394 
become so annoying to the household and especially to Mrs. Bull herself that her 
health has really suffered by reason of them.—[J. M. Granniss, M. D., Connecticut, 
March 9, 1892. 
REPLY.—Examination of the specimens shows that they are Chalcidids of the genus 
Necremnus, the species being undescribed. If your patient is not mistaken in 
attributing her discomfort to these particular insects they are probably parasitic 
upon Clothes Moths in her house, as all other species of the genus so far as known 
are parasitic upon Tineina. Further details, however, are much desired, as well as 
other specimens, and also information as to why the lady considers these to be the 
insects which are troubling her. Has she caught them in the act of biting ?—[April 
25, 1892.] 
On Figs grown without Caprification. 
I learn from my friend, Mr. 8S. H. Scudder, of Cambridge, Mass., that last fall you 
presented to the Library Association a case of figs which were pronounced equal to 
any Smyrna figs the members ever tasted. The impression has got out that these 
were true Smyrna figs that had been caprified by the Blastophagas introduced by 
Mr. Shinn, but Mr. Eisen writes me that this can not be true. May I beg you to let 
me know whether the figs were anything other than fine specimens, well preserved, 
of some particular Adriatic fig. * * *—[C. V. Riley, Washington, D. C., Febru- 
ary 17, 1892. 
REPLY.—* * * The figs presented to the Library Association were grown on 
my orchard farm at Loomis, Placer County. They were the so-called White Adri- 
atic. They, no doubt, were the best fig grown in California, but I do not think they 
were superior to the Smyrna. Their excellence was due to having been grown in a 
foothill country, elevation 400 feet, and also because they had not been irrigated. 
I shall send you a box of this year’s growth when the crop matures, i. e., September. 
I am engaged in solving the question whether a good fig can be produced from the 
seed of the Smyrna fig. In 1885 and 1886 I sowed the seed, fixing 1895 as the date 
when figs would be produced. I neither believe nor disbelieve in the theory of cap- 
rification. The writings of Meyer, Lombush, etc., all indicate that the authors were 
never on the spot to carry on practical experiments. But I may say that the experi- 
ment of Prof. Eisen and myself was startling to a mere agnostic. 
I have had some correspondence with Mr. Van Deman who sent Eisen a collection 
of ‘‘Smyriia cuttings,” but they were nearly all Italian fig cuttings. Mine died 
owing to the neglect of my foreman. 
The experiment of caprification will be continued this summer at Mr. Shinn’s, 
Niles, Alameda County.—[E. W. Maslin, San Francisco, Cal., May 31, 1892. ] 
On the Beaver Parasite. 
A friend of mine is preparing a work on the Beaver, and asked me if I could pro- 
cure a copy of your interesting article on Platypsyllus castoris published in Vol. 1 of 
Insect Lirr. Is there any chance of finding specimens of the parasite, either liv- 
ing or dead, on the dried skins of the Beaver, and if so, are they confined to a cer- 
tain part of the skin or on all parts of the body? I looked over a few skins this 
morning but could find nothing resembling a parasite of any kind or stage except 
the curious white cocoon-like object, of which I inclose a small lot, which were 
very abundant among the hairs, especially around the ears. Can you tell me what 
they are? * * *—[Albert F. Winn, Province Quebec, Canada, May 28, 1892. 
RepLy.—* * * The finding of Platypsyllus material on beaver skinsis notat all 
improbable, and careful combing should produce some specimens at least of the larvee 
and also perhaps of the adult. The former, however, will be very much shriveled and 
will hardly be recognized except by some one familiar with their appearance, as they 
are quite small. They would be found on almost any part of the beaver, but perhaps 
most frequently on the upper and anterior portions. The specimens which you send, 
and which you state occurred abundantly among the hairs around the ears look 
