44 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL.84 



lished in the Transactions of the State Agricultural Society from 

 1854 to 1870, excepting the years 1859, 1865, and 1868. The first 

 II of these reports have been pubHshed separately as well as in the 

 Transactions of the Society. In 1873, through an appropriation by 

 the State Legislature, provision was made for the revision and repub- 

 lication of the reports ; and the revision was completed by Doctor 

 Fitch. The resolution for printing, however, failed of the concur- 

 rence of the Senate, and in some way the manuscript was lost. After 

 his death (1879) his collections and library were sold, but this valu- 

 able manuscript was not to be found. 



The value of Doctor Fitch's labors was very great. In his 14 

 reports the great majority of the injurious insects of the State of 

 New York received more or less detailed consideration, and in very 

 many cases the life histories of important species were worked out 

 with great care. The remedial measures suggested by Doctor Fitch 

 were, of course, soon superseded, and the practical value of his 

 reports rests almost entirely upon the life history side. The reports 

 contained very few and rather poor illustrations, but they were 

 admirably composed. They contained no flowery language, but were 

 written in straightforward, plain language, with little unnecessary 

 detail. Harris' work had been republished about the time that Fitch 

 began to write ; much of John Curtis' work in England was contem- 

 poraneous with his, and the greater part of the economic entomology 

 of that period and for some years later, as it appeared in newspaper 

 and magazine articles, in essays like that of Professor Hind on " The 

 Insects and Diseases Injurious to Wheat Crops," were compiled 

 from the writings of these three men. Of the three, I believe that 

 Fitch was the best field man. He was more of an agriculturist than 

 either of the others, and his work was a little closer and a little more 

 definitely described. 



Much has been written about Harris and his charming personality. 

 Comparatively little has been written about Fitch. Harris had the 

 advantage of priority. He had the advantage possibly of a better 

 literary style. He also had the advantage that his work was brought 

 together in a compact whole and published with beautiful illustra- 

 tions. Riley, coming before the public at a time when Fitch was 

 finishing his work, had that advantage, and, filled with later ideas 

 and a positive genius for illustration work, received infinitely more 

 contemporary fame than did Fitch. And yet, as Fitch's work is stud- 

 ied it is evident that he was quite as sound an entomologist as either 

 his perhaps more famous predecessor or his undoubtedly more famous 

 successor, and there can be no doubt that many of his studies were 



