PROCEEDINGS OF THE ANNUAL MEETING. 337 



sene emulsion, and the modern spray pump and nozzle, to the earlier 

 insecticidal batteries, soon revolutionized recommendations regarding 

 the destruction of our insect foes. Thus the more recent writings of 

 such well-known entomologists as Riley, Comstock, Cook, Lintner, 

 Forbes, and Howard have not only added much to our knowledge of the 

 habits of insects, but their recommendations for combating them mark 

 a great advance in the science, so far as it concerns the horticulturist. 



The establishment of experiment stations in nearly every state 

 gave a great stimulus to the scientific study of agriculture, and in no 

 other branch has this been more marked than in economic entomology. 

 The working corps of many of the stations now include a trained observer 

 of insect life, and a great mass of literature has already resulted. Much 

 of this material has been hastily compiled, oftentimes the mistakes of 

 earlier writers being repeated, and is thus of little value; but there are 

 many good compilations seasoned with common-sense, and such have a 

 legitimate place in our literature. The work has been growing better 

 each year as the observers became more skillful, and now there are 

 many valuable additions to our knowledge of injurious insects coming 

 from the press monthly in the form of experiment station bulletins. 

 These publications are free to any one who may take the trouble to ask 

 for them, so there is no excuse for horticulturists not keeping posted 

 in these matters. Bear in mind, however, that, try as hard as he may, 

 the entomologist can not always present his knowledge in such a way 

 that the horticulturist can at once put it into practice, unless there has 

 been a mutual interchange of ideas and suggestions between the two. 

 It is just this ''rubbing together" of each other's ideas that both the 

 economic entomologist and the horticulturist need to render the work 

 of the former the most useful to the latter. This is sometimes well illus- 

 trated in the recommendations made to combat certain insects. The sub- 

 stance recommended may be all right, but the time when or how to 

 apply it may be omitted or left indefinite; or it may be impracticable 

 when tried under the horticulturist's conditions; or the whole thing may 

 be absurd. There has been too much guesswork in the recommendations 

 for fighting insects; they often need to be more strongly flavored with 

 common-sense. But, as Barnum so long ago demonstrated, a humbug 

 often has a peculiar fascination for the American people; and this has 

 been recently shown in the line of insecticides. 



A "Tree Inoculation Company" in the eastern states claims to render 

 a whole tree safe from the attacks of any insects, more especially the 

 elm-leaf beetle, by the aid of a wonderful compound which they insert 

 into a hole bored in the trunk. They made thousands of dollars by 

 charging seventy-five cents or more to treat each tree, and they realized 

 $6,000 for the right to use the compound in New Jersey. A chemical 

 analysis of this secret and mysterious substance showed that it was 

 nothing but sulphur disguised in color by the addition of carbon. Last 

 year thousands of pounds of the "American Soil Renewer and Insecti- 

 cide" were sold in Minnesota. When sown on the field it was guaran- 

 teed to kill every chinch bug and to so impregnate the soil that the 

 insect would not again ejiter the field. The chemist showed that it was 

 simply a compound formed by combining a large amount of salt with 

 43 



