You will, I know, pardon me if, before concluding these remarks, I
venture to make a few comments which, though not altogether agreeable,
are made in all sincerity and in the hope of doing good. The question
as to how far purely technical and especially descriptive and
monographic work should be done by the different stations or by the
national department is one which I have already alluded to and upon
which we shall probably hold differing opinions, and which will be
settled according to the views of the authorities at the different
stations. Individually, I have ever felt that one ostensibly engaged
in applied entomology and paid by the State or national government to
the end that he may benefit the agricultural community can be true to
his trust only by largely overcoming the pleasure of entomological
work having no practical bearing. I would, therefore, draw the line at
descriptive work except where it is incidental to the economic work
and for the purpose of giving accuracy to the popular and economic
statements. This would make our work essentially biological, for all
biologic investigation would be justified, not only because the life
habits of any insect, once ascertained, throw light on those of
species which are closely related to it, but because we can never know
when a species at present harmless may subsequently prove harmful, and
have to be classed among the species injurious to agriculture.
On the question of credit to their original sources of results already
on record, it is hardly necessary for me to advise, because good sense
and the consensus of opinion will in the end justify or condemn a
writer according as he prove just and conscientious in this regard.
There is one principle that should guide every careful writer, viz.,
that in any publications whatever, where facts or opinions are put
forth, it should always be made clear as to which are based upon the
author's personal experience and which are compiled or stated upon the
authority of others. We should have no patience with a very common
tendency to set forth facts, even those relating to the most common
and best known species, without the indications to which I have
referred. The tendency belittles our calling and is generally
misleading and confusing, especially for bibliographic work, and
cannot be too strongly deprecated.
On this point there will hardly be any difference of opinion, but I
will allude to another question of credit upon which there prevails a
good deal of loose opinion and custom. It is the habit of using
illustrations of other authors without any indication of their
original source.
This is an equally vicious custom and one to be condemned, though I
know that some have fallen into the habit, without appreciation of its
evil effect. It is, in my judgment, almost as blameworthy as to use
the language or the facts of another without citing the authority.
Every member of this association who has due appreciation of the time
and labor and special knowledge required to produce a good and true
illustration of the transformations and chief characteristics of an
insect will appreciate this criticism. However pardonable in fugitive
newspaper articles in respect of cuts which, from repeated use, have
become common or which have no individuality, the habit inevitably
gives a certain spurious character to more serious and official
publications, for assumption of originality, whether intended or not,
goes with uncredited matter whether of text or figure. Nor is mere
acknowledgment of loan or purchase to the publisher, institution or
individual who may own the block or stone what I refer to. But that
acknowledgment to the author of the figure or the work in which it
first appears which is part of conscientious writing, and often a
valuable index as to the reliability of the figure.
It were supererogation to point out to a body of this kind the value
of the most careful and thorough work in connection with life
histories and habits, often involving as it does much microscopic
study of structure. The officers of our institutions who control the
funds, and more or less fully our conduct, are apt to be somewhat
impatient and inappreciative of the time given to anatomic work, and
where it is given for the purpose of describing species and of
synopsizing or monographing higher groups, without reference to
agriculture, I am firmly of the belief that it diverts one from
economic work, but where pursued for a definite economic purpose it
cannot be too careful or too thorough and I know of no instances
better calculated to appeal to and modify the views of those inclined
to belittle such structural study than Phylloxera and Icerya. On the
careful comparison of the European and American specimens of
_Phylloxera vastatrix_, involving the most minute structures and
details, depended originally those important economic questions which
have resulted in legislation by many different nations and the
regeneration of the affected vineyards of Europe, of our own Pacific
coast, and of other parts of the world by the use of American
resistant stocks. In the case of _Icerya purchasi_ the possibilities
of success in checking it by its natural enemies hung at one time upon
a question of specific difference between it and the _Icerya sacchari_
of Signoret--a question of minute structure which the descriptions
left unsettled and which could only be settled by the most careful
structural study and the comparison of the types, involving a trip to
Europe.