How ICE Came
to America
(The First Time)
MAY R. BERENBAUM
T
he concept of convening a Congress, in the sense of a formal gathering of individuals within a specific discipline for the purpose of discussing
shared interests, is in a way a product of
the Industrial Revolution; the rapid accumulation of new scientific knowledge and
the proliferation of new technology created a need for sharing information and
for standardizing metrics across international borders. For example, as was typical of the era, Brussels, Belgium, hosted
both the Maritime Conference for the
Adoption of a Uniform System of Meteorological Observations and the General
Conference as to Statistics, with delegates
from 26 countries, in 1853 (Baldwin 1907).
Such gatherings were often held in conjunction with World’s Fairs, the first of
which was London’s Great Exhibition of
the Works of Industry of All Nations in
1851. In 1855, the Exposition Universelle
des Produits de l’Agriculture, de l’Industrie et des Beaux-Arts de Paris was held
in Paris, the first international version of
what had hitherto been an occasional
American Entomologist • Volume 62, Number 3
French national exhibition of useful products of commerce. True to the spirit of the
times, wine experts from around the world
converged on the Exposition Universelle
at the request of Emperor Napoleon III
to devise a standardized classification for
Bordeaux wines. Ironically, 23 years later,
in 1878, a conference with delegates from
seven nations was held in Berne, Switzerland, to devise coordinated strategies to
combat phylloxera, then ravaging Vitis
vinifera vineyards in Bordeaux and elsewhere in Europe (Baldwin 1907).
The first international congress of zoology was convened in Paris in 1889, an initiative of the Société Zoologique de France
and held in conjunction with the International Exposition of Paris. The explicit aim
of the zoological congress was to create
an international discipline with standardized practices, literature, and taxonomic
nomenclature. This idea of convening an
international congress of scholars within
the confines of a World’s Fair appeared
to be irresistibly appealing to Americans.
The 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition,
America’s third foray into international
large-scale expositions (following New
York’s Exhibition of the Industry of All
Nations in 1853 and Philadelphia’s Centennial International Exhibition of Arts,
Manufactures and Products of the Soil
and Mine in 1876) was hosted by Chicago,
Illinois, to celebrate the 400th anniversary
of the discovery of what would become
America by Christopher Columbus in
1492 (though complications including a
delay on funding from the U.S. Congress
postponed the opening until 1893). In
addition to the usual displays of industrial products and processes, 224 separate
congresses were held in a special auxiliary building constructed for hosting them.
Close to 5,000 speakers arrived in Chicago
to attend (among others) a Philosophical Congress, a Congress on Geology, an
International Congress of Anthropology, a
Congress of Evolutionists, and a “World’s
Congress of Zoology” (Anonymous 1893,
Chicago Historical Society 1999).
The zoological congress was almost the
first World’s Congress on Entomology. On
163
25 April 1891, Charles Bonney, President
of the World’s Columbian Exposition, sent
a letter to Stephen A. Forbes, who at the
time was the State Entomologist of Illinois as well as Head of the Department
of Zoology and Entomology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
I write to ask your co-operation in
the matter of the proposed World’s
Congresses in two respects:
1. That you will consent to act as
Chairman of a special Committee on
Entomology: that you will suggest two
or three other persons residing in or
near Chicago to act with you on such
Committee: and that you will come
here occasionally to aid in organizing your branch of the Department
of Science and Philosophy.
2. That you will prepare and send me
at your early convenience a preliminary suggestion of a plan for an Entomological Congress, with appropriate
sections on scientific and economic
entomology (Bonney 1891).
Forbes apparently demurred, instead
providing Bonney with the name of “Professor O.S. Westcott, of the North Division High School” as Chairman. Bonney,
however, could not be dissuaded: on 27
May, he wrote,
I must strongly urge you to retain the
chairmanship of the committee on
account of your rank and reputation
in the science which it will have in
charge. I should also be glad to have
you or Prof. Westcott recommend at
least three more names to be added
to that committee.
I have several times had occasion
to remember your remark to me, “that
in economic Entomology America
is in advance of Europe”, and as I
understand you, “Illinois is in the
lead among American states.” This is
so high a scientific honor that I am
extremely desirous to have it maintained, and I am sure you will agree
with me that it will not be proper,
under the circumstances, to entrust
the chief contact of your Department
to any other hand (Bonney1891a).
By 28 October 1891, a preliminary conference of the Chicago-area representatives of the Departments of Education and
164
of Science and Philosophy of the Exposition was held and Bonney conveyed
to Forbes that “the interest evinced on
every side, was exceedingly encouraging.
I can have no doubt that the proposed
Congresses will be eminently successful;
and that that of Entomology will have its
share of honors, and be conspicuous for
its utility” (Bonney 1891b).
At least some of the world’s entomologists evidently agreed with Bonney. On 9
July 1892, Francisco Javier Balmaceda of
Havana, Cuba, sent a letter to Forbes in
which he said, “I have read in a newspaper that you propose to hold a number of
scientific congresses. Being interested in
the greatest and most brilliant success of
the Exposition and that it may leave ineffaceable traces for the good of humanity, I suggest to you that you will find it
important to hold an International Entomological Congress.” Reviewing the many
insect plagues afflicting the “peoples of
the world…for which there seems to be no
hope of their extinction” as well as “others equally destructive of certain plants
this is not so and with regard to these we
may learn the best methods of diminishing their ravages,” Balmaceda (1892) suggested that “By means of interchange of
thoughts of all the wise men of the earth
we can advance much toward complete
extirpation of these plagues and at least
learn the various methods employed all
over the world…I do not think that there
is any spectacle more sublime and worthy
even of being called Divine than that of
man armed with intelligence struggling
against brute nature.”
