CHAPTER XVIII

LETTERS TO PROFESSOR RILEY AND DR. HOWARD

Flour moth and Winter moth—Orchard growers’ Committee—John Curtis—Entomology in Cape Colony—Handbooks and Reports—The General Index—The LL.D.

The letters addressed to the two distinguished United States officials are unlike most of those we have passed. Miss Ormerod writes, as usual, in courteous and even in deferential terms to the two acknowledged chiefs among Entomological authorities in America. The considerable variety of subjects touched upon are dealt with in less simple language, and minor details give place to discussions on the higher polity of Economic Entomology. The letters contain internal evidence of the esteem in which her work was held by her correspondents.

_To Professor Riley, Entomologist to the Agricultural Department, Washington, U.S.A._

TORRINGTON HOUSE, ST. ALBANS, ENGLAND. _March 6, 1889._

DEAR PROFESSOR RILEY,—We have got a flour caterpillar in England, newly arrived in the last two years, which is so very troublesome and injurious where it establishes itself that I should like to place a short account of it in your hands, hoping that at your leisure (I should rather say at your best convenience, for leisure you have none) you may kindly tell me whether you have it in the U.S.A., and, if so, whether you manage to keep it in check. The caterpillars were first observed in Europe in 1877 by Dr. Jul. Kuhn, of Halle, doing much mischief during the process of grinding some American wheat. The imagines from these larvæ were placed by Dr. Kuhn in the hands of Professor Zeller, who considered them to be _Ephestia_ of a species previously undescribed, and they were named by him _kuhniella_ (fig. 41) specifically after their observer. All this most likely you know well, but it is the appearance of this “pest” here which I am more particularly writing to you about. In 1887 the caterpillars did great harm in some large stores in London, and last year the attack established itself in a wheat-flour steam-mill in the North of England. The great harm caused is by reason of the caterpillars “felting” up the meal or flour by the quantity of web which they spin in it. They feed, of course, but this is not so injurious as working up the flour together, as thus they clog the mill apparatus to a very serious extent. I have much reduced their numbers by getting the manager of the steam-mill to turn on steam to scald them; and cleaning, whitewashing, and some use of paraffin have done good. The real cure would be to change the material ground. If we could use ryemeal for a few weeks we could clear out effectually this wheat-flour-feeding caterpillar. Unfortunately, however, the delicate apparatus of our recently arranged wheat “roller” mills does not allow of this. One point that would help us in preventive measures would be to know where the attack comes from. I am told it is a “scourge” amongst the flour (or rather the meal, as it prefers the more branny parts) in wheat from Russia and Hungary at the Mediterranean ports, so I am making inquiries; but Dr. Lindeman is not aware of this attack having been noticed in Russia. Under these circumstances I thought that I would write to you about it, and if you are acquainted with this moth and the larval working, and, still more, if you know how to destroy it, I should feel greatly favoured and obliged by any information that you may kindly give. I believe that unless it has very recently been placed on your American lists of _Lepidoptera_ it is not noted as known there, and I am trying to persuade myself that it is not all selfishness which makes me trouble you thus, but that if by any possibility you may not chance to have heard of the serious nature of the work of these larvæ, you may care to have a few lines about them. The moth is about ¾ in. in spread of the fore-wings, which are of pale grey with darker transverse markings; the hinder wings remarkable for their whitish semi-transparency with a darker line from the point along a part of the fore edge. The larvæ, when full-grown, as far as I see, are about five-eighths of an inch long. You will not care to have full description, but they have surprising instinct for travelling, and amazing strength. One that I watched to test this power escaped from under a little smooth-edged cardboard frame which I had placed on a woollen cloth on a quite flat table and pressed down with a one pound weight.

I hope before long to forward my twelfth Report for your acceptance and that it may meet your approval.

