EDWARD M EYRICK

1854-1938

E d w a r d M e y r ig k was a very remarkable man and exerted an influence both as a classical schoolmaster at Marlborough College and as a naturalist in the widest sense, and especially as an entomologist, far wider than he himself probably realized ; possibly also far wider than has been the case with many distinguished and better-known Fellows of the Royal Society. He came of a clerical stock, the Meyricks being natives of Wales, and it was his great-grandfather, the Rev. Edward Meyrick, a native of Caer- marthenshire, who came from South Wales and set up a school at Hunger- ford and thus established the Wiltshire connexion of the Meyricks.

This Edward Meyrick’s great-great-great-grandfather, also Edward, was Dean of Bangor when his brother Rowland was Bishop of the Diocese, the brothers being the sons of Meyrick ap Llewellyn, who was Captain of the Guard at the Coronation of Henry V III. Llewellyn’s father, Llewellyn ap Heylin, it is interesting to record, fought with Henry V II on Bosworth Field.

The historic village of Ramsbury on the Kennet became the home of the Meyricks in 1785, for Edward Meyrick, who was the schoolmaster at Hungerford, was appointed Vicar of Ramsbury in that year and trans­ferred his school to Ramsbury. His elder son Edward succeeded him, but it was his other son, Arthur, who was the grandfather of the subject of this notice.

Arthur Meyrick’s son, also in orders, and named Edward, who was born in 1812, was our Edward Meyrick’s father.

Edward Meyrick was born on 25 November 1854, and was educated at Marlborough College, entering the school in 1868. Here he won an Exhibition and was a member of the Football XX —in the days of the unreformed game—and was also a prefect. He left Marlborough for Cambridge in 1873 and entered Trinity College with a minor scholarship. In the following year he was elected to the Abbott (University) Scholar­ship for Classics and in 1876 he was made a Scholar of Trinity. His dis­tinguished career at Cambridge culminated in a first class in the Classical Tripos in 1877, when he took his degree.

Meyrick then spent over nine years in Australia and New Zealand, from October 1877 to December 1886. He was a master in the Sydney

[531] 2 o 2

532 Obituary Notices

Grammar School until 1881, and from about April 1882 to February 1883 he was teaching at the Cathedral Choir School, Christchurch, New Zealand. After leaving the school at Christchurch early in February, he stayed in New Zealand studying the Microlepidoptera, an outcome of which period, in addition to numerous short papers, was his monograph of the New Zealand Geometrina published in May 1884 in the Trans.Inst. XVI. During this time he twice visited England, in 1880 and 1883. He returned to Australia and was a master at the King’s School, Parramatta, New South Wales, finally sailing for home in December 1886. In 1887 he joined the staff of Marlborough College as a classical master.

His earliest scientific publication was the List of Local Lepidoptera (1873), referred to in the next paragraph ; this was followed by a paper, written at Cambridge in 1875, on the occurrence of Myelois cirrigerella, a species new to Britain, which he found near Marlborough in 1874, and indicates that at this early stage of his career he was devoting himself to the study of the Microlepidoptera, on which later he was to become the authority.

While a boy at Marlborough he took a keen interest in the school Natural History Society, the pioneer of school natural history societies founded by the Rev. T. A. Preston in 1864, a few years before Meyrick entered the College. He joined the Society in October 1869 and served as Treasurer and as a member of the entomological section from 1871, becoming Librarian in 1873. Before he left the College in 1873 he pub­lished in the N.H.S. Report the first full list of Marlborough Lepidoptera ever compiled, containing some 800 species.

This was mainly the result of his own diligent collecting, for he often used to get up at 4 a.m. while the other boys were fast asleep and go off to the Forest or to Rabley copse and be back for early school at 7 a.m. As he was a prefect he was able to get out of college as he liked, but there are few boys blessed with such endurance who would have devoted them­selves to their hobby as assiduously as he did.

M r Preston paid tribute to Meyrick’s collecting activities in his Preface to the College Natural History Society report of the year 1872 in the following terms :—

“ Our greatest triumph is undoubtedly to be sought for in Entomology. Meyrick, ably seconded by Jenkinson, has not left a lamp, or a paling, or a tree unexamined in which a moth could possibly, in any stage of its existence, lie hid. The result is that he has got upwards of thirty names of moths that are new to the list of the Society. It may confidently be asserted that never has the Entomological or any other section—we had almost said of any school in England—had such an energetic head.”

Edward Meyrick 533

The Jenkinson mentioned above was the late F. J . H. Jenkinson, Uni­versity Librarian at Cambridge, who was one of the many who owed his life-long interest in insects and plants to his early friendship with Meyrick at Marlborough.

It is worthy of note that in the last edition (1912) of his Handlist of the Lepidoptera of the Marlborough district the number of species recorded had risen from the eight hundred of the 1873 list to nearly twelve hundred in 1912.

It is of interest to recall what Meyrick, when President of the Society, wrote about Mr Preston after his death in 1905, much of which is equally applicable to Meyrick himself.

“ The death of the Rev. T. A. Preston, who founded this Society, and was its President for sixteen years, occurred early in the year.

“ This was the first School Natural History Society, and it now seems curious that it was violently opposed as a dangerous innovation. Its success was followed by the establishment of similar societies in all the principal schools, all of which therefore owe their inception to the move­ment set on foot by M r Preston.

