43 
There was a humorous side to this almost daily practice, which is 
also illustrative of the man. Occasionally it happened that he told 
the story a second time to the same individual, who was dropped po- 
litely, but instanter, when he had learned of his mistake; and an inei- 
dent like the following was not of infrequent occurrence : 
Enter visitor, who grasps his hand warmly and familiarly, showing 
the greatest interest in his entomological work, and perhaps introducing 
a friend who is with him. The professor makes a great show of delight 
at again meeting him, quietly gets him into the museum, and excusing 
himself a moment, rushes into the room of his assistant with a half 
whispered: ‘Charlie, who the d—1 is that?” 
As every man is said to have some particular weakness or idiosyn- 
crasy, Mr. Glover’s seemed to be an absorbing pride in his work on en- 
. tomology and in his museum, which amounted to almost childish vanity. 
A man who cared little for compliment in a general sense, his work was 
his life, and he expected every one with whom he came in contact to 
appreciate it almost. to the point of his own enthusiasm, which was 
boundless. On the other hand, disparagement hurt him like the barb 
of an arrow. Sensitive as a woman, he could not bear adverse criticism, 
published or written. It seemed to him almost a personal thrust, and 
where one showed the least approach to being hypercritical, it filled 
him with most unkind feelings toward theauthor. Nevertheless, friendly 
criticism given in the shape of kind advice or suggestion, if delicately 
put, was always thankfully received, and particularly from those whose 
opinion or judgment he respected. I can not but recall a certain cor- 
respondence with Dr. Walsh, relating to some accidentally damaged in- 
sects, which, if produced here, would prove spicy reading. There were 
others, too, with whom Mr. Glover seemed always at swords-points 
whenever he came in contact with them, and towards whom he was 
wont to express himself in the most emphatic language, for he was a 
royal hater. 
As an illustration of how Mr. Gtover’s feelings could be outraged by 
unjust censure and fault-finding criticism, reference may be made to a 
little publication issued in 1872, purporting to be a history of the De- 
partment of Agriculture, from the pen of its chief clerk, which aroused 
his indignation and stirred him to the very depths. The work of the 
division was commented upon in an exceedingly unkind way, a garbled 
quotation from one of the professor’s reports given, making him say in 
Substance that the new facts and therecords of observations emanating 
from the division were quoted ‘‘ extensively” from the published mate- 
rial of other entomologists, who were named. The remarks which fol- 
lowed were filled with left-handed compliments, written in a satirical 
vein, and closing with this extract: 
It is not required of the entomologist that he should visit the fields and orchards, and 
there study the habits of obnoxious insects of which but little is known. A contrary 
impression has been entertained; but it is proper that the exact truth should be 
stated. It would seem, however, that the entomologist of the Department should fre- 