_June 22, 1889._

I have not until to-day been able to find time to study your interesting and instructive Report (which reached me a little while ago), and now after my best thanks I hasten to offer some observations about our use over here of the word paraffin—see p. 104 of your Report. So far as I know or can learn, the different oils sold under the name of paraffin, kerosene, or crystal oil, only differ from each other by reason of treatment to secure various degrees of purity or refinement. The common paraffin oil is the coarsest; kerosene I understand is a little more refined, and a trifle higher in price; and crystal oil—or (as it is sometimes described in the trade) “A1 Crystal Oil”—is limpid like water, and the purest of all. I do not know why, but kerosene is a name little used here. Paraffin is certainly not a correct term for the fluid form, but this fluid or oil is used so enormously compared to the solid paraffin that the appended word oil necessary for correct description is usually omitted as being understood. I quite feel it is a loose and inaccurate plan, but so the matter stands. In the same number of my Annual Report from which you quote—namely, that for 1884 published 1885—at pp. 66-67, is a recipe for a mixture of soft soap with “paraffin or any other mineral oil.” It has been thoroughly tried over here, and found very useful. If you should think fit to experiment with it I should greatly like to know results.

A single report of appearance of Hessian fly (fig. 15) here has been sent me on June 13—with specimens accompanying—full grown but still in larval condition. These were on lower shoots of wheat of which the plant was then coming into ear at Revell’s Hall near Hertford—the farm on which Hessian fly was first observed here.

September 23, 1889.

It was very kind of you to spare time to write to me before leaving England, and I well know how very much occupied you must have been, so must not be selfish enough to say how much I regretted not being able to have both the pleasure and the great benefit of a little conversation with you.

I beg to place in your hands the little brochure which I am now issuing on one of the consequences of warble presence, and might I ask Mr. L. O. Howard’s acceptance of the other copy? You will see I have tried to condense the points of the subject into a space that workers would not be frightened at. It would be a great satisfaction to me if the inquiry met with your approval, and if you should judge fit to forward the cause of prevention in your country, your high authority would be a great help in strengthening my hands here. If you care to have a packet of the leaflets for distribution it would be only a pleasure to me to send some for your acceptance.

I have just seen with great pleasure that the Association of Economic Entomologists has been formed, and that they have elected the highest representative of the important work as their First President. This is a great satisfaction to me, and I hope ere long I may have the honour of being enrolled amongst its members.

You pay me a compliment in saying you would care to have an occasional contribution of mine in your valuable “Insect Life.” If I had anything that I thought would be of sufficient interest to send, I would very gladly do so.

[Here a contribution on the “Shot-borer Beetle” (Appendix D) followed, which was published by Professor Riley. See also page 199.]

_April 10, 1890._

I must take up a little of your valuable time in offering my best thanks for the exceedingly interesting transmission, received through your kindness this morning. Your own “Insect Life,” 3 pts.; “The Root Knot disease”; and Mr. Koebele’s “Australian Thrips” are all very valuable contributions to my library, and I greatly wish I were able to reciprocate more worthily. There is one point in reply to which, if you are quite willing, I should much like to be allowed to insert a few lines. It is to the paragraph headed “Traps for the Winter Moth Useless,” p. 289, of March No. of “Insect Life.” Mr. R. McLachlan is mentioned as having stated that traps which aim at destruction of the males of the _Cheimatobia brumata_, Winter moth (fig. 30) are useless, as enough will remain to fertilize the winged females. This I should have conjectured to be a well-known fact—but it is not this point which we are in any way working on, in any of the prevention details with which I am myself acquainted. Our difficulty, as you will see mentioned in my thirteenth Report, if you will kindly turn to p. 67, is the transportation of the females in the act of pairing by the winged males to the trees. This is a point much observed in this country, and I have to-day once again had my attention drawn to this difficulty in the matter of prevention, by a Somersetshire correspondent who in confirmation of his observation has preserved the pair in his collection. It is solely to meet this difficulty that we use tarred boards and lights in any preventive operations with which I am connected. I do not see the “Gardeners’ Chronicle,” and I am not in communication with Mr. McLachlan or I would have replied in my own country and given the necessary explanations, but, if you approve, I should much like to be allowed to insert the above observations, otherwise the various Superintendents and myself might appear to your readers (whose good opinion I should like to merit) as wonderfully ignorant of what I believe is a well-known fact.

