to return all the Echinoderms and this was done in September 1903. During 1904, Mrs Gray sought Bather's help over finding a specialist to deal with her gastropods, but it transpired that Jane Donald, who Bather suggested as the only possible person, was already working on part of the Gray collection. In 1906, Mrs Gray's annual collecting trip to Girvan produced two possibly new cystids. which she asked him to examine and in her single letter that year, added the inevitable enquiry about those he already had. Bather replied at once asking her to wait as he wanted to complete a long- term research project and avoid all other interruptions. Presumably, this was his Triassic Echinoderms of Bakony (1909), for in its introduction Bather indicated that a long time had elapsed between his receiving the fossils (in 1901, 1902 & 1903) and the completion of that memoir. Over this same period Bather was also occupied in compiling the section on the Department of Geology for A. S. Woodward's''' contribution to the museum's History of the Collections (1906), but he would not have described this as a research project. In July of 1907, at the age of 76, Mrs Gray visited a friend in Dresden and she also asked Bather to provide an introduction so that she could visit Prague at the same time, in order to examine Barrande's collection in the Narodni Muzeum. On her return a month later, and after leaving material at the BMNH on her way home, she enquired about a specimen lent to Bather in 1899 that had not been returned to her, but with which she wished to make some comparison. Bather only replied after she had written again that October, informing him of the new season's fossil haul, when he encouraged her to preserve every fragment of the various echinoid-like fossils she has found in the Starfish Bed". Their joint interest in the Pelmatozoan Cystids and other bizarre Echinodermata^', 198 R. J. CLEEVELY, R. P. TRIPP AND Y. HOWELLS appears to have fostered an increase in her activity and their communication, which persisted until its culmination in the memoir Caradocian Cystidea from Girvan that Bather eventually produced in 1913. This episode opens with Mrs Gray musing (21 November 1908): "I sometimes wonder if you have had time to do anything with the fossils that I left with you . . ." and Bather replying with the dramatic opening (1 December 1908)'"': 'I always see with fear and trembling an envelope addressed by you". Both in that letter, and in his introduction to the cystid memoir. Bather explained that his apparent procrastination was merely the result of other work preventing any real progress: 'if only people would stop sending me all sorts of other fossils, I should have some chance of getting on ! ""'^ and that it was necessary to study allied species and genera before he could proceed with Mrs Gray's Girvan material. He expressed his gratitude to her with the opening sentence of the memoir and underlined his indebtedness for allowing her specimens to remain in his hands for such a lengthy period. Mrs Gray's keen interest in the class may be explained by her comment: "every time I go to Girvan ... I find specimens new to my collection . . .' for it was certainly this that induced her to borrow Jaeckel's work on'*' Cystideans on several occasions. Although she apparently enjoyed looking through that book (17 December 1910). Mrs Gray later conceded 'it was to no great avail in determining her own material". Mrs Gray's preoccupation with the cystids is apparent from her letters. Bather mentioned that he was compiling a catalogue of all the cystids in the British Museum's collection (25 November 1910); 'doing all he can on the Cystidea" by taking his holiday to do so and working at home (17 December 1910). The first letter brought the comment from Mrs Gray (1 December 1910): 'Of course, if you are not likely to be able to take up my cystideans ... I need hardly continue to send specimens to you!" She explained that being 'a long way past the allotted three score years and ten" she was anxious to see work on her British fossils completed and reminded Bather that she had been sending him fossils for 18 years. This was followed by a second letter (29 December 1910) enquiring whether Bather intended working on her material as well as that of the BM?; was that collection very large? had she omitted to see anything important'? was there a collection as large as her own. or with a greater variety of species? Mrs Gray continued by expressing her goal: I know that you are the authority, but I am so anxious to know what mine are. & which are new that 1 would willingly put them into the hands of any competent worker, who would undertake to examine them at once! Every other group in my collection has proved to contain new material. These continual enquiries ought to have fore-warned Bather of a potential crisis. However, he simply replied (2 January 1911) by describing the nature of the catalogue he was compiling but compounded his error by inadvertently mentioning that, in common with all other British Museum Catalogues, only their own material would be figured. Misguidedly, by way of appeasing Mrs Gray, he suggested that descriptions of species in the Gray Collection could be included in this Catalogue. His preoccupation with the catalogue and in providing a straightforward answer to all her questions, caused Bather to omit mentioning that his descriptive manuscript on the cystids was in an advanced state of completion — that might have mollified her a little. Within three weeks, she had acted and made other arrangements for her 'beloved specimens' and notified Bather (21 January 191 1) that he should return them all as Mr Reed 'although diffident about working on a group upon which you are the authority" was prepared to do so that summer. Mrs Gray had effected the very situation outlined in her earlier letter and though, in her opinion, 'the description will lack . . . high distinction ... I feel Mr Reed will do excellent work". MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 199 It was a complete and most unpleasant surprise to Dr Bather, particularly as he felt he was taking a great deal of trouble over helping her. No doubt it was this event, more than any other subsequent occasion, that led to his accurate and colourful description of his position, or that of any specialist, at the British Museum: A palaeontologist at the BM is often envied, much as Dionysius of Syracuse was envied by Damocles. If any Damocles were to take my place he would sec. it is true, a rich feast of Cystids and Crinoids laid before him. But the chains of Office would perpetually hinder him from feeding, and every day he would dread the fall of the sword in the shape of a peremptory letter demanding the immediate return of some necessary specimens'''. Replying immediately (23 January 1911), Bather gave a detailed analysis of the situation over the cystids and pointed out that although 'Mr Cowper Reed will begin work on them in the summer, ... he had begun work Already!' He acknowledged that perhaps she had not appreciated the hours of work that had been spent preparing specimens, or making notes and pointed out that "some of the more curious among them have been perpetually in my mind's eye' and that he had been accumulating material from all parts of the world for the necessary comparisons. Consequently, he would still need to study her material, whoever described it, since he was compelled to complete the task. Although Mrs Gray apologised for her misunderstanding over his original letter and acknowledged Bather's need of her material, she was adamant about her request: 'Let me have my cystids soon — it will take me some time to look them over' — she even reminded him of a single specimen left at the BM in 1907. She hoped he would sympathise with her great desire to know just what her collection contained and would endure the step she had taken with patience. She admitted (28 January 1911) that she was quite unaware of the time he had spent working on them for: 'Indeed, I sometimes wondered if you thought them as interesting as I did.' Events took their course and produced what might have been a memorable confronta- tion between Bather and Reed at the British Museum on 30th January, which resulted in Reed's prudent withdrawal following his recognition of the considerable amount of work that Bather had already accomplished. Apart from this. Bather was in a very strong position, for he had a good working relationship with Reed, who was dependent upon him for help with the numerous descriptive projects undertaken for other bodies with which Reed augmented his university income. In a friendly letter''* to Bather (3 February 1911), Reed explained that he had pointed out to Mrs Gray that 'it is impossible for me to deal with her collection' since he felt that under existing circumstances 'she was [not] free to offer me the work'. However, he emphasized to Bather that 'mere reference to, or description of her material would not satisfy' Mrs Gray since 'it is independent treatment of her collection with figures which she requires'. Although appreciating Bather's special difficulties. Reed advised him to propose a smooth and rapid course for dealing with the material, although he realised such 'work cannot be hurried'. Letters from the two protagonists crossed giving their interpretation of Reed's conclusions. With Bather emphasizing (6 February 1911) the amount of difficult time- consuming work involved in the preparation of such fossils (often between 60-120 hours per specimen) but to allay Mrs Gray's fears of further delay, stating that progress should now be quicker since most of this work had now been done. She, in turn (6 February 1911), confirmed Reed's opinion, and sought to defend her action as protection of her material from its likely fate of becoming a mere mention in a BM Catalogue, unrepresented and undignified by the illustration it deserved! This did not end the issue between them, it dragged on for several months, reached other identical crises as they tried to resolve their quite different objectives. Both plainly 200 R. J. CLEEVELY, R. P. TRIPP AND Y. HOWELLS Stated their opposing views, Mrs Gray insisting on the early publication of any work on 'my Cystids" and that it should preferably be in the form of a Monograph. Bather on the other hand, (15 Febuary 1911) felt that this was impractical and proposed the gradual treatment of her fossils genus by genus and publication of their descriptions in a series of papers. In that way. she would have the assurance of seeing her fossils dealt with and returned to her as they were completed and he would have the satisfaction of seeing the plates were published as they were produced. He felt that monographic treatment was unsuitable for such a difficult group of fossils and that the difficulties and prohibitive cost of ensuring satisfactory and adequate illustration made it even more so. Mrs Gray at one point (19 February 1911) considered that their views on publication were so widely divergent "that if it were carried out to the satisfaction of one, it could only be to the dis-satisfaction of the other' and again called for the return of all her specimens. In order to clarify matters further. Bather had explained (1.^ Febuary 1911) that he had originally intended to utilise the Gray material 'to the best advantage of science", but that he was not in a position to undertake a complete monograph on the Cystidea, nor was he prepared to produce an inferior work. Despite having spent considerable time dealing with the material and feeling that he had made enough concessions. Bather began to arrange the re-packing of the cystid specimens for their return to Edinburgh. Very likely, Mrs Gray must have had second thoughts, realising that she would probably never obtain the descriptions she so badly wanted since Bather was the only person, who could provide them. The following day, as a conciliatory gesture, she sent a token note suggesting that Bather might consider offering a paper to the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Somehow Dr Home of the Geological Survey became involved and acted as a mediator. He informed Bather that Mrs Gray was sending all her cystid material to London for him to assess the size of the task involved in their description and then suggest a possible time for its completion. After the allotted month. Bather duly made his report (8 April 1911) and agreed to undertake the preparation of a memoir restricted to the Starfish Bed Cystidea within a year, despite his reluctance previously to commit himself on this point of completion, but would still not make any definite promise about publication dates. He also pointed out that his own position could be made much easier. if a selection of the material was presented to the BMNH, thereby enabling him to work upon the task officially. Without openly agreeing to all these proposals. Mrs Gray informed Bather that Dr Home, as editor, would apply for a grant to publish the plates if he intended to submit the memoir to the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Bather replied that he intended to do so and Mrs Gray expressed her pleasure that the work was to be published by a Scottish Society. The following year, despite numerous distractions and tasks during the preceding months. Bather presented a paper, as promised, at a meeting of the Edinburgh Royal Society on 13 May 1912. By accident, Mrs Gray was unaware of the meeting and had been at Girvan that week. However, as Bather pointed out to her, the memoir itself still required to be 'knocked into shape' and this would take considerable time; it was eventually received for publication in March 1913. Having achieved her first objective. Mrs Gray ( 16 November 1912) immediately began to bother Bather about her crinoids and other echinoderm taxa. particularly as she was continuing to discover further material. After expressing her gratitude for his work on the cystids she continually tried to needle him. in a succession of letters during the winter months of the following years, into producing another monograph on the Girvan crinoids. One letter (28 November 1912) probably demonstrates her great anxiety: On thinking it over, I seem only to feel that I am likely to be deprived ... of seeing the description of my Crinoids, which were first sent to you — at your request! in 1892 . . . the cystids followed in 1899. Surely you have no other material with a claim prior to mine! MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 201 At first, still trying to complete that on the cystids. Bather is compelled to use all available time to fulfil his current commitment and attempted to dissuade her by explaining (19 November 1912) that he had many other pressing tasks once the cystids had been 'got rid of". After outlining his working methods. Bather endeavoured to appease her further, by explaining that the bulk of the crinoids had been provisionally examined and that he intended dealing with them in conjunction with his official task of compiling a complete catalogue. Upon completing the Cystid memoir Bather wrote (19 March 191.^): "... if you have any idea of the work entailed . . . you can understand I am in very urgent need of . . . the first holiday since starting the task.' but to ease her mind he reported that the preliminary work on her edioasteroids had also been completed. Having reached her 82nd birthday Mrs Gray responded (27 March 1913) with the questions: Can none of your . . . research be laid aside ... to let me have the satisfaction of knowing after many years of patient waiting . . . the result of my 50 years work? Is there anyone in the wide world who can do it? The other people . . . making demands on your time are probably much younger . . . and can . . . afford to wait! At the end of that summer, this is followed by the even more plaintive cry (27 August 1913): I cannot refrain from writing again to ask if you . . . see your way to working on my crinoids? . . . my reason for doing so always increases ... In the wakeful hours of the night, I often wonder if I am ever to see my fossils again and think that I cannot let them remain away from me much longer. Bather fully sympathized with Mrs Gray (29 August 1912) and understood her anxiety, but could only reasssure her that he was as equally anxious to proceed himself, while emphasizing that the Palaeozoic echinoderms presented exceptional difficulties and pointing out that it was necessary to consider her fossils together with others, for simply describing 'what is new' as she requested, would scarcely produce a work intelligible on its own. He ended by stating that: 'your echinoderms occupy a leading place among the things I have set myself to do'. Later, that year, most of Mrs Gray's cystid material was returned to her, an act which caused Bather a month of further problems, following his recognition that several specimens belonged to other taxa upon which he was still working and had led to their retention. His comment to Mrs Gray that she would find 'a few missing' on this account, simply did not register with her. Much to Bather's consternation, the possessor of that phenomenal memory was soon demanding the return of individual missing specimens that she could recall. Although Museum staff had numbered and labelled all the cystids that had been returned, there was no method of recognising particular original specimens I really do not know what I am to do . . . I don't in the least know how you manage to identify particular specimens . . . but it is certainly impossible for me to do so . . . are some of Bather's responses, but fortunately for both of them matters were soon rectified. An identical situation occurred the following year, after Bather had returned other specimens and Mrs Gray expected to find a particular example showing both a crinoid arm and a gastropod, known to the family as the 'hat and feather'. Soon afterwards, the First World War caused various problems as many activities of the Museum and its Departments had to be suspended. Bather completed a series of 202 R. J. CIEEVELY, R. P. TRIPP AND Y. HOWELLS Terminology; Mrs Gray's sketch of the hat & feather' specimen see her letter of 2 August 1915 (p. 201); Bather's postcard concerning the 'boot' dated 7 Nov. 1911 (p. 218). papers on the edrioasteroids. which he also published privately together as a book, and this work pleased Mrs Gray to some extent (14 January 1915), although he was never to produce the intended monograph on her crinoid material. At intervals throughout the remainder of her life, Mrs Gray's letters ask whether there has been any progress and Bather always pleaded pressure of other research, his daily routine of official duties, or else too few staff. During the war, this became true and on several occasions Mrs Gray considered requesting the return of her specimens (30 January 1915): "I feci that I cannot allow my specimens to remain out of my possession for an indefinite period, and at limes I feel very anxious about their safety.' In his history of the Natural History Museum, Stearn (1981: 106-109) has described the difhculties caused by the Government of the time, particularly the threat in January 1918 when it was proposed to take over both museums at Bloomsbury and South Kensington to provide additional accommodation for use as Government offices. Fortunately, this was averted by rcprescntalions from various scientific and professional societies acting together with the 'media' of that period"'''. Naturally, since in response to MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 203 Extracts from Mrs Gray's letter to Dr Bather concerning her collection, 22 November 1923 [aged 92]. her usual enquiry. Bather had reported (7 December 1916) that in the circumstances: 'not much progress is being made with scientific work and your specimens have to share the fate of . . . others', Mrs Gray became very concerned. However, by the time that she had decided to do