CHAPTER XXII

LETTERS TO MR. JANSON AND MR. MEDD

Deer Forest fly—Flour moths—Weevils—Grouse and Cheese flies—Beetles—Agricultural Education Committee—The Water-baby Leaflet—Paper on Wasps.

MR. JANSON, addressed in the opening letters of this chapter, occupied the position of technical expert, to whom Miss Ormerod referred her generally accurate identifications of insects for confirmation. The cases of flour infestation referred to we have learned of in Chapter X., “Legal Experiences.” The language employed is more technical than in any other part of her correspondence—the words of an expert addressing herself to another expert in the language of their common subject. Mr. Medd’s name has been more associated with education than entomology, especially in relation to the comparatively new branch of “Nature Study.”

_To Mr. O. E. Janson, Technical Expert in Entomology, 44, Great Russell Street, W.C._

TORRINGTON HOUSE, ST. ALBAN’S, _February 13, 1897._

DEAR MR. JANSON,—I hope that in a very few days you will receive your copy of my twentieth Report, in which you helped me so especially about the Forest flies.

I am hoping you may be good enough to help me about the enclosed, or kindly put me in the right path, for I greatly hope that this may prove to be the long-needed observation about amount of wings of the ♀(female) Deer Forest fly, the _Lipoptera cervi_ (fig. 23). I received a day or two ago a good number, many still alive, or fresh on a little piece of Roe-deer’s hide, which was infested with them even to being in clusters (from Strathconan forest, Ross-shire). On examining, I found on each side, at the hinder edge of the thorax, a little membranous kind of structure with a scalloped edge, and on very carefully raising it I found it was fixed to the thorax by a joint, and was, I think, quite certainly an abortive wing. I saw veins traversing the structure longitudinally, and though the scalloped and notched extremity was irregular in shape, it did not at all have the appearance (to my thinking at least) of being torn. Enclosed I send you half a dozen specimens, one of which has the structure very plain; the others I picked out at random, and what I am very much wishing you would help me about is whether these are females. They have the distinguishing dark brown colour (not the faint yellow colour of the male), and I should say they had the shape of the female, but I am not anatomist enough to be certain. If you cannot with complete convenience tell me yourself could you oblige by getting me a trustworthy opinion. I would most gladly give a most liberal consideration to any one you would get to investigate, for if these are females, we have here the long-wanted observation, and proof that they have abortive wings. I have plenty more specimens if you would care for some more; also I have two puparia.

_February 23, 1897._

I am greatly obliged to you for helping me in this matter of the _L. cervi_. You will remember that you kindly helped me to a sight of a good number of German publications, from which I made large extracts, and, turning to these, I find notes of the male and of the female _L. cervi_, being found together in the hair of the deer all the winter through, and pairing there and the female depositing puparia. But the matter is much involved by the following statement regarding two varieties in the form of the males by Professor Stein, or Hartmann quoted by Stein: “The first are pale yellow, and the abdomen is slender and shrivels considerably after death; the latter are more yellow brown, their abdomen is wider and firmer, and the external organs of propagation clearly observable.” There is a deal about abortive or shed wings, but the writers are under uncertainty. My belief is that our only hope towards clearing up the matter is our own observation, and if these creatures are really females, we have got the information that was being sought after. But do not let me tax your very great good nature too much. If you could give a specimen or two to Mr. Verrall and to Mr. Austen I should like it, and you would hear what they say, and I would replace them to you. I have two puparia which I suppose are not likely to develop till towards the end of summer.

_April 16, 1897._

I have been so fortunate as to find a puparium of a Deer Forest fly lately sent me in a consignment from Strathconan, and this gave me an opportunity of communicating with Professor Jos. Mik, Vienna, and he pronounces the specimens I sent accompanying to be females. He writes me (and I think it very kind of him to take the trouble) an exceedingly long letter, full of information and references, extending in a very small handwriting over five and a half large pages of note-paper, and, as he justly remarks, I have some difficulty in reading it!

I think of getting Mr. Pillischer to make some preparations of the _L. cervi_ ♀and their abortive wings so that we may have material for a good figure. Professor Mik is fearfully particular.

