‘ca ante Pyar Sa Rete Pee eee

yoy ne a Pie by

Aart x

Nam amass pe eee re

yf . Ward arte WIA. dia eo Scr ee poate pet RNA Tasha a oe ee de RA OP he! é + eccwemye etre rr opupegs ek ee Ps na z : a “” ea. rE page he ihn Wdgkadres A RAD HAR ST PAA Hy 4 . e Fuge GPE 6 oP a ab'a pdt abot, Ide Atoee 5 7 nee rE aninE aaah we yan paca rn Pepe tbion jah Ueh A Be we iis SL ane en A iP NOT Feu ate Sheath er ee

Pee re mre ee Replace rete Dt a aa ade Da agnor rhc / bai nea He ers Fi cle ledrea tiies RN er a e ANGE a Me a cbt se a Se APNE SEIN Pe errs Seopa ied tes i eer ie os ae Wd cere aenieeoe Weesbobetva ANOS PsA A th ate: ee 7 = SS 5 «tad fish Me seit) omer nidnge PNP a EN ait. Rs RG Adm tener, r F ede de Gatos ok Hay | i pcan oe Ue trea ap Areatreta 4 Sie teh reece Ate ath Ad ei Neri Pet dt oe ee a. iene 3 wet Ot iv a Map eallind Siete teeta Sy iene sy eet Se er a shed Ke bh Sonat te afar ote,

Ye eavins, Fane tN Lh NaN AMON ADC 7, Sor 8

Best Mongo Mr Ave arvesade*

Pee ee ee le te ae set asap ate oh shag toage ee tae iW

os MANN eee ew Pee ee ee

toate Ve mT Base Ma a PA re chaie eat SPINE EAN PRA DE,

SERN apc oney ert ie 2k il Mer EE edn Te A Pee RY Ss, A apy 4 Tyke Coe eereat Pattee eh etal S ote on waned reer a Sit iprersienaiets RLM AR SET ee te ee ee

Avi when Nee tthe h et Wm WEN. Nate ran A Pty ee Me Ae Ne Fee tie Mb Re A

SE ee le oe i ee ee kha ty pike nT ba save Aah ate hate hw A

ea ww vin 8

Aso ns Nk en E N aded cy Tater DUA tN? hy ate, rere Ne Rategist fy ethene Bee oe we Meaney ~ . ve et » :

ey yall Se ae

Pasties eee Pg Fete ee? Bio? é fort

ae he

fed hace



WV rp bites ie bi") hich ae ee.

E iw Sw ae ae

aaa hae

y Ep,

oy ears ee



ost LIBRARY OF | Henry Guernsey Hubbard


Eugene Amandus Schwarz ost


niece CLI

ies eco. Rae

bg 4



Volume a ie Pie


Of @ i f ay aia heer : eke ee

«WASHINGTON, D..G.5.0 0) e000 8 Posiisnep wy THE Socrery,

ates oF Issuz or THE Parts or Vorume I.

3 orig), Apri a,i8on 448-469), June 30, te, | 271-358), December 31, 1892. “a Le ; 359-438), June —, 1893. |

Publication Committee for Volume i. 7 ye ee are E. A. Scnwarz. _L, O. Howarp. a,

_- NaTHAN Banks. Bm eee


Wak Og 5, Ae ee ane : eto

At Ei

ay Le con EOS

FS yooh enc na ~~




Entomological Society


Volume II., No. 1 (JANUARY gth, 1890, to DECEMBER 4th, 1890.)




ade See


Entomological Society of Washington.



t{ ALwoop, W. B., 1887-89. MARX, GEO., 1884-

{ ASHMEAD, W. H., 1889-90. Tt MorrRIs, J. G., 1884-90. AUSTIN, AMORY, I8gI- . Tt MURDOCK, J., 1884-85. BANKS, NATHAN, I890- . OERTEL, T. E., 1884-88.

* BARNARD, W. S., 1884-85. PERGANDE, THEO., 1884-

t BRUNER, L., 1884-85. RILEY, C. V., 1884— DopGE, C. R., 1884- . SCHAFHIRT, A. J., 1884-85. FERNOW, B. E., 1890- . SCHWARZ, E. A., 1884- Fox, W. H., 1887- . SEIFRIZ, P., 1888. HEIDEMANN, O., 1885- . } SHUFELDT, R. W., 1884-89. HOWARD, L. O., 1884- . SMITH, E. F., 1890- KUEHLING, J. H., 1887- . { SMITH, J. B., 1884-89. Lacy, R. S., 1884. STEDMAN, J. M., 1890- LINELL, MARTIN L., 1889- . STEWART, A. H., 1884-86.

t LuccER, O., 1884-89. TOWNSEND, C. H. T., 1887- MALLY, F. W., 1890- . TYLER, E. R., 1891- MANN, B. P., 1884- . UHLER, P. R., 1884.

