JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY 



OFFICIAL ORGAN AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGISTS 



APRIL, 1909 



The editors will thankfully receive news items and other matter likely to be of in- 

 terest to subscribers. Papers will be published, so far as possible, in the order of re- 

 ception. All extended contributions, at least, should be in the hands of the editor the 

 first of the month preceding publication. Reprints of contributions may be obtained 

 at cost. Minor line figures will be reproduced without charge, but the engraving of larger 

 Illustrations must be borne by contributors or the electrotypes supplied. The receipt 

 of all papers will be acknowledged.— Eds. 



It is with a sense of deep personal loss and with the most sincere 

 regret that we chronicle in this issue the decease of another leading- 

 economic entomologist. The Grim Reaper has in the past year laid 

 a heavy tax upon our associates. Our loss in practical entomologists 

 during this period has been equal to if not greater than that for the 

 preceding decade. This process is bound to continue and can be par- 

 tially stayed only by the recognition of our physical limitations. May 

 we all be equally fortunate as our recent associate in winning a high 

 place in the ranks of the profession. 



There are dangers, grave dangers, in exactitude. This is par- 

 ticularly true where precise statements are made in a very emphatic 

 manner. Some years ago a well known entomologist wrote : ' ' Never 

 use the gas stronger than 0.25 gramme cyanide per cubic foot on any 

 kind of nursery stock." A recent bulletin changes this recommenda- 

 tion with no note or indication of emendation to .0088 oz. of potas- 

 sium cyanide per cubic foot. This precise and somewhat remark- 

 able recommendation appears in a bulletin ostensibly designed for 

 practical farmers. There is no doubt that many agriculturists 

 could figure out the proportion. There has been in the last few years 

 an effort made to simplify our formulifi and to adapt them, wherever 

 possible, to the requirements of practical men. The original recom- 

 mendation of 0.25 gramme per cubic foot is not particularly appall- 

 ing, though in a country where the avoirdupois system is in general 

 use it occasions more or less trouble. The originator of this recom- 

 mendation, we feel, would be disturbed if not startled, to find himself 

 practically quoted as advising .0088 of an ounce. This instance ap- 

 pears to be a case where a man has singularly failed in adapting an 

 otherwise sensible recommendation. It would have been plainer to 

 have written 1 oz. to about 114 cubic feet of space, if it was consid- 



