was discussed somewhat in detail by Dr. Forbes in 1893 and by his 

 successor, Dr. Howard, in 1891. The address of the former consti- 

 tutes one of the most critical analyses of a portion of our literature 

 and of methods of publication, while that of the latter is an exceed- 

 ingly complete record of what had then been published in economic 

 entomology in this country and abroad. Dr. Forbes had occasion in 

 1893 to call attention to the fact that the literature of American eco- 

 nomic entomology was increasing with great rapidity, and this has been 

 even more manifest in later years. Somewhat over 10,000 newspaper 

 articles about injurious insects have been published since 1860, while a 

 rough estimate of the number of octavo pages devoted to the subject 

 gives us a total of nearly 50,000. of which about one-quarter are found 

 in bulletins of the agricultural experiment stations, and were there- 

 fore published since 1888. It is impossible to discuss this literature 

 in detail within the time at our disposal, and only a few of its more 

 salient characteristics can be brought out. It seems to the speaker 

 that this is not the place for destructive criticism, and the following 

 is presented in hopes that it may suggest methods whereby we may 

 render our work of greater value to the general public. It is also 

 well known to the speaker that his hearers are undoubtedly obliged to 

 modify their publications, more or less, on account of conditions over 

 which they have comparatively little or no control. 



Dr. Forbes, as a result of carefully examining over 115 articles in 

 1893, came to the conclusion that economic entomologists were advanc- 

 ing more as a body of irregulars than an organized soldiery, and he 

 drew from these publications the inference that we as a body were 

 fairly well satisfied with our present methods of investigations; or, if 

 not, at least were not in a condition to improve them at the time. He 

 also failed to rind a record in those publications of any new method of 

 research, either adopted or proposed, in either field or laboratory; nor 

 did he observe any noticeable departure from the stereot} T ped form 

 of presentation, and he concludes that our methods of report and pub- 

 lication of dissemination and enforcement were lagging far behind our 

 methods of research, and were receiving far too little attention. He 

 also calls attention to the fact that we are very likely to forget that 

 we are writing for the men to whom entomology is a perplexing, 

 obscure, and displeasing subject, of which they know little or nothing 

 good, while on the other hand they are frequently experts in crop 

 inspection, and far quicker, as a rule, to observe injuries to their crops 

 than are we, and much more likely to discriminate between them. He 

 argues from this that crop injury and its characteristic appearance 

 should lead in our discussions of injurious species, closely followed by 

 remedial and preventive measures, and that a description of the insect 

 and an account of its life history should be awarded a subordinate 

 place, especially in monographic accounts, and calls attention to the 



