A Rich and Diverse Fauna: The History of the Australian National Insect Collection 1926-1991

A Rich and Diverse Fauna

The History of the

Australian National Insect Collection

1926 - 1991

Australia is blessed with a rich and diverse insect fauna

M.J. Whitten (1987)

A Rich and Diverse

Fauna

The History of the Australian

National Insect Collection

1926 – 1991

Murray S. Upton

Australian National Insect Collection, CSIRO Entomology, Canberra

CSIRO PUBLISHING

National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry

Upton, M. S. (Murray Scott).

A rich and diverse fauna : the history of the Australian

National Insect Collection 1926-1991.

Bibliography.

Includes index.

ISBN 0 643 06322 6.

1. Australian National Insect Collection - History.

2. Insects - Australia - Collection and preservation - History.

3. Insects - Australia - Catalogs and collections - History.

4. Insects - Australia - Collectors and collecting - History.

I. Title.

595.707494

© CSIRO Australia 1997

CSIRO PUBLISHING

PO Box 1139

(150 Oxford Street)

Collingwood, Victoria 3066

Australia

Tel: (03) 9662 7666   Int: +61 3 9662 7666

Fax: (03) 9662 7555   Int: +61 39662 7555

email: sales@publish.csiro.au

Web: www.publish.csiro.au

Foreword

Worldwide about eighty per cent of all multicellular animals are arthropods and the vast majority of these organisms are insects. They dominate terrestrial ecosystems in terms of both their abundance and diversity. In Australia there are probably more than 200 000 insect species in the fauna. To date less than one half have been properly named. This is understandable given the numbers involved. However, it should be a source of concern that we have still to document and understand such a large component of Australia's natural heritage. These organisms playa critical role in maintaining the function of our ecosystems. If we are to conserve our biodiversity, the fundamental starting point is to understand the identity and interrelationships of these organisms. This is, of course, both an obligation through Australia's commitment to the International Convention on Biodiversity and a necessity if we are to satisfy the need of the Australian community to effectively sustain our natural resources.

From the earliest days of CSIRO it has been a major initiative of the Organisation to appoint professional scientists with the vision and capacity to grapple with such an enormous task and to establish a major biological collection arising from their research activities. These scientists have always also been required to analyse and retrieve the information in the collection in order to provide advice on the identity of economic pests and their relatives and to make this information available to underpin the development of new and better pest control practices.

While we are making headway on both these tasks we have to qualify our claims as there is an enormous amount still to be done. There is a continual need for more staff and resources to secure major economic benefits in minimising crop and livestock protection problems, maintaining international trade obligations in relation to quarantine pests and giving Australia the capacity to respond rapidly to new pest introductions. Similarly, the Australian National Insect Collection continues to grow and additional infrastructure is required to maintain the collection as a world class international facility.

Murray Upton's excellent book is about the people, the Organisation and the scientific achievements that have set the example we strive to follow today. Today is an age of discovery for biologists. The science coming out of the Australian National Insect Collection delivers to a bewildering array of environmental and economic activities that are crucial for the future of Australian agribusiness and maintaining our resource base in land and water biodiversity. In addition new collaborative activities, such as developing novel approaches to handling biological information for land use planning, and discovery projects to look for novel pharmaceutical molecules, have emerged as major opportunities in recent years.

More than anything, the men and women who contributed to the development of the Australian National Insect Collection have built a vibrant internationally recognised institution. It is the world's largest collection of Australian insects — a collection that is a superb resource for the future and an essential part of Australia's culture.

Jim Cullen

Chief, CSIRO Entomology

Sponsors

The author wishes to acknowledge the financial support

given to this project by

TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION AUSTRALIA LIMITED

and

CRA LIMITED

The Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited, whose Landcruisers were used on all major surveys conducted by the Australian National Insect Collection since 1968, also financially supported surveys to Cooktown in Queensland in 1980 and 1981.

Hamersley Iron Pty. Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of CRA Limited also generously financed two major field surveys by the Australian National Insect Collection to Millstream in the Pilbara, Western Australia in 1970 and 1971.

Insects are, indeed, a fascinating and highly important group of organisms and I would venture to say that there is not a single person who hasn't in one way or other been significantly influenced by them, whether they recognise it or not.

