32 JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY [Vol. 7 



Report from Iowa 



One hundred and ninety-eight circular letters were sent out December 4, 1913, to 

 names selected at random from the Station mailing list; 100 from the horticultural 

 list, 98 from the general list. An attempt was made to select older names from the 

 list, but some people had not received any entomological bulletins. Although a 

 stamped envelope was enclosed, only 46 replies have been received to date, December 

 27, 1913. 



While it is not wise to place great dependence on so few replies, these are given in 

 substance for what they may be worth. 



The questions asked followed closely those used by Prof. H. A. Gossard in Ohio, 

 and were of three kinds: (1) those regarding the bulletins sent out, (2) suggestions 

 for improvement, and (3) regarding essential features and arrangement. A resume 

 of the replies follows. 



(1) The data are best presented in tabular form. 



Number of replies 46 



Bulletins retained by 31 



Bulletins not retained 6 



Bulletins not received 9 



Of the 31 answers where bulletins were retained, 16 replied definitely as to the 

 amount of attention given individual bulletins. In these, data are given on 40 bul- 

 letins received. Eighteen of these were read throughout, 33 read in part, by summary, 

 etc., seven were not read. 



In general it appeared that approximately five sixths of the bulletins sent out were 

 retained. Of these about four fifths were read by summary, etc., although some 

 people went further than this, and about one half of the bulletins were read 

 throughout. 



(2) Here the question was: What would most help to make our bulletins more 

 readable? 



There were many suggestions; a few thought the present form was quite sufficient. 

 The features most often suggested were brevity and simple language. Others wanted 

 timely bulletins, reaching them when the insect was causing damage. Other sug- 

 gestions were: sure remedies, small bulletins, uniform size and plenty of illustrations. 

 One man thought bulletins ought to be sensational. 



(3) Here the hypothetical question put was: Suppose that an insect is bothering 

 the roots of your clover, what are the things you want to know about that insect? 

 Where in a bulletin do you think that information ought to be put? 



As expected, the remedy was most desired, according to 18 replies. Only nine 

 asked for a life history. As one expressed it, he wanted to know "where the insect 

 came from, how long it stayed, and where it-went to, as well as how to get rid of it. " 



Some replies, evidently written witli more care, indicated that the writer recog- 

 nized the necessity for making sure of the insect concerned, for six wanted a descrip- 

 tion of it. One asked for a "careful description of the insect at the stage in which 

 it is harmful, a brief life history, and the remedy. " 



Only one person wished to know the effect on the plant; one, the favorable and 

 unfavorable conditions affecting the insect. 



Now regarding the proper place for the sought -for information. The front part 

 of the bulletin seemed to be the favorite position, but almost as many said it made 

 little ditTerence. One thought the essential information should be placed in the con- 

 cluding portion at the end. The demand for a summary was general, but with no 

 decided prefeience for its position, except for a conspicuous one. 



