February, '11] PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS: DISCUSSION 93 



together, and it appears to me that except for the systematic part of 

 it, economic entomology is very much in that condition. We recog- 

 nize this in a way, and yet there is no classification, and a young 

 worker cannot tell just who among the entomologists are interested 

 in those things in which he is especially interested. Now, if we 

 knew those entomologists who had taken chemistry, those who had 

 taken pathology, and those who had tak>^n horticulture or mechanics, 

 and we had a method of classification, — it would have to be rough 

 in the first place, — but it would enable any student to consult with 

 the few who were interested in those themes in which he was inter- 

 ested, and would create a sort of division of economic entomology, 

 in which there would be chemical economic entomology, the mechani- 

 •cal economic entomology, the horticultural, the pathological, etc., 

 and it seems to me we could cooperate in that waj' better than we 

 could by having a committee, and know, at least, just exactly what 

 we were doing. I should feel considerable treiDidation if I should 

 undertake to tell some of the veterans what they ought to be doing, 

 and I am quite certain that no committee would feel like fixing the 

 lines as to what any man should be or should not be doing. It would 

 be useful to have some such statement as Professor Headlee proposes 

 each year, to see who is working on each problem. 



Mr. Washburn: We have no time for a debate, but at the same 

 time I do not want to be misunderstood. I believe thoroughly in 

 cooperation. I believe in knowing what each one is doing, it would 

 forward the cause, but at the same time human nature is very much 

 the same, and I think if some one, who perhaps is a little more original 

 than others, should pursue certain methods in investigating the cod- 

 ling moth, for instance, we might, at least some of us, follow the same 

 methods, because it is so easy to follow, and yet those methods might 

 not be so good for our state as something we had thought of ourselves. 

 At the same time, that does not oppose cooperation. 



Mr. R. L. Webster: It seems to me the general idea of coopera- 

 tion is a very good one to most of us. As it is, we have, in a way, 

 divided the work, giving one man a problem in one state, and another 

 man another. We really do not know much about an insect until we 

 have seen it two or three years, and studied its life history, and our 

 work must be largely independent. I believe as Professor Gossard 

 says, we could get a great deal out of cooperation, but we must get 

 in and dig. Regarding originality, I think it always shows itself in 

 publications; there is always the stamp of it in entomological bulle- 

 tins or articles. By looking them over you can see whether the author 

 has reall}^ got in and worked out the facts, or if he has simply bor- 



