Chapter XXI

LETTERS TO DRS. RITZEMA BOS, SCHÖYEN, REUTER AND NALEPA, MR. LOUNSBURY
AND MR. FULLER

Eel-worms—Lady-birds—Wheat midges—Resignation from the Royal
Agricultural Society—Wasps—Study of Norwegian and Swedish—Gall
mites—Boot beetles—Experience of publishing.

Representative letters to five foreign and colonial scientific entomologists have been gathered into this chapter, among other reasons to show the diversity of Miss Ormerod’s work, carried on in close touch and in the most agreeable relations, with the highest wide-world authorities on various specialised branches of her subject.

_To Professor J. Ritzema Bos, Amsterdam._

TORRINGTON HOUSE, ST. ALBANS, ENGLAND,
_July 27, 1893_.

DEAR DR. RITZEMA BOS,—I have not written to you for a long time,
partly because I had nothing of sufficient importance to allow
me to submit it to you, but also because both my sister and
myself had rather severe illnesses.

Enclosed I beg to send you some pieces of potato, which I think
it is just possible may be infested by (or at least have now)
some slight presence of _Tylenchus devastatrix_ (eel-worm, fig.
47). I received several tubers this morning from near
Helensburgh, in Dumbartonshire, Scotland. Mr. Robert Howie, the
sender, writes me that a large field recently dug up by him was
very much damaged by being badly “scabbed” in the same way as
the samples sent. But, when I came to examine the so-called
“scabbed” parts after washing, the surface for the most part
looked to me more as if it had been gnawed by some larvæ, than
if it were a diseased state of coat. The skin of the potato is
often left overhanging. I was going to suggest to Mr. Howie that
he should search for _Agrotis_ larvæ, or _Melolontha_
(Cockchafer), grubs, but examining further at the end of one or
two tubers, where the skin was still in its natural state,
excepting small patches of what was as yet only a slight
discoloured roughness, I found a few eel-worms. They were so few
that they evaded me when using the higher power, but in one
instance I thought I detected a bulb near the head end. I am
afraid I may be taking up your time with what is of no
importance; still I thought I should like to send you some
pieces, and if the attack is one of any interest I would gladly
forward more. The eel-worms I have seen are all anguilliform,
the largest was about as long or longer than the largest _T.
devastatrix_ I have seen, the others were smaller. Mr. Rochford
has been carrying on with great care and precision his
experiments as to poisoning _Heterodera radicicola_ (root-knott
eel-worms, fig. 49). He has tried about forty different
applications—noting the amount given and the effect on the
eel-worms and the plants. I certainly hope that a few will show
successful results, but he is very careful, and is now going
over his series of experiments a second time, that he may be
quite certain before coming forward with statements of effects.
As soon as I know anything of interest I shall be very glad to
be allowed to tell you; Mr. Rochford has given me permission. I
do not know as yet whether he will bring forward his results
himself, or leave it to me to do. Pray believe me, with best
thanks for all the kind assistance you give me.

Larva, pupa, and antenna of male ♂ and female ♀.

FIG. 58.—COCKCHAFER, _MELOLONTHA VULGARIS_, FAB.
]

_September 7, 1893._

As I think that you have either returned home, or will soon be
returning, I now (with your kind permission) send a few more of
the “scabbed” potatoes, which it seemed possible might be
infested by _Tylenchus devastatrix_. If it should be convenient
to you at your best leisure to make any examination, and to let
me know results, I am sure I need not say how acceptable your
information would be, not only to myself, but to many interested
in the cause of this external deformity. I send the potatoes in
a little tin box by parcel post. Recently I have had rather an
interesting observation of the little black, somewhat pubescent,
“lady-bird” beetle, _Scymnus minimus_, as a feeder on Red
spider, _Tetranychus telarius_. I have not been able to find any
account of its life history, so I have had great pleasure in
watching its progress from larval to imago state. It seems to me
to be greedily carnivorous; after a few hours’ want of food
during their journey to me, the larvæ set to work to feed on
what they could pick up on the back of a leaf infested by red
spider, as eagerly as sheep on fresh grass; and as I found one
day only a single larva remaining of three or four confined
together, I suspect it was this survivor who had reduced his
brethren to the small remains which were all I found. The final
changes were rapid, for the above happened on August 28th, and
shortly after it had pupated, and yesterday I found the little
black lady-bird in most active condition.

I have heard nothing further at present from Mr. Rochford about
his _Heterodera_ experiments. I think I must remind him soon
that he kindly promised me a report.

1, Cluster of eggs; 2, egg, magnified; 3, grub, magnified; 4, line
showing natural length; 5 and 6, pupæ; 7 and 8, 2-spotted lady-bird,
_Coccinella bipunctata_, L. (= _dispar_), and dark variety; 9,
7-spotted lady-bird, _C. septempunctata_, L., like in form but much
larger than the black lady-bird.

FIG. 59.—LADY-BIRDS, _COCCINELLIDÆ_.
]

1, _Geophilus longicornis_; 2, _Lithobius forficatus_, “thirty-foot”;
3, head of _Lithobius forficatus_, magnified.

