Memoirs

of THE

Queensland museum

v i- , •p’s-’' ^ — "i ^

^ ^ .■> „ ut

WfV , ^ *“• t *^. • fL

’?*' v~ -A •* 14 ^ ^ W o.

iri ^ ^ t >; ?** »££t

J In *■ - *' * w "£ v, -a. h ^ 4 *— -

*"* v*> - “• *4

vu^; ( ,>,n.

Brisbane Volume 19

August, 1978 Part 2

Plate 1 3

A. A. Girault aged 29 years. Taken from a wedding photograph
supplied by his son Ernest Girault.

Mem. Qd. Mus. 19(2): 127-90, Pis. 14-15. [1978]

A CHECKLIST OF THE TYPES OF AUSTRALIAN HYMENOPTERA DESCRIBED
BY ALEXANDRE ARSENE GIRAULT: I. INTRODUCTION, ACKNOWLED-
GMENTS, BIOGRAPHY, BIBLIOGRAPHY AND LOCALITIES

Edward Clive Dahms

Queensland Museum

ABSTRACT

Girault was a controversial entomologist who is remembered more for his unconventional
privately published papers than for his great contribution to the taxonomy of parasitic wasps
(Chalcidoidea). His driving force in life was not one of personal fame and fortune but rather
the taxonomy of the Chalcidoidea; this plus his uncompromising direct nature, resulted in
much financial and professional deprivation. The problems of his working life were compounded
by the world economic depression accompanying the two World Wars. The resulting publication
restrictions on an author as prolific as Girault proved a great additional frustration. The
sixty-three papers which he published using his own meagre funds were an attempt to alleviate
the situation and, at the same time, were used as a vehicle for expression of his frustrations
and philosophies. It is this part of his privately published papers which has resulted in much
misunderstanding. The detailed biographical information which is presented leads to a better
understanding of Girault and his work. The amount of work he was able to achieve under
such trying conditions is a tribute to his ability and dedication. The bibliography contains
462 references and contains all of his privately published papers which are considered to be
scientific publications as defined by the Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. They are arranged
chronologically by date of issue as published in the volumes or parts in which the papers occur.
This part of the checklist also contains a list of over 500 localities which is made up of all
localities to be found on Australian material determined by Girault, in addition to a few
non-Australian localities which are from foreign, Girault-determined specimens in Australian
institutions. The Australian localities have map references and their positions are shown on
maps.

The unusual, privately published papers by A.
A. Girault have overshadowed his more conven-
tional papers and led to the view that he was
temperamentally disturbed. Before launching into
a detailed biography of Girault it is perhaps
appropriate to briefly introduce him and his
work.

A. A. Girault was an American entomologist
who worked in Australia from 1911 until his death
in 1941, except for a brief return to the U.S.A.
in 1914 to 1917. During the years in Australia
he retained his American citizenship which caused
him considerable anxiety through job insecurity
from 1923 onwards. The three year sojourn in the
U.S.A. was also to have repercussions, and his
experiences there resulted in the production of the
first of his privately published papers. His

research speciality was the Hymenoptera,
particularly the taxonomy of small parasitic wasps
belonging to the Chalcidoidea, although he also
published upon thrips (Thysanoptera), bugs
(Miridae) and various non-taxonomic subjects.
His intense love of the Chalcidoidea together with
a somewhat eccentric nature led him, and his
family, into much hardship. Personal economic
difficulties, lack of facilities for taxonomic work,
and lack of suitable employment where he could
pursue taxonomic research were his constant
companions. World economic depression during
and between the two World Wars meant funds
for publication were restricted. Consequently he
suffered the added frustration of not being able
to see much of his labour bear fruit: his large
monograph on Australian Chalcidoidea, begun in
1917, remained unpublished at his death.

128

MEMOIRS OF THE QUEENSLAND MUSEUM

Girault’s (^contributions to Entomology

The Chalcidoidea are minute parasites and
hyperparasites of other insects. Biologically they
are important in the ecology of insect populations
and some species are useful as natural control
agents for pest species. In practical biological
control programmes, parasitic species are
introduced from one country to another. This
demands accurate taxonomic work.

Girault was a prodigious worker, as can be seen
from the bibliography, and he described thousands
of new forms from Australia alone. Unfortunately
his considerable contributions to the taxonomy of
the Chalcidoidea are marred by confusion. Some
of the confusion can be blamed directly upon his
unsystematic approach, but a good deal can be
related to factors beyond his control — personal
and World economic hardship, lack of taxonomic
facilities, etc. — which are discussed more fully
in the biography to follow. Girault has therefore
left taxonomists a legacy which requires
discrimination in assessment on the part of
investigators.

Girault’s Types

The Queensland Museum is fortunate to have
the bulk of Girault’s types of Hymenoptera and
Thysanoptera. At the beginning of my curatorship
at the Museum these types were stored in twelve
microscope slide drawers, up to three deep in
places, and the pinned specimens were tightly
packed into nine cabinet drawers. Because of
Girault’s habit, forced upon him by economic
conditions, of mounting more than one type
specimen per slide, and because these were often
of different species, genera, families, or even
orders, the slides had been stored without order.
Locating particular types in this system was a very
lengthy process. Work began on this collection as
part of normal curatorial duties. The slides are
now stored alphabetically by genus with blank
slides providing a cross-reference to multiple
mountings, and the pinned material is in new
cabinets in the tray system.

The attempt to unravel the types was at first
a fairly modest venture but has grown enormously
due both to dramatic increase in requests to the
Museum from other institutions for information
as well as my personal interest in the group. A
grant from the Interim Council of the Australian
Biological Resources Study (now Australian
Biological Survey) allowed travel to other
institutions, including the U.S. National Museum,
which house material determined by Girault, to
catalogue their holdings of his types of Australian
Hymenoptera. To make the results of this work

available to other workers it was decided to
publish a checklist of these types and the Interim
Council has made funds available for this also.
The checklist is planned to appear in parts,
probably three, and the first is a compendium
containing the basic information of biography,
bibliography and localities. The remaining parts
will consist of the checklist proper and its
arrangement will be explained in the introduction
to part two.

The aim has been to produce a checklist which
will be a useful tool for taxonomists wishing to
consult Girault’s types and literature on
Australian Hymenoptera. It is hoped that the
checklist will promote research into this
biologically important section of the World insect
fauna by removing the confusion surrounding
Girault’s work and making his great contribution
to the taxonomy of parasitic Hymenoptera
available to specialists.

Girault’s Privately Printed Papers

Between the years 1917 and 1937 Girault issued
sixty-three papers at his own expense. The opinion
held by a great many entomologists that Girault
was temperamentally disturbed is based upon the
unconventionality of these privately published
papers, their non-entomological content, plus a
lack of understanding of Girault and his reasons
for publishing them. Marjorie Townes, herself a
Hymenopterist, writes of these papers:

. . . The contents of the papers fit the titles. He was
a man of many prejudices and was continually
involved in feuding. He printed these papers himself
because of his battles with editors and his Washington
boss, L. O. Howard . . .

The editors surely had reason for turning the papers
down. Besides descriptions of new species they contain
excerpts of his poetry, ranting against people and
working conditions, and wandering discourses on
various philosophical and scientific matters most of
them critical and many irrational ... *

This is the impression the papers give when read
out of context. Another factor which contributes
to their unconventionality is Girault’s use of
figurative language, e.g. metaphorical, allusory,
ironical and so on, not to mention his poetry.
During the course of my enquiries I have received
a wealth of information on Girault’s life from his
family and have been allowed access to his
personal file in the archives of the Queensland
Department of Primary Industries (formerly
Queensland Department of Agriculture and

* Townes, 1972: 129.

DAHMS: GIRAULT TYPES OF AUSTRALIAN HYMENOPTERA: I

129

Stock). A search of the Queensland Museum
archives yielded a steady flow of letters from
Girault in the years 191 1 to 1941 and these letters
contain a wealth of detail. Sifting all of this
information, gave an insight into Girault’s true
personality and his basic philosophies. It was then
possible to place his privately published papers
into context and his reason for issuing them
became clear as did their controversial, non-
entomological content. These privately published
papers were his answer to restrictions on
publication outlets and, at the same time, they
allowed him an outlet for the many frustrations
he suffered because of his single-minded,
dedicated approach to his ‘beloved work’. It is
more likely that they were the result of rejection
rather than the cause of their rejection by
editors.