D.F. Waterhouse (1974)

Kenneth Hedley Lewis Key

In Appreciation

This book is dedicated to

Kenneth Hedley lewis Key

Ph.D., D.I.C., D.Se., F.A.A.

the first post-war ‘Curator’ of the CSIRO Division of Entomology collections, and later Chief Curator, whose persistence was largely responsible for establishing the curatorial policies and practices that placed the Australian National Insect Collection at the forefront of systematic entomology throughout the world

Contents

Forward

Sponsors

Appreciation

Preface

Introduction: the Australian National Insect Collection

1    Prologue — setting the scene: 1915–1927

2    The Tillyard years — a temperamental decade: 1926–1937

3    Setting up in Canberra — a new laboratory: 1927–1937

4    Divisional and staffing matters I: 1928–1945

5    Taxonomy — the basis of biological research: 1926–1960

6    Finding the fauna — early Divisional collecting: 1929–1964

7    ‘Bill Brandt’ — collecting in Papua New Guinea: 1956–1963

8    Curatorial challenges — managing the collections: 1928–1974

9    The nation's heritage — collections are acquired, rejected, and stolen

10   The collection, proposed museums, and surveys — reports, recognition, and reviews

11   Divisional and staffing matters 11: 1946–1991

12   The search continues — collecting gets serious: 1960–1991

13   Taxonomy — the research continues: 1961–1991

14   Accommodating the collection — a building at last: 1964–1991

15   Scientists divide — disputes over holotypes

16   Epilogue — looking to the future

Appendices

1    Office-bearers associated with the ANIC 1928–1991

2    CSIR/O taxonomic staff and associates

3    Entomologists whose specimens or collections have been incorporated into the ANIC

4    Recipients of SIEF grants for taxonomic entomology

5    Museum circulars detailing policies and procedures

6    Early papers published by CSIR/O staff on taxonomy and general biology 1927 – 1960

7    Significant taxonomic publications involving CSIR/O

8    Taxonomic technical papers and reports from the Division of Entomology

9    Field surveys carried out by individual units

10   Terrestrial arthropods, collections of which are held in the ANIC

Bibliography

Index

Plates

    Kenneth Hedley Lewis Key (Frontispiece)

1    Construction Begins in Canberra

2    The CSIR site and the new laboratory

3    Floorplan of the entomology laboratory

4    The official opening of the entomological laboratory

5    Early days in the Division

6    The Divisional Chiefs 1928 -1991

7    Some early women on the staff

8    Early staff members 1

9    Early staff members 2

10   Early staff members 3

11   A field laboratory and camp in the 1930’s

12   Hill in the Northern Territory

13   Early Division of Economic Entomology collecting expeditions

14   Collecting on the Nullarbor 1947

15   The Cooper Creek expedition 1949 1

16   The Cooper Creek expedition 1949 2

17   Expeditions to western New South Wales 1957 and Woomera 1960

18   The central and north-west Australia expedition 1963

19   Localities at which W.W. Brandt collected

20   Some Curators of the ANIC

21   Benefactors of the ANIC 1

22   Benefactors of the ANIC 2

23   Benefactors of the ANIC 3

24   Official recognition of the ANIC

25   A miscellany of staff 1954-66

26   Taxonomists and ecologists 1960

27   Some later personalities

28   Some taxonomic staff 1

29   Some taxonomic staff 2

30   Some taxonomic staff 3

31   Some taxonomic staff 4

32   Some taxonomic staff 5

33   Collectors in the field

34   The first mobile field laboratory 1960

35   Collecting at Alice Springs 1966

36   Surveying the Nullarbor 1968-9

37   Surveys to Millstream 1970 and the Simpson Desert 1972

38   Alligator Rivers Region survey 1972-3 1

39   Alligator Rivers Region survey 1972-3 2

40   Alligator Rivers Region survey 1972-3 3

41   The Western Australian sandplain and Central Australia 1977

42   Monsters and other things

43   Surveys to McArthur River 1975 and Cooktown 1980

44   Some night-time collecting techniques

45   Collecting traps

46   Scanning Electron Microscope Photographs

47   Funds and textbooks

48.   The new ANIC building 1981

49   Floor plan of the new ANIC building 1980

50   Moving the collection

51   The D.E Waterhouse Laboratory of Insect Taxonomy 1

52   The D.E Waterhouse Laboratory of Insect Taxonomy 2

53   The official opening of the D.E Waterhouse Laboratory of Insect Taxonomy

54   The completion of the ANIC building

Preface

The first anxiety of a writer is, as all the world knows, to establish a kindly sympathy between himself and his readers; but how can this be speedily created betwixt one who, as an Entomologist, would seem to think of nothing but Insects, and ‘the many’ who have always regarded them as below a passing thought.

‘Acheta domestica’, M.E.S. (1849)

This book attempts to tell the story of the involvement of the CSIR, and later the CSIRO, with the Australian insect fauna. It outlines the Organisation's beginnings, the establishment of a Division to tackle the entomological problems of the day, the need for taxonomy and the insect collections within the Division, the recognition of the Australian National Insect Collection as part of Australia's national heritage, and the activities of the CSIR/O's entomological taxonomists.

