\ 
432. 
Dr. Newberry’s work in the Colorado Canon. 
My attention has been drawn to the fact that the 
absence of any mention of the earlier explorations 
of the Colorado Cafion region in the review of Capt. 
Dutton’s monograph (p. 327) does an apparent injus- 
tice to these, and particularly to Professor Newberry’s 
work in that district. It is to be regretted that the 
limit of space available rendered an historical notice 
of the progress of geological discovery in this re- 
markable region impossible, while a paragraph in 
the review, intended to apply merely to the work of the. 
later geological surveys organized as such, may be 
interpreted as ignoring that of previous government 
expeditions which antedated these by many years, and 
were carried out in the face of difficulties and even 
dangers with which later parties have not had to con- 
tend. This was very far from being the intention; 
and, indeed, Professor Newberry’s work in the cafion 
region is so well known to geologists, and so highly 
appreciated, that an attempt to ignore it in any com- 
plete account of the region could but reflect on the 
author. THE REVIEWER. 
The occurrence of the Hessian fly in North 
America before the revolution. 
The American philosophical society of Philadelphia 
appointed, in 1791, a committee for the purpose of col- 
lecting, and communicating to the society, materials 
for the natural history of the insect called Hessian fly, 
as also information of the best means of preventing 
or destroying the insect, and whatever else relating to 
the same might be interesting to agriculture. 
At a meeting of the committee, April 17, 1792, it 
was resolved, that for obtaining information of the 
facts necessary for forming the natural history of this 
insect, before its entire evanishment rom among us, it 
be recommended to all persons whose situation may 
have brought them into acquaintance with any such 
facts, to communicate the same by letter, addressed 
to Thomas Jefferson, esq., secretary of the state to 
the United states. 
Nine questions were proposed, on which informa- 
tion was particularly wanted. I quote here only the 
first. 
‘‘In what year, and at what time of the year, was 
this animal observed for the first time ? Does it seem 
to have made its appearance in this country only of 
late years, or are there any reasons for supposing that 
it was known in any part of the United States previ- 
ously to the commencement of the late revolution ?”’ 
The resolutions of this meeting are printed in full 
in Carey’s American museum (Philadelphia, 1792, vol. 
xi., June, pp. 285-287) by the committee, — Thomas 
Jefferson, B. Smith Barton, James Hutchinson, Cas- 
par Wistar. The American museum was discontinued 
after 1792. The last volume contains no report of the 
committee. 
As is obvious from the first question, it was at this 
time not settled whether the insect had been observed 
here before the revolution, or not. Mr. A. Fitch 
quotes the publication in the American museum, and 
stated that no report had been made by the com- 
mittee. The importance of this question, and of a 
committee with Jefferson at the head, led me to ask 
Prof. J. P. Lesley whether the old minutes of the 
Philosophical society contain any unpublished re- 
port, or any thing else relating to the Hessian fly. I 
received from Mr. Henry Phillips, jun., secretary of 
the society, the following answer, under date of 
March 28, 1884: — 
At the request of Professor Lesley, I have examined our old 
minutes in reference to the Hessian fly, and append on next page 
the results of my search. I know positively1 that before the 
1 The Italics are by Mr. H. Phillips. 
SCIENCE. 
wa 
[Vou. III., No. 62, — 
revolution our newspapers are full of communications in refer- 
ence to the Hessian fly eo nomine. I cannot recall to mind any 
one paper, but I remember perfectly frequently seeing these arti- 
cles when reading for other purposes. I cannot find that the 
committee ever reported. 
Extracts from the minutes. 
1768, May 18. Com. on husbandry to consider whether any 
method can be fallen upon for preventing the damage done to 
wheat by the Hessian fly. W.B.— Mr. DuHamel has written 
on the subject. 
1768, June 21. Paper on the Hessian fly read by Dr. Bond; 
ordered to be published. See No. 4, original papers. 
1768, Oct.18. Col. Landon Carter, Sabine Hill, Va. Observa- 
tions on the fly weevil destructive to wheat; ordered to be pub- 
lished. [Is published in vol. i. of the transactions of the society. 
Cf. Harris, Injur. ins., p. 502. Dr. H. A. H.] 
1791, April 15. Jefferson, Dr. Barton, Hutchinson, Thomson, 
and Dr. Wistar, a committee to collect materials for forming the 
natural history of the Hessian fly, and the best means for its 
prevention and destruction. [Do not find this committee ever 
reported. H. P.] 
1791, Aug. 19. 
Long Island read. 
Everybody conversant with our actual knowledge 
and the literature on the Hessian fly, will acknowl- 
edge it to be excusable that I took the liberty to again 
ask Mr. Phillips if by chance the year 1768, together 
with the name Hessian fly, was not a clerical error; 
the more so, as Mr. Morgan in Dobson’s Encyclop. 
(vol. vili. p. 491) states, ‘‘ The name of Hessian fly was 
given to this insect by myself and a friend early after 
its first appearence on Long Island.”’ 
To day I received from Mr. Phillips the following 
letter, dated April 1, 1884: — 
1. 1768 is not an error. It occurs in the proper place in the 
old MS. vol., and there can be no doubt about the fact. Simili- 
ter the words Hessian fly. 
The term came in use in Pennsylvania from the early German 
immigrants long before the revolution. I am swre the term oc- 
curs in our Pennsylvania gazettes long prior to that period. 
2. Cannot say if that paper (of Dr. Bond) was ever published. 
Possibly in some gazette pro bono publico. There is no clerical 
error as to the date and name. 
Dobson is certainly incorrect in the statement you quote. [Mr. 
ora to have given the name Hessian fly. Dr. 
ING IBLE 
At this writing it is not an easy matter for me to verify my 
own statement as to the communications which I have seen in 
the early Pennsylvania gazettes before the revolution. I have 
had great use often in days past for historical researches, and the 
recurrence of the name of the Hessian fly in these early days was 
a frequent matter of conversation with me and friends, friends of 
‘two generations older than myself. While I am perfectly con- 
vinced that my memory is accurate, yet a statement of that na. 
ture should be verified for historical use. I regret I have not 
the present opportunity of so doing; yet, in view of the minutes 
of 1768 bearing upon the matter, I don’t doubt the accuracy of 
my memory, although it was obiter. : 
The importance of these letters is an excuse for 
their publication, which is done with the permission 
of the writer. Dr. H. A. HAGEN. 
Cambridge, April 2. 
Memoir on Hessian fly by T. L. Mitchell of 
A spider’s device in lifting. 
The interesting description by Mr. Larkin (Science, 
No. 58) of the lifting by a spider of a large beetle to 
its nest reminds me of quite another device by which 
I once saw a minute spider (hardly larger than the 
head of a pin) lift a house-fly, which must have been 
more than twenty times its weight, through adistance 
of over a foot. 
The fly dangled by a single strand from the cross- 
bar of a window-sash, and, when it first caught my 
attention, was being raised through successive small 
distances, of something like a tenth of an inch each; 
the lifts following each other so fast, that the ascent 
seemed almost continuous. It was evident that the 
weight must have been quite beyond the spider’s 
power to stir by a ‘dead lift;’ but his motions were 
so quick, that at first it was difficult to see how this 
apparently impossible task was being accomplished. 
I shall have to resort to an illustration to explain it; 