anything, the Government had abandoned their attack and Bather was able to report (10 January 1918) that staff had been engaged to remove specimens to basement storage and re-assure her that: 'your specimens will be next to what we consider the most valuable fossil in the world**'. The war also affected*"' the normal scientific interchange of reference material. At one period. Bather (4 Febuary 1915) explained to Mrs Gray that the reluctance of the Americans to send specimens across the Atlantic had prevented him from making further progress with his crinoid research. A few months later, on behalf of Professor Schuchert at Yale, Bather requested the loan of a rare coral of hers from Girvan ( 16 October 1915). After clarifying matters and only agreeing to this after imposing the condition that everything should be returned to her afterwards, Mrs Gray commented that: 'as it now seems to be safe for my corals to cross the Atlantic, I hope the crinoids you require are being sent to you! ' Much earlier, she had vanquished another of Bather's excuses when in response to his argument that expenditure resulting from the war made it more difficult for him to undertake 'unpaid private work', she had riposted with the retort that for 55 years she had worked as an 'unpaid fossil collector! ' The crinoid episode dragged on; Mrs Gray adopted the tactic of requesting all her new finds to be returned immediately after their preliminary examination and identification 204 R. J. CLEEVELY, R. P. TRIPP ANOY. HOWELLS (27 December 1912): "as I have not seen any of my crinoids for many years'. She also tried to get Bather to inform her whether any of the specimens in her main collection might be new species (17 June 1922). The last word might be said to have gone to Bather, for the 'new finds' included examples of the Crinoid Herpetocrinus. which he reminded her (23 January 1923): 'my first letter asked to lend specimens of this genus . . . unfortunately, for my purpose, you sent me so much else, — for which I did not ask — , that 1 have never been able to complete my paper! ' In some respects, it is surprising that this research was not completed, for the majority of Bather's scientific papers dealt with crinoids and one can only assume that he was never sufficiently satisfied with his results. Yet, Mrs Gray's "hounding' over the Girvan crinoids was continued after her death in 1924, by her daughter Alice (see 23 February 1925), even though by then most of the material really belonged to the BMNH. 6. ACQUISITION OF THE VARIOUS GRAY COLLECTIONS (i) The Original collections The material from the earliest Gray Collection accumulated by both Elizabeth and Robert Gray as well as her father Thomas Anderson, was presented to the Hunterian Museum in 1866. As discussed above, it formed the basis of several short papers, or was used in other ways by the Natural History Society of Glasgow. The interest this aroused led to the Gray family's pre-occupation with fossil collecting in the Girvan area on behalf of known and unknown specialists and for the science in general. Donations of various geological specimens were subsequently made to the Hunterian''''. Letters of R. H. Traquair provide details of the transactions preceding the purchase of a representative collection by the Royal Scottish Museum in 1889. It would appear that Mrs Gray had offered a selection of her duplicates to Traquair for £60, but in a reply (21 January 1889) he declined with 'unfeigned regret' since he could not recommend paying 'so high a price for them'. Her immediate response was to write back to Traquair and ask just what figure he would be prepared to pay? In an apologetic letter several months later (24 May 1889), Dr Traquair explained his 'extreme discomfort of finding myself involved in a dispute with a friend about money'. The long delay before replying was solely due to his putting off the disagreeable duty of making an offer 'which from its smallness' might be considered offensive to her. In quoting a figure of £3.5, in his view a quite liberal price, Traquair declared that it was the highest he would acquiesce to and if this did not suit the matter must be dropped. This ultimatum led to general agreement, but in a subsequent letter (29 May 1889) Traquair mentioned that he had no objection to any 'un-necessary duplicates' being excluded from the purchase and being returned to Mrs Gray. This condition was apparently the lady's compromise in settling for the sum offered. Much later (21 Febuary 1920) when referring to the matter, Mrs Gray stated that she had sold 750 specimens for the sum of £35. She also revealed that a year later \c. 189()?| 1 KM) specimens had also been sold to the Geological Survey for £50 and commented that: these small collections contained . . . neither types nor figured specimens, nor my best specimens, nor any of the rare species . . . and they were representative of my collection only as it was .^0 years ago MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 205 Several collections of Girvan fossils were presented to the Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge by Mrs Gray between 1907 and 1910, and were identified by F. R. C. Reed. A letter to Mrs Gray from D'Arcy Thompson at St Andrews (23 Febuary 1921), mentions the donation of various items at this period. But, his particular reference to a small collection of graptolites and its association with Lapworth marking them as a very appropriate accession for St Andrews, raises an element of uncertainty as to their source. However, his final comment: 'You have given away many things in your time, and I know perfectly well that you will send us nothing which is not worth having . . ." suggests that they are merely Gray specimens Lapworth had used, or examples of species he had originally described. After her negotiations with the Royal Scottish Museum, it is possible that Elizabeth Gray had turned to another friend when considering further disposal. A letter from Lapworth to her (12 April 1914) referring to the scientific reliability of her material, regrets that his Department at Birmingham University 'living from hand to mouth" could not afford a complete set. Shortly after (20 May 1914), Mrs Gray wrote to Smith- Woodward at the BMNH, who had earlier expressed an interest: I write to inform you that I have decided to offer for sale the Trilobites in my collection ... It consists of 157 different species . . . and included the types of 53 new species . . . described by Nicholson & Ethcridgc (1878) and Mr F. R. C. Reed (1903-1906, 1914). . . . my collection represents in a very complete form the Trilobites of the Girvan District and has therefore a special value! This time after her experience with the RSM, Edinburgh from quoting a price, Mrs Gray decided to seek an offer from the British Museum. Inevitably their response was that they were unable to fix the price and asked her to name a figure for consideration. She in turn, felt unqualified to do so and duly sought Lapworth's help (1 June 1914). He hesitated, but a week later, after having fully investigated the matter, suggested a figure of £300 based on a range of £250-£50(). He had arrived at this amount based on the recent purchase of the Ketley Collection for a similar sum and various sales of specimens from the Dudley area, including one collection of more that a thousand specimens that was bought by the Natural History Museum for £550. However, in a detailed explanation (10 June 1914) he stressed that although the Girvan specimens were less beautiful and more incomplete, her collection contained more new species. Presumably, this valuation satisfied Mrs Gray, for the next day (12 June 1914) she wrote back to Smith-Woodward mentioning that she had consulted a knowledgeable friend and offered the trilobites for £300. Her letter is annotated 'price much too high — delay until Autumn" and it would appear that it was then intended to refer the matter to the Trustees. In a reply to this refusal, Mrs Gray commented (29 July 1914) that she had consulted two specialists and still believed the price was moderate. The matter languished until she reminded Smith-Woodward (21 January 1915), who responded (2 February)''' by an inferred reply that a more comprehensive offer of the whole collection would be preferred at a later date. This was acknowledged (5 February 1914) by everyone in the Gray family, who all wanted the British Museum to purchase the entire collection, as the best way of dealing with the Girvan fossils. Within a month or so of the war ending, Mrs Gray wrote (21 December 1918); asking whether the British Museum still wished to purchase her collection. She expected a good price, as apart from its being representative of the difficult Girvan District, she maintained it was unique having been examined by various specialists, who had then described her material. Her letter ended: 'In view of my advance age (I am in my H7th year), I would like to have the disposal of my collection settled." and had begun: 'the b 'T J2^- '*^^^, -^ ^<. v^- ^ ^ ^^*^ -^^ Letters concerning the sale of the Gray Collection to Dr Smith-Woodward (see pp 204 209). Offer to sell trilobites— 20 May 1914; Comment on price offered 29 July 1914. MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 207 British Museum ... is where I should hke it to be." Smith-Woodward asked (1 January 1919) for lists and separate estimates of the value of each group exclaiming that: 'we are very anxious to acquire your collection if reasonable terms can be arranged, as soon as we have funds again." A year passed as each side clarified the position and Mrs Gray produced the requested lists and the BMNH asserted that they wanted the total collection including all duplicates. This preoccupation with numbers left considerable margin for adjustment, particularly as the nature of the material and the inclusion of unseen duplicates left uncertainty. In Febuary 1920, Smith-Woodward, after consulting Bather again, asked Mrs Gray to provide her value for each group. She, understandably explained that with her limited experience it was not possible for her to price the collection in sections. Her letter (21 February 1920) continued: In disposing of ... my material, I feel that 1 may reasonably look for a price that will in some measure repay me for my life's work. ... I feci that I can price my collection only as a whole . . . and that I should like to get £2,-'iOI) for it. ... I know that the Gray Collection has for many years been regarded as a special collection and one of importance. . . . therefore ... for such a special collection I am justified in asking a special price! A surviving internal memorandum (27 February), compiled by Dr Bather'''*, outlines the basis for pricing Mrs Gray's collection and also emphasized that some allowance needed to be made for potential types. After making due allowances for counterparts, material on loan and applying his own unit figures to Mrs Gray's lists. Bather calculated a figure of £1750; to ensure that every aspect was covered, including the possibility of further material, he suggested the value of the whole collection might be estimated at £2000. Smith-Woodward informed Mrs Gray of this figure (3 March) and enlarged on the various matters that had been taken into account such as the rarity of some groups, the lower value and fragmentary nature of others. He emphasized that Dr Bather had added a liberal allowance to compensate for any failure to recognise important material, or any mistake over numbers. Finally, in an effort to re-assure Mrs Gray that the figure was in accord with established practice, he misguidedly explained that it corresponded with "our usual rate' and with her previous sales to Edinburgh. By way of encourage- ment, Smith-Woodward suggested that it should be possible for the Museum to make the first of the three agreed part payments within the month. Mrs Gray replied immediately with a lengthy letter (6 March 1920), underlining her own view that the Gray Collection was a special collection of considerable scientific importance and cited figures that she felt demonstrated its greater frequency of 'new species". To justify her opinion she quoted comments made by several users as to its special merits in comparison with other Museum collections. Understandably, she seized upon the unwitting remarks made by Smith-Woodward and exclaimed: I feel that I should like it to be valued at a somewhat higher rate that your "usual rate" and that at which I sold small collections thirty years ago! She concluded with the comment that: 'a collection such as mine can never be repeated". Althought convinced of her own valuation, in the 'interests of Science", Mrs Gray agreed to compromise on a figure of £2250''''. In an effort to appease all parties and complete the transaction. Bather was prepared to add a further comment to her letter acknowledging that his original estimate might be wrong in the light of Mrs Gray"s fresh lists and recommending the agreement of the Trustees to her figure. Smith-Woodward informed her of this decision (8 March) and 208 R. J. CLEEVELY, R. P. TRIPP AND Y. HOWELLS IQ ... o ' - (DiOidcceU, (Ci^aCax^) OAMi-nw . The memorandum book containing details of the despatch of the Gray Collection to the BMNH in 1920 superimposed over a page of its contents. asked for a selection of the 'choicest things' to tempt the Trustees. On the 29 March, he was able to write that the purchase had been agreed and payment would be made during MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 209 the next four years, but that he intended to arrange that most of the sum would be paid within two. Numerous letters over the next few years deal with a succession of problems and details concerning the despatch and contents of the Gray collection. By May, the first third of the collection had reached the Museum, entitling her to the first payment of £850 and Bather confirmed that well over this quota had been received. The major part of the collection was installed at South Kensington within the year and only the various loans to other specialists remained to be gathered in (see letter 26 October 1921). Inevitably, the constant re-use of boxes and ropes etc. added to the confusion, and Mrs Gray found some fossil shells belonging to the Lewis Abbott collection, which were duly returned*^. Mrs Gray's peremptory concern over prompt payment as she fulfilled each of the conditions laid down was warranted; the precision of the operation was only evident at the Edinburgh end'''. Each payment had to be sought after promised fulfillment was overdue, allegedly this was largely due to administrative oversight or intentional delay. However, Smith-Woodward kept his own promise and managed to ensure that full payment was made within his specified two years***. Finally, Mrs Gray wrote to him (24 March 1922) acknowledging the receipt of the final payment and thanking him for 'all the consideration' during the purchase of her collection. She had achieved her object and was able to say: "It is a matter of complete satisfaction to me to know that the result of over sixty year's work is in safe keeping.' With the money that she received Mrs Gray set up a fund for her unmarried daughters, two of whom were simply referred to as fundholders on their later death certificates. At the time the first payment was due to her from the BMNH, she had written to Smith- Woodward (27 May 192U) asking that the money should be made payable to both her and her daughters jointly, since they had always been her co-workers and collectors. Unfortunately, this could not be effected as authority for the payment had only been sought in her name. (ii) Subsequent Collections In January 1937, Alice Gray wrote to Dr Lang offering the BMNH all the fossil material that the family had collected at Girvan since their earlier collection was purchased in 1920. Although several specialists*''' had since examined particular groups, most of the 16,000 specimens came into her 'un-examined' category. W. N. Edwards, in the absence of the Keeper, hurriedly accepted what he described as their 'extremely generous offer'. Lang, on his return, immediately repeated the Museum's appreciation of their gift. In response to the request of Mrs Gray's daughters, that the additional material should be added to the main Gray Collection and held under the same conditions, he explained that: 'Mrs Gray's collection was purchased ... in normal circumstances, that is unconditionally, as indeed all specimens . . . have officially to be.' Lang described the procedures adopted by his Department for dealing with such material, at length. He endeavoured to assure them that the practice of using distinctive printed labels to identify the specimens, ensured that the source identity was maintained even when particular groups were dispersed to the relevant sections. Commenting on Mrs Gray's original request that her material should be retained as a single unit, Lang explained that this was not possible for the methods adopted by the museum to assist research and organise its collections, meant that the various parts had to be distributed amongst different areas of the main Collection. However, Lang again re-assured Alice Gray that there was never any problem in recognising material from a particular collection. He undertook to pay the carriage and offered assistance with its packing. Subsequent correspondence over the succeeding months dealt with matters of packing and transport, and it was arranged to despatch it locality by locality. However, after 210 R. J. CLEEVELY, R. P. TRIPP ANDY. HOWELLS dealing with the first consignment, Alice asked Lang for assistance since the time and energy involved in packing the entire collection 'is more than we can undertake'. He promptly sent two members of the Department to assist in its preparation and movement down the flights of stairs at 59, George Street^". By the beginning of May, all the later Gray material had reached the BMNH and Alice Gray asked that it should be incorporated into her mother's collection: 'as our mother took part in the work for three years . . . and we wonder, if this and our mother's collection should be regarded as a whole?" The designation of 'Mrs Robert Gray Collection, 19.'^7" adopted to record this donation delighted the family and satisfied the needs of curation. The Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge also received various smaller donations from the Gray Collection, as a result of Reed's publication of the descriptions of particular groups^'. Further donations were made later by Alice Gray c. 1937-38 as Reed produced other papers based on subsequent material (see Alice Gray's correspondence: Reed, 13 January 1938 Mss list) and this donation has been recorded in the literature as 'Coll'n. the Misses Gray" (see letter 14 February 1938)^". After the death of Alice Gray in Febuary 1942, Edith her surviving sister, wrote to both Dr Lang and W. N. Edwards (4 August 1942) informing them of a further quantity of material 'the results of their collection from time to time" that needed to be added to the Gray Collection. Its despatch to London had to be left until the termination of the Second World War when transport was more readily available. Unfortunately, Edith Gray also died during this period and it was only through the astuteness of her solicitors that the last phase of the Gray Collection was obtained by the BMNH^''. When the premises at George Street had to be vacated quickly, the BMNH sought the assistance of the Geological Survey staff in Edinburgh to pack and arrange the storage of this material. Although this was achieved by April 1945, the matter was only finally resolved at the end of June owing to a disagreement with the Survey by W. N. Edwards over the wording of the bill, which mentioned the assistance and services of a firm of carriers and cabinet-makers, to carry out the transfer. 