Archives of natural history 42.2 (2015): 197–210 Edinburgh University Press DOI: 10.3366/anh.2015.0305 # The Society for the History of Natural History www.euppublishing.com/journal/anh

Joseph Sidebotham: vicissitudes of a Victorian collector

LAURENCE M. COOK

School of Life Sciences, University of , Manchester M13 9PT, (email: [email protected]).

ABSTRACT: Joseph Sidebotham (1824–1885) was a Manchester cotton baron whose natural history collections are now in the . In addition to collecting he suggested a method for identifying and classifying and investigated variation within species as well as species limits. With three close collaborators, he is credited with discovering many species new to Britain in both Lepidoptera and Coleoptera. A suspicion of fraud attaches to these claims. The evidence is not clear-cut in the Lepidoptera, but a possible reason is suggested why Sidebotham, as an amateur in the increasingly professional scientific world, might have engaged in deceit. KEY WORDS : Manchester – nineteenth century – collections – British records – entomology – Lepidoptera.

INTRODUCTION In the early twentieth century the Manchester Museum received a donation of Lepidoptera and another of Coleoptera assembled by Joseph Sidebotham, a Manchester business man (Logunov 2010, 2012). They are good examples of Victorian private entomological collections. A scan through the drawers raises questions as to how the collector came by the specimens and why some species appear to have been of particular interest. Joseph Sidebotham (Figure 1) was born in 1824, son of the owner and manager of a cotton mill on the river Tame near Hyde, then in and now part of . After school education he worked in a Manchester cotton-printing firm, meeting for the first time his lifelong friend the botanist Leo Grindon. Later he moved to the Strines Printing Company, with works at Strines in the Goyt valley, becoming a partner in 1849. The Tame and the Goyt are two rivers to the east of Greater Manchester, flowing respectively south and north towards , where they meet and become the River Mersey. Both were important locations in the history of the Manchester cotton industry, the water being required for the processes of printing and dyeing. Substantial legacies from two cousins allowed Sidebotham to retire early to devote himself to his numerous interests. These included natural history, microscopy, photography and astronomy. He was a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, the Society of Antiquaries of London and of societies related to his biological interests, including the Linnean Society and the Entomological Society of London. Locally, he was a founding member of the Manchester Photographic and Microscopical Societies and a member of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society, attending and occasionally chairing meetings. He could play the organ, draw and sketch with skill and paint on porcelain. He was a county magistrate of Cheshire. An indication of his sense of civic responsibility was that he encouraged education among mill workers, first by running classes on the sciences for lads at his father’s mill, then providing 198 JOSEPH SIDEBOTHAM: VICISSITUDES OF A VICTORIAN COLLECTOR

Figure 1. Joseph Sidebotham: the frontispiece from Grindon’s (1886) memoir. and endowing a library at the Strines mill, fostering the study of music and supporting and contributing to a manuscript journal produced by employees of the mill. He married Ann Coward in 1852, with whom he had three sons and three daughters. After his wife died, he founded and endowed a church as a memorial to her. After 1875 ill health led to visits to the south of France. He died in 1885 at a large residence befitting a Manchester magnate, in affluent Bowdon, a Cheshire location accessible by rail from Manchester in the mid- nineteenth century. One son, Edward, a Cambridge graduate, lectured in the Manchester Medical School. A nephew, T. A. Coward, who also lived in Bowdon, continued the interest in natural history, writing a number of popular books (for example, Coward 1919) and served as acting Keeper of the Manchester Museum during the First World War (Alberti 2009).

SIDEBOTHAM’S NATURAL HISTORY

Among several contemporary obituaries in scientific journals the most expansive was that of the Royal Astronomical Society (Anonymous 1886a), which emphasized the range of Sidebotham’s interests. This can also be seen in accounts of his early interests in the local flora. Grindon (1882) wrote,

The upper portion of the Tame Valley between and Hyde was successfully explored in 1840–42 by Joseph Sidebotham, of Apethorne, a townsman whom we have not more reason to be proud of as of a naturalist of the most varied and accurate information, and as one of the most scientific and successful prosecutors of microscopical research, than as a singularly skilful artist in photography. It was Mr Sidebotham who first drew the attention of Manchester naturalists to the freshwater algae of our district, and who principally determined their form and number. He also it was who collected the principal portion known of up to 1858 of the local Diatomaceae. During the five or six years he devoted to the botany of Bredbury, Reddish, and the banks of the Tame generally, he added no fewer than twenty-five species to the Manchester flora. JOSEPH SIDEBOTHAM: VICISSITUDES OF A VICTORIAN COLLECTOR 199

