104 
Psyche 
[June-September 
complicated wildlife survey in an area about to be treated. In fact, 
the Fish and Wildlife Service seems to have been presented with a 
fait accompli upon which to make its studies. 
What about outside research? In the years between 1948 and 
1957, Dr. E. O. Wilson at Harvard had continued his work on fire- 
ant variation, distribution and social behavior, and had discovered the 
existence of a trail-forming chemical laid down by foraging worker 
ants. Research on this substance was continued by M. S. Blum and 
co- workers at Louisiana State University, and is still going on. The 
active group at Auburn in Alabama studied fire-ant crop damage 
(which had unaccountably dwindled practically to nothing by 1957) 
and worked on promising bait formulations. The findings of these 
groups swerved the spray program not at all. The Gulfport Labora- 
tory is now working on baits and other angles of attack, but insofar 
as their results have affected the operations to date, emphasis still 
seems to fall on mass spray methods. No recent specific, detailed study 
of the damage caused by the ant seems to have been reported, despite 
the claims of competent state entomologists that crop damage is now 
negligible. We are left, then, with no concrete information to counter 
the claims of wildlife experts and state entomologists that the ant is 
not a major pest deserving of the effort and funds expended upon it. 
For research effort, the fire-ant program, must take low marks. 
The last factor to be compared among the programs is their adapta- 
bility to conditions met as operations proceed. This is so closely related 
to the research facet of the respective program that we are not 
surprised to find the flexibility of operations more or less closely 
paralleling the quality and amount of research. The screw worm and 
medfly programs made major adjustments smoothly and without delay 
as the information available indicated they should. 
The gypsy moth campaign has varied; sometimes the operational 
response to changing conditions was rapid and efficient, while at other 
times it lagged. Curiosity about the obviously great fluctuations in 
abundance of the moth, and especially about the great peak following 
the first extensive air spraying, are not reflected in the impassively 
literal Annual Reports on gypsy moth control work. Even the over- 
stepping of the Berkshire-Green Mountain barrier seems never to have 
raised much doubt on the part of the government control officials that 
the mass spray program in progress would eventually bring about the 
eradication of the insect in North America, at least to judge from the 
reports. But events have caught up with the program. The milk 
residue problem in New York State first halted the program in much 
of this key “frontier area,” and later forced a switch to the less effec- 