Between 1967 and 1983 when I was directly involved in the management of the Australian National Insect Collection, or the ANIC as it is usually called, I attempted, whenever the opportunity arose, to collect and retain old Divisional records relating to the Collection and put them aside for safekeeping. When I retired from administration in 1990, I returned to the ANIC and undertook the task of putting these records, and others I acquired, into order, with the view to writing a short paper on the Collection's history. It took two years to establish a comprehensive, indexed archive of the available records and these are now an integral part of the ANIC. During this time it became obvious to me that no single paper could ever do justice to the history of the Collection and the taxonomists associated with it — it had to be a book. And so, in October 1993 this project began.

The search for further records, both in the Division's registry and in that of the corporate centre, revealed many problems. Unfortunately the Organisation's records management in the past has not equalled its science, and it has only given lip service to maintaining proper records and managing the Organisation's archives. Numerous files were missing and many, while present, were devoid of useful information. As a result, the Organisation has serious gaps in its historical record, including records that might have been drawn upon for this project. I regret any omissions that may result. It is also a matter of regret that, contrary to advice it had sought, the CSIRO Executive decided in 1991 to relinquish its responsibility for the Organisation's archival records and pass them to Australian Archives. While this may be consistent with the Archives Act of 1983, the loss of direct association with its archives demonstrates a sad lack of pride in the past by an organisation that has so much of which to be proud.

Similar problems were encountered when searching for photographic material. While a few early glimpses of the Division were found in the Organisation's archives and many photographs obtained from the Division of Entomology's negative collection, many gaps could not be filled.

This lack of many sought for records has unfortunately produced a somewhat uneven account in many places, and it is worth noting that the information in many files has declined markedly since the mid 1980s. The advent of modern technology is likely to leave historians and archivists with a serious problem. With little or no electronically transmitted information finding its way to files, a successor to this book in another 65 years is unlikely. On the other hand, the requirement in the early days for officers to write monthly, and sometimes even weekly, reports, provided more detail about events in the 1930s than could be found for later years; few, if any, records provided any "social history’. As these records have been accumulated over many years and originated from many sources, including the CSIRO corporate centre archives, the Division of Entomology registry, and the ANIC's own archives, it has not been possible to usefully reference many of them; the quotations that are not referenced can be assumed to come from these sources.

The first attempt to write this book as a chronology of events failed: it caused many interesting episodes to become disjointed and the threads of many subjects to be lost. As a result, these are now dealt with in separate chapters, but in as close a chronological order as possible. The chapter on the retention of holotypes in Australia deals with a controversy in which I was personally involved and I hope that I have dealt with it fairly and dispassionately with the advantage of hindsight. Originally I had intended to include biographies of the staff and the associates of the Division, as well as those of the collectors whose material has been incorporated into the ANIC. Unfortunately this was not possible without seriously impairing the historical account, and I sincerely regret this. However, the listing in the Appendices of all the professional and support staff together with the Associates of the Collection, and of all those who have donated material to the Collection, will to some extent redress this omission.

I felt it was necessary to include details of the recipients of Science and Industry Endowment Fund (SIEF) grants, CSIRO's taxonomic publications and data relating to the many field trips undertaken by ANIC staff, in the Appendices, to complement the overall work. The bibliography for a work such as this needs to be copious and for this I make no apology.

The history would not be complete without mention of all the non-taxonomic support staff who have helped the taxonomists carry out their work over the years and without whom the establishment of the ANIC would have been seriously impeded. I refer to the Divisional photographers, illustrators and especially the workshop staff. Always willing to assist, the photographers have produced the illustrations so necessary for taxonomic papers and displays, while the illustrators have produced the necessary graphics for publications and open day posters. Whether it be to totally refit a laboratory, fix some plumbing, paint a piece of equipment, run complicated temperature control equipment, ensure that specialised lighting requirements are installed, manufacture the most intricate accessories for a microscope, or rebuild a field caravan, the Divisional workshop staff, whom I had the privilege of managing for some years, could tackle the problem and produce outstanding results. Their contribution should never be underestimated. The often maligned administrative staff who quietly beaver away in their offices but who are responsible for staffing, finance, and the purchasing of all the necessary equipment, must also receive their due recognition for their support over the years.

A work of this nature would be quite impossible without the cooperation and help of many people. I wish to acknowledge the assistance of the staff of the CSIRO Library at Black Mountain in acquiring copies of numerous obituaries and other records; of Rodney Teakle and especially Ann Bartlett of the CSIRO Archives Section for locating and giving me access to many early records, correspondence and photographs; of Bill Baillie, Roma Chaplin and more recently Ian Preston in the Division of Entomology registry for their patience in meeting all my requests for files; of John Green and particularly Kate Smith of the Division's photographic section for preparing the necessary photographs; and of Chris Hunt for preparing the maps and floor plans. I must also acknowledge that some early parts of Chapter 1 were derived from Currie and Graham (1966), and some general information from Schedvin (1987).