“ There are, however, two other things that this Society can and should do ; it cannot transform the average boy into a scientific expert, but it can give those boys who possess the capability of becoming scientific experts a fair chance of fulfilling their destiny, by offering to them facilities and encouragement during those years when the bent of the character is commonly decided ; and it can bestow upon the average boy that interest in things natural which is itself natural but is liable to be choked by things artificial, and which as an intellectual occupation and amuse­ment ( a n i m i e t voluptatis causa) ranks second only to gardening. M rPreston did not knowingly labour much on behalf of these last two classes ; but unconsciously he profited them much, and like all those who labour on sound principles, did twice as much good as he thought he was doing.” *

Meyrick’s short but characteristically apposite paper, “ Scientific Work in Local Societies ” ( Marlborough College Nat. Hist. Soc. Report no. 47, 1898, pp. 65-68), gives many sound suggestions as to the valuable work which can be done by local Natural History Societies.

Meyrick came into prominence as an entomologist by his compre­hensive re-classification of the whole order of Lepidoptera, which entirely revolutionized the older artificial classification which had been in vogue for some fifty years previously. His rearrangement was based on struc­tural characters, which he considered indicated more adequately the natural relationships of the various families.

* Marlborough College Natural History Society Report, no. 54, 1905.

534 Obituary Notices

His researches convinced him that there were three basic facts in the dynamics of life by which the systematist must be guided.

He first published his views in the Entomologists' Monthly ,January 1889, and the following passage is a quotation from his paper :—

“ When development takes plade, which is the older or more ancestral form ? This may sometimes be indeterminable ; but it is often possible to decide by a consideration of allied forms, and a recognition of the principles (a) that a lost organ cannot reappear, ( ) that a rudimentary organ is rarely re-developed, (c) that a new organ is never spontaneously evolved out of nothing, but is a modification of something previously existing. To the third of these principles an exception must be made in the case of monstrosities ; but if monstrosities are ever regularly repro­duced under natural circumstances, the probability of its having happened in any given case is so small that it may be practically neglected.”

These principles he enunciated as “ laws ” in his Handbook of British Lepidoptera (1895), p. 10, in the following form :—*

(1) No new organ can be produced except as a modification of some previously existing structure.

(2) A lost organ cannot be regained.(3) A rudimentary organ is rarely re-developed.

Applying these principles, he arrived at results which were revolutionary. The butterflies, instead of being placed apart from the rest of the Lepi­doptera, became a subdivision coordinate with a number of other sub­divisions, and were moved into the midst of the moths flanked by the Notodontina on the one side and the Pyralidina on the other. The families of moths were rearranged according to relationship ; the Zygaenids, Limacodids, Aegeriads, Gossids and Hepialids were recognized as primitive groups, widely separate in relationship from the other families with which they had been classified, since Linnean times, under the compre­hensive term of Bombyces. As Meyrick based his classification chiefly on the evolution of the neuration of the wings, one might have expected to find this evidence one-sided and insufficient, and it testifies to the soundness of his work that the results have in the main been confirmed by other morphological characters discovered since the publication of the Handbook in 1895; a book that cleared away many old conceptions. A Revised Handbook was published in March 1928, bringing the 1895 Handbook up to date.

Meyrick was essentially a student of Microlepidoptera, devoting much of his time to the groups generally known under the Linnean names of

* See also Marlborough College Natural History Report, no. 45, 1896.

Edward Meyrick 535

Tortrices and Tineae. The tropical species of these groups had been but little studied when Meyrick returned to England. He found an almost virgin field, with an inexhaustible number of new1 species and genera, which he was indefatigable in describing and classifying. Since 1912 most of the descriptions were published in his own periodical, Exotic Microlepidoptera, of which four volumes are complete and a fifth

represented by a few numbers. This he described in the preface as “ a spasmodic entomological magazine on one subject by a single contri­b u to r5’.

In the evolution of these small moths, many of which have very narrow wings, simplification of the neuration is a prominent feature. Starting in his classification with species and for the higher categories mainly relying on the differences in neuration, Meyrick found it necessary to raise so many groups to family rank that it is difficult to perceive how he could conveniently find his way among them.

Although by no means all his conclusions have found acceptance among later workers, he certainly deserves the credit of having been the first to place the study of insects on a proper scientific basis. When it is remembered that he was a very rapid worker, that he described an immense number of new species of Microlepidoptera and also that he worked so much in isolation at Marlborough, it will scarcely be surprising should it be found that some of his work has suffered in consequence and that not all his species may be fully justified.

It was not only the Microlepidoptera of Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands on which Meyrick became the authority, but he also described those of India in a long series of papers in the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society between the years 1905 and 1914.

In 1908 he extended his studies to the South African Microlepidoptera, and as a recognition of his labours he was awarded in 1927 the Captain Scott Memorial Medal.

M r A. F. T. Janse (Pretoria), in his obituary notice of Meyrick, writes as follows : “ For South Africa Meyrick has done more than any other worker in bringing order into the study of Microlepidoptera. When he began, 349 species were described from South Africa (not including the Pyralidae), grouped in 218 genera ; to-day this has been increased by him to 2079 species in 494 genera. In addition to this it should be realized that he was always willing to return the types so that practically all the type-material is in S.Africa, a fact which future S. African workers will appreciate when the extension of our knowledge demands the frequent examination of authentic material. It was therefore as a small token of recognition of his unselfish contribution to our knowledge of the South

536 Obituary Notices

African Micro-Fauna that the South African Biological Society decided in 1927, on the day of his 73rd birthday, to award to him the eleventh Senior Captain Scott Memorial Medal.”

