THE AMERICAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



175 



Here we might stop. The thing is so plain 

 that even a child can understand it. It is no 

 new theory of ours. It is simply tlie result of 

 tlie experience of all the intelligent fanners of 

 the AVest for a long series of years. It may be 

 expressed in these words: In a hot, dry season 

 Chinch Buys are alwai/s the worst; in a wet sea- 

 son it is impossible for them to do any consid- 

 erable amount of damage. But Dr. Henry Shi- 

 mer is not satisfied with a theory so simple and 

 clear, that it scarcely deserves the name of 

 theory. He has gotten up and expounded to 

 the world a new and recondite theory of his 

 own, namely, that in the terribly wet season ot 

 1865, when the Chinch Bug, although in early 

 spring it had appeared in very great numbers, 

 was almost annihilated in the course of the 

 snmmer, it perished, not as others had foolishly 

 sujjposed, from the direct operation of the rain, 

 but indirectly through a certain mysterious epi- 

 demic disease, analogous to the Cholera or the 

 Yellow Fever among human Ijeiiigs. Ho fully 

 allows that the mortality among the Cliinch 

 Bugs was contemporaneous witli the wet 

 weather; but he will have it that it was not the 

 wet weather that killed the Bug, as we common 

 folks have always hitherto believed, but that it 

 was his newly-discovered Epidemic Disease. 

 He gives no name to this disease; but we tliink 

 that those who may still believe in its existence 

 should, for convenience" sake and for the sake of 

 additional scientific display, call it for the future 

 " Febris Shimekana." 



In science, when a new tlicory is broached, 

 we always ask, ''Where are the proofs of it?" 

 Here follows all the proof, that we have been 

 able to find of this hypothesis of Dr. Shimcr's, 

 after repeatedly perusing his own Paper on the 

 subject.* As in common fairness bound, we 

 quote his own language at full length. The 

 italics are ours, not his. 



Proof 1st (p. 101). — " Tliorr can be no iloiibt al)oiit 

 this being an ojiidemic disease, hiximse the iuMiis lUed 

 withnvt attainiiiif their matiiiHij. ' ' 



PuoOF 2nd (p. 101).— ••This disease iimong the 

 Chineli Bults was assoi^iated vritli tin Iniuj-rontiiiH,;! u;t. 

 clouil?/. rofi ir.ath.r tliat prcvailfd during' a ,i,'ivatrr pfir- 

 tion i>r the- iicriod (,r llifii- development, an<l dnubllcss 

 was in a measure produeed % il^fi'-lenf li^jlif, hrat uml 

 (leclricUxj, c'onibiiied with excessi\e liun'iidity ol the 

 utmospliere , whereby an imperl'eet physieal ('bug') 

 organization was developed. Tlu^ disease was at its 

 maximum rfw/v'n<;^7j« moist warm HY«//«rtbat followed the 

 eold rains of June and the first part of .Inly The young 

 Chineh Uug spent a great portion of its time on or near 

 the ground, wkere its hody was colder than the atmosphere; 

 hence J upon philosophical principles, there vmst have heeti 

 an excessive precipitation of waUry vapor in the hronchial 

 ttthes, Tliese are the facts in tlie cage.^^ 



We are no physicians ourselves ; but iu all 

 humilitv we should like to ask the following 



•First printed in Proc. Acad. Nat. Sc. Phil., Mav 181)7; 

 reprinted iu Trans. N. III. Horl. Society, 18(i7-8, pp. 97-101. 



most unprofessional questions of Dr. Shimer, 

 before we can consent to believe that the above 

 two quotations demonstrate the existence of 

 Febris Shiniernna. 



As TO Ills Puoor IST.— Half the children that 

 are born die before they arc one year old. Does 

 it follow therefore that they all die of •' epidemic 

 disease?" And if not, why not? Surely this 

 would be just as legitimate an inference as Dr. 

 Shimer's. Again, we have ourselves repeatedly 

 had whole broods of larva?, tliat we were endeav- 

 oring to rear to the perfect winged form, per- 

 ish •' without attaining maturity." Hitherto 

 we had always supposed that they died because 

 we had kept them too dry or too moist, given 

 them the wrong food, etc., etc. Did they in 

 reality die of Febris Shimerana? Certainly 

 sucli an inference would be just as legitimate as 

 tlie inference quoted above, namely, that the 

 Cliinch Bugs in 18(55 mu.st have died of epidemic 

 disease, simply because they "died without 

 attaining their maturity." 



As TO HIS Proof 2nd.— If Febris Shimerana 

 is produced by '■an excessive precipitation of 

 watery vapor iu the bronchial tubes" of the 

 Chinch Bug, in consequence of " its body being 

 colder than the atmosphere;" how does it come 

 about that, according to Dr. Shimer himself, 

 this dreadful epidemic disease commenced witli 

 the " cool weatlier" and was only at its " maxi- 

 mum during tlie moist warm weather?" Or is 

 the body of the Chinch Bug naturally so cold, 

 wiieii it is " on or near the ground," that even 

 Iu "cool weather" it is so much colder than the 

 atmosphere, as to cause the " precipitation of 

 watery vapor iu its bronchial tubes?" If so. 

 we should like to know what prevents this "pre- 

 cipitation of watery vapor " every year, and 

 why tlie dreadful eiiidcmic only prevailed in 

 18().j? The whole thing from beginning to end 

 is pure assumption. Neither Dr. Shimer nor 

 any other mortal man ever inserted the bulb of 

 a thermometer into the "bronchial tubes " of a 

 Cliinch Bug, so as to ascertain what the temper- 

 ature there was. Besides, the theory contra- 

 dicts itself. First, we are told that Febris 

 Shimerana is " doubtless iu a measure produced 

 by deficient heat " in the atmosphere, and then 

 immediately aijferwards it is accounted for on 

 the hypothesis of the '' body of the Chinch Bug 

 being colder than the atmosphere," which im- 

 plies a superabundance of heat in the atmosphere. 

 And such gratuitous assumptions as these arc 

 called " facts," and such untenable principles are 

 put forth with a great parade of learning as "phi- 

 lo.sophical!" Verily, if this is philosophy, we 

 do not know where we can go to £nd charlatan- 



