THE BROUN COLLECTION

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 207, 27 May 1920, Page 5

THE BROUN COLLECTION

Sir,—l must congratulate you on tho prompt steps taken on the receipt of my loiter to inquire into'the circumstances relating to tho retention of tho Broun collection of New Zealand coleoptara. It is reassuring to be told that the Government do not intend permanently to prohibit its export, and that the report published in the newspapers hero and elsewhere—one of which I enclose—was erroneous in this respect. One point, however, appears to have been overlooked; There is more than one collection involved ih this business; the others, I presume, wero made up of duplicates, as is often tho' case, and were to be sent to England for sale. Why were they detained? Not for reference purposes, since the type collection is to bo used for that. Was it the idea of the museum authorities that tlieso duplicates should go to form tho nu. c!cus of the new collection, which they purpose building-up under tho care of their entomologist? If'this, is the case, tliev should at least be paid for. I may as well state hero that I was not acquainted with the late Major Broun. and havo not had any communication with his executors or : friends, and that it is solely in the interests of our collectors that I brought the matter to 'your notice. I should like to explain to Dr. Thomson that I did hot mean to suggest in my letter tjiat the Broun collection could not be "looked .after" in the sense he implied, when speaking to your reporter., So far as their preservation is concerned, I believe the insect Specimens are just as safe in the Otago and Canterbury Museums as they are in Wellington, perhaps safer, if wa tako into account Tho danger of fire in the case of the latter institution; but-a collection in the care of experts siich as those who-have charge of trie entomological department of the British Museum, means more than keeping them free of mites and dust, and I aim sure the Doc : tor will admit this. I was not-aware that th'ey had a capable entomologttt oil tho staff 'of the Dominion 'Museum. I knew they had none in' the others, and have always deplored the fact; but how lone will it take 'him to -build up a collection, like Majdr Broun'6 ? Tho Major waR collecting hero for riearly_ fifty years, and his cabinets must contain close on 3500 species. It will be a herculean task, and I would not care to - speculate as to the timoit will take, or-its probability of success'.—lain, etc., C. BARHAM MORRIS. "Kelso," Eiwaka, May 24,1920.

Sir.—l was very pleased to see in your issuo'of Mav 21 that a strong protest had at last been raised against the lush-handed'attitude of those in author' ifcy in prohibiting the late Major Broun'a collection of coleoptera being emit to tho British Museum. .That the Maori Antiquities Act.'should be used as a mean's of ; preventing it eavi'ng the cbuhlfty is absolutely absurd. This is more'surprising When we learn that the 'protest against it leaving the Dominion has coine from men who are not entomologists, for of all the names -mentioned to your representative, only brie can. ' lay claim to the title. ! Of'the remainder, two are geologists, and the last two.are connected with the Oliigo. 'University, one of whom confines himself to a ; 6tuay of the w.Oi'nis—en.'Wliic'h-subject lie is ! a recognised-authority—while 'the other is, apparently, a chemist. -According to tho Act. botanical : and -mineral specimens arc exempt; why should this be, considering the talk wo hear "about our disappearing flora?

Another reason given is that the col-' lection is wanted for comparison when identifying, arid in order to enable a duplicate "collection : fo be made. .If this were true, why was Mr. Maskell's Magnificent collection of cocoidae, consisting of over a thousand named specie's, the great majority of which were, original types and cannot be.replaced, allowed to be sent over to Washington, U.S.A., some twelve years ago, and not yet returned? About seven years ago I took up the continuation of the late Mr. Maskell's work . and, being anxious to compare some of my specimens with his, wrote to the Department of -Agriculture, in. whose charge they' had 'been 'placed, only to-learn to 'my sorrow': ''That Maskell's typo collection is still at Washington; but I understand nearly all the specimens have been dea'lt with, and that it will 'be returned shortly." An inquiry five years later was no more satisfactory. Had these specimens been placed in the -British -Museum, I. could, have obtained.the irifprmation.l desired, but as they were in U.S.A., -I had to go without, and have had. letters from famous -specialists in different parts of tho world inquiring if •something could not lie done to.'stir up. the authorities mid get Maskell's collection returned to New Zealand.

is regards duplicating a beetle collection which took' a life-time to get together, I am' doubtful if that will ever be done, as-it is v?ry probable that inany of the species are now extinct. Insects are'not like, geological'specimens, when the localities, once known, can be re-torted-to again. I would liko to. point out that iluriuj* tho latter part of Major Broun ? s life his work seemed to bo ignored.by the Publication Committee, and his later papers, instead, of being pubjibbed in the Transactions of the New Zealand Institute, wero brought out in bulletins, and wero thereforo riot available in the usual way. to members. If one wished to procure .a'copy, it had to be -purchased. I think you will -agree with mo in saying that this was'not a good way to. encourage natural science and disseminate information.

I am glad to hear they have an expert entomologist at the Dominion Musouiii': doubtless he is a new .importation, and it is a 'great pity that fact was not made publio -before, as his advice and lielp will bo invaluable to the local perplexed, "bug-hunters," who are besot with difficulties.—'l am etc;, G. BIUTTIN. Nelson, May 24, 1920.