His other chief natural history interests were Lepidoptera and Coleoptera (Anonymous 1886a). Nearly all specimens in his collections were perfectly mounted and are in good condition, although many are unlabelled. Apart from the collecting, Sidebotham reared such as Orgyia antiqua (vapourer ) and Acherontia atropos (death’s head hawk moth) (Sidebotham 1865a, 1869a). He also made microscopical examinations of lepidopteran wing scales (see for example, Sidebotham 1865b) and illustrated papers by John Watson (1868, 1869) (Figure 2) on plumules (androconia). These were intended to illustrate a joint treatise involving several hundred figures that could be used as an aid to classification. In a rare reference to collecting abroad he described some land snails found at Mentone (or Menton) in France (Sidebotham 1880). Sidebotham’s published notes on the Lepidoptera are brief, and often refer to reports of, or localities for, rare species. Many name a friend who accompanied him and was sometimes the actual collector, as if to give support for the record. A typical example refers to Deilephila livornica (striped hawk moth), an immigrant species caught in Knutsford by a friend (Sidebotham 1878). There are five specimens in his collection. One is labelled “Taken on Tuesday morning 25th June 1844 under the straw on a cucumber vine bed at Brundrett’s Farm in Chorlton by John Brundrett RSE July 8/44”. The initials are those of R. S. Edleston (see below). There were also observations of Leucodonta bicoloria (white prominent moth) (Sidebotham 1874). He stated that a specimen was captured by Joseph Smith about 1862 at Burnt Wood, Staffordshire, where it was later also found by Joseph Chappell. The two specimens in his collection are labelled “Burnt Wood Staffordshire 1865 Joe Chappell” and

Figure 2. Illustrations by Joseph Sidebotham for John Watson’s (1868) paper on the plumules or battledore scales (androconia) of Lepidoptera. 200 JOSEPH SIDEBOTHAM: VICISSITUDES OF A VICTORIAN COLLECTOR

“Burnt Wood 1866 C[?] Chappell”. The moth occurs on the Continent and sporadically in the south of Ireland, but the Staffordshire ones “remain the only English records” (Skinner 1984). Earlier, South (1909) noted that one specimen was found in 1861 and six in 1865 while Barrett (1895) mentioned a specimen captured in 1880 near Exeter, Devon, possibly a continental immigrant. Sidebotham was an assiduous collector of beetles, again with friends and colleagues. To give a flavour of the type of communication associated with these records, an entry in The entomologist stated (Anonymous 1865): “After presentation of the vase to Mr. Saunders, as recorded in No. 9 of the ‘Entomologist’, Mr. Janson exhibited four species of Coleoptera from the collection of Mr. Sidebotham of Manchester, all of them new to the British list.” This ended with “Peritelus griseus, Oliv.; several specimens collected at Ventnor by Mr. Wainwright, probably by shaking herbage upon a piece of paper, in which manner some bottles full of Coleoptera have been obtained by that gentleman.”

SOME ASSOCIATES

Joel Wainwright was manager at the mill in Strines and co-editor of “The Strines Journal”, a hand written and illustrated production that existed between 1852 and 1856 (Hallett 1989; Swindells 1972). Drawings were augmented by photographs provided by Sidebotham. It was passed round the employees and contained their own contributions and those of the partners, topics including current affairs, literature and scientific subjects. Joseph Chappell (1830–1896), who often co-operated with Sidebotham, was a mechanic in Sir Joseph Whitworth’s engineering works in Manchester. Of him, a contemporary account (Farrer and Brownbill 1906) stated:

... he has told the present writer how on a Saturday evening after work – and there was no Saturday half holiday in those days – he would walk some thirty miles to Burnt Wood in Staffordshire, sleeping in the open, collect all day Sunday and walk back on Sunday night in time for work at six o’clock on Monday morning. Entomological literature from the early part of the nineteenth century suggests that Burnt Wood (now Burntwood) was an important collecting area, although coal mining, canals and railways were soon to change it. Chappell observed numerous rarities, as, for example, Hyles galii (bedstraw hawk moth) near Morecambe, and H. euphorbiae (spurge hawk moth) near Bolton (Tutt 1904). He also noted a specimen of the spurge hawk moth caught in Bowdon and brought to him. Both wings were crippled on one side, indicating that it must have emerged locally (Chappell 1886a, and see below), whereas the other hawk would have been migrants. The other main -collecting companion Robert Smith Edleston (1819–1872) was, like Sidebotham, a business man engaged in calico printing. In the 1840s he recorded moth captures from Cheetham, north Manchester (for example, Edleston 1841), later moving to Bowdon where he “devoted his leisure to British Insects of all orders” (Anonymous 1872). Leopold Hartley Grindon (1818–1904) was Sidebotham’s companion from the early years until the end of his life. He produced numerous books and articles on local and general botanical subjects, in 1864 giving up his post as cashier to concentrate on writing, lecturing and field study (Weiss 1930). In 1860 he and Sidebotham founded the Manchester Field JOSEPH SIDEBOTHAM: VICISSITUDES OF A VICTORIAN COLLECTOR 201

Naturalists Society for ladies and gentlemen interested in natural history or simply in country walks. In an appreciation of Sidebotham at the time of his death (Grindon 1886) described their relationship in effusive terms:

Can I ever forget the summer evenings when we were accustomed to stroll, almost hand in hand in the lovely Reddish valley (now, alas, sadly blurred) getting moonwort, and curious sedges, and the great white cardamine, and many another charming plant, helping one another, challenging one another to new discovery, sharing everything. This sentimentality did not go down well when Grindon wished to join the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society, precipitating what Kargon (1977) called the “Grindon affair”. The Society, founded in 1781, was for gentlemen with a taste for the subjects of its title but also for such topics as chemistry, commerce and the arts. As time passed an increasing number of members were self-made with practical and applied interests, and by the mid-nineteenth century the Society’s publications were mostly formal scientific papers (Kargon 1977). When he retired as President at the end of the century, (1897) described the change as “the gradual effacement of what, without giving offence, may be called the dilettante element, of men who carried on science and literature not as a profession but as an intellectual diversion, and the substitution of men who cultivate science in a strictly professional spirit”. Sidebotham, elected in 1852, was wealthy and established, with exceptionally wide interests but engaged in commerce and, in both senses of the word, an amateur. Grindon was proposed for membership in October 1862. He was middle-class, not well-off and earned his living by popular writing. His application was duly rejected. In November he was proposed again, supported by Sidebotham and some others, his supporters urging a change in the rules of admission and removal of the currently elected officers. Grindon was listed in volume 2 (1865) of the Memoirs as elected on 21 April 1863, but his name does not appear in any subsequent list. The activities of Sidebotham’s group continued, with publication of a parodic circular representing the council members as snobs. In the end the council survived and Grindon was struck off. It is possible that these events affected Sidebotham’s subsequent attitude to those who styled themselves professional scientists.