MARLATT, C. L., 1889-


ALwoop, W. B., 1890- . HUBBARD, H. G., 1886- ASHMEAD, W. H., 189I- JOHNSON, L. C., 1884- ANGELL, G. W. J., 1890- KOEBELE, A., 1884- BoLTER, A., 1886- . LUGGER, O., 1890- BRUNER, L., 1888- . OSBORN, HERBERT, 1886- Casky, T. L., 1884- . SHERMAN, J. D., JR., 1886- * ELLIOT, S. L., 1889. SMITH, J. B., 1889- FLETCHER, J., 1890- . WEBSTER, F. M., 18g90- HAMILTON, J., 1890- . WENZEL, H. W., 1890-

* Dead. } Resigned. ¢ Transferred to Associate Membership List.


JANUARY 9TH, 18g0.

Nine persons present. President Schwarz in the chair.

Mr. H. W. Wenzel, of Philadelphia, was elected a corres- ponding member.

The election of officers for 1890 resulted as follows :

President, George Marx; 1st Vice-President, C. V. Riley ; 2d Vice-President, L. O. Howard; Recording Secretary, C. L. Marlatt; Corresponding Secretary, C. H. Tyler Townsend ; Treasurer, B. P. Mann; Members of Executive Committee, K. A. Schwarz, Otto Heidemann, Wm. H. Fox.

The retiring President delivered his Annual Address:



Since the year 1876 we have witnessed or taken part in the celebration of several centennials—the Centennial of the Decla- ration of Independence, the Yorktown Centennial, the Wash- ington Inauguration Centennial, and others—all in commemo- ration of the political birth of the American nation. But I have never read nor heard that, during this time, the American entomologists have celebrated the centennials in their own science. In the year 1880 we should have remembered that two hundred years ago the first paper on insects was written in America, viz : John Banister’s ‘‘ Some Observations concern- ing Insects, made in Virginia, A. D. 1680,’’ which was pub- lished, with remarks, by Petiver, in 1701, the paper being written before the modern conception of scientific research, and therefore only of historical interest. On July 27, 1887, we


should have commemorated the one-hundredth anniversary of the birthday of Thomas Say, who was the first to make a deter- mined effort to create an American literature on American insects.

It is just a hundred years ago that the first scientific collections of insects were made by Peck and the older Melsheimer, many of the insects from the latter collections being still preserved. Above all our American scientific literature on insects is now about one hundred years old. To whom the honor belongs of being our first entomologist depends largely upon individual opinion. William Dandridge Peck, who commenced to write in 1795, was, no doubt, our first scientific entomologist; but the various articles on insects by the few earlier authors, and notably by Barton, the Bartrams, and others, are by no means inferior in scientific character—but their authors cannot be called entomologists. This centennial of our literature should not be celebrated by a centennial speech simply praising the great progress made within a hundred years, but by giving a full history of American Entomological Science. And such history is a desideratum ; ‘‘ for the knowledge of the evolution of a science is to the student of the same importance as to the architect a thorough knowledge of the foundation upon which he intends to erect his building.’’ To be sure we have a history, viz: the ‘‘Contributions toward a History of Ento- mology in the United States,’’ by our fellow member and senior of American entomologists, Dr. J. G. Morris, read before the National Institution in 1844 ;* but, although containing many interesting facts, this history was written at a time when the study of entomology was at very low tide in this country and when many data regarding literature and entomologists were still unknown.

American Entomology otis a most inviting field to anyone who is willing to write its full history. It should explain the reasons why in the earliest time entomological science was cul- tivated here so much later than Botany, Ornithology, Ichthy- ology and other branches of natural history ; it should point

- out how this neglect resulted in a long period when American

* Published in Silliman’s Jour. Am. Arts and Sc., 1846, pp. 17-27.


