Dear Sir,—In the learned columns of the last issue of this journal there was a disquisition on a human activity by a member of the animal kingdom which, I understand, has been received among some of our fellows with a certain degree of asperity. In view of the superlative achievements in this realm by another insect, namely, archy the cockroach, I feel that we should be more lenient, in fact particularly so in view of the conclusions I have come to concerning the particular genus of this insect.

After reading the article, I fell to considering exactly what type of beetle would be most capable of not only interesting itself in this particular activity of mankind, but also what type of beetle would treat the subject in the way it was presented in the article. I do not wish to tire readers by giving an account of my studied consideration of all the manifold genera of beetle. Suffice it to say that I found that the only type which could fittingly have devoted itself to a study of this fruitless expenditure of energy, and described a discussion of it in a way so degrading to the normal members of our race, was the Bub-family Coprides (of the family Scarabæidæ), better known as the dung-beetle. Moreover, just as archy was the incarnation of a vers-libre poet, I venture to suggest that our Beetle is a reincarnation of an earlier dungbeetle! who was probably trained to understand human discourse by Trimaichio or one of his more decadent companions. In view of the strict limitations this places on any possible literary creations of our Beetle, we cannot blame him for their worthlessness. Rather should we, out of consideration for the demand of beetles to be heard, at least lend an occasionally attentive ear, even though what we hear may cause us to impress a heavy boot on the offending insect.

•Probably Trox dohrni, which lives in caves in the accumulated dung of bats.

Dear Sir,—Is "Salient" so short of material that it must print "Midsummer Ending" and "Slaves to the Tramp" in an otherwise excellent issue ? To the uninitiated PSW's poem seems a meaningless concatenation of fulsome words, with special emphasis on "fish" (used, contrary to custom, as an adjective). The author himself explained the plot to me (something about parting with a woman and knowing you are going back to her, apparently a familiar experience) but I doubt if I should have guessed it alone had I pondered for a week. If you must publish these droppings from the ivory lower, you might at least print a glossary and notes, so that the remaining two thousand of us (apart from the Pleiade who say they understand it) may have some inkling of what PSW means.

As for "Beetle," why the poor imitation of "Stalky"? Kipling could get away with it because he was a great writer and believed what he wrote. If this tramp really occurred, and is not merely a delicious figment of the author's imagination, could we at least have it without de-la-Mare-ish references to sleeping in Brussels (not a word, mark you about br-ss b-nd b-x-s) and swot notes from the Oxford Dictionary? Does "Beetle" imagine, in his colossal egoism, that the whole College Knows the pet names by which he labels his cronies? Knowing the gang concerned, I can guess at their identity, but I am sure that not all of us are in that delightful situation.

P.S.—"Fish" may be used as an adjective after all, e.g., "one fish ball."

Dear Sir,—That such an incredible group of people as those described in the nondescript article "Slaves to the Tramp" should exist at all is astonishing enough, but that anyone should consider them worth writing about must be beyond normal comprehension. It seems impossible to believe that any good reason, except lack of copy, could have been found for printing this effusion. As a tramping report it is valueless, as a literary effort it is puerile and as a psychological study it is as much a testimony to the intellectual decadence of its author as to that of its characters. If—incredible thought!—this document was intended to be humorous, then its appeal should have been directed to the mentally deficient, not to the student body.

While affirming liberty of expression. I have the houour to sign myself,