VARIATION IN LEPIDOPTERA In addition to noteworthy sightings, Sidebotham’s collection records an interest in variation in plants and in relation to the causes of such variation and to the borders between species. “What constitutes a species? Where does a species end, and a variety begin? And whether a species be a natural or merely an artificial division? Are amongst the [questions] most difficult of solution in the whole range of natural history, and just at this time are very prominently before the scientific world” (Sidebotham 1869b). A set of observations on the magpie moth (Anonymous 1870; Sidebotham 1870) resulted from a breeding programme. About it he wrote,

Abraxas grossulariata is probably one of the most variable insects we possess in this country in colour and markings, and it would be quite pardonable in any one not well acquainted with it, were he to split it up into four or five species; but although it varies in colour and markings in such great degree, all these varieties are joined together by gradual steps, and yet no step is found to join it to the next species on our list, sylvata. ... I have come to the conclusion that these variations are in a great measure 202 JOSEPH SIDEBOTHAM: VICISSITUDES OF A VICTORIAN COLLECTOR

hereditary, that one brood of eggs will produce moths of forms in a great measure identical, if the parents be of the ordinary type; if the eggs be the produce of moths of extreme colouring, varying much from the type, then, although the bulk of moths will be marked dark or light as the parents, there will be others of the ordinary type, and also some of the very opposite character of marking, precisely as in many florists’ flowers the seeds from those varying most from the original form are known to produce the most marked and opposite varieties. There is no evidence that he ever considered the mutability of species, although ideas leading in that direction were already discussed by artisan naturalists (Percy 1991). The opposite was the case. Sidebotham was reported in “The Strines Journal” (Swindells 1972) as ending a lecture declaiming Psalm 104: 24 “O Lord, how manifest are thy works! in wisdom thou hast made them all”. Watson’s (1868) paper on wing scales took H. W. Bates to task for speculations on evolution in Heliconiine butterflies, preferring the conclusion that an intelligent creator had placed the creatures in environments that suited them. Interest in precise distinctions between species quite commonly accompanied a conviction that they were separately created (for example, see Cook 1995). In another investigation several thousand larvae of Arctia caja (garden tiger moth) were raised in separate lots on different food plants (Sidebotham 1869b). Diet was shown not to affect colour. His collection illustrates variation from almost white forewings to almost black and some differences in hindwing colour. In the same article he described the effect on Aglais urticae (small tortoiseshell butterfly) of larval life in containers covered with different coloured glass. Those under blue glass did very poorly while those under orange glass grew well but had a lighter shade than usual. With respect to Arctia caja, Bateson (1916) commented that strange forms “are greatly sought after by some collectors, especially in , where they fetch high prices at auctions, and it is notorious that most of them come from Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire.” Exhibiting another type of variation there are two gynandromorphic Anthocharis cardamines (orange tip butterfly), obtained from different sources, which were of sufficient interest to be pinned together in his collection.

OBSERVATIONS ON PLANTS Apart from the survey of the botany of his home territory in the 1840s Sidebotham obtained records from different parts of Britain. At least 68 herbarium specimens extant in various museums bear labels on which Sidebotham is named as collector.1 Most came from the area of Cheshire closest to his home and from north Wales, especially Llandudno and Great Orme’s Head, popular Victorian vacation and recuperation spots. Others were from southern England and from Perthshire and Aberdeen. Grouped by date, where available, they indicate that he was most active from 1840–1844 and 1867 and after. Sidebotham also studied variation in plants. In one case he tested a claim that oats can be transformed into rye by adjusting the period of growth (Sidebotham 1845). Needless to say, it did not work. A more serious investigation by Sidebotham (1849) was into the inheritance of Primula species (cowslips, oxlips and primroses). He grew plants of each type and recorded the appearance of the next generation. The results, which to his disappointment showed much apparent overlap in the progeny, were at first received favourably by Darwin (Stauffer 1975). JOSEPH SIDEBOTHAM: VICISSITUDES OF A VICTORIAN COLLECTOR 203

DOUBTS ABOUT MR S. With respect to both experimentation and local records Sidebotham’s reputation became controversial. For example, the outcome of the Primula breeding could have indicated misrecording or contamination of plots, possibilities noted by Hewett Cottrell Watson. A comment in Darwin’s manuscript for his “Big Species Book” (Stauffer 1975) says “H. C. Watson’s Cybele Britannica states: Vol 3. p. 488 – doubts Mr. Sidebotham experiments, so I had better not speak so enthusiastically – doubts them from want of general accuracy – & from his want of Botanical knowledge”. The Darwin Correspondence Project has a letter in which Watson amplified as follows3: Dear Mr Darwin I have some recollection of intimating a distrust of Mr. Sidebotham’s recorded experiments on Primroses, &c. though I cannot now hit upon the intimation. – However, ...I have again looked over his second paper, & am still unwilling to rely on his accuracy; & likely enough the objections which I should now make to the record, are such as were made before, & fell under your notice. ... He went on to list a series of problems – lack of skill in distinguishing the types, oddity of results, failure to prevent “dew-worms &c.” from dispersing seeds – and finally,

