DUTY AS QUARANTINE OFFICERS. 



One of the most important phases of economic entomology has but 

 recently come to be appreciated. The distribution of insects and the 

 means of their dispersal, while long since given study, has only lately 

 taken its most positive economic form, but with the appreciation of the 

 fact that insects are constantly being transported from country to 

 country, and that in many cases their appearance in a new country 

 marks a period of most rapid increase and extended destruction, makes 

 it an imperative duty to devise means for preventing such distribution 

 wherever possible. Whatever we may think as to the possibilities of 

 suppression or the best means to accomplish exclusion, we can not but 

 agree that such exclusion is the only safeguard against such pests. 

 That the enactment of quarantine laws and adoption of systems of 

 inspection will prove an absolute safeguard none dare contend, but 

 until some surer method presents itself, or it can be shown that this 

 entails more loss than gain, it deserves careful attention, the most 

 painstaking adjustment of laws to conditions in various sections, and 

 a cordial support from the working entomologists of the country. 



. The heroic effort made by this State of Massachusetts to exterminate 

 the gipsy moth is one of the best and most effective arguments for a 

 system of exclusion, the cost of which would be slight compared with 

 the loss entailed by an imported pest. This gigantic effort is but par- 

 tially understood or appreciated even by entomologists, and I count it 

 one of the great opportunities of this meeting that we may each see for 

 himself the methods 'employed and results obtained in this, undertak- 

 ing, the equal of which is not to be found recorded in history. 



Di\ Howard gives most emphatic testimony as to the propriety of 

 undertaking suppression, and also that the money appropriated for the 

 purpose has been used in the best possible known method to accomplish 

 the desired result. I beg to suggest in this connection that when we 

 may have secured a general consensus of opinion on such questions, we 

 should each strive to give individual support to it. By raising objec- 

 tions we tend to obstruct our science, and unless some vital principle 

 is at stake, we may far better not permit such division of opinion 

 to go before the public. Diversity of view is one of the essentials of 

 progress, but let us have expression of such diversity among ourselves, 

 and so far as possible stand together in final recommendation to the 

 public. 



There crops out at times an indication of a sad lack of appreciation 

 on the part of scientific men of the aims and results of economic work. 

 That a reputable scientific journal should consent to such a slur upon 

 the work of the Gipsy-moth Commission in Massachusetts as has 

 recently appeared, shows either unfortunate jealousy or unreasonable 

 prejudice against such effort. When the highest available authority 

 has been definitely committed to a certain policy, there is certainly 

 every reason why men of science in related lines should avoid such 