We have now formed a kind of Society Conference with Experimental Committee of some of our best orchard growers in the West of England for the purpose of themselves experimenting, and reporting to the frequently recurring meetings—as to the effects of Paris-green, London-purple, &c. At last our people are roused to feel that “greasing” will not do everything.

I shall look with exceeding interest to the result of your _Hypoderma_ or _œstrus_ (Warble and Botfly) experiments. I sincerely hope that you will be able to rear the imago.

I have been greatly disturbed (and am consequently not writing you in as good form as I could wish) by a report being published in several of our London papers that I had been thrown from a carriage and met with serious injuries. This is altogether erroneous, but the many applications, and much writing and wiring to get the press to stop the report, has been indeed disturbing, and it has wasted me much time.

With kind regards and all good wishes from my sister and myself, pray believe me, yours very sincerely,

ELEANOR A. ORMEROD.

_To Dr. L. O. Howard, Entomologist U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington._

TORRINGTON HOUSE, ST. ALBANS, _July 26, 1894_.

DEAR MR. HOWARD,—I do not myself know what arrangements the Royal Agricultural Society of England made with John Curtis.[68]

In the “Gardeners’ Chronicle” for October 18, 1862, however, I find at p. 983, vol. iii., the following remarks in a short notice of the decease of John Curtis, which I transcribe in case they should be of interest. After mentioning that he had for many years been engaged in investigating the habits of insects injurious to farm and garden produce, the writer continues: “These he published in detached memoirs in the ‘Gardeners’ Chronicle’ under the signature of ‘Ruricola,’ and in the ‘Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society.’ At a subsequent period they were collected into a single volume and published under the title of ‘Farm Insects.’ It was chiefly on account of the value of these articles that Mr. Curtis was awarded a pension from the Civil List which was augmented about three years since on account of the sad loss of sight which he experienced.” The note is given as quoted from the “Athenæum,” and in case you should not have references to Curtis having the pension he so well earned, I thought you might care for the extract.

Thank you for letting me know of Professor Riley’s visit to England; I greatly desire to have a long talk with him. He may have comfort in having such a skilled successor. Special thanks also for your paper on the Army worm, _Leucania unipunctata_.[69] It is such a good one, and the remedies so practicable. I hope to quote from this presently—duly acknowledged. You speak very truly as to information not being asked until the attack is so set up that much hope of victory over it is lost.

I should very much like to be allowed to offer my best regards, and respectful expression of my admiration of their good work, to the many kind friends who will be present at the Economic Entomology meeting in August, together with my hearty good wishes for the prosperity of the Association and its members. I owe much to the kindness of my U.S.A. colleagues and friends.

_October 17, 1894._

I hasten to thank you for your letter received this afternoon, setting me right as to the origin of the bran-mash and Paris-green application for killing “cutworms” (leather jackets). I should indeed be sorry not to give credit in the right quarter, and you may rest assured that the first time I have to mention the matter this shall be set right. I am sorry also on my account not to have known that this remedy was in use, and now you have pointed the way I shall be very glad to look the matter up. Through the kind liberality (public as well as private), with which I have always been treated by your country, I have a truly valuable library of your U.S.A. works, from which I often and gratefully profit.

I am looking forward very much to getting your paper on Economic Entomology, but at present I have only seen pleasant notices of it, and I am greatly desirous to read it _in extenso_. Attention to this subject is spreading very satisfactorily on the Continent. I am now in communication with Professor J. Jablonowski, of the Entomological staff of the Hungarian Government Department of Agriculture at Budapest. He is doing very careful and good work on _Thysanoptera_ (Thrips). Also at Helsingfors (Finland) I hear from Dr. Enzio Reuter that they are contemplating arranging an Entomological Station, and I hope I may be in communication.

I am now beginning to pass my eighteenth Report through the press. One of the interesting appearances of the past season has been a widely spread outbreak of _Charæas graminis_, Antler moth (p. 104). This was more or less in seven contiguous counties in the South-west of Scotland, and though not remarkable in itself, yet, as there were one or two competent observers on the spot, some good notes were secured, especially as to presence of parasites, which I hope in due time you may find of some interest. There was much presence of a _Mermis_ in one district. Out of a single larva I withdrew in three pieces about 18 inches of thread-worm. Also there was presence of “flacherie” and some _Tachina_ larvæ. Dr. Ritzema Bos, of Wageningen, who is always most kind in colleagueship, helps me much about identification.