There are other instances, which show that Mr. S. is unreliable in his botanical statements; i.e. he hazards statements in print, which are not true; although I think from carelessness & imperfect knowledge, rather than mala fides ... A poorly controlled breeding experiment did not necessarily make Sidebotham an unreliable collector, but his abilities were questioned in that respect also. He was strongly criticized by Watson, who was evidently no friend, for mentioning in print some plants he considered to be British that had been excluded from a recently published list (Sidebotham 1848a). One of these was Gentiana acaulis, of which Sidebotham wrote:

Mr. Townley, of Manchester, gathered this plant several times on sand-hills near , where he described it as growing in abundance, far apart from any cultivation. I have seen and possess some of his specimens which were brought in a living state to the late Mr. Crozier. To this Watson (1848a) replied, suggesting that there had been some error as to the species or its wildness. The exchange then became more heated. Sidebotham (1848b) wrote:

Mr. Watson’s letter in the last number of the ‘Phytologist’ (Phytol. iii. 83), asking “Is Gentiana acaulis wild in England?” seems to call for a word of reply from me, inasmuch as it casts a doubt on my former statement. I am sorry that it is not in my power to give any further information on the subject, as Mr. Crozier has been dead some time, and of Mr. Townley I have seen nothing for some years, nor do I know where to find him. There can be no doubt as to the species referred to being the Gentiana acaulis; no one with half an eye could mistake it for any other British gentian; therefore the only conclusions are, either that Mr. Townley found the plant apparently wild, or that he told a deliberate falsehood. ... Watson (1848b) rather let himself go, ending

Were I to put down my pen here, it would leave Mr. S. under a charge very like that of deliberate falsehood. But I will not do so, because I think an explanation may be suggested, which will reduce the mis-statement into another example of that imperfect knowledge of British Botany, which his writings have usually betrayed, and so place it against him as an instance of intellectual rather than moral deficiency. A similar question regarding veracity arises with respect to the observations on Coleoptera. In his biographical dictionary of British coleopterists, Darby stated2: “Doubt has been cast at various times on the validity of some of Sidebotham’s rarer discoveries, sometimes recorded 204 JOSEPH SIDEBOTHAM: VICISSITUDES OF A VICTORIAN COLLECTOR when collecting with J. Wainwright or R. S. Edleston ... which has led to their being doubtfully included or removed from the British list.” The habit of giving collecting bottles to helpers made it difficult to be sure of the provenance of specimens, and some of the rarities might really have been specimens Sidebotham collected in France, due to a confusion of material and localities. Allen (1967a) reviewed the status of some lamellicorn beetles for which there are rare records, many of them associated with Sidebotham. Allen suggested a few were extinct, one was to be deleted and gave most the benefit of the doubt, adding that nevertheless doubt remained. With regard to bee beetles (Cleridae) Allen (1967b) concluded that the nineteenth-century records are evidence of “ancient survivals of the indigenous fauna which died out during the historic period of British coleopterology.” In weighing up the evidence with respect to the weevils (Curculionidae) Morris and Johnson (2005) go further than H. C. Watson and much further than Allen. They concluded that Sidebotham was either lucky and gifted, or confused and careless or finally, a deliberate fraudster. They rejected the first option, recognized a possible French origin for some specimens, but felt that the circumstantial detail makes it almost impossible that there was unwitting confusion. Morris and Johnson (2005) therefore suggested deliberate misrepresentation, noting that latterly Sidebotham gave up entomology to concentrate on his other interests. The pattern of activity is like that of the plant collection; with Grindon in the early 1840s, then a gap until 1865, after which short notes trickled out between 1866 and 1884. Sidebotham became a partner in the calico printing works in 1849 with increasing duties thereafter, which may have interrupted the natural history for a few years.

THE LEPIDOPTERA COLLECTION Sidebotham’s Lepidoptera collection is housed, as it was received, in one 40- and one 32-drawer cabinet separated roughly as macro- and micro-Lepidoptera (Logunov 2010). It contains more than 1,900 species, a remarkable number for the time. At some time a card index was prepared with the information on most of the labels. The assumption is that the specimens are British; if so the pattern of collecting is strongly angled towards rarities. To take the butterflies, the collection includes the following (number of specimens precedes the name):

