62 
men becoming each year more numerous and influential in our circle 
who, coming to their work with a finished scientific and technical 
training impossible to any here but a few years ago, might represent 
more fitly and fully than any other the future of our science, whose 
development they are hereafter to have in charge. 
But fortunately we have this year both Moses and the prophets with 
us, and whatever shortcomings you may find in your temporary repre- 
sentative, who is neither one nor the other, but at most a little of both, 
you will be able easily to make good as this meeting goes on. 
The literature of economic entomology in this country is so rapidly 
increasing that a full annual synopsis of it, readable within the limits 
of such an address of mine, is no longer possible, if, indeed, it was ever 
desirable. Taking into account the fact that American economic ento- 
mologists are working each by and for himself, altogether without 
general supervision, and commonly without mutual consultation or co- 
operative plan, and the consequent fact that our investigations are as 
a whole extremely heterogeneous, determined in each case largely by 
personal bias and local circumstances instead of by common objects 
and a general view, it has seemed to me that I might do you some 
service by scanning the field of our operations, and so classifying the 
results of our work as to give you a clear, if incomplete, idea of the 
drift and balance of our progress for the year. 
I have consequently gone, with some care, over one hundred and 
fifteen economic articles, long and short, published by us since our last 
meeting, omitting all which contain no new matter and making my 
selection according to geographic distribution and practical impor- 
tance. These articles I have grouped by subjects and by nature of out- 
come; and I beg to present here in very general terms the results of my 
examination, in the hope that I may help you not only to see—according 
to the slang phrase of the day—just ‘‘where we are at,” but also to 
throw some indirect light upon the more important question, whither 
we ought to go next. It seems to me that if we are to move hereafter 
as we have done in the past, as a body of irregulars rather than an 
organized soldiery, an annual survey of our field, such as will help us 
to keep somewhat in line, or at least within supporting distance of 
each other, should save us much confusion of effort and some loss of 
time and opportunity. 
In the first place, I have to observe that we seem from our publica- 
tions fairly well satisfied as a body with our present methods of inves- 
tigation and report; or, if not satisfied, then at any rate not in a con- 
dition now toimprove upon them. I have not come anywhere upon any 
new method of research adopted or proposed in field or laboratory, 
nor seen in any of our publications any notable departure from the 
stereotyped form of printed article which has become habitual with us. 
Perhaps this is beecause—absorbed as we are in subjects—these matters 
of form and method receive less attention from us than they really 