FIG. 60.—LONG-HORNED CENTIPEDES.
]

_May 14, 1894._

I have been quite sorry for a long time that I have had no
specimens which would be of interest to you. I was afraid you
might think I was not attending to these subjects, but now I
have received a cucumber root quite beset with galls, of which I
forward you a portion. It is from a nursery gardener at Rhyl, in
Flintshire, North Wales, where they are much troubled by
cucumber and tomato plants dying, some of both kinds having the
“roots covered with galls but some have not.” Messrs. Maxwell
and Dalgliesh sent me some of the roots without galls, from
plants that were nearly dead, but I could not discover the cause
of the failure of these. On such inefficient examination as I
make, I find in the soft pulpy centre of the larger galls some
anguilliform nematodes, which I conjecture to be males, or
larvæ, of the _H. radicicola_, but so far as I searched I did
not find females; there were a fair number of eggs. On cutting
the pieces of plant into fragments for packing I find the stem
just about the ground-level much beset with diseased growth. I
have not, however, delayed to try to examine this, for I might
be only wasting specimens. Messrs. M. and D. have five houses
fifty yards long each, so the infestation is a serious trouble
to them. They tell me that they clear out all the soil each
year, and bring fresh soil in. It “is rich alluvial soil.” They
have tried lime, soot, and nitrate of soda without effect, and I
should certainly say that something requires alteration for the
extermination even of an infestation much more easily dealt
with; for they are troubled by millepedes (fig. 27), and also
there are such great numbers of _Geophilus_ (centipedes), that
there must, I think, be something amiss whether these live
chiefly on vegetable matter or on small animal vermin.

Some inquiry about _H. radicicola_ has been sent to me from Glen
St. Mary, Florida, U.S.A., but no new information.

On Saturday, Professor Ainsworth-Davis wrote to ask me to write
a preface to his translation of your “Zoologie,” and it will
gratify me very much indeed to prepare such a one as I hope may
please you. Your book will be a very valuable addition to our
educational series, and I shall like very much to be permitted
thus to appear in colleagueship.

_October 3, 1894._

This matter of the ? _Tylenchus devastatrix_ in the cortex seems
to me most perplexingly curious. I cannot venture to form an
opinion; I have not the knowledge requisite, but looking at
these _Tylenchi_ being smaller than _T. devastatrix_ is
customarily known to be, and also their occurring in a locality
where _devastatrix_ is not known, the idea just floats in my
mind whether they may be ♂ (males) or, alternatively, larval
_Heterodera schachtii_ (“Beet-root” eel-worm).

But perhaps I am almost wrong in taking up your time with a mere
idea, as you work on definite proof, and though the shape of
those I mentioned to you much resembled your larval _H.
schachtii_, I had not sufficiently high powers to be sure of the
species. I have been trying to make out whether there is ever a
definitely formed opening for the exit of the contents of the
♀(female) _schachtii_. In examining one specimen I found a
circular orifice with what appeared to me a regularly formed
edge—not a merely torn one. On putting this in glycerine under a
thin cover-glass, and very lightly pressing it, there first came
out a number of little eel-worms, without disturbing the
condition of the orifice. I was, however, so desirous that my
sister should see the interesting sight that I called her, and
when I looked again perhaps in a couple of minutes, the
regularity was gone; the outer skin—the skin rather of the
female—was cracking irregularly from the aperture and giving
exit to a mixed collection of eggs and wormlets. I have tried to
find another instance but without success. Very many thanks to
you for also sparing time to explain to me the meaning of the
word “schaŭmerde.”[80] Now I quite understand and am very glad
to know about it. Thank you also for your kind permission to use
some of your figures of _schachtii_.

I should very much like to have some specimens of the hop-growth
called “nettle-headed,” but I have only received a very few
leaves, in which I did not see anything amiss.

I received a specimen (though I suppose this is not rare) of the
large _Coccinella ocellata_ (Eyed lady-bird). What a pretty
creature it is! I had never seen it before.

Also from a North British correspondent I received a number of
what I do not think could be other than larvæ of one of the
_Staphylinidæ_, which were doing mischief by feeding in turnips
or their flower stems or leafstalks. They looked grey to the
unassisted eye; magnified, they were whitish with grey patches
along the back, and they much resembled the fig. by Professor
Westwood (see p. 167 of vol. i. of his “Classification of
Insects”), of which I give a rough tracing of the magnified
larva and line showing natural size. Professor Westwood found
numbers of these larvæ feeding on turnips, but, unfortunately,
he does not give even the generic name. They are obviously very
destructive, that is, those sent me.

I have been most carefully studying your observations on
_schachtii_ in oats with great pleasure and profit. With kind
regards and ever with many thanks, believe me,

Yours very truly,
ELEANOR A. ORMEROD.

Natural size and magnified.

FIG. 61.—EYED LADY-BIRD, _COCCINELLA OCELLATA_.
]

_To Dr. W. M. Schöyen, State Entomologist, Christiania._

TORRINGTON HOUSE, ST. ALBANS, ENGLAND,
_August 23, 1892_.

DEAR SIR,—I have long been in your debt for grateful
acknowledgment of your kind thought in sending me from time to
time copies of your valuable pamphlets, and also of your
portrait, which I have much pleasure in adding to my collection
of portraits of the leading entomologists of the world. But I
trust you will forgive my long silence because for a long time
(that is, since last autumn) until about three weeks ago, I have
been a great sufferer, and it has been with difficulty I have
been able to keep up to work.

May I ask your kind acceptance of my fifteenth Report
(accompanying by book post), and a little brochure I recently
arranged by special request; also with them may I place a copy
of my portrait, recently taken,in your hands? I value your
pamphlets which you kindly send me, much; but, unfortunately, I
have never been able to master your language—so when I have read
the title, if it be a subject bearing specially on my own work,
I get help from a linguist to enable me to benefit. Trusting
that for the reasons given you will pardon my long silence.