8 Argynnis lathonia (Queen of Spain fritillary) 19 Melitaea cinxia (Glanville fritillary) 3 Argynnis niobe (continental fritillary) 6 Nymphalis antiopa (Camberwell beauty) 12 Apatura iris (purple emperor) 12 Nymphalis polychloros (large tortoiseshell) 12 Aporia crataegi (black-veined white) 3 Pieris daplidice (Bath white) 25 Lycaena dispar (large copper) 19 Strymonidia pruni (black hairstreak) 20 Maculinea arion (large blue) 15 Thymelicus acteon. (Lulworth skipper) 8 Mellicta athalia (heath fritillary) as well as a long series of Coenonympha tullia (large heath butterfly). All of these were immigrants, rare, restricted or declining, some now extinct in Britain and most threatened by intense collecting in Victorian times. Being unlabelled, there is no way to know where the black-veined whites or the large tortoiseshells came from. Where there are labels they refer to collectors other than Sidebotham, with or without localities. Ten of the Glanville fritillaries come from the Reverend J. F. Dawson, from their only British locality on the Isle JOSEPH SIDEBOTHAM: VICISSITUDES OF A VICTORIAN COLLECTOR 205 of Wight where, even in 1824 when they were first discovered by Edward Newman, they were uncommon (Salmon 2000). Most of the Queen of Spain fritillaries are labelled as taken by G. Parry near Canterbury. His exploits are also recounted by Salmon (2000: 332). There seems no doubt that he reared continental specimens for sale as British. Newman (Anonymous 1841) had earlier deplored this practice, writing anonymously “so as not to offend gentlemen possessing a rich series of the questionable species”. One of the Bath whites is also from G. Parry, and the three Argynnis niobe are labelled “W. Wigan”, either a pseudonym or a collaborator of Parry’s (Salmon 2000). Other collectors contributed, some of them well-known and of unimpeachable reputation. The Sang collection and the Banksian Society Collection also provided specimens. The Banksian Society of Manchester was a short-lived association of “workmen-amateur botanists” (Kargon 1977; see Anonymous 1830), another part of whose material went independently to the Manchester Museum (Owen et al. 1962). Zygaena viciae (New Forest burnet moth: 12 specimens) is another southern English rarity, first recognized in 1872 and apparently extinct by the 1920s, except that an isolated colony was discovered in Argyllshire in the 1960s (Skinner 1984). Twenty one specimens of Callimorpha dominula (scarlet tiger moth) probably came from a colony on the undercliff near Deal, Kent, well known as a source of typical and variant material. Collectors paid local boys to gather the larvae, then charged high prices for the resulting pinned adults. They were harvested at such a rate that J. W. Tutt expressed satisfaction that one of the perpetrators had died, and fear that the colony would become extinct (Tutt 1896; Owen 1997). Happily it did not (Cook 1959). The commercial market led to bad practice (Doubleday 1856) and dissimulating dealers, such as Parry. In other cases insects may have been bred without any intention to mislead. Barrett (1895) noted that Sidebotham sent eggs of Utetheisa pulchella (crimson speckled moth) from Menton to a fellow entomologist in England for breeding. There are five specimens in the collection, three from named collectors, one from a sale and one labelled “Bred Mentone 1878”. The single spurge hawk moth (Hyles euphorbiae) was bought in London in 1848 for the large sum of £2. There are five silver-striped hawk moths (Hippotion celerio), an occasional visitor to Britain. All but one have labels indicating that they were captured as adults. The final specimen, according to Edleston (1846), came from a man described as an intelligent collector, who found two fully grown caterpillars resembling the larvae of H. celerio, which he kept. They escaped, presumably looking for a pupation site, and a fresh adult was duly found nearby, showing the species was established in Britain, at least for a short time. On a first viewing it is easy to overlook the section of Sidebotham’s collection containing almost half the species which fall into the loose category micro-Lepidoptera. Not many are labelled, but they are beautifully prepared, identified and carefully arranged. Some are also mounted larvae, pupal cases or leaves with larval mines. Most are represented by series of individuals. Tantalizingly, none of Sidebotham’s writings appear to refer to this part of the collection. At least one specimen is technically a holotype. It is labelled Elachista holdenella (Elachistidae). Stainton (1854) described it, and added “In Mr. Edleston’s collection, is a single specimen, taken near London”. Stainton himself also had two specimens labelled E. holdenella. After dissecting one of them Bradley (1971) concluded they were in fact the more common E. atricomella, so that E. holdenella became a junior synonym. The label on the Manchester specimen suggests it came from Headley, a well-known Surrey collecting spot (Pelham-Clinton 1986). We do not know the path from there to Edleston to Stainton to Sidebotham. 206 JOSEPH SIDEBOTHAM: VICISSITUDES OF A VICTORIAN COLLECTOR

DISCUSSION Given the shortage of labels and that the published articles raise few questions, there is little reason to suspect Sidebotham of fraud with regard to Lepidoptera. The fact that he dutifully acknowledged the origin of the Parry and Wigan records might indicate that he was more sinned against than sinning. One case that could conceivably follow the pattern detected in the Coleoptera is the white prominent moth, where an unlikely observation is backed by reference to other collectors and the different dates recorded do not seem to match. If that is a fraud it has been successful, because Sidebotham’s contribution is routinely referred to in modern accounts of the British moth fauna. However, as Zygaena viciae shows, improbable isolates can persist and be overlooked for long periods. A further example is the first British record, again by Joseph Chappell (1868) in Staffordshire, of the trichopteran (caddis fly) Hagenella clathrata. Wallace4 pointed out that this species has since been recorded periodically between Surrey and the Cairngorms in a few restricted localities that provide its specialized habitat requirements. On the other hand, there is an odd sequel to Chappell’s (1886) report of the spurge hawk moth with damaged wings in Bowdon. In the following year, Chappell (1887) wrote: “From information which I have lately obtained I have doubt about the specimen of D.[= Hyles] euphorbiae recorded from Cheshire (Entom. XIX, 250) being British; consequently I have taken it out of my collection, and intend to destroy it. I am sorry it was recorded in the ‘Entomologist’.” He does not say who brought it to him but was evidently put out by the event, and Tutt (1904) described him as the victim of fraud. And once the seed of doubt is planted one starts to see other curious incidents. To return to the plants, Grindon, an uncritical admirer, produced an account containing the elements of clever discovery and companions or commentators who provided support. He wrote that Sidebotham went to Paris frequently on business and often invited a friend for company. On one occasion his companion was his brother-in-law Thomas Coward, to whom he said one morning (Grindon 1886),