_May 12, 1897._

Professor Mik identified my _L. cervi_ as certainly well-developed females. I think he was a good deal pleased to have a mature puparium which I sent him and to dissect out an immature one. He says that he has himself ♀ of _L. cervi_, with abortive wings, so my work will not be a discovery as I hoped, still I think it will be of interest to illustrate.

_May 24, 1897._

Your description of _L. minor_ (lesser earwig) has helped me enormously, and I have translated as much as I think is likely to be needed of the technical part to help Mr. Knight to make a characteristic drawing (fig. 43).

I should like ♂ or ♀and forceps of both, and I have material for this, but I should very much like a wing. I tried to unfold one or two and wasted my materials. Would your microscopist set one for me do you think? I should much like it; for I fancy (I have not been able to make sure) that there is a longer band of dark colour along the front edge than in our common earwig. But, any way, if I could have the wing set I should very much like to have a good figure of it.

_October 5, 1897._

If you can spare time to help me in the present inquiry, I should be much obliged; it is quite a trade business matter. I am consulted by a London firm dealing in flour, as to infestation in their barrels, but as I gather it may be both from the Eastern and the Western world, and also may be infested by insect pests from whatever may be lying on the wharves, I want to be very sure of my identifications.

The presence of _Ephestia kuhniella_ (Flour moth) was quite plain, so this I need not trouble you about. But about the “Weevils.” I think those of which I enclose specimens in the bottle stoppered with cotton wool, are the common _Calandra_ (= _Sitophilus granarius_). I am quite sure _C. oryzæ_ was present, but I do not think I have enclosed any. Messrs. Henderson write me to-day that they are quite sure their barrels took the infestation from oil-cakes which were swarming with _S. granarius_. To the best of my belief and search, _Calandra_ only lives on grain, so I fancy that its connection with the oil-cakes must be only as a shelter. I know _Calandra_ will resort to remains of bread and milk or ripe apricots near a granary, but I supposed this was in search of moisture. But, nevertheless, as one weevil is so like another, it would be an important help if you would kindly verify my identification for me.

In the same little bottle are two small not-far-from-globose pubescent beetles, which I thought might be _Niptus hololeucus_, but when they came clean I saw they had not the beautiful bright yellow pubescence, nor were they so globose. I do not know them; you probably will at a glance, and your kind help would save me long search. Amongst the larvæ I found one answering to that of _Cucujus testaceus_ (as given in Curtis) = _Læmophlœus ferrugineus_—and in the flour there were numbers of the minute rusty little beetles of which I enclose some in a corked bottle. Will these be _Cucujus ferrugineus_? I do not think I have any types, and as this is such a decided business inquiry, I feel sure you will allow me to ask you to keep me right about it, at your convenience. The flour or barrels or something must have been (to my thinking) in a very neglected state.

_October 11, 1897._

I am greatly obliged to you for your kind help about the flour coleoptera. I was puzzled about the _granarius_, as there was a slightly different look about it, from the specimens which I usually have, and I had no series for comparison. I have never had _Læmophlœus_ in this quantity before,—they run in all directions out of the flour. I cannot find another _Ptinus_, but the information you have given me is quite enough, I am sure, for my flour people. The really important attack that they have got is _E. kuhniella_ (Flour moth) but as the flour is in barrels perhaps it will not trouble them.

I have kept my _X. saxeseni_ (Shot-borer beetles), in a good-sized glass-topped box, where the larvæ are still throwing out dust and the beetles come out and die, but I do not see any more, and I think that instead of giving you more trouble about them I had better get Mr. Knight to copy one of the U.S.A. imagos and add larvæ, pupæ, and strange “cleft” like cell from life. If the specimens you have are of interest to you pray oblige me by keeping them. I think I have material for a really interesting paper. Do you happen to know what has become of my very much valued correspondent, Dr. Karl Lindeman [the Russian Entomologist]? I have not heard from him for a year and a half, and I do not find his name in the U.S.A. Scientists’ Guide. He was truly friendly and very punctilious in writing, but if he were dead I think I should have seen his obituary. I wonder whether he was so useful to the people that he has had to take a trip to Siberia!

_October 26, 1897._

What work _Hylurgus piniperda_ (Pine beetle),[85] continues to make in some of the great Pine woods in Scotland, consequent on the damage by high winds some years ago. I had an application a little while ago from the forester on one of the great properties near Aberdeen, who reports great mischief on 1,000 acres. This afternoon I have a report of the woods at Craighlaw, Kirkcowan, Wigtonshire, being in most dismal condition.