It is doubtful that he was temperamentally
disturbed. Eccentric or perhaps unconventional
are better descriptions. He was a direct man who
spoke his mind and he was uncompromising in his
attitudes. To him there was black and white
without any shades of grey between: things were
either right or wrong. If someone was wrong he
would say so, if something was wrong he would
criticise it or correct it. Perhaps an incident
described by Lawrence Girault would serve to
illustrate. In Queensland, the bunchy top disease
of bananas was serious and the cavendish variety
was very susceptible. It was illegal, and remains
so today, to grow this variety in Brisbane. Part
of Girault’s duties with the Queensland Depart-
ment of Agriculture and Stock involved fruit
inspection. The event that Lawrence Girault
describes took place when the family was living
in a rented house at Grovenor St, Taringa,
Brisbane:

. . . The house was new then, in 1928, situated on
the slope of the ridge on 4 acres planted to Cavendish
bananas. The highlight of this residence was that
father became crosswise with Mr. Aldrich, the
landlord, because he [Girault] had Ern and myself put
an axe to the banana trees because of my father’s 60
mile banana disease quarantine belt. I understood Mr.
Aldrich’s dismay as he had a beautiful plantation . . .
Our neighbours, the Downs, escaped with their
bananas because they were sugar and lady finger
varieties ... *

He was a colourful and very interesting person,
although those who worked with him from 1915
onwards may not agree, for I am sure he would
have been a difficult person with whom to work.
Direct uncorrected quotations from letters and
papers are used liberally in the biography. The
story is better told with his own words.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This checklist could not have been brought to
completion without the assistance of many people.
My requests to others for assistance received
prompt attention and I am sure this was often at
the expense of their own work programmes.

To all who assisted I express my deep
appreciation.

Of key importance to the whole project was the
financial support from the Interim Council for the
Australian Biological Resources Study (now
Australian Biological Survey). There are two
elements here. Funds for travel not only for myself
in Australia but also for my assistant, Miss J.
Wilson, and myself to the U.S.A. allowed a
thorough search for, and the listing of, all
Girault’s types of Australian Hymenoptera in
existence. Additional funds are being made
available for publication of the results of these
findings.

Four chalcidologists have played leading roles
in obtaining this financial support. Professor R.
L. Doutt, University of California, Berkeley; Dr
E. F. Riek, C.S.I.R.O., Canberra (both now
retired); Dr D. P. Annecke, Plant Protection
Research Institute, Pretoria; and Dr D. Rosen,
Hebrew University, Jerusalem acted as indepen-
dent referees for my grant application and in this
capacity gave their full support. They have
continued to provide advice and encouragement.
In addition. Dr Annecke kindly supplied his typed
version of Girault’s unpublished manuscript on the
Encyrtidae for copying.

The biography required the assistance of many
people. Girault’s surviving children, Ernest,
Lawrence, Frank and Helen provided many
details of their father’s life and the photograph
of him aged about twenty-nine years. Mr A. P.
Dodd and Mr J. A. Weddell, now retired, were
employees of the Queensland Department of
Agriculture and Stock (now Queensland Depart-
ment of Primary Industries) and in this capacity
came in contact with Girault. They kindly
supplied many details which assisted greatly in
understanding him as a person. Mr Weddell was
able to obtain, through the Director General of
the Queensland Department of Primary Indus-
tries, Girault’s personal file from their archives
and this contained a great deal of useful
information. Mr T. Passlow, Director of the
Entomology Branch, Queensland Department of
Primary Industries was also helpful in obtaining

* Lawrence Girault, personal communication.

130

MEMOIRS OF THE QUEENSLAND MUSEUM

information from archival material. Thanks are
due to the Director General of the Queensland
Department of Primary Industries for making this
material available and for allowing use of the
information from Girault’s file as well as some
direct quotations. Mr E. Donnelly, Chief
Photographer and Miss R. Cane of the
Queensland Department of Primary Industries
Photographic Section provided photographs of the
Mulgrave Mill and Meringa Experimental
Station. The Secretary of the Entomological
Society of Queensland kindly gave permission to
quote from the Society’s minutes which contain
an obituary on Girault and a presidential address
on the sugar industry. Dr K. R. Norris, Acting
Chief, Division of Entomology and Miss R. Horn,
Records Clerk, C.S.I.R.O., Canberra provided
details concerning a grant offered to Girault in
1936 by the Science and Industry Endowment
Fund.

The various institutions visited in search for
Girault types provided laboratory space and
microscopes for examination of their holdings. I
wish to thank the following people in these
institutions for their advice, particularly on data
labels, and for their hospitality: Mr K. T.
Richards, West Australian Department of
Agriculture, Perth; Mr G. F. Gross, South
Australian Museum, Adelaide; Mr A. Neboiss,
National Museum of Victoria, Melbourne; Dr C.
N. Smithers and Mr G. A. Holloway, Australian
Museum, Sydney; Dr E. F. Riek and Miss J. C.
Cardale, C.S.I.R.O., Canberra; Dr G. Gordh, U.S.
National Museum, Washington D.C. and Dr B.
D. Burks, U.S. National Museum (retired); Dr.
G. Viggiani, Universita Degli Studi di Napoli.

Very necessary assistance in compilation of the
locality list was received from Dr G. Gordh. He
was able to provide a copy of Gazeteer No. 40
(Australian place names prepared by the Office
of Geography, Department of Interior, Washing-
ton D.C.) which was absolutely vital in fixing the
latitudes and longitudes of many localities. Mr D.
Cleary of the Queensland Place Names Board
with his detailed knowledge of early Queensland
localities was able to pin point a number of early
localities whose names have changed over the
years.

Collecting and arranging the 462 references of
Girault for the bibliography was a difficult task
made easier by the efforts of several people. Dr
Z. Boucek, Commonwealth Institute of En-
tomology, London, during his visit to Brisbane in
1976 provided an attentive ear and constructive
remarks on all aspects of this project especially
the bibliography. Since his return to London he

has checked journals not available in Australia in
which Girault published papers for correct dates
of issue, omitted papers and so on. Dr A. Menke
of the U.S. National Museum, Miss J. C. Cardale
and Dr B. R. Pitkin (British Museum, Natural
History, London) have also assisted in this
capacity. To all I offer my thanks for this
assistance with a time consuming and laborious
task. Photocopies of papers not available to me
here but essential to this work were obtained
through the kind efforts of Dr B. R. Pitkin, Dr
A. Menke, Dr G. Gordh, Miss J. Cardale, Dr D.
P. Annecke, and other sources too numerous to
mention individually, for instance the Librarians
of several Australian and overseas libraries.

Mr J. C. H. Gill in his capacity as Chairman
of the Queensland Museum Board of Trustees
read the manuscript of the biography and was able
to give some valuable assistance. Many colleagues
also kindly read the manuscript for this volume
and their comments have been invaluable. I would
like to offer my thanks to the following: Dr A.
Bartholomai, Mr B. M. Campbell, Dr L. R. G.
Cannon, Mr G. J. Ingram and Mr E. P. Wixted,
Queensland Museum; Mr I. D. Galloway,
Queensland Department of Primary Industries;
Mr G. F. Monteith, University of Queensland; Dr
E. N. Marks, Queensland Institute of Medical
Research; Dr G. Gordh and Mr C. F. W.
Muesebeck, United States Department of
Agriculture.

Last but by no means least I would like to give
special thanks to my assistant. Miss J. L. Wilson,
for it was to her that many of the tedious tasks
associated with a project of this nature have fallen.
She has performed all with cheerfulness and
exactness. Her efforts both overseas and at the
Queensland Museum have greatly facilitated this
work.