I hope to have a good deal to say about _Heterodera schachtii_ (an eel-worm enemy of hop-roots). Different kinds of eel-worms seem each year to be showing themselves more, and I am greatly desiring to find whether the _schachtii_ may not have come to the roots of oats here as well as in Holland. The Great Tortoiseshell butterfly, _Vanessa polychloros_ (fig. 13), which is not common in this country, made a destructive appearance on elms and cherry leafage in one locality in Hants. And not far from Lymington was a destructive attack in one wheatfield of the caterpillars of a small moth, which ate out the heart of the young plant and was utterly ruinous. I cannot find the kind of attack on record (that is from a _Lepidopterous_ butterfly or moth, larva), and we are all perplexed as to species. There seems little doubt that it is a _Miana_, and it appears to me most like _expolita_, but none of us contrived to rear it.

_March 23, 1895._

I have been long in your debt for a letter, but sometimes it is very difficult to keep all work in hand, and I am sure you will forgive me. I had been endeavouring before your letter on Warble came to hand, and have since also been trying in some of what appeared the most likely quarters to gain information whether the form of attack which you mention in the U.S.A. was observable here, but as yet I have not been able to find that such is the case.

Many thanks to you for your presentation copy of your most interesting paper on “Rise and Progress of Economic Entomology,” and your only too flattering mention of my own work (pp. 295-97). On the continent of Europe there is grand work going forward, and the colleagueship I am favoured with from many of the leading Continental Government Entomologists is most kind and gratifying to me.

_September 23, 1895._

I think it is but a proper respect to you, as Entomologist of the Department of Agriculture of the U.S.A., to mention what I have been doing relative to the recent appointment of one of the U.S.A. staff of skilled Entomologists to the post of British Government Entomologist in Cape Colony. On the 17th inst. I heard from Mr. C. P. Lounsbury from Cape Town, with a letter of introduction enclosed from Dr. Fernald, which, he regretted, from pressure of time he had not been able to deliver. So did I, for I should very much like to have made his personal acquaintance, as well as that of Mrs. Lounsbury, of whom Dr. Fernald writes in such high terms.

I think it is a most happy thing for the Cape Colony to have secured the services of a good, trained Entomologist, but that he should bring with him in the person of his wife a lady so highly qualified to be a companion (an “_alter ego_”) in his work was a good fortune past hope. I wrote at once to Mr. Lounsbury expressing the pleasure it would be to me to co-operate so far as lay in my power. And I have since written to the same effect to the Agent General for the Cape of Good Hope, especially drawing his attention to the fact (though of course I did not word it in this way) that really instead of one Entomologist they had thus secured the services also of an excellently trained assistant! Yesterday morning I received a reply, expressing his best thanks, and mentioning that he was then communicating the contents of my letter to the Hon. the Secretary of Agriculture at Cape Colony, who he felt sure “will be extremely glad to hear the high opinion you entertain of the newly appointed Entomologist, and he will also be grateful for your friendly offer of co-operation in the work of that office.” I hope all this will meet with your approval. I am deeply indebted to the aid and encouragement I have received for years from the wonderful staff of workers of the U.S.A. and from its head—first Professor Riley, and now yourself—and if I can be of any service to a member of it by what I can do from here it would be a very great pleasure to me.

_September 1, 1897._

I never before have ventured to submit one of my leaflets to you. I felt as if I should be taking a liberty. To-day, however, I have a request from the Boston Public Library for one of the leaflets on the House Sparrow, and I have therefore ventured to ask your acceptance of a few copies sent accompanying by book post. You will see that I have extracted largely from the excellent work of your own Board of Agriculture, but in a condensed work of this kind it is impossible to show the value and importance of the observations as I should greatly desire. At least I have acknowledged my obligation gratefully. I am sure I need not say that I should think it a pleasure and an honour if you cared to have some copies of the sparrow leaflet for distribution. The farmers here are delighted to have something reliable, and their reports confirm the severe losses which _P. domesticus_ causes. But there is virulent opposition from a few people who rail at me in a most unpleasant manner.

