October. '09] JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY 361 



Discussion and Correspondence 



The Journal has endeavored to maintain an independent attitude 

 and at the same time accord fair and courteous treatment to all. It 

 is impossible for the editor to personally verify all statements sub- 

 mitted in manuscript. He can only hope to exclude the more patent 

 errors. Authors, including those submitting reviews, must be held 

 responsible for their statements, provided the copy has been followed. 



The following communication, dated at Cambridge, England, July 

 21, 1909, and addressed to the editor, requires no explanation: 



"We notice in your issue of June, 1909 (Vol. II, p. 259), a review 

 of our book, 'Ticks, A Monograph of the Ixodoidea,' over the sig- 

 nature of N. Banks. We are the last to question the right of the re- 

 viewer to form and publish an unfavorable opinion of our work, and 

 must bear with what philosophy we can the low estimate in which he 

 holds it, but it is perhaps permissible to protest strongly against his 

 distorted and misleading statement of facts. When the reviewer 

 states that the work ' is not a monograph in any sense of the word, ' we 

 cannot but express our astonishment and would refer him to any Eng- 

 lish dictionary for a definition of the word monograph. Our copy of 

 Webster defines a monograph as 'a written account or description of 

 a single thing or class of things ; a special treatise on a particular 

 subject of limited range.' Perhaps Mr. Banks does not use a Web- 

 ster's dictionary. When Mr. Banks states that we have not studied 

 the collections belonging to Neumann nor those in Berlin and Paris he 

 is making a statement about facts of which he has no personal knowl- 

 edge, for we have received and studied specimens from all the three 

 sources named. We have examined five out of the six valid species of 

 Argas, and our descriptions are based upon our own examination of 

 these species. Similarly, we have personally studied eight out of the 

 eleven valid species of Ornithodoros. Consequently the reviewer's 

 statement that a 'number of species known to Doctor Neumann are un- 

 known to them . . . ' gives a false impression to anyone read- 

 ing the review. 



"In all cases we have given the fullest credit to other authors. The 

 gratitude we receive at the hands of Mr. Banks is comprised in his 

 statement that we give a 'brief technical description (in many cases 

 more or less compiled).' Naturally compilation has been necessary, 

 but to slur over the original matter in the book as does Mr. Banks is 

 unjust. In compiling we have sifted little wheat from much chaff, and. 

 wherever we have been able, we have added information acquired by 

 ourselves. This work has entailed much labor, which we are confident 



