Its advocates claim for it — First, that it dries and preserves all flesh from decay better than anything else known; secondly, that if the skin is well painted with arsenical soap no moth or maggot will be found to touch it. This, then, is all is wanted — immunity from decay and protection from insects. Now I maintain that arsenical mixtures are not only most dangerous, but quite useless also for the purpose.

Arsenic is simply a drier of animal tissue to a certain extent, but so are hundreds of other agents not so dangerous. It is also perfectly useless as a scarecrow or poison to those bêtes noire of the taxidermist, the larvae of the various clothes and fur eating moths of the genus Tinea, or the larvae of Dermestes lardarius, murinus, and other museum beetles. They simply laugh arsenic to scorn; indeed, I believe, like the Styrian arsenic eaters, they fatten on it. I could give many instances. Of course, when you point out to a brother taxidermist — rival, I mean; there are no brothers in art — the fact that somehow this arsenical paste does not work the wonders claimed for it, he replies, "Oh! ah! yes! that specimen, I now recollect, was done by a very careless man I employed; he never half painted the skin."

All nonsense! Men, as well as masters, lay the "preservative" on as thickly as they can. Verbum sap.! A great outcry is being made at the present day as to arsenical wall papers and ladies' dresses — very properly so; but did it never strike any taxidermist — they must read the papers some times, even if not scientific men — that if it was dangerous to live in a room, the paper of which contains a barely appreciable quantity of arsenic, it was also dangerous to work all day in a shop amid hundreds of specimens actually reeking with arsenic, and giving it off when dry, and when handled, in the form of dust? Painted on the skin while wet is bad enough; but what shall we say to those — well, we will not use harsh terms — who calmly tell you that they always use dry arsenic. Incredible as the statement may appear to the scientist, yet it is true that I have seen a man plunge his hand in the most matter-of-fact way into a box containing dry arsenic, and coolly proceed to dust it on a skin. What is the consequence of this to the user of wet or dry arsenical preparations? Coughs, colds, chronic bronchitis, soreness of the lips and nose, ugly ulcers, brittleness of nails, and partial or complete paralysis. I knew a man who formerly used dry arsenic, whose constitution was thoroughly broken up by it. Again, an amateur of long standing called on me some time since, paralyzed in one hand — the doctors could make nothing of him. I said at once, "You have been using quantities of arsenic, and probably dry?"

Much astonished, he said "Yes;" and he had never mentioned this fact to his numerous doctors, who worked, of course, in the dark, when, by a course of antidotes taken at first, he might have been saved.

Used alone, arsenical paste is worse than useless for animals, causing them to "sweat" at once in certain places, and preventing your pulling them about, as you must do if modelling; again, if used for fur, you seldom or never can relax by that crucial test of a good preservative, i.e., — plunging in water.

Yet one question to the advocates of arsenic. If it possesses the chief advantage claimed for it, why use camphor in museums under the idea that it drives away moths?

Perhaps it will be as well to point out secundum artem the pros and cons for the use of arsenic.

ARSENICALPASTE.

Advantagesclaimed.

Disadvantages.

A perfect dryer of animaltissue.

Will often "sweat" skins,especially those of mammals, for which it is useless.

Keeps all things free fromattack of insects.

Is not of the slightest use forthis purpose.

Easier to make and use than anyother preparation.

Denied.

Gives off poisonous fumes whenhot.

Deposits metallic arsenic whendrying.

Gives off poisonous dust whenthoroughly dry.

Causes colds, coughs, etc..,which turn to bronchitis, paralysis, etc..

Having now summed up in the case of Common Sense versus Arsenic, I challenge contradiction to any of my statements, and ask, Why use a dangerous and inefficient preservative agent, when a harmless preservative, and that quite as good worker and dryer as arsenic, will suffice? I have invented a soap for which I claim those advantages, and as to its deterrent principle re insects, I am convinced that it is quite as good as the other, for is there any one thing known — compatible with clean-looking work — that will prevent the ravages of the maggots in birds' skins? I answer, No! — if we except one thing, too dangerous to handle — bichloride of mercury, of which anon. Let me whisper a little fact, and blow the poison theory to the winds: The real secret of success is to case your specimens up as soon as practicable, or to keep them always in full light, not poking them away in obscure corners, which the Tineidae and other pests love--hating light as the Father of Evil is said to hate holy water.

My Preservative formula is as follows: