Charles Darwin’s early beetle collections: ‘Darwin’s beetle box’ and the Down House box

ABSTRACT

Charles Darwin’s enthusiasm for collecting beetles during his time as a student at the University of Cambridge is well known, and ‘Darwin’s beetle box’ in the University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge has been claimed to be his student collection. A collection of beetles at Down House is similarly thought to be Darwin’s collection of British beetles, but is imprecisely dated. Here we compare the species present in the boxes with the annotations in his copy of Stephens’ ‘British Insects’, and other notes, correspondence and specimens. There is a very close match between these sources of information and in the curation of the two boxes, the pins used and the handwritten labels, including some written by Emma Darwin. These similarities and details of correspondence lead us to conclude that most of the contents of both boxes represent the collections made by Charles Darwin in 1829–31, with the addition of one specimen provided by Alfred Russel Wallace in 1866 and two probably from Francis Darwin.

KEYWORDS:

• Coleoptera
• collecting
• historical collection

Introduction

Charles Darwin’s serious interest in natural history is known to have started during his undergraduate years, particularly in Cambridge (1828–31), where he developed a passion for collecting beetles (Darwin 1887; Smith 1987; Barney 2007). Although he is known to have accumulated a notable collection of Coleoptera, only two boxes of British beetles attributed to him survive. These are the storage box known as ‘Darwin’s beetle box’ in the University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge (UMZC), and a storage box at Down House.

‘Darwin’s beetle box’ (hereafter DBBC) is usually considered to have been collected during his time at Cambridge (Smith 1987; Larkum 2009; Van Wyhe 2014). The UMZC Museum Register dates the accession of this collection as 30 April 1913:

Small collection of British beetles made by Charles Darwin. The beetles were originally in a cabinet, until in the early ‘70s. G.R. Crotch removed some or all of them into boxes, with the intention of arranging and renaming them. Only one box has been found, which was given to the Museum as Crotch left it, some of the beetles being named in Crotch’s handwriting, others with printed labels. Whether the latter were Darwin’s or Crotch’s naming is not known. Donated by Sir Francis Darwin, F.R.S.

George Robert Crotch (1842–1874), second assistant librarian at Cambridge University Library, collaborated with Charles Darwin via his son Francis who was a student at Cambridge in 1866–1870. Crotch can only have had access to the cabinet in 1870–72, as he moved to America in 1873 and died the following year. Notably, this is before Charles Darwin’s death (1882). Thus, it is probable that Charles had given the insect collection to Francis Darwin (his only child who shared his natural history interests); Crotch started recurating it for Francis, but it remained in Francis’ possession until 1913. The cabinet itself (without any beetle specimens) was inherited by his grand-daughter Margaret Darwin and then his great-grandson, Milo Keynes (Van Wyhe 2014) and is now on display in Darwin’s student rooms in Christ’s College (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Darwin’s insect cabinet in Christ’s College, Cambridge.

The Down House box (hereafter DHB) is registered (88202762) as dating from 1842–82, but these are the dates that Charles Darwin was in residence there and do not necessarily relate specifically to this box. It was donated to the Royal College of Surgeons’ Darwin Museum by Bernard Darwin (son of Charles Darwin’s son Francis) in 1929. Although it has been reported as containing Beagle specimens (Huxley and Kettlewell 1965), as noted by Smith (1987) this is clearly incorrect as all but one specimen have Palaearctic distributions, leading to the suggestion that it is Darwin’s collection of British beetles. The one exotic specimen is an Indonesian scarab, Euchirus longimanus (L.), suspected to be sent by Alfred Russel Wallace or bought from the dealer Edward Wesley Janson (Smith 1987). There is no evidence that Janson supplied this species to Darwin but Wallace did send a pair in 1868 (Wallace 1868), describing them as ‘not quite perfect and are very rotten’. Smith (1987) further suggested the labelled specimens may have come from Frederick William Hope, but there is no evidence for this either. The origin of the collection has never been determined with any confidence.

Here we review the evidence for the origin of both boxes, examining the specimens and Darwin’s notes, letters and his personal annotated copy of James Francis Stephens’ (1829a) ‘Systematic catalogue of British insects’ in the Cambridge University Library. The annotations have been summarised previously and the notes and letters transcribed (Van Wyhe 2002); here, we match them to the specimens for the first time. We also examined other British beetle specimens associated with Darwin. We conclude that it is highly probable that both DBBC and DHB are parts of a collection made by Darwin and his contacts during his time as a student at Cambridge University.

Materials and methods

We examined the contents of both boxes visually, recording any existing identification labels and photographing the individual beetles. Each beetle was given a position code in the box (Figures 2 and 3) to facilitate cataloguing. The photographs and those provided by the UMZC were compared to identified specimens in UMZC, enabling most specimens to be identified to the species level. Some very small or badly damaged specimens could only be identified to the genus or higher taxon level. One of us (MVLB) subsequently verified the completed lists of identifications against the photographs, taking into account the species known to occur in Britain during Darwin’s lifetime. MVLB has not yet had the opportunity to examine the boxes in person, so the identifications of a number of the smaller, more severely damaged and more taxonomically difficult species have yet to be confirmed. A general approach was taken to accept previous identifications at face value unless there was good evidence to the contrary, from images or context.

