Annual Report for 1908 of the Zoologist. 333 
between the spruce and the larch, but which hitherto has only 
been found in Russia. Determinations from a single stage of 
these insects, however, are very unsafe, and it is probable that 
the chermes was C. picece , which, according to Mr. Gillanders’ 
recently published work, is not rare on the silver fir. Very 
little is known about this species, but it is believed that the 
silver fir is the intermediate host and that the principal host is 
as yet undiscovered. 
Warble Fly. 
In a Report to the Council on May 6 I called the attention 
of members to some extremely interesting experiments recently 
conducted in Irelahd by Professor Carpenter, and especially 
to one conclusion to which that experimenter had come, 
namely that preventive smearing was useless, and a waste of 
time and money. 'Much dissent from and much adverse 
criticism of this conclusion has arisen in many quarters. The 
matter is clearly one of very great practical importance to the 
cattle owqer, who may be wasting considerable sums of 
money annually. It may be useful here to point out certain 
matters which appear to have been largely overlooked in the 
discussion which has arisen, but first I will briefly state one 
of the experiments which led Professor Carpenter to his 
conclusion. 
(1) Six yearling heifers smeared all over every day with 
tar and train-oil smear from May to September, 1906, had an 
average of 30T6 warbles. 
(2) Five yearling heifers untreated during the summer 
1906 had an average of 31’20 warbles. 
Now the first criticism which is usually passed is that a 
few experiments on a small scale prove nothing. But surely 
there is a fallacy here. If a cow is smeared and does not get 
warbled nothing is proved, for there might be other reasons 
for its escape — such as the absence of the fly. But if the 
cow is smeared and does get badly warbled, something is 
absolutely proved, namely, that the smear did not keep off 
the fly. Of course it is open to an objector to say that the 
dressing was not properly done, but this does not sound 
convincing. Is it likely that six animals specially treated 
for experimental purposes were less carefully smeared than 
cattle would be in the ordinary routine ? And what grazier 
smears his cattle all over every day from May to September ? 
Moreover the dressing used was that most usually recom- 
mended and considered most effective. I confess that if 
this experiment stood alone and unsupported — which it by 
no means does — it would cause me, if I were a grazier, to 
make a very strict inquiry into the evidence in favour of 
