11 



gallons of water, while another will make it 1 pound to 160 or even 100 

 gallons for the destruction of the same insect. One recommends two 

 sprayings for the codling moth, another three, and another says spray 

 often enough to keep the fruit covered with a layer of the poison, so 

 as to be sure of killing the second brood. Some advise hellebore for 

 the pear slug, while others prefer one of the arsenites; and still 

 another would use quicklime or simply road dust. Surely there is 

 need of more method and uniformity in our work and in our recom- 

 mendations for the control of particular insects. By free discussions 

 at these meetings much can be accomplished to this end. 



This consideration of "best methods of work" as well as the object 

 expressed in the next clause, namely, "to give opportunity to indi- 

 vidual workers of announcing proposed investigations, so as to bring 

 out suggestions and prevent unnecessar}" duplication of work," ])rings 

 upon us the importance of systematic cooperation in our investiga- 

 tions. Coopei'ation has been urged upon us at many of the meetings 

 of this organization, but I do not see that much progress has been 

 made in that direction. I am strongly impressed with the feeling that 

 we ai"e falling short of our possibilities by neglecting to cooperate 

 more in our work. It may be best to hold to some very restricted 

 line at first, and then experience will indicate other and l)roader 

 luethods. 



Probably one of the chief difficulties of cooperative work is that 

 each wishes to plan his own experiments and publish the results; then 

 he does not have to share honors with another. Such a feeling is not 

 altogether to be condemned. Neither is it necessary to so plan our 

 cooperation as to make it essential to remove credit from him to 

 whom it belongs. Let us suppose two entomologists are planning 

 independently to test the effect of insecticides upon foliage. Each 

 carries through his experiments and publishes the results of his 

 labors. They are still independent experiments, the results of one not 

 supporting or contradicting to any great extent the results of the other. 

 Had each known what was being planned by the other, they could have 

 arranged to carry out their experiments so that they would l)e largely 

 duplications of each other, and when the results were puldished we 

 should have double evidence upon the points under consideration 

 where results agreed; and where they disagreed, we might be able to 

 find in the different conditions the reason for it. Such a cooperation 

 would bring results of far greater value than those obtained by inde- 

 pendent experimentation, and neither party would lose any glory; in 

 fact, each would receive more credit because of the l)etter conclusions 

 that could be drawn from the work. And then hoAv carefully every 

 conclusion would be reached and backed by positive proof for fear 

 that the other party might get different results! Such duplication as 

 this is of the utmost importance to establish scientific truth, and 



