Chapter XXII: Letters to Mr. Janson and Mr. Medd

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

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

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

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

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

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

_February 23, 1897._

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

_April 16, 1897._

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

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

_May 12, 1897._

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

_May 24, 1897._

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

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

_October 5, 1897._

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

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

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

6, 7, Granary weevil; 2, 3, chrysalis, natural size, and magnified; 8,
9, rice weevil, natural size, and magnified; 1, 4, infested grains,
also magnified.

FIG. 68.—GRANARY WEEVIL, _SITOPHILUS GRANARIUS_, AND RICE WEEVIL,
_SITOPHILUS ORYZÆ_.
]

_October 11, 1897._

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

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

_October 26, 1897._

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

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

_August 18, 1899._

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

_September 19, 1899._

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

_September 22, 1899._

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

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

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

1, Grouse fly, magnified, with line showing natural length; 2,
puparium, magnified and natural size; 3, end view, magnified; 4,
claw, magnified.

FIG. 69.—GROUSE FLY, _ORNITHOMYIA AVICULARIA_, LINN.
]

_October 21, 1899._

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

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

1, Beetle; 2, larva; 3, pupa—magnified, and with lines showing natural
length; 4, head with antennæ, much magnified.

FIG. 70.—RUST-RED FLOUR BEETLE, _TRIBOLIUM FERRUGINEUM_, FAB.
]

_November 1, 1899._

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

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

Beetle, natural size and magnified; willow stem, tunnelled by larvæ.

FIG. 71.—MOTTLED WILLOW WEEVIL, “ALDER-KILLER” (GERMAN),
_CRYPTORHYNCHUS LAPATHI_, L.
]

_December 29, 1899._

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

_January 12, 1900._

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

Caterpillar (not full grown) and chrysalis.
]

FIG. 72.—GOAT MOTH, _COSSUS LIGNIPERDA_.
]

_September 16, 1900._

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

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

3, _Bruchus brachialis_. 1, _Bruchus tristis_. 2, _Bruchus
rufipes_.
]

_Bruchus pisorum_=_pisi_. _Bruchus rufimanus_.
Magnified, with lines showing natural length.

FIG. 73.—PEA AND BEAN WEEVILS, _BRUCHI_.
]

_September 23, 1900._

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

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

With many thanks for your welcome and valuable help.

1 and 2, _Bruchus rufimanus_, natural size and magnified; 3, infested
bean split open, showing cell; 4 and 5, larvæ, natural size and
magnified; 6 and 7, pupæ, natural size and magnified; 8, bean,
injured by beetle, vegetating; 9 and 10, _Bruchus pisi_, natural
size and magnified; 11, injured pea.

FIG. 74.—BEAN BEETLES.
]

_October 4, 1900._

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

_November 1, 1900._

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

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

Yours very truly.
ELEANOR A. ORMEROD.

Beetle and wing, magnified; line showing natural length of beetle.

FIG. 75.—“SPLINT,” OR SAP-WOOD BEETLE, _SCOLYTUS PRUNI_, RATZ.
]

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

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

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

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

_July 9, 1900._

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

_July 14, 1900._

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

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

_August 2, 1900._

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

_August 8, 1900._

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

_November 26, 1900._

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

Yours very truly,
ELEANOR A. ORMEROD.

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