Entomology was in utter dependence upon European writers ; it ought to extol the struggles—timid at first but gradually becoming bolder and more and more successful—of a whole generation of American writers to throw off this slavery, until we come to a time when American insects can be studied from American literature, and where at least one branch of Ameri- can entomology has attained a state of perfection which is not paralleled in any other country.

I am by no means competent to undertake such work, nor could it be presented in a short address, except in the most | general outlines ; and I have contented myself with an exceed- ingly modest and insignificant part of such history, viz: to enumerate the various ways in which the American contribu- tions of one hundred years to entomological science have been presented to the public.

The oldest, and, taken as a whole, most satisfactory way of presenting to the public the results of scientific research is in ‘the form of separate books published and sold through the regular book trade. Since this mode of publication is a com- mercial enterprise on the part of the publisher, or has to be done at the expense of the author, it is not surprising that with the few entomologists in the earlier part of this century the number of separate books is exceedingly small. The very first book exclusively devoted to North American insects is that which goes by the name of Smith & Abbot on the Lepi- doptera of Georgia, printed in 1798, but this was published in England. The first book on insects ever published in America is the Catalogue of the Coleoptera of Pennsylvania, by the older Melsheimer, in 1806, if this little pamphlet may properly be called a book. From that year we have to go down to 1824 to find the next work, viz: Thomas Say’s well- known ‘‘ American Entomology,’ of which three volumes were published between 1824 and 1828.*' This is, in reality, the first great work produced in America by an American en- tomologist. From this work to the next there is another in- terval of more than ten years, for I fail to find a separate book

* A few copies of a portion of the first volume were printed in 1817.


on insects before the year 1839, when Dr. Nathaniel Potter published, in Baltimore, a small book on the Periodical Cicada.* The publication of the great work on North Amer- ican Lepidoptera, by the older Leconte, in conjunction with Boisduval, was commenced some years previously, but it was printed in France. But even counting in this and Abbot’s work, we find that up to 1840 only seven books treating on North American insects were published, and this small number strikingly contrasts with the splendid series of most important works produced during the same period by the en- tomologists of Europe. A mere enumeration of these would take a long time, ‘but I think that this unprecedented activity in producing separate works has not been maintained in Eu- rope in the latter half of the century, and is now largely superseded by society publications. Regarding the oldest North American books very little seems to be known; I fail to find in the whole literature any early notice of Melsheimer’s Catalogue: it seems to have been little distributed here, as well as in Europe, and is now extremely rare. Say’s Amer- ican Entomology attracted considerable attention in Europe, and there are several notices thereof in European, but none so far as I can see in the contemporaneous American literature. We ought to suppose that the appearance of this work was hailed with joy by our few entomologists of those early days, but all I can find is.a short passage in one of Dr. Har- ris’ letters, in which he briefly announced to his friend, Prof. Hentz, the publication of the third volume of the American Entomology, in the same dry way as we would mention to each other the appearance of a number of the Canadian Ento- mologist or any other regular periodical. Mr. Ord, in his ‘‘Memoir of Thomas Say,’’ written in 1834, calls this work ‘‘the most beautiful publication of this kind which has ever been issued from the American press,’’ and informs us that the expenses were furnished by the enthusiastic publisher,

*Mr. T. R. Peale’s contemplated ‘‘ Lepidoptera Americana’’ has re- mained a fragment, and only a few pages and plates thereof were dis- tributed in 1833, but apparently never placed on the regular market.


Mr. S. A. Mitchell. Dr. Morris, in 1844, calls it the most costly but not the most valuable work of Say.

The publication of North American entomological books pro- ceeded at the very slow rate of one in every decade of years until a quite recent period, when they have become much more numerous as a sign of the great interest taken in entomological studies, but itis no exaggeration to say that a single person could easily carry all books on insects that have hitherto been published in this country in the way I speak about. However, after the year 1840, and more especially since 1852, the number of books on insects has been largely increased by the assistance from three sources, viz: the governments of several States, the general Government of the United States, and the Smithsonian Institution. ee