7. THE GIRVAN FAUNA (i) The Ordovician Age in relation to the Girvan fauna The majority of the specimens in the Gray Collection are from a thick sequence of Ordovician rocks occurring in the Girvan area, which are part of a chain of Palaeozoic inliers stretching along the Midland Valley from Edinburgh to the coast. The basic stratigraphical succession of the Girvan 'shelly faunas' was worked out with precise geological mapping and palaeontological observation by Charles Lapworth (1882). He used graptolitcs as biostratigraphic indicators, a method he had introduced when dealing with the 'Moffat Series' (1878) for correlating the two sequences and recognised that an immense thickness of rocks was present at Cjirvan, in contrast to that in the Southern Uplands. Although his succession has been refined, it had never been seriously questioned (Clarkson, /W.5: 4), but an alternative explanation for the structure present in the latter area has now been established. Harper (1982/), 1984) has provided a revised interpretation of the stratigraphy of the Upper Ordovician Girvan sequence and shown that it is of late Caradoc (Onnian) to late Ashgillian (Hirnantian) in age. The Ordovician Period is remarkable in earth history for a number of important reasons (Jaanusson, 1984). Its most distinctive feature was the extent of the epicontinental seas which covered a greater area of the globe than in any other geological period, with the land areas mainly represented by small archipelagos rather than continents. MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 211 Consequently, the supply of terrigenous material was very low and this favoured the wide deposition of carbonate sediments suitable for marine organisms. The period is also marked by considerable changes in both flora and fauna, particularly in the composition of its marine faunas. One reason for this is that a number of major invertebrate groups appear, become common, or more diverse for the first time. Among the most important benthic groups are the slromatoporoids, corals, cystids, crinoids and echinoids, although the bivalves and caphalopods also show significant changes — and of even more significance, the planktic graptolites. Jaanusson emphasized that important effects were produced amongst the skeleton-bearing associations and assemblages resulting in the establishment of the characteristic Palaeozoic biotic organisation of the epifauna. However, he also pointed out that the full explanation for many relationships has not been established, owing to the difficulty of distinquishing between ecological and geographical factors. The Ordovician is also characterised by extreme biogeographical differentiation in its marine faunas, which occurs to a greater degree in the benthic elements. Tlie classification and correlation of Ordovician deposits is further complicated, since the benthic and planktic faunas are often not contemporaneous, features which have led Jaanusson to conclude that it is, perhaps, the most confused of all periods. Fortey (1984) by examining global Ordovician transgressions and regressions has provided explanations for several of these aspects. Using a series of biogeographical models to demonstrate the occurrence of trilobite and graptolite biofacies he showed that the faunal changes that had occurred were as much the result of 'environmental shift as of evolutionary novelty'. He also indicated that 'ancestral faunas" had often been over- looked owing to the scarcity of the preservation of the relevant facies, but that these were available in the correct situations. Brenchley (1984) has outlined the possible causes of the significant Late Ordovician extinctions in many invertebrate families, genera and species. He pointed out that the earliest phase affected the deep-shelf Trilobite — Cystoid — Gastropod faunas that had already been displaced over the shelf edge by the initial phase of falling sea-level. Many groups show a sharp decrease in numbers and the gradual depletion of species richness in Trilobites, Brachiopods and Gastropods towards the Ordovician — Silurian boundary had been demonstrated by Williams & Wright (1981). Such changes were attributed to a drastic decrease in habitable area as a result of successive changes in sea level, which resulted from the growth and decay of the Gondwana ice cap. Associated changes in salinity and ocean temperature may have also caused extinction in planktic faunas. The historic Gray Collection, with its relatively well-localised Ordovician material has considerable significance in resolving some of these questions of spatial distribution. Although several Ordovician specialists have collected better and more reliably-zoned specimens (see Harper, 1984: 12) the taxonomic importance of Mrs Gray specimens is fundamental to their identifying such material. In addition, several of her sites are no longer available, having been worked out, or even lost. Jaanusson concluded (p. 3) that a solid taxonomic framework is a necessary foundation before stratigraphical, ecological, or palaeogeographical conclusions can be made. Ingham (1978) and others'"" have described the general palaeogeographical setting as that of a proximal fore-arc basin occurring on the northwestern margin of the Palaeozoic lapetus ocean. But Curry et a! (1984) have emphasized (quoting Dewey, 1982): plate tectonism operates on such a vast scale that It becomes extremely difficult to deal meaningfully with relatively minute Held phenomena The Girvan succession has been interpreted as recording the development of two fan- delta systems (Ince, 1984) with the Stinchar Limestone being a shallow marine fan-delta abandonment facies. On the basis of such research, Clarkson (1985) summarised the 212 R. J. CLEEVF.I.Y. R. P. TRIPP ANDY. HOWFLUS current picture of the Girvan Ordovician as an area of subsidence, in which the sedimentation was controlled by a series of moving large strike faults. Several giant alluvial submarine fans contributed sediment from the North and this spilled over the edges of the fault-bounded shelves. As this model was based on palaeontological research and biostratigraphy, it demonstrates the effective contribution that these disciplines can still make to good geology. (ii) The Silurian Rocks of the Girvan Area By L. R. M. Cocks (a) Summary of Silurian Stratigraphy Silurian rocks occur in two main areas north and south of the Girvan valley, which is occupied by Upper Palaeozoic rocks. These formations are nearly 30()()m thick and were chiefly deposited in a turbidite environment. The initial indifferent work of the early nineteenth-century geologists, including Murchison (1851), and Lapworth's classic work (1882) was superceded by a revision carried out by the Geological Survey (Peach & Home, 1899). This largely confirmed Lapworth's results and was reliable for the next seventy years. However, at the end of that period it became clear from studies of Silurian rocks in the Welsh Borderland and elsewhere, that the succession in the Girvan region needed to be revised and that many of the stratigraphical formations devised by Lapworth needed adjustment to modern standards. Thus the area was re-mapped, and further fossils collected by Cocks and Toghill (1973), who devised a new stratigraphy, made fresh correlations from their results, but endeavoured to conserve much of Lapworth's terminology. Cocks & Toghill found that the Silurian rocks were confined to the Llandovery, apart from the very highest beds in the Knockgardner area which are of basal Wenlock age. They established three separate stratigraphical successions (ibid, t.-figs. 8 & 9): 1. the Coastal region; 2. the Main Outcrop (which runs from Saugh Hill to Straiton); and 3. the Craig Head Inlier. 1. On the coast, south-west of Girvan there are two areas: The Haven (Shalloch Forge) and Woodland Point. At these, the Craigskelly Conglomerate unconformably overlies the Ordovician Shalloch Formation of Middle Ashgill age, and that conglomerate is succeeded by the Woodland Formation, which in turn is overlain by the coarse turbidites of the Scart Grits. The Woodland Formation yields abundant late Rhuddanian brachio- pods, including Stricklandia lens lens, which are overlain by graptolites of the cyphus Zone. 2. In the Main Outcrop all the beds are steeply inclined and often inverted, while they underlie the older Ordovician rocks to the South, lliere is also a strong unconformity, but with no conglomerate and only rare shells in the beds overlying it. The lowest Silurian beds are the dark mudstones of the Tralorg Formation, which also yield cyphus Zone graptolites. These are followed by the turbiditic Saugh Hill Grits and then the Pcncleuch Shale yielding convolutus Zone graptolites of Aeronian age. These are overlain by another unconformity, followed by the transgressive beds of the Lower Camregan Cirits that contain a shelly-fauna, which includes the stratigraphically important rhynchonellide Eocoelia curtisi in abundance; and then the deeper water, but still shell-bearing mudstones of the Wood Bum Formation. A series of shales and turbidites, named in succession as: Maxwellston Mudstones, Upper Camregan Grits, Penkill Formation, Protovirgularia Grits, Lauchlan Formation, Drumyork Formation, and Blair Shale. Successively, each of these yield graptolites that represent the complete Telychian MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 213 sequence of turriculatus . crispus, griestoniensis and cremdata Zones, but with no shelly faunas. After this there is a regressive sequence commencing with the conformable beds of the Knockgardner Formation that yield basal Wenlock shelly faunas. The overlying Straiton Grits carry a few ostracods and bivalves interbedded with 'Old Red Sandstone' facies of presumably Wenlock age, representing the marine regression seen in other inliers in the Midland Valley of Scotland. These Grits occur immediately below the substantial unconformity overlain by the true Old Red Sandstone of Middle Devonian age. 3. The Craighead Inlier is an assymmetrical anticline with a core of Ordovician rocks and is completely surrounded by Old Red Sandstone and Carboniferous formations. Lapworth (ibid) formulated the successsion of this inlier; Lamont (1935) augmented and divided some of these terms; while Freshney (1959) replaced the latter's names for the divided Mulloch Hill Sandstone and indicated that the inlier extended further to the northeast. In ascending order, the basal Silurian unit — The Lady Burn Conglomerate — rests on different Ordovician formations at different localities and only one of these junctions is well exposed (C. & T., 1973: 213) with an unconformity being postulated for the other. This massive conglomerate contains sandy lenses that can be fossiliferous with a low diversity Cryptothyrella community (of Rhuddanian age) and sediments that indicate deposition in shallow water. The successive Mulloch Hill Formation is the most fossiliferous unit of the inlier and consists of green 'Rough Neuk" and buff Craigens' sandstones, which are interbedded with each other. The faunas represent shallow water to mid-shelf communities. However, near the top a quite different and richer fauna, identified as a Clorinda community, suggests deposition at greater depths and is a prelude to those occurring above. The succeeding laminated light and dark units of the Glenwells Shale contain a graptolite fauna indicating the upper cyphus Zone. This is overlain by the easily mappable, unfossiliferous, coarse and poorly sorted Glenwells Conglomerate. The Newlands Formation, with its diverse fossil assemblages of Slrick- landia and Clorinda communities, comprises the only shelly Middle Llandovery in the whole of Scotland and was possibly deposited upon the deeper part of the shelf. The soft thinly bedded shales of the Glenshalloch Shale have yielded well preserved graptolite faunas at some localities of gregarius Zone age with two different Subzones. The Upper Saugh Hill Grits comprise massive greyish-green turbidites, mostly coarse-grained and unfossiliferous. The limited exposure of the overlying Pencleuch Shale has yielded a graptolite fauna typical of the upper convolutus Zone, but which may be close to the faunal boundary. Similarly, exposure of the Lower Camregan Grits is poor, but elements from both Eocoelia and Pentamerus communities have been obtained from different localities. (b) The value of the Gray Collection The Girvan fossils were known long before the Gray family came to prominence, but by the time that Lapworth wrote his paper, their collection numbered 'between 20,000 and 30,000 specimens^ (Lapworth, 1882: 551) and has formed the basis for many palaeonto- logical papers both beforehand and afterwards. However, the main disadvantage to subsequent users is that the Gray collection is very biased towards the shelly fossils; there are very few graptolites despite Lapworth's utilisation of such fossils and that 14 of the 23 Silurian formations commonly have graptolites. This is also in contrast to the greater thickness of graptolite-bearing rocks occurring in the sequences of the Girvan area, which amount to more than ten times the thickness of the shell-bearing formations. It would appear that the Gray family were more interested in fossils that they could easily recognise and preferred to work at a relatively small number of localities where they could be sure to obtain them. This is borne out by the collections in the BMNH, for there 214 R.J. CLEEVELY. R. P. TRIPP AND Y. HOWELLS are 23 closely-packed drawers of brachiopods collected from the Llandovery locality of Woodland Point, but other equally rich localities are either entirely absent in the Gray Collection, or merely represented by a handful of specimens. Nevertheless, the assiduity of the Gray family meant that nineteenth-century palaeontologists had a valuable pool of first-rate specimens available for their research. In turn these monographs were extremely influential in making "Girvan" an international byword as a source of Lower Palaeozoic invertebrate fossils. (iii) Interpretation of the Girvan Fauna In a presidential address, Robert Etheridge (1881) when emphasizing the importance of fossils in interpreting the Palaeozoic rocks of Scotland, mentioned (p. 6) that the first record of material from the Girvan strata was a short list provided by Professor Nicol (1844)^'^. Apparently, Sedgwick had only briefly visited the district during his tour of 1841 and was not able to collect any material until a later visit in 1848^''. M'Coy described this in a series of papers (1851-52), that must be regarded as containing the first descriptions of Girvan fossils^^. These, together with others were subsequently included in their joint publication on British Palaeozoic Fossils (1851-1855)™; Etheridge esti- mated that thirty-four species were from the Girvan area. J. W. Salter^**, was another responsible for the early description of Girvan fossils, his first contribution being appended as a list to Murchison's memoir on the Silurian of southern Scotland ( 1 855 )'"". These fossils had been obtained by Murchison in 1850 with the assistance of Alexander MacCallum, a local weaver, who is said to have been the first person to collect fossils from the area (ibid p. 9) and to have acted as a guide for all visiting geologists. Salter described thirty-seven species some of which provided the first indication of the link between the Girvan and North American faunas. More recent descriptive work has led to the correlation of the dominant phylla in these Scottish faunas with those found in North America. In particular, it has shown that the brachiopods had 'little in common with Caradoc faunas found elsewhere in Britain and Europe" but that their Girvan sequence is recognisable in the Mohawk stages of the southern Appalachians (Williams, 1962: 62). Harper (1979) has established the faunal associations that occur throughout the Girvan sequence and shown that brachiopods are frequently numerically dominant in many of these. Trilobites occasionally dominate several of the associations found in the Upper Whitehouse Group e.g. the 'Foliomena fauna' (ibid.: 440) and graptolites provide adequate stratigraphical correlation. The later Drummock Group has a great many distinctive faunal associations and in its upper part contains the very diverse and abundant faunas of the Lady Burn Starfish Beds (Lamont, 1^35; also provided lists of the fauna). The majority of the earlier faunal studies were based upon the large collections accumulated by Mrs Gray and the Misses Gray: John Smith of Dairy; and James Bcgg of Glasgow. As these descriptions were produced by palaeontologists, who were strictly museum specialists and who neither had the opportunity, or often the inclination to conduct fieldwork"^', their results inevitably contained errors arising from confusion over fossil relationships and occurrences. F. R. C. Reed, in particular, treated material from a number of localities together and created a false homogeneity within his faunas and taxa (see Harper, 1984: 22, for example of /,. mediostriata) . It is only with modern collecting techniques ensuring precise stratigraphical provenance and descriptions based on the numerical analysis of the fossils in certain groups (brachiopods, trilobites, cystoids and graptolites) that their mistakes have been rectified. A cursory examination of the range of the fauna's descriptive literature suggests that it was produced in three periods. An "exploratory phase' arising from the work of Murchison, Sedgwick and others; then a MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 215 more sustained 'accumulative' phase (c . 1870-1924) prompted by Mrs Gray's collecting activities and her concern for the description of the material by experts to reveal the number of 'new species" present, which then extended into a second stage (c. 1930-46) partly as the result of the continued activity of the Misses Gray, but also from the interest of other keen collectors such as Begg and Lament; and finally the present one (1956-84) that might be termed the "authoritative, or interpretative' phase arising from the active interest of a wide range of palaeontological and stratigraphical specialists investigating all aspects of Ordovician invertebrate faunas [Harper, 1982/): 253-4, has summarised all work on the Girvan fauna]**". Understandably the numerically abundant brachiopods have been dealt with most completely and provided much of our knowledge of these faunas. Ordovician brachiopod workers have made considerable progress in revising the systematics of earlier workers (Cocks, 1978); in addition, others have also interpreted the ecological associations and environments in which the Girvan species lived (Harper, 1979, 1984); and their stratigraphy (Cocks & Toghill, 1973). Williams (1962) used brachiopods as a further stratigraphic key to unravel the structure of the area, since many of the species are identical to those occurring in the undeformed platform carbonates of eastern North America, where the succession is well-defined. Harper (1979, 1984) has also worked on the formations of the Ardmillan succession, which form the sequence from which most of Mrs Gray's fossils were collected and has shown that very few of the fossils occur in indigenous situations. The changing composition and structure of these brachiopod associations reflected an essentially unstable environment. He suggested (1979: 443) that the predominantly common association of small dalmanellids and plectambonitaceans occurred on an unstable offshore continental slope and as a possible site. Harper envisaged a constantly changing submarine fan in relatively deep water. The damaged condition of the majority of these brachiopods, which include individuals from both presumed shelf and slope communities, indicated they had undergone transport from their original site and the lack of juvenile forms tended to confirm this view. Initially, the trilobites were dealt with by Nicholson & Etheridge in their general description of the Girvan fauna. Reed (1903-35) subsequently revised and described them more completely and apart from Howell's full treatment of all the Silurian species (1982), the current approach has been for specialists to deal with particular families (Whittington, 1950; Lane, 1971; Owens, 1973) after supplementing original material by making personal collections. However, various authors (Tripp; Ingham; Hughes el al) have examined other aspects of the Girvan trilobites. In comparison with the other groups, the relatively rich British Ordovician fauna of primitive echinoderms has been considered to be poorly known. One reason for this is the rapid disarticulation of such animals after death (Donovan, 1986: 1) and Smith and Paul (1982: 604) have indicated the relevant rate of this disassociation in the enigmatic cyclocystoids. Without being suddenly overwhelmed and pinioned by debris, or sedi- ment, the weak compound skeletal elements of echinodermata would soon begin to separate as their skeleton disintegrates very rapidly after death. Goldring & Stephenson (1972) in their discussion of the preservation of ophiuroids and echinoderms indicated that the only chance for their fossilisation was instantaneous burial by slumped sediment**'. Their conclusion that the Girvan Starfish Bed fossils had resulted from such rapid entombment in a turbulent, shallow water environment was modified by Harper (1982a: .30) to burial during sudden downslope movement of both sediment and fauna. In part, the apparent abundance of primitive echinoderms can be explained by the explosive radiation of echinoderm classes that occurred during the Lower Palaeozoic. Paul (1973: 1; 1984) in his monograph of the British Ordovician Cystoids stated that it was one of the richest cystoid faunas in the world, . . . and was the result of migration from three separate faunal provinces into the area. He listed eleven taxa from Girvan 216 .?