since extermination in Rhode Island seems to be possible, and I feel sure that the Secretary of Agriculture will be all the more willing to assist Rhode Island if it be shown that there is a strong effort for self-help there."

LETTER FROM DR. C. H. FERNALD, PROFESSOR OF ZOOLOGY, MASSACHUSETTS AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE.

PROF. A. E. STENE.

Amherst, Mass., January 12, 1907.

DEAR SIR:-I am in receipt of your letter of the 7th asking for my opinion as to the best method of dealing with the gypsy moth in Rhode Island; whether it will be cheaper, everything considered, to enter immediately upon an exterminative policy than to adopt one of suppressiononly? After an experience of fifteen years with the gypsy moth in Massachusetts, and one summer in Europe, I am decidedly of the opinion that your State would better work for complete extermination rather than for suppression, for the following reasons:

1. Suppression, of course, 'means annual appropriations during all time, the amount of which I cannot estimate so closely for your State as for Massachusetts, where I am more familiar with the conditions. During the nineties, when we were fighting the gypsy moth in an infested territory about equal to that at present in your State, we found it very difficult to obtain sufficiently large appropriations from our legislature to carry on the work successfully. Some years we were able to secure an appropriation of $200,000, and with that amount we made good progress toward extermination. When we received $150,000 or $125,000 we still made some progress, but when we received only $75,000 it was apparent that we barely held the moth in check. I therefore think that the estimate of Mr. Kirkland of $25,000 for your next appropriation was a very conservative

one.

You now have, as you write, an infested area of about twenty square miles, which is about one-fiftieth of your entire territory. If you simply work for suppression now, the insect will eventually spread over the entire State, and then the annual appropriations for suppression would amount to far more than would be necessary for extermination at the present time. You would be making the very same mistake that we made in this State.

2. The work for extermination would, for the first few years, cost more but as it went on the territory would become restricted and would soon be so limited in area that the cost would be much less than for suppressive measures on your present territory and would be constantly growing less.

3. The question of parasites is entirely problematical. No one can tell, at the present time, whether the parasites will become acclimated in this country,

but if they do, and accomplish their work as well as in Europe, even then the occasional destruction which the gypsy moth will cause in a comparatively short time will amount to far more than the cost of extermination at the present time. For an account of the work of this insect in Europe, where the parasites are holding them in check under the most natural conditions see the large report on the gypsy moth, 1897, pages 273 to 284, where you will find an account of the devastations of this moth in 1879-80 in Russia, where the climate conditions are more like those of New England than are most of the other parts of Europe. In the above named years the caterpillars of the gypsy moth ravaged the entire territory from Kiev to Kazan, a territory about equal to all of our Atlantic States. These periodical outbreaks will occur through all time, in spite of the parasites, under the most favorable conditons.

4. The general desire of the taxpayers in this Commonwealth is to prevent the spread of this moth into the uninfested parts of the State, and to reduce them in the infested territory to such an extent as to prevent material damage The real purpose of the work by the U. S. Government is to prevent the moth from going into other States, so that as long as the United States and Massachusetts keep up the work against the insect there, is little if any, danger of the reinfestation of your State.

Yours truly,

(Signed) C. H. FERNALD.

LETTER FROM MR. A. H. KIRKLAND, SUPERINTENDENT OF GYPSY MOTH WORK IN

MASSACHUSETTS.

Dear Professor Stene:

BOSTON, MASS., December 31, 1906.

I take my first chance to reply to yours of the 26th, and am very glad if I can be of any help to you. Answering your questions seriatim, I would say:

(1) By all means I should advise your State to attempt to exterminate the gypsy moth from its borders. There are no serious infestations in southern Massachusetts from which you are liable to receive the moth, and with the work we are doing here, the danger of the insect spreading from Massachusetts into Rhode Island will grow less and less each year. Your problem is not a large one in area, and I should do all I could to absolutely exterminate the insect from the State. This can be done if you have sufficient funds and the work is properly handled.

(2) The outlook for securing natural parasites is as good as could be asked for. There is no question about getting plenty of the material. The only ques

The breaking off of branches or bad pruning is responsible for hollow trees. In order to prevent these hollows from becoming the hiding places of the gypsy moth it is necessary to close them up. This illustration shows how the tree has been repaired with zinc patches.

UNIV

MIC

tion is how well they will adapt themselves to this country, and how much help we shall get from them in the new environment.

(3) The amount necessary to exterminate the moth will probably be somewhat greater say 25 per cent.-than the amount required to control it.

(4) It is only fair to say, after all, that we do not know absolutely that the parasite experiment will be a success. If it fails, and nothing is done in your State until the failure is demonstrated, you will indeed be in a bad way. If it succeeds,. then you can probably drop or very materially reduce the size of appropriations required.

(5) With abundant funds you ought to exterminate the moth in Rhode Island in five years. With diminished appropriations, such as legislatures are apt to make, it may take from eight to ten years.

Truly yours,

(Signed) A. H. KIRKLAND,

Superintendent.

LETTER FROM D. M. ROGERS, SPECIAL FIELD AGENT for the BureAU OF ENTOMOLOGY IN CHARGE OF THE UNITED STATES GYPSY MOTH WORK IN

NEW ENGLAND.

No. 6 BEACON STREET, BOSTON, MASS., January 4, 1907.

Dear Professor Stene:

Wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter of January 3, and will try to reply to your questions in a way to help you all I can.

As to the expenditure of government money in the different States, will say that Massachusetts has the most moths and is doing the most toward fighting them and naturally is getting the larger part of the Congressional appropriation. The work in Massachusetts has principally been confined to clearing up of roadsides through infested woodland. While the State moth laws are quite effective in clearing the moths from residential sections, the woodlands of low assessed valuation receive almost no attention, and in these spots the moth has been allowed to increase to enormous numbers, and in the caterpillar stage devour all the foliage and crawl about in search of more. Dropping from the trees being one of the great reasons for its spread, we believe that by clearing up these areas so as to keep the moth from scattering in this way, we shall in a great measure prevent their spread. We are cutting all the underbrush, trees which are dead or have unusually rough bark, pruning the dead wood from the remaining trees, leaving only good specimens upon which the moth can be fought with the greatest These strips are about one hundred feet wide on each side of several

success.