I really wonder whether it will ever occur to our Board of Agriculture that there ought to be a Government Entomologist. It is only a short time since I had an application connected with the Austrian Embassy about a beetle attack that was eating the oats at Constantinople, but I suggested that Vienna was unsurpassed for its scientific men!

_August 18, 1899._

I am thinking (though I have not mentioned the matter beyond just beginning at present) of (if I can find it) taking a comfortable villa and good garden at or in the outskirts of Brighton. I much wish to be nearer relations, for living so much alone is at times a very dreary kind of thing. Also there are many points in which Brighton would, I think, suit me better for my work, and possibly be more conveniently easy of access for entomological friends living on the South London lines. I know the place very well, and it has always suited my health excellently.

_September 19, 1899._

I have a _Hippoboscid_ this afternoon from Mr. Wheler, which was found on a lamb. He thinks it is a Grouse fly (or Spider fly, a near relative of the Forest fly). Surely oddly located! But so far as I see I think it must be so. Shall I not send it you? In any case it might be of interest, and I should very much like, at your convenience, to be made sure of what it is. If it be _Ornithomyia avicularia_ (Grouse fly), I conjecture that it straggled into the nearest shelter when it developed. It is in beautiful order, but so lively that I have not been able to get a good look at the claws. [This identification was confirmed by Mr. Janson.]

_September 22, 1899._

I am much obliged to you for all the points of interesting information in your letter. There is no hurry about figuring the Grouse fly, so that if Mr. Norman would kindly let me have the slide as soon as he thinks it would be safe to use it, I should feel very much obliged. I now enclose the specimen from a lamb. I quieted its very superabundant antics by slipping a little lump of cotton wool down the tube, about a third of the way, and it accepted the soft material moderately. It died afterwards, and I enclose it with some spirits in the tube. I should (if not inconvenient to you to ask), very much like this specimen also set by Mr. Norman, with the wings as they are at present—at rest, but showing the fore-nerves very nicely. I incline to think that if this be certainly _O. avicularia_, that it would suit better for figuring than the previous specimen as being in the same position as my _H. equina_ and _L. cervi_, both ♂ and ♀in previous Annual Reports. If you could oblige me with the two slides together I could make what personal observations I want; have which ever seems best figured, and afterwards, if one or both are of interest to you, I would very gladly beg your acceptance. I daresay you will be good enough to let me use your interesting short note about finding the specimen of _avicularia_ alive in the box with the Horned owl.

I am working now on _Piophila casei_, Linn. (Cheese and Bacon fly, fig. 12), and hope to make a good paper, with some original observations of my own. Is it not a noteworthy circumstance that besides undoubtedly breeding in myriads in stores of cheese and bacon, that also they come in through the windows in such numbers that wire gauze, or equivalent, is a recognised protective measure? I think this points to there being some home of _P. casei_ that wants looking up.

I did think Brighton might suit me better, but I found there was no suitable house, so I am staying here. I am very glad that you had a pleasant rest, and a beneficial one.

_October 21, 1899._

Messrs. Forshaw and Hawkins, of Liverpool, have written me regarding beetle and maggot presence in flour and meal in two compartments of “Telesford,” from New Orleans to Glasgow. They send me “a deal of”[86] report and two tubes with beetles, larvæ and flour. I believe these beetles (and larvæ) to be _Tribolium ferrugineum_ (Rust-red flour beetle), and I enclose four beetles and six maggots. Will you be so very good as to let me know if I am right, and I enclose a telegraph form filled in, which would put me at ease for the present if you would be good enough to send it to me. The reason I am troubling you now is that the small amount of flour in the little tubes has the characteristic (mentioned in Mr. Chittenden’s paper in “Household Insects,” &c., in a Bulletin of U.S.A.) of being greyish. See top of p. 113 as to “Flour Beetles.”

This is quite different from the state of Messrs. Smyth and Co.’s flour, and if you are so good as to confirm my identification I might perhaps be allowed to use the information on our side on Tuesday, when Mr. Blyth comes down about depositions. The Glasgow case has every appearance of being on the road to a lawsuit, but now (after Friday’s experience) I should not be so afraid of giving evidence, if you would make me sure.