Figure 2. Darwin’s beetle box, with labelled position codes. Original image provided by University Museum of Zoology Cambridge.

Figure 3. Down House box, with labelled position codes.

We examined Darwin’s copy of Stephens (1829a), held in the Cambridge University Library (MB.37.33), and photographed all annotated pages. To verify whether these were indeed Darwin’s own collecting notes we compared dates and localities with his whereabouts at the time as indicated by his letters in the Darwin Correspondence Project (Burkhardt et al. 1985–2023). This correspondence (principally his letters to William Darwin Fox) also provided information on Darwin’s collecting practices as a student and his exchanges with other collectors, as do parts of his autobiography (Barlow 1958).

A further source of information on Darwin’s beetle collecting is the ‘Edinburgh notebook’ in the Cambridge University Library (CUL-DAR118 – transcript and images consulted in Van Wyhe 2002). This began with a list of 56 beetles, some with annotations, but was later used as a general notebook. Dates recorded are from 1828 to summer 1829.

Beetle nomenclature and order of families follows Duff (2018).

Results

Darwin’s beetle box (DBBC)

Specimens – this box contains a total of 841 specimens, representing 470 identifiable taxa (Appendix 1). The collection is dominated by Carabidae (347 specimens [41%], 177 species), Curculionidae (82 specimens [9%], 36 taxa) and Dytiscidae (79 specimens [9%], 44 taxa) (Table 1); 78% of taxa are represented by a single specimen, or two specimens.

Table 1. Taxonomic representation of Darwin’s beetle box and the Down House box; number of specimens is given as number of positions in the box. Where specimens are missing the number present is given in parentheses.

	Darwin’s beetle box		Down House box			Darwin’s beetle box		Down House box
Family	Specimens	Taxa	Specimens	Taxa	Family	Specimens	Taxa	Specimens	Taxa
Gyrinidae	4	4	−	−	Trogossitidae	1	1	−	−
Haliplidae	21	7	−	−	Byturidae	2	1	−	−
Noteridae	5	2	−	−	Cleridae	3	3	2	2
Hygrobiidae	3	1	−	−	Dasytidae	3	2	−	−
Dytiscidae	79	44	−	−	Malachiidae	2	2	−	−
Carabidae	347	177	16 (15)	9	Kateretidae	4	4	2	1
Helophoridae	4	4	−	−	Nitidulidae	13	9	6	5
Georissidae	1	1	−	−	Monotomidae	4	2	−	−
Hydrochidae	1	1	−	−	Silvanidae	1	1	15 (14)	6
Hydrophilidae	22	17	−	−	Laemophloeidae	1	1	−	−
Histeridae	13	8	2	2	Phalacridae	6	4	−	−
Hydraenidae	7	7	−	−	Cryptophagidae	13	5	7	4
Ptiliidae	7	3	2	2	Erotylidae	−	−	3	2
Leiodidae	14	13	2	1	Endomychidae	−	−	1	1
Silphidae	13	13	1	1	Coccinellidae	−	−	12	5
Staphylinidae	3	2	19 (17)	12	Corylophidae	3	2	2	1
Geotrupidae	−	−	4	2	Latridiidae	1	1	−	−
Trogidae	1	1	1	1	Mycetophagidae	5	4	1	1
Lucanidae	−	−	6	2	Ciidae	−	−	6	1
Scarabaeidae	25	16	15	10	Tetratomidae	−	−	1	1
Clambidae	2	2	−	−	Melandryidae	−	−	3	2
Scirtidae	2	2	−	−	Ripiphoridae	−	−	2	1
Buprestidae	2	2	1	1	Zopheridae	4	2	−1	1
Byrrhidae	6	4	3	1	Tenebrionidae	−	−	19	13
Dascillidae	1	1	2	1	Oedemeridae	−	−	10	3
Elmidae	8	4	−	−	Salpingidae	1	1	−	−
Dryopidae	2	1	−	−	Scraptiidae	−	−	1	1
Heteroceridae	3	3	−	−	Anthicidae	−	−	4	2
Eucnemidae	1	1	−	−	Cerambycidae	−	−	30	14
Elateridae	19	16	22	13	Chrysomelidae	−	−	40 (39)	22
Lycidae	1	1	3	1	Rhynchitidae	5	4	3	1
Lampyridae	1	1	−	−	Attelabidae	2	2	4	2
Cantharidae	11	10	6	2	Apionidae	27	2	5	2
Bostrichidae	1	1	−	−	Dryophthoridae	2	1	2	1
Dermestidae	3(2)	2	9	5	Erirhinidae	6	4	5	3
Ptinidae	9	4	11 (9)	6	Curculionidae	82	36	53	31
Lyctidae	1	1	−	−