Special thanks must go to Alice Wells and Max Day for reading early drafts of the manuscript and providing helpful and valued criticism to set me on the right path, to Doug Waterhouse for his comments on Chapter 15, and to Dick Norris and John Calaby for their close scrutiny of the text. I must also convey particular thanks to John Radcliffe for his excellent and most useful comments on the final manuscript. I also wish to thank all those staff, associates, donors and donors’ relatives who have supplied me with valuable material over the past few years. Finally, I must thank my wife, Judith, for her perseverance during the production of this work, and her efforts at ensuring that the King's English was not debased.

It is my hope that this book will allow the ANIC and all those associated with it to be seen as a significant part of Australia's heritage and of the history of Australian science.

Murray S. Upton

September, 1997

Introduction

The Australian National Insect Collection

The future of Australian entomology depends to a large extent on the gathering together of a really national collection somewhere. I had hoped that you might have formed a separate Bureau of Entomology with provision for an entomological museum attached.

Dr R.J. Tillyard, Chief of the Biological Department, Cawthron Institute, Nelson, New Zealand, writing to Dr A.C.D. Rivett, Chief Executive Officer, CSIR Melbourne, on 20 May 1927

Throughout this book, due to historical factors and the frequent use of quotations, the words ‘taxonomist’ and ‘systematist’ are used interchangeably to refer to those research workers describing, naming, classifying and studying the relationships between various organisms; in this case insects. Correctly speaking they are separate sciences. ‘Taxonomy’ is the theory and practice of describing, naming and classifying different organisms. ‘Systematics’ is the study of the diversity of, and relationships between, different organisms (Cranston et al., 1991).

The Australian National Insect Collection (ANIC) is the largest and most comprehensive research collection of Australian insects in the world. The Collection contains approximately eight million specimens, some 12,000 drawers of pinned specimens, 1,000 drawers containing vials of liquid preserved specimens, and many thousands of specimens mounted on microscope slides. The specimens in the Collection together with their distributional and ecological data, many hundreds of photographs, field notes, and archival records, form what is now the largest database of information relating to the insects of the Australasian region. It is the major research tool for those working on the economic and environmental relevance of Australia's insects, or studying the taxonomic, evolutionary, and biogeographical aspects of the Australian insect fauna.

The Collection has evolved as an essential part of the CSIRO Division of Entomology, originally serving the needs of the Division's applied research in economic entomology, but now also serving many other institutions as well. Its status as part of the Division of Entomology has contributed in no small way to its development. Many of the earlier members of staff were ecologists who by necessity became taxonomists in order to determine the status of the insects they were working on. Furthermore, the taxonomists have had the advantage of being able to liaise on a daily basis with other, non-taxonomic staff such as ecologists, physiologists and behaviourists; they have had access to one of the best scientific libraries in the country and have been able to share other important facilities such as the scanning electron microscope. Ready access to the Collection has also permitted other Divisional staff with a taxonomic interest to become part-time taxonomists with the ANIC.

The taxonomic staff directly associated with the Collection formed the Taxonomy and General Biology Section (now the Natural Resources and Biodiversity Section) within the Division of Entomology. In spite of its relatively small size, the Section represents one of the world's most distinguished groups of insect taxonomists. The aim of the Section is to describe, document and improve the knowledge of the insect fauna of Australia and its Territories, with special emphasis on those insects that have economic or environmental importance: at the same time attempting to promote greater awareness of the environmental, cultural and aesthetic significance of this rich and diverse fauna that forms a major component of the Australian environment.

The purpose of these activities is two-fold: first, to facilitate the identification of Australian insects, and, second, to provide the basis for research on the classification, distribution, origin and evolution of the insect fauna. Until an insect has been correctly identified, access to published information about it is not possible; conversely, new information about it cannot be added to that already known. Naturally it is only possible to formally identify insects that are already named and described; and in this regard Australia has a serious taxonomic impediment. It is estimated that only about two-thirds of the insect fauna is yet known. For this reason much research still remains in order to distinguish and name Australia's insects so they may be properly classified, their position within the known fauna established, and their role in the environment ascertained.

To ensure it meets the requirements of researchers, the Collection is being continually supplemented both by collections made by staff during field studies and surveys, and by the acquisition of private collections that are often donated to it. Furthermore, the information contained within the Collection is, as time and finance permit, being processed into an electronic databank.

The results of the research work carried out are published regularly as papers in scientific journals, or in comprehensive monographs produced in collaboration with CSIRO Publishing in Melbourne and other publishers. Checklists and catalogues of the fauna are also produced by the Section. Although a research collection of this nature cannot be available to the general public, popular accounts on the research work and the role insects play in the environment are promoted through magazine articles and by the biennial open days held at the Division's Laboratories in Canberra.

The Australian National Insect Collection was officially recognised as part of Australia's national heritage on 8 March 1962 when it was gazetted by the Commonwealth Government, which has accepted responsibility for its preservation for future scientific study. While the Collection is very well preserved on the whole, as much of it has been collected since 1927, some of the older components within acquired collections require considerable curatorial attention in order to prevent their deterioration.