In 1910 Wytsman’s Genera Insectorum contained two parts, on the Pterophoridae and Orneodidae, and these were followed by others on the Gracilariadae, Micropterygidae and Adelidae (1912), Tortricidae (1913), Glyphipterygidae and Heliodinidae (1914), Carposinidae and Oeco- phoridae (1922) and Gelechiadae (1926), and the first eight of these families, with a few others, were also dealt with in Junk’s Catalogus Lepidopterorum. In 1910 also appeared an important Revision of the Australian Tortricina (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. XXXV), the New Zealand Tortricina being revised in 1911 {Trans. Inst. X LIII).

With the issue of Exotic Microlepidoptera, his separate papers on the Microlepidoptera of India, South Africa, and Australia were mostly discontinued, although additions to the New Zealand fauna were often recorded in the Transactions of the New Zealand Institute, and a series of papers in the Trans. Ent. Soc. London (1911-14, 1917, 1922) dealt with South American species.

During sixty years of intensive work, Meyrick must have described some 20,000 new species of Lepidoptera, besides hundreds of new genera and several new families. He had the inestimable advantage of pos­sessing a very large percentage of the known species in his own collection, which, by his will, has been presented to the British Museum of Natural History.

This magnificent bequest to the Department of Entomology of the Natural History Museum consists of more than 100,000 specimens of Lepidoptera, minutely indexed, together with water-colour drawings and a complete catalogue.

With the advantage of his vast collection he became the centre to which Microlepidoptera were sent in from all parts of the world for identification and description, and it would be difficult to find any country from which Meyrick had not described some species.

Up till the end of his life new Microlepidoptera were sent to him to be worked out both by the British Museum authorities and by the Imperial Institute of Entomology, showing that despite his advanced years it was recognized that his accuracy of hand and eye remained unimpaired.

It was no idle boast on Meyrick’s part—for none who knew him would ever associate unwarranted assertions with his character—when he once said “ Show me the Microlepidoptera of a Pacific Island and I will tell you that island’s geological history ” .

His study of the insects of Australia and New Zealand led him to reject

Edward Meyrick 537

the Wegener hypothesis that those regions were once united and had drifted a thousand miles apart.

In his letter in Nature* he refers to the complete absence of characteris­tic Australian genera and species of Tortrices and Tineae in New Zealand and to the absence of more than forty endemic New Zealand species in Australia, though in both cases the species have South American affinities, indicating that both Australia and New Zealand at one time—as botanical evidence also shows—were connected with S. America via Antarctica. He argues, therefore, that the connexions of New Zealand and Australia with Antarctica were quite independent, for had New Zealand been at one time closely connected with Australia, then marked affinities should be shown between the genera and species in the two countries, but this is disproved by the facts.

O n the other hand, with regard to Wegener’s hypothesis of an ancient union between W. Africa and S. America, Meyrick is in agreement on the entomological evidence—and this also receives support on the botanical side—but considers that this was probably equatorial and not southern.

By his death the Entomological Society of London, to which he was elected in 1880, has lost its second Senior Fellow. He was elected a member of the Zoological Society in 1889, and his scientific work received the high distinction, very unusual for a schoolmaster, of the Fellowship of the Royal Society in 1904. He was also an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand (elected 1907), of the Royal Society of South Australia, and a corresponding member of the Entomological Society of Argentina.

Meyrick emphasized the importance of his “ Principles ” or “ Laws ” with reference to botanical classification in a paper in the College Natural History Society Report in 1896.| This has probably been overlooked, and as it is a very charactertistic expression of his views, as well as being a valuable contribution, it seems desirable to include an extract here :—

“ A system of classification is in effect a summary of knowledge, and, when effectively mastered, serves as a kind of index or mental aid to memory, without which the mass of detail acquired in scientific study cannot be properly grasped, or the relative bearing of the different facts understood. Hence it is of the first importance that this system should embody the latest improvements, and a student who wishes to keep on progressing must not be averse to alter his system from time to time as

* Nature, no. 2900, Vol. 115, p. 834 (30 May 1925). t Report of the Marlborough College Nat. Hist. Soc., no. 45, 1896, p. 43.

538 Obituary Notices

occasion requires. Unfortunately, there is always in science, as in other pursuits, a large body of conservative opinion which is disposed to cry out, like Alexander’s soldiers, against this interminable marching to the front, and to protest that there is no use or enjoyment of our conquests, if we are to abandon them immediately for fresh ones. This tendency to crystal­lization can best be counteracted by continued m ovem ent; if a halt is called, the longer we stop, the less we are inclined to move on again, and reluctance soon passes into inability.

“ The root of modern classification lies in the recognition of the principle of evolution or development, and all systems which are not clearly based on this are obsolete. O f course, this implies no discredit to the older systematists, who could not anticipate the progress of know­ledge, and made the most skilful use of their materials that the knowledge of their age permitted. The following general rules may be laid down, as exhibiting the working of the principle in practice, viz., (1), no new organ can be produced except as a modification of some previously existing structure ; (2), a lost organ cannot be regained. Hence, as a corollary of (1), the greater the differentiation or specialization, the later the form ; and as a corollary of (2), the larger the number of similar organs ( e.g., stamens), the earlier the form. I t may also be remarked that it is much easier for two organs to cohere than for one to split into two ; hence, e.g., flowers with united petals are usually later than those with separate petals ; where exceptions to this rule occur, they can generally be detected by a study of the process of development. O f course, these considerations apply only to allied forms in comparison with one another.”