Pins and mounts (Figure 4) – Three types of pins are present. Most are a standard hand-made tin-coated long pin, indistinguishable from those used by Darwin in 1832 on specimens collected during the voyage of HMS Beagle. Heavier versions of this pin are used to fix some labels. Some card mounts and labels have more modern machine-made steel pins or brass pins, some lacking heads. Twenty-one specimens are fixed with brass pins through the specimen (some Histeridae, Scarabaeidae, Elateridae, Cantharidae, Curculionidae, Cleridae), as are many labels. Card mounts differ in shape, presence of printed lines and degree of discolouration of the glue. Rectangular mounts are narrow, some unevenly cut and mostly discoloured. These usually support one specimen, sometimes up to four. Broader rectangular mounts appear to have been pre-printed as a sheet, with a bold black line at the base and edges marked with fine lines; in some cases two such mounts have been kept intact, supporting two specimens. Some of these are also discoloured. One of them (27B) was labelled with a ‘C’ in ink, and another was labelled with an ‘I’ (32FF). Point mounts are equilateral triangles, sometimes supporting two specimens. In one case a rectangular card has been notched to make a joined pair of blunt point mounts, and there is another with four points. This one has a ruled pencil line near the base. Two specimens are mounted on circular card; one is broken and thus these may indicate later supports for fragile specimens.

Figure 4. Pins and mounts used in the boxes; (a–d) Darwin's Beetle Box; (e–i) Down House Box.

(a) Hand-made pin; (b) machine-made pins on labels and mounts; (c) hand-cut multiple-point card mount; (d) printed card mount; (e) different sized hand-made pins and hand-cut card mounts; (f) hand-made pin; (g) machine-made pin; (h) hand-cut multiple-point card mount; (i) hand-cut and printed card mounts.

Labels (Figure 5) – Five categories of labels are present: three different styles of handwritten labels; three of printed labels; and numbers. Handwritten ones comprise a single genus or species name on white paper (n = 45), cursive names with authorities on discoloured paper (n = 5), and localities on circular labels (n = 3; New Forest, Highgate and Fichley). The white-paper labels match the handwriting of George Robert Crotch, whilst those on discoloured paper match Emma Darwin’s writing. Printed labels for Carabidae and Dytiscidae have just the names and authorities; for most other taxa a number precedes the species name. Eleven specimens are numbered on circular card: four with a four-digit number in the range 3992–4611 (single specimens Ptiliidae, Zopheridae, Mycetophagidae, Curculionidae), six with a printed suffix (one with ‘66’, four with ‘67’, one with ‘68’: Cryptophagidae [2], Scarabaeidae [1], Curculionidae [3]). One printed label of a single species name is in italic script.

Figure 5. Examples of labels in the boxes; (a–e) Darwin's Beetle Box, (f and h) Down House Box.

(a) Printed label from Stephens (1829a); (b) printed labels from Crotch (1866); (c) labelled discs; (d) handwritten by Crotch (DHB); (e–f) handwritten by Emma Darwin; (g) examples of Emma Darwin’s handwriting (from DCP-LETT-13400 F); (h) different styles of handwritten label, probably by Francis Darwin; (i) examples of Francis Darwin’s handwriting (from DCP-LETT-11604, 5761 and 11638).

Down House box (DHB)

This box contains 366 specimens (seven missing) of 200 identifiable taxa (Appendix 2). The most numerous families are Curculionidae (53 specimens [14%], 31 species) and Chrysomelidae (41 specimens [11%], 22 species), followed by Cerambycidae (30 specimens [8%], 14 species), Elateridae (22 specimens [6%], 13 species), Tenebrionidae (19 specimens [5%], 13 species) and Carabidae (16 specimens [4%], 9 species).

Pins and mounts (Figure 4) – DHB has two thicknesses of hand-made pins, with the thinner pins in labels. Pins in specimens are identical to those in DBBC with the exception of machine-made pins in Oedemera nobilis (Scopoli) (A5), Stenocorus meridianus (L.) (9 R) and the Euchirus longimanus scarab (11B). The mounts are more crude than in DBBC: irregularly cut narrow mounts; rectangular mounts supporting up to four specimens, some with printed lines; triangular point mounts of varying regularity, some blunt ended, some notched as multiple mounts.

Labels (Figure 5) – Half the box is unlabelled; the other half has handwritten labels in four different styles. One set give the genus and authority, after Stephens (1829a, 1829b, 1830); the handwriting of these labels matches that of Emma Darwin (Figure 5). There is a label for Oedemera nobilis (Scopoli) (A5) giving the full genus and species name (as the junior synonym ‘eodemera [sic] caerulea’) (Figure 5); this is in Francis Darwin’s hand. This may also be the case for a label for Stenocorus meridianus (L.) (9 R) (as ‘R. Brevelineatum’). Most labels give family and genus in careful lettering; these also appear to be by Francis Darwin’s, sharing his habit of interchanging upper- and lower-case ‘E’ (Figure 5).