^==^-. /;^"\~% R. J. CLEEVELY, R. P. TRIPP AND Y. HOWELLS 4 ^/v/F Echinodermata found in the Starfish Bed, Lady Burn. 1 . 5 & 6 Pleurocystis quadrata Bather 1 & 6: Part & counterpart of original specimen E 23298b x 1 ; 5: Latex pull from specimen x 1 ; Mrs. R. Gray CoH'n.. 1920. 2. Aulechinus grayae MacBridgc & Spencer. E 405522a x 1; Coll'd. Alice Gray. 1934. 3. Dendrocystis scolicus (Bather). A latex pull from E 237(X) x 1; Pres'd. Misses Gray, 1937. 4. Cnemidaclis girvanensis (Schuchert). E 5.3835 x 1; Purch'd. from Mrs R. Gray, 1920. 7. Cothurnocystis elizae Bather. E 23702b x 1 approx. localities (p. 76) and suggested (p. 121) that ideal conditions for pleurocystids apparently prevailed duinng Starfish Bed times, since three species are recognised; and their preservation indicated that they were buried alive by a sudden influx of sediment. Despite Bather's predominant interest in the Crinoidea, he made very little contribu- tion to knowledge of the Girvan crinoids. Prior to Ramsbottom's monograph (1961). only one of the five described Ordovician crinoids had been recorded from Girvan''^; he increased the number of known species to twenty-three, with twelve of these being found at Girvan'*''. Ramsbottom questioned the occurrence and identity of the material previously described by Nicholson and Etheridge (1880) and Bather (1896); and in Cothurnocystis elizae Bather. 1. Origmal' specimen BMNH E 23702b x approx.. presented by 'The Misses Gray' in June 1937. 2. A latex impression taken from the original x 1. 3. Another Gray specimen depicted in a rough sketch showing Bather's interpretation (letter 16 January 1899): The specimen . . . though so imperfect as to he scarcely recognisable . . . is, I think, different from any previously described. But is hardly good enough to give a name. . . . We have no British specimens . . . in this Museum ! 4. Latex pull from E 23172 x 1, showing the fine detail that is preserved in some specimens. MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 217 218 R. J. CLEEVELY, R. P. TRIPP AND Y. HOWELLS recognising (p. Ill) that the latter had misinterpreted crinoid features incorrectly as a result of the imperfect techniques available to him for dealing with difficult material, may have given a reason for Bather's limited results. Later. Strimple (1972) and Donovan (1983) made further nomenclatorial revisions and increased the number of crinoid species (Brewer, 1974; Donovan, In Press) to thirty. Paul (1965) had earlier described the only record of the class Paracrinoidea from Britain. Spencer's work on the Palaeozoic starfishes is discussed elsewhere (p. 188). The most significant element in the Girvan echinoderm fauna must be the specimens of 'carpoids' that Jefferies (1968, 1986) has now convincingly interpreted as calcichordates**. These strange fossils, traditionally regarded as primitive echinoderms, were in fact chordates, an idea that had first been postulated by Gislen in 1930. They have many chordate, and sometimes vertebrate, characteristics, but they also possess certain echinoderm-like features. The detailed analyses of these fossils by Jefferies et al are based upon functional explanations for virtually all their anatomical features, particularly their internal anatomy, and establish that they were ancestral to all modern chordates including the vertebrates. Alternative theories on these "carpoid' groups (the solutes, mitrates. cornutes) recognising them as echinoderms, founder on several aspects of functional interpretation and always lack vital structures. The two cornutes Cothurno- cystis elizae and Scoliaecystis curvata, both described by Bather from the Gray collection, had an important role in the investigation, which led to the new theory and has solved one of the problems of classical zoology. In his original paper, in fact. Bather too, considered that Cothurnocystis might be a chordate, but rejected the idea (1913: 417). Bather's paper has been recognised as an enormous advance in the knowledge of these bizarre-looking fossils. Both he and the Gray family independently referred to Cothurno- cystis elizae as 'the boot' (see letters 7 & 8 November 1911). The following year, in recognition of her contribution. Bather named the species after Mrs Gray and decided to use the form elizae because it made a 'pleasant sounding combination"**^. Jefferies (1986), in his detailed and readable explanation, described this species as 'one of the strangest-looking animals that ever existed' and acknowledged its companion cornute to be a more specialized form (p. 207). We wonder just how Elizabeth Gray would regard the first comment and the fact that Bather named such a creature after her! Perhaps, the final sentence in that book would have convinced her that the effort was worthwhile, for together with his predecessors. Jefferies acknowledges that 'the nub of the whole matter is the extraordinary group of fossils called calcichordates'. Although the two Girvan species do not occupy vital positions in the cladogram of the Dexiothetica, the investigation of their features had a major part in the development of this research and led to the development of new investigative techniques. That alone, we feel would have pleased her, but the realisation that her beloved 'cystid' material**'' provided two British scientists with a significant part of their life's work [she was somewhat patriotic!) and had a substantial part in the development of a new theory, would we suspect, in Mrs Gray's view, have been a reward equivalent to her recognition by the Geological Society in 1903. It would appear that apart from the less numerically abundant elements of the faunas e.g. sponges, conularids (see Slater, 1907). hyolithids etc. only the various classes of mollusca have received less attention than they deserve, with the bivalves faring worst of all; although treatment of the newly recognised classes of the monoplacophorans and rostroconchs is equally poor**''. In many respects, aside from problems of preservation (which can be overcome), this is due to the practice within molluscan taxonomy of describing material on a zoological rather than a faunal, or siratigraphic approach'"'. The 'strange-stalked forms' that initially were referred to as Cirripedia attracted the interest of Woodward (1880); Bather ('see letters & 1926: vi); Reed (1901); and ultimately after the Gray Colin, had been acquired by the BMNII, Withers (1922), who MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 219 recognised their distinctive characters and estabhshed the Group Machaeridia (1926) to accommodate them. (iv) The Starfish Bed, Lady Burn In a postscript of a letter to Professor Lapworth, Mrs Gray mentioned her 'discovery' of the now famous Starfish Bed at Lady Burn (20 November 1898). A subsequent and much later note by Alice Gray'" indicates the importance that the family attached to this discovery, for the Grays were under the impression that their site was not the Starfish band. West of Quarrel Hill described by Lapworth (1882: 619, fig. 21). This was thought to have been in an old quarry, for which the family had searched in vain. However, although Lapworth referred to a fossiliferous sandstone being found in an old quarry, there is no precise evidence that he encountered these rocks in situ (see Harper, 1982a: 30), but merely correlated that bed with the similar sandstone occurring beneath the waterfall at the head of the Lady Burn. In fact, in his letter to Mrs Gray, Lapworth confirmed that his best specimens had been obtained from walls in the neighbourhood of Quarrel Hill. In the Gray's opinion, Lapworth never saw their 'new' Starfish Bed. However, we consider that this is a slight misapprehension and agree with Harper (ibid) that the Gray's re-discovered the Starfish Bed and were probably the first to collect such material in situ. The general photograph of Mrs Gray at the Starfish Bed locality [Fig. 2, p. 176) shows a considerable exposure of rock, with the Starfish Bed near the piece of newspaper at the top. The Starfish Bed is the hardest rock available for repairing a drystone dyke and it is very likely that it would have been quarried here. Lapworth's short faunal list is in accordance with the belief that only one Starfish Bed locality is involved. However, Harper endeavoured to establish the occurrence of the Bed at its type locality over several years and in 1978 successfully located three fossiliferous sandstone beds, which in part substantiated Begg's documentation (1946) of several fossiliferous units at this classic site. Harper concluded (1982a: 31) that the lowest bed corresponded with the original Starfish Bed as its lithology and fauna was virtually identical with material in museum collections. The excellence of preservation at all three levels was unusual with most of the fossils being complete and breakage, or wear almost negligible. He concluded that each bed had been deposited in slightly different conditions on the indications of their faunal composition and agreed in part with the opinions of Goldring and Stephenson (1972) but felt that there was no strong evidence to deny that rapid entombment of the fossils followed sudden downslope movement. Examination of current faunal lists reveals that a wealth of new invertebrate forms have been described from this Bed since Mrs Gray provided Nicholson & Etheridge with two new Star-fish (1879: 318)"". Collecting proceeded rapidly and her correspondence with Bather and other palaeontologists continued in earnest to ensure that the exception- ally large collections resulting from the relentless activity of the Gray family at this locality were dealt with. [Gregory originally undertook to deal with the interesting starfish and Bather requested the crinoids]. She herself expressed amazement in a letter to Bather (12 March 1914): "I seem to have sent [you] an astonishing number of specimens from the small Starfish bed.' James Begg, a local property agent, magistrate and a renowned amateur fossil collector, has related how the Grays regularly covered up the exposure of the Starfish bed with rubble before they left the site each day, in an effort to conceal the exposure from others. Begg obtained the assistance of a local poacher (and part-time miner) Tom Mactaggart, who lived close by at New Dailly, to enable him to discover the site of the bed and reach it at an un-worked level six feet deeper than the area cleared by the Gray family. The Starfish Bed at Threave Glen (NS 250037), now included in the Upper Drummuck 220 R. J. CLEEVELY, R. P. TRIPP ANI1Y. HOWELLS ^A: ,:".>^' ■r.i:*- •^^L^rkn:ii^^ -Tff MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 221 Group is considered to be of Rawtheyan age (Williams el al, 1972). It has proved to be the most productive locality in the Girvan District and this importance has led to its registration as a site of Special Scientific Importance. Yet, information on the fauna is insufficient to permit a succinct appraisal; trilobites are particularly abundant and together with brachiopods numerically dominate the fauna, but bellerophontids may locally dominate the rich shelly fauna (Harper, ihici: 32). Regrettably, in common with much of the other molluscan material in the Gray Collection, these taxa need further systematic treatment. 8. CONCLUSIONS The importance of the Girvan fossils for understanding Ordovician geology and the evolution of many invertebrate phyla, in addition to other palaeontological aspects, is widely accepted. Yet. the significance of the Girvan material would certainly not have been apparent at the time Mrs Gray began to collect. Why did she collect? It would be interesting, at the very least, to know the answer to that question. We suspect that she had several reasons and that these changed and developed over the years. Unfortunately, as no member of the Gray family kept a journal, and their surviving correspondence is essentially concerned with practical matters concerning the use of the collection, these cannot be verified. Occasional glimpses of Mrs Gray's attitude can be obtained from terse comments in her letters to Bather, or Davidson. While the much later accounts of the family's activities over the years, provided by Alice Gray, yield more tangible evidence. In part, Mrs Gray's fossil collecting probably arose from her father's interest in local natural history; her own activities certainly increased after meeting Robert Gray another naturalist, but it is difficult to avoid the assumption that initially there would probably have been no real purpose to their collecting, other than providing themselves with a pleasant pastime. Many years later she acknowledged that such collecting had given her 'lifelong pleasure'. The Gray family were fortunate, firstly, in that their collecting interest coincided with [and possibly stemmed from?] the establishment of the Natural History Society in Glasgow. Then, secondly, through the encouragement of its Secretary, Mr John Young and his contacts, their collection was utilised by Thomas Davidson. As a result, Mrs Gray was immediately provided with a particular objective and could contribute to the development of scientific knowledge. It would appear from the records that Davidson Various Ordovician invertebrate fossils from localities near Girvan, Ayrshire in the Mrs Robert Gray Collection purchased in 1920. 1. Bivalve: Cuneamya grandis (Hind, 1910). L 49886, internal mould x 1 (the external impressions of both valves are also preserved); Upper Ordovician, Starfish Bed, Drummuck Group, Thraive Glen. 2. Gastropod: 'Loxonema' grayuimtm (t.ongstaff). Holotypc G 43539 x 2; Mulloch Hill. 3. Brachiopod: Fardenia (Fardenia) columbana (Reed). Lcctotype B 72928, brachial valve, x 2 approx; Lwr. Llandovery, Mulloch Hill Quarry |= Rough Ncuk|. 4. Gastropod: Cyclonema crebrkostata. G 47843 X 1; Upper Ordovician. Whitehousc Gp.. Shalloch Mill ■ 5. A biscrial Graptolitc: Orlhogruplus tninccUus var. inlermediiis. H 1915 x 2; Llandcilo, Lwr. Ordovician, Pinmore Cutting. S.E. of Girvan. 6. Brachiopod: Fardenia (Saughina) pertmax (Reed). B 72948 x 1.5; Middle Llandovery, Woodland Point. 222 R. J. CLEEVEl.Y. R. P. TRIPP AND Y. HOWELLS kept of his correspondence thai he provided no particular direction to her collecting activities, but dealt with whatever was found. However, anything that was thought to be unusual or rare by either party, obviously led to particular use of Mrs Gray's 'good discriminating eye" on her next foray! The unusual circumstances, which enabled Davidson to concentrate on his brachiopod research, possibly influenced Mrs Gray's understanding of the nature of such work. Sub- sequently, when allowing her material to be used by specialists such as Bather, or Lapworth, who had other tasks to perform, she frequently felt that they took an excessive amount of time to complete their research. Her view was also influenced by the fact that two other specialists, Mrs Longstaff and F. R. C. Reed, who also dealt with the Gray material, were able to determine the use of their own time and returned the fossils they examined quickly. Through her contact with the needs of these workers, and her continuing field experience, Mrs Gray and the various members of her family were able to increase their knowledge of the various fossils they collected. Lapworth's field work resolving the Girvan succession undoubtedly provided her with useful experience and insight as to the significance of 'her fossils' at an opportune moment. Subsequently, the long association with Bather's work on various fossil echinodermata provided the necessary continuation of purpose and contact, even though ultimately it may not have been particularly productive for either party with regard to their original objectives. However, this particular link provided the majority of the other specialists who worked upon Mrs Gray's material and probably led to the acquisition of her third and major collection by the British Museum (Natural History). In our view, the reasons that Mrs Gray and eventually her daughters collected the Girvan fossils, developed over the years. As discussed above, Mrs Gray initially took an interest partly through a family background of local natural history and the fact that it gave her an interesting occupation. Indeed, there is no real indication as to the necessity of her becoming involved in the more practical duties of house-keeping, or whether she was able to avoid such tasks by her fossil collecting activities''''. Once becoming involved in assisting specialists, an interest and awareness of the nature of fossil species led to objectives of extending faunal lists, discovering new species and'''' establishing occurrences. Her letters to Woodward (20 May 1914; 21 February 1920) emphasize the number of different species, new species, rare species, and larger, or finer specimens present in the Gray collection. Eventually having acquired the necessary practical, technical, collecting and storing skills their material became extremely useful and unique. Ultimately, as Alice Gray recounted, the annual summer visits to relatives at Girvan were customarily spent collecting fossils — it had become a family tradition! There is even a suggestion that it had even become compulsive — almost an addiction — for immediately after each of the Gray collections had been disposed of another was begun. Apart from her interest in fossils, we have little real knowledge of Mrs Gray's life. There is no information on the style in which the family lived; whether she had to carry out the normal tasks involved in bringing them up, or whether many of these duties were achieved by servants? The factual letters that survive provide no indication of other interests, or her opinions on events of the period. Although the difficulties the Gray family experienced during the Great War are briefly mentioned, these are relatively minor and there is no reference to the more significant events of those years and their consequences. The single surviving draft of a letter to another member of the Gray family in Australia'*'' reveals that Elizabeth Gray was delighted to receive letters herself, but that: 'I always seem to find something to do — or take a rest! ' and seldom wrote any herself. Even much of that letter is concerned with the Gray Collection and her obituary notice apparently confirms that all her leisure time, consistent with her limited domestic duties, was spent in dealing with her fossils. MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 223 At an early stage, Mrs Gray decided that she did not wish to acquire the necessary scientific knowledge to describe some of her own fossil material, but felt that her best role was to provide specimens for others*. However, her curiosity frequently compelled her to seek advice, or references to fossil organisms to improve her understanding" and on a few occasions to visit museums in order to examine comparative material*^**. At one time she even enquired as to the possibility of borrowing specimens from the Barrande collection herself. Several of her letters to Bather indicate that she had acquired considerable knowledge concerning the relationships of her material and could under- stand the problems they presented and realised the significance of slight differences in ornament and size""'. It would also appear that Mrs Gray had an awareness of brachiopod variability for many of the forms that she sent to Davidson have now been recognised as belonging to several different species and her original queries vindicated™'. \ \ Part & counterpart examples of 'Lophosjnra ihraivensis Longstaff from the Starfish Bed. Thrcave Glen, Girvan, Ayrshire, in the Gray Collection, 1920. 