_October 25, 1893._

I thank you very much for being so good as to tell me of the
appearance of the _Cecidomyia destructor_ (Hessian fly, fig. 15)
in Norway. This observation of the further spread of this
troublesome barley pest is very interesting to me, and I am also
greatly obliged to you for letting me have the characteristic
specimens of _puparia_. There is no doubt that these are the
chrysalis cases (the “flax-seeds,” as we call them here) of the
Hessian fly. I at once wrote to two friends to endeavour to
procure the specimens you name, and it would have been a great
pleasure to me to send them at once, but I much doubt whether I
shall be able to procure any of the Wheat midge, _C. tritici_; I
have not got any myself, nor have my two colleagues so far as
they see.

About the Hessian fly, I have been more successful. I have
secured some specimens well put up for the microscope. It is too
late this evening to repack them properly, but I hope to send
you three slides to-morrow in a registered letter, of which,
with very great pleasure, I beg your kind acceptance. Should
they not reach you in proper condition, you will oblige me by
letting me know, that I may try to replace them. I should hope
that the thoroughly well-advised treatment which you are
endeavouring to get carried out in the infested district will be
successful. I have great confidence in the efficacy of
destroying the _puparia_ in the screenings or siftings; and
ploughing so as to turn down the “flax-seeds” also quite
certainly answers well.

One special insect trouble during the past season in this
country has been an unusual prevalence of wasps, _Vespidæ_, of
various species. They caused much injury and loss by destroying
fruit, and also were very troublesome by attacking horses
ploughing, if their nests were turned up. I hear that they were
also troublesome in Holland, and in the Hartz districts of
Germany. Should you write to me, I should be very much
interested to know whether they were also unusually plentiful in
Norway.

1, 6, infested floret; 2, 3, larvæ; 4, 5, cased larva or pupa, natural
size and magnified; 7, 8, part of horns, magnified; 9, 10, wheat
midge; and 11-14, ichneumon parasites, natural size and magnified.

FIG. 62.—WHEAT MIDGE, _CECIDOMYIA TRITICI_.
]

_November 7, 1893._

I beg to offer you my best thanks for your very acceptable
letter of the 31st of October. Indeed, I am greatly obliged to
you for not only kindly giving me your own information as to
amount of wasp presence observed in the past season, but also
the translation into English of the account of their great
appearance at Tromsö in 1883-4. This is exceedingly interesting,
and also very entertaining. I have enjoyed reading this spirited
account uncommonly, and I shall like very much to add it (of
course duly acknowledged) to my paper on wasps in my next Annual
Report.

[The translation appeared as follows:—

“In the years 1883-1884, there was an unusual prevalence of them
in the Arctic Norway, especially at Tromsö and other islands in
the vicinity. Mr. J. S. Schneider, Conservator at Tromsö Museum,
writes in the Swedish ‘Entomologisk Tidskrift,’ 1885, pp. 148,
149, about this matter as follows:—‘Who can tell all the tears
which these wicked animals have squeezed from the poor children,
or the swearings which the mowers have thrown out, the half-shut
eyes, and the swollen hands and cheeks which have shown forth in
the autumn months of these two years? Perhaps this may appear an
exaggeration, but it comes, however, pretty near the truth. They
built their nests everywhere, in the earth, in stone walls,
behind the wainscottings of the houses, under garden benches, on
the trees; it swarmed with wasps on all the flowers and bushes,
the windows were filled with them, they crawled on the plates of
the dining-tables, licked of the dishes with preserves, crawled
under the clothings, and in the hair, and did not at all spare
the ladies! When one was going in the woods, a humming warbling
was heard, which is still sounding in my ears; wasps everywhere,
it was almost a despair,’ &c.

“I have not seen anywhere in the southern districts of our
country the wasps so exceedingly numerous as they must have been
in Tromsö in the said years. The species occurring here are:
_Vespa crabro_, _media_, _saxonica_, and var. _norvegica_,
_holsatica_, _vulgaris_, _germanica_, _rufa_, and _Pseudovespa
austriaca_.” (W. M. S.).]

_November 7, 1893 (continued)._

Now I have much pleasure in begging your acceptance of a few
pamphlets sent accompanying by book post—three on Hessian fly
and one on Paris-green. Two of the Hessian fly pamphlets were
condensed notes regarding its first appearance here, the other a
report in full of the communications of my correspondents. I
wished very much to send you a similar detailed report of the
first year’s observations of this _Cecidomyia destructor_ (fig.
15) in Britain, but as yet I have not been able to find one
remaining. Every year since the first appearance of this
infestation amongst us, I have received some amount of
information as to its greater or less presence, and I have
given, so far as I could, my best attention to it. If it should
happen that there is any point on which you would wish a reply
to any inquiries, I would with pleasure do my best to answer
fully, and would think myself honoured, as well as be very much
pleased to be in communication with you on the above subject, or
any other point of injurious insect presence.

[On the subject of wasps, Miss Ormerod wrote to Mr. Edward
Connold on January 15, 1894:—

“I am very glad that you were able to procure my late brother’s
book on “Social Wasps” and that its perusal gave you pleasure.
You ask me how the combs were removed from the nests. I do not
know how my brother managed it, but I found the matter very
easy, as long as the nests had been so recently taken from
out-of-door localities, that the paper had not become too dry to
be operated on. Indeed, the damp condition induced by the first
stages of the very nasty state that combs with dead grubs get
into, rather facilitated work than otherwise. The first thing in
working on a nest of any size was to get a pair of scissors,
long in the blades, thin, and also very sharp. Then carefully
make a clean vertical cut through the paper-case of the nest
from the entrance below nearly to the top. Through this great
gash I had no difficulty in removing the combs—so to say
(although it is a disagreeable word) “eviscerating” the nest. I
began with the smallest and lowest comb. Inserting my scissors
horizontally I snipped through the little paper pillars by which
it was connected with the comb above and withdrew it in a very
convenient way, with fingers or forceps (or very likely by help
of the scissors) through the opening. Continuing this process I
do not remember that I ever failed to clear out the comb
successfully. It did not always require to be entirely removed,
if I recollect rightly. I think sometimes the upper comb did not
require removal. When all was cleared out, I filled the empty
paper case with cotton wool, and applying plenty of gum to this
below the slit, I very gently pressed the paper back to its
former position, and if the work had been dexterously done, the
injury did not show much. If the paper had been broken of course
the damage showed, and it was requisite to be careful that the
gum or adhesive mixture used for keeping the cut edges in their
places did not run about. Sometimes where circumstances
permitted, I cut a little aside from the straight line in places
so as to secure an uninjured piece of a layer to hide part of
the slit. In this way very pretty specimens could be arranged,
showing both nest and comb. I have been preparing a long paper
on the wasp attack of last year for my next Annual Report. I
have had very good contributions, and hope it may be liked.