The Columbian Exposition missed its
chance at divinity, and America missed
its chance to host the world’s first International Congress of Entomology, when
the decision was made to host a World’s
Congress of Zoology, rather than an
international entomological Congress,
with Forbes presiding. Although the subject matter covered in the Congress was
wide-ranging across zoology, many of
the nation’s preeminent entomologists
participated and the program included
a day devoted largely to entomological
presentations (Anonymous 1893).
Although Chicago’s World Congress
of Zoology turned out to be a one-time
event, the International Congress of Zoology continued to convene every three
years. Eighteen years and five Congresses
after the first one in Paris, the International Congress of Zoology moved outside
Europe and convened in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1907 (Agassiz 1907). That
18 years were needed before zoologists
felt comfortable meeting in the United
States is odd in that, far removed from the
centuries-old resentments and political
entanglements afflicting Europe, America was in many ways an ideal location
for hosting a Congress, legally defined at
the time as “an assemblage of representatives of nations to consider complex
questions of general interest” (Baldwin
1907). As Baldwin (1907) pointed out,
“There is no nation to which these gatherings have brought more good than to the
United States. The late Edwin L. Godkin
described us, a dozen years ago, as an
immense democracy, mostly ignorant,
and completely secluded from foreign
influences, and without any knowledge
of other states of society.”
Moreover, the relatively new, rapidly
expanding, and largely open academic community of the U.S., epitomized
by the ascent of land grant and other
public universities in the last quarter of
the nineteenth century, could develop
unfettered by entrenched traditions. The
creation of a national agricultural experiment station network with the passage
of the Hatch Act in 1887 led to an expansion of the ranks of scientists interested
in problems of an applied nature. Thus,
by 1907, the field of zoology had begun to
splinter into a diversity of more specialized disciplines with different missions as
well as different practices. At the Boston
ICZ, American entomologists and their
specialized organizations were well represented, both on the program and within the organizational structure. Herbert
Osborn from Ohio State University and
Leland O. Howard from the United States
Department of Agriculture were among
the 34 members of the Committee on
Invitation for the Congress, and Forbes
of the University of Illinois and Osborn
were among the delegates representing the American Society of Zoologists.
(Perhaps representative of the times, two
years after the Boston ICZ, Forbes’s home
department of Zoology and Entomology would split, with Forbes serving as
Head of the new Department of Entomology.) The Entomological Society of
America, founded in 1906, the year before
the Congress, was represented by three
delegates: Vernon Kellogg of Stanford
University, Henry Skinner of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia,
American Entomologist • Fall 2016
and John B. Smith of Rutgers University. A somewhat more venerable society,
the Entomological Society of Washington, founded in 1884, was represented
by four delegates: Harrison O. Dyar of
the U.S. National Museum, Howard of
the USDA, Charles Marlatt of the Bureau
of Entomology, and Eugene A. Schwarz
of the USDA. William M. Wheeler, at the
time Curator of Zoology at New York’s
American Museum of Natural History,
attended the Congress as a representative
of the New York Entomological Society,
which had been founded 15 years earlier. Although there were many overseas
delegates, few represented entomological
societies in their home countries; one
exception was Carl Zimmer of Breslau,
representing the Verein für Schlesische
Insektenkunde (Association for Silesian
Entomology).
Entomological contributions to the
meeting appeared in a diversity of sessions, including one called “Entomology
and Applied Zoology,” in which Howard,
Osborn, J. B. Smith, Charles H. Fernald
(of the University of Massachusetts), and
several other eminent American entomologists participated. Howard’s talk, “The
Recent Progress and Present Conditions
of Economic Entomology,” began with a
description of the rapid growth of applied
entomology in particular:
Fifty years ago, or even less, a very
satisfactory and comprehensive textbook or manual of economical zoology could have been contained within the covers of a single volume of
reasonable size. So great have been
the advances, however, of late years,
that the books and pamphlets published would in themselves make a
small-sized library. The whole civilized world has contributed to the
advances of economic zoology, and
in its many directions it has greatly improved the condition of the
human species. It seems to be generally acknowledged that the greatest
strides in one of its branches, namely, economic entomology, have been
made in America (Howard 1907).
But the Boston zoological Congress differed from all preceding congresses in an
important way—that is, in its emphasis on
“experimental zoology,” the subject of an
entire session chaired by Columbia University’s Thomas Hunt Morgan (Johnson
American Entomologist • Volume 62, Number 3
2009). Like economic entomology, experimental zoology was considered fundamentally American; the German biologist
Hans Driesch, delivering the opening
address in the session, remarked that
“though I have never crossed the Atlantic before, America is very familiar to me.
It is here that the science, to which the
work of my life is devoted, has most fully
grown up, grown up indeed into a branch
of biology officially acknowledged; it is in
America and in America alone, that even
the young generation of biologists is really
and thoroughly instructed in experimental zoology” (Driesch 1907).
Genetics in particular, named as a
discipline by British biologist William
Bateson only two years earlier, featured
prominently in the program. The exuberant promulgation of experimental
science in general unnerved a contingent
in attendance that included many of the
entomologists, perhaps justifiably, given
the statement made by Agassiz (1907)
in his opening remarks that “All of the
questions of morphology, of systematic
zoology, of geographical distribution,
have been relegated to a position of comparative insignificance,” and by Bateson
in his sectional address that, although
“we shall be glad of anything that the
systematist can tell us, all that could be
seen by the means of morphology had
been found” (Bateson 1907).