BIOGRAPHY

Alexandre Arsene Girault was American by
birth and French by descent. His grand-father,
Arsene Napoleon Girault de san Fargeau was on
the first academic staff of the U.S. Naval
Academy in Annapolis, Maryland in 1835 and the
U.S. Navy has his memorial picture on display.
His father, Joseph Bonaparte Girault founded in
Annapolis the family church (Presbyterian) which
now contains a stained-glass memorial window to
his parents. Alexandre Girault was born in
Annapolis on 9 January 1884. His early years
were spent at the two storey brick home at 195
Duke of Gloucester Street just one block from the

DAHMS: GIRAULT TYPES OF AUSTRALIAN HYMENOPTERA: I

131

family church.* * A short autobiography published
posthumously in 1942 says of his early life:

1 was always interested in natural history objects but
when a boy this did not become pronounced until I
was about fifteen years old. 1 played around with the
other boys in my home town at first but it was not
long after ten before 1 began to show interest in
something besides play and games. At the age of
fifteen however, I dropped all of my former activities
and commenced to pay attention almost solely to the
study of insects. I have renounced not a bit of this
study since . . .t

In 1903 he graduated from the Virginia
Polytechnic after which he worked as a
mathematics teacher then as a chemist for the
Maryland Steel Company. During 1904 he began
work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture in
Washington carrying out investigations on
economic insects. In 1909 he transferred to the
University of Illinois and it was during this period
that his interest in the chalcidoid parasitic wasps
began.

Girault’s entry into Australian entomology
occurred in 1911, but the events which brought
this about began in the 1890’s. In this period
Queensland rapidly became Australia’s largest
sugar producer and by 1890 had 69,000 acres
under sugar cane. During the 1890’s there was an
obvious decline in the industry partly due to
reduced fertility in those areas which had been
planted with cane for some time and partly due
to plant diseases and insect pests. J The insects
causing the greatest problem were, and continue
to be, cane beetles; the larval stages of Australian
species of melolonthine Scarabaeidae. R. G.
Mungomery, Assistant Director of the Bureau of
Sugar Experiment Stations (now retired), in his
Presidential Address to the Entomological Society
of Queensland in 1954 summarised the
situation:

. . . Towards the end of the nineteenth century
frequent references in the ‘Sugar Journal and Tropical
Cultivator’ leave one in no doubt that all was not well
with the Queensland Sugar Industry. Accordingly at
the instigation of leading sugar growers the
Queensland Government engaged Dr Walter Max-
well, Director of the Experiment Station of the
Hawaiian Sugar Planters’ Association to visit
Queensland to report on conditions within the local
industry . . .**

Acting on this report, the Queensland
Government passed the Sugar Experimental
Stations Act in 1900 which led to the formation
of the Queensland Bureau of Sugar Experimental
Stations, jointly funded by the Government and
by a levy on the growers. Dr Maxwell became its

first Director in 1900 and established stations at
Mulgrave (later named Nelson and later still in
1912 renamed Gordonvale), Mackay and Bun-
daberg. Bundaberg was chosen as the head-
quarters for the Director and his scientific staff
and the main laboratory was opened there in
1901. ft

The insect problems besetting the industry
became so serious that on 24 March 1911 the
Under Secretary of the Queensland Department
of Agriculture and Stock wrote to the Queensland
Public Service Board:

I have the honour, by direction, to inform you that
it is considered that the serious financial loss caused
annually to the cane fields of Queensland by the
ravages of grubs justifies the appointment of an
Entomologist who will be able to devote the whole of
his time to investigations into the life history and
habits of this pest with the view of discovering the
most economic methods of dealing with it and
minimising its effects.

it is accordingly asked that you will be good enough
to authorise this Department to cable to the United
States Department of Agriculture, Washington,
asking that institution to recommend a man for the
position at a salary of £400 a year, with a three years’
engagement and passage from America to Queensland
and back again.

It is proposed that the salary shall be paid from
the funds raised under the Sugar Experiment Stations
Act.

Authorisation was given to the Queensland
Department of Agriculture and Stock to contact
its counterpart in Washington for an Assistant
Entomologist. The Public Service Board in its
reply gave a rather impressive list of qualifications
that it required of the appointee:

. . . What is wanted is a man of academic culture
in the modern schools and who has received a
scientific training, who is proficient in general
chemistry, physics and biology, and has a special
knowledge of entomology, economic entomology, and
incidentally plant physiology, mycology, and plant
pathology, is practiced in laboratory technique
bearing on these subjects and is capable of carrying
out original research. A large proportion of his work
will be in the field .

The appointee although assigned to the
Queensland Bureau of Sugar Experimental
Stations was to be an officer of the Department

^Lawrence Girauit, pers. comm.
fGirault, 462: 441.

I Watt, 1955:217-8.

* * Mungomery, 1954: 6.

t f Watt, 1955: 219.

132

MEMOIRS OF THE QUEENSLAND MUSEUM

of Agriculture and Stock acting in this matter
with the Government Entomologist, Henry Tryon.
Dr Leyland Ossian Howard, who held the position
of Chief of the Bureau of Entomology in the U.S.
Department of Agriculture between the years
1894 and 1927, began the search, but advised
through the Department’s Secretary that it would
be difficult to find a man of the qualifications
listed who would go to Australia for the sum
offered. However:

... It is the opinion of this Department that a young
man recently graduated from one of our best
agriculture colleges, who has had a general scientific
training and who has specialized in entomology under
a good teacher, can be found who will go to you for
400 pounds a year, but before sending you such a man
I wish to have a further expression of opinion from
you. I do not wish you to be disappointed in the man
selected or to expect too much from him with regard
to special knowledge of the sciences other than
economic entomology.

The Queensland Department of Agriculture and
Stock accepted this recommendation. Accordingly
the ‘young man’ was offered the position in
Australia which he accepted. In their reply, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture advised:

. . . Mr. A. A. Girault, who is coming to you, is a
man who has had considerable experience in the field
of economic entomology. He graduated from the
Agricultural College of Virginia, and was employed
in the Bureau of Entomology, of this Department, for
several years, first in connection with investigations
of the cotton boll worm in the South and later with
investigations concerning the habits of and remedies
for deciduous fruit insects. He was then offered a
position, at a higher salary, at the University of
Illinois, and has been for the last two years an
assistant of Professor S. A. Forbes, of that laboratory,
one of the best known of the American entomologists.
With Professor Forbes he has had a variety of
important experiences, and has interested himself
especially in the habits and classification of certain
groups of minute parasitic insects. He is an earnest,
hard worker, and I feel assured will justify my
recommendations.

The Zoological Record for the years 1903-191 1
confirm that he was ‘an earnest, hard worker’.
During these years his out-put of papers increased
rapidly and notable was his growing interest in
the taxonomy of the Chalcidoidea. He therefore
came to Australia with a firmly established
interest and expertise in this field and our
relatively untouched chalcidoid fauna served to
stimulate him further. The years 1911-1914 in
Australia show a tremendous work out-put in

taxonomy and it was the desire to continue in this
field which was to move him not to renew his
contract when it expired in 1914.

Girault’s appointment dates from 30 August
1911, his departure date from Illinois, and he
sailed from Vancouver on 6 September of the
same year. His service began under the direction
of the General Superintendent of the Mackay
Experimental Station in October 1911. Addresses
on his letters to the Director of the Queensland
Museum show that he was in Mulgrave (later
changed to Nelson and again in 1912 to
Gordonvale) by November 1911 and that his work
centred on this area until his resignation in 1914.
These letters also show that his field-work
included Cooktown, Bowen and Hughenden. In
November 1911 he wrote to the Queensland
Museum Director, Dr Hamlyn Harris, whom he
had met in Brisbane on his way from America
to Gordonvale asking \ . . the places of
publication of most of the systematic papers on
Australian insects and spiders ... I have not, of
course, the necessary indices to the literature here
. . . This letter was the beginning of a steady
flow of correspondence between Girault and the
Queensland Museum from 1911 until his death
in 1941 . Most of these letters concerned deposition
of his types, loans of types and specimens, requests
for references in the form of whole papers or
isolated descriptions, and publication of his
papers. This correspondence yields many details
of his life, his attitudes, aspirations, frustrations
and movements as well.

Once in Australia he lost very little time in
applying himself not only to the problem of sugar
cane pests but also to Australia’s rich chalcidoid
fauna. On 5 December 1911 he wrote to Hamlyn
Harris outlining his progress:

... I am working up the Chalcidoidea (Hymenop.)
as rapidly as possible and take these two groups first
[Trichogrammatidae and Mymaridae]. However, I
cannot see the end yet and there may be considerable
delay.