Some of the States have been very liberal in promoting and assisting economic entomology, but they have not done much in assisting the publication of separate works on entomology. In fact I can name only two such works: the first is Dr. Harris’ classical ‘‘ Report on the Insects of Massachusetts Injurious to Vegetation, published agreeably to an order of the Legislature, by the Commissioners on the Zodlogical Survey of the State.”? American entomology can justly be proud of this work, which, although possessing a distinct practical bearing, is, in the opin- ion of all, of still greater value as an introductory work in the study of American insects. Even now, after the lapse of nearly fifty years, this work, unchanged regarding the text, but ren- dered more attractive in its third edition by some plates and numerous figures, has not become antiquated, and is still by far the best work to be placed in the hands of the beginner. Harris himself seems to have felt that his work was of greater and more general value than indicated by the original title, and in that part of the first edition which was printed ‘‘ at'the charge of the author,’’ he changed the title to ‘‘ A Treatise on some of the Insects Injurious to Vegetation,’’ etc. ~

Just the opposite must unfortunately be said of the second work printed at the expense of a State, viz: Mr. Emmons’ Natural History of New York (1854), in which the insects occupy an entire quarto volume illustrated with fifty plates.



There are several instances on record where useless books have been printed at the public expense, but there has never * been a more striking illustration of waste of money. ‘The work is utterly worthless from whatever side it may be consid- ered; it ‘‘ remains a permanent example of misplaced confidence. and liberality : an equal disgrace to the legislation, the science and the art of the great State in which it was published.”’

Like most other civilized governments, that of the United States has largely promoted and subsidized in various ways scientific research, and assisted in or undertaken the publica- tion of scientific books. Up to the middle of the present cen- tury its efforts in this respect cannot be said to be very pre- eminent, but this has greatly changed since, and the number of splendid and valuable volumes issued by the government in all branches of natural history, as well as the liberality with which these volumes are made accessible to the public, consti- tute a peculiar American feature, and have never been equalled in any other country. Entomology has largely profited by these government publications, but most of the numerous papers published in the various surveys must be considered under the head of serials, and the Annual Reports of the U. S. Entomologists come unfortunately also in the same cate- gory. But we have Packard’s Monograph of Geometridze and Thomas’ Acrididze, which both may be considered as separate volumes ; further the four reports hitherto issued by the U. S. Entomological Commission are to be included here, and also the special publications on insects issued by the U. S. Depart- ment of Agriculture. The Bulletins of the U. S. National Museum are comparable to the British Museum lists, and must be included under the head of separate volumes ; the Bulletins of the U. S. Entomological Commission and those of the Entomological Division of the Department of Agriculture are difficult to classify bibliographically ; they occupy an inter- mediate position between separate works and serials.

The Smithsonian Institution is something entirely unique. There is nothing comparable thereto in Europe or anywhere else, and its eminent services to natural sciences, and more especially to zoology, have always called forth the universal


admiration of the scientific world. To its liberal policy Amer- ican entomology is deeply indebted, for we owe to it a splendid series of the most valuable and indispensable works on classi- fication of North American Insects, which are too well known to be enumerated here. It suffices to say that while a few of these catalogues and synopses. could possibly have been pub- lished by societies or through other channels, most of these . Smithsonian works could not have been presented in any other way. ‘The Monographs of North American Diptera, by Dr. H. Low, for instance, would probably not have found a pub- lisher in this country, and certainly not in Europe, because they were written by the greatest authority on Diptera. ‘This would seem to be a strange and paradoxical objection, but I shall explain it presently.

Another and not inconsiderable series of separate volumes on North American entomology we owe to what are known as ‘‘authors’ extras,’’ which I consider amongst the greatest inventions, so to speak, of modern science. The study of en- tomology and that of any other science would, in fact, be completely blocked without ‘‘ authors’ extras,’’ and rendered possible, and this under great difficulties and inconvenience, only to the few living in cities with very large libraries. I am too ignorant in bibliographical matters to know when and where this praiseworthy custom originated, but at any rate we. are enabled thereby to add to the list of separate works, or at least to consider as such, all the Reports of the State and United States Entomologists: and what a blessing it is to handle and quote them as such, instead of as parts of awkwardly large and long-titled Transactions, most of us will know. It is certainly to be regretted that that splendid series of Reports which constitutes a unique feature in the American entomolog- ical literature and which embodies a branch of our science in which America has become a model for other countries, could not be published originally as separate volumes ; for the Agri- cultural Transactions of which they form a part have not always attained a very high scientific standard, and are, most of them, by no means attractive samples of typographical art. The paper is miserable, the printing poor, and of the beauty


and scientific accuracy of the illustrations in the Missouri Re- ports no one can form a conception who knows them only in their original edition.*