Despite the reassuring explicit recognition in the General Symposium
address by William Keith Brooks (1907)
that “the natural world is so organized
that the only way for us to understand
anything is through the study of its interrelations with other things,” the entomologists were sufficiently unhappy with
the ICZ and its apparent abandonment
of the natural world with all of its interrelations that, in 1910, they were ready
to hold their own International Congress. That an International Congress
of Entomology actually happened was
due largely to the inexhaustible efforts
of the redoubtable Karl Jordan. A wellknown systematist trained in his native
Germany, he began working as a curator
for Lord Walter Rothschild at his private
museum in Tring in 1893 and remained
associated with Tring in some capacity
until his death in 1959. A prolific scholar,
Jordan published more than 400 papers,
many of which were authored with Walter or Charles Rothschild, and described
more than 3,000 species of insects. As a
curator, Jordan was deeply embedded in
an international network of collectors,
fellow curators, and amateurs and professionals and attended international
meetings regularly; he was, for example, a delegate at both the 1898 ICZ in
Cambridge, England, and the 1901 ICZ
in Berlin, Germany. He was therefore a
natural and credible proponent of “the
usefulness of an association of some kind
aiming at international collaboration of
Entomologists.” He tapped into his network of museum directors, curators, and
specialists and sent out reams of correspondence emphasizing the need for
an international organization for entomologists. The gist of his argument was
that “At the Congress…where nobody’s
attention would be averted by other interests, general questions bearing on entomology might be discussed and thereby
the efforts of collectors be guided into
channels where their labours are most
needed” (Johnson 2011). Moreover, an
international congress could increase the
stature of entomologists in their home
countries. He bemoaned the fact that
The public entomological institutes
are generally provided with insufficient means and an inadequate staff.
The governments do not take sufficient interest in the entomological
departments of the museums. On the
other hand the entomological public
also is often indifferent or even hostile to the museums. This public (the
“collectors”) lacks often the scientific
spirit necessary for good work (quoted in Johnson 2011).
Contributing to the public’s indifference or hostility might well have been
the tendency of entomologists of the era
to squabble among themselves over what
might strike most people as minutiae.
One such acrimonious argument of the
era, for example, revolved around how
high to set an insect on a pin, with British entomologists at variance with their
European colleagues; British entomologist
W.H. Harwood decried the need for standardization by declaring that “No doubt a
common system of setting would have its
convenience…as would also a common
monetary or fiscal system, or a common
language; but we ‘hardened Britishers’ do
not feel disposed to ‘fall into line’ with
the rest of the ‘civilised world,’ upon a
point where we consider ourselves far
in advance of other people, and where
165
progress in their direction would mean
a movement towards the rear” (Johnson 2011).
In addition to contacting friends and
acquaintances, Jordan also reached out to
national entomological societies around
the world to recruit them to the effort,
ultimately hearing back from more than
50. With international support, he began
planning for a congress in Brussels, Belgium. The planning effort, however, was
interrupted by a series of personal and
financial problems affecting Walter Rothschild and hence Jordan’s professional
activities at the Tring Museum, so he
adjusted the target date to 1910, which
happened to coincide with the World’s
Fair scheduled to take place in Brussels.
Jordan arranged for a number of organizational meetings in London in the
run-up to the Congress, working with
colleagues from England, France, and
Germany and appointing local secretaries “to promote the interests of the
movement in all countries of the civilised
world” (Anonymous 1910).
The Congress, taking place from 1–6
August 1910, attracted 292 entomologists, 67 from the United Kingdom alone
(Fig. 1). Fewer than a dozen Americans
attended, but it was a prominent and
influential group. Included were Philip
P. Calvert of Philadelphia’s Academy of
Natural Sciences; Henry Clinton Fall and
Adalbert Fenyes of Pasadena, California;
Samuel Henshaw of Harvard’s Museum
of Comparative Zoology; W. J. Holland
of Pittsburgh’s Carnegie Museum; Howard of the USDA Bureau of Entomology;
Osborn of Ohio State University; Smith of
Rutgers University; Wheeler of New York’s
Academy of Natural Sciences; and Skinner
of the Academy of Natural Sciences. Of
these, only Holland, Osborn, and Skinner
actively assisted with planning and conducting the Congress. Several American
organizations were represented by delegates, although the Academy of Natural
Sciences, the American Entomological
Society of Philadelphia, the Philadelphia
Academy, and the Entomological Society
of America were all represented by the
same person: Skinner (and joining Skinner in the ESA delegation were Osborn
and Holland). Sixteen individuals from
the United States were listed as permanent members, a number second only to
Great Britain, with 18 members.
On page 6 of the proceedings, Jordan
explained what led him to believe that a
166
Figure 1. The first International Congress of Entomology was held in Brussels, Belgium in 1910.
dedicated entomological Congress was
a necessity:
My written and personal relationships
to zoologists and entomologists and
visiting museums and other natural scientific institutes proved to me:
1° The fact that many important entomological works, large Collections
and the names of efficient non-specialist Entomologists had remained
completely unknown; 2° The fact that
here and there among some entomologists Animosity prevails that brings
science only damage ; 3° that relative
to the huge number of entomologists
an enormous amount of work is done
but has little scientific results ; 4° The
fact that there are too few scientific
entomologists (in Europe) to deal
with those insects that have immediate importance for economy and
medicine (Jordan 1910).
Auguste Lameere, then President of
the Entomological Society of Belgium,
was designated to serve as President of
the Congress. In his presidential address,
Lameere (1910) celebrated entomology as
an “independent and victorious science.”
The anonymous report on the Congress
in Nature described the address as “an
eloquent vindication of the claims of entomology to serious attention, both as a
science and also as a study having practical bearings of the highest importance”
(Anonymous 1910). With respect to the
former, Lameere contrasted the zoologist
with the entomologist: “place them in the
sea, they will be in their element and they
will expound at length on all the animals
you have the opportunity to show them,
but ask them to accompany you in your
garden, and they will confess to you, very
willingly moreover, that the population of
insects which live there is almost completely unknown to them.” With respect
to the latter, Lameere cited not only the
contributions of medical entomologists
in combating human diseases, but also
American entomologist Charles Valentine
Riley, who famously saved the European
wine grapes from phylloxera a half-century earlier by grafting the susceptible
Vitis vinifera vines onto resistant American Vitis labrusca rootstock. According to
Lameere, entomology was the “Cinderella
of the biological sciences.”