Let us go to Fontainebleau and find Buxbaumia aphylla (rarest and minutest of mosses). The two went as proposed, and after some little time, in an open part of the forest, ‘Here it is,’ cried Sidebotham. ‘Now look for yourself, and find it with your own eyes.’ The plant was discovered, and the specimen is still in the possession of Mr Coward. Speaking a few days afterwards to Brongniart, of the Jardin des Plantes, the latter confessed that although he had many times visited Fontainebleau with the same object, he had always failed of success. The first half of the nineteenth century was a period when knowledge of flora and fauna was expanding at a rapid rate all over the world with Britain in many respects a leader in this process. Techniques for accurate surveying and recording were developed by such men as H. C. Watson and there was a strong desire to know what was present and where. When insects can fly in from Europe, or be carried by imported materials, and gardeners are competing to grow newly discovered exotics it is important to establish which species are truly British if we are to understand the present in relation to past land structure and climate (Forbes 1846; Beirne 1947; Dennis 1977). Active naturalists rapidly added to the lists, while at the same time commenting on the losses that accompanied nineteenth-century industrialization. In Manchester, Grindon (1882) noted the disappearance of lichens and roadside flowers. Of the Reddish valley he wrote that after the lapse of 24 years, everything “illustrates the operation of town smoke and hurtful vapours, not to JOSEPH SIDEBOTHAM: VICISSITUDES OF A VICTORIAN COLLECTOR 207 mention the devastating influences which come of human travel.” Another regret was the contraction of the surrounding mosslands; Blackwall (1822) provided a list of Manchester , including moorland species that had already retreated by mid-century (Grindon 1882). Before that an awakened curiosity started to show how rich the country was; knowledge increased as species were lost. John Curtis and J. C. Dale could discover 30 unknown species on a visit to Scotland in 1825 (Salmon 2000). A little later the railways brought with them pollution but transformed access. Between 1855 and 1874, Henry Stainton’s Entomologist’s annual gave a yearly account of Lepidoptera new to the British list. Nearly 250 species were added in the 20 years surveyed. Some were new to science while most were known from Europe but shown for the first time to be established in this country. Recording had to be exact and accurate. As the Banksian Society’s instructions to members in 1830 stated (Cash 1873):

In collecting British specimens, it is expected that members will, as often as practicable, observe their localities, habits, times of appearance, &c., that memoranda may be kept of everything interesting to the naturalist or useful to the Society. The foreign insects to be kept carefully distinct from the British, and labelled ‘Foreign’.

While still in his teens, Sidebotham was credited with significant contributions to the knowledge of the plants, protists and algae of his home district. Considering that microscopy, photography, astronomy and natural history were secondary to his business interests he participated actively in the Manchester intellectual world. As the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society put it, rather patronizingly (Anonymous 1886b), “He was a practical, indefatigable, and successful merchant, conducting the affairs of an important firm, at the same time that he engaged in refining pursuits with an energy but little inferior to that of a man of science.” Some alleged shortcomings – poorly controlled Primula breeding, misidentified gentians – probably reflect his amateur position. His written records and labels fall short of the Banksian Society’s standards, but he was innovative in recognizing the significance of variation and heritability in relation to species differences. He may sometimes have claimed novel records where the evidence was weak, or non- existent, although this fits oddly with what else we know of him. It is possible that the affair of Grindon and the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society tempted him to put a scientific gloss on his activities by manipulating the data. If so, this is a serious character defect. However, his name is so frequently coupled with those of Chappell and Edleston in the notes on rare species that it is not even certain who might have been the prime mover. Sidebotham clearly made other contributions to the natural history of a locality on the cusp of massive environmental change. The collection continues to be of interest for the insights it provides into the nineteenth-century fauna and the vagaries of Victorian collectors.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Hilary Atkinson, Marple Local History Society, Mel Smith, Strines Hall, and Rosemary Taylor, Local History Society, kindly provided information on Strines, the Print Works and the Strines Journal, now in the collection of the John Rylands Library. The Manchester Metropolitan University Library provided useful information on publications. I am grateful to Dmitri Logunov and Philip Rispin for the opportunity to examine the collection and for the illustrations. 208 JOSEPH SIDEBOTHAM: VICISSITUDES OF A VICTORIAN COLLECTOR

NOTES

1 URL http://herbariaunited.org/atHome/ (accessed 13 December 2014). 2 M. Darby, 2009, “Biographical dictionary of British coleopterists” URL http://www.coleopterist.org.uk/ biogdict/s.htm (accessed 14 July 2014). 3 H. C. Watson to C. Darwin, 20 September 1861; transcript URL http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/entry- 3258 (accessed 13 December 2014). 4 I. Wallace, 2011, Species dossier: Hagenella clathrata. URL http://www.buglife.org.uk/sites/default/files/ Hagenella%20clathrata%20species%20dossier.pdf (accessed 13 December 2014).

