334 Annual Report for 1908 of the Zoologist. 
preventive smearing before spending more money on it, and 
I am bound to say there are weak points in that evidence, 
which seems largely to rest on general impressions of a 
beneficial result, unsupported by any actual proof. 
The outcry which arose when these experiments were 
published took two forms. Some objectors appeared to hold 
that what a distinguished economic entomologist had stated 
twenty-four years ago, and what had been repeated annually 
ever since and largely acted upon, was established once for 
all, and it was almost sacrilege to question it. This, of 
course, is quite unanswerable. There is another class of 
objectors, however, who deserve the most serious considera- 
tion, large and highly intelligent graziers who during a 
long experience have thought that their cattle benefited by 
preventive dressing. The only question is, can their impres- 
sion be mistaken, and have they any definite proof? As 
an example of the inconclusiveness of much of the evidence 
I will quote a statement given by Mr. Theobald as received 
from an East Peckham cattle owner, who had smeared his 
cows but not his heifers. He says : “ I now find that those 
cows smeared show no bots in the following spring, or at 
any rate only an occasional one, while my heifers, which do 
not get done, ow'ing to the labour of catching them in the 
meadows, show great quantities.” But observe that in 
Professor Carpenter’s experiments seven cows untreated in 
1906 had an average of 3‘3 warbles, while five yearling 
heifers untreated hail an average of 31 ’2 warbles ! Obviously 
it is no use comparing cows with heifers. 
Now what I want to point out is this. The large graziers, 
to whom the ^matter is of great importance, can settle the 
matter definitely, but only in one way, namely, by refusing to 
trust to mere impressions, but by deliberately leaving certain 
animals of each class untreated, and comparing their condition 
with that of animals of the same class which have been 
regularly dressed. I do not gather from the strictures I have 
read that they ever do this, and yet surely nothing could be 
more simple. If the untreated animals are much more 
warbled than the others there will be definite grounds to go 
upon, but to trust to a general impi’ession of beneficial results" 
is extremely unsafe, and may be leading to an annual waste of 
time and money. The particular point here discussed is by 
no means the only matter of interest in the account of these 
very interesting experiments, which every member ought to 
read for himself. It is to be found in Vol. VIII. of the 
Journal of the Department of Agriculture and Technical 
Instruction for Ireland. Among other things it definitely 
establishes the fact that the eggs of the warble fly are laid 