“It will give me great pleasure to attend to any inquiry the
Hon. Sec. of the Museum may care to send me as to starting a
collection of pests to agriculture, and I think I might be able
to help with suggestions where specimens are procurable.

“Many thanks for your suggestion as to membership, but I do not
care to belong to more Societies than I can possibly help, so I
hope you will forgive my not accepting your kind offer.”]

After sketch from original specimen by E. A. O. Dimensions, 8 in.
across by 7½ in. deep.

FIG. 63.—NEST OF TREE WASP, _VESPA SYLVESTRIS_.
]

_March 10, 1898._

DEAR DR. SCHÖYEN,—In reply to your inquiry whether any measures
are being taken in this country to prevent the introduction of
the San José Scale, _Aspidiotus perniciosus_, I am not aware of
any such measures being in contemplation. I have not heard of
anything of the kind being proposed, nor have I seen any mention
in our newspapers of preventive measures being contemplated in
regard to imports. My own impression is that we are not likely
to suffer from it. With our island climate (as a general thing,
and as especially observed by Dr. C. V. Riley) the injurious
insects of the Continent of America rarely establish themselves
here, although ours adapt themselves to the American Continental
circumstances, and this Scale appears to be remarkably
susceptible to damp and cold. The Bulletin by Dr. John B. Smith,
Entomologist of the New Jersey Experimental Station, published
November 27, 1897, says, p. 6, “The Scale does best with us in
dry, warm weather. It does not like dampness, nor shade, and
will die out in a cold, moist locality. Large trees with dense
foliage are therefore least troubled, and a dense mass of
vegetation shading the ground completely will be infested only
towards the tips of the twigs or branches nearer the surface,
where sunlight and air are most abundant.” I greatly hope,
therefore, that even if this injurious attack should come, that
it will not establish itself to a serious extent, as shade is a
characteristic of many of our orchards.

Our chief trouble at present is an attack of eel-worms,
_Tylenchus devastatrix_, on red clover, _Trifolium pratense_,
causing what we call “Clover-stem sickness.” I never knew the
attack so widely prevalent before. But I hope that with the
measures which I draw attention to in my recent Annual Report we
may do some good.

_March 11, 1898._

Relatively to the San José Scale, I find, from some information
received this morning, that Mr. R. Newstead, Curator of the
Grosvenor Museum, Chester, has lately attended by request at the
Board of Agriculture, and stated that this infestation had not
established itself in any way in this country. Also that he had
not heard of, nor had he seen any instances of its presence,
although he had made diligent search for it at Liverpool, &c. He
thinks the matter is a “scare,” and that the insect is not
likely to establish itself here. In this opinion (the document
before me states) he is supported by our Entomological Society.
Mr. Newstead is, I believe, excellently qualified to form an
opinion on the subject, as he is a practical Economic
Entomologist, and he has also made the _Coccidæ_ a subject of
minute investigation. This I should say was more important than
the views of a meeting of our Entomological Society, of whom
few, if any (excepting Mr. Douglas), have, so far as I am aware,
studied _Coccidæ_ to an extent approaching Mr. Newstead’s
observations, and have no special bias towards applied
Entomology.

The above will perhaps be of some interest to you as the nearest
approach I am able to make to a reply to your inquiry, and I beg
you to believe me.

Yours truly,
ELEANOR A. ORMEROD.

_To Dr. Enzio Reuter, Helsingfors, Finland._

TORRINGTON HOUSE, ST. ALBANS, ENGLAND,
_October 15, 1894_.

SIR,—In acknowledging receipt of your obliging letter of the 8th
of October, received here on the 12th, permit me to say that I
think it not only a pleasure, but an honour, to be in
communication with the leading Entomologists who, like yourself,
are working for the good of their countries. I thank you much
for your letter.

First, about the _Cecidomyia_ (Wheat midge) larvæ (fig. 62) on
the _Alopecurus pratensis_[81] (Foxtail grass), I cannot
remember that any further observations were sent me about it,
nor have I noticed anything in publications which come to my
hands. My correspondents often send me specimens and details of
some infestation which has caught their attention, but it is
with the greatest difficulty in many instances that I can induce
them to continue their observations for successive seasons, and
the development of the imagines of the _Cecidomyiæ_ from the
early condition is much more trouble than they care to take.

By book post accompanying this letter I forward to your kind
acceptance a copy of my seventeenth Report. In the pages of the
Report I have placed copies of various leaflets. These, you will
see at a glance, are not at all scientific, but intended quite
for popular use by our farmers, therefore I have used the very
simplest words I could.

You are good enough to offer to send me copies of some of your
future reports in connection with Economic Entomology. If you
can spare them I should value them very much. For although I am
not able to understand more than a word here and there, yet with
the help of the dictionary I can make out enough to see whether
your information is applicable to the conditions here, and I can
get a good translation made for me. I can read German and
French, but I am sorry not to be able to write with ease in
either language.