Annotations

Darwin’s copy of Stephens (1829a) includes 285 annotated species (several of which are now synonymised) (Appendix 3, summarised in Table 2). Of these, 77% [220 of 285] correspond to specimens present in the boxes (Carabidae 83% [160]; Haliplidae (80% [8]; Hygrobiidae 100% [1]; Dytiscidae 70% [37]; Dryopidae 100% [2]; Heteroceridae 100% [1]; Helophoridae 75% [3]; Hydrophilidae 25% [1]; Chrysomelidae 39% [7]). Also, 68% (191) correspond to species present in DBBC (91 taxa, or 47% of the taxa in DBBC). For the most conspicuous contents of DBBC, Carabidae and Dytiscidae, there are 199 and 46 species, respectively; of these, 160 (80%) and 36 (78%), respectively, have annotations. In contrast, the best-represented Polyphaga, Curculionidae, have 33 identifiable taxa and none have annotations. There are fewer Carabidae in DHB; 90% of taxa (9) correspond to annotations. Chrysomelidae are better represented in this box, 28% (18) of which have annotations.

Table 2. Data from the annotated copy of Stephens (1829a), published in Stephens (1829c, 1830, 1831), the notebook DAR118 and Darwin’s letters. Localities are grouped to county or region.

Locality/source	Stephens 1829a	Stephens 1829c–31	DAR118	Letters
Total records	285	35	51	25
Localities
No locality	18	1	12	–
Cambridgeshire	115	22	8	2
Derbyshire	1	–	–	–
Devon	2	–	–	–
Essex	1	–	5	–
Gloucestershire	–	–	1	–
Hampshire	3	–	–	–
Kent	–	–	1
North Wales	27	9	6	14
Passim	47	–	1	–
Shrewsbury	25	–	7	7
Shropshire	10	3	1	–
Staffordshire	2	–	1	–
Yorkshire	1	–	–	–
Collectors
Cooper	1	–
Hays	1	–
Hoare	–	–		2
Hope	19	–	4
Thompson	2	–
Waterhouse	14	–	2
Weaver	3	–	2

The localities are listed alphabetically here:

Essex (?) – a single record. Thought to be ‘Assex’ in error for Essex by Van Wyhe (2009). However, the ‘ss’ in ‘Passim’ (see below) is clearly different, and is more likely to be correctly spelt with a mis-formed ‘Es’.

Barmouth (Gwynedd, North Wales) – also ‘Bar’ and ‘B’ (confirmed by annotations to Calathus latus and C. crocopus, B and Barmouth, respectively; both referred to as being from Barmouth in letter to Fox, 3 July 1829). There are 23 records, with an additional one crossed out. There are also three records in Stephens (1829c, 1930), one in a letter to Fox and one in DAR118, specifying July and August 1828. Darwin is known to have been there from 1 July to 27 August 1828.

Birmingham – a single reference to ‘Birming’ for a specimen from Weaver in DAR118. Darwin bought specimens (not specified) from Richard Weaver in Birmingham (letter to Fox, 15 October 1829; see below).

Breidden Hill (Shrewsbury) – a single record of ‘Brithem, Shropshire’.

Burwell Fen (Cambridge) – two records and specimens in UMZC. This fen is adjacent to Wicken Fen.

Cader Idris, Cader (Gwynned, North Wales) – four records from 1828 and August 1829.

Caernarfon – two UMZC specimens labelled Caernarvon and dated 1830 (one appears to be written 1835). However, the most likely visit to this locality was on the geological tour with Adam Sedgwick in 1831. Darwin did not visit Caernarfon itself, but did visit localities within Caernarfonshire.

Cambridge – also ‘Cam’ and ‘C’, 93 records from 1828 and 1829, some records from both years specified spring or May. Also 20 records in Stephens (1829c, 1830) and seven in DAR118, one specifying summer 1829.

Chesterton (Cambridge) – one record from April 1829.

Devon – two records, undated. Darwin’s student friend Hoare (not identified) went to Devonshire in 1829. Darwin did visit Devon in 1831 to join the Beagle in Plymouth, and then much later in 1861 when in ill health.

Diffwys (Gwynedd, North Wales) – four records spelt variously ‘Dyffon’, ‘Dyffns’, ‘Dyffors’ or ‘Dyffos’. Darwin visited in July 1829.

Finchley (London) – one specimen label.

Gloucestershire – one record in DAR118, undated.

Grantchester (Cambridgeshire) – five UMZC specimens (I.2019.8427–8, 8521–3) ‘Grantchester District … Burwell Fen’ and ‘Pond near Grantchester … Quy Fen’; Grantchester is on the other side of Cambridge from either specified fen.

Gravel pits (Shrewsbury) – one record in DAR118 dated May 1828, corresponding to letter to Fox of 12 June 1828 from Shrewsbury. Darwin’s autobiography (Barlow 1958) also refers to the Shrewsbury gravel pit.

Highgate (London) – one specimen label.

Huntingdon Mere (Cambridgeshire) – one record from spring 1828. This is Whittlesey Mere where Darwin collected the bombardier beetle Brachinus crepitans with Fox in 1828 (letter to Fox, 24 March 1859).