I have now enurherated the sources through which separate works on North American entomology have been published. The works themselves do not present any distinguishing fea- tures: Harris’ Treatise went through three editions, a fact which is not often repeated in entomological literature ; and the number of editions of Dr. Packard’s well known Guide, has, so far as J am aware, never been equalled by any other ento- mological work here or in Europe. I do not believe that, with ‘the possible exception of Peale’s work on Lepidoptera, there ever was a book written by an American entomologist which had to be left unpublished for want of a channel for publication. Some instances of this sort are known in the European litera- ture, ¢. g., a great and elaborate work by the great explorer of Russia, Pallas, on the Insect Fauna of Russia, has not been published for want of a publisher. ‘The famous Dipterist, Dr. Hermann Low, had the misfortune to be a most prolific writer on an order of insects which by no means belongs to the favorite ones.t For a long series of years he flooded and overstocked all German entomological us well as other scientific periodicals with his contributions to descriptive Dipterology, besides publishing as many separate volumes as he could find publishers for. His Monograph of the Euro- pean Aszlide, which nearly fills three entire volumes of the Linnea Entomologica, caused the financial bankruptcy of the Stettin Entomological Society, for there was no sale for these volumes. His MS. of the fourth volume of the European Diptera, in continuation of Meigen’s work; his second volume of the African Diptera; his great work on Diptera in Amber—all works representing years of assiduous and consci-

*By an accident one of the Reports of the State Entomologists, viz: the Second Illinois Report, has been published as a separate volume.

' *Dr. C. A. Dohrn says that Low was the owner of a steam factory of fly-paper ; no one could deny the excellent quality of this fly-paper, but unfortunately there was never a market for it.



entious labor—have never been published, because no pub- lisher could be found for them.

By far the largest portion of contributions to natural history, including entomology, has not been published in the form of separate books, but in the Transactions or Proceedings of societies, or in whatever form the periodical literature has assumed. ‘This class of literature originated at a very early period, and flourished in America long before there were any entomologists here. The enormous and still increasing extent of periodical literature is one of the most characteristic features of modern science: in the Zoodlogical Record for 1887 I counted the number of Journals and Transactions of learned societies which for that year contain zoological papers, and found the number to be not less than seven hundred and fifty; and if we deduct therefrom those which restrict themselves to limited branches, as the ichthyological, ornithological and similar journals, and which are, therefore, not likely to contain entomological papers, there remain about six hundred and fifty scientific periodicals appearing in one year, and which contain or may contain contributions to entomological science. Where would be our science without authors’ extras? Of this number there are credited to North America eighty-five, but this does not include a single one of the Transactions and Proceedings of our numerous Agricultural and Horticultural Societies, which no doubt are legitimate channels for the pub- lication of a certain class of entomological contributions. Moreover the editors of the Record, for 1887, have overlooked quite a number of American scientific periodicals, and if we add the number of those periodicals which have started since 1887, and those which have flourished at the beginning of this century, or later, and have now become extinct, the number of American serials is swelled to about one hundred and fifty. When, a hundred years ago, entomological science began to be cultivated here, the earlier authors found of course only a limited number of such periodicals at their disposal, but few as they were, they fully sufficed to accommodate all entomological arti- cles. ‘The trouble is that these early periodicals were issued in excessively small editions, and since there were no authors’


extras known at that time the writings of the earlier entomolo- gists became practically inaccessible a few years after they were published. ‘his had, of course, a great, depressing in- fluence upon the development of entomological science in America. ‘The writers, up to the middle of the present century, are full of complaint at the difficulty and impossibility of be- coming acquainted with the literature, and this inaccessibility of the early literature is certainly characteristic of American entomology. ‘The few persons that persevered in the study of entomology had to take recourse to a most desperate means to remedy this evil, viz: to copy the writings of Say, Harris, and even later authors when they had occasion to visit large libraries. The many manuscript volumes filled with such copies, and made by the younger Melsheimer and by Dr. Fitch, are mementoes of the difficulties under which the study of en- tomology labored at their time ; and even now, I think, many of us, especially those who have dwelled in the West, have done, more or less, a little copying of older papers so as to be able to refer to them. An interesting illustration of this diffi- culty*may be found in Dr. Morris’ ‘‘ Contributions to the His- tory of Entomology in the United States (1844),’’ where, in order to be able to give a list of Say’s writings, he was obliged to copy a list published in England by Doubleday in 1839. Of Harris’ papers Morris was able to enumerate only eighteen numbers (up to 1844,when Harris was still living and working), while Scudder, in 1869, could enumerate fifty-one numbers up to» 1844. Hagen’s Bibliotheca, published in 1862, gives ninety-one