The decision to deposit his types with the
Queensland Museum was made from the very
beginning and by January 1912 he had 50 types
ready for deposition in, and was receiving
specimens on loan from, the Queensland Museum.
Hamlyn Harris was \ . . delighted to receive the
types which will of course receive regular numbers
. . Girault’s first major contributions were
published in volume one of the Memoirs of the
Queensland Museum, coincidental with the
change of format, size and name from the Annals

DAHMS: GIRAULT TYPES OF AUSTRALIAN HYMENOPTERA: I

133

of the Queensland Museum. The Museum’s old
records and the article by George Mack in 1956
on the Queensland Museum clearly incidate that
Hamlyn Harris who became Director on 10
October 1910, was a man of great vision. It could
be that this change in format and name in the
Museum’s scientific publication was part of his
overall plan for the advancement of the Museum,
but one could be forgiven for assuming that
Girault’s 124 page contribution, more than half
volume one, may have had some part to play in
this change. No records of this change could be
found so the matter must remain speculative, but
if Girault’s papers did play a part, then it was
probably in the role of strengthening an appeal
by Hamlyn Harris to the Museum’s governing
body in the Public Service for the change. It was
Hamlyn Harris who approached Girault asking
where he intended publishing his work and Girault
advised him that he had not thought of
Queensland or even Australia:

... I thought it must be necessary to publish them
either in the U.S. or else in England but should be
glad if your Museum could undertake them as they
are ready . . .

Hamlyn Harris agreed to handle them:

... I am thankful that you have decided to publish
with us since 1 am of the opinion that you have chosen
the right medium of placing your results before the
scientific world.

It was Girault’s plan to treat the Australian
Chalcidoidea in parts by family:

This year, [1912] 1 do not think it possible to
complete more than three families — the Trichogram-
matidae, the Mymaridae, and the Eulophidae (since
I have only six months). The MSS. of the first and
second are practically complete but I have not as yet
commenced upon the third. As each family is
complete in itself I think that perhaps it would be best
to give to each a part number . . .

These papers he intended expanding and
correcting by means of supplements. As the year
progressed he changed the Eulophidae to the
Elasmidae as number III \ . . since the
Eulophids are too much to be adequately handled
before August . . .’ As well, delays were suffered
during preparation of these three manuscripts:

. . . The MSS. of the first two families now needs
to be typewritten only (most of the Trichogramma-
tidae has already been done but I have added ten copy
pages since) and I may have to turn them over to you

with the request that you put them into the hands
of a stenographer (the stenographer I had in Cairns
has gone on an indefinite holiday) and return to me
later . . .

Hamlyn Harris was very encouraging, \ . . I
shall only be too pleased to give you any assistance
I can in order to make your work the easier’.
Further delays were suffered through his absence
from Nelson on field-work, lack of card points for
mounting specimens and absence of reference
papers. Hamlyn Harris proved to be a man of his
word, supplying card for card points and journals
from his personal library.

In these early papers, Girault’s penchant for
spicing his scientific work with his personal,
strongly-held, moral and ethical philosophies
appeared. In these papers however, the dedications
were more broadly based and impersonal, but
later, in his privately published papers, these
statements were to become sharply directed
against particular subjects and people. This
transition is dealt with more fully later.

After much deliberation the whole dedication
accompanying Girault’s first paper in the
Memoirs is included below, not only because it
shows Girault’s thinking, but also because its
contents are important in understanding other
people’s reaction to his dedications:

1 respectfully dedicate this little portion of work to
science, common sense or true knowledge. I am
convinced that human welfare is so dependent upon
science that civilizations would not endure without it
and that what is meant by progress would be
impossible. Also I am thoroughly convinced that the
great majority of mankind are too ignorant, that
education is too archaic and impractical as looked at
from the standpoint of intrinsic knowledge. There is
too little known of the essential unity of the universe
and of things included, for instance, man himself.
Opinions and prejudices rule in the place of what is
true. Of many things, only one can be true and it is
that fact which is being continually ignored by the
ordinary man who is content to hold to his own
opinion regardless whether it is right or wrong, to false
religions which blind and prejudice him and to
political parties which rule him according to their own
particular creed of the moment. The individual man
must be changed through education; not so much
changed as developed and this depends primarily upon
himself. It is a fact that the truly educated man has
an enormous advantage in life as concerns his ability
to detect truth. His nervous system is more sensitive
ard discriminative and this is very important, since
it is through sensation that all knowledge is obtained.
He is apt to be unprejudiced and unopinionated, to
be rather simple in his tastes, requiring not more than
the necessities of life, finding pleasure in things which

134

MEMOIRS OF THE QUEENSLAND MUSEUM

are really worth while and none or but little in things
non-essential and superimposed. Too often the
graduate of our schools and colleges is not himself or
herself naturally developed, but a mere model
moulded after a certain crude fashion and most
probably with all natural tendencies and abilities
dwarfed or badly injured. He or she as concerns the
earth upon which a living must be obtained, families
reared and moral and social relations maintained, is
but yet a child and has yet to learn from that greatest
of schoolmasters — Experience. How often too late
this Master comes is shown daily in the common
experiences of life and the aged vainly try to impress
it upon the young, who cannot be taught but must
learn.

I have just chanced upon two sentences of worth.
One occurs in William Harvey’s The Generation of
Animals and has application here. Harvey himself is
an excellent example of a man who trusted in his own
sensations to know things and who knew of no other
authority in such matters than his own common sense
and that of others. His discovery of the circulation
of the blood followed as a matter of course from the
rise of his own common sensations in dissecting bodies
while the men of medicine of his time were accepting
what others had said centuries ago, yet performing
the same operations as he did. Harvey said, “The
method of investigating truth commonly pursued at
this time therefore is to be held erroneous and almost
foolish, in which so many enquire what others have
said, and omit to ask whether the things themselves
be actually so or not.”

A second sentence occurs in one of the works of
Francis Galton and also has application here. Men are
extremely variable from their very nature and Galton
says “The moral and intellectual wealth of a nation
largely consists in the multifarious variety of the gifts
of the men who compose it, and it would be the very
reverse of improvement to make all its members
assimilate to a common type. However, * * * * there
are elements, some ancestral and others the result of
degeneration, that are of little or no value, or are
positively harmful.” And thus, 1 take it, that if
education is to be valuable to society — and that is
the only reason for its existence — it should develop
rather than mould and development is not an external
process but wholly internal to the individual. The
inequalities of humans are natural. The laws of
society, the rules of education do not abolish them but
tend rather to ignore. Stripped of all sentiment,
superstitution, fancies, dogmas and ancestral
prejudices, it must be admitted that men are animals,
subject to natural laws like all other animals; these
laws in general are inevitable; therefore men must, like
other animals, adapt themselves to them and to all
the facts of nature. In so far as the mass of men are
ignorant of the facts of nature, they may be truly said
to be backward and non-adapted. They are not
developed and an undeveloped society is in constant
danger from itself — the individuals are neither
adapted to the earth nor to each other. The mass of
men are usually wise enough in a “wordly” way in
that they know of human frailties, follies, greeds and

passions and are able to maintain themselves, but
evolution is a fact and demands more than this from
social animals with such highly developed sensibilities
as those possessed by mankind.*

After receipt of the manuscripts for the first of
the three papers Hamlyn Harris questioned the
necessity for dedications;

... As you are doubtless aware we are very much
pressed for space, and consequently I wanted to ask
you whether you would mind if the dedications were
omitted?. . .

Girault felt strongly enough about the matters
raised in his dedications to incorporate them in
his scientific papers, therefore it was not
surprising that he was unable to agree to omission
of these dedications, but hoped the papers would
be published in spite of this; ‘If not please let me
know at once’. Hamlyn Harris was sorry that
Girault could not comply, ‘ . . . but having given
you a promise to publish them [the papers] I
would not break my word, so that they will appear
in due course’. An editorial footnote was added
by Hamlyn Harris to the first dedication
disassociating the Museum from,

‘ . . . philosophical matters of a contentious
nature . . .’ included therein, but he balanced this
statement with complimentary words about
Girault’s inclusion of the names of prominent
scientists:

Editorial Note. — In his dedications and allocations
of new names, Mr. A. A. Girault has adopted the
somewhat unusual course of introducing philosophical
matters of a contentious nature. On these points we
must disassociate ourselves, but there are few, we
imagine, who will find fault with his dedications in
so far as they bring before us many illustrious names
on the roll of science. — R. Hamlyn-Harris.f

Girault reconsidered and advised Hamlyn
Harris that the dedication to the third paper
which dealt with the Elasmidae could be deleted;
and it was. If Hamlyn Harris feared that by
publishing Girault’s dedications he was opening
the Memoirs of the Queensland Museum to
‘philosophical matters of a contentious nature’,
then that fear became a reality when he received
a letter from Dr A. J. Turner, a medical
practitioner well known for his taxonomic work
on Australian moths, advising that he wished to
submit a paper with religious dedications:

* Girault, 119: 66-7.
t Girault, 119:66.

