77 
account of the attack upon frees which is almost identical with 
Haviland’s account, stating, as he did, that the nest is formed of 
wood fibre inside the attacked tree. 
That Termes gestroi was increasing in importance as a pest 
is evident from Ridley’s comments upon the failure of treatment, 
consisting of scraping down the mud casings and treating the 
injured surfaces with tar or substances injurious to the insects. 
Ridley also observed that be had received from Selangor “ specimens 
found destroying Para rubber trees.” 
It should be noted that both Haviland and Ridley say nothing 
of the whereabouts of the source of tine attack — that is, the parent 
nest. The subsidiary nests described are obviously one of the 
sequelae of the attack. 
It is a great pity that the nesting habits of Termes gestroi 
were not then determined as valuable years were lost before more 
definite knowledge was published and applied. Had planters then 
known where the parent nests were to be found, and bow 
successfully the pest could be treated through these, Termes gestroi 
might never have been giveu the opportunity to multiply and 
establish itself as a pest of such enormous importance. 
Nowhere is the copy book maxim “ prevention is better than 
cure ” more truly applicable than in the province of economic 
entomology and to no insect more aptly w than to Termes gestroi. 
But for either it is essential to have an accurate and full knowledge 
of the habits and life" history of the insect ; efforts ' at both 
prevention and cure were shortly made, but without the essential 
knowledge they were foredoomed to failure. 
The unfortunate lack of information about Termes gestroi in the 
early days is in my opinion one of the gravest misfortunes suffered, 
by the Malayan Para Rubber Industry; not alone, or mainly, 
because thousands of dollars were wasted, and trees lost, but because 
fuller knowledge would have induced the employment* of sound 
measures of timber treatment, and clean clearing, with all, its 
accruing advantages might have become as much a sine qua non of 
rubber cultivation as clean weeding-. 
The next two publications threw little further light on the 
subject. In October, 1901, W. W. Bailey contributed a report in 
which be describes “ Termites ” as the worst enemy of his rubber, 
eating out the heart of his healthiest and best rubber trees. Havyig 
tried arsenic, sulphate of copper, phenyl, tuba, kerosene oil, etc., 
without success, he decided to set coolies on to digging out queens 
and breaking up the mounds, although he says he had been told by 
more than one scientist that the queen of the rubber termite was not 
to be found, in mounds. The queens were taken from mounds one to 
two feet high and each man averaged ten a day. “It may be said,” 
he wrote * “ That they are not termites, and it may be true ; but one 