REFERENCES

ALBERTI, S. J. M. M., 2009 Nature and culture. Objects, disciplines and the Manchester Museum. Manchester. ALLEN, A. A., 1967a A review of the status of certain Scarabaeoidea (Col.) in the British fauna; with the addition to our list of Orthophagus similis Scriba. Entomologist’s record 79: 201–206, 220–224, 257–262, 284–290. ALLEN, A. A., 1967b An inquiry into the British status of the genus Trichodes Hbst. (Col., Cleridae). Entomologist’s record 79: 54–58. ANONYMOUS, 1830 Progress of knowledge. Manchester Banksian Society. The spectator 3 April: 30. ANONYMOUS [probably NEWMAN, E.], 1841 Varieties by various contributors. The entomologist 1: 203–208. ANONYMOUS, 1865 Entomological Society. The entomologist 2: 163–165. ANONYMOUS, 1870 On the variation of . Nature 3 (57): 97–98. ANONYMOUS, 1872 Robert Smith Edleston. Entomologist’s monthly magazine 9: 167. ANONYMOUS, 1886a Joseph Sidebotham. Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 46: 194–196. ANONYMOUS, 1886b Joseph Sidebotham. Proceedings of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester 25: 244–246. BARRETT, C.G., 1895 Lepidoptera of the British Isles. Volume 2. London. BATESON, W., 1916 Problems of genetics. New Haven, Connecticut. BEIRNE, B. P., 1947 The origin and history of the British Macrolepidoptera. Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London 98: 275–372. BLACKWALL, J., 1822 Tables of the various species of periodical birds observed in the neighbourhood of Manchester: with a few remarks tending to establish the opinion that the periodical birds migrate. Memoirs of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester 4: 125–150. BRADLEY, J. D., 1971 Some changes in the nomenclature of the British Lepidoptera. Entomologist’s gazette 22: 23–27. CASH, J., 1873 Where there’s a will there’s a way: or, science in the cottage; an account of the labours of naturalists of humble life. (Facsimile reprint, Cambridge, 2011.) London. CHAPPELL, J., 1868 Capture of Neuronia clathrata, a trichopterous insect new to Britain. Entomologist’s monthly magazine 4: 204–205. CHAPPELL, J., 1886 Deilephila euphorbiae in Cheshire. The entomologist 19: 250. CHAPPELL, J., 1887 Deilephila euphorbiae in Cheshire. The entomologist 20: 108. COOK, L.M., 1959 The distribution in Britain of the scarlet tiger moth Callimorpha (Panaxia) dominula. Entomologist’s record 92: 232–236. COOK, L. M., 1995 T. Vernon Wollaston and the “monstrous doctrine”. Archives of natural history 22: 333–348. COWARD, T. A., 1919 Birds of the British Isles and their eggs. London. DENNIS, R. L. H., 1977 The British butterflies. Their origin and establishment. Farringdon. DOUBLEDAY, H., 1856 Remarks on Mr. Buxton’s note on Argynnis lathonia and Pieris daplidice. The zoologist 14: 5146–5147. EDLESTON, R. S., 1841 List of Lepidoptera captured near Manchester. Entomologist 1: 167–168. JOSEPH SIDEBOTHAM: VICISSITUDES OF A VICTORIAN COLLECTOR 209

EDLESTON, R. S., 1846 Capture of Deilephila celerio (Linn.) in Manchester. Zoologist 4: 1346. FARRER, W. and BROWNBILL, M. A. (editors), 1906 Insects, in volume 1, pp 101–144, Victoria county history of Lancashire. London. FORBES, E., 1846 On the connection between the distribution of the existing fauna and flora of the British Isles, and geological changes which have affected their area, especially during the epoch of the Northern Drift. Memoirs of the Geological Survey of England 1: 336–432. GRINDON, L. H., 1858 Manchester walks and wild flowers. Manchester. GRINDON, L. H., 1882 Country rambles, and Manchester walks and wild flowers: being rural wanderings in Cheshire, Lancashire, , and Yorkshire. Manchester. GRINDON, L., 1886 Joseph Sidebotham: a memoir. Manchester. HALLETT, M., 1989 The Strines journal and the Nasmyth . History of photography 13: 221–222. KARGON, R. H., 1977 Science in Victorian Manchester. Manchester. LOGUNOV, D. V., 2010 British entomology collections of the Manchester Museum. Journal of the Lancashire and Cheshire Entomological Society 134: 20–44. LOGUNOV, D. V., 2011 Where are you from, the Manchester moth? Micro miscellanea, newsletters of the Manchester Microscopical and Natural History Society 78: 10–12. LOGUNOV, D. V., 2012 A collection of inordinate number and diversity, pp 84–93, in LOGUNOV, D. V. and MERRIMAN, N. (editors),. The Manchester Museum: Window to the world. London. MORRIS, M. G. and JOHNSON, C., 2005 Sidebotham’s weevils (Curculionidae). The coleopterist 14: 101–103. OWEN, D. F., 1997 Natural selection and evolution in moths: homage to J. W. Tutt. Oikos 78: 177–181. OWEN, D. E., SEYD, E. L., SMITH, S. and BRINDLE, A., 1962 Fauna, pp 87–108 in CARTER, C. F. (editor), Manchester and its region, a survey prepared for the British Association. Manchester. PELHAM-CLINTON, E. C., 1986 The type locality of Elachista holdenella Stainton (Lepidoptera: Elachistidae). Entomologist’s gazette 37: 82. PERCY, J., 1991 Scientists in humble life: The artisan naturalists of South Lancashire. Manchester region history review 5: 3–10 SALMON, M. A., 2000 The Aurelian legacy. British butterflies and their collectors. Great Horkesley. SCHUNCK, E., 1897 Letter to Mr Gwyther. Memoirs of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester 41: xlvi–xlvii. SIDEBOTHAM, J., 1845 Supposed transformation of oats into rye. The phytologist 2: 589–590. SIDEBOTHAM, J., 1848a Remarks on certain “Excluded Species” placed at the end of the ‘London Catalogue’. The phytologist 3: 70–71. SIDEBOTHAM, J., 1848b Further remarks on the second edition of the ‘London Catalogue of British plants’. The phytologist 3: 140–141. SIDEBOTHAM, J., 1848c Reply to Mr. Watson’s observations, Phytol. iii, 144. The phytologist 3: 188. SIDEBOTHAM, J., 1849 Experiments on the specific identity of the cowslip and the primrose. The phytologist 3: 703–705. SIDEBOTHAM, J., 1865a Notes on Acherontia atropos. Proceedings of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester 5:9. SIDEBOTHAM, J., 1865b Notes on the development of wings of lepidopterous insects. Proceedings of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester 4: 98–99. SIDEBOTHAM, J., 1869a Notes on the and imago of Acherontia atropos. Proceedings of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester 9: 62–64. SIDEBOTHAM, J., 1869b Varieties in Lepidoptera. Proceedings of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester 9: 12–14. SIDEBOTHAM, J., 1870 On the variations of Abraxas grossulariata. Proceedings of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester 9: 25–27. SIDEBOTHAM, J., 1874 Notodonta bicolora in England. Entomologist’s monthly magazine 10: 253. SIDEBOTHAM, J., 1878 Deilephila livornica at Knutsford. Entomologist’s monthly magazine 15: 72. 210 JOSEPH SIDEBOTHAM: VICISSITUDES OF A VICTORIAN COLLECTOR

