February, '19] BALL: ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY 31 



hopper, to perpetuate that error, and yet it has only been within a few 

 years that it was pubHcly corrected. In that same pubUcation, other 

 errors of observation were recorded, and are still being perpetuated 

 and republished without credit, to this day. When a question of their 

 correctness is raised, they refer you back to Riley. Riley did a wonder- 

 ful work, which we all recognize and revere. He also made many 

 errors, which he, himself, would have corrected, if he had had an 

 opportunity to repeat the work. Loyalty to his great name, to truth 

 and to the science of entomology, which we are all striving to establish, 

 all demand that these errors be eliminated. Let Riley be credited 

 with what he did, his errors corrected, and let later workers be credited 

 with their contributions. 



This society should have a permanent committee on publications, 

 who should formulate rules and regulations, the same as we have rules 

 for systematic work, to which economic publications should conform. 

 These rules should provide for three classes of economic publications: 



First: Popular matter, claiming no originality and therefore no 

 credit. In such publications it should not be necessary to give credit, 

 although in many cases, reference to the source will strengthen the 

 appeal. 



Second: Publications purporting to contain original matter. In 

 such publications it should be required that the status of knowledge be 

 set forth in a preliminary review, in which due credit is given to each 

 contributor, and this followed by the contribution of the writer, or 

 else, that the whole subject be discussed with due credit to previous 

 work, and that there be a summary in which the original contribution 

 of the writer is specifically claimed and set forth. 



Third: Summaries and reviews, in which every worker be specific- 

 ally credited with his contribution. 



A strong and carefully thought-out set of regulations, along these 

 lines, to be enforced by the society, and administered by a strong and 

 responsible committee, would have a powerful influence in strengthen- 

 ing, condensing, and unifying our economic literature. If all economic 

 publications would adopt them, and the attention of experiment sta- 

 tions and other sources of publication be called to their provisions, it 

 would be of inestimable value in clarifying our knowledge. 



The tremendous accumulation of economic literature, much of it 

 admittedly popular, but in most of which no differentiation is made 

 between contribution and compilation is one of the serious and growing 

 handicaps to progress. This society should spend much less time in 

 listening to detailed reports of minor experiments and more time in 

 discussing ways and means of solving the problems of the future. 

 Catalogues, bibliographies, indices and summaries, are imperative, if 