DAHMS: GIRAULT TYPES OF AUSTRALIAN HYMENOPTERA: I

135

1 propose to send you an entomological paper in
which the new species will be named after the Popes
of Rome . . . and to dedicate each species with a
brief sentence damming some particular heresy. I
propose to precede the whole with a short dedication
expressing in somewhat obscure and oracular terms
a dogmatic view of the Universe from the standpoint
of Roman Catholicism.

I am sure you will have no hesitation in receiving
this contribution, for having opened the Memoirs of
the Queensland Museum to “philosophical matters of
a contentious nature”, you cannot of course object to
these being discussed from every possible point of
view. To object to include it would be to make the
Memoirs a partizan organ, and I am sure that this
is the last thing that you or our friend Mr. Girault
would wish to do.

Hamlyn Harris had placed himself in a very
difficult situation by honouring his word to
Girault. He adopted a conciliatory attitude to
Turner, sympathising with him in his feelings
towards Girault’s dedications and assured him,

‘ . . . that if I can help it this kind of thing will
not occur again’. Turner’s paper did not appear,
but the problem was not completely solved since
the manuscripts which Girault submitted for
volume two of the Memoirs were accompanied by
dedications. Hamlyn Harris endeavoured to
disuade Girault:

I am somewhat exercised in my mind over the
association of your dedications with your other matter.
Probably very few will cavil at the sentiments which
lead you to write them, but it seems to me that the
point involved is one of congruity. The people who will
most appreciate your dedications will be the last to
look for them in your systematic writings, and
conversely I imagine that the experts who refer to your
descriptions may not share your cosmopolitanism and
thus the sense of your comments here will be wasted.
Would not the purpose you have in view be more
adequately served by sending your dedications in an
expanded form to journals of popular science where
they would be read with appreciation by large
numbers of people? Your sympathy with such a
laudable principle as that of international peace is
indeed worthy of expression, but 1 would ask you to
consider the advisability of inserting this and other
sentiments in a purely scientific work. There is
another difficulty which I feel sure you will
appreciate: the same question may come up later in
a more comprehensive way with other
contributors.

Girault’s reply to Hamlyn Harris is significant
not only for its explanation of his desire to write
the dedications but also for its indication of
co-operation with Hamlyn Harris’s wishes:

In regard to the dedications I quite agree with you
in regard to their incongruity but it has been my
purpose to aid as much as possible in raising the

standard of systematic work in insects. As you are
aware, this kind of work is at present more or less
under a ban; at least, it is getting to be looked upon
as isolated and unrelated to other work in science.
Now, I consider it one of the most important lines
of research in biology, embracing much more than
mere descriptions, though the character of these
descriptions is also of much importance. I think that
the lack of care in respect to the latter is largely due
to the present way of looking at taxonomy and if I
can do ever so little in aiding to change this I would
be delighted. I have tried to show, probably not very
well, that taxonomy is related to many things and not
mere dry-as-dust words and names, though necessarily
requiring much drudgery.

If, however, these dedications are likely to cause you
trouble and if you do not care to print them I will
have to give in. My view point seems opposite to yours
in regard to this. The experts are just the ones I am
aiming at and if they would take more interest in the
relations of things and less in themselves per se,
everyone would be to the gaines. If you would agree
to compromise by omitting the dedication to the
Eulophidae and retaining the one to the Perilampidae
I would be pleased. But 1 leave the matter in your
hands, since you must be judge of what the Memoirs
is to contain and I have no right to quarrel about
it.

There is much in Girault’s first paragraph with
which taxonomists today would agree. The second
paragraph however, shows signs of his concern for
what he interpreted as the use of taxonomy for
personal status and for what he saw as the
pressure to justify its existence through commer-
cial application or gain. These became an intense
preoccupation from 1915 onwards and the
manifestation of this preoccupation can be seen
in the dedications in his privately published
papers.

Hamlyn Harris was obviously relieved by
Girault’s reply:

. . . With reference to your kind letter regarding the
dedications, I need hardly say how much I appreciate
your attitude in the matter. I will compromise in any
way I can and assist you as far as possible to achieve
your end but I am delighted in knowing you have
given me a free hand to use the dedications or not,
at my discretion. It is sometimes very difficult to know
how to act wisely, especially when one’s keener
judgment is at variance with one’s natural
inclinations.

The dedications did not appear with the papers.
However, a lesser man than Hamlyn Harris would
have used Turner’s application to squash Girault’s
dedications without attempting persuasion.

In 1912 Girault was provided with an assistant
at Gordonvale, Alan Parkhurst Dodd. Although
Dodd was only sixteen he was not without

136

MEMOIRS OF THE QUEENSLAND MUSEUM

entomological experience. From an early age he
had accompanied his father, Frederick Parkhurst
Dodd, a renowned naturalist in North Queens-
land, on many expeditions collecting butterflies
and beetles. Girault encouraged him in the
Procotrupoidea and Dodd’s name frequently
occurs as author or joint author of new genera
and species of Chalcidoidea in Girault’s papers in
the Memoirs. Girault had a lot of faith in Dodd’s
ability and there are two letters in the Museum
files which have statements to this effect. The first
was in 1913 when Dodd submitted a paper to
Hamlyn Harris for the Memoirs. Hamlyn Harris
was hesitant about accepting the paper because
of the relative inexperience of the author and
sought assurances from Girault.

I have this morning received a letter from Allan
Dodd in which he informs me that he is describing
our Proctotrypoidea, and stating “I have been working
on the families of the Proctotrypoidea for some
months, so, I naturally, l am [sic] quite competent
to identify all species”. This remark alone fills me with
fear because it is not until a man knows something
that he realizes his own ignorance and incompetence.
He has asked me to publish his small paper on the
collection, and I shall be pleased to do so, provided
that you will take the responsibility of his work. As
soon as I hear from you to this effect I will
communicate with him further.

This was not a personal attack on Dodd but is
clearly seen as a desire by Hamlyn Harris to
maintain a high standard for the Memoirs; the
wisdom of experience questioning the confidence
of youth. Girault replied that he could not take
responsibility for Dodd’s work but offered to read
through the paper with him. At the same time he
vouched for Dodd’s ability:

... I also told him [Dodd] that you asked me to be
responsible for his work or otherwise you would not
publish it. In regard to the responsibility I assured
him that he would have to stand alone and that all
I could do was to assure you that he was capable of
doing it, knew the group and was careful. He would
have to be responsible for the very nature of the case.
If he made errors he must take the consequences. He
took the matter in the right way and I hope that you
will see fit to publish his paper since I am sure it is
all right. I want to encourage him as much as possible
because he seems Fit for the work. I will go carefully
over the proof with him when it arrives.

Hamlyn Harris accepted the paper on these terms
and it appeared in due course, in volume two.

Girault’s letters to the Museum in 1912 show
that, during the course of his investigations into

cane beetles, he had developed an interest in frogs
as insect predators:

I forgot to mention to you a matter concerning
which I am much interested, namely the literature on
frogs in Australia. 1 am collecting as many of them
as possible with a view of studying their food habits
(particularly) but while about this may as well
undertake a systematic view of the group. The frogs
have always struck me as being extremely curious and
interesting, more especially since I have seen these
here. Some time when convenient to you will you
kindly write and give me a summary of what your
Museum has and what you know about the group and
its literature. They seem to have an enormous appetite
for insects and I am at a loss to know where they
hide away during dry periods.