“Experimental zoology” was by no
means excluded from the Congress. The
new science of genetics was highlighted,
for example, with R.C. Punnett of Cambridge providing a “lucid exposition of
Mendelism as applied to the Lepidoptera,” and several papers were presented
on mimicry in butterflies. Natural history
and systematics, however, were integral
to the entire congress; Jordan himself
declared that “sound systematics are the
only safe basis upon which can be built
sound theories as to the evolution of the
diversified world of live beings” (Johnson 2011).
Several important actions were taken
at the Congress despite the fact that the
“Congress had full legislative power, but
little executive strength; but if a healthy
public spirit were created, that alone
would be enough to justify this great
Congress, if no other results had been
American Entomologist • Fall 2016
attained.” There was a lively discussion
on the disposition and preservation of
type specimens, and a recommendation
to adopt the rules of nomenclature used
by the International Congress of Zoology. The Executive Committee was asked
to nominate, but not elect, members of
a Committee on Entomological Nomenclature and forward the names to the
next Congress, which would elect these
individuals to represent entomological
interests to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature. As well, 10
“men who rendered eminent service to
entomology” were unanimously elected
to constitute a “Comité d’honneur.” Sir
Walter Rothschild recommended that the
Entomological Congress be held every
two years “on account of the great number of questions which arise in so large a
field as that of entomology…the questions
connected with medical and economic
entomology are accumulating rapidly in
number and importance from day to day.”
Pointedly, the group agreed that holding
the next ICE the year before the Zoological
Congress would avoid “expense and loss
of time” associated with attending both.
On 5 August, the last day of the Congress,
the decision was made to hold the next
Congress in Oxford, England, in 1912, with
E.P. Poulton as ICE President.
That outcome was not particularly surprising, in view of the fact that, as reported rather subjectively by the anonymous
author of the report on the Congress in
the British journal Nature, “The contributions made by our countrymen to the
scientific work of the congress may fairly
be said to have surpassed in extent and
value those of any other nation—a fact
which is of good augury for the future
of entomological research within the
borders of the British empire.” That the
second ICE, in Oxford in August 1912,
would be dominated by Britain and its
past and present colonies, protectorates,
and other territories was apparent from
Poulton’s opening speech, in which delegates were “welcomed not only by the
entomologists of the British Isles, but also
of the British Colonies and of India, and I
venture to invite the American members,
who speak our language, to act with us as
hosts, and to endeavour to make the visit
of our continental visitors and colleagues
as bright and successful as possible. I
know well, from many a happy experience, how gracefully and graciously our
American friends play the part of hosts in
American Entomologist • Volume 62, Number 3
their own country, and in inviting them
to act with us on this occasion.” Indeed,
Americans were well-represented, with 10
delegate luminaries from the Entomological Society of America including Forbes,
John Henry Comstock, Skinner, Calvert,
Osborn, Vernon L. Kellogg, Holland,
Wheeler, Howard, and J. G. Needham.
Not everyone was thrilled with so much
English influence; Canadian Henry Lyman
(1912), in his report on the Oxford ICE in
Canadian Entomologist, mentioned conversing with a German entomologist on
the train platform who “pointed to the
whole page of names of English representatives and said there were too many.”
Lyman also lamented that the scientific
agenda seemed to have diminished in
importance compared to the Brussels
Congress: “I fully admit the agreeable
nature and also the important character
of the social aspect, but I think there is a
danger of overdoing it, and that it should
never be allowed to obscure the more
serious business of the gathering.” He
decried the apparent unwillingness of
delegates to tackle and resolve difficult
issues, instead opting to pass them on to
future Congresses, while problems, particularly those regarding nomenclature,
continued to mount.
This is not to say that nothing was
accomplished of scientific import. The
last official day of the Congress was for
the conduct of business. A resolution,
amended by Howard and referred to the
Executive Committee prior to approval
and presentation at the General Meeting, was ultimately passed that “the main
work of the Entomological Committee on
Nomenclature should consist in collecting the opinions of the specialists in the
various branches of Entomology on every
specific point of nomenclature, considering the opinions thus collected, laying a
report before the Entomological Congress,
and then bringing the matter before the
International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature for final consideration.”
One other item of business was conducted at the Executive Committee meeting—considering bids for hosting the next
ICE. Invitations came from Frankfurt am
Main, Vienna, and the “United States of
North America.” The American invitation
was issued jointly by the American Entomological Society, the Entomological Society of America, and the American Association of Economic Entomologists, and
a presentation made by Calvert, Forbes,
and Osborne was endorsed by Kellogg on
behalf of the Pacific Coast Entomological
Society and by Gordon Hewitt for the
Entomological Society of Ontario. Despite
the fact that “the invitations are couched
in such kind terms, and the prospect of
the Third Congress of Entomology being
held in the United States is so alluring,”
the Executive Committee decided “that
this young association should meet at
least once more in Europe before going
to the United States.” This was no snub;
the high esteem in which at least Congress
President Poulton held his American colleagues was evident in his banquet speech
(Poulton 1912). He began by quoting his
compatriot Charles Darwin and ended
by acknowledging the important contributions of American economic entomologists; according to Darwin,
Entomology stood out as the one science in which a practical application
was, in his experience, without an
injurious effect upon investigation. In
Entomology, scientific inquiries of all
kinds were going on for the purpose
of helping mankind, but in spite of
the application their researches could
still be conducted on purely scientific lines; and he did not know of any
other science for which this could
be said so truly as it could for Entomology. If this opinion were sound,
it followed that our science occupied
a high position in the scale of human
knowledge. Economic Entomology
was a vast field in which practical
applications were sought, and sought
most successfully, and yet if any one
wished for examples of work carried
out in the true spirit of science, he
could not do better than visit Dr. L.
