MEDITERRANEAN ERUIT PLY IN HAWAII. 103 



from attack. The main factors contributing to failure were lack 

 of adequate police powers, adverse host and climatic conditions, 

 and the absence, at that time, of any commercially grown orchard crop 

 worth protecting. The impracticability of control by the clean-culture 

 method was recognized by Mr. C. L. Marlatt, who, as a Federal rep- 

 resentative immediately in charge of the Hawaiian investigations, 

 was in personal touch with the problem during September, 1912. It 

 was felt, however, that inadequate as this method had proved itself 

 after a nine months' trial from the standpoint of alleviating the 

 Hawaiian situation, it seemed still to offer the best-known way of 

 safeguarding the interests of mainland fruit growers. Therefore, for 

 the purpose of lessening the opportunities of spread to the coast, the 

 destruction of fruits which could be carried on board ships was con- 

 tinued. It was not until after representatives of California, 1 Hawaii, 2 

 and the Federal bureau had reached the conclusion that no benefit 

 was accruing either to the local or to the mainland interests that the 

 campaign was discontinued. 



It is doubtful if ever a clean-culture campaign against the Mediter- 

 ranean fruit fly was organized so efficiently or on so large a scale as 

 that organized by Mr. W. M. Giffard of the Hawaiian Board, to include 

 the city of Honolulu. That this method should prove a failure under 

 Hawaiian conditions is no reflection upon the ability of those in charge 

 of the work. Inspectors were prohibited from gathering and destroy- 

 ing fruits unless they could first prove to the satisfaction of the prop- 

 erty holder that each fruit was infested, and this restriction upon the 

 activities of the inspectors naturally led to numerous difficulties, 

 particularly with the poorer and uneducated classes who often ex- 

 erted every effort to save their fruit. This restriction also prevented 

 a systematic gathering of all host fruits within a given area, but 

 necessitated many examinations for the removal, on ripening, of the 

 fruits of each, individual tree. As fruits ripen rapidly in the semi- 

 tropics, it proved a physical impossibility to arrange visits by the 

 inspectors frequently enough to prevent infested fruits from falling 

 to the ground. 



The data of Tables III to V illustrate the immense number of host 

 trees and shrubs available for infestation in Honolulu, and the ease 

 with which the fruit fly, uncurbed by climatic conditions, may find 

 fruit for oviposition during any day of the year. A glance at Plates 

 IV, VI, XII, and XIX will convince one of the absurdity of endeav- 

 oring to remove all the fruits from many of the huge host "trees of 

 the islands. The writers know of many winged kamani trees, beneath 

 which infested nuts may be gathered each week of the year, so tall 



1 Report of Investigation of the Fruit-fly situation in the Territory of Hawaii, F. Maskew. Monthly Bui. 

 Cal. St. Com. Hort., v. 3, 1914, p. 227-238. 

 * W. M. Giffard, Letter of Transmittal to Bulletin No. 3, Haw. Bd. Agr. and For., 1914, p. 7. 