Lately I had the great pleasure of a little visit from our good friend Dr. Fletcher, and we spent half an hour or so in cutting up some Plum-wood, infested by what I took to be the _Xyleborus saxeseni_ (Shot-borer beetle) (fig. 46), given as a maker of flat cells, or burrows, by Eichhoff; but very likely you have heard about this from him already.

I have had some nice observations in the earlier part of the year of the workings of the Angoumois moth, _Sitotroga (Gelechia) cerealella_, which was imported in such quantity from North Africa in one or more cargoes of barley as to give some alarm.

The wings, such as they are, of the female _Lipoptena cervi_ (fig. 24), have given me some good figures. There is demonstrably at times a mere abortive wing, but whether sometimes there has not been a developed wing which has been torn across so that only about an eighth of the wing remains, seems to me open to doubt. Also the Lesser earwig, _Labia minor_, has been locally a little troublesome. Altogether there have been a good many rather nice observations sent in, which I hope may presently be of some interest to you. Pray accept my sincere thanks for the enormous benefit I receive from the valuable publications so kindly sent me, and believe me with most hearty good wishes, &c.

_April 7, 1898._

Your letter of approval was a very great pleasure to me, and I greatly value your words of encouragement. Before this letter reaches you, you will perhaps have received a visit from Dr. Ritzema Bos, who gave me the pleasure of a visit on his way to the U.S.A. to investigate the amount of danger to be feared in Holland from this _A. perniciosus_ (San José scale). From what I gather from the different publications with which I am most liberally supplied from your own headquarters and the experimental stations, I hope that we need not fear this veritable pest making a settlement here. I have an impression that a part of the commotion here is from a desire to exclude foreign fruit imports. I am working now on what I hope may make a “Handbook of Insect Attacks, injurious to Orchard and Bush fruits, with means of Prevention and Remedy.” Fruit growing is extending very much with us, and so many little-known attacks have been reported to me in the last few years, that I thought a volume including these, with our old standing attacks brought up to date and very fully illustrated, would meet a need here. Also I was somewhat afraid that if I did not do it myself some one or other might be “good enough” to save me the trouble.

Our chief crop trouble during the spring and winter has been the presence of _Tylenchus devastatrix_ (eel-worm), in clover. This still continues, but I hope that with good growing weather and sulphate of potash (as a manure dressing to encourage growth) we may fight it down.

_March 24, 1899._

I am afraid that you will have been thinking me very negligent in not replying sooner to your kind letter, but I felt sure you would understand that if I could have sent any information in reply to your inquiry about the “Cigarette beetle” I should have hastened to submit it.

My Annual Report is late this year, for work on my Handbook, &c., &c., threw me late.

I have been following the urgent advice of our good and much regretted friend, Dr. Lintner, by having a “General Index” prepared to the series of twenty-two Annual Reports (chap. IX.). It is not a magnificently exhaustive compilation giving everything that can be desired, like that to your invaluable “Insect Life,” but I think that both entomologically and practically it will be of service. When printed, I purpose to forward copies for your own acceptance, likewise to Professor Webster, to the State Entomologist, Albany, and a few other positions where I think they very likely have a set of my twenty-two annual issues, and therefore might care to have the Index. But if I were not intruding too much on your kind good nature, would you allow me to send a few, say a packet of ten or twenty, to yourself, which perhaps you would so greatly oblige me as to present to mutual friends whom you might see. I should think this a kind favour, for I might go rather astray in my sendings.

With my next number (all being well) I propose to commence a “Second Series”—altering my plan a little, so as to have a special section in which I could place any good short notes of information sent me, thus utilising what may come to hand, but without being encumbered by perpetual repetition, year after year, of life history and figures, of well known, or what should be well known, attacks.

