114 
the standpoint of the naturalist, it is hard to see wherein the artist 
bemeans himself or his art by working with sole reference to the final 
and permanent published results of his work. 
This brings me to the matter of giving credit for drawings used in 
writings on economic entomology, with which I shall close. A good 
draftsman ought always to receive credit for his work. If he is some- 
thing of an entomologist, as he should be in order to do some kinds of 
work, his initials may properly be placed by the side of his figures on 
the block. It is frequently the case, however, that drawings made by 
the entomological draftsman are more the work of the entomologist than 
of the one who used the pencil. Most of those who have had drawings 
of small insects or their parts made will probably agree that it is often 
harder work to get satisfactory results than it would be to make the 
drawings without help. In such case it appears fair to state, either in 
preface or elsewhere, that the drawings were made under the direction 
of the entomologist. Where the drawings are made by the entomolo- 
gist alone he is of: course entitled to place his initials by them, or indi- 
cate in any other way commending itself to his taste that they are 
from his pencil. When he copies the figure produced by a fellow ento- 
mologist the result should, in scientific writings at least, be credited as. 
‘‘after” the original figure. In station bulletins and elsewhere of late 
one sees well-known figures printed from electrotypes made directly 
from the original woodcuts, or else from electrotypes of these, credited 
in this manner. It would seem well to credit all such prints as “from” 
the author of the figure, not “after” him, using the latter term to 
indicate only such figures as have been redrawn. 
In the discussion following the reading of this paper Mr. Osborn 
stated that photography seemed to him to promise good results in the 
way of furnishing figures, but that as at present used first-rate photo- 
graphs were a necessity. The results obtained at present were, he 
believed, often bad largely because of careless printing or the use of 
poor paper. 
Mr. Weed thought fresh specimens should always be selected for 
drawing, and considered photography more useful for making illus- 
trations showing the work of insects than for figures of the insects 
themselves. 
Mr. Smith considered line drawings superior to all others for process 
figures, and showed some excellent prints in several kinds of paper 
which he believed demonstrated that all the detail necessary in an 
illustration could be obtained by photography. To reproduce well the 
contrasts of a photograph must be sharp. 
Mr. Hopkins stated that it seemed to him desirable to place a natural 
size figure of an insect by the side of the enlarged figure, as farmers 