Kent – one record in DAR118, undated. Darwin’s Cambridge friend George Simpson lived in Feversham, Kent in 1831.

Maer (Staffordshire) – 26 records, some dated January, July and August 1829, one in DAR118 specifying ‘stone quarries’. Wedgewood’s residence. He was in Maer for two days in October 1828 and on several occasions in 1829.

Mallwyd (Gwynedd, North Wales) – one record. Visited in 1831.

New Forest (Hampshire/Wiltshire) – one labelled specimen. There are no records of Darwin visiting the locality although he could have when visiting Frederick William Hope at Netley. Hope and Thomas Campbell Eyton did collect there in 1830, obtaining many elaterids (letter to Fox, 9 July 1831).

Netley (Hampshire) – four records, Robert Darwin Fox’s residence, but Hope’s family residence; Darwin visited Hope there and this will be where the specimens were collected.

North Wales – NW is confirmed as North Wales by Heterocerus marginatus, annotated ‘N.W. Jun 1829’ and specified as Barmouth in DAR118. Three records (one from 1829), eight in Stephens (1829c, 1830). Darwin was in North Wales with F.W. Hope in mid-June 1829 and again in August 1830. He undertook another Welsh tour with Adam Sedgwick in August 1831.

Osmaston (Derbyshire) – one record. Fox’s residence; Darwin stayed there for three weeks in August-September 1828.

Passim – also ‘P’, meaning widespread; 47 records, and one in DAR118. This was noted in Van Wyhe (2009) as possibly gamma; however, there is a clear variation in form making all similar notes identifiable as P.

Quy Fen (Stow cum Quy fen, Cambridge) – three UMZC specimens (I.2019.8521–3) labelled contradictorily ‘Pond near Grantchester … Quy Fen’.

Sh – used twice, presumed to be an abbreviation for either Shrewsbury or Shropshire.

Shrewsbury – also ‘Shrews’ and ‘Shrew’, 24 uses, some specifying 1829, and January 1829; also six references in DAR118, one specifying June 1829. Darwin was in Shrewsbury out of term (first from 20 December 1828 to 24 February 1829), with visits to Shropshire and Staffordshire.

Shropshire – also ‘Shropsh’ (and Salop in Stephens 1830 and UMZC specimen I.2019.8241). Six uses; with four in Stephens (1830). Darwin visited the Owen family there in early and 1829 (see Woodhouse).

Southend (Essex) – six references in DAR118, undated. Letter to Fox of 1 April 1830 refers to Hope staying at Southend. Of the Southend references, two correspond to species that Hope gave Darwin (based on annotations).

Staffordshire – also ‘Staff’, two uses. Darwin visited friends there in early and mid-1829.

Streathham and Streathham Fen – Stretham Fen in Cambridgeshire, four uses and one in DAR118. Darwin is recorded as collecting with Leonard Jenyns at nearby Wicken Fen the end of 1829. One specimen UMZC (Stenolophus teutonus) labelled ‘Streatham Ferry’. Also ‘Streatham. Garden behind the Alehouse’ in DAR118.

Wicken Fen (Cambridgeshire) – no annotations; however, several species annotated ‘Cam’ were noted by Jenyns (in Cooper et al. 1928) to have been collected by Darwin in the fen: Acupalpus flavicollis, Amara lucida, A. plebeja, Agonum nigrum, Chlaenius nigricornis, Harpalus rubripes, Pterostichus longicollis, P. macer and Stenolophus mixtus. In addition, Jenyns recorded the following species, which are not represented by box specimens: Bembidion semipunctatum (as B. adustum), Ophonus puncticollis, H. punctatulus and S. teutonus. Darwin may have collected these when he was collecting with Jenyns in late 1829. Jenyns later described Darwin’s visits to him at Swaffam Bulbeck vicarage and in the Fens, and the woods and plantations of Bottisham Hall (Blomfield 1887).

Woodhouse (Shropshire) – residence of the Owen family, four uses and one in DAR 118 (dated June 1829). Darwin visited in late 1828, the summer of 1829 and the start of 1830.

Yorkshire – one reference associated with a specimen from Thompson.

Collectors in the annotations:

Biographical information is sourced from Darby (2022, 2023).

Abraham Cooper (1767–1869) – artist, member of the Royal Academy, possibly a contact of Stephens’. One reference.

Mr Hays – possibly Samuel Hey, Vicar of Ockbrook, Derbyshire, a friend of Fox, mentioned in Stephens’ Mandibulata 3. Darwin refers to meeting him in 1830 (letter to Fox, 5 November 1830). One reference.

Frederick William Hope (1797–1862) – clergyman and entomologist, founder of the Entomological Society of London. Exchanged beetles with Darwin and they collected together in Wales in 1830. Hope was ultimately to endow the ‘Hope Professorship of Zoology’ at Oxford University, and the Entomology Department at Oxford University Museum of Natural History is still informally referred to as ‘The Hope Department’. Sixteen references.

Harry Stephen Meysey Thompson – friend at Cambridge, later agriculturalist and Member of Parliament (MP) for Whitby. Two references.