_June 26, 1899._

It is too good of you to give me the two copies of this valuable pamphlet, “Some Insects Injurious to Stored Grain,” and I thank you very much. But I did not beg for more of your publications, and tried to get them _via_ Messrs. Wesley, because you are so good to me, in constantly presenting information quite invaluable to me, that, as it is, I do not know how to reciprocate the kindness. We have nothing like your publications to fall back on here, and when a very heavy case is brought to me I naturally benefit by your books.

I have lately been called in about a cargo of flour of 46,200 seven-stone bags, every bag (so far as examined) infested by _Calandra (= Sitophilus) granaria_ (Granary weevil, fig. 68), and the Mediterranean Flour or Mill moth (fig. 41), and it was for the importers that I was trying to procure a copy, the other for my own lending. I am truly obliged to you.

My Index is not ready yet. I thought I could improve it, and strained my eyes so badly that I caused delay without much good.

Now I am trying to work up _Piophila casei_ (Cheese and Bacon fly, fig. 12) as a cheese pest. How curious it is that it should not trouble cured meats with us, as with you—nor cheese with you as with us.

The Shell-slug, _Testacella haliotidea_ (fig. 44), seems to me to deserve a little notice, as (by its carnivorous habit) ridding us of various under- and above-ground troubles (slugs especially), and I have been gathering a few notes about the creature for some years. Another (I believe) unusual presence lately sent me was a specimen of the Ground Planarian, _Bipalium kewense_, found eating plants “like a slug.” I did not know the worm (so to call it) at all, but the name was given at S. Kensington. When it arrived it looked only like a very narrow slimy strip about three inches long—but I thought from its reported habitat possibly some slightly warm water would revive it, and immediately it roused up and swelled to a narrow cylindrical shape, and leaving the moss on which it lay made such fair speed (by adhesion of the lower surface) up the side of the bowl, bearing an unpleasant looking bilobed head before it, that I restored it to its box as soon as might be.

_January 24, 1900._

I thank you most sincerely for this great trouble which you have been good enough to take for me. I feel very much gratified that you should place my Index in such distinguished hands, and I thank you very much also for your kind letter. Please allow me to add that if you should at any time care to accept copies of any works of mine which are in print, for yourself or friends, it would be a real pleasure to me to be allowed to send them.

I had a very pleasant letter from Mr. Lounsbury a few days ago. He is working with great interest on the “tick” [which conveys the disease known as red-water or Texas fever to cattle.]

_March 21, 1900._

I do not know whether, according to etiquette, I am quite right in mentioning the following matter, but I think that to a kind friend like yourself I may mention the great gratification it was to me lately to hear from the University of Edinburgh that they were about to confer on me the Honorary LL.D. I feel this to be a great honour. It is not only the compliment to myself that gratifies me, but I greatly hope that one of our chief British Universities giving its approval to Economic Entomology will be a great strengthening to work in this country, which it has greatly needed.

_April 30, 1900._

I was very much gratified by your kind congratulations (p. 295) on the great honour which the University of Edinburgh has conferred on me. They were all very kind when I went to receive the degree. I had the great pleasure one day of meeting His Excellency your Ambassador at the Vice-Chancellor’s [Sir William Muir], and was charmed with the kind interest with which he conversed on Agricultural Entomology, and indeed all subjects which were brought forward. At the ceremony I was next to him, and now and then he kindly interchanged a few pleasant words. As I took my seat by him after receiving the degree he gently whispered, “I congratulate you; you did it splendidly,” and I thought it very interesting that my first congratulation should be so kindly given me by the Ambassador of the greatly advanced country to which I am so indebted for help in my work.

_September 29, 1900._

It was a great pleasure to me (though it was only such a little visit) to make personal acquaintance with Dr. John Smith of New Jersey. Also Dr. W. Saunders (who came for the Paris Exhibition) and Dr. Mills kindly came to see me. These visits are very refreshing.

Meanwhile I have been learning a great deal from your “Notes on the Mosquitoes of the United States.” It is a great gratification to me to possess this valuable work, and my medical adviser, Dr. Lipscomb, is only waiting until I can spare it, to borrow it for his own perusal. With kind regards and good wishes and grateful thanks for all your kind help and encouragement, pray believe me,

Yours very sincerely, ELEANOR A. ORMEROD.