numbers as the total of Harris’ writings, while Scudder, seven

years later, was able to give one hundred and five, one of these

papers still being lost, and only known from the title. In our times some of these old authors are not more readily accessible,

but their writings are no longer of such importance to us as they

were to the entomologists of forty or fifty years ago. Moreover, we have now reprints of some of the most inaccessible papers,

and more especially of those of Say. Very few persons who

use the LeConte edition of Say are aware that they handle a

unicum in entomological literature, for although single works

or articles by various authors have been reproduced on many


occasions, there is no similar collection and reproduction of the writings of a single entomologist to be found anywhere in the literature. | : |

So far as I am aware this difficulty has not been experienced by the European entomologist, at least not to that degree, and it is surprising to see from booksellers’ catalogues how much of the old periodic literature of Europe is still to be had at very moderate price, whereas most of our older serials are now utterly out of print, or can only be obtained at exorbitant cost. To increase the difficulty of studying entomology, some of the older authors had the regrettable custom of publishing strictly scientific papers in utterly out-of-the-way places, which were inaccessible even to their contemporaries. What induced Say. to print, between the years 1830 to 1832, four important de- scriptive papers in the ‘‘ New Harmony Disseminator,’’ the most obscure village paper that could be found in this country, even in those early times, has not yet been explained ; but to any one who understands how to read between the lines of Ord’s biography of Say it becomes apparent that just about that time there was a great coolness between Say and his former friends in the East, and that Say, in his isolated position in the West, had probably no other place for publication. Among these papers is’ that on the North American Heteroptera, of which, according to Scudder, only one copy is known to exist in this country, viz: that which came into possession of - the Boston Society of Natural History from Harris’ library. It was finally republished by Fitch in 1857, and LeConte’s sec- ond republication in 1859 is a reprintof Fitch. Dr. Harris did the same thing, and what makes the case against him worse is that he knew and acknowledged that he did something wrong. He printed, in the years 1828 and 1826, a series of purely tech- nical descriptions, entitled ‘‘ Contributions to Entomology,”’ in what Dr. LeConte, many years afterwards, called a ‘‘vile sheet.’’ This is the way in which Dr. Harris excuses himself (see letter of Harris to Hentz, dated November 19g, 1828): ‘‘I am aware that the ‘New England Farmer’ is not likely to | be much circulated among men of science, and therefore will not be considered the best atithority, but it is a convenient


vehicle at present, and such is the ambition of European ento- mologists to anticipate Americans, that I willingly yield to the ‘solicitations of several friends in publishing what may possi- bly contain many new species; and in doing so I am not actu-. ated so much by personal considerations as a desire to aid several young entomologists in this vicinity, and by the wish to promote American science in general: fvo patria. The. ‘Farmer’ is taken at New Harmony, and will therefore come under the eye of Prof. Say. It is my intention, after these descriptions shall have undergone his rigid scrutiny, to repub- lish them, either by themselves or in some respectable scien- tific journal.’’ And the same Dr. Harris had, a short time previously, informed the same Prof. Hentz (see letter of. Har- ris to Hentz, January 19, 1827), that the Journal of the Acad- emy of Natural Sciences, of Philadelphia, was sadly in need of MS., adding: ‘‘If you could assist the publishers of the journal in this emergency by accounts of any of your unde- scribed objects of natural history, you will do them a thank- ful service, and they will furnish engravings for such drawings as you may send.’’ Harris never kept his promise to repub- lish these papers in a more accessible form, and they remained unknown until 1869, when they were reprinted by Scudder. Fitch also hid some of his purely technical papers so that they practically remained inaccessible; one of them, that on Winter Insects, has lately been reprinted by Lintner, while another,

the ‘‘ Catalogue of Homopterous Insects,’’ ought to be repub- lished. Walsh again sinned in this respect, but he was con- siderate enough to republish himself the papers in question in the Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History. This custom has, unfortunately, not ceased in our time, and in spite of the fact that entomological and other natural history journals go around begging for MS., as they did in olden times, an occasional technical paper is printed in what is but little better than a newspaper. I do not see that this custom has ever prevailed to any extent among the European ento- mologists, although much annoyance and inconvenience in the literature has been caused there by the practice of certain ‘authors of issuing papers on separately printed sheets, without