George Robert Waterhouse (1810–1888) – later Keeper of Mineralogy and Geology at the British Museum, mammologist and entomologist. Met Darwin in December 1829 via Stephens (letter to Fox, 3 January 1830). Waterhouse would identify and describe much of Darwin’s Coleoptera collected on the HMS Beagle voyage, which is now in the Natural History Museum, London. Ultimately Darwin was to be godfather to Waterhouse’s son, Charles Owen Waterhouse, also a distinguished entomologist. Fifteen references.

Richard Weaver – amateur but prolific insect collector and dealer who had a private museum at 38 New Street, Birmingham, in 1828. A letter to Fox, 15 October 1829, says ‘Weaver in Birmingham has a very good collection, but does not know much about them, & I bought 15^s. worth of insects of him’. This corresponds to ‘Bought of Weaver 1829’. Three references, two in DAR118.

Other specimens

UMZC has Darwin specimens from the Babington and Jenyns collections (Appendix 4); both Charles Cardale Babington (1808–95) and Leonard Jenyns (1800–93) collected and exchanged specimens with Darwin in Cambridge when he was a student (Smith 1987), and Babington later identified and described Darwin’s water-beetles from the Beagle. The specimens have been removed from their pins and remounted on card; thus, comparison to specimens in the boxes is limited. As with the box specimens, pinning had been standard, through the right elytron, with the appendages extended but not arranged with a high degree of precision. Of the 13 species represented by these specimens, nine correspond to specimens in DBBC and 12 to annotations in Stephens (1829a).

Discussion

The annotations made by Charles Darwin in his copy of Stephens (1829a) support the contents of DBBC and DHB having been collected by Darwin in 1828–31. Some annotations exactly match label data from Darwin’s specimens in the Babington and Jenyns collections in UMZC (the two carabids and the dytiscids Agabus affinis (Paykull), A. congener (Thunberg), Dytiscus marginalis L. and Hydaticus seminiger (De Geer)), confirming that the annotations are an accurate record of Darwin’s 1828–31 collection. Where specimens have different localities from the annotations, they lack dates or are from a later date and so do not contradict: eg Rhantus grapii (Gyllenhal) is annotated ‘Shrewsbury 1829’ but the specimen is from Burwell Fen 1830. Two are contradictory: A. didymus (Olivier) and Platambus maculatus (L.) are labelled both ‘Camb Fen’ and ‘Caernarvon’, probably suggesting that there was originally more than one specimen and the data were combined onto one label. The only species in the UMZC collection that is not recorded in the annotations is Rhantus suturellus (Harris); however, this name was not applied to British specimens until after Stephens (1829a), so it is probably represented by the annotations for another species of the genus, all of which he first found commonly near Cambridge (Stephens 1829b).

The ‘Edinburgh notebook’ DAR118ʹs beetle lists and notes from 1828–29 largely correspond to specimens in the boxes and to annotations. There is no apparent system to the list; it does not follow taxonomic, date or locality orders. Although many of the records match in the notebook and annotations, certain differences are worth highlighting: Philorhizus sigma (Rossi) and Harpalus rubripes (Duftschmid) are recorded in the notebook as ‘Southend’ and in the annotations as ‘Hope’, corresponding to Hope’s collecting visit to Southend in 1829. Three Harpalus species are listed in the notebook as ‘Southend’ but annotated as ‘Maer’, suggesting that specimens from Hope were later superseded by Darwin’s own specimens. Haliplus obliquus (Fabricius) is noted ‘Cambridge’, but later widespread collection may have led to the annotation ‘Passim’. This notebook seems to have been started with notes on specimens and initial identifications, before the more confident identifications were annotated into Stephens (1829a). Considering only the families that were fully annotated in Stephens (1829a), there are just seven species that are noted but were not annotated; these may have been species where Darwin changed his identification (two carabids, four dytiscids, one hydrophilid).

The agreement between annotations, specimens, DAR118 notes and letters show that the annotations in Stephens (1829a) represent the first place and date where Darwin recorded the species, and the specimens given to Jenyns and Babington represent these, or specimens collected a year or two later. Only 36% of beetles in DBBC and 7% in DHB correspond to annotations, but 77% of annotations are matched by a specimen in one of the boxes.