Hamlyn Harris, ever helpful, offered him all the
co-operation possible, but Girault was having
difficulty with more than just the literature,
*. . . Frogs are not easily collected . . .' However,
he persisted and began to gather the literature.
Towards the end of 1912 he was again writing
to Hamlyn Harris on frogs as he continued to have
trouble obtaining the necessary literature:

... As time permits, 1 shall undertake a study of
this group, especially as concerns its food but I am
having great difficulty in obtaining the necessary
literature . . . Should it be just as convenient, maybe
I could send specimens to you for identification since
I think you told me that you were prepared to do it
there. I’d rather do it myself because it is excellent
practice and I am greatly interested in the group.

Hamlyn Harris replied with a list of frogs and
an indication of willingness to co-operate with
identifications. After a letter of 14 October 1912
in which he asks for descriptions of Hyla species
Girault does not mention frogs again. No doubt
lack of access to the literature and his already
high work load combined to put an end to his
aspirations in this group.

His work on the Chalcidoidea, however,
proceeded at a brisk pace. As well as the large
papers he sumbitted for publication in the
Memoirs, he was sending overseas shorter papers
with descriptions of new genera and species.
Hamlyn Harris wrote asking him for copies of his
papers published in overseas journals and at the
same time asked how much room he required in
the next volume [2] of the Memoirs. Girault
replied that copies would be provided as they
became available and:

... I intend summarising these papers in the Memoirs.
As regards space in the second volume I should like

DAHMS: GIRAULT TYPES OF AUSTRALIAN HYMENOPTERA: I

137

to have from 150-175 pages if you can give them to
me. The Eulophidae are very abundant and besides
supplements to the families already published should
be included . . .

The important part of the quotation above is
the first sentence which expresses the relationship
of his numerous short papers to his larger ones
in the Memoirs. These numerous short papers and
his Memoirs papers often appeared in a different
chronology from that in which they were written
meaning that in some cases the Memoirs papers
appeared before shorter papers they were to
summarise. The resultant nomenclatural night-
mare is one of the greatest problems in revising
Girault’s work.

Volume two of the Memoirs appeared with six
papers by Girault; three dealing with his first
treatment of the Eulophidae, Perilampidae and
Pteromalidae and three supplements on the
previously covered families, viz., Trichogramma-
tidae, Mymaridae and Elasmidae. The whole
came to 234 pages, well above his estimate and,
as stated before, they appeared without the
dedications. In addition to manuscripts for these
papers he forwarded to Hamlyn Harris a few short
notes on insects which he asked to be passed on
to the Queensland Field Naturalists’ Club for
publication in the Queensland Naturalist. These
were handed to Heber Longman, the President,
who at that time was employed at the Queensland
Museum as a scientific assistant. Five articles
were forwarded but only three appeared. They
were all written in a popular style with the third,
entitled ’Jealousy in Pentatomids’, being anth-
ropomorphic, teleological and showing Girault’s
tendency to romanticise his subject. This habit
became a constant feature of the titles and
contents of his privately published papers.

The year 1913 was an important one for
Girault. Early in the year he married Elizabeth
Jeanette Pilcher, a young school teacher at the
Gordonvale State School. An extract from the
Queensland Registrar-General’s Office shows that
Miss Pilcher, born at Lower Burdekin, Queens-
land, was married at the age of 21 years. Alan
P. Dodd was one of the witnesses to this marriage
performed at the Stoke Street Methodist Church,
Townsville, on 11 January 1913; two days after
Girault turned 29. The first of their five children,
Ernest Alexandre, was born in Gordonvale on 10
November 1913.

After their marriage the Giraults occupied a
house in Gordonvale, but prior to this, Girault
lived in hotels. His letters to Hamlyn Harris bear
the titles of two hotels, The Imperial Hotel and

later The Queens Hotel. Amongst the guests living
at the hotels with Girault were Alan Dodd and
the Head Master of the local state school. Dodd,
now living in Brisbane, described Girault as being
a very bright person of tremendous energy. Most
of the people in the small township of Gordonvale
regarded him as eccentric, a reputation no doubt
earned, at least in part, by his reluctance to allow
his behaviour to be swayed by other peoples’
opinions. Mr Dodd mentioned Girault’s habit of
going straight to windows for specimens upon
entering a room no matter what the occasion.
Dodd recalls also an incident involving the Head
Master of the local school. Apparently the Head
Master was rather status conscious. Pompous
behaviour did not sit very well with Girault and
the two men did not have a very amiable
relationship. One afternoon as Dodd and the Head
Master were sitting on the hotel verandah Girault
appeared and began to walk rapidly up and down
throwing his pipe in the air. This behaviour
persisted for a time and ended when Girault
abruptly turned and went inside. When questioned
later about this behaviour Girault informed Dodd
that the greatest insult he could pay to the Head
Master was to walk up and down past him without
acknowledging his presence. In a small country
town, news of such unconventional behaviour
would spread rapidly with the inevitable
embellishments traditional of stories carried by
word of mouth.

The other important decision taken by Girault
in 1913 was not to renew his contract when it
expired in 1914. Perhaps the most important
reason was his change of interest from economic
to taxonomic entomology. His letter of 9 August
1913 to the Queensland Bureau of Sugar
Experimental Stations, apart from giving twelve
months notice of his intentions to allow for a
replacement to be found, gives Girault’s ideas on
the type of person to be employed and the
direction in which the work should proceed:

1 think it is incumbent upon me to inform you that
it is my intention to return home as soon as my
contract time is out, since I promised my people that
I would do so. 1 have thought the matter over and
it appears only fair to you to state this intention, so
that you would have ample time to make preparations
for it. There remains little over a year, perhaps not
quite a year. I assure you that my going has no
connection whatever with any feelings of dissatisfac-
tion, but rather that I have an idea you could obtain
a man better fitted for the position of economic
entomologist in a new country such as this is.
Although I have been an economic entomologist, I
find myself drifting away from the work more toward

138

MEMOIRS OF THE QUEENSLAND MUSEUM

that of pure science, and I am getting such an appetite
for that sort of work that it is with difficulty that I
curb it at all. So I return home with the intention
of obtaining that sort of work or at least to be situated
so that I can indulge in it.

In the meanwhile I will do everything possible to
aid you and intend doing my best toward advancing
the grub investigation. In regard to this work 1 believe
you will have to enlarge the force; there should be
a man here constantly experimenting with insecticides,
there should be a man doing field experiments, and
one or two devoting themselves to purely systematic
studies of several groups of insects. We should
moreover have a simple chemical laboratory. The
people of Queensland should get a good start with
scientific work in advance of the agricultural
development, and while they should demand that the
work should be directed to practical ends and benefits,
nevertheless they should remember that the way of
advance is difficult, tortuous and slow, and that men
who will devote themselves patiently, thoroughly and
honestly to the study of insects should be encouraged,
no matter whether the insects are immediately
concerned with man’s economic condition. However
there are men who devote themselves to obtaining
immediate practical results, and this is the sort of man
you desire. In this connection, then, I make bold to
say, that you should definitely define the situation to
the newcomer, so only that sort of man will come.
You should have before long plenty of material here
in Queensland of which to make entomologists.

Attempts were made by the Queensland Bureau
of Sugar Experimental Stations to disuade him
from taking this action. However, Girault
remained firm and he thought he should step aside
for a man whose interests were more in the applied
line. His resignation when submitted in 1914 was
accepted with regret.

Girault informed Hamlyn Harris of his
intention to return to America in a letter of 6
December 1913 and, at the same time, discussed
the completion of his series of papers in the
Memoirs:

. . . In as much as I am leaving this country about
the first of September of next year 1 must complete
the series of papers on the Chalcidoidea at least by
the following July, when they must be submitted to
you for vol. Ill of the Memoirs. They must, of course,
be in final form, since I cannot hope to see the proofs.
I am anxious, therefore, to make the whole as full
as possible and as accurate, so that it will form a
foundation for future progress in the group.
Consequently, if you will let me know about how
much space you can allow me in next year’s Memoirs
I will be the better able to judge whether to hold MSS.
now on hand or whether to have it separately
published, to be condensed in the Memoirs. . .

Hamlyn Harris regretted that Girault was
returning to America and:

... As regards to the publication of your papers I
will do all 1 can to assist you. As 1 understand that
the next ones are to be final, prior to your departure
I will as far as I can say at present, not limit you
to space, although I would be glad if you would not
exceed 250 pages of print.

