42 J. B. CLELAND. 
trying to remedy an evil that might have been prevented— 
and a warm tribute of praise would have been paid them. 
Nevertheless, what finer recognition of their services could 
they have, in the eyes of a right-seeing posterity, than the 
unconscious compliment paid them in the despatches—there 
was no sickness. Even so is the attitude to rat control in 
cur midst. The quiet work goes on from year to year, the 
harbor shores and buildings are rendered rat-proof, syste- 
matic trapping and baiting are carried out, nesting sites 
_ for the vermin are removed, food to nourish and propagate 
them is protected from them—and then the ery goes up why 
all this needless expense, this waste of public and private 
money—we have no plague! Aye, we have no plague, but 
why? Shall we open the door to it again? And if we do, 
as sure as autumn leaves do fall, sooner or later the un- 
welcome visitor will come in thereat. And even though it 
be many years before he intrudes again, is not the pecuni- 
ary loss to the community from the ravages of rats, esti- 
mated at £15,000,000 per annum in Great Britain and Ire- 
land, alone worth while our attention? 
Let us now turn to the present known distribution of our 
rats. In England, the old English Rat, EH. rattus, is said 
to be nearly extinct, its place having been taken by the 
more aggressive Norway Rat, EL. norvegicus, introduced 
about 1728 or 1729. Sir Ray Lankester,! however, says. 
that the Black Rat is not extinct there, not even very rare. 
He had seen specimens from a warehouse in London where 
they were abundant, and they occurred, for instance, in 
Great Yarmouth and in isolated dwelling houses. 
In the United States the Norway Rat? is the prevalent 
one, though EH. rattus preceded it and is still found in a few 
+ Ray Lankester, Science from an Hasy Chair. 
2 Lanz, in “The Rat and its Relation to the Public Health,” Wash- 
ington, 1910, p. 18. 