Meyrick had a large viewpoint as a Naturalist, and during the twenty- five years he was President of the Natural History Society at Marlborough he took charge not only of the entomological and botanical sections but also presided as well over the ornithological and geological sections for many years.

Both at sectional meetings, and on field days to the many interesting places around Marlborough, rich in their fauna, flora and archaeology, Meyrick was a stimulus and inspiration to the many boys in whom he aroused a keen interest in some branch of Natural History. Nor was this interest merely ephem eral; Meyrick was insistent on training boys to use both their eyes and their powers of deduction—not only to see but to perceive !

The magnificent opportunities of the Marlborough region for Natural History studies are scarcely equalled at any other of our great schools and Meyrick, like his predecessors in office, Preston, H art Smith, and

Edward Meyrick 539

Richardson, was quick to make full use of the wonderful training ground which Marlborough provides.

It was no doubt due to Meyrick that the Master of Marlborough (the Rev. Canon G. C. Bell) in 1891 granted certain members of the Natural History Society exemption from compulsory games on one half-holiday in each week of the summer term subject to the approval of the President (N.H.S. Report, no. 41).

It should be remembered that during most of Meyrick’s time as a schoolmaster at Marlborough there was no organized teaching in the biological sciences in our public schools as there is to-day. This, no doubt, had its disadvantages, but it certainly had its advantages, especially when there was a man like Meyrick to stimulate and encourage the boy with a bent for Natural History. One ventures to think that under this old system better naturalists and keener and more thoughtful observers were developed than under the present-day more specialized teaching of Biology, so largely influenced by the objective of winning scholarships at the Universities.

Writing as a Marlborough boy (1890-94), I found Meyrick intolerant of careless observation or of remarks unsupported by facts which could easily have been verified, though he was always ready to give of his best when obviously one had found out all one could about a specimen, whether animal or plant, before submitting it either for name or for some further information. My memory goes back especially to Sunday morn­ings when, after chapel, one went to the Museum, which, alas, is no longer in its original home on the first floor of the block of classrooms between the Bradleian and B. House. Here Meyrick was to be found every Sunday seated at his table waiting to receive and examine speci­mens or to answer questions. He did not, however, “ suffer fools gladly ” , and it was as well, if one wanted his help, to have made a fairly careful examination of the plant or insect before showing it to the somewhat austere and at times rather terrifying master. Any boy who showed a real keenness in Natural History, whether in plants or animals, and gave evidence of intelligent observation found in Meyrick a stimulating friend, always ready to help those who showed a desire and aptitude to help themselves. For the dilettante and casual inquirer he had little use. Any boy bringing a specimen and saying to him, “ Please, Sir, what is this ? ” would be fixed or sometimes almost petrified with a searching glance, followed in a rather staccato voice by an abrupt, “ How should I know what it is ? What do you think it is ? Why do you think it is so and so . . . ? ” The weaker vessels were apt to fade away at thissomewhat rough reception, but those who were bold enough to state

540 Obituary Notices

their own opinions and recount any observations they might have made were at once cordially received and stimulated by the store of information which Meyrick was then prepared to let loose.

It was a bold boy who attempted to trifle with Meyrick and especially in any Natural History matter. There is a well-known story of a boy putting together the parts of various insects into a plausible imitation of some new beetle and asking for “ the name of this bug ” . One glance was enough and quick as a flash came the reply, “ That, my boy, is a humbug ” .

The following note which he published in the Natural History Society Report (no. 48, 1899) is so characteristic of Meyrick and brings him back so clearly before one that it is worthy of reproduction here as an example of his intolerance of inexact and careless statements.

“ In a department report on the ravages of the English House-Sparrow in North America, issued in the United States some years ago, were included the answers given by a number of American farmers to a series of questions put to them on the subject. To the question, ■■ What kinds of insects does the Sparrow destroy?’ two equally ill-advised farmers replied ‘ No kind ’, and ‘ Every kind ’ respectively ; answers which instantaneously attain in opposite directions the highest possible degree of untruth, in a matter which admits of an almost infinitely large number of truthful statements. Both these farmers should have replied ‘ I do not know ’ instead of putting forward their conjectures as facts ” .

Again his remarks on the ubiquitous starlings show how wide and shrewd were his observations. “ . . . They are supposed to eat slugs, which unfortu­nately abound, but I have never seen them take one, nor do they really search in the right places. On the whole I regard them as injurious impostors, who are abandoning their natural habits and becoming parasitic on man ” .

Meyrick was not only a keen observer, but also executed very good water-colour drawings of many of the Microlepidoptera, which are now preserved with his specimens at South Kensington. When these tiny insects are examined one is astonished by the excellence of the mounting and arrangement, and also by the wonderfully firm and clear small hand­writing on the labels and in the catalogue. This dexterity of hand and eye he retained until the end of his life. In reply to a letter written to him on his eightieth birthday, he wrote “ There can be nothing more gratifying than the thought that one has helped to guide a man into the exact post suited to his tastes and abilities, and to find him appreciative. Happily I am very well in general health, and also I think exceptionally favoured for my age in retaining the firmness and accuracy of hand and

Edward 541

eye which enable me to carry on the work of handling minute insects satisfactorily. I have copious material always passing through my hands, and am able to keep pace with it.”