date, and containing one, or, at most, a few pages. Every one knows what mischief and confusion in the nomenclature and classification of Lepidoptera have been brought about by Jacob Htibner’s Tentamen and Verzeichniss, of which, up to our days, and in spite of much discussion and investigation, nobody ‘knows when they were published, or whether they, should be considered as publications, or whether the author himself ever considered the former as such. In Switzerland the custom prevailed for a series of years among the scientists of presenting new year or birthday congratulations in the form of a privately-printed tract, and since these were issued only | in a single, or, at most, a few copies, no one knows whether or not to consider them as publications. Also in the form of university programs and dissertations, and in the programs of gymnasiums and high schools, which never came into circula- tion, many entomological papers by the older authors have been completely buried out of sight.

The most satisfactory and most accessible form of publication of smaller articles is undoubtedly in journals exclusively de- voted to a particular branch of science. Such serials were either issued by societies or single individuals or publishing firms. ‘This last-mentioned form antedates in entomological science by far the society publications, and the honor of having produced the first entomological journal of this kind belongs to Switzerland, where, as early as 1778, an enthusiastic ento- mologist and bookseller, Mr. J. C. Fuessly, started the ‘‘Maga- zine for Amateurs of Entomology,’’ of which several volumes were issued, and this was quickly followed by others, e. ¢., Illiger’s Magazine, Germar’s Magazine, etc.. ‘To-day quite a number of such journals flourish in England, Germany, France and Austria. I count as the total of such European journals no less than twenty-eight, of which sixteen are extinct and twelve still living. In North America this class of literature did not make its appearance until quite recently, and the efforts made to introduce it have hitherto been very short-lived, not on account of the poor quality of these journals, but from lack of support on the part of the entomologists. In fact, one of the most striking characteristics of the North American entomologists is that


they do not subscribe to the entomological journals of their own country. ‘Thus the American Entomologist, edited by Walsh and Riley, lived only for two volumes (1868-1870), but revived afterwards (1880) for a third volume; the second periodical of this kind, the North American Entomologist, edited by Grote, was starved to death in the first year of its existence (1881). The Practical Entomologist, edited by Walsh, was published by the Entomological Society of Phila- delphia, and occupies, therefore, an intermediate position be- tween the serials I am speaking about and the Society publi- cations. At any rate, it has been the first periodical exclusively devoted to economic entomology, and is in evéry respect the predecessor of the American Entomologist. As a continuation of this last may be considered ‘‘ /nsect Life,’’ edited by Prof. Riley, and which, since it is published by a government in- stitution, constitutes a unique feature in the entomological literature. [hese three monthlies, the Practical Entomologist, the American Entomologist, and Insect Life, devoted almost ex- clusively to the biography and economy of insects, form a unique series to which there is nothing comparable in the European literature; and all I can name of similar works, is a French monthly, the ‘‘ Bulletin d’Insectologie agricole,’’ and perhaps also the Hungarian ‘‘ Rovartani Lapok.”’ Entomological societies were formed at a very early time, and London, in England, can boast of having harbored the first seven societies of this kind. ‘The oldest of them, the Societas Aureliana, is said to have flourished as early as 1745, but nothing is known of it except that in 1748 a fire destroyed its library and collection, and that this conflagration was also the end of the Society. Of the. three following societies we also know nothing except their names, but the Societas Ento- mologica, in London, founded in 1806, was the first to issue a periodical under the title ‘‘ Transactions of the Entomological Society of London,’’ edited by Haworth, one volume thereof being completed between 1807 and 1812. But in 1813 the Society disbanded, for reasons unknown to me. After a long interval the Entomological Club of London started, in 1831, ‘“The Entomological Magazine.’’ After that date entomolog-


ical societies were rapidly formed in almost every country in Europe, and there are now no less than seventeen societies, distributed as follows: Germany, six ; England, four ; Switzer- land, two; Belgium, Holland, Sweden, Russia and Italy, one each. I count only those which have published anything, but there are no doubt many more in existence. One of the ‘German societies represents the very rare phenomenon of a bifurcation, having split in two different societies. In 1856 an Entomological Society was founded in Australia, and is pub- lishing the Transactions of the Entomological Society of New South Wales.

