236 MAINE STATE COLLEGE 



It ignores the writings of Walsh, who should have received 

 credit for the first account of the larva, pupa and flies, and 

 implies that the credit should be given Prof. Comstock. Again, 

 it gives Prof. Comstock the credit of describing and figuring the 

 insect in all its stages. Prof. Coms-tock does not claim this 

 honor, as he says (U. S. Agricultural Report, 1881-2, page 196) : 

 "1 will now give an account of each of the stages of this insect, 

 excepting the egg, which has not been observed." Prof. Com- 

 stock did not discover any of the stages of this insect, and the 

 flies and larva were first figured by Walsh, and the pupa by Riley. 

 Comstock's cuts of the fly, larvse and pupa and anatomical 

 details of the larva, though not the first published, are original. 

 To the writer belongs the credit of discovering the eggs which are 

 first described and figured in this Report. Again, the abstract 

 implies that Prof. Harvey has simply confirmed the results of 

 investigation by Prof. Comstock and has added nothing new 

 regarding the life histoiy of Trypeta. Credit should have 

 been given for the facts spoken of above, which were 

 recorded in Bulletin No. 2 for the first time. Again, the 

 abstract gives Prof. Comstock the credit of discovering the remedial 

 measures suggested by him, and makes the writer confirm his con- 

 clusions. Prof. Comstock advocates only two methods : destruc- 

 tion of windfalls and growing only later fruits and the leaving of 

 a few early tree for traps. The first method advocated was not 

 the result of Prof. Comstock's observations, but those of Mr. 

 Isaac Hicks of Long Island. Prof . Comstock says : "The most 

 practicable way of lessening the injuries caused by this pest are 

 those suggested in the letters quoted above." Besides Prof. 

 Riley had suggested destruction of the windfalls as early as 1872. 



The writer has only confirmed the first of these methods but 

 rejects the second. The second method is based upon the errone- 

 ous belief that Trypeta mostly confines its depredations to early 

 fruit. The observations of other Entomologists and those of the 

 writer show that this is not the case. The statement that Prof. 

 Harvey confirms the results of investigations of Prof. Comstock 

 in this and several other particulars is incorrect. 



The above review of the literature on Trypeta shows how correct 

 observations may be discarded for a long time and surmises and 

 theories based upon incomplete or erroneous observations be reiter- 

 ated and perpetuated. 



It also suggests the importance of careful work on the part of 



