842 
Report of the Consulting Entomologist. 
from Market Drayton on the borders of Staffordshire and Salop, in 
England ; and in Scotland from Errol and from near Perth. 
One observation only (sent from near Perth) mentioned that the 
damage from Hessian fly (both to barley and wheat in that district) 
was considerable. The highest estimate of damage sent from else- 
where mentioned number of attacked stalks of barley in a square 
yard as about two in well-grown crop, ten in shortish thin crop. In 
square yard of wheat damage about two stalks to live. 
. Other reports gave respectively damage as "immaterial"; "in 
no case as much as 1 per cent."; "slight"; "none perceptible''; 
and so on ; and in a return sent me by Mr. W. McCracken (late 
Professor of Agriculture at the Royal Agricultural College, Ciren- 
cester), he mentions that Hessian fly attack at two localities in 
Cheshire had not done damage of any consequence in either 
case. 
Mr. Palmer, of Revell's Hall, near Hertford, who has carefully 
watched the attack since his first observation of Hessian fly, 1886, 
reported in July that he considered there was very little damage 
from Hessian fly in that neighbourhood, but could not then tell 
with certainty, on account of the corn being much laid by rain. 
After threshing he wrote me similarly, that from the amount of 
puparia in the screenings he should say that there was not so much 
presence of Hessian fly this year as previously, which was further 
pointed to by the yield of barley being the largest he had had for a 
good many years. 
Plain and serviceable means of keeping this attack in check are 
thoroughly before agriculturists, but a word seems to me to be 
needed regarding the extreme undesirableness (or even danger of 
greatly increasing amount of presence of attack) which would accrue 
if the plan which was suggested during the past season of saving 
the chrysalids in order to rear parasites from them should be acted 
on. 
The plan has not the very important sanction of Professor Riley, 
State Entomologist of the United States, so far as we are concerned. 
In the number of Insect Life, the periodical bulletin of the 
United States Department of Agriculture, for March 1889, at page 
294, Professor Riley states : — " At present, and with general ento- 
mological knowledge in its present state, there can be no doubt that 
it will be advisable to burn or otherwise destroy screenings which 
examination shows to contain puparia. It is a great bother for 
anyone to try to breed parasites, and for a practical man it is out of 
the question." 
If we destroy the chrysalids in the screenings we make sure 
work at once, without trusting to the chance of parasites that may 
hatch out going to kill the Hessian fly maggot in the fields, where 
it will have done another season's mischief. If, on the other hand, 
the chrysalids are saved, it can only be as a matter of entomological 
trade that the parasites can be utilised. None but a skilled ob- 
server, with the help of a magnifying glass, can tell these various 
kinds of minute insects one from the other, and the danger appears 