O. Howard at Washington, Prof. W.
M. Wheeler at Harvard, Dr. R. C. L.
Perkins in Honolulu, or the rooms
in our National Museum from which
Mr. Guy A. K. Marshall inspires and
directs the investigations of many a
naturalist in Africa.
Rather than actually visiting Howard
in Washington, Wheeler at Harvard, or
Perkins in Honolulu, however, the Executive Committee recommended holding
the third Congress in 1915 in Vienna, in
Central Europe, as opposed to Western
Europe, the site of the first two ICEs, with
Anton Handlirsch as President (http://
bit.ly/29r4xsg).
167
A world war, however, thoroughly scuttled the plan. The Great War relegated
concerns about nomenclatural regulations to the sidelines, as the entomological
community was fractured by political differences, economic hardship, and horrific
loss of life. Although Jordan had become
a British citizen in 1911, his German heritage made him a target of suspicion by
many of his compatriots. War economies meant that conducting entomological research and maintaining museum
collections became challenging—even
pins were difficult to obtain. Under these
circumstances, the U.S. entomological
enterprise, firmly grounded in practical
applications, served as a model of sorts
for Europeans, who increasingly had to
justify their science under conditions of
scarce resources on an economic basis.
For example, in 1915, The Entomologists’
Record touted how entomologists in the
British Museum helped the war effort:
Some time ago we called attention to
a very important exhibit at the British Museum (Natural History) dealing with the Army Biscuit Enquiry…
We understand that the practical use
which has been made of the facts
elicited, and the results obtained
in this enquiry, has proved of such
enormous value to the government
authorities that by request the materials of the former demonstration are
being re-exhibited in the hall of the
museum with additional items. It is
significant to read the new announcement in comparison with the former
one. The first, 1913, said :—“It is hoped
that the researches now being carried
out jointly by the War Office and the
British Museum (Natural History)
may ensure the protection of Army
Biscuit from the possibility of such
attacks by insects in the future.” The
second, 1915, says :—“The researches
which have been carried out jointly by the War Office and the British Museum (Natural History) have
ensured the protection of Army Biscuit
from the possibility of such attacks by
insects in the future.” The italics are
ours. Nothing succeeds like success”
(Anonymous 1915).
The third ICE, postponed until 1925 due
to the chaos reigning in war-torn Europe,
ultimately ended up in Zurich, Switzerland, presided over by the Swiss entomologist Anton V. Schulthess-Rechberg.
168
Although delegates “representing every
civilized Government in the world” (Hose
1925) and presentations were made in
many different languages, English predominated (MacDougall 1926); as had
been the case at the second ICE, “as
befitted an Empire with such far-flung
and diverse territories, the representatives of Great Britain, the Dominions and
Dependencies were particularly prominent” (Hose 1925). Political animosities were still strong and Switzerland,
as a neutral country during the Great
War, seemed minimally problematical
as a venue. In attendance were approximately 200 entomologists (MacDougall
1926), fully one-quarter of whom were
from Great Britain and its associated
nations. Although a greater number of
countries were represented than had
been present at the first two ICEs, the
absence of entomologists from France,
Italy, Belgium, and Russia was conspicuous. Howard (1926), in his account of
the Congress, explained that the absence
was “not due to international feeling
but to the unfortunate rate of monetary
exchange. This general explanation was
accepted by those present at the Congress as fully accounting for the absence
of delegates from the three countries
first mentioned.” The exchange rate was
also cited by MacDougall (1926) as the
explanation for their absence. However, the review of the meeting written by
the German entomologist Walter Horn
(1925) suggests that the French and Belgians may have actually boycotted ICE
1925 because Germans had been invited,
reflecting the lingering post-war hard
feelings even among entomologists. In
Naturwissenschaften, Horn began his
review by writing, “After the great difficulty that German science endured under
the French-Belgian boycott initiative in
the last years, it’s a pleasant fact to note
that the first international congress in
the area of zoology (Congress for Entomology) was a shining success of international collaboration.” Later, however,
he notes that 250 participants registered
for the Congress and that 216 showed up
from 20 countries, “to which France and
Belgium should also be added, because
they registered members to attend the
congress” (translated by Martin Hauser).
Americans were also conspicuous by
virtue of low numbers; only five attended
and, of those, “not one crossed the Atlantic especially for the congress, but all were
in Europe for some other main purpose”
(Howard 1926). This was a concern for
Howard, not just a point of national pride;
the U.S. had submitted a bid to host the
next Congress in 1928 and the poor showing might have undermined enthusiasm
for a U.S. venue. The Executive Committee
ultimately did approve the venue, with
the only objection being expense: “It was
deemed certain that the attendance of
European entomologists would be very
restricted on account of the expense of the
journey, and members of the Executive
Committee expressed…the hope that the
American entomologists would be able to
lessen the expense to European delegates
in some way or another.”
Howard himself was likely a major
part of the reason that the U.S. bid was
regarded so favorably. The proceedings
of the Congress singled him out for a
“special tribute”: “Always in a position
to help and using his position to help,
Dr. Howard has earned the gratitude of
entomologists everywhere. Capable and
kindly, always with the right word, and
with tact as his middle name, Howard
gives one the feeling that were there a
dozen representative ambassadors like
him in the political world, we would
soon have, what some of us long for, the
United States of Europe, each nation no
longer at enmity with the other but working out its own salvation following the
lines of its own culture and psychology.
Certainly there was a spirit of friendliness
and goodwill at the Congress, attesting
that science has no limited boundaries
but is international” (MacDougall 1926;
Graf and Graf 1959).
Locating the Congress in the U.S. also
comported well with the growing interest in Europe in applied entomology.
