CIRAUI.T—THE BEDBUG 
43 
i(jo6] 
known concerning its habits and life history. 
The great majority of the accounts are simply re-coinpilations and appear to 
have no other purpose than to cover so much space in as rapid a manner as pos- 
sible, as if the discussion of the bedbug was simply a matter of course, or of 
duty; to some it actually appeared to be distasteful, doubtless through false 
modesty. The addition of new facts was exceptional ; unfounded statements, 
however, the rule. .So that, taking the whole body of literature, we know 
more about the bedbug, theoretically than we do actually, a seeming paradox. 
The accounts by Southall ( 1730), De Bomare ( 1764). DeGeer ( 1773), Jiirdens 
( i8oi ) and Curtis (1835) were good authorities ev'en up to the last two decades, 
as late as i8go. Southall was probably the source of them all. 
A state of affairs of this kind in the history of any insect, especially an 
important insect, should not be. It is true, that the majority of the accounts 
jHiblished on the bedbug were meant for the information of the general public, 
and were written in a popular way, but that fact does not excuse the carelessness 
with which they were compiled, especially since the)' were written by scientific 
men. In the remainder of the accounts, which were published as contribu- 
tions to the knowledge of science, it would at least be expected to find some- 
thing that really contributed, that were new facts. 
In contrast to the great majority of writings on lectularius, however, the 
literature concerning its pathogenic relations is more careful in statement, aiul 
less obscure in meaning. This is to be expected from its nature, because experi- 
mental evidence is generally presented in the form of a clear statement of facts. 
But, notwithstanding this, nearly every pajter which has been consulted, lacked 
one essential thing, — the scientitic name of the insect in question. ITitil the 
species of insect with which experiments are being performed, is definitely 
known, uncertainty will always attend the results. This is especially true in the 
case of the bedbug and its near relatives, as just recently pointed out 
(Girault and .Strauss, 1905). Unless the Latin name of the insect was given 
in the articles on the pathogenic relations, the conclusions drawn from the 
experiments recorded were always accompanieil with doubt as to whether lectu- 
larius, columbarius Jenyns, or one of the other allietl species were meant. 
■Vny one of the allied species would probably have behaved toward the small 
mammals used as hosts, as recorded in the experiments. I lence, the confusion. 
.-Vs the writer has already given several practical illustrations of the ])oor 
character of some of the literature of this insect in part I of this paper 
