APRIL 12, 1912] 
of snobbishness. He will be completely 
educated before graduation instead of only 
in part, the remainder to come afterwards. 
His mind will be clear and active like the 
spring rushing out of the rock, clear as 
a erystal, unlike that of a mud puddle just 
after a summer’s thunder storm. 
Instead of taking such a man as an ex- 
periment, at $1,000 per year salary, with- 
out much of an idea of what I am really 
getting, I would be only too glad to recom- 
mend his appointment at $1,500. In the 
first instance, if sent perhaps a thousand 
miles or so away, he will expect to be told 
just what to do and how to do it. In the 
second case, he will keep both mail and 
wires busy piling up letters and telegrams 
telling me what he is doing and how he 
does it. The one must be bolstered up, the 
other can not be kept down. Your senior 
needs no teaching or instruction. He does 
require judicious, kindly but firm direction 
and you have almost made his future. 
Some things are, however, amusing, even 
in serious matters. Quite possibly in case 
of the $1,000 man, his college paper may 
contain something like this: ‘‘Mr. A. B. C., 
710, has just accepted a responsible posi- 
tion with the United States Department of 
Agriculture at Washington. University of 
xX. Y. Z. men are much in demand by this 
great nation, and this demand appears to 
exceed the supply.’’ When similar in- 
formation is allowed escape from the presi- 
dent’s office, even with an eye to increased 
appropriations, the effect is doubly de- 
moralizing. 
Now, as I have already explained, the 
amount of teaching and instruction re- 
quired will be vastly reduced, but the 
effectiveness will be correspondingly in- 
creased. You will say, however, that I am 
dealing with only one phase of the prob- 
lem, that of training the investigator, and 
SCIENCE 
565 
have lost sight of the systematist and 
teacher. 
Relative to the first, let me tell you that 
the systematist must in future become more 
and more of an investigator, and, moreover, 
of precisely the sort I am urging you to 
develop. Our present system of insect 
classification is all well enough if you put 
it away and keep it in Schmitt boxes. The 
moment you remove it and attempt to 
build a biological structure upon it, it 
breaks down. It is too frail and loosely 
put together. Let me illustrate. Some 
years ago we had a parasite of a very de- 
structive aphid down in our books as 
Lysiphlebus tritici. In carrying out our 
investigation it became necessary to find 
out whether this parasite had more than a 
single host insect, and whether it could 
develop in more than one species of aphid. 
To this end, recently emerged males and fe- 
males were allowed to pair, after which the 
female oviposited in several species of 
aphids. Both parents were then killed and 
preserved and all of their progeny not used 
in further experiments were also preserved, 
and thus entire broods or families were 
kept together. In this way females were 
reared out of one host species and allowed 
to oviposit in others until often after sev- 
eral hosts had been employed it would be 
bred back into the species whence it first 
originated. In all cases the host was 
reared from the moment of birth, while 
with the parasite both parents and _ off- 
spring were preserved and kept together. 
The result of this little fragment of work 
was to send two genera and fourteen spe- 
cies to the cemetery—you may call it Mt. 
Synonym Cemetery if you choose—while 
the insect involved is now Aphidius testa- 
ceipes. The systematist who studies only 
dried corpses will soon be out of date. 
Now as to the teacher: there has of late 
erown up among universities and colleges 
