1961] 
Insect Control Programs 
103 
already mentioned, as well as cultural methods (such as tree banding 
and egg mass destruction) and poisons sprayed from the ground. Also 
built up during the years was a store of knowledge concerning the life 
history, foodplants, enemies and distribution of the moth, and particu- 
larly a fund of information on the effect of the female attractant on 
males. All this has proven, very useful in developing control methods. 
Nevertheless, the recent work of Campbell (some results of which 
are outlined above) indicates that there was and is much more of 
importance to be learned about the behavior of gypsy moth populations 
than has been generally appreciated. The preparation of gyplure 
and other attractants in the last few years had doubtless been made 
easier by technical developments in natural-product chemistry, but 
perhaps even without these developments more could have been done 
in the past with attractant research had more time and money been 
spent on it. To sum up gypsy moth research, one might say that it 
began rather well and then tended to get into a rut, from which it 
has been pulled only during the last few years. The present research 
program is expanding and striking out in new directions, and the 
outlook now seems rather good for the eventual control of the moth. 
As we have already seen, the fire-ant mass spraying program began 
full blast in the fall of 1957. Considering the very high potency of 
the poisons used and the great areas over which they were to be 
sprayed, the research background of the fire-ant program was so 
sketchy as to be virtually non-existent. USDA investigations ran 
from 1948 to 1953, and consisted mainly of survey scouting for new 
infestations plus routine life history, ecological and insecticide-testing 
work. As already emphasized, 22 no research was done by the USDA 
from 1953 until after the mass spraying had gotten well under way. 
The Gulfport Methods Improvement Laboratory was not opened 
until 1958. Nevertheless, in their letters and releases, 23 USDA 
officials spoke of “expanding” the “continuing research effort,” thus 
giving the impression that an unbroken chain of research studies 
stretched back from the start of the spray program. The USDA 
releases emphasize the liaison with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service “from the outset,” and even serm to imply concurrence of 
the Service in the mass spray program. 24 As we have already seen 
from Dr. Leffler’s letter, 19 this concurrence could not possibly have 
been granted at that time. The first meeting of USDA and Fish 
and Wildlife officers on the fire-ant program took place, according to 
the USDA, in Washington on December 12, 1957, about a month 
after the spraying had started. The delay is important in view of 
the time needed by wildlife researchers to set up and carry out a 