_November 21, 1894._

DEAR SIR,—I had much pleasure in receiving your kind letter
yesterday, and also beg you to receive my very hearty thanks for
your kind and valuable gift of so many of your writings received
on the day before. But now I am going to ask you a further
favour. At your leisure would you oblige me with the name of a
dictionary which would help me to understand them? I do not
understand Norwegian, but, with the help of the Dano-Norwegian
dictionary of Mons. A. Larsen, I can manage to make out what I
especially need from Dr. Schöyen’s writings, which he is so good
as to send me. But now I have been trying to translate your few
lines on _Charæas graminis_ (Antler moth) (chap. XIII.), and
either from my own ignorance, which I much regret, or from not
having the right dictionary, I have not been able to read them.

P.S.—It pleases me very much to hear from you that you approve
of my reports, and it is kind of you to mention it.

_December 11, 1894._

I thank you most heartily for sending me this useful dictionary.
It is just what I was needing. With this help I can already make
out short pieces of your reports and publications, which is a
great pleasure and profit to me. It really was quite a vexation
to see what I wanted so much to study and yet could hardly make
out any connected meaning. I only just write now to say that
both for your kind and helpful gift and your letter accompanying
I thank you most heartily.

_March 5, 1895._

I did not at once acknowledge your Report on Injurious Insects
which you have sent me because I thought very likely you would
send me a few lines about mine, and now I beg to acknowledge
your note with many thanks. What a vast sum it is that you
mention as the loss [about 5,000,000 Finn. Marks = ca. £200,000,
in the years 1889-1891] caused by _Charæas graminis_, Antler
moth (fig. 4)! I am so sorry that I am not able to read your
reports, which, from the little bits I can pick out here and
there, are, I see, so valuable and would help me so much. But
please not to think that they are wasted on me, for I learn a
great deal that helps me, and when there is something that I
particularly wish to know I get the passages translated.

_April 8, 1895._

I beg that you will never for one minute think of taking up your
valuable time in writing to me at length about my reports. If
you can at any time (as you have so nicely done in your letter
received to-day) tell me that you think them serviceable, this
is a most pleasant encouragement, for which I am grateful, but I
know well what a tax it would be to write letters, so to say,
merely for compliment. Pray believe me, I should indeed be sorry
thus to trouble you. I value your writings that you are good
enough to send me very much, and I got a serviceable Swedish
grammar and studied it when I could get time, so I can make out
a little now; at least so much that I can see where what I wish
particularly to understand is, and get it properly translated.
Accompanying I have much pleasure in sending two copies of my
little brochure on Paris-green. I thought perhaps M., your
brother professor, Odo M. Reuter, whose pamphlet on _C.
graminis_ I have studied with much benefit, might care to have
one.

_August 21, 1895._

Many thanks for kindly giving me a copy of your work on the
“Zwei neue Cecidomyinen,” which I am very glad to possess. Your
minute description will be a most valuable assistance in
identification. This year I have only had one report of presence
of _C. destructor_, but there has been a great deal of insect
presence, and sometimes of kinds not often observed here.

But the chief point of general interest, I think, has been what
to do about the _Hippobosca equina_ (Forest fly, fig. 18),
relative to some of our military manœuvres in the New Forest,
which is its especial English locality. I do not know whether
you have the infestation so far north as your country? It is
very troublesome at times here.

_December 18, 1899._

I should be very glad to help you if I could by reference to
publications on “Silver-top” or “White-eared” wheat, but I am
not aware of anything having been written on it in this country
excepting my own short and meagre notes in my twelfth Annual
Report, for 1888. Specimens are sent me occasionally, but—as by
the time that the top of the wheat (or grass) has faded so as to
draw attention to the injury, the insect, if insect was there,
has gone—I have never been able to identify the cause of the
mischief with any approach to certainty. I conjecture the cause
to be the presence of some species of thrips. The American
observations point to this, but these you probably are well
acquainted with (and, indeed, it is not these you are inquiring
about). In my notes I mention the peculiar manner in which the
injured upper part of the stem can be withdrawn, the stem having
been apparently severed about three or four inches above the
uppermost knot. In the only instance I have seen in which the
attack was still in progress (that is, the stem was not already
parted, although it cracked asunder on being pulled), I found
that at the point of fracture the straw tube had within an
irregular swollen growth, what might be described as a
granulated growth, filling up the tube; also the cross-section
showed small open cells which had been cracked across in
severing the stem. I had specimens of the attack also on barley,
and at the time I was inclined, from the absence of all insect
appearance, to ascribe it to some vegetable disease, but in the
years that have elapsed since then it has appeared to me more
likely to be attributable to thrips.

I am afraid that there is not anything worth your study in the
page and a few lines of my remarks, but if you would care to see
it, I would gladly direct a copy of my twelfth Annual Report to
be sent for your acceptance. I would do so now, but I have not
an unbound copy by me. Many thanks for your own publications
which you have kindly sent me. I have read with great interest
your remarks on the _Argyresthia conjugella_, Zell.[82] We have
an apple attack here occasionally noticeable which agrees well
with the characteristics of this infestation, but I have never
been fortunate enough to identify the cause.

Yours very truly,
ELEANOR A. ORMEROD.

_To Professor Dr. Alfred Nalepa, Gmunden, Vienna._

TORRINGTON HOUSE, ST. ALBANS, ENGLAND,
_August 3, 1893_.

