m 
know now that the pest in rice is distinct, and from a practical 
point of view, that for Chilo we need not take into account the 
rice plant, nor for Schenobius the maize and sorghum plants. Any 
of you, who have done economic work, will realise the enormous 
practical importance of this, and it is for this reason that our work 
must rest on the basis provided by the systematist. This is not, of 
course, the sole reason, but it is the one that really counts, and 
it is for this that we give so much of our time to aiding systematic 
work. We have large reference collections and, so far as we can, 
we send these to workers elsewhere. A collection is a necessity 
for teaching, and if you are going to give a year's course of entom- 
ology, you must be well up in the Insects of the country. We 
have had to publish « Indian Insect Life » to meet the needs of 
our students and fellow-workers in India, and it gives a good idea 
of the difficulties we have that it should have been necessary for 
an economic department to do such work as that in order to lay 
the foundation for future economic work. 
What the lines of future development will be, it is for the 
moment impossible to say. The time is ripe for decentralisation, 
as to develop the results obtained at Pusa and to extend and 
adapt them to every province is altogether impossible with the 
staff at our disposal. The most natural course would seem to be 
that «executive» work, collection of data, and organised campaigns 
should devolve upon the provincial staffs, and that they should be 
strengthened up to the required standard of efficiency for such 
work to be adequately carried out We have tried to give here 
a rough sketch of past development, not the possibilities of the 
future. 
