1, Beetle ♀; 2, larva—magnified, with natural length of each; 3 and 4, cell, natural size, showing broad and flat, and also narrow view.
FIG. 46.—SHOT-BORER BEETLES, XYLEBORUS DISPAR, FAB.
December 16, 1889.
I put off writing for a few days because I wanted to tell you more about the Xyleborus dispar (Shot-borer or Apple-bark beetle), which I am afraid is likely to be a very serious matter in other localities than where it first appeared, and it is doing much mischief: I do not quite like to raise the “danger flag” on my own sole responsibility, so I have sent out some of the new specimens to have my identification confirmed, and then I mean to write to you again and send a few more males. I found seven with hardly more than that number of females; also I found specimens of the white stuff that Schmidberger observed the larvæ fed on, and I have asked Professor Bernard Dyer to analyse it for me. He is a very kind as well as skilled helper. I cannot find the least sign of disease about the attacked trees: if the bark had been washed it could not be cleaner from Scale or moulds of any kind, but the havoc is dismal—what my correspondent calls “a slaughter” of trees.
We have now got the subject of Agricultural Entomology regularly announced as one of the subjects (voluntary) for examination of the Senior Candidates of our Royal Agricultural Society of England. I have been trying to get this arranged for some time, and I hope it will do good.
I have drawn up the questions as practically, i.e., on as practical points as I could.
December 16, 1889.
Your letter was hardly started this morning when I received the confirmation from Mr. Oliver E. Janson of my identification of the fresh supply of Shot-borers from plum-wood being quite correct, beyond doubt X. dispar. So I have great pleasure in enclosing two males and two females in a thin quill. They are packed in fine bark clippings, which they have shredded out themselves, so I hope they will travel safely. These are from plum stems, and in some cases they attack the branches. I have just now written a letter to the Worcester Herald, warning fruit-growers to be on the alert, giving as much practical advice as I could compress into reasonable space, and especially recommending burning infested trees.
December 24, 1889.
I think that Agricultural Entomology is moving forward, but we are much hampered at present by various difficulties, which I fancy you would dispose of very rapidly on your side of the Atlantic. I suppose that in a sort of confidence I may mention that by private liberality of a Scottish advancer of science a lectureship of Agricultural Entomology is being endowed at Edinburgh University, but then comes the rather comical difficulty: Who ever is to take the position of lecturer? I am complimented by the expression of a wish from the authorities who have the election in hand that I should take it; but then Lady Professors are not admitted in Scotland. We know of “one man” fit for the purpose, Professor Allen Harker, of the Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester. He would do well, and as much desires the post as we wish to put him in it, but then the Principal of the Royal Agricultural College is very much set against his holding the post, as well as his Professorship at the college. It is a great puzzle. I have been doing my very best to help the Professor of Agriculture—a member of the appointing body—to find a suitable man, but what will come of it I do not know. This is not private amongst friends, but it is not yet before the public. Why, with you, I believe in a day you could fill the chair. I think I could do all that is wanted, but then, oh! Shades of John Knox!
I am hoping each day to receive the copy of “Insect Life” Professor Riley kindly sends me, and to see what the Association of Official Entomology did at Washington.