MONSIEUR,—I am very greatly indebted to your kindness and
courtesy in taking the trouble to give me all the very valuable
and helpful information which you favoured me with in your
letter of the 28th July. I also thank you much for your
permission to make some extracts in my Annual Report from the
information which you have placed in my hands. This is a very
great favour, and you may rest assured that I will most fully
acknowledge my debt to yourself. From the study of the pamphlet
which you were good enough to send me I have already benefited
largely. But I earnestly pray you, do not let me intrude on your
kind liberality for any work that I might be able (if you were
good enough to give me the name) to purchase. My London
booksellers are accustomed to procuring Continental publications
for me, and I am feeling myself so greatly indebted to you for
valuable information that I am quite uneasy at not being able to
reciprocate as I much wish. I have delayed writing in the hope
of being able to procure some specimens, but as yet I have only
the enclosed (Pear leaf blister galls, ? of _Phytoptus pyri_) to
send to you from trees in my own garden, and these I am afraid
will be of little interest. Your valuable list of infestations
has shown me that there are very many kinds of _Phytoptus_
attack that I had no idea of the existence of, and I will indeed
try to be of some service to you.

By book post accompanying I beg your kind acceptance of the
current number of my Annual Report, in which are some remarks on
a species of _Entedon_ (or _Entedonidæ_, parasites of Dipterous
leaf-miners especially) which we found in currant buds in
watching for what we hoped might prove a parasite on the
_Phytoptus_. I fear my report will be of little interest to you,
but I just beg you to accept to show the kind of publication.

_August 16, 1893._

I postponed replying to your kind letter of the 7th in the hope
that I might have something of interest to send you, but I have
only been able to procure the enclosed Prunus galls. They are
from Toddington, Gloucestershire. I rather fear they will wither
on the journey, but I forward them because the twigs have
something amiss with them, which just possibly may be owing to
_Phytoptus_ presence. Thank you much for giving me the name of
the _Phytoptus pyri_, which I have noted at p. 296 in your
“Katalog,” which you were good enough to send me, and which is
of truly valuable assistance. My booksellers will, I hope,
before long procure me five or six of your publications either
in separate impressions or in the parts or volumes in which they
were published, and then I shall hope to have the information
that I am much wishing for, without troubling you personally.
But should the special attack, which I desire to understand
better, not be specifically described, then I should indeed be
very thankful to avail myself of your kind permission to ask for
further information, and a sketch would be a most valuable aid.
I have too great a respect for the time and work of scientific
men to intrude if I can possibly help it, and I am very grateful
for the important help which you have already given me.

1, female (natural length circa 0·2 mm.); 2 _a_, left leg of the first
pair of _Phytoptus tristriatus_, and 2_b_, of _Phytoptus
tristriatus_ var. _carinea_, magnified 550 times—all after Dr.
Nalepa. 3, infested pear leaf.

FIG. 64.—PEAR LEAF BLISTER MITE, PHYTOPTUS PYRI.
]

_November 2, 1893._

I am greatly obliged for your kind letter received two days ago,
and it is so very good of you to have taken the trouble of
writing the names of the various portions of the _Phytoptus_ on
your plate accompanying so clearly for me that I hardly know how
to express my thanks sufficiently. This is indeed a most
acceptable help, for there were some of the quite minutely
technical terms that I had failed to make out the meaning of,
and now you have most excellently got over my difficulties for
me, and I thank you very much for the same. Since I wrote to you
at Gmünden I have had great pleasure and benefit in procuring
some of your valuable publications, so full of excellent
descriptions and figures. One of these is the separate
impression of your paper, read on January 24, 1889, with 9
plates, including p. 11, of which you have now sent me this
valuably explained copy.

Another—the separate impression for February 13th—contains
description, p. 11, and figure, plate iv., of _Phytoptus pyri_,
and I have also a copy of your “Genera und Species der Familie
Phytoptidæ,” 1891. Now I think, thanks to study of your clear
descriptions, I have a fair knowledge of the characteristics of
a _Phytoptus_, and of the divisions of the Family Phytoptidæ.
When I publish my next Annual Report I should very much wish to
give my readers some better information than I have hitherto
been able to do, and to point to them from what source I
obtained it, and how they may obtain it for themselves. I think
I have your kind permission to use one of your figures. I am
therefore having a very careful copy executed of your _P. pyri_
(plate IV., fig. 1), of the two claws (in your Genera and
Species, plate ii., 9_a_ and _b_), together with an attacked
leaf from life (fig. 64).

Your part would be a most soundly valuable aid to readers here,
for really and truly I doubt if more than very few among us are
aware (say) that the legs of the _Phytoptus_ are made up of
claw, tarsus, tibia, and so on, much less that the claw is of
this peculiar shape. I confess to you I was ignorant of this
myself. I should like to give a part of your description of the
_P. pyri_ to show what a description ought to be; also to allude
to the species which you were so good as to name for me, and to
your principle of classification (p. 317 of “Katalog”). Should
any of this not be according to your pleasure, I beg of you
kindly to tell me. I should indeed be ungrateful if, after all
your kind help, I trespassed on your information against your
wish. Should you allow it, you may depend on me to quote
accurately, so that my quotations will send readers to your
works, not enable them to use my report as a robbery of you;
also I would fully and honestly acknowledge the source of my
information, and be truly grateful. I wish I could send you
specimens. Would you care to have some galls of the _Phytoptus
ribis_ from black currant in their (I think) very unusually
advanced condition for this time of year? I think I could
procure some from Kent.

1, Mite, greatly magnified—natural length of female 0·23
millimetres; 2, head and fore parts, still more magnified (by
permission, after Dr. A. Nalepa); 3, mite-galls of unusually
large size, with one withered and open.

