148 First Report on Economic Zoology. 
placed on the list of game to be absolutely protected. I, therefore, wish 
to bring to your notice my observations on the Tsetse-fly and the Buffalo, 
the correctness of which are, I believe, borne out by the experience of 
Mr. George Gray when travelling through a fly country in 1899 and also 
by information obtained from native sources. 
The Tsetse-fly has always abounded in districts where Buffalo were 
numerous, and since the almost total destruction of Buffalo by rinderpest 
these flies have not disappeared, although, perhaps, not so numerous as 
formerly. The bite of the insect, however, appears to have become much 
less deadly to domestic animals, and stock and dogs not only survive the 
bites for a much longer period than formerly, but in many cases suffer no 
ill at all. 
This has been my personal experience, and I think I am correct in 
saying Mr. Gray’s is similar. 
The natives say that now the Buffalo are dead the Tsetse-fly no longer 
kills stock, but of course natives are notoriously careless and loose in their 
statements. It is a fact also that in many places where Buffalo have 
become extinct the Tsetse-fly has also vanished ; this is the case in parts of 
Sebungwi and Zankie districts. As there are large fly districts in northern 
Rhodesia I call your attention to these facts, as it appears to me that the 
protection of the Buffalo and the Tsetse-fly are identical, and I would 
doubt if the benefit accruing from the preservation of the former will 
compensate for the disadvantages arising from the existence of the latter. 
I am, etc., 
Val Gielgud. 
British Museum (Nat. Hist.), 
Cromwell Road, London, S.W., 
QA-tli iTuiip 1 Q01 
To Sir Clement Ll. Hill, K.C.M.G., C.B. 
Sir, — I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter 
of the 15th instant, enclosing a copy of a letter from Mr. Val Gielgud 
with reference to Tsetse-fly and Buffalo. 
In accordance with your request that I should furnish the Marquess of 
Lansdowne with some observations on the subject I would wish, first of 
all, to draw your attention to the powers given by Article IV. of the 
“ dispositions ” adopted by the Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the 
preservation of African wild animals, May 1st, 1900. The final clause of 
that article was inserted on my suggestion with a view to such a case as 
that reported by Mr. Gielgud, and gives power to dispense with the 
principles agreed upon “ dans un interet superieur d’administration.” 
It is, therefore, within the provisions of the agreement signed by the 
Plenipotentiaries for the Government to authorise the British South Africa 
Company to destroy Buffalo, in order to protect domesticated cattle from 
disease. 
A question, however, of a very serious nature arises as to whether there 
is sufficient ground for concluding that the parasite of the blood, which 
is introduced by the bite of the Tsetse-fly into domesticated animals, is 
specially and ahunclanlly harboured in the blood of the wild Buffalo. 
The theory is held that the parasite ( Herpetomonas nayanaS) of the 
blood is comparatively harmless to wild indigenous forms, such as Buffalo, 
