832 PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRD ENTOMOLOGICAL MEETING 



seeing some of the important Sericultural Centres and also meeting 

 with some of those gentlemen who are at present engaged at the seed 

 selection work m India. 



C4entlemen, I would endeavour to bring to your notice some of the 

 controversial points mentioned in the learned paper. 



I do not like to give the figures I have got in the experimental work 

 at which I am engaged. I do not Uke to give my own figures in con- 

 tradiction to what has been said about the different points connected 

 with the methods of examination. From the facts and figures quoted 

 in the paper itself I shall try to explain their value. 



Mr. De says that he examined moths in the Bengal method, i.e., 

 crushing the moths in paper and also m the Pasteur method and found 

 more pebrinized moths in the latter method than in the former. He 

 says that in Mukerjee's method (Bengal method) all the parts do not 

 get crushed well and pebrine corpuscles are not found if they remain in 

 uncrushed parts. 



About 10 per cent, of the moths attacked mildly go undetected. 

 If the major portion of the juice is taken from the colon only, as it appears 

 to be done in Bengal, the chance is that rather more than 20 per cent, 

 of the moths attacked with pebrme will go undetected. 



Now, gentlemen, to my knowledge Mr. De's method, at least prior 

 to the pubUcation of Mr. Hutchinson's Bulletin, was exactly the same 

 as Mukerjee's, as is evident from Mr. De's Bulletin No. 39. 



In facir, Mr. Hutchinson's method is responsible for removing the 

 defective method so far practised everywhere in India. 



Regarding the figures quoted by Mr. De about the comparative 

 numbers of diseased moths found in the Pasteur and Hutchinson method, 

 practically no difference has been shown. In one or two cases he shows 

 one or two more pebrmized cases in Pasteur's method while in other 

 cases he shows one or two more pebrinized cases in Hutchinson's method. 

 One important point to note in this connection is the highly diseased 

 condition of his experimental lots, because he shows as many as 43 

 diseased cases out of 50. So it is clear that his experimental broods 

 were from a very highly diseased lot and it may be remembered that in 

 such highly diseased lots any method would show pebrine easily. The 

 superiority of Mr. Hutchinson's method is of very great value inasmuch 

 as it can help detection of pebrine in even mild and earlier stages of 

 the development of the disease such as are usually met with in India in 

 the hot season when the life-cycle of the silkworm is "rapidly passed 

 i^-ithout giving time enough for thorough propagation of the parasite. 

 Mr. De"a experiments have been done ui the winter season of this year. 