1

Prologue — Setting the Scene

1915–1927

"I have a profound belief in the destiny of this great country.

Its future is bright with promise.

Science can make rural industries commercially profitable,

making the deserts bloom like a rose;

it can make rural life pleasant as well as profitable."

W.M. Hughes, Prime Minister of Australia, 5 January 1916.

An Institute is foreshadowed

Scientific and industrial research in Australia were first organised at the time of World War I when Australian troops were engaged in the bloody battles at Gallipoli and at a time when women were being employed for the first time in fields from which they had previously been excluded.

During the last of a series of lectures that had been organised by Frederick Hagelthorn, the Victorian Minister for Public Works, Professor William Osborne of the University of Melbourne referred to a British White Paper on A scheme for the Organisation and Development of Scientific and Industrial Research. The possible application of this scheme to Australia was discussed with the State Ministers of Agriculture who advised the Prime Minister, W.M. ‘Billy’ Hughes, that they all saw the need for a national scheme for agricultural research in Australia. At a luncheon at Melbourne University in December 1915 the Prime Minister suggested inviting representatives of all the universities to a conference in Melbourne to consider the question. He claimed an institution was wanted that was capable of adapting itself at once to the circumstances of Australia, and he publicly committed the government to providing £500,000 for the project.

Hughes convened the Melbourne conference on 5 January 1916. It comprised representatives of universities, businessmen, and representatives of Commonwealth and State departments likely to be concerned with the establishment of a ‘National Laboratory’. In his address to the conference, Hughes stated the objective was to apply to the pastoral, agricultural, mining and manufacturing industries the resources of science in such a way as to more effectively develop Australia's great heritage, and that the attainment of this would involve a central laboratory with a staff of the best scientists who would have at their disposal ample facilities for original research work. A Committee was set up at the conference, with Gerald Lightfoot as Secretary, and by 11 January it had prepared a draft document outlining a scheme for the creation of a permanent Institute of Science and Industry. The ‘sheep fly pest’ was seen as one of the most pressing problems.

The Advisory Council is formed

As the Institute could only be established by an Act of Parliament, Senator G.P. Pearce, Minister for Defence, appointed the preliminary Commonwealth Advisory Council of Science and Industry in March to consider and initiate scientific research in connection with or for the promotion of primary or secondary industries in the Commonwealth.

The Council's Executive Committee met each Tuesday and Thursday evening in the Interstate Commission offices at 314 Albert Street, East Melbourne; the address that continued to be used by CSIRO until the end of 1996.

Following a meeting in July, the Council submitted a series of resolutions to the Prime Minister, the most important of which claimed: That the Advisory Council is of the opinion that the immediate establishment of the permanent Institute is a matter of urgency. However, political support waned and little was done until the following year. This was probably because Australia was being crippled by strikes; and in Europe the appalling loss of life in France was continuing.

Early in 1917 the Advisory Council published the first of its Bulletin series, The Cattle Tick in Australia, and in 1918 the first of the Pamphlet series appeared (Lightfoot, 1918) in which the reasons for the urgency to establish a permanent Institute were again stated. However, it was now quite clear that the powers and financial resources of the temporary Advisory Council were quite insufficient to establish the Institute on an adequate basis. Despite this, an investigation into the ‘white ant pest’ was commenced for the Council by Gerald Hill, entomologist with the Australian Institute of Tropical Medicine at Townsville in Queensland. In April 1918 Senator E.J. Russell, the Minister in charge of the Council, advised that Dr F.M. Gellatly had been appointed Director of the projected Institute of Science and Industry and that immediate steps were being taken to introduce into Parliament the promised Bill to establish the Institute. All was not going well however, for in May the interstate conference of Ministers of Agriculture requested the Commonwealth Government to cease assuming State functions. Nevertheless, a Bill relating to the Commonwealth Institute of Science and Industry was introduced into the Senate in September, and went to the House of Representatives in November where it stalled, due to the States’ opposition, doubts about it in the minds of some government members, the death during the epidemic of Spanish flu of Gellatly, and the closeness of the forthcoming election. It was finally withdrawn in 1919.

Despite these setbacks, in May 1919 the Advisory Council began publishing an informative scientific journal, Science and Industry, which was to be open to all scientific workers in Australia: unfortunately this publication only lasted until December 1920 when it ceased due to lack of resources (Anon., 1920b).

In June 1920 a scheme for the eradication of the ‘prickly pear pest’, originally submitted to the Government by the Advisory Council in November 1917, finally came into force. However, instead of being placed under an expert biologist, responsible to the Executive Committee as had been recommended, the Government set up a separate Prickly Pear Board on which the Institute Director would serve as Chairman.