SIDEBOTHAM, J., 1880 On some specimens of Helices and Bulimi from Mentone, South France. Proceedings of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester 19: 155. SKINNER, B., 1984 Colour identification guide to moths of the British Isles. Harmondsworth. SOUTH, R., 1909 The moths of the British Isles. London. STAINTON, H. T., 1854 Insecta Britannica. Lepidoptera Tineina. London. STAUFFER, R. C. (editor), 1975 Charles Darwin’s natural selection being the second part of his big species book written from 1856 to 1858. Cambridge. SWINDELLS, G. A., 1972 The Strines journal, an appreciation. Marple, Cheshire. TUTT, J. W., 1896 British moths. London. TUTT, J. W., 1904 A natural history of British Lepidoptera. London. WATSON, H. C., 1848a Is Gentiana acaulis wild in England? The phytologist 3: 83–84. WATSON, H. C., 1848b Reply to Mr. Sidebotham’s further remarks on the second edition of the ‘London Catalogue of British plants’. The phytologist 3: 144–145. WATSON, J., 1868 Further remarks on the plumules or battledore scales of some of the Lepidoptera, with illustrations by Mr. J. Sidebotham. Memoirs of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester 3: 259–269. WATSON, J., 1869 Further remarks on the plumules or battledore scales of some of the Lepidoptera. Monthly microscopical journal 2: 314–320. WEISS, F. E., 1930 Leopold Hartley Grindon 1818–1904. North western naturalist 5: 16–22.

Received 15 July 2014. Accepted 4 November 2014. Your short guide to the EUP Journals Blog http://euppublishingblog.com/

A forum for discussions relating to Edinburgh University Press Journals

1. The primary goal of the EUP Journals Blog

To aid discovery of authors, articles, research, multimedia and reviews published in Journals, and as a consequence contribute to increasing traffic, usage and citations of journal content.

2. Audience

Blog posts are written for an educated, popular and academic audience within EUP Journals’ publishing fields.

3. Content criteria - your ideas for posts

We prioritize posts that will feature highly in search rankings, that are shareable and that will drive readers to your article on the EUP site.

4. Word count, style, and formatting

• Flexible length, however typical posts range 70-600 words. • Related images and media files are encouraged. • No heavy restrictions to the style or format of the post, but it should best reflect the content and topic discussed.

5. Linking policy

• Links to external blogs and websites that are related to the author, subject matter and to EUP publishing fields are encouraged, e.g.to related blog posts

6. Submit your post

Submit to [email protected]

If you’d like to be a regular contributor, then we can set you up as an author so you can create, edit, publish, and delete your own posts, as well as upload files and images.

7. Republishing/repurposing

Posts may be re-used and re-purposed on other websites and blogs, but a minimum 2 week waiting period is suggested, and an acknowledgement and link to the original post on the EUP blog is requested.

8. Items to accompany post

• A short biography (ideally 25 words or less, but up to 40 words) • A photo/headshot image of the author(s) if possible. • Any relevant, thematic images or accompanying media (podcasts, video, graphics and photographs), provided copyright and permission to republish has been obtained. • Files should be high resolution and a maximum of 1GB • Permitted file types: jpg, jpeg, png, gif, pdf, doc, ppt, odt, pptx, docx, pps, ppsx, xls, xlsx, key, mp3, m4a, wav, ogg, zip, ogv, mp4, m4v, mov, wmv, avi, mpg, 3gp, 3g2.