The Great War and the economic chaos
left in its wake had underscored for the
Europeans the importance of justifying
entomological research for its economic impacts. Notwithstanding, the Zurich
Congress passed a resolution that “The
Congress considers it essential that the
problems underlying Applied Entomology should be studied, and desires to
impress upon Governments and Institutions concerned with investigations in
Applied Entomology that time must be
devoted to Systematic Entomology and
fundamental research, such as Insect
Physiology, Ecology and Pathology, since
only by the study of these can insect control be placed on a sound basis.”
American Entomologist • Fall 2016
The selection of the exact U.S. location for the meeting of the Fourth Congress and the election of the President
was left to the Executive Committee to
decide due to concerns about whether
a sufficient number of Europeans would
be able to afford the overseas travel two
years hence. The irrepressible Howard,
however, provided enough reassurances in several post-Congress exchanges
that the decision was made to hold the
next Congress in Ithaca, New York, with
Howard himself appointed as President.
Ithaca was in many ways an ideal venue
for a U.S.-based International Congress
of Entomology. As the home of Cornell
University, it was the academic home of
John Henry Comstock, a towering figure in entomological research, teaching,
and public service—the tripartite mission
of the land grant universities. Comstock
began his long and illustrious career in
entomology at Cornell in 1872 as a sophomore, teaching a course in entomology
after fellow students, impatient with the
absence of expertise on the subject within
the faculty, submitted a petition to allow
him to do so. Appointed as an instructor
in 1873, he graduated with a B.S. degree in
1874 and was appointed to the faculty in
1876, where, with the exception of a twoyear stint in the Bureau of Entomology, he
spent his entire career. Among his most
memorable contributions to research was
a system, devised with James Needham,
for classifying wing venation that recognized homologies across orders. He
was, perhaps, best remembered for his
contributions to teaching entomology—
his 1895 book A Manual for the Study of
Insects was the first widely used textbook
of entomology, and at Cornell, he trained
a generation of students who subsequently became leaders of the field. Howard
himself was an 1877 graduate of Cornell
and an apt student of Comstock, whom
he called “the first great teacher of Entomology in America” (Smith 1975).
An organizational meeting with Jordan
was held in Ithaca to develop a strategy
for ensuring participation of Europeans, and W.J. Holland of the Carnegie
Museum of Pittsburgh was recruited to
the effort. Using his extensive connections, Holland succeeded in securing
$5,000 from the Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace, expressly for
facilitating travel from Europe; additional
funds soon followed (enough, in fact to
support publication costs over and above
American Entomologist • Volume 62, Number 3
the fees assessed of delegates and associates). The $5,000 went in part to Third
Class Tourist Tickets for 25 entomologists
from 17 countries; other transportation
costs were subsidized and ultimately
many more Europeans than expected
were able to attend. The Local Organizing Committee arranged for the European “Congressists” to travel together in
groups, one on the steamship Tuscania
from LeHavre on July 28 and the other
leaving on the SS Volendam from Rotterdam on August 1. Upon arrival, members
of entomological societies in New York
and Brooklyn arranged for the travelers to
be met and escorted to their hotel or the
railroad station and, particularly for the
early arrivals, planned a full program of
both entomological and non-entomological activities and visits in the New York
area. Ultimately, more than 600 visitors
representing 39 countries attended the
Congress (Jordan and Horn 1930).
In Ithaca, Howard, as President, was
assisted by Wheeler of Harvard and Needham of Cornell as Vice Presidents, and
Cornell Professor Oskar A. Johannsen
served as General Secretary. The ICE
Executive Committee was enlarged for
the American-based Congress to include
Johannsen as General Secretary. The Entomological Society of America, the American Association of Economic Entomology,
and the Entomological Society of Ontario
were all represented by multiple delegates.
Among the patrons were professional
societies, universities, private individuals (including Professor and Mrs. Comstock), and “The Congress of the United
States.” In addition to presentations on
systematics, physiology, embryology, morphology, genetics, ecology, systematics,
and zoogeography, there were no fewer
than five sessions devoted to economic
entomology, including medical and veterinary entomology, apiculture, forest
entomology, and one called “Insecticides
and Appliances.”
The fourth Congress was in general a
showcase for applied entomology; the
Congress in full force “made a hegira”
to the New York Agricultural Experiment
Station at Geneva, New York, for the systematics, zoogeography, and economic
entomology sessions and for a chance to
sit in on the meeting of the New York Horticultural Society, where they witnessed
“a fine demonstration of the measures in
operation for the control of the European corn borer. Burning, plowing, cutting,
pulverizing, and all the various devices that have been perfected to combat
the corn borer were demonstrated. The
equipment included a specially devised
low-cutting corn binder, a low-cutting
ensilage harvester, a stubble pulverizer, a stalk shaver and side delivery rake
used with the shaver, and special plows
for turning under stubble and refuse.”
For those who had attended the second
Congress in Oxford, the contrast with the
staid 800-year-old university campus there
must have been striking indeed.
Howard opened the Congress with a
clarion call for entomological liberation:
Conservatism in education is perhaps the greatest stumbling-block
to progress. Science has had hard
work in its efforts to establish itself in
educational curricula. Giving that it
is now so established, conservatism
still plays a most important part in the
determination of the relative values
of the scientific subjects taught. And
in each science, conservatism—custom—still insists that certain aspects
shall be stressed and certain others
slighted. Thus it is in Zoology. In the
teaching of this subject since it began
to be taught in the colleges and universities Entomology, by far the most
important part of this science, has
been slighted. In terming Entomology
the most important part of Zoology,
I do not wish to underestimate the
very great value of those zoological
studies that relate to how we as animals ourselves came to be; but to the
dominant place that the class Insecta
holds in the whole animal kingdom
(Howard 1930).
