TICK RESISTANCE IN CATTLE: A REPLY TO 
CRITICISM, 
By Prof. T. Harvey Jonnston, M.A., D.Sc., and M. J, 
Bancroft, B.8Sc., Walter and Eliza Hall Fellow in 
Economic Biology, University, Brisbane. 
Last year we published a paper on tick resistance in 
cattle (J. and B. 1918), that portion of itrelating to the 
claims of Mr. Munro Hull, of Eumundi, and Mr. Pound’s 
comments regarding them having been abstracted by us 
and issued as a report in the Queensland Agricultural 
Journal of January last (J. and B. 1919). The latter was 
adversely commented on by Mr. Pound (1919), to whose 
criticisms we now propose to reply.* 
We would like to point out, as we did last year, that 
we were not concerned with Mr. Hull’s letters and reports 
written many years ago, but took as the basis of our inquiry 
the official statement of his claims and Mr. Pound’s find- 
ings regarding them, as set out in Parliamentary Papers, 
1914, vol. 2, p. 941, and in the Report of the Select Com- 
mittee issued 17th December, 1915. 
In our report (1919, p. 33) we stated that when the 
animals were under conditions of natural infestation our 
observations led us to agree with certain of Mr. Hull’s 
contentions which were numbered 1, 2, and 3 in that report 
(ps SE): 
*The greater part of the present reply was given before the Royal 
Society of Queensland in April last year, when the paper (J. and B., 1918) 
was under discussion. In order to reply to certain objections then raised 
by Mr. Pound, we deferred publishing this paper until we were able to 
anewer them. 
