186 
1 look back a dozen years and sec what has heen actually accomplished, 1 sometimes 
marvel that so much has heen done. . 
Following out these ideas I have always avoided scientific discussions in the sta- 
tion publications. Nor have I ever described new species in a bulletin with the idea 
of rendering them recognizable as scientific descriptions. Occasionally it does hap- 
pen that an undescribed species becomes troublesome. When that does occur the 
scientific description belongs in a publication where the specialists will be apt to look 
for it, and to the bulletins belongs only so much as is necessary to identify the insect 
from the practical standpoint. I am aware that not all my colleagues agree with me 
in this matter, but then I am stating only my own practice and beliefs, and am not 
attempting to lay down laws for the guidance of other people. 
Neither do I care to go too far into the history of an injurious insect, or to detail 
what others have done in the matter. All that is very interesting and important 
in a paper presented before a body like this, and there is a certain fascination in fol- 
lowing out from the earliest times what has been done — for instance with the codling 
moth; but what the fruit grower wants to know is how he is to get rid of the codling 
moth at this present time, and he cares very little indeed for what was done one 
hundred or even fifty years ago. I do not believe in using other people's observa- 
tions as though they were my own, but, on the other hand, neither do I believe in 
the necessity of citing a reference for every statement of fact that has become public 
property. When, after looking up what has been published on any particular point, 
I present my own compiled account of the subject to the farmer, unless I present it 
so as to give the impression that I had personally made the observations, I am doing 
no one an injustice in omitting to credit every individual phase of the subject to the 
one who actually worked it out. The man for whom it is written would probably 
not understand more than half the references, and would certainly never take the 
trouble to look them up. On the other hand, where I quote another man's recom- 
mendation I give him full credit for it, if only to avoid the responsibility for making 
it myself. 
I think it a positive disadvantage to make too many citations, because it gives the 
reader the impression that you know very little about the subject yourself, and are 
only writing out what somebody else has said, the probability being that that 
somebody else knew just as little about it as you do. I was impressed when Doctor 
Fletcher told me once upon a time about the importance of speaking offhand before 
farmers. They do not consider the preparation of a formal paper any evidence of 
careful preparation, but rather consider it as something taken from a book and 
written down lest you forget it. I feel somewhat the same way in the preparation 
of a bulletin and try to make it a readable account, claiming nothing for myself save 
what appears as mine from the narrative. 
In a general way I may sum up my ideal as follows: 
(1) To make a clear statement of the character of the injury caused to a crop by a 
specific insect, so that the farmer may, if he sees the injury alone, be enabled to refer 
it to the proper cause. 
(2) To explain just how the insect causes the injury and in which stage of its life 
cycle it is injurious. Tinder this head such anatomical details as may be necessary 
to show how the injury is produced may be presented. 
(3) There should be a life history of the species carrying it through an entire year; 
with the danger periods emphasized as far as possible. 
(4) The experiments made should be given in some detail. My experience has 
been that a farmer likes to be made acquainted with the processes that lead up to the 
next head. 
(5) The conclusions and reasons for the conclusions. 
(6) Last, come the recommendations for practice; and if the other points have 
been well covered, these recommendations will need very little explanation. 
I do not claim for a moment that I have in all cases lived up to my ideal. I know 
that in some cases I have fallen distinctly short of it; but at any rate there has beep 
an advantage in knowing that I was working toward a definite end, and, such as it 
is, it is presented for discussion and criticism. 
After an extended discussion in which the main points of the paper were empha- 
sized, the section adjourned for the day. 
In the absence of the author, C. W. Wopdworth, of California, the following paper 
was read by title: 
Cooperative Work in Economic P^ntomology. 
Under Ibis title I propose to discuss a form of cooperative work between farmers 
and the experiment station, which, while possibly not presenting anything new in 