Among the substantive actions taken
at the Congress was deciding on Paris,
France, as the next venue, to coincide
with the 100th anniversary of the founding
of the Societé Entomologique de France.
The Congress Executive Committee
also named two Americans as honorary members, W.J. Holland and Stephen
A. Forbes, to join Comstock, who had
been elected in Zurich in 1925 (Howard
1928). The 84-year-old Forbes, however,
had left the preceding day and thus was
not present to receive the encomiums
of the group; he learned of the honor
by way of a letter (Fig 2). Herrick (1926)
noted in his review of the Congress in
Science that “younger colleagues in the
169
Figure 2. The letter to Stephen
A. Forbes informing him
of his acceptance into the
International Congress of
Entomology in 1928.
field of economic entomology feel particularly gratified
by this mark of distinction.”
Another notable feature of
the Congress was that, over
and above the typical program for accompanying
women with teas, picnics,
a bridge party, and visits
to campus sites (including the College of Home
Economics), a luncheon
was offered for “visiting women actively
engaged in entomological work by the
Sigma Delta Epsilon,
Graduate Women’s
Scientific Fraternity.”
Recognition even
of the potential for
women to contribute to entomology
had hitherto been
hard to find at ICE,
although, in 1912,
“Ms Rowland-Brown,”
daughter of Henry Rowland-Brown, a
British lepidopterist, used her opportunity to speak at the Banquet on behalf
of the women in attendance (mostly as
“associates,” or guests), to opine that,
“So far, in this great science, few women
had yet distinguished themselves, but
where those present led, others might
surely follow, for science, that woman
of all countries, was a creed” (Jordan
and Eltringham 1912). In his review of
the Congress for Science, Herrick (1928)
mentioned only that “In the afternoon
the women of the local department of
entomology served tea to all of the visiting guests.”
In his concluding remarks, as his predecessors were wont to do, Howard noted
that “it is by far the largest meeting of
entomologists ever held and its international character makes it the most important. It has marked to a striking extent the
rapid growing interest in Entomology as
a Science and the wide-spread appreciation of its importance. In these respects
the Congress has been a monumental
milestone” (Jordan and Horn 1930).
One might forgive Howard his
170
tendency toward hyperbole; the meeting in Ithaca arguably was a milestone—it
was really the moment in entomological
history that service to society became an
integral part of the science. In the first
Congress to be held after World War II,
at the much-delayed eighth Congress
held in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1948, Congress President Ivar Trägådh exhorted
his fellow entomologists to “rouse the
interest of the laymen in our activities”
by appealing “to their most fundamental
trait, their egotism, and make them realize that the insects constitute a growing
danger to their welfare and economy”
(Johnson 2011). At the Congress, almost
half of the 11 sessions were devoted to
applied entomology.
In 2016, as entomologists descend on
Orlando for what will likely once more
be the biggest gathering of entomologists in the history of the discipline,
there will still be calls to educate the
public about the importance of the discipline. Entomologists are for the most
part comfortable with the unique Januslike nature of their discipline. Every year,
the Entomological
Society of America, the society hosting the 25th ICE,
bestows its Founders Award, honoring a historical figure who had a lasting
impact on the discipline. The individual
being honored in 2016,
Edward F. Knipling of
the USDA, epitomizes
how basic and applied
entomology are inextricably linked. Knipling is
being honored for developing and promoting the
insect control technique
called sterile male release,
along with colleague
Raymond Bushland. In
the 1950s, controlling the
screwworm fly, Cochliomyia hominivorax, a devastating wound-infesting parasite of cattle and sheep, was
costing the livestock industry $200 million every year
(equivalent to about $1.8 billion in 2016). This team combined their knowledge of the
natural history of this species
(particularly its monogamous
mating behavior) with their familiarity with the Nobel Prize-winning work
of Herman Mueller on the sterilizing
effects of radiation on insects, to work
out methods of mass-rearing the flies,
sterilizing the males, and releasing the
sterile males, effectively preventing local
populations from reproducing. By 1966,
sterile male release effectively eradicated
screwworms from the United States. The
technique remains in use today (and in
fact is responsible for eradicating screwworms from Central America south to
Panama by 2006) and has been applied
in programs aimed at eradicating other
pest insects (http://www.goldengooseaward.org/awardees/screwworms). The
individual who will honor Knipling in
an address immediately preceding the
opening ceremony for ICE 25, Anthony
James of the University of California-Irvine, is being honored for his transformative body of work that, in the spirit of Knipling and Bushland, applies
basic innovations in insect genetics
toward developing novel genome-based
American Entomologist • Fall 2016
methods of rendering mosquito vectors
of human diseases incapable of harboring pathogens as well as spreading the
altered genes throughout wild mosquito
populations.
The entomologists who gathered in
Ithaca in 1928 for the fourth ICE would
certainly have been mystified by the
details of CRISPR-Cas9 or RNAi in use
today for controlling malaria, dengue, and
other mosquito-borne diseases, but they
surely would have recognized the synergy
between basic and applied entomology
in its modern form. The same applies to
the entomologists who gathered in Canberra, Australia, at the 14th International
Congress of Entomology and listened to
Knipling himself deliver the opening plenary address (and Knipling would serve
on the organizing committee for the 15th
ICE in Washington, DC). There has been
extraordinary continuity in the science of
entomology, both across time and around
the world; as it was at the 1893 Columbian Exposition, entomology at the 25th
ICE in Orlando, the third to be held in
the United States, will “be conspicuous
for its utility.”