1. Block with External mould, G 25404 x 2.5; 3. its counterpart internal mould; 2. Another external mould, G 25407 x 2; 4. a latex pull taken from this mould showing shape and ornament of the shell, x 2. 224 R. J. CLEEVELY, R. P. TRIPP AND Y. HOWELLS In common with the layman. Mrs Gray had little real idea of the technical skills •needed to deal with her material, or the time that such preparation required: or the difficulties involved in the illustration of such material. The inadequacy of the materials and equipment available at that period'"" were another factor — this is indicated by the subsequent re-interpretation of many Girvan taxa when techniques improved'"^. Although her letters indicate some awareness of these problems, the initial objective of having her material identified, ultimately became something of an obsession, and influenced her relationships with the users of the collection. In later life. Mrs Gray understandably became even more concerned to see the results of "her lifetimes work' and was particularly exasperated that some of the earliest projects — those begun by Bather on the crinoids and starfish — were not completed. Her fixation leading to her comment (28 November 1912): 'surely you have no other material with a prior claim to mine", is excusable in view of her considerable anxiety expressed in a later letter (18 March 1913). According to Alice Gray (5 December 1937) the only letters of a forceful nature that Mrs Gray ever wrote, were those to Bather on this subject of 'her cystids and crinoids'. and some others concerning the 'mis-use" of brachiopods from her collection by O. T. Jones without her sanction. Although Mrs Gray undoubtedly obtained her main pleasure from the completion of work on material in her collection, she always professed to enjoy being of 'service to many geologists". However her constant assertion as to ownership of the fossils, suggests that she did not fully ascribe to the view of other more philanthropic collectors, who recognised that their specimens really belonged to science, (see letters from W. R. Billings to Bather during the same period)"". Perhaps, it should also be asked whether it is right for one individual to occupy all the attentions of the few available specialist workers in a particular science at the same time? particularly as the object was as much for her own satisfaction as the benefit to science. Still in mitigation, it has to be acknowledged that Mrs Gray determinedly set out to ensure that the material should ultimately be available in the principal insitutions holding similar palaeontological collections. Throughout her life. Mrs Gray appears to have had a close involvement with her fossils, they are always referred to as 'my' specimens'"'", several had pet names and she undoubtedly worried about them when they were away on loan and always insisted that everything should be returned to her. It would have been difficult for her to insist on the return of type and figured specimens to-day, for the ICZN Recommendation on type specimens is that they should be lodged in a recognised Research institution. The extent of her personal concern was demonstrated by an incident that occurred during the 1st World War, when: During a Zeppelin raid on Edinburgh . . . wc spent most of the night in a bank on the opposite side of George St. — as being a nnuch stronger building than the house wc live in, which is one of the original houses and dates from 1790 — My mother put into a large handbag as many of her very best Cystids as it would hold and sat with it on her lap for 3 to 4 hours until the danger was past. She had some anxious moments during the War'"^. This trait became more accentuated as she grew older. It is possible thai this possessiveness in the later years, may have reflected a realisation of the commercial value of her collection. Mrs Gray had certainly understood the significance of her collection when she first offered the trilobites to the BMNH in 1914 and the various users had always commented on the unique contribution it had made to their scientific work. Later, when the sale of the entire collection was negotiated in 1920, she was thinking in terms of obtaining a reasonable return for all her years of collecting the material. However, once the sum had been decided her attempt to have part paid to her daughters indicates that MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 225 she also had their welfare in mind. This is confirmed by the Fund that was set up after investing the money on their behalf. Whatever her motives, and despite some understandable quirks, Mrs Elizabeth Gray's devotion to discovering the fossil faunas of the Lower Palaeozoic rocks of the Girvan District made a substantial contribution to British geology. Her determination to ensure that the material was adequately described by the most competent persons available was an even greater achievement. She completed the task she had undertaken by ensuring that the various collections she had accumulated were safely housed in the most reputable establishments in existence. Their value is exemplified by the comment of one of to-day's specialists: 'Anyone wanting to work on Ordovician faunas is compelled to use the Gray Collection!' It is unlikely that Mrs Gray had set out to disprove the widely held belief of the early part of the nineteenth-century that 'Scotland was . . . poor in organic remains''"^ , but she certainly ensured that no one could ever assert so again! Her achievement is commemo- rated by the many Palaeozoic fossils that either bear her own surname, or that of one of the localities in the Girvan area, while Bather's use of elizae for the type species of the bizarre cornute Cothurnocystis makes a more personal tribute to her zeal" . 9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Inevitably, in a collaborative study that has been pursued over several years, its authors will have incurred obligations to many individuals for help, advice and information. Our appreciation and gratitude is owed to many of our colleagues at the various institutions in which we have worked, or whose resources we have used. We trust that they will accept this general acknowledgement of their help for a complete list would only antagonise our editors. Among those who services deserve special mention are: at the Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge, Professor H. Whittington. David Price and the late A. G. 'Bertie' Brighton, who contributed details of material and the Cowper Reed reminiscences; Isles Strachan, Department of Geology, Birmingham University, who kindly investi- gated the Lapworth papers and provided confirmation of material in the BMNH; Ian Rolfe of the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh for his encouragement and interest in the project over the years, and who, together with Bill Baird, provided information on Robert Gray and obtained illustrations of the George Street house; the use of this print with the permission of the Office of Ancient Monuments is also gratefully acknowledged; Daniella Shippey, Edinburgh, who carried out various aspects of the genealogical research into the Gray and Anderson families on our behalf and has been awaiting this paper to satisfy the interest that aroused; Dr J. A. Gibson (Scottish Natural History Library) for discussing the value of Robert Gray's contribution to Scottish ornithology; and finally, Mr Ilgars Steins, ROM, Toronto for preparing the Girvan locality map. 226 R. J. CLEEVELY, R. P. TRIPP AND Y. HOWELLS The usual generous assistance provided by the staff of various units in the British Museum (Natural History) deserves more than customary recognition. We are particu- larly indebted to those in the Palaeontology Library, who allowed us access to the Gray family Archive held there; to friends in the Photographic Studio, who contended with assorted whims over possible illustrations, and produced admirable results from poor beginnings; while our fellow invertebrate palaeontologists, answered our Gray-related questions and assisted with their own literature resources and field knowledge. From these Dick Jefferies, is owed a greater debt, for he willingly commented on a later version of the manuscript and augmented our knowledge of the bizarre groups collected by Mrs Gray on which he is the acknowledged specialist; and equally the involvement of Sam Morris with the work of each of us requires similar recognition. Finally, we must express our thanks to Rex Banks, Editor of the Historical Series, who was prepared to accommodate the paper from the first and quietly ensured its realisation and to the Keeper of Palaeontology, Dr L. R. M. Cocks, without whose permission the project could not have even begun, for his contribution and approval. 10. FOOTNOTES 1. INTRODUCTION !. Letter from Alice Gray to Dr Bather (14 July 1932) concerning a biography of her mother: Mr Balsillie required an account of her life rather than an appreciation of her work. The family [therefore] were the most appropriate people to write such a notice. 2. Wilfred Norman Edwards (1890-1956). The first palaeobotanist to be appointed by BMNH (1913). His career was interrupted by both World Wars, but in the interval Edwards organised the extensive collection of fossil plant remains and gained an encyclopaedic knowledge of such forms and their literature. W. N. Edwards was appointed Deputy-Keeper in 1931 and had succeeded Dr W. D. Lang as Keeper in 1938 — virtually the time his correspondence with Alice Gray began. His plans for the reconstruction of the Museum's exhibition galleries were thwarted by the 2nd World War and he was made responsible for the evacuation of all the collections. After 1945. he then had to arrange for their return and the repair of the damage suffered by the buildings. Other refs. see: //. Soc. Biblphy. Nai. Hist. 3: 231-237; Steam (1981: 241-2). 3. It is thought that financial reasons were partly the cause in the case of the first; and the Second World War prevented completion of the later attempt as Edwards was made responsible for the evacuation of the Museum's collections in 1941^2. 4. see W. N. Edwards / Alice Gray Correspondence: WNE letters dated— 14/1 1/38; 31/5/40; 19/8/41 ; 7/9/41 . AG letters— 21/1 1/38; 21/.5/4(); 2/6/40; 15/6/41 ; 24/8/4L 2. BIOGRAPHY 5. See letter from Alice Gray 14 July 1932 for reference to Mr Balsillic. |MSS (c.l938) in Gray Correspondence, Palaeontology Library, BMNM). 6. Pinnacopora andersoni. Nicholson & Etheridge. 1K80: 273, pi. 17, fig. 6, from Woodland Point named in 1880 after the late Mr Thomas Anderson of Girvan, who was well known to Scotch geologists as having made extensive collections of the fossils of the Girvan area.' 7. Robert Gray (1826-1887). For biographical references see DNB, 23: 19; I'roc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh., 15: 1-5; Proc. nat. hist. Soc, Glasgow, 2 (N.S.) 1888: xxii-xxiii. MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 227 8. Lectures to Ladies — Session 1 869: Introductory Lectures to the classes of English Literature & Physical Geography given in the Corporation Rooms, Glasgow by John Nichol, BA and John Young, MD. James MacLchose, Glasgow, 1869. 9. 59, George Street. This property is situated in the centre of the city in a street that was once said to have no rival in the world' as its breadth (115 ft.), space and magnificent vista was considered to be unparalleled'. During the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries it was considered to be a prime residential area and also contained the offices and principal premises of Scotland's insurance and banking businesses, (see James Grant, 1880-3: p. 139 in Old and New Edinburgh: Its History, its People, and its places. Cassell & Co. Ltd., Edinburgh, Vol. 2 384 pp. A letter of Alice Gray (10 October 1938) mentions that it was one of the original houses and probably dated from 1790. The first use of this as an address occurs on Mrs Gray's first letter to Bather dated 5 October 1892. The solicitors of Miss Edith M. H. Gray sold the house sometime during 1945; the Geol. Survey were able to gain access in March 1945 to pack the remaining fossil material. The house is now occupied by the Dunfermline Building Society (59a) and by T. & T. Clark, Publishers and the premises have obviously been considerably altered to permit present usage. 10. The 1891 census return records Mary and Alice as artists, Elizabeth as a daily governess, Edith as a teacher of music, and Robert as an electrical engineer's apprentice; there was also one resident general domestic servant, Edinburgh-born aged 22. 3. THE GRAY COLLECTION 11. Robert Gray (letter 17 September 1865). Balcletchic, 100yds below Penwhapple bridge (Mrs Gray has been there daily for months); Craighead quarry long exhausted; Penkill the spot opened first by myself. 12. Davidson (12 September 1879) records a letter from Mrs Gray that offers a few brachiopods that she had collected from Doularg Barr, a locality that she had not previously examined. 13. Number of localities listed in Lapworth = 23; by Mrs Gray = 32; and by Nicholson & Ethcridge = 40, but only 19 of these were included in the lists of the two others. 14. These are in the Map Room of the Palaeontology Library in a large folio labelled "Maps of Girvan District Showing the Localities at which Mrs Robert Gray Collected Fossils'; Maps with annotations by Alice Gray, 1937. Include Ayrshire sheets of the 6" Ord. Survey, 1910 Edition: L SW: L NW; L NE; LV NE; LV SW & SE; LVI NW; LVl SW; LVI SE; LVI NE; LXII NW; LXVI NW. 15. Penkill. This is the locality that was alleged to have been 'Lapworth's mistake'. The locality map prepared by Alice Gray bears a note: The rock showed on the E. bank of the Penkill Burn at this spot, where the bum is little larger than a tield drain. For many years locality invisible because grass and soil have covered t)vcr the small fragment of rock that could once be seen. 16. One of the earliest references to Mrs Gray's material in Davidson's Notebooks occurs under his entry for Lingula ramsayi: 'among a large number of examples collected by Mrs Gray'. Another is found under Triplesia Grayi: Mrs Gray considers this an uncommon species'. 17. Constant Prevost (1787-1856), the first Professor of Geology at the Sorbonne. 1831; his Lyellian approach to geology placed him in an unorthodox position within French geology; he was also among the first to stress the ecological significance of fossils. see Did. Sci. Biogr. II: 1974: 133-4. 18. Leopold von Buch, German geologist (1774-1853), involved in all aspects of geology; he published the first geological map of Germany and was also responsible for distinguishing ammonites from nautiloids. see Diet. Sci. Biogr. 2, 1970: 552-7. 19. — Yet, there is little evidence that such national fervour influenced Mrs Gray, although on one occasion (1 December 1910) she did comment to Dr Bather: 228 R. J. CLEEVELY, R. P. TRIPP AND Y. HOWELLS Pardon me for saying that I would prefer to see . . . your investigations on British specimens rather than on Foreign! — but that was solely due to her self-interest in getting her own material dealt with. 20. There are twenty-eight notebooks containing records of Davidson's correspondence between 1 January 1847 and 19 May 1884 in the Archive & MSS collections of the Palaeontology Library. BMNH. see List with dates in Appendix 1 p. 241. Dr C. H. Brunton and R J. Clcevcly intend to compile and publish an Index to these in the near future. 21. Alice Gray (31 March 1938) distinguished the contribution of the two Youngs; Professor John Young (1835-1902). Geological Survey of Scotland 1861-66; Professor of Natural History at Glasgow University 1866-1902; Keeper of the Hunterian Museum. In 1864. when crossing Girvan Water, he broke his knee after slipping on a boulder and as a result remained slightly lame throughout his life. Mr John Young (1823-1900). Assistant Keeper of flunterian Museum \H59 to 1899. For biographical notices of both see p 210-12 & p 183-K7 in MacNair & Mort (1908) History of the Geological Society of Glasgow. 22. For biographical references see: Proc. Geot. Assoc, London. 50 1939: 23.')-286. bibliogr., portr, pis. 19 & 20; Obit. Not. Proc. Row Soc. London.. Ser. B 92, 1921: xxxi-xl and others given in CIcevely. 1983: 179. 23. Lapworth letters re Sale of Gray Collection: 12 April 1914; 10 June 1914. 24. Letters concerning missing graptolites: Mrs Gray: 9 February 1917; 20 September 1919. C. Lapworth: 20 November 1898; 29 November 1989; 12 February 1917; 24 September 1919; 5 November 1919. Prof. Boulton: 12 October 1921; 8 November 1921. 25. H. A. Nicholson & R. Etheridge (1878-1880). A Monogruph of the Silurian Fos.uls of the Girvan District in Ayrshire, with special reference to those contained in the Gray Collection' . see Bibliography. 26. Benton (1979) listed all the species described in their monograph, but some of the species of grayi listed in the work had been named earlier by other workers in recognition of John Gray of Hagley Hall. nr. Stourbridge, who had made extensive collections from the Wenlock Limestone. 27. Henry Woodward (1832-1921). Keeper of Geology 1880-1901; his chief contribution was on Fossil Crustacea; for biographical refs. see Cleevely (1983: 316-17). 28. T. Rupert Jones (1819-1911). Palaeontologist who specialized in Entomostraca and Foramini- fera; Q. Jl. geol. Soc, Lond. 68, 1912: Iviii-lxi; list of other biographical refs. in CIcevely (1983: 166); a letter to Bather from W R Billings of Ottawa (26 June 1891) refers to that 'testy old Palaeontologist T. Rupert Jones!'. 29. See letters from Reed to FAB re study of trilobites in BMNH FR Cowper Reed Correspon- dence file: 21 August 1901; and Mrs Gray to FAB 11 April 1904. 30. See BMNH Correspondence Archive. F. R. C. Reed file: 35 letters from Reed between 17/12/ 1892 to 1.5/3/1920 & 17 letters from Bather in reply 22/7/1904 to 1.5/12/1925. 31 John Walter Gregory (27 January 1864-2 June 1932). FRS. FGS. An able and versatile geologist and palaeontologist, who joined the staff of the BMNH with Bather in 1887. Developed a keen interest in exploration following his immediate involvement in Museum expeditions (1887) and effectively became an explorer-geologist visiting most parts of the world. Resigned from BMNH when appointed to the Chair of Geology in Melbourne in 1901, but returned to UK in 1904 when given the same position at the new Glasgow University. Obit. Not. Fell. Roy. Soc, 1, 1932: 53-59. 