od. The question
as to how far purely technical and especially descriptive and
monographic work should be done by the different stations or by the
national department is one which I have already alluded to and upon
which we shall probably hold differing opinions, and which will be
settled according to the views of the authorities at the different
stations. Individually, I have ever felt that one ostensibly engaged
in applied entomology and paid by the State or national government to
the end that he may benefit the agricultural community can be true to
his trust only by largely overcoming the pleasure of entomological
work having no practical bearing. I would, therefore, draw the line at
descriptive work except where it is incidental to the economic work
and for the purpose of giving accuracy to the popular and economic
statements. This would make our work essentially biological, for all
biologic investigation would be justified, not only because the life
habits of any insect, once ascertained, throw light on those of
species which are closely related to it, but because we can never know
when a species at present harmless may subsequently prove harmful, and
have to be classed among the species injurious to agriculture.

On the question of credit to their original sources of results already
on record, it is hardly necessary for me to advise, because good sense
and the consensus of opinion will in the end justify or condemn a
writer according as he prove just and conscientious in this regard.

There is one principle that should guide every careful writer, viz.,
that in any publications whatever, where facts or opinions are put
forth, it should always be made clear as to which are based upon the
author's personal experience and which are compiled or stated upon the
authority of others. We should have no patience with a very common
tendency to set forth facts, even those relating to the most common
and best known species, without the indications to which I have
referred. The tendency belittles our calling and is generally
misleading and confusing, especially for bibliographic work, and
cannot be too strongly deprecated.

On this point there will hardly be any difference of opinion, but I
will allude to another question of credit upon which there prevails a
good deal of loose opinion and custom. It is the habit of using
illustrations of other authors without any indication of their
original source.

This is an equally vi