_November 1, 1899._

I received the Grouse fly slide in perfect safety, beautifully put up; many thanks to you for procuring the same. If at your very best convenience you would settle my debt to Mr. Norman for his help, I should be greatly obliged. I am getting into your debt assuredly also, but whilst I am troubling you, thanks to these infested cargo people, I think I had better let this stand over. It is very weary work getting up information in this minute way, and as matter of choice I had rather be without a visit[ation] from six professional gentlemen and a shorthand writer all at once!

I have had a beautiful specimen of workings in willow of _Cryptorhynchus lapathi_ beetle.

_December 29, 1899._

Many thanks for a sight of Mr. Fuller’s letter (returned enclosed). I have enjoyed reading it very much; it is so interesting to have a real letter about the war, not made up “for press.” I worked myself nearly stupid in running up the habits of the _Calandra_ mentioned in “Insect Life,” and there was some such roguery somewhere or other about the mate’s report, which he stated afterwards was written under intimidation, that I felt a little uneasy about having anything to do with the matter.

_January 12, 1900._

I have lately had an application about “White Ants” being destructive to young Cocoa trees in Ceylon. I do not know much about the great hill-building Termites as plant eaters, but I thought that probably exposing just the couple of inches or so subject to be gnawed, to the light might be useful.

_September 16, 1900._

I am very much obliged to you for all the trouble you have kindly taken in identifying the _Bruchi_ for me, but on running the matter up there does not seem to be the least reason to suppose that these creatures had more to do with the barley than that they had strayed into it from beans, of which I find on special inquiry that the steamer carried also a consignment “in the same hold.” I wrote to the importers (or rather my applicants wrote to them on my part) and I received a small consignment of the very identical beans from them (from Hull), and most of these I now enclose to you, as I thought you might care to see if anything of interest would develop. The specimens in the little bottle, including one or two hymenopterous parasites, are also from the beans.

In a little box with the beans is a fine specimen of the Goat moth, _Cossus ligniperda_, larva, which is very diligently spinning.[87] I have been much interested in watching the way it thickens its beginning of lacework web. I believe (unless the top specimen has eaten it!) that there is another larva at the bottom.

_September 23, 1900._

I am very much obliged to you for these nicely set _Bruchi_, and I do not think it would be at all out of place, although two of the species are not British, to give figures of the three kinds (_brachialis_, _rufipes_, and _tristis_) as found in a cargo including beans and wild peas from Smyrna, together with barley. (The consignees were very much puzzled about them.) I also found _rufimanus_ in one of the beans which I was opening, a lovely specimen, so perfect in its marking. But now, if you please, I very much wish for a little further help. I cannot find any reference to _brachialis_ or _tristis_ in any book I possess, excepting just the names in Calwer’s “Käferbuch.”

I have been not a little disappointed about _Scolytus pruni_. I found nice larvæ in a piece of plum bark with this infestation, and had a good figure taken, but I kept on watching the small number of specimens to be fairly certain of species, and to my vexation on development out came one as _rugulosus_!

With many thanks for your welcome and valuable help.

_October 4, 1900._

I am very much obliged to you for lending me the two vols. of “Deutsche Ent. Zeit.,” which will help me very much about those _Bruchidæ_—and more particularly with the specific distinctions which you have been good enough to give me. I will try not to keep the books over-long, and will return them carefully packed.

_November 1, 1900._

Is it of interest to you (in case that you have not heard) to know of the decease, on the 13th of October, of Professor Josef Mik, of Vienna, after a short illness? I shall miss him, for he was a friendly colleague, and was good enough to send me a little collection of types of _Tabanidæ_ which have been a great help.

I was rather perplexed how to name these three newly-imported species of _Bruchus_, but for want of a better I thought that sad-coloured bean-seed weevil, _B. tristis_; red-footed bean-seed weevil, _B. rufipes_; and red-horned bean-seed weevil, _B. ruficornis_ [=_brachialis_] would do fairly.

Yours very truly. ELEANOR A. ORMEROD.