32. In his review of .Schuchert's revision of the Palaeozoic Stelleroidea, Bather (1915: 425) commented that this book is not what Prof. Schuchert intended when he began' and reflected MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 229 something of his own feehngs with 'Congratulations ... on having at last got this laborious and valuable piece of work into the world'.'. 33. It may have been quite coincidental that Professor Schuehcrt mentioned the difhculties of identifying cystids when he wrote to Mrs Gray on 31 March 191 1 — but this was the period of the Gray/Bathcr/Rccd controversy. Schuchert's complaint that his museum duties interfered with his research and that as a result, instead of a monograph, he had had only sufficient time to prepare descriptions of the genera and their species, ought to have provided some support for Bather's position. 34. W. K. Spencer see Biogr. Mem. Fell. Roy. Soc, Lond. 2. 1956: 291-9; and Cleevcly, 1983: 273. 35. Wheelton Hind FGS (1860-21 June 1920). Eminent medical practitioner, who lived at Stoke- on-Trent, Staffs. His research un-ravelled the succession of Carboniferous rocks in North Staffs, and produced the standard monograph on the British Carboniferous Lainellibranchiu (1896-1905). Q.JI. geol. Soc. Lond. 73, 1917: Ivii-xlix: 77, 1921: Ixviii-lxix. 36. T. H. Withers. BMNH: Boy Attendant, 1898; Assistant, 1925; Curator, Fossil Cirripcdia 1925-44. Proc. Geol. Soc. Lond., No. 1515, 1954: cxliii-cxliv, 37. Withers declined to deal with further machaeridian specimens offered by Alice Gray (14 May 1934) since he had to devote all his time to the preparation of a Catalogue of Cretaceous Cirripedia . 38. For some reason. Bather always appears to have been ultra critical of J. R. Gregory's nomenclature and frequently expressed these views in print beginning with a letter (1897: 381), see also a paper on Eocidaris ( 1909). This antipathy towards Gregory may have been due to his sudden emigration to Australia in 1901, having spent much of his tenure at the BMNH on field-work, leaving Bather with additional responsibilities. However, it was very probably the result of Gregory's careless scientific work! 39. Dr Bather makes occasional references to seeing Mrs Gray on his visits to Edinburgh; see reference to his son's pleasure at Mrs Gray's interest in 'Rugger' (letters September 1921). 4. BATHER 40. W. D. Lang. 1934. Francis Arthur Bather (1863-1934). Obit Not. Row Soc. London. No. 3: 303-314; 1934. Dr. F. A. Bather, FRS. Nature. 133. (31 March 1934): 485-86 41. In addition of Lang's references, there are indications of Bather's relationship with his staff and other professional colleagues in the various contributions made to the tribute published in the Museums Journal. 34: 41^5. 42. P. E. Raymond, 1935. Memorial of F. A. BATHER. Proc Geol. Soc Amer. 1934: 173-186, portr., bibliogr. 43. Bert Hansen in his article in the Dictionary of Scientific Biography 2: 507 has emphasized Bather's use of the natural world to his fossil studies. 44. Bibliography: the only published bibliography Raymond (1935) is incomplete; this had been pre- pared by Withers at Raymond's request. Apparently, Bather had distributed his own list in 1915, but did not extend this further. My own [RJC] list comprises 258 publications: 18 of which were reviews and only 7 of which dealt with Gray material. It is worth noting that Bather did not publish anything at all in 1921 , the year he was dealing with the acquisition of Mrs Gray's material. On Echinodermata = 4."^ Stratigraphy = 9 Crinoids = 67 Museology/Tcchniqucs etc. = 42 Edriiiasterdids = 10 Taxonomv/Nomenclature = 19 Cystoids = 7 127 70 Obituaries = 8 Other Phylla (mainly Palaeozoic) Bibliography = 7 = 46 — 15 173 = 230 R. J. CLEEVELY, R. P. IRIPPAND Y. HOWELLS 45. Although Bather made frequent mention of his involvement in producing a Catalogue of the Cystoids & Crinoids for the BM material, this was never completed. The only evidence for this work is a series of printed/mss index cards now dispersed throughout the main reference collections of these groups in the Dept. of Palaeontology. 46. Aware of his reduced vigour, and knowing the customary slow rate of progress within the Museum, Bather felt that he would be able to achieve very little in his remaining four years before retirement. 47. Bather's involvement in local affairs is reported in his obituary published in the Wimbledon Borough News, 23 March 1934. 48. See Letters from Margaret Grant dated 9 January 1935 & 12 January 19.\5. She refers to that Lonely Intelligence' and also to the fact that he was known to them as 'the Dominic'. 5. BATHER/GRAY CORRESPONDENCE 49. Her daughter Alice, on the other hand, understood that Bather's museum duties prevented him from attending to their queries; see her letter of 22nd Feb. 1925. 50. Bather (16 January 1899) 'Your two specimens arrived safely ... but there was no light available for their examination till this morning.' Steam (1981: 213) quoted Riley's account of conditions at the BMNII m 1911. which mentioned that Electricity had been installed in the office studies in 1906. 51. A. S. Woodward, History of the Collections in the RMNH. p. ii of the Preface and the MSS. Annual Report on Bather's work for 19((4 indicate that he was involved in its compilation during this period. The correspondence tile with FRC Reed also shows that he was also engaged in dealing with material from Burma (at least 16 letters). 52. Starfish Bed. encouragement to preserve every fragment' Bather letter (4 October 19(17) 53. It must be realised that 'cystids' for Bather at that time would have included forms that would now no longer be called cystids, or cystoids. and have since been referred to chordates (see discussion of Jefferies p. 218). 54. This expression 'in fear & trembling occurs in another letter (20 January 1897) written a few years earlier by Mary Kingsley to Albert Giinther. a former Keeper of Zoology at the BMNH, when she submitted an advance copy of her book Travels in West Africa seeking a positive verdict for its publication. 55. Bather (1908: 76) referred to another aspect of this problem: I am constantly favoured by correspondents with specimens for which Ihey desire a name. Unfor- tunately. ... it is impossible to name them without spending mi>rc time in their preparation than we . . . can spare! I . . . point out . . . that it is our duty ... to name and arrange the specimens already in the museum. Consequently, unless our correspondents give us all pt)ssible help in the preliminary preparation of their specimens, they cannot hope for very satisfactory replies As one of the more enlightened palaeontologists of his time. Bather went on to vent his exasperation at those who 'seem only anxious to load science with a new species and a new name . . . they do not trouble about the lessons the fossil can teach!'. 56. This is a reference to the monograph Slammesgeschichte der Pelmalozoen. Erster Hand. Thecoidea und Cystoidea. 1899: x = 442 pp.. 18 pis. published in Berlin by Otto Jaekel as part of his synthesis of existing knowledge of fossil Crinoidea. Jaekel. a vertebrate palaeontologist, became Professor at Berlin (1890-1903), Vienna (1903), tireifswald (1904-28 and Pekin (1928). The 1899 work on the Cystoids is one of his most significant contributions to palaeontology. Apparently, Jaekel's work was either extremely thorough and of high quality, or else hastily put together, not particularly clear. superficial and of little real value. Although even these cursory papers have value, for in one he set up the Class Carpoidea (pers. commun. Dr R. P. S. Jefferies). 57. Part of Bather's replv to the Geological Societv when presented with their I.yell Medal. Proc. Geol. Soc, Lond. 67 (1911): xlv. MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 231 58. On the basis of Ihcir correspondence between 1892-1925, Bather and Reed nnaintained a friendly working relationship, assisting one another with identifications, providing material for research and collaborating in the preparation of papers. 59. In addition to the details provided by Steam, Dr Bather makes several references to the situation in his correspondence, eg. see letters in Gray Correspondence of January 1918. 60. This is presumed to be a reference to the specimen of Archaeopleryx lithographica Meyer found in the Upper Jurassic Lithographic Limestone of a quarry near Pappenheim in Bavaria. It was purchased by the Museum from Dr Karl Haberlein in 1862 together with other material in his collection. As an intermediate' between reptiles and birds this fossil has been the subject of repeated investigation, and has recently been the subject of a wholly unjustified accusation of 'fakery'. An exhibition at the BMNH during 1987-88 demonstrated the scientific evidence for its authenticity, showing that its essentially reptilian skeleton had several avian features as well as the distinct impressions of feathers, (see Ostrom, J. H., 1984 In, Proceedings of the International Archaeopleryx Conference, Eichstatt, 1984: pp9-19). 61 . Air-raids: FRC Reed in a letter to Bather ( 1 5 September 1917) asked that some figured cystids belonging to the Geological Survey of India should be insured with Lloyds for £250 against the 'risk of air-craft' whilst they arc at the BMNH; he explains that he always takes out insurance against fire & now air-craft when he borrows other people's fossils. After being told by the Director (26 September) that no funds were available for such a course. Bather eventually returned the specimens (26 November) to the relative safety of Cambridge. 6. ACQUISITION 62. Donations of 1867, 1868 & 1869 recorded in Hunterian Museum register GLI Catalogue A numbers 30-89; other donations made in 1870, 1872 and 1873. 63. Smith-Woodward had annotated her previous letter with the comment Trustees . . . will not consider it until after the war — so time to think over proposal'. 64. The basis of Dr. Bather's calculation as to the value of material in the Gray Collection was as follows: Type material of New species at £1 Type specimens of New Varieties @ 0-10-0 Figured specimens @ 0- 5-0 Specimens selected as Gray Coll'n @ 2-0 according to the character @ 1-6 of the group @ 1-0 Duplicate/or Un-examined specimens @ M) or &' 0-6d 65. One wonders how much money the Grays would have spent travelling to Girvan over the years and in staying with relatives in the area? 66. This refers to W. Lewis Abbott material from the Ightham Fissure pres'd by Sir H. Howarth to British Museum. 67. The Gray's kept a detailed record of the despatch of each consignment and the cost of carriage, which was used to settle their account. 68 boxes were despatched to the BMNH according to their records. This book was presented to the BMNH by Alice Gray (2 June 1940) and is now kept with the Gray Mss in the Palaeontology Library. In this context, it should be noted that the BMNH paid for the carriage of all the material it acquired in I920's, 1937 and 1945. The costs for the despatch of other material sent by the Gray family to various specialists over many years must also have amounted to a reasonable sum. 68. 1st payment of £850 received on 15 July 1920; 2nd payment of £518 (incl. carriage) on 10 March 1921 ; 3rd payment of £800 on 8 July 1921; final amount of £100 on 9 March 1922; with various amount for carriage ending with that on 24 March 1922. 232 R. J. CLEEVELY, R. P. TRIPP ANHY. HOWELLS 69. W. K. Spencer apparently had seen all the starfish & echinoderm material; F. R. C. Reed had been sent any trilobitcs and brachiopods that members of the family thought were new; & Archie Lamont had looked over the gastropods. 70. Lang arranged (22 April 1937) for R. H. Spires and an assistant Mr Covington, to visit Edinburgh and pack the collection; Alice Gray (4 May 1937) wrote; '. . . packing completed with minimal inconvenience. Mr. Spires most kind & considerate'. 71. Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge. Donations made by Mrs Robert Grey: Trilobites in 1907; Brachiopods & Rostroconchs in 1908; Machaeridians in 1909; Hyolithids and Machacridians in 1910. The BMNH presented duplicates of the algae Mastopora fava (Salter) in 1941 72. Amongst the material presented in 1937 was at least one specimen mentioned by Reed much earlier — the only illaenid hbngena from the Stinchar Limestone, Mmuntion (Reed. 1904). TTiis is of significance in extending the tvpe series bcvond that of the original purchase. [R. Tripp) 73. Letter from Davidson & Syme. Edinburgh (2 December 1944) to W. N. Edwards in E. H. Gray file. 7. GIRVAN FAUNA 74. Bluck (1985) considered the relationships of the Girvan sequence to the probable accrctionary prism of the Southern Uplands in his examination of the tectonic history of the Calcdonides in a wider context. Scott J. Geol. 21: 437^64. 75. James Nichol (1844) Guide to the Geology of Scotland . Edinburgh, see p. 261 for list of seven species: 1 sponge, 3 brachiopods, 1 ptcropod. 76. An anecdote told in a letter (To Fanny Hicks, 21 August 1848) concerning Sedgwick's visit in 1848, indicates that many of these specimens were gathered by a young girl, who had first shown them the quarry near Girvan. at a cost of Id each, see Clark & McKenny Hughes, 1890 The Life and Letters of the Rev'd. Adam Sedgwick, Vol. 2: 145. 77. F. W, M'Coy. 1851. On some New Silurian Mollusca. Pt. 1. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 7: 45-63. Orthoceras politum (M'Coy) from Glenwhapple; Bellerophon suhdecussatus (M'Coy) from Mulloch; Trochus Moorei (M'Coy) from Dalquharran. On some New Silurian Mollusca. Pt. 2. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 7: 387-409. Hemilhyris angustifrons (M'Coy) — Mulloch Hill; H. nasula (M'Coy) — Craighead Quarry; Orlhisina scotica (M'Coy) — Craighead; Holopella cincta (M'Coy) — Mulloch. 1852. On New lower Palaeozoic Mollusca. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist 10: 189-195 Murchisania cancellata (M'Coy) — Mulloch; M. simplex (M'Coy) — Craighead; Eccliomphaliis scotica (M'Coy) — Mulloch. 78. Sedgwick, A. & M'Coy, F. W. 1855. A Synopsis of the Classification of the British Palaeozoic Rocks, with a systematic description of the British Palaeozoic Fossils in the Geological Museum of the University of Cambridge. 79. J. W. Salter (1820-1869). Britain's leading Palaeozoic palaeontologist during his lifetime and a specialist on trilobites. He began his natural history career as an apprentice to James dc Carle Sowerby — [and also married his daughter]. Salter also assisted both Murchison and Sedgwick and later trained the young Robert Etheridge. Difficulties over his position and status, partly arising from family matters, his health and involvement with religion, led to his resignation from his position at the Geological Survey. (See Secord, J. A., 1985 Spec. Puhl. Soc. Hist Mat. Hist, i 61-75) 80. Salter. J. W. 1855. List of some of the Silurian Fossils of Ayrshire pp. 170-178 |17 brachiopods; 1 bivalve; 13 gastropods; 6 Cephalopoda] with Murchison, R. I. 'On the Silurian Rocks of the South of Scotland'. Quart. Jl. geol. Soc. Lond. 7: 1.39-169. 81. Of the earlier workers [= describers], it would appear that only Nicholson and Etheridge had ever visited the Girvan District to make their own collections and observations. Virtuallv all MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 233 post-1950 publications have been written by geologists with a good field knowledge of the area and its formations. 82. Rough estimates of the Total number of Girvan species at each phase are: 1st exploratory" phase = 40, (7; 34; 37 species]; 2nd 'accumulative/acquisitive' phase = 560 [see list in Peach & Home]; 3rd 'interpretative" phase = c. 700. 83. To explain the presence of both internal and external moulds in many of these specimens, Goldring & Stephenson ( 1972) have suggested thai several of the Girvan 'echinoderms' were sediment-eaters and that the distortion of the moulds was compatible with measurements made on the modern Echinocardium cordalum showing that 30% of its test is occupied by gut contents. 84. Glyplocrinus globularis N. & E. 1881. 85. Ramsbottom recorded the following species from the Girvan district: A. thraivensis, A. drummockensis . C. heterohranchia . C. gracilis, D. grandiluhiis, P. scolicus. Protaxocrinus girvanensis. M. cirrifer, X. multiramus. X. sp., y4. elevatiis. D. craigheadensis. D. globularis. 86. The term 'calcichordate' is now thought to be inappropriate (see Jefferies et al 1987; 432). 87. Letter 14 June 1912. 88. See p. 224 for an account of Mrs Gray"s strong feelings for her cystids. 89. Girvan Rostroconch molluscs have been figured in Pojeta & Runnegar (1976: 54); no British author has dealt with the monoplacophorans from Girvan, although Hind and Reed did describe Tryblidium species as bivalves. 90. In his review of Ordovician pelecypods [= bivalves], Pojeta (1971) has explained that another reason is the mistaken belief that adequate material is not available, since the majority of Ordovician specimens are in the form of poorly preserved moulds and casts, which are only found on exposed limestone and sandstone surfaces. His review also provides other informa- tion on the motives and results of earlier workers on Palaeozoic bivalves. 91. Extract from Biography by Alice Gray [see Gray Correspondence, Vol. 1, 'letter" No. 23]: The letter from my mother to Professor Lapworth (20 November 1898) and his reply (29 November 1898), are of importance because they show that the 'Starfish Bed' known to-day \c. Wii^] is not the Starfish Bed described by him on p. 619 of the 'Girvan Succession'. I think I am correct in stating that Professor Lapworth did not visit the Girvan District after my mother found her 'Starfish Bed' and that he never saw her 'Starfish Bed'. It ought, perhaps, to be placed on record that we, as a family, searched in vain for Professor Lapworth's Starfish Bed in 'an old quarry'; also that the owner of South Threave Farm at the time, Mr Patcrson, did not know of any old quarry, on cither his own properly or on neighbouring land, answering to the description . . . although he knew Prof, Lapworth and saw him occasionally when . . . working . . . the . . . geology of the Girvan District Alice Gray also expressed doubts over any suggestion that nearby overgrown depressions could once have been Lapworth's 'quarry' for the family had frequently worked in that neighbourhood and would have found the site. 92. Reed's monograph on the Girvan trilobites (1903-6, I9I4) and Bather's work on the Cystoids deal mainly with Starfish Bed material; Cocks (1978) in his review of Davidson's brachiopods records more than 30 species from the Bed; and Jefferies (1986: 192)) referred to the two species of cornutes that have frequently been preserved as the 'youngest cornutes known'. 8. CONCLUSIONS 93. The Edinburgh Census return for 1891 records I domestic servant in the household; in the census returns for 1851 and 1861 her father's household at Girvan included several servants, but only one in each census was listed as a house servant, the others were also farm labourers, or dairymaids. 94. Mrs Gray in a letter to Davidson (2nd Nov. 1876): . . . from what I hear from our Scotch geologists, it still seems an open question whether the position, or sequence of the Girvan Beds is really determined. 234 R. J. CLEEVELY, R. P. TRIPP ANDY. HOWELLS 95. Letter to Rosic' dated 13 November 1921 in the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh; apparently in answer to a reference concerning certain books, probably by Mrs Asquith in the light of the following comment. Mrs Gray wrote: We arc all sick of Mrs Asquith!' and went on to mention a clever burlesque in Punch of one of her books published under the heading A brilliant Little Innocent Abroad'. 96. Mrs Gray's reply to the .suggestion of Dr Traquair c. 1878-80 (see p. 4 of Alice Gray's Mss biography of her mother) 97. See letters to Bather dated 23 November & 17 December 1910 re borrowing Jaeckel's work on cystideans; and Bather's letter 31A7/1900 advising her to refer to Lankester's Treatise on Zoology. 