Mabch 2, 1906.] 



SCIENCE. 



349 



that Dr. Cook would confine himself to its 

 economic aspect, a subject on which I had 

 nothing further to say. But he has seen fit 

 to make his observations on the kelep the 

 basis for certain general statements which, if 

 true, would go far towards revolutionizing our 

 knowledge of the social insects. Under the 

 circumstances I craved the privilege of the 

 ' positively last appearance ' accorded to some 

 of the members of other professions than my 

 own. Nor have I had occasion to regret this, 

 for may there not be a distinct gain to science 

 in Dr. Cook's admission of some of his errors 

 and his promise to be more careful in the 

 future? In his latest article there are still 

 a few matters which do not seem to me to be 

 fairly stated, and if I again ask for a little 

 space in Science, it is not for the purpose of 

 continuing my ' scolding ' and, - perhaps, too 

 drastic criticism, but merely for the sake of 

 setting my previous remarks in a proper light. 

 Dr. Cook says : 



If one were to generalize on this series of 

 entomological episodes the deduction would be 

 that adequate ignorance of literature is a neces- 

 sary qualification for learning the habits of a 

 new insect like the kelep, for at each important 

 step the investigation has been met by Professor 

 Wheeler's non possumiis. Last year he was quite 

 as unable to believe that the keleps would kill 

 boll-weevils as he is to credit now their failure 

 to regurgitate nectar. After surviving so many 

 of these literary dangers it is only natural that 

 one become a little reckless, and venture even to 

 hope that in the course of another year the addi- 

 tional facts, at present so objectionable, will re- 

 ceive due credence, having now become a part of 

 ' literature of the subject.' 



There can be little doubt that scientific in- 

 vestigation is often impeded rather than fur- 

 thered by too much attention to the ' literature 

 of the subject.' Many a piece of zoological 

 research may be perverted from the outset by 

 an incessant appeal to what has been written, 

 for reliance on a knowledge of the literature, 

 especially in entomology, may not only clog 

 the free movements of the investigator, but 

 may lead him to waste much valuable time in 

 the blind bypaths of his science. Investiga- 

 tion and publication are, however, two very 

 different matters. One may investigate a 



thousand things, experience all the thrills of 

 first discovery in every one of them and still 

 never care to inflict one's results on one's fel- 

 low beings. But whenever one does decide to 

 publish, it is necessary to reckon with the 

 great ' paper memory of mankind,' the con- 

 served experience of other workers who have 

 loved and investigated the same things. It 

 then becomes a duty to study the ' literature 

 of the subject,' if only for the purpose of 

 bringing the new work into intelligible, or- 

 ganic relation with the old. Failure to do 

 this may be justly interpreted as carelessness, 

 sloth, ignorance or conceit. 



After making his observations with com- 

 mendable enthusiasm and in great freedom of 

 spirit. Dr. Cook failed in his full duty to 

 other investigators — hinc illae lacryrnce. That 

 even now he does not seem to be fully aware 

 of his omissions is obvious from the following 

 considerations : 



1. His grounds for concluding that no 

 nuptial flight occurs in the kelep have little 

 value, because it is known that some species 

 of ants, like certain species of Camponotus 

 and Prenolepis, which celebrate this flight at 

 regular intervals, nevertheless retain males 

 and winged females in their nests during the 

 whole or several months of the year. More- 

 over, copulation within the nest has been ob- 

 served in species like our common tent-build- 

 ing ant (Cremastogaster lineolata), which has 

 a typical nuptial flight. Miss Fielde has even 

 photographed a number of mating males and 

 females of this species in one of her glass 

 formicaries. Hence there is nothing in Mr. 

 McLachlan's observations on artificial nests 

 of the kelep to demonstrate the absence of a 

 nuptial flight. Like all similar negatives, this 

 would, in fact, be extremely difficult to prove. 



2. Dr. Cook's remarks on Leptogenys are in- 

 comprehensible to me. The queens of L. 

 elongata are, indeed, little more than egg- 

 laying workers, as he would have noticed had 

 he read my account of these insects. No one 

 has ever been able to find a winged queen of 

 any of the numerous species of this tropicopol- 

 itan genus or of its subgenus Lobopelta, al- 

 though egg-laying workers, similar to those 

 which I found functioning as queens in L. 