Meyrick retired from his mastership at the College in 1914. His retirement, however, by no means severed his connexion with members of the school. Past and present generations of Marlborough boys have always known that he was accessible to every budding entomologist in his study at Thomhanger on Marlborough Common, and they did not fail to avail themselves of the privilege. The only introduction needed was a keen interest in the subject. A boy would present himself on a Sunday afternoon with a box of specimens and might remain for hours, after which, sure of his welcome, he would soon become a regular visitor. In this way Meyrick formed many lasting friendships with old and present Marlburians, for thanks to his singular charm the complete novice was made to feel as much at home as was a distinguished entomologist from overseas.

So far one has written mainly of Meyrick as the world’s authority on the Microlepidoptera, but there are other matters connected with his long life which should not be overlooked or forgotten. First and foremost as a master he was a Classical scholar and his name is inseparably con­nected at Marlborough with the old Classical Fourth. His methods of teaching were individual and peculiar but the training he gave in the Classics was sound and lasting. His scientific habit of mind permitted no half-truths on matters of knowledge which could be ascertained, and what a boy learnt from him he was not likely to forget.

Thanks to his Classical training his Greek and Latin names for his new species of Lepidoptera were as etymologically accurate as they were entomologically apt. He always retained his interest in and his know­ledge of his favourite Classical authors and in his retirement he turned with renewed pleasure to Horace and Homer. “ He found time to exchange views ” , writes a colleague at Marlborough, “ on the true Ithaca with scholars who were seeking to dispel the mists which have somehow gathered about its site. His devotion to science never displaced or obscured his loyalty to the Classics ” .

In addition to his classical and natural history work while he was on the staff at the College, Meyrick was, for many years, responsible for the anthropometric measurements of the Marlborough boys on which he prepared the Reports published every year in the Report of the Natural History Society. “ When the Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration, which reported in 1904, was sitting, the lack of exact evidence relating to the trend of physical development in the child and

542 Obituary Notices

adolescent population of Great Britain was a grave drawback ; but the Marlborough records, being almost the only material available for com­parative purposes extending over any considerable period of time, afforded information of the greatest value for the inquiries of the Committee. It was mainly on this material that the Committee based its finding that the public school population, at least, showed no evidence of the alleged physical deterioration in the population at large, into which the Com­mittee was appointed to inquire ” .*

Meyrick’s short paper “ On the practical difficulties in obtaining measurements of growth in schoolboys ” , which he read at the meeting of the British Association at Leicester, 1907, f is worthy of careful perusal by all those who are concerned with the compilation of growth statistics of boys and girls at school.

Then again Meyrick was a keen politician and a life-long adherent to the Conservative party. For the last twelve years of his life he was President of the East Wilts Unionist Association which he served with a loyalty and generosity that have been gratefully acknowledged in the Division. “ M r Meyrick was an effective speaker ” , writes Colonel Heward Bell, “ and always commanded the close attention of his hearers ; and deservedly so since his cool and sound judgment on the many crises that arose during the course of his political life was invariably correct. A man of great knowledge, advancing years had not aged his mind and he retained to the last the power of looking at a problem from all angles, and could appreciate the point of view not only of the man in the street but also of the rising generation of to-day. Self-sacrificing and generous and always most zealous in the performance of his duties in connexion with the party organization, the Conservative cause in the Division has lost a leader who will be sadly missed, and who will long be remembered with affection and gratitude by all of us who had the honour of serving under him ” .

Few men can have known the countryside around Marlborough better than did Meyrick, with the richness of its fauna and flora on the Downs, in the Forest and in the water-meadows. He was equally learned in the wealth of archaeological remains which abound in the district and infused into the boys on field days and country walks a love for Nature which they have retained through life.

He was a great walker and in his latter years, despite the serious opera­tion he had to undergo when he was in his seventy-fifth year, he resumed his long daily walks with his accustomed zest and regularity. In order,

* Nature. 30 April 1938, p. 776.+ See also Marlborough College Nat. Hist. Soc. Report. No. 56, 1907, pp. 24-27.

Edward Meyrick 543

however, not to waste any of the precious hours of daylight which were largely devoted to his microscopic work with his Microlepidoptera, he used, especially in the last few years, to take his three-or-four-mile walks at dusk, heedless of the traffic and of the motor-car with its blinding head­lights coming over the Common.

Meyrick seldom came to London, except for an occasional visit to the Natural History Museum, so his study at Thomhanger thus became the Mecca to which entomologists from all parts of the world came to submit their specimens and discuss their problems.

Meyrick was a keen gardener and, like all those who indulge seriously in this pursuit, he learnt much about the habits of garden plants and weeds, and no doubt—like those who indulge in fishing—pondered much during his labours on the larger problems on which he was engaged.