98. Her visits to Prague and BMNH referred to in Bather correspondence (24 July 1907). 99. Bather's letter (22 June 1919) is in response to Mrs Gray's questions as to the function of some unusual crinoid ossicles that she had found at Craighead. 100. 30 October 1876, puzzled over the difference in ornamentation shown by a large l.inguta occurring at Baldatchie from others found at Craighead. 101. Orthis calligramma Dalman (see her letter of 1 1 February 1882); the material has since been recognised as Orthambonites plavfairi (Reed), Hesperorthis criiigensis (Reed) and Dolerorthis ?sp. Among other examples is Strophomena corrugatelta Davidson which included several unrelated brachiopods that had independently developed strongly wrinkled ornament; these are now described as: Gunnarella corrugatelta Davidson, Gunnaretla undulala (M'Coy); Rafinesquina sp.. Palaeoslrophomena kilbuchoensis (Davidson); Ptychoglyptus ? sp., Lepto- strophia jamesoni (Reed). 102. The old gutta percha rubbers used to produce casts of the Girvan fossils for Bather and Spencer have been replaced by silicone and latex rubbers, which are far more fluid and flexible, allowing more of the Hner details of ornament to be reproduced. It is also hoped that such materials will provide more permanent replicas. 103. See the recent work of Jefferies on cornutes; Donovan on crinoids; and Paul on cystoids. 104. Walter R. Billings (7-1920). An amateur fossil collector in Canada, who was particularly interested in crinoids. He worked in the Chief Architects Office. Ottawa and was able to obtain material from various new fossil sites as they were discovered during excavations. He corresponded with Bather about fossil echinoderms from 1890 to 1916; lent most of his better specimens for description; provided the 'gossip of a superficial amateur' (see letter 14 May 1897) and acted as a reporter, mediator and link for Bather with specialists throughout North America. Biogr. reference in Geot. Mag. 57, 1920: 287-288. The tile WR Billings' in the BMNH Correspondence Archive has 56 letters from him with 13 draft replies from Bather. 105. The correspondence with Dr Bather contains many references to: 'my fossil', 'my cystids', 'my crinoids' etc. 106. described by Alice Gray in a letter to L. F. Bairstow ( 10 October 1938) 107. Davidson's quotation in the Geologist, Vol. 11, 1859: 461. 108. Alice Gray's letter (16 October 1937) indicates that this may have been unfortunate and the wrong person commemorated, as the specimen had been found by her sister Agnes Gray! 11. REFERENCES Papers that mention Mrs Gray and/or her collection are marked with an asterisk * Alexander, A. S. 19.39. Across Watersheds, viii + 278 pp, 4 pis. Robert Maclehose & Co. Ltd. Cjlasgow. MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 235 Allen, D. E. \97b. The Naturatisi in Britain. A Social History, xii + 292 pp. Allen Lane, London. * Arin.strong, J., Young, J., & Robertson, D. 1876. Catalogue of the Western Scottish Fossils, iii + 164 pp. Blackic & Son. Glasgow. * Bather, F. A. 1913. Caradocian Cystidea from Girvan. Transactions of the Roval Society of Edinburgh 49: 3.^9-530, 6 pis., 80 text tigs. * 1915. Studies in Edrioasteroidca, VI. Pvrgocvstis n.g.. Geological Magazine, London Dec. VI, Vol. n, 52: 5-12; 49-6(1, pis. 2 & 3. * 1923. The shell of Cornulites. Geological Magazine, London 60: 542-5. * 1925. Cothurnocyslis. A study in adaptation. Paldonlologische Zeitschrift Berlin 7: 1-15. 1926. Preface, pp v-xi. In Withers. T. H. (1926) Catalogue of The Machaeridia . . . in the Department of Geology . British Museum (Natural History). London. * Bather, F. A. & Spencer, W. K. 1934. A new Ordovician echinoid from Girvan. Ayrshire. Annals and Magazine of Natural History (10) 13: 557-558. Begg, J. L. 1946. Some new fossils from the Girvan district. Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow 2\: 29^1. Benton, M. J. 1979. H. A. Nicholson (1844-1899), invertebrate palaeontologist: bibliography and catalogue of his type and figured material. Royal Scottish Museum, Information Series, Geology 7: vii + 94 pp. Bluck, B, J, 19S5. The Scottish parateclonic Caledonides. Scottish Journal of Geology 21: 437-464. Brenchley, P. J. 1984. Late Ordovician Extinctions and their Relationship to the Gondwana Glaciation, pp 291-335. In Brenchley. P. J. (Ed). 1984 Fo.'isils and Climate 352 pp. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester. Brower, J. C. 1974. Upper Ordovician Xenocrinids (Crinoidea, Camerata) from Scotland. Palaeontological Contributions. Papers University of Kansas Ps, 67: 1-25, 3 pis. * Brookes Knight, J. 1941 . Palaeozoic Gastropod Genotypes. Special Papers. Geological Society of America 32: vi + 510 pp, 96 pis. * Clarkson, E. N. K. 1985. A history of Scottish palaeontology 1834-1984. Scottish Journal of Geology 21 (4): 389^06. * Clarkson, E. N. K. and Tripp, R. P. 1981. The Ordovician trilobitc Calyptaulax brongniarti (Portlock). Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (Earth Sciences), Edinburgh, 72: 287-294. 6 figs. Cleevely, R. J. 1983. World Palaeontological Collections 364 pp. British Museum (Natural History )/Mansell Publishing Ltd., London. * Cocks, L. R. M. C. 1978. A Review of British Lower Palaeozoic Brachiopods. including a Synoptic Revision of Davidson's Monograph. Palaeontographical Society. (Monographs), 256 PP Cocks, L. R. M. & Toghill, P. 1973. The biostratigraphy of the Silurian rocks of the Gii^an District, Scotland. Quarlerly Journal of the geological Society. London 129: 209^3. Curry, G. B., Bluck, B. J., Burton. C. J., Ingham, J. K„ Siviter, D. J., and Williams. A, 1984. Age, evolution & tectonic history of the Highland border Complex, Scotland. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Earth Sciences 75: 1 13-133. * Davidson, T, 1853-1883. Monograph of the British Fossil Brachiopoda. Palaeontographical Society, (Monographs), 1-368, 42 pis.; Suppl: 242 pp, 17 pis. [for details see Cocks, L. R. M. C. (1978)] • 1877. Notes on four species of Scottish Lower Silurian Brachiopoda. Geological Magazine, London. Dec. II, Vol. 4: 13-17, pi. 2. * Dean, W, T, 1966. The lower Ordovician startigraphy and trilobite fauna of the Landeyran Valley and the neighbouring district of the Montagne Noire, south-western France. Bulletin British Museum (Natural History), Geology 12: 245-343, 21 pis. Dewey, J. F. 1982. Plate tectonics and the evolution of the British Isles. Journal of the Geological Society, London, 139: 371^12. * Donald. J. [see also under Longstaff, Mrs. J.] 1899 Remarks on the genera Eotomaria Koken and Hormotoma Salter with description of British species. Quarterly Journal geological Society. London 55: 251-272, pis. 21-22. * 1902. On some of the Proterozoic Gasteropoda which have been referred to Murchisonia and Pleurolomaria with descriptions of new subgenera and species. Quarterly Journal geological Society, London 58: 313-339, pis. 7-9. 236 R. J. CLEEVELY, R. P. TRIPP AND Y. HOWELLS * 1905. Observations on some of the Loxonematidae, with descriptions of two new species. Quarterly Journal geological Society, London 61: 564-6, pi. .^7. * 1906. Notes on the genera Omospira. Lophospira. and Turritoma. with descriptions of the new Proterozoic species. Quarterly Journal geological Society . London 62: 552-572. pis. 43-44. * Donovan, S. F. 1983. Tetrameric crinoid columnals from the Ordovician of Wales. Palaeontology 26: 845-9. 2 t.-figs. • 1986. Pelmatozoan columnals from the Ordovician of the British Isles. Pt. I. Palaeonto- graphical Society, (Monographs), 11-68. 6 pis. In Press. Pt. II. * Elles, G. L. and Woods, E. M. R. 1901-1918. A Monograph of the British Graptolites. Palaeontographical Society, (Monographs), pp a-m. |2). clxxi + 539 pp. 52 pis. * Etheridge, R. (Jnr.) 1878. Notes on Silurian fossils from the neighbourhood of Girvan. Ayrshire. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 4: 164-177. * 1881. The Palaeozoic Conchology of Scotland. Proceedings of the Ro\al Physical Society of Edinburgh 7: 1-94. Flett, Sir J. Smith. 1937. The First Hundred Years of the Geological Survey of Great Britain. 280 pp. H.M.S.O.. London. Fortey, R. A. 1984. Global earlier Ordovician transgressions and regressions and their biological implications, pp 37-50 In Bruton. D. L. [Ed.) Aspects of the Ordovician System', Palaeonto- logical Contributions University of Oslo 295: [vii] + 228 pp. Freshney, E. C. 1959. An extension of the Silurian succession in the Craighead Inlicr, Girvan. Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow' 24: 27-36. Gibson, J. A. 1981. Regional Checklist of Clyde Birds. Second edition. Clyde Area Branch Scottish Wildlife Trust. Glasgow. Gislen, T. 1930. Affinities between the Echinodermata. Enteropneusta and Chordonia. Zoologiska Bidrag Uppsala 12: 199-304. Goldring, R. & Stephenson, D. G. 1972. The depositional environment of three Starfish Beds. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Geologic und Paliiontologie. Monatshefie 1972: 449-64. * Gray, R. 1868a. Specimens exhibited 29th Sept. 1864. Observations on various branches of Natural History during the past summer. Proceedings of the Glasgow Natural History Society 1: 100-101. * 1868b. Specimens exhibited 28th Nov. 1865. Notes on Silurian fossils [brachiopods] from Girvan. ibid.: 124. * 1868c. Specimens exhibited at meeting 7th Jan. 1868. Occurrence of Ischadites kanigi |sic] in the Silurian rocks of the Gir\'an District, ibid.: 197-8. * 1869. Specimens exhibited 27th Oct. 1870. Note on a new Silurian brachiopod. Leptaena Youngiana Davidson (non Gray), from the Girvan District; and also the occurrence of Leperditia in the district, ibid. 2(1): 229-30. Gray, R. and Anderson, R. 1869. On the Birds of Ayrshire and Wigtownshire. Proceedings of the Glasgow Natural History Society 1: 269-324. * Harper, D. A. T. 1979. The environmental significance of some faunal changes in the Upper Ardmillan succession (upper Ordovician). Girvan. Scotland pp 439—445 In Harris. A. L.. Holland. C. H. & Leake. B. E. (Eds.) 'The Caledonides of the British Isles — reviewed'. Special Publication Geological Society of London 8: xii + 768 pp. Scottish Academic Press Ltd.. Edinburgh. 1981. The stratigraphy and faunas of the Upper Ordovician High Mains Formation of the Girvan District. Scottish Journal of Geology, 17: 247-255. 1982u. The late Ordovician Lady Bum Starfish Beds of Girvan. Proceedings of the Glasgow Geological Society. No. 122/123: 28-32. 19826. The stratigraphy of the Drummuck Group (Ashgill). Girvan. Geological Journal 17: 251-277. * 1984. Brachiopods from the Upper Ardmillan Succession (Ordovician) of the Girvan District. Scotland. Part. 1. Palaeontographical Society (Monographs), 1-78. II pis. |Publ. No. 565. part of Vol. 136 for 1982], * Hind, W. 1910. The Lamellibranchs of the Silurian rocks of Girvan. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 47: 479-548. 5 pis. Home, J. 1904. Obituary of R. H. Traquair. Proceedings of the Royal Society. Edinburgh 33: 4. MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 237 1925. Obituary of Mrs Robert Gray. Transactions of the Geological Societv. Edinburgh II: 392. * Howells, Y. 1982. Scottish Silurian Trilobitcs. Piilaeonlographical Society (Monographs). 76 pp., 15 pis. * Hughes, C. P., Ingham, J. K. & Addison, R. 1975. The morphology, classification and evolution of the Trinucleidae (Trilobita). Philosophical Transactions of the Roval Society of London B 272: 537-607. Ince, D. 1984. Sedimentation and tectonism in the Middle Ordovician of the Girvan district, S. W. Scotland. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (Earth Sciences) 75: 225-237. * Ingham, J. K. 196S. British and Swedish Ordovician species of Cybeloides (Trilobita). Scottish Journal of Geology 4: 300-316, pis. 1, 2. 1978. Geology of a continental margin; 2: middle and late Ordovician transgression, Girvan. In Bowes, D. R. & Leake, B. E. (Eds.) Crustal evolution in northwestern Britain and adjacent areas. Geological Journal (Special Issue). 10: 163-176. Jaanusson, V. 1984. What is so special about the Ordovician? pp 1-3. In Bruton, D. L. (Ed.) 1984. Aspects of the Ordovician System. Palaeontological Contributions University of Oslo No. 295: [vii] + 228 pp, Oslo Universitet. ' Jefferics, R. P. S. 1967. Some fossil chordates with echinodcrm affinities. Zoological Society of London. Symposium, 20: 163-208. * 1968. The subphylum Calcichordata (Jefferics, 1967) — primitive fossil chordates with echinoderm affinities. Bulletin British Museum (Natural History). Geology 16: 243-339. * 1986. The Ancestry of the Vertebrates. 300 pp, illus. British Museum (Natural History), London. Jefferies, R. P. S. & Lewis, D. N. 1978. The English Silurian fossil Placocystites forhesianus and the ancestry of the vertebrata. Philosophical Transactions of the Roval Society of London (B) 282 (990): 205-323. Jefferies, R. P. S., Lewis, M. & Donovan, S. K. 1987. Protocystites menevensis — A stem group chordate (Cornuta) from the Middle Cambrian of South Wales. Palaeontology 30: 429-484, pis. 54-60. * Jones, O. T. 1928. Plectamhonites and some allied genera. Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Great Britain. Palaeontology . London. Vol. 1(5): 367-527, pis. 21-25. * Jones, T. R. 1886. On the genus Bevrichia and some new species. Annals and Magazine of Natural History (5) 17: 337-63, pi. 12.' (Gray CoH'n p. 356] ' 1893a. On some Palaeozoic Ostracoda from the Girvan District of Ayrshire. Quarterly Journal geological Society, London 49: 296-307, pis. 13 & 14. * 1893/). On some Palaeozoic Ostracoda from the Girvan District of Ayrshire. Geological Magazine. London, Dec IIL vol. 10: 285 (A report of above paper]. * Jones, T. R. & Woodward, H. 1895. On some Palaeozoic Phyllopoda. Geological Magazine, London, Dec. IV, vol. 2: 539-45, pi. 15. * Lament, A. 1934. Lower Palaeozoic Brachiopoda of the Girvan District: Suggestions on Morphology in relation to Environment. Annals and Magazine of Natural Historv (10) 14: 161- 84. [Gray Coll'n refd. p. 183]. * 1935. The Drummuck Group, Girvan: A Stratigraphical Revision, with Descriptions of New Fossils from the Lower Part of the Group. Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow 19: 288-334, pis. 7-9. [Gray Coil'n. refd. p. 291] * 1946. Lamellibranchs from the Lower Drummuck Group (Ashgillian), Girvan, Scotland. Cement, Lime and Gravel 20: 364-6, 1 pi. * Lane, P. 1971. The British Cheiruridac (Trilobita). Palaeontographical Society, (Monographs). 195 pp, 16 pis. [Makes no reference to Gray CoH'n. at all, although the material dealt with had originally been described by Reed] Lapworth, C. 1878. The Moffat Series. Quarterly Journal Geological Society, London 34: 24-343; 345-6. ' 1882. The Girvan Succession. Quarterlv Journal Geological Society, London 38: 537-666, Pis. 24-25. * 1899. [Review of] The Survey Memoir on the Scottish Uplands. Mem. Geol. Surv. U.K. 'The Silurian Rocks of Bntain. Vol. 1 . Scotland". Geological Magazine. London, Dec. IV, Vol. 6: 472-9; 510-20. ]Gray colPn. refd. p. 518]. 238 R. J. CLEEVELY. R. P. TRIPP ANOY. HOWELLS 1903. Presidential Address. Quarterly Journal Geological Society, London 59: xlvii-xlviii. Longstafr, (Mrs) J. [nee Donald] 1899. see under Donald 1902. see under Donald 1903. see under Donald 1905. see under Donald 1906. see under Donald * 1924. Descriptions of Gasteropoda [sic] chiefly in Mrs Robert Gray's collection from the Ordovician and the Lower Silurian of Girvan Quarterly Journal Geological Society. London 80: 408-M6. pis. 31-3K. * MacBride, E. W. & Spencer, W. K. 1938. Two New Echinoidea, Aulechinus and Ectinechinus , and an adult-plated Holothurian, Eolhuria from the Upper Ordovician of Girvan. Scotland. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Ser. B. , Biological Sciences, 229 (No. 558): 91-136. jp. 92: This paper owes much to the careful collecting of the Misses Gray, who arc continuing the work commenced by their mother.] Macnair, P. & Mort, F. 1908. History of the Geological Society of Glasgow. 1858-1908. with Biographical Notices of Prominent Members. [viii[ + 304 pp. Geological Society of Glasgow, Glasgow. Mancenido, M. O. & Cocks, L. R. M. 1986. Thomas Davidson 1817-1885. In Racheboeuf, P. R. and Emig, C. [Eds] Les Brachiopodes Fossiles et Actuels'. Actes du 1"^' Congres International sur les brachiopodes. Brest 1985. Biostratigraphie du Palcozoique, Univ. Bretagne Occidentale. 4: 23-25. * Morris, S. F. & Fortey, R. A. 1985. Catalogue of the Type and figured specimens of Trilobite in the British Museum (Natural History), iv + 182 pp. 8 pis. British Museum (Natural History). London. Morris, S. F. & Tripp, R. P. 1986. Lectotype selections for Ordovician trilobites from the Girvan District, Strathclyde. Bulletin British Museum (Natural History. Geology 40: 161-76. * Nicholson, H. A. & Etheridge, R. (Jun.) 1877. Contributions to micropalacontology — H. On Prasporae Gravae. a new genus and species of Silurian corals. Annals and Magazine of Natural History i-i) 20:388-92. • 1878-80. A Monograph of the Silurian Fossils of the Girvan District in Ayrshire, with special reference to those contained in the Gray Collection' . Blackwood & Sons. Edinburgh & London. Fasciculus 1. (Rhizopoda, Actinozoa, Trilobita), 1878: ix + 1-135, pis. 1-19; Fasiculus II. (Trilobita, Phyllopoda. Cirripcdia and Ostracoda). 1879; vi + 137-234. pis. 10-15; Fasciculus III. (The Annelida and Echinodermata. with Supplements on the Protozoa. Coelenterata. and Crustacea). 1880: vi + 23.5-341. pis. 16-24. Nicol, James. 1844. Guide to the geology of Scotland, 272 pp. Oliver & Boyd. Edinburgh. JN.B. 2nd edit. 1864], * Owen, H. G. 1965. The British Palaeozoic Asterozoa. Tabic of Contents, Supplement and Index. Palaeontographical Society (Monographs), xii + 54I-5H.^ pp. * Owens, R. M. 1973. British Ordovician and Silurian Proetidae (Trilobita). Palaeontographical Society (Monographs), 98 pp. 15 pis. * Paul, C. R. C. 1965. On the occurrence of Comarocyslites. or Sinclaiocystites (Paracrinoidea. Comarocystidae) in the Starfish Bed. Threavc Glen, Girvan. Geological Magazine. London 102: 474-7, pi. 20. 1967. New Ordovician Bothriocidaridae from Girvan and reinterpretation of Bothriocidaris Eichwald. Palaeontology, London 10: 52.5-541. * 1973-84. British Ordovician Cystoids. Pt. 1.: Introduction etc. and Class Diploporita. Palaeontographical Society (Monographs) 1973: 1-64. 11 pis. Pt. 2.: Class Rhombifcra. Palaeontographical Society (Monographs) 1984: 65-182. pis. 12-26. * Peach, B. N. and Home, J. 1899. The Silurian Rocks of Britain. Part I. .Scotland. Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Great Britain, xviii + 749. ]More than 24 references to (iray CoH'n. in the Index; pp. 686-97 a 'List of Fossils prepared by Mrs. Gray from the collections made by her from the Silurian Rocks of the Girvan District] * Peach, B. N., Home, J. and Macconochie, A. 1901 . The Silurian Rocks in the South of Scotland. In Elliott. G. F. Scott, Laurie, M & Murdoch. J. Barclay. Fauna, Flora and Geology of the Clyde Area. British Association Handbook, Glasgow: pp 42.3^i4 [Gray CoH'n. p. 428[ * Peel, J. S. 1975. Arjamannia a new upper Ordovician —Silurian pleurotomariacean gastropod from Britain and North America. Palaeontology , London. 18: 385-390. MRSEl IZABETHGRAY 239 Pojeta, John 1971. Review of Ordovician Pclecypods. Professional Papers U.S. Geological Survey 695: 46 pp. 2(1 pis. * Pojeta, J. & Runnegar, B. 1976. The Paleontology of Rostroconch Mollusks and the Early History of the Phylum Mollusca. Professional Papers U.S. Geological Survey 968; iv + 88 pp. 54 pis. * Ramsbottom, W. C. H. 1961. A monograph of British Ordovician Crinoidea. Palaeonlographical (Monographs), 37 pp, K pis. * Reed, F. R. C. 1903^1935. The Lower Palaeozoic Trilobites of the Girvan District, Ayrshire. Palaeonlographical Socielv (Monographs): Parts 1-3, 1903-^: 1^8, 6 pis.; 49-96, pis. 7-13; 97- 186, pis. 14-20; Supplement I, 1914: .