Tebruary, '11] headlee: entomological investigations 39 



logical work in the past rather than too much. We never knew how 

 to handle the codling moth for instance, until we had the results of 

 man}' workers, and we have not yet reached full conclusions as to 

 the exact methods to be pursued in all sections of the country. I do 

 not think that it would be a waste of energy in the field of economic 

 entomology, but a positive advantage to it, if every entomologist in 

 the United States would devote more or less attention to this problem 

 for the next two or three years and put his results in print. ... 1 

 am satisfied that the public appreciates far more the thorough and 

 practical solution of one big problem to which many workers have 

 given their best efforts than it does thfe partial or incomplete solution 

 of a hundred problems, more or less important, to each of which a 

 single worker has given some time and then dropped the subject. 

 There are at least ten or twelve great entomological problems which 

 confront the American people, every one of which deserves the same 

 thorough-going attention from every entomologist in the country 

 which has been given to the codling moth work. It is doubtless a 

 good movement to learn of the entomologists who are pursuing the 

 same lines of work, but in my opinion, this should be for the purpose 

 of discussion of methods and for mutual helpfulness and not with the 

 idea that they are likely to solve the question a little too well." Mr. 

 H. A. Surface says, "I beheve that more good will finally come from 

 parallel studies by different persons than from leaving all investiga- 

 tion of one topic to one alone. The personal equation is in itself suffi- 

 cient to justify different workers in the same line." 



Evidently, then, there is, in the opinion of many entomologists, a 

 type of duphcation that is necessary and highly desirable. It appears 

 that the extreme importance of reliable knowledge of measures for 

 controlhng seriously injurious insects, coupled with the fact that both 

 the life economy of the creature and the efficiency of the methods for 

 its control will be found to vary with local conditions, renders the 

 duplication of work incidental to study of the same subject by ento- 

 mologists whose territories are seriously affected, not only permissible 

 but necessary. At the same time there is no reasonable doubt that 

 some of the duplication incidental to such procedure, and much of 

 that incidental to simultaneous work on insects of little or no economic 

 importance is a waste of time and effort, which, with full knowledge 

 of what is going on elsewhere, could largely be eliminated. 



The ultimate object of all this effort is the most complete human 

 control of insect life that is possible, and the worth of a piece of work 

 should be measured by the extent to which it furthers this end. In 

 the light of this principle are we not devoting too much time to imme- 

 diate life history and control, and too little to general principles and 



