CO885-(21-23) — Page 37

[ 2། ། ། །

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.885

21 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

54

affiliated with the International Commission, but while co-operating with the Com- mission it could devote itself especially to the investigation of the insect pests of the British Empire. It might also be possible for the governing body of the new Bureau to be represented on the International Commission.

In summing up his statement of the position of his own Government, he emphasized the fact that in Canada they had been investigating their insect pests since 1868, that they had acquired much information and could, if necessary, continue on the present lines without the proposed assistance; but he assured the Conference that his Government were anxious to co-operate, provided that a really satisfactory scheme could be devised sufficiently wide in its scope to be of practical utility to all the Dominions, the larger no less than the smaller."

Dr. Shipley stated that the larger scheme to which Dr. Hewitt had referred could be begun if contributions to the extent of £2,600 per annum could be guaranteed. In that case he hoped that the Canadian Government would be willing to contribute £500 or £600 instead of the £300 for which they had been asked originally, and he most anxiously anticipated that the other Colonies would be willing to increase their contributions proportionately.

Mr. Marshall said that he had met Sir Newton Moore, the Agent General for Western Australia, at the Oxford Congress and that Sir Newton had told him that his only criticism on the scheme was that the contributions asked for appeared to be too small for carrying out adequately the proposals submitted.

At this point Mr. Marshall read the following extracts from a letter which he had received from Mr. C. P. Lounsbury, Chief of the Division of Entomology, Pretoria:-

•

Of the three lines of activity proposed for the Committee in Circular 23995, I deem the second to be much the most important, and I would give the third the next place. Relative to the third, it is my opinion that such a journal should be printed in an inexpensive form on light paper and in general should subordinate style and finery to information. It should be, I think, a journal which a Government would feel no hesitancy on the score of expense to issue to every plant and nursery inspector however humble his post; and if it is made such and made to be for economic entomology an elaboration of what the Experiment Station Record at 6s. a year is for the agricultural sciences in general, I imagine that it might secure a large circulation and become a great boon. I put the publication of a journal as of less urgency than an organization for determinations (and incidental references) because of the greater relative need. Most economic entomologists are now able to keep themselves pretty well informed through the medium of existing publi- cations on what other economic entomologists are doing, but many an insect of probable potential importance is now ignored by people who, like myself, are too busy to give time to its identification, handicapped as they are by scantiness of collections and literature.

11

Proposition No. 1 does not appeal to me, for the reason that I am confident lists as suggested would be practically useless for the purpose indicated that of providing a rational basis for plant import regulations. Moreover, I doubt if the entomological or mycological officers of any new country could frame such returns fulness that would render them satisfactory for any use.

as are contemplated with a degree of And I am sure that to frame such lists for this country at present would be an undertaking from which the benefits would not be commensurate with the costs.

**

Our South African plant import regulations are not ideal yet by a long way, but I believe them to be on the right lines. The chief defect in the system now is that I have to entrust the inspections and precautionary dis- infections to men of very limited training and education. They are not likely to overlook the troubles they have learned to know, but I consider them an. inefficient safeguard against the obscure and unexpected things. Restrictions on the importation of food-stuffs do not find much favour with me. If a food- stuff is liable to introduce a certain disease, but is urgently required by the country, I think, in general, it is better to let it in and run the risk of intro- ducing the disease than to impose vexatious restrictions which may result in wholesale rejections. Inspection is likely to prove an utter farce when large importations have to be dealt with, and nothing is more unsatisfactory to an

55

honest merchant than risks of trouble he cannot guard against. The presence of infection in a large consignment is such a risk, and an inspector might easily chance on it only say once in half a dozen consignments, when it was present to as great an extent in the other five. On the other hand, if the article is not a necessity, prohibition may be advisable; and the prohibition should, as a rule, hold with respect to all countries, not with respect to particular ones only.. In the line of living plants, I think importations should as far as practicable be rigidly confined to limited introductions of new varieties and to what the country cannot produce for itself. Plants are now admitted into the Union only under a special permit in each case, and I would be little influenced in the issue of a permit by information such as proposition No. 1 sugests should be drawn up. I would feel that the absence of the mention of a dread pest would signify not so much its actual absence as lack of its recognition; and I would fear the presence of an unconsidered trouble which under new conditions might prove a formidable pest quite as much as a known trouble. I have been in this country seventeen years.

If I had made

up a list of deciduous fruit tree or of citrous fruit tree troubles after even twelve years' residence, I would have omitted a number of pests which I then did not know were in the country and which I now know were in at the time and which I now rank as of very serious importance. And yet I keep in close touch with fruit-growers. If, say, I had issued a list omitting those troubles, an Australian entomologist, guided by that list, might have been misled into thinking he could much more safely issue permits for the intro- duction of plants from this country than from, say, America. We have many insects in this country which we occasionally see in very small numbers on cultivated plants and to which no economic importance whatever seems to be attached. Amongst them are various undetermined species of Ceroplastes, Lecanium, Tachardia, and other genera of Coccidae. Introduced to America some of these insects might, perhaps, become frightful scourges. perhaps, argue that, inconsequential as they are here, they would be listed You might, under Proposition I. But even if they were, their names would convey no significance in the absence of a had reputation. Saissetia oleae is the worst scale pest of California. It occurs practically all over this country, but except where the Argentine or some other ant keeps off its enemies it is so rare that no one would think of calling it pestiferous. Here it simply has the `status of several other Lecaniinae which probably are still unnamed. Phyl- loxera got to Europe before it received a name. And before Icerya purchasi got to California and South Africa, it was quite unknown as an economic insect. All three of these notorious pests would have been omitted from lists of injurious insects in the countries from which they came at the time they were spread to other countries. We now see in the books that Asterlecanium rariolosum occurs on oaks in Europe, but I have yet to learn that it is destrue- tive there. You should see the mess it is beginning to make of our oaks!

"But I must stop. I wish you a most successful conference and most sincerely regret that South Africa is not to be represented.'

"

Dr. Tidswell stated that he concurred fully with all that Dr. Hewitt had said. The extended scheme would be of great value to Australia. sums asked for originally were too small and it would certainly be worth the while In his opinion, the of the Colonies which agreed to co-operate to make a bigger contribution in view of the large interests at stake. As regards the suggestion of Dr. Hewitt that the various Government Entomologists should be made en officio members of the Com- mittee, he observed that this could be easily carried out so far as Australia was concerned, but that, as each separate State had its own Entomologist, it might be advisable to have a general secretary or representative in Australia to correlate the views of the State Entomologists and to keep in close touch with the Bureau reply to a question which he asked as regards contributions now paid by certain Colonies to the International Institute of Agriculture at Rome, it was pointed out that, as the new Bureau would deal only with entomology, there would appear to be no question of the Colonies discontinuing their contributions to the Institute.

Dr. Shipley suggested that if Dr. Tidswell's suggestion as to a general secretary were carried out, the Commonwealth Government might be asked to contribute

In