FIG. 65.—CURRANT GALL MITE, _PHYTOPTUS RIBIS_, NALEPA.
]

It is with regret that I read in your letter that you are not in
strong health. But if you could work less severely might not you
hope to have benefit? The excessively minute work of your
elaborate investigations must be exceedingly wearing. In my own
observations (which, indeed, are not to be compared with yours)
I always find they tell very much on my health if I have at once
to overwork my sight with the microscope and my mind in the
record of my observations. But I have not robust health, so that
I can sympathise. With renewed thanks for the welcome contents
of yours lately received.

_March 12, 1894._

I am greatly obliged to you for your kind present of your
“Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Phyllocoptiden,” with its first-rate
descriptions and magnificent figures. It is a very great
advantage to me to be in possession of your noble work on these
creatures, and I feel myself very much indebted for all the
great help you have given me.

About the _Phytoptus ribis_. I delayed replying because I
thought that if any thoroughly complete description of this
_Phytoptus_ had been published by Professor Westwood it would be
sure to be known of by Mr. W. Hatchett Jackson, of Keble
College, Oxford, who was Professor Westwood’s chief assistant.
But he tells me that “under the generic name of _Acarellus_ I
can find nothing but a brief paragraph without figure in the
accounts of the meetings of the Entom. Soc.” Mr. Jackson adds,
“I remember the occasion very well, and making slides for him
from specimens in our own garden. I shall search for those
slides in the Hope Museum.”—W. H. J.

After some search here I found the enclosed, and as I think you
would desire to see the fullest account which I believe
Professor Westwood published, I have detached the page. If he
were still with us I know how he would have delighted in your
splendid unravelling of what was then a mystery. At your best
convenience, when you have quite certainly no further use for
the page, perhaps you would kindly let me have it back.

In my own early observations of the habits of the Currant
_Phytoptus_ I noted it as _P. ribis_, Westwood, on the
authority, or rather after the example, of Mr. Andrew Murray
(see “Aptera,” p. 355), for we had not in those days any more
trustworthy and accepted guidance, but as to comparing these
with such a work as yours, no one with the least atom of
knowledge would think for a minute of such a thing.

Yours very truly,
ELEANOR A. ORMEROD.

_To C. P. Lounsbury, Esq., Government Entomologist, Cape Town._

TORRINGTON HOUSE, ST. ALBANS,
_September 17, 1895_.

DEAR MR. LOUNSBURY,—It gave me great pleasure to receive your
letter this morning, in all excepting that I find I might
possibly have seen yourself and Mrs. Lounsbury. I am really very
sorry not to have done this, for there are many things so
difficult to enter on in writing, which yet (as now you are on
our British staff) I should like you to know, relative to
entomological matters, and also, though I should have said this
first, it would have been a pleasure to my sister and myself to
become personally acquainted with you. How fortunate you are in
having such a skilled colleague [his wife]; it must be a real
comfort to you to have an entomological _alter ego_, and yet
such a charming companion.

You will have made acquaintance with your colleagues, and you
will, I conjecture, find Mr. Bairstow useful if he be still
attending to insect matters. He collected a great deal of
information for me when I was compiling my little S.A. book. But
now I am chiefly writing to indicate the pleasure it will give
me to be in communication with you as occasion may occur, and
with good wishes both for your success and comfort to yourself
and Mrs. Lounsbury, &c.

I do not know whether you have my little book on “South African
Insects,” so I beg your acceptance of a copy sent by this post.

1, Beetle; 2, larva; 3, pupa, magnified (from Bulletin No. 4, New
Series, U.S.A. Department of Agriculture, p. 124).

FIG. 66.—BREAD, PASTE OR BOOT BEETLE, DRUG STORE BEETLE (U.S.A.),
_ANOBIUM PANICEUM_ (= _SITODREPA PANICEA_) LINN.
]

FIG. 67.—UPPER OF A BOOT INJURED BY MAGGOT OF PASTE BEETLE, _ANOBIUM
PANICEUM_.
]

_November 4, 1895._

I had great pleasure in receiving your letter of the 12th of
October, and first of all I will try to reply so far as I am
able about the Boot beetle, _Anobium paniceum_. The English
manufacturers did what is so very inconvenient—though one is
not surprised at it—they begged that their names and
localities might not be mentioned. But with regard to the
use of a deterrent paste (or mixture in the paste), it was
quite plain that they did not mean to do anything. They
spoke of difficulties to the workers, &c., and as to using
Paris-green!—really, there would have been a disturbance
indeed, if I had ventured to suggest such a thing. The
subject appeared to be making no headway, and my suggestions
as to the all-importance of cleanliness in the workshop, so
that the beetles might have no harbouring places, did not
meet their views. So I strongly advised in order to make
sure whether the infestation took possession in this country
or at the Cape, that some boots should be packed up and
properly secured against all possibilities of external
infestation, and sent to South Africa, and on arrival there,
sent back to the exporters here unopened. Thus we should
have learned on examination, if they were infested, that the
mischief was started in this country. But not one word on
the subject have I had from them since. Perhaps the result
put the locality of the origin of evil being in this country
beyond doubt. I have kept a quantity of the letters on the
subject laid away, but now I think I cannot use them to
better purpose than by forwarding them to you. Please do not
return them. I have not re-read them, but it is impossible
there can be anything confidential in them, excepting the
names of the firms which the writers did not wish published,
and it is just possible (in case you can spare time to run
them through) that there may be points of interest.

What you say of inertness is just what is such a drag on the
advance of work here. Instead of getting information, and acting
on it, they (or many) propose to write to the Board of
Agriculture or possibly to another quarter, and sometimes they
follow advice, sometimes they do not.