The resulting manuscripts were placed in
volume three and overflowed to consume all of
volume four; both volumes appearing in 1915.
Volume three should have appeared in 1914 and
the delay was probably a result of the lateness of
their final preparation by Girault. These papers,
in the two volumes, make up a total of 570 pages
of print, over double the 250 allowed for by
Hamlyn Harris. This may have been the reason
for his asking Girault to contribute financially
towards the publication costs of volume four.
Unfortunately the crucial letter by Hamlyn Harris
dated 22 October 1914 is missing and the exact
details of why he wished Girault to contribute the
the amount are missing with it. Girault replied
immediately by telegram, ‘Yes, letter’. The letter
that followed made no mention of an amount, just
that money was forwarded; it was only part of the
payment; and it was all the cash he could spare.
The only amounts mentioned anywhere concern-
ing this transaction showed that Girault still owed
£50 when he left for America and that the total
cost for volume four was £150. An estimate of the
size of Girault’s contribution towards volume four
can be confidently put at about half. Remember-
ing that Girault’s salary was £400 per annum then
even half of the cost would have represented a
substantial amount of money.

During 1914, his last year in Australia, Girault
was approached by the Queensland Department
of Agriculture and Stock about the deposition of
his types in the Queensland Museum. He
immediately became worried that the Department
wished to claim the types and he wrote to Hamlyn
Harris:

... I think I shall enter protest to the Dep, Agric.
in regard to their claim on the types. If I am not
mistaken I can claim them as my own private property
to dispose of as I see fit. At any rate this is the usual
way with systematists. Of course I cannot claim types
founded on specimens loaned to me and 1 have no
desire to own any of them. . .

Hamlyn Harris in his reply expressed some
concern on the matter:

DAHMS: GIRAULT TYPES OF AUSTRALIAN HYMENOPTERA I

139

1 have your letter on 19th February before me, and
need hardly say that I am with you in the matter of
the custodianship of the types. Of course I have no
knowledge of what has transpired to make the
Department of Agriculture claim these, but
considering that they have been promised to the
Queensland Museum, in consideration of which your
papers have been published by us in our Memoirs it
seems to me that we have first legal claim, and if I
understood the exact facts of the case, and thought
it advisable I would interview the Under Secretary
with a view to getting the matter settled.

Either Girault had misunderstood the Depart-
ment’s request or he was able to persuade the
Department that his types should go to the
Museum. He informed Hamlyn Harris on 23 June
1914:

... In regard to the types, of which there are 1500 + ,
this Department asked me to send them to it with the
request that they be given to the Queensland Museum.

I have acceded. . .

All of the material he forwarded to the
Department was forwarded in due course to the
Museum except for one parcel where he failed to
direct it to the Museum. After proof was provided
that it contained types for the Museum they were
duly handed over by Henry Tryon, the
Government Entomologist. One feature of the
letters on this matter was the strong desire Girault
showed that his types be adequately stored and
he stated quite clearly his belief that museums
were the correct place for deposition of types.

The following formal resignation, addressed to
the Queensland Department of Agriculture and
Stock, was written on 16 June 1914:

I have the honour to submit herewith my formal
resignation as Entomologist to the Bureau of Sugar
Experiment Stations to take effect as from the
thirtieth day of August, 1914.

Girault had already written to Hamlyn Harris
on 1 June 1914 giving 30 August as his intended
date of resignation and at the same time outlined
his future plans:

After my contract time expires (August 30) 1
should like very much to spend about half a year more
in Australia and if so will be pleased to enter into
an arrangement with you so that most of my time
could be placed at your disposal. It is my intention
to go west to Pentland to my wife’s home and while
there I had intended to make general collections of
most vertebrates, take a good rest and obtain an
all-round change. My principal object in staying over
is strictly personal but another reason is that I should

like very much to return to my present work on
Scarabaeidae in about next December for several
weeks without in the meanwhile having any
connection with it. My staying over, however, hinges
upon what reply I receive from Washington where I
had arranged to be by the end of the present year.
If this reply is favourable, I shall carry through the
programme outlined and return by the way of Europe
where I hope to make a stay of a month of two.

I do not, of course, know what funds you have at
your disposal and it is not my purpose to make profit
out of this collecting but I shall have to ask of you
a small monthly salary of five or six pounds so as to
make up the loss to the amount which I had put aside
for the European trip. If you can take me on under
these terms I would be delighted.

Of course Hamlyn Harris was bound by Public
Service rules in the matter of employment and the
casual arrangement proposed by Girault would
have been difficult to arrange:

Your letter of June 1st is before me and although
I thoroughly appreciate your wishes and aspirations
I am a little in the dark as to how far the Government
would fall in with your suggestions and would rather
suggest that you make definite application, stating
exactly your ideas, to the Under Secretary, Chief
Secretary’s Department, B’bane, when the matter will
doubtless come before me officially and I shall then
have an opportunity of expressing my opinion in the
matter. I am at all times ready and willing to give
every assistance to scientists in whatever field their
labours may lie.

Girault had not imagined that a formal
application would be necessary. However, he
decided to forward any material collected to the
Museum. There are no records of any major
collections coming from Girault and the matter
appears to have gone no further. Other plans he
outlined were changed, probably due to the onset
of World War I in August of 1914. His planned
return to America via Europe would have been
out of the question and the money he had put
aside for this voyage was probably used as part
payment for volume four of the Memoirs. He does
not appear to have returned to his work on the
Scarabaeidae [the family to which cane beetles
belong]. Letters show that Girault and his family
were in Townsville en route to Pentland on 31
August 1914. October found them in New South
Wales staying at the Shamrock Hotel, Muswell-
brook en route to Sydney. They remained here for
about a week and in November Girault was
writing from Brooklyn on the Hawkesbury River
just north of Sydney. When they reached Sydney
they were to board the ‘S.S. Sonoma’ due to
depart for San Francisco on 21 November 1914.

140

MEMOIRS OF THE QUEENSLAND MUSEUM

During this period, including the sea voyage,
Girault was correcting the proofs for his papers
in volume four of the Memoirs. They followed him
by mail down to Sydney but the last were ready
too late for the mail to reach him before departure
and had to be sent via another passenger. The
Government Printer who was preparing the proofs
advised Hamlyn Harris by Memo of the
arrangements:

I see by today’s Mail Notice that Parcel Post for
Sonoma closes next Wed. 1.15 p.m. and letters Friday
7 a.m. 1 will get all 1 can ready for Tuesday
evening.

Mr Campbell, Commissioner to Panama Expos,
leaves Friday morning and will take anything that I
have ready, if that is the boat Mr Girault goes
by.

It was the same ship and Girault received the
proofs from Mr Campbell. He acknowledged their
receipt after departure of the ‘S.S. Sonoma’:

I received the proofs from Mr Campbell and am
returning that of part VII from Honolulu. The others
will follow from San Francisco . . .

The weather at the time was rough and Girault
does not appear to have been a good sailor for
the ink is smudged and his p.s. explains, ‘Horrible
pains and the ship is rolling’. The last of the proofs
were returned from San Francisco on 18
December 1914.

Girault and his family arrived in San Francisco
in early December 1914 and were in Washington
D.C. by early January 1915. Mention has already
been made of the £50 debt he still owed the
Queensland Government Printer for volume four
of the Memoirs. The period 1915 to 1916 was one
of economic hardship for him and the debt had
to be removed by a series of small instalments.
His letter accompanying the second payment
explains:

Herewith another small installment on the amount
due the Government Printer. I have been in need of
ready cash for some months and am still in need but
this amount due you will be sent in successive rapid
installments. I am anxious to get it off my hands and
am just beginning to be able to attend to it.

Hamlyn Harris, always understanding, did not
press Girault to finalise the amount:

... I quite believe you are anxious to get it off your
hands. The Government Printer is, however, a very
long-suffering person and is quite willing to wait until
such time as you are able to complete the
amount.

The last instalment was made on 19 July 1916
and the accompanying letter explains the reason
for his economic problems:

Herewith the remainder of the amount due to Mr
Cumming [Queensland Government Printer] to whom
please express my thanks for his great patience and
kindness. I am now entirely out of debt and did not
relish the experience. This debt was due to my long
wait over here for my appointment to go through.
Thus, my cash soon gave out and as I did not care
to borrow, ran head over heels for a while on the down
path . . .

