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.

1, Moth, with wings expanded; 2, moth, at rest; 3, caterpillar; 4,
chrysalis—all magnified; lines showing natural length.

FIG. 41.—MEDITERRANEAN FLOUR MOTH, _EPHESTIA KUHNIELLA_, ZELL.
]

_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.

1 and 2, Moth, magnified and natural size; 3, caterpillar, magnified,
and line showing natural length; 4, pierced grain, natural size and
magnified; 5, grain with frass, magnified; 6, chrysalis in grain,
and removed, magnified, and line showing natural length.

FIG. 42.—ANGOUMOIS MOTH, FLY WEEVIL (U.S.A), _SITOTROGA (GELECHIA)
CEREALELLA_, OLIV.
]

1, Male; 2, female with wings expanded, much magnified; line showing
natural length of body and forceps.

FIG. 43.—LESSER EARWIG, _FORFICULA MINOR_, LINN., _LABIA MINOR_,
LEACH.
]

_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.

1, Snail-slug, in motion; 2, contracted; 3, head, with tentacles,
magnified; 4, shell, upper and under side, slightly magnified; 5,
shell, much magnified; 6, egg (4 and 6 from Plate v. of Jeffrey’s
_British Conchology_, vol. i.; the other figures from specimens
taken at St. Albans).

FIG. 44.—SNAIL-SLUG, _TESTACELLA HALIOTIDEA_, DRAPARNAUD.
]

1, Worm extended; 2, contracted; 3, 4, and 5, different forms taken by
the head—all life size (after figures by Prof. F. Jeffrey Bell); 6,
bifid form of head, rather larger than life.

FIG. 45.—FLATWORM, LAND PLANARIAN, _BIPALIUM KEWENSE_.
]

_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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------