1090 



rROfEEDTNGS OF THE THIRD ENTOMOLOGICAL MEETING 



Mr. Afzal Husain. 



Mr. Andrews. 



Mr. Afzal Husain. 



Mr. Andrews. 



Mr. Kunhi 

 Kannan. 



As has been already pointed out by tli.e Committee which considered 

 this scheme at Simla, this proposed Institute does not provide facilities 

 for the teaching of Entomology. I have been through a complete 

 course of trainmg in Zoology in this country, but we did extremely little 

 of Entomology. If we want a large staff, we nmst train the men. I do 

 not agree with Mr. Fletcher when he says that ordinary graduates of 

 tlie Indian Universities can teach Entomology in the Agricultural 

 Colleges. We must have really capable people to teach, men who can 

 stimulate their pupils. I might refer to my own teacher, Lieutenant-' 

 Colonel J. Stephenson. His influence and teaching have been responsible 

 for the development of Biology in the Punjab. Now we find his pupils 

 going to England for specialization in the subject in which he instnicted 

 them. All the Zoological posts in Northern India are held by his pupils. 

 This demonstrates how a teacher can influence his pupils. We want 

 men like him to be teachers in these Agricultural Colleges. In England, 

 which is not an agricultural country, the Universities are erecting 

 special chairs for Entomology. Entomology is a vast subject and 

 cannot be taught by giving a short course of lectures. At Cambridge 

 we have a course of lectures extending over two terms and that is only 

 for pure Entomology. There is another course of applied Entomology 

 extending over three terms. Professor Lefroy's course is a one-year 

 course ; he does morphology during the first term, systematic entomology 

 (luring the second term, and applied entomology in the third term. 

 If we want to help the growth of entomology in this country, we must 

 start with the teaching of entomology. It is not essential that an 

 Institute like the one suggested should only be for research work. Teach- 

 ing keeps the mind young. 



The comparison of the proposed Institute with Cambridge and 

 Oxford is not applicable. Cambridge and Oxford are primaiily educa- 

 tion bodies and keep up research as a secondary thing. The proposed 

 Institute may better be compared with Rothamsted and many American 

 institutions which are primarily for research. 



It is strange to hear that the Universities in England are merely 

 educative ; they are as much for research work as they are teaching 

 institutions, if not more so. 



I do not beheve in the .system of education in this country. Educa- 

 tional mstitutions should be private concerns and based on competitive 

 principles so that we get better education. 



This scheme, that aims at preventing unnecessary expenditure, 

 should have a teaching side. It should give the benefit of research 

 work to students and this can be done best in the Central Institute ; 

 of course, the research should be of an advanced nature. 



