32 ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. [Jan., 'o6 



Our criticism of the hasty publication of entomological facts has 

 brought us a letter from Mr. Sherman and a note in print from Miss 

 Soule. Both make the excuse that literature is difficult of access. It is 

 a maxim that ignorance of the law excuses no one. Ignorance of pre- 

 vious work should result, not in hasty publication, but in consultation of 

 someone better posted, or in discreet silence. The officers of the U. S. 

 National Museum will always reply to questioners seeking information 

 of this nature. We would reply to Miss Soule that we have no objection 

 to "popular" articles that are frankly such and give proper credit to 

 antecedent work. 



We have criticised authors for hasty and uncritical work ; but there is 

 another aspect of the case. What is the condition of editorial respon- 

 sibility in a journal that accepts these articles without question ? — Har- 

 rison G. Dyar. 



Guelph, Canada, Dec. 9, 1905. 

 Editor News : — 



I must confess to a feeling of relief upon seeing Dr. Dyar taken to task 

 in the last issue of the News by both Dr. Skinner and Miss Soule, for 

 it shows that I am not alone in my dislike for unnecessary and caustic 

 rebukes. The brief article which I recently contributed to the News on 

 the pupating habit of Harrisimemna trisignata was not specially in- 

 tended for use as a leading article, but even if it did so appear it does 

 not seem to me that it need bring out any severe rebuke. Two other 

 entomologists kindly wrote me immediately after the appearance of the 

 article giving me the information I needed, and which I asked for, while 

 Dr. Dyar published a brief and caustic rebuke a month later, so that it 

 was of no help to me whatever. I do not see the use of one being so 

 anxious to critizise every imaginary or real mistake. I wrote Dr. Dyar 

 a personal letter containing much the same sentiments expressed in Miss 

 Soule's note, and had no intention of taking this matter into print and 

 only do so now lest my reticence in the matter should be misunderstood. 

 If anyone will read my article in the News for October, I think he will 

 agree that Dr. Dyar's remarks in the issue for November are needlessly 

 harsh, if not altogether uncalled for. —Franklin Sherman, Jr. 



We can't refrain from noticing Dr. Dyar's criticism as it is so mani- 

 festly unjust. We were not previously aware that the law and entomol- 

 ogy were on a par, but, as Dr. Dyar says they are, that is the end of it. 

 If writers for the News wish to submit their articles to the officers of the 

 U. S. National Museum we offer no objection. That the polyphcmus 

 moth has stemmed and stemless cocoons has been known to the 

 Editor of the News for at least thirty years, and, moreover, he published 

 the fact six years before the citation given by Dr. Dyar. He is also aware 

 that the same thing was published in 1797, and by later writers, includ- 

 ing Dr. Riley, in the Missouri Reports. The writer wrote to Miss 

 Soule stating he had found many such cocoons, but as he was interested 

 in her studies of the matter and thought other News readers would 



