164 FIRST ANNUAL REPORT OP 



also, which sheep have of the fly, and the pains they take to prevent 

 its access to the nose, is of itself proof enough that it is obnoxious to 

 them. The rabbit is subject to the attack of a very large gad-fly (the 

 Cuterelra caniculi of Clark). I saw a half grown rabbit the 

 summer with an enormous swelling each side of its neck. On exami- 

 nation these swellings were found to be caused by the grubs of this 

 fly, and the rabbit was so weakened and emaciated that it could scarce- 

 ly move. No one could witness such a sight without being convinced 

 that the parasite was injurious. 



In the Prairie Farmer of October 14, 1SG5, the fact was published 

 that the Sheep Bot-fly deposits living maggots in the nostrils of the 

 sheep. It was published on the authority of Mr. Kelly, and both he 

 and myself then believed it to be the first published account of the 

 viviparous nature of this fly. But the following extract from a letter 

 from the late lamented Samuel P. Boardman, of Lincoln, Illinois, 

 shows that the same discovery has been made by three independent 

 observers in this country. Mr. Boardman wrote as follows : 



"All the authors, both European (at least all English) and Ameri- 

 can, from Youatt to Randall, will persist in saying that the fly de- 

 posits an egg, which hatches out, and crawls up the nostrils of the sheep, 

 etc., etc. Now three independent and perfectly original discoverers 

 have in our own country within twenty-five years past, disproved the 

 book account of the grub's transformations. 



"John Brown — 'Old Ossawattomie John Brown,' — published an 

 account in an Agricultural paper (I forget what one) abo;: 

 years since, of his seeing, 'with his own eyes,' the fly drop the per- 

 fectly formed an 1 living grab in the nostrils of sheep. Some seven 

 years since, 'Old Dan Kelly,' of Du Page county, Illinois, made the 

 same discovery and supposed that he was the only man who had ever 

 done he time he made known his discovery, at a meeting of 



the i V. G. Association held in Chicago, I thought 



he was the first man to ever notice the like. Two or three ; 

 afterwards I saw the account of John Brown's discovery, in the Ohio 

 J?armer,< >pied from an old paper dated about seventeen years pre- ■ 

 viously. When Kelly and I were at the meeting of the National W". 

 G. Association, I went with him to the Ohio Farmer office, i 

 found in the file, Old John Brown's account. Mr. Kelly took a copy 

 of the Farmer containing it, home with him. That makes two per- 

 fectly original and independenl <'i>eoveries of the fact alleged. Now 

 then, within a year past (I think) 1 have seen a letter from Mark 

 Oockrill, of Tennessee, (who, before the war, was one of the ol 

 largest and richest wool growers in the South, as well as one of the 

 richest men in the South), in which he speaks of having made the 

 same discovery years ago, and in which he speaks of it as if he thought 

 he was the only, and original discoverer. Here are three men widely 

 separated, who, we must acknowledge, are all capable and honest ob- 

 servers, and yet, Randall, (or at least his publisher) continues to put 