% pp, 8 pis; Supplement II, 1931: 30 pp; Supplement III, 1935; 64 pp, 4 pis. * 1907. Sedgwick Museum Notes. Crustacea etc. from Girvan. Geological Magazine, London, Dec. V, Vol. 4; 108-1 16, pi. 4. * 1908(3. Sedgwick Museum Notes. New fossils from Girvan, Ischadiles Konigi Murchison. Geological Magazine, London, Dec. V, Vol. 6: 291-296, pi. 12. ' 1908b. The structure of Turrilepas peachi and its allies. Transactions of the Royal Society of £rf/>!b«rg/!46; 519-28, I pi. * 1910. Lower Palaeozoic Hyolithidae from Girvan. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 47: 203-222, pis. 1-3. * 1911. Sedgwick Museum Notes. A new fossil from Girvan. Geological Magazine, London, Dec. V, Vol. 8: 337-9, pi. xv. \Helminlhochilon thraivensis]. * 1912. Sedgwick Museum Notes. Notes on the Genus Trinucleus. Pts. 1 & 2. Geological Magazine, London, Dec. V, Vol. 9: 346-53; 385-94; pis. 18, 19. * 1914. Sedgwick Museum Notes. Notes on the genus Trinucleus. Pt. III. Geological Magazine, London, Dec. 6, Vol. 1: 349-59, pis. 28, 29. * 1917. The Ordovician and Silurian Brachiopoda of the Girvan District. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 51: 795-998, pis. 1-24. * 1920-21 . A Monograph of the British Ordovician and Silurian Bellerophontacea. Palaeonl- ographical Society, (Monographs), viii + 92 pp, 13 pis. * 1923. New Fossils from Girvan \Cornulites]. Geological Magazine. London 60; 268-276, pi. 12, * 1924. Some New Ordovician and Silurian Fossils. [Tryblidium girvanense] Geological Magazine, London 61: 25-31, pi. 3. * 1925a. Some New Silurian Trilobites. Geological Magazine, London 62: 67-76, pi. 2. * 1925fc. The Classification of the Acidaspidae. Geological Magazine, London 62: 416-30. * 1926. Some New Ordovician and Silurian Fossils from Girvan. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 54: 735-9, I pi. * 1928. Notes on the Family Encrinuridae. Geological Magazine, London 65: 51-77. * 1931. A Review of the British Species of the Asaphidae. Annals and Magazine of Natural History (m) 7: 441-472. * 1935a. Some new brachiopods from Girvan. Annals and Magazine of Natural History (10) 16:1 ' 19356. Palaeontological evidence of the age of the Craighead Limestone. Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow 19: 340-72. * 1940. New Ordovician Fossils from Girvan, Ayrshire. Annals and Magazine of Natural Hi.Uory{]\)6: 154-69, pi. 8. * Regnell, G. & Paul, C. R. C. 1981. Echinoderms from the Ordovician of the Girvan district, Scotland, with the description of two new species. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (Earth Sciences) 72: 49-56. * Rolfe, W. D. I. 1981 . Seplemchiton—A Misnomer. Journal of Paleontology 55(1): 675-678, 3 t.- figs. Salter, J. 1855. List of some of the Silurian Fossils of Ayrshire. Quarterly Journal of the geological Society of London 7: 170-178. pis. viii-x. * Shirley, J. 1931. A redescription of the known British Ordovician species of Calymene Is. I.). Memoirs and Proceedings of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society 75: 1-33, 2 pis. * Sinclair, G. W. 1949. The Ordovician Trilobite Eobronteus. Journal of Paleontology, Menasha. 23: 45-56, pis. 12-14. 240 R. J. CLEEVELY, R. P. TRIPP ANDY. HOWELLS * Slater, I. L. 1407. A Monograph of British Conulariae. Palaeonlographicat Society, (Mono- graphs). |ii] + 41 pp. 5 pis. * Smith, A. B. 1980. Floridiscus girvanensis a new Edrioasteroid from the Ordovician of Ayrshire. Scottish Journal of Geology. Edinburgh, 15: 275-279. ' Smith A. B. & Paul, C. R. C. 1982. Revision of the class Cyclostoidea (Echinodermata). Philosophical Tran.'sactions of the Royal Society of London, Ser. B, Biological Sciences 296 (No. 1083): 577-684. * Smith, S. 1930. The Calostylidac Roemer: A Family of Rugose Corals with Perforate Septa. Annals and Magazine of Natural Wutorv (10) 5: 257-78, pis. 10-12. [Gray ColPn. p. 265-6] * Spencer, W. K. 1914-1940. A Monograph of the British Palaeozoic Asterozoa. Palaeontographical Society (Monographs). 540 pp. 37 pis. [for further details see Owen, H. G. 1965] * 1929. The Starfish of the Scottish Palaeozoic Beds. Reports of the Briti. n X c o N < < m z > i f 3 O a r^2 ■^ot^NC>%— >>oc m*^ tuwtuiuo wo2 z< zzzzSzSz 2 UJ o O Sj ifl Z S 2 Z < Z Z < I Q Z a. z z > > > _1 z ■a c C -1 £ o -•£ -a ^ C c/i cx c n rr t C s CZ i "O o i C i/"i o "^ 6 t 3 'c i o E ^ C/) 11 C3 < -1 E 6 E E -^ i^ -^ , : 2 "^^ 5 E < < 3^2 3- E X 111 ^ ^1 1, ■■ 5 ^ d • X Z . c t: ° Z a. g CO ? CO LU UJ C 5 JS o 2 ffl CQ ffi o » tn c E « £ at O OC t: E W •§ _^ ■- o p -o S> -i' «A, iS „ J3 i 5 o 3 a. y r__ ^ p-- = .^ E II II != ■" E MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 255 z z ID z O £ r~ i/i 5 ""■ p ID - ■B ja n O "c t/5 « ly-, O 3 - '& |lo s = y. j; I ?: ^ ii II _• c Z Ij ,/ W c c O o u — e .S'< o S a: u u o I = E S P i-J & a. D. a. z z • a ^t O g = 5- - 73 O ^ E £ >. 3 "x 2 i: Z. P cm -o si o o o^ o r1 r^l 'T. 'J-i 00 oc ^ ^ i i 'u < ra > -yi ?3 J J < b: o o 2 g. S S z I I on = £ Z 1 u o o o Z 2 uj (2 w 2 13 S ^^^ 1 z z z I X c 6 z t -a eg U Ot3 •o 5 §-^ a: u I ;; — 1^ ; I S •o T3 ra cfl O o O It u •o T3 sz z ra c c Woo i 5 E E :a 5^ O 1, U. ;3 ra O Q Q , CO z ^ - — i ^ E E D O 5 2 Q Q Q 5 - .5 = 8u ^- < .E O ■5,0 1 1 = U. ^ E j: ,S O " * :2s £ ^ -c i» II ^ -o _! _o _0 O U CJ s < ^ I if I c^ "if "2 ■£ S 12 12 i2 f*~i t w"i 'O r-- X u 1) 1* o a> w S S S X X X X I X o &■ o I £ ^ ? E = .2 -3 ■g'.S = 256 R. J. CLEEVEIY, R. P. TRIPP AND Y. HOWELLS o X S s * o 1 I 3S 12 u v-1 t^ E/10 E/11 E/16 =a ^ 1 =a =a ^ =« =a z Z X z z z z z o o 13 ti) aj I Z z 2 2 :SO _^ 1 a 5 o z < i < I £ £ 5 o o z UJ ^ z ii E I I 0^1 5 E ^ _ O < U y, ■ •o 5 — n -^ — £• B £ 5 o E -d S OS 2 .E c o c MRS ELIZABETH GRAY 257 i Jo S D >, >> -^ >^ « ON ^. td — « rs Gra; lice Gr Dwells/ < I S < I 2 < z > 9 •C T O w c o iS C ■U 3 w ■o > ra (U DO c -> z ■o = T3 3 -; a. -^ C Z .5 . 1* .C E S = '" ^ o c 'o E OJ >, 3 3 Ot) 03 o ^ 3C O^ >» O W UJ o o Gray Gray ler 198 Gray Gray 'clls/18 U £■=« ^ c '-> •- ^ ra M 'H IC V. * Di S Z Z 5 < SSI < z SSI I e- I §■ i ■« s tu z z £ .^;- 3 ^ a d 3 3 c o « c5 CD E £ oo > (J u X > ^ U. flj 73 ~J E >. u 5! UJ L/"( ^ ::: C/) U S 1 2 .2^ c Si 3 O a: O E 3 E d 3 a. c c z LU c/i > c i 3 u. y) UJ UJ ■^ 'c I — ' CQ z [f 5 r3 "* ra U o d i ii I IT tu E 3 UJ > < UJ > < E B f2 < = < 5> a: o: E u E II I j= C13 ^^ I I 1 M t« on C/5 [« f- h H <5§ UJ =3 =a C/5 C/5 > _1 > C/5 wo >■ Ir -o < Z a ffl O g. UJ 0- g go >, O < o •E _J n W Q .2 Get; xo ^ I! — ^ oj . . J= c — c c — ■- 3- > — '■J C (/I u O c ■e I id « E b, 1^ — ■> s- = =s .■5 ^ ;, i U — rt i> p- ^ I W ^ o >■ =« o 5 u ^- >-. - z -g 55 3 ■■ II S 1 1 - = — re re ? >% y ^ < E "ra J II > II >. 2 >, re CL II nj II LU O^ H ^ ^ _u y/'t -] z s 1 1 ^ Revista Latinoamericana de Historia de las Ciencias y la Tecnologia Editor: Juan Jose Saldana (University of Mexico) Quipu (Latin American Journal of History of Science and Technology), is devoted to the history of science and tech- nology in Latin America, Founded in 1984. it is published three times a year. Contributions are welcome and articles are accepted in Spanish, English, Portuguese and French, Quipu has become indispensable for all those who study Latin Ameri- can science and technology as well as for scholars interested in the diffusion of science in different cultural contexts. Suscription rates for 1989, including postage and handling: Latin America: Individual US $25 Institutional US $40 All other regions: Individual US $25 Institutional US $60 A complementary collection of Quipu is: QUIPU NOTEBOOKS The price of each volume, including postage and handling: Latin America: US $10 All other regions: US $15 4T€lro»« Cull HI al m\L Orders and suscriptions by check or money order: Quipu. Apartado Postal 21-873,04000M^xico,DF. MEXICO CONTENTS Mrs Elizabeth Gray (1831-1924): a Passion for Fossils R. J CLEEVELY, R. P. TRIPP & Y. HOWELLS bulletin British M...;P..m /Natural Hi>»tnrv^ HISTORICALSERIES Vol.17, No. 2, November 1989 "»-C ->{'■>■ , i > <■ ■K».T.>< '.'!! V,^^.' Bulleti British IVIusi (Natural History) r>Y Historical Series VOLUME 18 NUMBER 1 31 MAY 1990 The Bulletin of the British Museum of Natural History, instituted in 1949, is issued in four scientific series. Botany, Entomology. Geology (incorporating Mineralogy) and Zoology, and an Historical Series. The Historical Series is edited in the Museum's Department of Library Services Head of Department: Mr R. E. R. Banks Editor: Miss P. Gilbert Papers in the Bulletin are primarily the results of research carried out on the unique and ever-growing collections of the Museum, both by the scientific staff and by specialists from elsewhere who make use of the Museum's resources. Many of the papers are works of reference that will remain indispensable for years to come. A volume contains about 256 pages, made up of two numbers: published Spring and Autumn. Subscriptions may be placed for one or more of the series on an Annual basis. Individual numbers and back numbers can be purchased and a Bulletin catalogue, by series, is available. Orders and enquiries should be sent to: Sales Department, Natural History Museum Publications, British Museum of Natural History. Cromwell Road. London SW7 5BD r^/ep/jow.- 01-938-9386 Telex: 929437 NH PUBS G fa.v.- 01-938-8709 World List abbreviation: Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hi.'it (hist. Ser.; ® British Museum (Natural History). 1990 ISBN 565 09013 5 Historical Series ISSN 0068-2306 Vol 18. No. 1, pp 1 - 1 13 British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road London SW7 5BD Issued 3 1 May 1 990 Typeset by J&L Composition Ltd, Filey, North Yorkshire Printed in England by Henry Ling Ltd, The Dorset Press, Dorchester. Dorset ^liiA? Riill Hr Mils. Nut. Hisl (Hisl. Scr ) 18(1) 1-23 Issued 31 M;iv IWll i " ' P collected during the cruises of ~ 7 JUN 1990 HMS Porcupine in 1869 and! ^J^W^^ 1870, with notes on the Norman collection of invertebrata and its / acquisition by the British ^y ^^'^ ^0^5^ Museum (Natural History) A. L. RICE , Institute of Oceanographic Sciences Deacon Laboratory, Wortnley, Godalming, Surrey, U.K. CONTENTS Introduction 1 The Porcupine cruises 3 The fate of the decapods 8 The Norman Collection' and its acquisition by the British Museum (Natural History) 17 Acknowledgements 20 Appendix. Authorship attribution of the species 20 References 21 INTRODUCTION In preparation for a report on the decapod crustaceans collected during recent I.O.S. investigations in the Porcupine Seabight to the southwest of Ireland, previous collections from the same region have been reviewed. The earliest of these was obtained during a series of oceanographic cruises to the west of the British Isles made in the paddle gun vessel H.M.S. Porcupine (Fig. 1) in the summer of 1869. These cruises were very significant in the development of deep sea biology since they included the collection of the deepest dredge samples obtained prior to the Challenger Expedition of 1872-76. The 1869 cruises, along with the short cruise of H M.S. Lightning the previous year and that of the Porcupine to the Mediterranean in 1870, were the subject of Charles Wyville Thomson's classic volume, The Depths of the Sea, published in 1873 shortly after the Challenger began her epic voyage. Thomson's book summarised the slate of oceanographic knowledge at the time and reviewed the main results of the Lightning and Porcupine cruises. However, despite the uniqueness of the deep biological samples, large parts of the collections were never worked up adequately. In particular, with the A. 1 . RICE Fig. 1 HMS Porcupine. A wooden, two-masted paddle gun-vessel, built at Deptford Dockyard in 1844, the Porcupine was 141 feet long and had a displacement of 490 tons. This rather poor photograph, apparently the only one of the ship in existence, is reproduced by kind permission of the Hydrographcr to the Navy. parts of the collections were never worked up adequately. In particular, with the exception of the isopods. very few of the crustaceans were reported upon at all except in The Depths of the Sea. In the case of the decapods, Thomson mentioned three previously undescribed crab species. DorhyrKhus thomsom (as Doryrichiis. see Holthuis, 1962). Rochinia carpenteri (as Amalhia) and Cymonnmus granulatu.s (as Ethu.sa). Thomson made it clear that he had been furnished with these names by A. M. Norman to whom the study of the crustaceans had been entrusted. Norman had recognised these species as new. but neither before the appearance of Thomson's book, nor subsequently, did he publish descriptions of them. The Porcupine collections also included a fourth un- described crab species, Ebalia nu.x. which was not mentioned by Thomson and first appeared in print as a nomen nudum in a preliminary account of the voyage of the Travailleur (Norman. 1880) and was subsequently figured in Milne-Edwards (1883) and described in Pocock (1889). In the ensuing confusion the names have been variously attributed to Norman, Thomson. Norman in Thomson. Milne-Edwards, and Norman in Milne-Edwards (see Appendix I). Phis paper attempts to explain how this confusion arose and to establish the correct authorship of the species concerned. In dealing with these questions I have inevitably become embroiled with the "Norman Collection", a large collection of crustaceans and many other invertebrate groups, which came to the British Museum (Natural History) around the turn of the century. The origins and history of this important collection do not seem to have been properly documented in the past; brief details, particularly of the chronology of its acquisition by the Museum, are therefore provided. NOMENCLATURE OF CRABST THE PORCUPINE CRUISES Following the success of the short cruise of the Lightning in 1868, the larger and more suitable Porcupine made three separate cruises during the summer of 1869, the first under the scientific direction of J. G. Jeffreys, the second under C. W. Thomson and the third apparently under the joint leadership of Thomson and W. B. Carpenter (see Thomson, 1873; Deacon, 1971; Rice, 1986). Fig. 2 Track of the first cruise of HMS Porcupine in 1869, with the station positions marked. Redrawn from Thomson, 1873, plate II. The first cruise (Fig. 2) lasted from 18 May to 13 July during which the Porcupine worked along three loops to the west and north of Ireland; one across the northern part of the Porcupine Seabight and back to Galway, a second running west from Galway across the Porcupine Bank into the Rockall Trough and back to Killibegs, and a third 4 A. 1,. RICK across the northern part of the Rockall Trough to the Rockall Bank and back to Lough Swilly, after which the ship docked in Belfast. A total of 32 official dredging stations were worked, down to 808 fathoms ( 1480m) on the first 'loop', to 1230 fathoms (2250m) on the second, and to 1476 fathoms (27(K)m) on the third. An additional even deeper dredge haul (station 11, 1630 fathoms) was apparently not successful since although Thomson (1873, p. 142) included it in a table of dredging stations, neither he nor Jeffreys (1869) mention it in their respective narratives. A number of dredge hauls, mostly in rather shallow water but including the first haul of the cruise at a depth of 1 10 fathoms (200m) some 40 miles off Valentia, were not given station numbers. 10' 5^ Fig. 3 Track of the second cruise of HMS Porcupine in 1869. Redrawn from Thomson, 187.^, pl.itc III Following the arrival of the Porcupine in Belfast. Thomson took over the scientific direction from Jeffreys and the ship sailed once more on 17 July for the second cruise (Fig. 3). The original intention had been to continue the work of the first cruise to the east and north of Rockall to join up with the work in the Faeroe-Shetland Channel accomplished from the Lightning the previous year. However, since dredging had already been accomplished successfully down to almost 1500 fathoms, with abundant animal life having been found at this depth, a new plan was adopted. Instead of proceeding to the northern area where only relatively modest soundings were known to occur, Thomson successfully applied to the Hydrographer. G. H. Richards, for permis- sion to work to the south-west of Ireland where, some 250 miles west of Ushant. a sounding of 25(K) fathoms was shown on the chart. Since there were few reliable soundings deeper than about 3000 fathoms anywhere in the ocean, Thomson reasoned that if they could demonstrate the existence of life down to 2500 fathoms '. . . the general question would be virtually solved for all depths of the ocean, and any further NOMENCLATURE OF CRABS 5 investigation of its deeper abysses would be mere matter of curiosity and of detail' (Thomson, 1873, p. 93). After calling at Queenstown to coal and to pick up Carpenter's son, P. H. Carpenter, the Porcupine sailed once more on 19 July and proceeded in a roughly south-westerly direction, dredging at relatively shallow depths as she crossed the Great Sole Bank and the unsuspected very rough topography of the upper parts of King Arthur Canyon to the south of the Goban Spur. Finally, on 22 and 23 July two successful dredge hauls were obtained on the abyssal plain south of the Pendragon Escarpment at 2435 and 2090 fathoms respectively (stations 37 and 38), depths which were not to be exceeded until February 1874 as H.M.S. Challenger saiicd from the Canaries towards the Antilles. The Porcupine now steamed northwards once more, towards the southwestern tip of Ireland, taking a series of four dredge samples on the Goban spur (Stations 39^2) and three (43^5) on the eastern flank of the Porcupine Seabight. After coaling at Haulbowline on 2 August the vessel reached Belfast on Wednesday 4. On August 7 Thomson summarised the results of the cruise in a letter to A. M. Norman (see Mills. 1980) which was presented at the annual meeting of the British Association in Exeter and published in the Annual Report (Rep. Brit. Ass. 1869(1870): 1 15). That Norman should work on the crustaceans collected was already decided, for Thomson ends his letter T trust to your contributing the Crustacea, which will be sent to you as soon as possible.' 10' 5' 0" Fig. 4 Track of the third cruise of HMS Porcupine in 1S69. Redrawn from Thomson, 1873, plate IV. Having been joined by W. B. Carpenter, and having had her boilers cleaned out, the Porcupine sailed from Belfast on August 1 1 , making for Stornoway from where she was to begin the third and final cruise of 1869 to extend the work of the Lightning the previous year (Fig. 4). The ship left Stornoway on August 15 and returned three weeks A. L. RICE /Tr^ )r NOMENCLATURE OF CRABS Fig. 5 The Rev. Canon Alfred Merle Norman. 1831-1918. Both from undated portrait photo- graphs: (left) published in f'roceedings of The Royal Society of London 1919 (Obituary Notiees) B 90: xlvi-1 (see Stebbing, 1919); (right) from portrait collection of Library Services BM (NH). 8 A. I.. RICE later, having called at Thorshaven and Lerwick and having worked 41 dredgingstations between the Faeroes and Shetland and four to the east of Shetland. Finally, on September 15 the Porcupine returned to Belfast where the scientists left her. Following the success of the 1869 cruises the Porcupine was made available once more in 1870. this time for work in the Mediterranean. As before, the total time available was to be divided into separate cruises, the first part, from Falmouth to Gibraltar, to be under the scientific direction of Jeffreys, and the Mediterranean cruise to be overseen by Carpenter and Thomson. In the event Thomson was taken ill and did not participate in the 1870 cruises. The ship left Falmouth on July 4 and, after experiencing fog and contrary winds in the western Channel, eventually reached the continental slope to the south of the Great Sole Bank three days later. Between 7 and 1 1 July a series of nine dredge hauls were taken in the region between 48°06' and 48°38'N and ^^l 1' and Kfl.S'W. This region is now known to be highly dissected by canyons where a modern oceanographer would be very reluctant to shoot a dredge or trawl for fear of losing the gear. In the relative ignorance provided by traditional rope soundings t