The arrangement of DBBC with one to two specimens of almost all species matches Darwin’s practice of separating out a reference collection from the rest of his material (letter to William Darwin Fox 30 June 1828: ‘I have adopted Way’s plan of having a store box, & only having a few specimens of each insect in my regular case’). The Adephaga are mostly identified to species and labelled, most Carabidae and Dytiscidae with printed labels giving genus and authority and, separately, species, all cut from a copy of Stephens’ Nomenclature of British Insects (1829b). This is demonstrated by the type and format, and the use of ‘mihi’ as the authority for Platyderus, Harpalus attenuatus and Laccophilus minutus (the latter in error). Genus labels for other families are also taken from a copy of Stephens (1829b). However, from part-way through the Dytiscidae a copy of Crotch (1866) was used, as shown by the species labels being preceded by a number, and a heavier type for genus names, some of which are preceded by a letter, eg ‘C. Cryptopleurum’. The handwritten labels on white paper on the Adephaga were added at a later date as shown by the use of Olisthopus (described by Dejean in 1828), whereas Stephens (1829b) used Odontonyx. These 44 labels (43 carabids, one hydrophilid) are in Crotch’s writing and will have been added in 1871–72 when he was correcting and updating the identifications. One such label in Crotch’s style in the Cambridge box indicates a specimen of Notiophilus substriatus Waterhouse, 1833 (Carabidae), a species that was not described as new for science until after Darwin had departed on the Beagle, and so must have been identified after 1833. A further five species have older, discoloured labels in Emma Darwin’s writing. These give genus names with authorities, which again match the use (including errors) in Stephens (1829a, 1829b, 1829c, 1830, 1839): Scaphididae ‘MacLeay’ instead of Latreille, Scaphidium ‘Auct’. (Auctorum) instead of Olivier; Agathidium ‘Ill’. (Illiger) instead of Panzer. This combination of errors is only found in works by Stephens and dates the labelling to the 1830s or 1840s.

Emma Darwin’s handwriting is found on some of the DHB labels, also with Stephens’ misattributions. Only the 1830 volume uses exactly the same names and misattributions (most notably Compta Kirby), enabling this to be identified as the reference source, suggesting that the 1839 volume had not been obtained yet. Charles and Emma Darwin were married on 29 January 1839 and by the end of the year she had ‘taken the office almost entirely on herself’ (Charles Darwin, letter to sister Caroline 27 October 1839), so some relabelling by her in that year is plausible.

This labelling proves a link between the two boxes. In addition, both have the majority of specimens pinned using long pins identical to those used by Darwin on HMS Beagle in 1832 (pers. obs.), but also used by many other collectors, eg Stephens’ collection in the Natural History Museum, London (NHMUK). These are typical of the hand-made, tin-coated pins with separate heads of coiled wire annealed to the shaft that were the only commercially available pins prior to 1833 (Hancock et al. 2011). Darwin’s pins were first provided by his more experienced cousin Fox: ‘I will pay you the 10’6d & the 1£ for the pins, (which were just what I wanted & I am extremely obliged for you thinking of me)’ (letter of 30 June 1828). It seems that the pins he used were ordinary pins, not packaged specifically for entomology; whilst on the Beagle he commissioned his brother Erasmus to send him pins (letter from Erasmus Darwin 18 August 1832): ‘I could not procure any lace needles (so you wrote it) but I have got some lace pins, & some bead needles as being the finest made’. Lace (or silk) pins were either 7/8 or 1 3/16 inch (Hancock et al. 2011); the ones used in the boxes are all the longer version. Machine-made pins are present in DBBC, but they fix labels or carded specimens and are probably later additions. The three DHB specimens pinned with machine-made solid pins presumably date from after 1833 when such pins were marketed commercially (Dutton and Jones 1983).

Carded specimens are variable and many have clearly been remounted, with new pins and card. The oldest mounts may be the discoloured triangular point mounts that are present in both DBBC and DHB. Both boxes include several where a single piece of card has been cut to form two or more points. The DHB mounts are noticeably more crude than those in DBBC, as would be expected if this originated as the reserve collection and DBBC was his more carefully curated ‘regular collection’. Labels have been pinned using several different types of pins (headless, hand-made and machine-made); these may result from subsequent rearrangement and re-pinning.

The labelling and pinning suggest that most of the specimens date from around 1833. Darwin’s writings (notes, autobiography and letters) enable further precision. The last record of him collecting beetles in Britain is in 1831, before the voyage of HMS Beagle. In 1843 he explicitly stated that he no longer collected: ‘I was looking over my arranged cabinet (the only remnant, I have preserved of all my English insects) & was admiring Pangaeus crux major’ (letter to Fox, 28 March 1843). The latest possible date for any significant collecting is given in a letter in reference to his recognising a Licinus beetle when his sons found one at Down: ‘yet I had not looked at a British beetle for the last twenty years’ (letter to Fox, 13 November 1858). This would have been the Licinus punctatulus found in 1858 (Darwin et al. 1859), making the end of Darwin’s serious interest in British beetles no later than 1838. Other letters support the view that Darwin did not collect further British beetle species after the Beagle’s return, making the last collection before its sailing in 1831. In a letter to John Lubbock in September 1854 he referred to a beetle

which, I never remember having seen, though it is excessively rash to speak from a 26 year old remembrance [ie 1828] … I feel like an old war-horse at the sound of the trumpet, when I read about the capturing of rare beetles – is not this a magnanimous simile for a decayed entomologist. It really almost makes me long to begin collecting again. (Darwin Correspondence Project Letter no. 1585)

These points make it likely that both boxes comprise material that he collected before the end of 1831.