One of the matters on which very possibly he may have pondered either when gardening or during his solitary walks is embodied in the short paper he wrote on “ Christmas Customs In this he points out that Christmas Day from early times was the anniversary of the great festival of the Sun, the period of the winter solstice, when the days begin to lengthen, the true New Year’s Day. He points out that the old- fashioned spherical Christmas pudding was clearly a solar emblem and later, referring to the use of holly and mistletoe in decorations at Christmas, comes to the following conclusion :—

“ The red berries of the holly typify the sun, and the yellowish-white berries of the mistletoe typify the moon, and they were regarded by our ancestors as being sacred to these deities accordingly. I am confident that this is the true explanation. Now we see why the piece of holly is stuck in the Christmas pudding, which itself represents the figure of the sun ; it is the mark of consecration to the sun-god, and no other plant would do. It is clear also why it is still supposed to be permissible to kiss young women ‘ under the mistletoe ’ ; it is a remnant of the licence everywhere characteristic of the worship of the moon-goddess, Ashtar or Astarte. No doubt, therefore, the ‘ golden sickle ’, with which the Druids were said to cut the sacred mistletoe, was itself an emblem of the crescent moon.”

One other thing, a little one but very typical of the man. As Chairman of the Marlborough United Charities, it was his duty once a year to hand over a small sum of money to about twenty poor old women in the town ; this he did with an unaffected, old-fashioned courtesy which clearly brought joy to their hearts.

N.H.S. Report. No 56, 1907 " Notes on Christmas Customs/’ pp. 49-57*

544 Obituary Notices

Undoubtedly he mellowed considerably as the years passed—especially when freed from school teaching, and what one remembered in one’s school days as often a rather forbidding or irritated frown became a friendly smile which lit up his rugged face with a warmth of welcome.

It is fitting here to reproduce a portion of his farewell preface to the Natural History Society Report on his retirement in 1914* from the Presidency to which he had devoted so many years of unremitting toil, which to him was truly a “ labour of love ” :—

“ Looking back upon the past, it appears that the Society has not done the harm which it was at first confidently predicted that it would effect in the destruction of games, which are still played. It has undoubtedly contributed materially to the formation of the character of some naturalists who now occupy very distinguished positions . . ., and has also pro­moted the observation and study of nature in the case of a much larger number of less well-known persons, to their manifold advantage and comfort. It has served as a centre for the collection and recording of numerous local facts and statistics of interest that would otherwise have been lo s t; the noting of which has been a useful training for beginners. Finally, since it was the first school natural history society, it has stood forth as an example to its now numerous imitators, and may justly take some small credit for a share in their good results . . . .

“ Being now relieved of my office, I desire lastly to express my sincere gratitude for the kindly consideration I have always received from all members of the Society, as well as from those outside helpers in all depart­ments, who contribute to the success of our meetings, field-days, and publications ; their forbearance and assistance I shall always recall with pleasure and thankfulness.”

In conclusion, I am permitted by the Master of Marlborough College to quote the passage from his speech on Prize Day, 1 July 1938, in which he sums up so finely what Meyrick stood for, and in which he gives an eloquent tribute to all that Meyrick did for the school and for the science which he so ably expounded.

“ No less distinguished, though in a more special sphere, was Mr Edward Meyrick, who died three months ago. His home was at Rams- bury and, except for ten years in Australia, all his life was spent in this neighbourhood. O f Mr Me yrick’s attainment as a scientist I am not competent to speak ; it is perhaps enough to say that over thirty years ago, while his professional duty was to teach Classics to startled boys in the Middle Fourth, he was made a Fellow of the Royal Society, and that a

'N.H .S. Report, Marlborough College, No 63, 1914.

Edward Meyrick 545

French scientist has lately described him—in words which it thrilled me to read— as ‘ the greatest microlepidopterist in the world and, I believe, ever since the days of Linnaeus \ I t is hard to exaggerate the value of the service which M r Meyrick gave during his long Presidency of our Natural History Society. His precise and comprehensive knowledge, his discernment of genuine interest among the members, and even his memorable idiosyncrasy and peculiarly laconic wit have given the Society a standard and a distinction which I hope it will never lose ; and he lived to see some of the boys whose first scientific interest he had fostered become eminent scientists of later days. Few of the dwellers in this little country town can have realized that the shrewd and masterful Chairman of their Conservative Association was daily extending the bounds of scientific knowledge. We shall no more meet him at dusk, when the previous daylight had faded and he must leave his microscope, tramping the roads he knew so well with a fine contempt for the modern traffic which had come to spoil them ; but we shall not forget the inspiration of such deep intelligence and strong vitality concentrated, without thought of personal honour or reward, upon the perfection of the branch of knowledge which he had made his own.”

Edward Meyrick died on 30 March 1938, in his 84th year, after a very brief illness and was buried at Ramsbury with his forefathers in the beautiful churchyard surrounding the old historic parish church. His wife and two sons and two daughters survive him. The eldest son, who was a brilliant Classic and, like his father, was a scholar of Trinity College, Cambridge, joined up with the Cambridgeshire Regiment in the first month of the war and died in France in July 1916.

In writing this notice, I have been much indebted to M r Bainbrigge- Fletcher who has drawn up the list of Meyrick’s entomological papers and also to him and to Dr K. Jordan, F.R.S., Sir Guy Marshall, F.R.S., and M r W. H. T. Tams for details of his work on the Microlepidoptera. To former colleagues of Meyrick at Marlborough, Prof. A. S. Eve, F.R.S., M r H. Savery, M r R. G. Durrant and to M r H. C. Brentnall, the writer of the notice in The Marlburian, also to Prof. J . Stanley Gardiner, F.R.S.,I am very grateful for assistance, as well as to the Rev. Canon F. J . Meyrick, Vicar of Hove, Mr Meyrick’s cousin, for particulars of the family history.