An Institute without funds

In July 1920 an amended Bill for an Act to set up the Commonwealth Institute of Science and Industry was reintroduced into the House of Representatives. This Bill, The Institute of Science and Industry Act, was passed in September, and the appointment of George Knibbs as Director was announced in March 1921. Hill, who was now a member of the Institute's special Committee appointed to investigate the ‘white ant pests’ (Anon., 1919, 1920a), published the work he had commenced in 1918 in the Institute's 21st Bulletin, The White Ant Pest in Northern Australia (Hill, 1921). He drew attention to the fact that much of the systematic work on termites was still unfinished. He commented that there does not exist at the present time a single representative collection of Australian Termitidae, and In the present state of our knowledge it is impossible to state with any degree of accuracy the probable number of species indigenous to Australia. It may reasonably be expected that many additional species await discovery. He recommended the collection of material for the completion of a census of Australian Termites.

In the first Annual Report for the Institute of Science and Industry Knibbs devoted an entire section to the "Institute's present inability to carry out the Prime Minister's indications or to fulfil its statutory functions … When examined in the light of the functions explicitly set out in the Science and Industry Act, and the indications given by the Prime Minister of what the Institute was intended to do, the existing situation cannot be regarded as normal" (Knibbs 1922).

When the Prime Minister, ‘Billy’ Hughes, was replaced by Stanley Bruce in February 1923 following the general election in December 1922, Bruce said he would ensure that activities between the Institute and State government departments were not duplicated. At the Conference of State Premiers in May it was suggested that the Institute should first prove it was able to do useful work in order to justify its existence. Furthermore, the Government refused to finance the Institute adequately on the grounds that it felt the Institute should be responsible only for matters in which it advises.

In his second, and the last annual report produced by the Institute, the Director again took the Government to task (Knibbs, 1923). Referring to the May conference he stated that to expect the Institute to demonstrate its abilities without funds and expert staff discloses, of course, the immaturity of the consideration of the whole position. He continued: it is unreasonable — indeed absurd — to expect valuable results from scientific research work unless adequate facilities for conducting the work are made available. Briefly, the position is that the Institute at present is financially so limited as to be unable to carry out any considerable part of its statutory functions. Although the Institute continued for a further three years no further Annual Reports were produced.

The Institute is re-examined

In August 1924 both Sir John Monash and Professor A.C.D. Rivett, Professor of Chemistry at the University of Melbourne, speaking at the meeting of the Australian Association for the Advancement of Science in Adelaide, strongly urged the Government to support the Institute adequately. Rivett stated: The deplorable position of the Commonwealth Institute of Science and Industry is a grave misfortune and the Treasury provision for its vast tasks is nothing less than contemptible. This public airing of the Institute's problems led to an examination of its affairs by the Government and, in December, Ministerial responsibility for it was given to Senator R.V. Wilson who, in April 1925, announced that a conference would be convened by the Prime Minister in May to discuss the reorganisation of the Institute.

The conference, presided over by Prime Minister Bruce and comprising leading scientists from universities, leaders of industry and commerce, and agriculturalists from State departments, recommended a scheme for the reorganisation of the Institute. The Prime Minister had also invited Sir Frank Heath, Secretary of the British Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, to visit Australia to inquire into and report on Imperial cooperation in scientific and industrial research work. Heath recommended that the Commonwealth immediately appoint three men of high scientific attainment to form the Executive Committee of a ‘Council’ to be established by Act of Parliament. He suggested that one should be an engineer, one a chemist and the third a biologist. Bruce acted immediately and appointed G.A. Julius, a consulting engineer from Sydney, W.J. Newbiggin, also an engineer from Sydney, and A.C.D. Rivett, as the Executive Committee. This action, which took place prior to the establishment of a new organisation, gave the Executive Committee all the powers and functions of the proposed ‘Council’.

As most of the serious problems being handled by the Institute were agricultural, the composition of this Committee, with two engineers and a chemist, or as one of them said: two plumbers and a pill roller, was surprising. However, the balance was redressed following the death of Newbiggin in 1927 with the appointment to the Committee of A.E.V. Richardson, then head of the Waite Agricultural Research Institute and Professor of Agriculture at the University of Adelaide.

The Commonwealth Council for Scientific

and Industrial Research (CSIR) is established

The Executive Committee of the yet-to-be-formed ‘Council’, with G.A. Julius as Chairman and Rivett as Chief Executive Officer, held its first meeting in Melbourne in April 1926. In Maya Bill for an Act to amend The Institute of Science and Industry Act was given its first reading in the House of Representatives, and on Monday 21 June 1926 The Science and Industry Research Act gained assent and the Commonwealth Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) came into being.