_To J. C. Medd, Esq., Stratton, Cirencester._

TORRINGTON HOUSE, ST. ALBANS, _March 12, 1900._

DEAR MR. MEDD,—I am much obliged by the packet of publications regarding the work of the “Agricultural Education Committee,”[88] and I note excellent names in your list of members, and some excellently true observations in your four-page leaflet, “Agricultural Instruction in the Elementary School.” But it is with great difficulty that I am able to keep my own work in hand, and I have been quite unable to find time to study the other pamphlets which you have been good enough to send me, although, from their titles, I make no doubt that they contain both valuable information and suggestion.

Although I am sure that plain and interesting information on subjects of their daily surroundings would be gladly received by the boys, I do not in the least see my way to complying with your flattering suggestion of my pen being useful in the matter. You know how I am situated? There is a constant stream of applications sent me for advice regarding prevention of insect pests, which though chiefly about British troubles, involves much correspondence both with the Entomologists of our Colonies, the Continent and the U.S.A.—and to meet which I have no staff. I could not find time to write papers such as you desire; but if you wish I would send you copies of such leaflets as I have in which some of the ordinary crop pests are treated of very plainly; and from these I make no doubt that you could get passages arranged for your readers which the boys would like to read.

_July 9, 1900._

It gratifies me very much that you should think my leaflets and “Manual” likely to be of use; and you have only to express the wish, for me to send another hundred of the “Manuals” as soon as they could be bound. I have been reading and much appreciating your observations in “Our Programme,”[89] of which you have kindly given me a copy, and it has occurred to me whether, now that I understand the scope of your work better, I might arrange a very simple paper on our commonest Live Stock attacks. I enclose a few pages as a sample of what is in my mind, just giving what could be taken in (and I think is needed) with addition of a little more life history, and the exceedingly simple methods of prevention. I have quantities of first-rate illustrations, but now I just submit the enclosed to you, hoping you will be kind enough to let me know at your convenience what you think of my idea.

_July 14, 1900._

I am personally truly grateful for your letter of this morning, for I was very uneasy lest I should be, to put it shortly, giving sad offence. I certainly think the “Water-baby”[90] leaflet is a great mistake, but, as you judiciously remark, if it is to be issued we must make the best of it.

I will think over to the best of my power what appears likely to be of use agriculturally on the subject of fly attacks on farm stock. Whilst I am preparing the papers themselves perhaps a good heading such as I may presently submit for approval will suggest itself. I should much like to have the primary heading “Agricultural Education Committee,” for—with a footnote that the papers were prepared at the desire of the Agricultural Education Committee to give information—this would throw a shield over me, in writing on Cattle and Stock attacks. The ones selected do not infringe on what might be called “Veterinary”—things that involve discussion unbecoming in a lady writer, and those I propose to write on are what I have long had application about. There need be no difficulty about publishing if I do it in my usual way.

_August 2, 1900._

After your visit, so pleasant as well as profitable to myself yesterday, I sat down as soon as I could to see what I could write about “Wasps,” and I enclose the results. It is mostly an abstract of records of much personal observation of my own. If you like I would gladly lend electros of the figures.[91] If you care to accept the enclosed for any use to our Agricultural Education Committee that you may think it may be suited, I should be really pleased, only begging that it may not on any account whatever appear as part of the “Water-baby” series—that really I do not think I could bear.

_August 8, 1900._

I thank you very heartily for your courteous reception of my letter about resignation. It is very good of you to write so kindly on the subject. I enclose you a copy of the letter which I have sent to the Secretary, which I have endeavoured to express with the friendliness which I feel. But, much as I regret leaving, I find that, independently of the considerations which I told to you, when I come to the real working my health does not allow it. If I am over-pressed it brings on (without being unduly explicit) troubles both of health and sight, and I am very thankful that, beyond your exceedingly kind expressions, you do not press my remaining too hardly on me.

_November 26, 1900._

Many thanks to you for Mr. Bathurst’s paper on “Orchards;”[92] there is some excellent advice in it, particularly about sawing beneath the limb, trimming smooth, and not planting deep. But I think that as the piece of cloth to be tied round the tree is to “act as a trap,” a little addition is needed (see my “Insects Injurious to Orchard and Bush Fruit,” pp. 12, 13), viz., that the trap should be examined and the caterpillars cleared out every few days, or say every fortnight. If this be not done the sacking is very likely to make a nice little house for them. Please excuse my giving my views thus vigorously, and uncalled for.

Yours very truly, ELEANOR A. ORMEROD.