I have also availed myself of the obituary notices in , 30 April1938, p. 776 ; The Marlburian, Vol. LX X III, no. 968, May 1938, pp. 79-82 ; The Entomologist’s Record, Vol. L, pp. 49-51, and the , Berks and Hants County Paper, 8 April 1938.

A r t h u r W. H i l l .

2 pOBIT.

546 Obituary Notices

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS

“ A Fortnight in Algeria.” N.H.S. Report no. 39 for 1890, pp. 89-94.“ On Types of Structure in the Lepidoptera.” N.H.S. Report no. 39 for 1890, pp. 95-101, with

2 plates.“ Handlist of Flowering Plants of the District.” N.H.S. Report no. 40 for 1891, pp. 71-88.“ Handlist of Lepidoptera of the District.” N.H.S. Report no. 41 for 1892, pp. 72-101.“ Handbook to the Museum.” N.H.S. Report no. 43 for 1894, pp. 37-94.“ List of the Birds of the Marlborough District.” N.H.S. Report no. 44 for 1895, pp. 37-54. “ A Sketch of Botanical Classification.” N.H.S. Report no. 45 for 1896, pp. 43-54.“ List of Cretaceous Fossils of the Marlborough District.” N.H.S. Report no 45 for 1896,

pp. 55-57.“ Scientific Work in Local Societies.” N.H.S. Report no. 47 for 1896, pp. 65-68.“ Notes on Garden Birds.” N.H.S. Report no. 48 for 1899, pp. 66-69.“ Handlist of Lepidoptera of the District.” N.H.S. Report no. 48 for 1899, pp. 70-101.“ Reprint of List of the Birds of the Marlborough District (1895).” N.H.S. Report no. 55 for

1906, pp. 32-50.“ Handlist of Flowering Plants of the District.” N.H.S. Report no 36 for 1907, pp. 31-48. u On the Practical Difficulties in Obtaining Measurements of Growth in Schoolboys.” N.H.S -

Report no. 56 for 1907, pp. 24-27. Paper read before Education and Anthropological Sections British Association, Leicester, 1907.

“ Notes on Christmas Customs.” N.H.S. Report no. 56 for 1907, pp. 49-51.A Handbook of British Lepidoptera (1895), of which a Revised Edition was issued in 1928.Exotic Microlepidoptera, of which 20 parts composed a volume : Volumes 1 (1912-1916),

2 (1916-1923), 3 (1923-1930), 4 (1930-1936), 5, parts 1-5 (1936-1937).Revisions of some Families of the Microlepidoptera. Published in Wytsman’s Genera

Insectorum, fascicules 100, Pterophoridae (1910) ; 108, Orneodidae (1910) ; 128, Gracilariadae(1912) ; 132, Micropterygidae (1912) ; 133, Adelidae (1912) ; 149, Tortricidae (1913) ; 164, Glyphipterygidae (1914) ; 165, Heliodinidae (1914) ; 179, Carposinidae (1922) ; 180, Oecophoridae (1922) ; and 184, Gelechiadae (1926).

Catalogues of some Families of Microlepidoptera. Published in Junk 'sLepidopterorum Catalogue, parts 6, Adelidae, Micropterygidae, Gracilariadae (1912) ; 10, Tortricidae (1912) ; 13, Carposinidae, Heliodinidae, Glyphipterygidae (1913) ; 17, Pterophoridae, Orneodidae(1913) ; 19, Hyponomeutidae, Plutellidae, Amphitheridae (1914).

Descriptions of Australian Microlepidoptera. In Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S. Wales:—3 (1879), 4 (1880), 5 (1880), 6 (1881),7 (1882) (1883),8 (1883) (1884), 9 (1884) (1885), 10 (1886),12 (1887), 17 (1893), 22 (1897), 29, (1904), 32 (1907), 35 (1910) and 36 (1911).

A Revision of Australian Lepidoptera. In Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S. Wales :—11 (1886), 12 (1887),13 (1888), 14 (1889), 15 (1891) and 16 (1892), together with other papers on Australian species, l.c., 4 (1879), 11 (1886), 11 (1887), 12 (1887) and 14 (1889), and in Trans. Royal Soc. S. Australia 13 (1890), 14 (1891), 26 (1902), 30 (1906) and 31 (1907).

Descriptions of New Zealand Lepidoptera. In N -Z • J* Scu Techn. 1 (1882) (1883) and 2 (1884) and in Trans. N.Z* Inst* (afterwards Trans. R. Soc. N .Z •) 15 (1883), 16 (1884), 17 (1885), 18 (1886), 19 (1886), 20 (1888), 21 (1889), 22 (1890), 23 (1891), 24 (1892), 41 (1909),42 (1910),43 (1911), 44 (1912),45 (1913), 46 (1914),47 (1915), 48 (1916), 49 (1917), 50 (1918), 51 (1919), 52 (1920), 53 (1921), 54 (1923), 55 (1924), 56 (1926), 57 (1927), 58 (1927), 60 (1929), 62 (1931), 63 (1932), 64 (1934), 65 (1935), 66 (1936) an d 67 (1938). Also in Sub antarctic Islands o f New Z ea an( (1909).