The first scientific appointment, an entomologist

The Executive Committee had met regularly while the Bill was being debated in Parliament, and at its 17th meeting, only five days after CSIR officially came into existence, the Executive decided to recommend that approval be given for the appointment of an Entomological Officer for a period of five years with a commencing salary of £500 and increasing to £600 by four annual increments of £25 each. The next day the Chairman, G.A. Julius, informed Gerald Hill confidentially of the recommendations being made for the employment of an entomologist. Hill requested two or three days to consider the matter. Three days later, when Hill said he would accept the position if selected, the Executive decided to immediately advertise the post.

The advertisement appeared in the Government Gazette early in July. Only two people applied: Hill and Edmund Jarvis, the entomologist to the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations in Queensland, who was strongly supported by W.W. Froggatt, forest entomologist with the NSW Forestry Commission and former NSW Government entomologist. The Executive decided to recommend Hill for the position, and the Minister, Senator Sir George Pearce, approved Hill's appointment the following day. Hill was advised of his appointment as an Officer under Section 14A of the Science and Industry Act 1920–1926 as soon as Regulations have been prescribed under that Section. CSIR had appointed its first scientist, an entomologist and termite taxonomist.

Gerald Freer Hill (1880–1954) was not a professional entomologist. After trying his hand at fruitgrowing he taught shorthand in Melbourne, then collected bird specimens in Western Australia before joining a Commonwealth expedition through central Australia as naturalist and photographer. While in Darwin in 1912 he was appointed entomologist for the Northern Territory, where termites attracted his attention. Returning to Melbourne in 1917 he was appointed Walter and Eliza Hall Fellow in Veterinary Research until 1919 when he was offered the position of entomologist with the Australian Institute of Tropical Medicine at Townsville. He remained in Townsville until 1922 when he moved to the National Museum, Melbourne as entomologist (Gay, 1954; Hill, 1952).

Hill commenced duties with CSIR in August 1926 and, after completing two or three weeks in Queensland familiarising himself with the work of the Commonwealth Prickly Pear Board, undertook enquiries into the entomological problems in Tasmania. He found it difficult to secure reasonable accommodation in Tasmania on his travelling allowance and requested an increase, for visits to capital cities, from 17s 6d per day to £1 2s 6d. He claimed: In my experience clean beds, bedrooms and conveniences, and reasonable quietness during ordinary hours of rest are not to be found in most of the cheaper hotels. He was granted £1.

The Science and Industry Endowment Fund and its early students

In January 1926 when addressing the New Zealand Institute of Science Congress in Dunedin on ‘The progress of economic entomology in Australia and New Zealand’ R.J. Tillyard, Chief of the Biological Department at the Cawthron Institute, Nelson, New Zealand, referred to the lack of trained men to carry out the work of entomological research (Tillyard, 1926a). Later the same year, Sir Frank Heath, while preparing his report to the Prime Minister, advised Senator R.V. Wilson that the most urgent matter at the time was to remedy the shortage of trained scientific research workers in Australia, and recommended the immediate establishment of a trust fund of £100,000 to provide scholarships for advanced training of scientists in fields directly related to Australian research problems.

The lack in Australia of a sufficient number of research workers having an adequate training in many of the branches of science with which the solution of national problems is so closely connected was recognised (CSIR, 1931), and Heath's recommendation was again accepted. The Science and Industry Endowment Fund (SIEF) was established in June 1926 when the The Science and Industry Endowment Act was passed. The Act appropriated £100,000 from consolidated revenue, with the income obtained by the investment of this capital to be used for granting assistance to those engaged in scientific research, and for training students in scientific research. Research studentships were to be granted only to graduates who had completed their courses with distinction, and had been specially recommended for appointment by their professors. The studentships were tenable for two years, and students had to enter a bond to work for CSIR for a period of three years after completing their studentship.

The first research student was appointed in August 1926; Frederick George Holdaway (1902–1965) M.Sc.(Qld), had been a demonstrator in biology at the University of Queensland and part-time lecturer at two colleges in Brisbane, Assistant Entomologist with the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Stock 1923–1925, then assistant lecturer in zoology at Adelaide University. He was to study at Cornell University and the University of Minnesota. He commenced in September, and on completing his studentship, joined the Division in September 1928 at the Farnham House Laboratory in England to work on blowflies. The Farnham House Laboratory had been established and financed by the British Empire Marketing Board in order that parasites and predators of insect pests, and insects that fed on weed species, could be bred in large numbers for distribution to all parts of the British Empire where they might be needed.

In May 1927 another studentship was awarded to John William Evans (1906–1990) B.A.(Camb.), who had been appointed earlier in the year as a temporary scientific abstractor to CSIR in Melbourne. He gained a studentship to study entomology for one year under Tillyard at the Cawthron Institute in New Zealand. Following Tillyard's appointment as CSIR's Chief Entomologist in Australia (See Chapter 2), Evans accompanied him to the USA and England, where Evans officially joined the Division in July 1928 also at the Farnham House Laboratory.