A small number of specimens in DHB may be exceptions to this 1828–31 provenance. The three specimens that are directly pinned with machine-made pins are likely to post-date 1833. Two of them were probably labelled by Francis Darwin, who is known to have collected beetles from the 1850s (Darwin et al. 1859). The specimen of the Indonesian scarab Euchirus longimanus appears to have been in poor condition when pinned. Alfred Russel Wallace described the specimens he sent to Darwin as ‘quite rotten’, which makes it likely that this is one of Wallace’s specimens from 1868. These specimens suggest that DHB was used as a display collection, as may also be indicated by the faded nature of some specimens, such as the Geotrupes (1E–F) or Aromia moschata (L.) (F1). In contrast, DBBC seems to have been the more systematic ‘regular case’. This is likely to have been stored in the specimen cabinet that Darwin ordered at the start of 1830, writing on 13 January 1830 (letter to Fox): ‘I have ordered a Cabinet. I long to begin about arranging & naming my insects; amongst the Carabidae, I think I have a third in number’. The cabinet arrived in March 1830 and the curation that Darwin started at this time is probably reflected in the annotations in Stephens (1829a). We know he started with his particular interest, the carabids; in April 1830 he wrote to Fox that he had ‘only yet got to the Amarae’ (ie page 26 of Stephens 1829a). The curation never progressed beyond the Adephaga, with the exception of crosses against the chrysomelids, probably having been interrupted by Darwin leaving Cambridge (June 1831) and preparations for the departure of the HMS Beagle (December 1831).

We conclude that the material in DBBC and most of that in DHB was collected by Charles Darwin in 1828–31, and divided into a ‘regular case’ and a store collection, at least partially corresponding to the division between the two boxes. In 1839 or the early 1840s specimens in both boxes were labelled by Emma Darwin by hand, copied from Stephens (1830). Francis Darwin probably added names to DHB by hand, and at least two specimens. Someone added labels to DBBC by cutting names from a copy of Stephens (1829b). Finally, in 1871–72 Crotch curated the DBBC for Francis, adding labels from Crotch (1866). According to the UMZC register, DBBC has not been altered in any way from that date. The spare collection appears to have remained at Down House, probably as a family display collection. There has been some alteration to the DHB since it came into the possession of the Royal College of Surgeons. Several specimens are missing, and comparing its present condition with photographs in Smith (1987) shows that the cerambycid Saperda carcharias (L.) (4 F) has lost an antenna, the Longitarsus sp. specimen from F13 has been moved to 10A (previously the position of Amphimallon solstitiale (L.) [11A]), and the large scarab Euchirus longimanus (11B) has been rotated 180°. In addition, the card 6O now lacks any specimens, whereas at least two are visible in Smith (1987). The box is now in a stable condition.

The two boxes largely complement each other, forming two parts of a single British beetle collection. Of the popular and well-studied families, all the longhorn beetles (Cerambycidae) are in the DHB, as are most of the leaf beetles (Chrysomelidae). The Cambridge box, on the other hand, includes almost all the Adephaga (Carabidae and Dytiscidae) as well as most of the other aquatic beetles, and most of the weevils. Neither box would realistically stand alone, and it is merely a matter for speculation why they were separated. It is interesting to consider what taxa are absent from the combined boxes. Neither has good representation of Staphylinidae, but it was, and still is, not uncommon for beetle collectors to, to some extent, disregard these abundant but small and taxonomically difficult beetles, and several of the larger, commoner and more easily identified representatives are present in the DHB. The absence of cardinal beetles (Pyrochroidae) is perhaps more surprising, as the two most common species are large, colourful and easily identified. Ladybirds (Coccinellidae), another common and conspicuous group, are also poorly represented.

Of the three uncommon beetles that Darwin collected with his children in 1858 and published on their behalf the following year (Darwin et al. 1859) – Anaglyptus mysticus (L.) (Cerambycidae) and Licinus punctulatus (Fabricius) and Panagaeus bipustulatus (Fabricius) (Carabidae) – only the last is represented in the boxes (in the Cambridge box), while the other two remain absent.

This all seems to confirm that Darwin was not in the habit of keeping up his British beetle collection in later life, and/or that specimens have ‘wandered’ and may still exist in museums or other collections, but separated from their Darwinian provenance. This study may help in the search for such material.

‘Darwin’s beetle box’ is regarded as one of the treasures of the University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge. There is strong evidence that most of the material in the two boxes comes from the same source and it is probable that both are the remains of Charles Darwin’s student collections made in 1828–31, with labelling in both by Emma Darwin. Accordingly, both boxes should be recognised as being of particular historical significance.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the University Museum of Zoology for allowing us access to Darwin’s beetle box and to the Babington and Jenyns collections, and to Natalie Jones and Russell Stebbings for their assistance in examining this material. Olivia Fryman, Rebecca Bennet and Caroline Baker enabled us to examine the Down House box. We are also grateful to Lucy Hughes for arranging for us to examine Darwin’s cabinet in Christ’s College. MVLB thanks members of the Natural History Museum Coleoptera team, particularly Michael Geiser, Michael Darby and Howard Mendel for advice and encouragement.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/00222933.2024.2331833.

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.