Fauna Hawaiiensis: Macrolepidoptera (1899) and Supplement (1904).Various papers in Trans, ent. Soc. Lond. for 1883, 1884, 1885, 1886, 1887, 1888, 1889, 1890, 1892,

1894,1897,1901,1902, 1905, 1906, 1907, 1910, 1911, 1923, 1926, 1928 and in volumes 77

Edward Meyrick 547

(1929), 78 (1930) and 80 (1932). Also papers on South American Microlepidoptera in these Transactions for 1909, 1911, 1913, 1914, 1915, 1917 and 1922, and short papers in the Proceedings, 3 (1929) and 10 (1935).

Papers on South African Microlepidoptera in Proc. £o°L Soc. Lond. 1908, in Annals S. Afr. Museum 5 (1909) (1910), 10 (1912) (1914), 17 (1917) (1920), 23 (1926), in Ann. Transvaal Museum 2 (1910) (1911), 3 (1912) (1913), 4 (1914), 6 (1918), 8 (1921) and in Ann. Natal Mus. 3 (1917).

Papers on Indian Microlepidoptera in the J . Bombay nat. Hist. Soc., 16 (1905), 17 (1906) (1907), 18 (1907) (1908), 19 (1909), 20 (1910) (1911), 21 (1912), 22 (1913) (1914), 23 (1914), in Rec. Indian Museum 2 (1908), 5 (1910) , 26 (1924), in Report Proc. Third Entom . Meeting, Pusa, 3 (1920), in Indian Agric. Ent. Mem. 9 (1926), and in Gardiner’s Fauna Geogr. Maldives Laccadives 1 (1902).

Short papers and notes in the Ent. mon. Mag., 11 (1875), 13 (1877), 14 (1877), 15 (1878) (1879), 16 (1879), 17 (1881), 19 (1882) (1883), 20 (1883), 21 (1885), 22 (1885) (1886), 23 (1886) (1887), 24 (1887),25 (1889), 26 (1890), 27 (1891), 30 (1894),31 (1895),33 (1897),35 (1899), 36 (1900), 37 (1901), 38 (1902), 39 (1903), 40 (1904), 41 (1905), 43 (1907), 44 (1908), 46 (1910), 47 (1911), 48 (1912), 49 (1913), 50 (1914), 51 (1915), 52 (1916), 53 (1917) and 55 (1919).

Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 17 (1886) and (10) 14 (1934).Marlborough College nat. Hist. Soc. Reports39 (1891), 54 (1906), 57 (1909) and 59 (1912).Ent. Record 3 (1892) and Zoologist (4) 2 (1898).Nature 41 (1890), 115 (1925), 119 (1927) and 120 (1927).Entomologist37 (1904), 45 (1912), 50 (1917), 51 (1918), 53 (1920), 54 (1921), 55 (1922), 56 (1923),

57 (1924), 58 (1925), 59 (1926), 61 (1928), 62 (1929), 63 (1930), 65 (1932), 67 (1934), 68 (1935) and 70 (1937).

A paper on Microlepidoptera of the Islands in the Indian Ocean in Trans. Linn. Soc. Z 00 (2nd series) 14 (1911) and another on South American Microlepidoptera in Journal Linn. Soc. (Zool.), 37 (1931).

Papers on Microlepidoptera from various localities in :—Entom. M itt. 2 (1910) (1913), 11 (1922), 13 (1924).Supplementa Entomologica, 3 (1914).Bull. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris, 1914, 1923.Boll. Lab. Zool. Portici, 9 (1915).Zool. Meded. 6 (1921), 7 (1922).Nat. Hist. Juan Fernandez and Easter Island, 3 (1922).Ark. Zool. 14 (1922), 16 (1924).Treubia, 6 (1925).Acad. Roman. Mem., 3 (1925).Bull. Soc. R. Ent. Egypte, 1925 (1925), 1926 (1927).Sarawak Museum Journal, 3 (1926).Insects o f Samoa, 3 (1927).Boll. Soc. Ent. Ital., 59 (1927).Proc. Hawaii, Ent. Soc., 7 (1928), 9 (1935).Bull. Hill Museum, 2 (1928).J . F.M.S. Mus., 14 (1929).Ann. naturh. Mus. Wien, 44 (1930)*Rec. Canterbury Museum, 2 (1925), 3 (1931).Ann. Mus. Nac. Hist. nat. Buenos Aires, 36 (1931).Internat. Ent. Z • Guben, 25 (1931), 27 (1933).Acad. Roumaine, Bull. Sect. Scient., 14 (1931), 15 (1932).Mitt. Munchen. Ent. Ges., 21 (1931).Mem. Mus. Hist. nat. Belg. (Hors serie) (1932).Bull. Mus. Hist. nat. Belg., 9 (1933).Pacific Ent. Survey Publn., 6 (1934), 7 (1934).

2 p 2

548 Obituary Notices

Arb. morph. taxonom. Entom. Berlin-Dahlem, 1 (1934), 3 (1936), 4 (1937).Revue franc. d'Entom., 2 (1935).Caradja’s u Materialien zu einer Microlep. Fauna der chinesischen Provinzen Kiangsu

Chekiang und Hunan 99 (1935).Veroff. deutsch Kolonial-und-Uebersee Museum, 1 (1936).Iris, 56 (1936), 51 (1937), 52 (1938).Revue franc. de Lepidopterologie, 9 (1938).Descriptions of new Microlepidoptera from Tonkin in a paper by Joannis in Ann. Soc. Ent.

France, 98, 708-746 (1931).