Writing to Professor W.E. Agar in July 1927 about the suitability of a Miss Kent Hughes for a studentship, Rivett advised: The Trustees are rather anxious to give these studentships only to people likely afterwards to make first-class research workers. You will understand perfectly how important it is for us to get only very good people and so avoid handicapping ourselves later through having mediocrities on the research staff. Referring to a further, this time successful, application by Winifred Powys Kent Hughes (1904- ) M.Sc. (Melb.), in April 1928, Tillyard thought: she might be offered a position as systematic coleopterist at the Central Research Station at Canberra when she completed her course. Leaving for England in May, she studied under Professor J.W. Munro at the Imperial College of Science and Technology at South Kensington where she spent three days a week on practical work and lectures and the remaining days at Museums or collecting. She collected Coccinellid beetles, examined the Coleoptera at the Hope Department of Entomology, Oxford, and made a detailed study of Australian beetle holotypes and the Banks Collection of beetles at the British Museum (Natural History), where both K.G. Blair and G.J. Arrow assisted her. Kent Hughes joined the Division in Canberra in November 1929 as the coleopterist. [Her work on the Banks collection, her only paper, was not published for 50 years (Radford, 1980).]

In July 1928 Tillyard, then in London, strongly recommended Lilian Florence Graham (1905– ) for a studentship with a view to her becoming the hymenopterist in Canberra. Recently graduated from Oxford, B.A. (hons), she commenced in October, also training under Munro in London, and learning the systematics of Hymenoptera from Dr J. Waterston while studying at the British Museum (Natural History). Miss Graham also joined the Division in Canberra in November 1929 as the hymenopterist.

The next entomological student was A.M. Wade, B.Sc., who gained a studentship in April 1930. Tragically, he died in November the same year in a drowning accident at a time when he was working on a revision of the beetle family Histeridae.

Francis Joseph (Frank) Gay (1910– ) B.Sc. educated in Sydney and graduating with first class honours and the University medal in 1932, was the next and last entomologist to gain a studentship. He had been appointed to the Division as a temporary field assistant in January 1933 and was granted a studentship in June, for one year, to work under Holdaway on termite investigations. He completed this in 1934. In 1936 he was granted a further studentship to attend the Imperial College of Science and Technology at the University of London, to gain a D.I.C. [a Diploma of the Imperial College — similar to an M.Sc. but sometimes taken following a Ph.D., it was considered an important additional qualification in the 1930s] before attending the Berkeley campus of the University of California for a year. He resumed duty with the Division in September 1938 to work on termites, a field in which he was deeply involved for the remainder of his career.

No more studentships appear to have been granted, and all further grants were for assistance to those engaged in scientific research (See Appendix 4).

The Standing Committee on Agriculture

At a meeting of the Executive Committee in January 1927 Rivett suggested that consideration should be given to the question of convening an interstate conference to endeavour to ascertain the views of the State Departments of Agriculture as to the place which CSIR should fill in agricultural research. This suggestion was approved by the Minister, Senator Sir George Pearce, who convened the conference in March. Julius chaired the meeting and explained that CSIR realised the need to cooperate closely with all those engaged in agricultural research. He also advised the conference that the Empire Marketing Board was prepared to donate funds for research into certain specific projects on a pound for pound basis. [The colonies of the British Empire were, at the time, looked upon as potential agricultural areas for the production of food for the ‘Mother Country’, and the Empire Marketing Board's role was to foster this in any way it could. CSIR and the future Division of Economic Entomology were eventually to benefit from this arrangement.] The Resolutions of the Conference, led to the formation of the Standing Committee on Agriculture (now the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Resource Management), paved the way for cooperation with the State departments, and allowed CSIR's program of research to proceed. The resolution on Plant Diseases, Plant Pathology and Entomology stated:

The problems associated with disease in plants may be divided broadly into two fields: (a) Investigation of the life-history of the causal organism, the mode of infection and conditions of attack with a view to suggesting control measures, and (b) The application of known principles to the elimination of the insect, fungus or other pests within definite regions. The former problems are especially suited for Commonwealth investigation while the latter should be carried out by the State institutions (Currie and Graham, 1968).

Australian entomology in the 19205

The lack of sufficient entomologically trained, or even interested, personnel at this time arose from two separate circumstances. First, biology as a school subject was not taught to boys at Australian schools at the time, or in fact, until many years later; it was considered a subject only for girls. Furthermore there was no provision in 1920 for anyone who was interested in entomology to study it at university level. Second, there was not a tradition of entomological research within the country. For the best part of 100 years after the discovery of Australia and its extremely interesting insect fauna, the descriptions of Australian insects were all published in Europe. At first, expeditions visited Australia to collect the fauna. Later, as settlement became more established, resident collectors sent their collections, mainly to England, for examination and description. It