Acknowledgments
I thank editor Gene Kritsky not only for
allowing me to write this manuscript but
also for patiently waiting for it to arrive
past the deadline. James Ridsdill-Smith
and Max Whitten were more than generous with their time, e-mail messages, and
general good cheer in sharing their vast
knowledge of the vast subject of ICE history and provided far more information than
I could possibly fit into this paper. Martin
Hauser was kind enough, on extremely
short notice, not only to help me understand the words in a German-language
article for me but also to help me read
between the (German) lines. I’m also
profoundly grateful to Linda Stahnke,
Jameatris Rimkus, and Anna Trammel
of the University of Illinois Archives and
Krista Gray of Illinois History and Lincoln Collection for facilitating my search
through more than 30 cubic feet of paper
ephemera relating to the very busy life of
Stephen A. Forbes.
References Cited
Agassiz, A. 1907. Address of the President.
Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Zoology. Cambridge (MA):
University Press, pp. 55-59 (http://bit.
ly/29hg8Mc).
American Entomologist • Volume 62, Number 3
Anonymous. 1893. Proceedings of scientific societies. American Naturalist 27:
1028-1037.
Anonymous. 1910. The First International Congress of Entomology. Nature 84:
214–215.
Anonymous. 1912. The Second International Congress of Entomology. Science 35:
446-447.
Anonymous. 1915. The Entomologists’ Record and Journal of Variation 27: 211-214.
Baldwin, S.E. 1907. The international congresses and conferences of the last century as forces working toward the solidarity
of the world. Am. Journal International
Law 1: 565-578.
Balmaceda, F.J. 1892. Letter to Stephen A.
Forbes (translated from Spanish). Natural
History Survey Chief’s Office Zoological
Congress Correspondence 1892-1893 Series 43/1/3 Box 1. University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign Archives.
Bateson, W. 1907. Facts limiting the theory
of heredity (address). Proceedings of the
Seventh International Congress of Zoology, pp. 306-320.
Bonney, C.C. 1891. Letter to Stephen A.
Forbes April 25, 1891. Natural History Survey Chief’s Office Zoological Congress Correspondence 1892-1893 Series 43/1/3 Box
1. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Archives.
Bonney, C.C. 1891a. Letter to Stephen A.
Forbes, May 27, 1891. Natural History Survey Chief’s Office Zoological Congress Correspondence 1892-1893 Series 43/1/3 Box
1. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Archives.
Bonney, C.C. 1891b. Letter to Stephen A.
Forbes, October 28, 1891. Natural History Survey Chief’s Office Zoological Congress Correspondence 1892-1893 Series
43/1/3 Box 1. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Archives.
Brooks, W.K. 1907. Are heredity and variation facts? (address). Proceedings of the
Seventh International Congress of Zoology,
Cambridge: University Press, pp. 88-98.
Chicago Historical Society. 1999. History
Files: the World’s Columbian Exposition
https://www.chicagohs.org/history/expo/
ex3.html (accessed July 7, 2016).
Driesch, H. 1907. The stimuli of restitutions.
Proceedings of the Seventh International
Congress of Zoology, Cambridge: University Press, pp. 400-473.
Graf, J.E., and D.W. Graf. 1959. Leland Ossian
Howard 1857-1950. Biographical Memoir of the National Academy of Sciences
33: 87-124.
Herrick, G.W. 1928. The Fourth International Congress of Entomology. Science
68: 237-244.
Horn, W. 1925. Bericht über den dritten Internationalen KongreB fiir Entomologie
(Insektenkunde) in Zürich 1925. Naturwissenschaften 40: 836-838.
Hose, C., and J.W. Monro. 1925. International Congress of Entomology. 1-General account of the conference. Empire Forestry
Journal 4: 274-278.
Howard, L.O. 1907. The recent progress and
present conditions of economic entomology. Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Zoology, pp. 572-600.
Howard, L.O. 1926. Third Entomological
Congress. Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer. 19: 115–118.
Howard, L.O. 1928. The Fourth International Congress of Entomology. Nature
122: 457-458.
Howard L.O. 1930. Opening address, pp.
69-73. In Jordan, K. And W. Horn (eds),
Fourth International Congress of Entomology, Naumburg a/Saale, G. Pätz.
Jordan, K., and H. Eltringham. 1912. Proceedings of the Second International
Congress of Entomology, Volume 1. Proceedings. London: Hazell, Watson & Viney, Ld.
Jordan, K., and W. Horn. 1930. Proceedings
of the Fourth International Congress of
Entomology. Volume 1. Proceedings. Naumburg: Gottf. Pätz.
Johnson, K. 2009. The return of the phoenix: the 1963 International Congress of
Zoology and American zoologists in the
twentieth century. Journal of the History
of Biology 42: 417-456.
Johnson, K. 2011. Ordering life: Karl Jordan
and the naturalist tradition. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 392 pages.
Lameere, A. 1910. 1er Congrès International
d’Entomologie. Bruxelles, 1-6 Aout 1910.
Volume 1. Historique et Procès-Verbaux.
Bruxelles: Hayez (translated by MRB)
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=osu
.32435018978403;view=1up;seq=21
Lyman, H.H. 1912. The Second International
Congress of Entomology. Canadian Entomologist 44: 370-371.
MacDougall, R.S. 1926. The Third International Congress of Entomology. Nature
116: 259-260.
Poulton, E.B. 1912a. Opening address.
Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Entomology, Volume 1.
Proceedings. London: Hazell, Watson &
Viney, Ld.
Poulton, E.B. 1912b. Banquet address. Proceedings of the Second International
Congress of Entomology, Volume 1. Proceedings. London: Hazell, Watson & Viney, Ld.
Smith, E.H. 1975. The Comstocks and Cornell: in the people’s service. Annual Review of Entomology 21: 1-26.
May Berenbaum is a professor and head of the
Department of Entomology, University of Illinois,
320 Morrill Hall, 505 South Goodwin Avenue,
Urbana, IL 61801. Currently, she is studying the
chemical aspects of interaction between herbivorous insects and their hosts.
DOI:
10.1093/ae/tmw061
171