In North America entomological society life did not begin to develop until 1842, when the Entomological Society of Pennsylvania was founded. It never published anything; it never had any regular meetings nor a constitution : neverthe- less it accomplished a great deal of good by planning the prep- aration of several papers by its members, and more especially by attracting the attention of European entomologists. We owe to this society the first and still the only reference Cata- logue of North American Coleoptera, which was published by the Smithsonian after many years of delay. Society life in earnest began in 1860, when the Entomological Society of Philadelphia was founded, which, in 1861, began to publish its Proceedings (six volumes), and since 1868, having changed its name to the American Entomological Society, its 77ansactions. It has also published the Practical Entomologist (two volumes), the Syzopsts of North American Hymenoptera, and a Check List of North American Coleoptera. Other societies were rapidly organized afterwards: the Entomological Society of Ontario, . which has published, since 1868, an Annual Report and the Canadian Entomologist ; the Cambridge Entomological Club, founded in 1874, which is publishing Psyche, and has also issued bibliographies of some of our prominent entomologists ; the Brooklyn Entomological Society, organized in 1872, pub- lished, between 1878 and 1884, seven volumes of its Budlerin, and, since 1885, after its union with the New York Entomo- logical Society, the xtomologica Americana ,; it also pub- lished two Check Lists of North American Insects (one of the


Lepidoptera, the other of the Heteroptera) ; the New York En- tomological Society, which published, between 1881 and 1884, four volumes of Papilio, but finally merged into the Brooklyn Society. It is, however, unique from being the first to publish a journal devoted exclusively to a single order of insects, a somewhat premature venture, but which will no doubt be fol- lowed by other societies in a future not so very far remote. ‘Finally the Entomological Society of Washington, organized in 1884, is vigorously publishing, since several years, the first volume of its Proceedings. Besides the above-mentioned pub- lishing societies, there is flourishing the Entomological Club of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which is admirably adapted for promoting personal intercourse among our entomologists and mutual exchange of expe- rience; there is, further, an Entomological Society in New- ark, N. J.; and lastly, there is the Association of Official Entomologists, which is still in the embryo stage. If we leave out of consideration all those societies which have not con- tributed to literature, we find that we have, or have had, in North America, six entomological societies with publications, in comparison with nineteen in Europe. This gives us an ex- cellent showing, considering’ that North America has about seventy millions of inhabitants to more than four times that number in Europe, not to speak of the cheaper printing, the _ much greater number of subscribers, and other advantages en- joyed by the European entomologists. As to variety of sub- jects treated and the quality of articles, our entomological serials are certainly not inferior to the European serials ; and so much can be said in praise of our periodicals that, as a rule, they have been kept free from those quarrels of a personal nature which fill page after page in certain European journals ; nor have they ever assumed that excessively local character which prevails in some other European serials.

I have hitherto not spoken of the entomological publications of the Agricultural Experiment Stations, because they form such a striking and exceptional feature in American ento- mology. I consider the reorganization of these stations, as effected in 1888, by what is known as the Hatch bill, as one


of the most important events in the history of American entomology. With the perfection of this organization we will ultimately not only have as many official entomologists as we have States, but with them just as many centers for instruc- tion and diffusion of entomological knowledge, so that the beneficial influence of these stations on the future study of entomology cannot be estimated high enough. And even if, for the present, an exclusively popular and practical treatment of entomological subjects is required from these stations, a great deal of purely scientific matter naturally must be, and, in fact, has already been accumulated in the Bulletins of the stations. .

We all remember that at the very start one or two of these bulletins were not of a promising nature, but we have now a large number which are excellent in their popular and practi- cal bearings, and at the same time valuable contributions to purely scientific entomology. And this high standard will be maintained and still increased in future by the combined force of ambition and competition.

Considered as publications these bulletins are difficult to classify ; they are neither separate books nor can most of them properly be placed. in the periodicals. But this is a matter of very subordinate importance, and since these publications are of very recent date their proper status will sooner or later be regulated. Intrinsically, they are no doubt fully comparable with, and fully equal to, the Reports of the State Entomolo- gists, and I was amazed, therefore, at a resolution recently passed at a representative assembly of the official entomologists to the purport that descriptions of new species should be ex- cluded from the bulletins, whereas there has never been any doubt expressed regarding the propriety of such descriptions whenever they became necessary in the reports of the State officers. It seems to me that the entomologists have overlooked the fact that, scientifically, there ‘is not the slightest difference in the value of a description of a new species and the descrip- tion of an hitherto unknown or but