April, '09] JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY 103 



the results of observation and investigation. The custom is, I be- 

 lieve, almost universal in all countries, which gives to the epiploying 

 institution, for purposes of publication, all of the results of the la- 

 bors of those in the employ of such institution. This seems entirely 

 just, and there can hardly be serious criticism, so long as the observer 

 is held responsible, given proper credit, and is not obliged to state 

 Vi^hat he does not believe to be true. There will probably always 

 be occasional disregard of the rights of the observer, but these are 

 not common and becoming less and less so every year. As the in- 

 jury is not to individuals but to science itself, there is a certain losing 

 of caste among those who do these things, which tends to prevent 

 their occurrence. The question as to just when results should be 

 published is a somewhat complicated one, and I sometimes wonder 

 if the opinion of the investigator, even though a good one, is al- 

 ways the better. If we were to gather together all of the best of 

 American investigators, I doubt if there would be one among them 

 who would not recall instances where he had published prematurely 

 and regretted it afterwards. To those who are in quest of notoriety, 

 it of course does not matter. In my own experience, after working 

 with a problem until there seemed no possibility of serious error, the 

 results were printed and almost before the printers' ink was dry 

 there would be sudden and unexpected developments that would 

 completely upset previous conclusions. Indeed, it is strange how 

 frequently such things will happen, even with what seems proper 

 caution and the best of intentions. The older I get the more it seems 

 to me that just here the investigator should be able to hold him- 

 self well in hand. Many a basis for a good piece of work has been 

 spoiled by rushing it half seasoned, as it were, into print. Just 

 here, too, is a point that younger men are prone to overlook. So long 

 as matter remains unpublished all revisions or corrections constitute 

 presumable added perfections; but once the matter is printed all of 

 these become criticisms and reflect on the accuracy and conservatism 

 of the author, even though he may himself make the revisions. Then 

 again, these revisions of published papers may not in every case 

 reach every one of those who have received the original and thus the 

 misinformation at first diffused may not all of it be overtaken and 

 rectified. While, then, admitting that there are cases where the mat- 

 ter of publication is in the hands of those who do not know what 

 really constitutes an investigation and are mentally unfitted for judg- 

 ing the value of results, yet it seems to me that these instances are ex- 

 ceptional and that the prevailing custom is with these exceptions as 

 good as we can at present devise. 



