EDITORIAL COMMENT. 
The Gypsy Moth and Economic Entomology.— In the presidential 
address delivered before the Association of Economic Entomologists, 
last August, the motives of those who oppose the large appropriations 
made by the State of Massachusetts for the extermination of the 
gypsy moth are attributed to “unfortunate jealousy or unreasonable 
prejudice.” Inthe same address the expression of individual opinion 
is deplored, and while diversity of view is recognized as an essential 
of progress, the expression of such diversity before the public is 
condemned. 
The American Naturalist has more than once taken ground against 
the annual appropriation for the extermination of the gypsy moth, 
and with the keenest appreciation of the objects and aims of sound 
economic work is prepared to maintain that, given all the money 
and all the men asked for, the extermination of the insect in Mas- 
sachusetts is doomed to failure. The public, always slow to accept 
the results of science, will regard this failure to the detriment of 
scientific work, and when popular support is needed the claims of 
science will be discredited. As a recent writer says: “Is it not 
sometimes the part of wisdom in a prudent business man to let a bad 
investment go, rather than to lose more money by trying to save what 
is already lost?” 
The gypsy moth problem in Massachusetts may be briefly stated : 
Introduced in the egg stage in 1868 or 1869, the insect at first escaped 
general notice; in 1889, however, it caused so much destruction in 
Malden and Medford that the state was asked, in 1890, to take 
measures for its extermination. A commission was at first appointed, 
and served for less than a year; since 1891 the work has been directed 
by a committee of the State Board of Agriculture. Nearly one mil- 
lion dollars has been expended in the work of extermination. This 
work, prosecuted with more vigor than judgment, has greatly reduced 
the damage done in badly infested districts, but has not succeeded in 
keeping the insect within the original boundaries as defined in 1891. 
The injury caused by the cutting down of trees and bushes, the 
wanton destruction, by burning, of birds during the nesting season, 
and the general tidying up of beautiful wild country roads and ways 
4i 