Just now I had an application about _Strongylus filaria_ (thread
worms which produce husk or hoose) which is doing great damage
in one district. They thought of writing to the Board of
Agriculture. I suggested the excellent account in your Dr.
Curtice’s book on “Sheep Diseases,” but it did not appear to
have occurred to them to teach themselves.

_June 24, 1896._

It was with great pleasure that I received your first Report
about two days ago, and I must both very sincerely and heartily
congratulate you on this good work. It seems to me quite an
example of what a report should be. Clear wording that all can
understand, and a short sound life history, with all requisite
means of prevention of the specially detailed “pest” attacks,
with a deal of excellent reading besides. Indeed, I congratulate
you greatly on taking your place so firmly, and I consider the
Colony is much to be congratulated also on securing your help. I
am glad to see that the Government gives you good paper and
printing. There is only one thing which I should much like to
see added, and that is pictorial illustrations. Could not you
have at least some figures? I believe they are available in the
Government Stores. Sometime after the publication of my little
book on the “Injurious Insects of South Africa,” a request was
made to me for a number of figures, which with much pleasure I
presented. If you would like, besides those which could be
looked up at the office of the “Agricultural Journal,” electros
of some of the figures which are my own, which I use in my own
publications, I would gladly send you out, say a dozen or a
dozen and a half, if the Agent General would (as I feel pretty
sure he would) kindly allow me to send them out to you in the
Government box. It would give me real pleasure if I could be of
any help to you in your good work.

_August 17, 1896._

I have this morning had great pleasure in receiving your letter,
and I shall be very glad to send you electrotypes of the blocks
of which you will let me have a list,—that is to say, of such as
are quite my own. Those that I have from Messrs. Blackie and
Son, Stanhope Street, Glasgow, I have only permission to use in
my own publications. I think very likely, though, that, if you
were inclined to purchase electrotypes from them, they would be
quite willing to let you have them at the same price which they
charge me, that is eighteenpence the square inch. About my own,
I have no difficulties, as my wood figures and electrotypes are
all in charge of my printers. There would be no charge for
carriage, and I would charge you just the cost price of the
electros. But there is one point, please, that I am sure you
will forgive me insisting on as a condition of use of my
electrotypes, namely, that they may be used in any publication
of the Department of Agriculture of Cape Colony, or in any
publication of your own, but nowhere else without my consent.

_July 28, 1899._

I have, I am afraid, been owing you for a long time, more than
one letter in reciprocation of your kind letters to me, but I
have hoped you would forgive me, for you know how I am situated
with a deal of application and no staff. I am wanting now to say
that I hope you have not been vexed with me for having had a
hand in robbing you of an efficient member of your staff (Mr.
Fuller), which I am afraid must for the present be an
inconvenience, but it surely will be an immense benefit to
Natal, to have a trustworthy Entomologist.

I am trying to work up _Piophila casei_ (Cheese and Bacon fly),
which Miss Murtfeldt took up so well. I incline to think that it
is more present than is supposed, only of course, “cured meat”
dealers do not like to own to it. I have got a nice little
family reared from bacon for observation under a glass, and some
of their brothers and sisters loose about the room, which I see
little or nothing of until the cheese is brought in twice a day,
when they come, and so give me an opportunity of watching
egg-laying.

_August 9, 1899._

What a frightful thing this prospect of war is! I have not an
idea what may be politically right, but it distresses me
intensely to think of the sorrow, and so far as in me lay I have
had a hand in getting poor Mr. Fuller right into the thick of
the trouble.[83] You have assuredly been having trouble enough,
with fire, water, and “sausages”! I am truly glad that your
books and insects were not very much damaged. But I hope you
will not peril your valuable health by turning yourself into a
pasturage ground as you say, for these very detestable ticks.
Much better try the convict! His nervous system will not be so
delicate.[84]

_July 5, 1900._

I learn with great pleasure that you and Mrs. Lounsbury are
coming back through England, and I hope you will be able to give
me the great pleasure of your looking in here. I should be so
glad to see you, and you and I could have some delightful
entomological talk. On Saturday next, I hope to see Dr. John B.
Smith, State Entomologist of New Jersey.

What a business you must have in transporting your parasites
from America to Cape Colony, but I hope you will have good
success in obtaining the specimens you are needing.

Yours sincerely,
ELEANOR A. ORMEROD.

_To Claude Fuller, Esq., Entomologist Department of Agriculture,
Pietermaritzburg, Natal._

TORRINGTON HOUSE, ST. ALBANS,
_November 5, 1898_.

DEAR MR. FULLER,—I would very gladly in reply to your request,
offer you any suggestion in my power, but I scarcely know
whether my ideas would be serviceable. Judging by my own
experiences in purchase by farmers or fruit-growers of books
which they certainly need and wish to have the information
contained in, I should not expect any publisher to take any MS.
of mine as a speculation. The good folks wish for the books, but
they do not, at least only a very small proportion of them (I am
speaking of agriculturists) wish to buy. My work is done at a
great money loss, and my publishers do not take my books as a
speculation, but act in fact as my agents. Could you not get
your MS. published in a serial, with a stipulation, that you
held copyright, and so your valuable information would be
brought forward without cost to yourself.

There is another point. The differences in species, even in
genera, are terribly difficult to be sure of amongst many of the
Scale insects, and many of the Aphides, and unless fruit-growers
have magnifiers and knowledge how to use them, I should not
expect them to identify to any trustworthy purpose. If you
brought out a strictly scientific work this of course would be
very valuable as a book of reference, and Prevention and
Remedies added would make it very useful indeed; but if you look
forward to purchase by the public, I am afraid you will not find
it happen.

Please excuse rather a hurried letter to catch the evening post,
and believe me,

Yours very truly,
ELEANOR A. ORMEROD.

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