Before continuing with this very important
period in Girault’s life mention should be made
of a letter received by Hamlyn Harris from Mr
Walter W. Froggatt, Government Entomologist,
Department of Agriculture, N.S.W. and dated 8
March 1915:

I have been going through reprints of Girault and
Dodd and find that all the types are in the Queensland
and Adelaide Museums. From this I presume that
your Museum and Adelaide buy the types, and so
there is a definite reason for these gentlemen
describing hundreds of specimens of tiny little
creatures and even creating new Genera from single
specimens of one sex caught sweeping.

Prof Wheeler told me that you have nearly 2000
of these types and that he did not consider that they
would be of any value to workers who have to consult
them. As regards Dodd it seems to me, that the border
line between the new species is so indefinite that he
is not quite certain of them himself, take his remarks
on the Genus Scelio in R.S. Queensland [Royal
Society of Queensland Proceedings ] for example. I
should not be surprised if one was to take a batch
of eggs of Locusta danica that had been infested by
these parasites that he would find many variations of
type which under these conditions of description could
be easily called new species. I don’t know how many
journals and magazines Girault and Dodd have
published descriptions of Australian Micro-
hymenoptera in, but disjointed descriptions of
Queensland Micro-hymenoptera are appearing in at
least a dozen different Proceedings from Germany to
Canada. Don’t you think that we might want
something more than a brief description of a single
specimen of one sex to make a species from either
a Museum or economic point of view?

Hamlyn Harris in his reply was able to inform
Froggatt that the Queensland Museum was not
involved in purchasing types from Girault. Since
the types in the South Australian Museum were
mostly from that museum’s own collection, money
transactions would not have been involved with
that institution either. Out of courtesy to Girault,
Hamlyn Harris forwarded a copy of Froggatt’s

DAHMS: GIRAULT TYPES OF AUSTRALIAN HYMENOPTERA I

141

letter to him. Cirault chose not to reply to
Froggatt personally but he did reply to Hamlyn
Harris and this letter has a number of interesting
points. It contains his second defence of Dodd's
ability, shows his taxonomic thinking and contains
a statement against economic entomology. The
letter reads:

I have your letter and enclosure of a month ago
and am not at all worried by Mr Froggatt’s letter.
I wrote him a long letter about two years ago asking
him if he would not stop indiscriminately describing
insects in all orders or rather giving him my views
on that sort of thing at the same time telling him that
these views should not have anything to do with
personal relations. In other words, it is not to him
personally I objected but to work of that sort. I think
however he was rather put out. He has never sent me
his descriptions and they are, unfortunately, all wrong
anyway.

Single specimens are proper for types. If the species
varies and has been described again, why the two can
easily enough be brought together. The fundamental
thing is to describe them correctly! I am astonished
at the great amount of careless work done in this
group of minute forms. I have the types here of
Ashmead’s and Howard’s Australian species and
genera — simply astonishing how they failed to
describe them. The types will disappear in time and
if the descriptions are incorrect, why everything is
gone. Y'oung Dodd’s work is all right. Why this boy
has got more sense in him than twenty F’s. But, here
I am getting personal! Why nature would be queer
indeed, if one specimen taken at chance does not
usually represent the species. Freaks are not so
common as all that. A female specimen is best for
the type in this group.

If I had been at all well at the time I would have
called in at Sydney to see Mr Froggatt.

If the views of Mr Froggatt were followed, one
would have to sit down and wait very patiently for
years and years and never even then get together series
of these forms. Australia is being settled; these forms
will rapidly disappear. It is a pity that entomologists,
so called, must be continually wasting their time and
energy on farmers, like over here [U.S.A.] for
example.

1 hope the other parts of the Australian Hymenop.
Chalcidoidea have been published by this time
because I should like the indexing to be got over. I
have perhaps a hundred new species to add and many
redescriptions of Ashmead’s & Howard’s Australian
species a few of which are to take preference over my
species. But of course, from their descriptions one
would never know this. Now, speaking of Ashmead,
is of course nonpersonal.

I think it is not worth while writing to Mr. Froggatt
in regard to his letter. Personal attacks are wearying
and unprofitable to either side. I expect a few before
I am done but it is time that Science rid itself of this
specious weapon and it be understood that because

a man’s name is mentioned, he isn’t necessarily

attacked. The unfortunate part of it is that one has

to mention names.

Most taxonomists today would agree in
principle with Froggatt that genera should not be
erected from single specimens. They would also
agree with Girault in his desire to collect and
describe the fauna before parts are lost through
settlement. Once the fauna is known then
revisionary work can settle synonomies. In spite
of the monumental work of Girault on the
Australian Chalcidoidea the group is still far from
completely known in this continent.

Girault seemed destined to evoke strong
reactions from people and the reaction to his
dedications in volume one of the Memoirs of the
Queensland Museum has already been discussed.
In the last paragraph of this letter above there
are signs that he was receiving strong reactions
again, but this time it was in response to criticisms
of other people’s work. One must remember that
this was an era when people were ultra polite in
their dealings with one another especially on a
professional basis and Girault looked upon this as
a ‘specious weapon’.

He appears to have been a very direct person
and it is little wonder that his criticisms caused
offense. However, as he explains, these were not
intended to be personal and perhaps his only fault
at this stage was that he was not diplomatic. This
was the last the world was to see of a moderate
Girault. The year was 1915, two years before his
privately published papers containing vitriolic
criticisms of people and conditions began to
appear. He entered U.S.A. in 1914 the affable
person seen in his letters to Hamlyn Harris and
one who was conscious of his obligations to his
employer, as in his letter to the Queensland
Bureau of Sugar Experimental Stations giving
advance warning of his intention to return to the
U.S.A. He returned to Australia in 1917 a very
bitter person with strong feelings against economic
entomology, economic entomologists, commerce
and related subjects. These became obsessions
which deepened in feeling throughout the rest of
his life. Perhaps the affability he displayed prior
to this period was due to the accommodating
treatment given him by Hamlyn Harris. In the
U.S.A. he was to find conditions a little
different.

Without archival material for this period of his
life, the following story, pieced together mostly
from his privately published papers and letters to
the Queensland Museum, is speculative but not
without credence. It is not intended to cover

142

MEMOIRS OF THE QUEENSLAND MUSEUM

completely his privately published papers since
this will be done for an introduction to go with
re-publication of his privately published papers in
co-operation with Dr Gordon Gordh and Dr
Arnold Menke of the U.S. National Museum.

To fully appreciate the events of the three years
he spent in the U.S. A. one must bear in mind that
Girault was a very intense person with strongly
held philosophies. His troubles in America were
caused by his uncompromising defense of these
philosophies, personal and institutional financial
shortage and his intense dedication to the
taxonomy of the Chalcidoidea. These were
accompanied by intense irritation with anyone or
anything which interrupted this work. Had he
been more flexible in his attitudes and less intense
in his feelings then a lot of trouble in the U.S. A.
may have been avoided.

The story begins back in 1912 with the
publication of his first papers in the Memoirs of
the Queensland Museum.* His dedications of this
period, both published and unpublished, deal with
three things:

(1) Truth; the knowledge gained by apply-
ing the mind free from conditioning.
‘. . . Opinions and prejudices rule in place of
what is true . . . ’* As part of his discussion
Girault quotes William Harvey, the English
physician who discovered the circulation of
blood; ‘ . . . The method of investigating
truth commonly pursued at this time therefore
is held to be erroneous and almost foolish, in
which so many enquire what others have said,
and omit to ask whether the things themselves
be actually so or not . . .’ Many years later
in one of his privately published papers he
says, ‘ . . . The soul of Science, as of Poetry,
is freedom . . .’t

(2) Self interest on the part of scientists, i.e.,
their work took second place to their
ambition. Girault’s definition of the Truly
educated man 1 is pertinent here. ‘ ... He is
apt to be unprejudiced and unopinionated, to
be rather simple in his tastes, requiring not
more than the necessities of life, finding
pleasure in things which are really worth
while and none or but little in things
non-essential and superimposed . . .’f
Unintentionally he had given a very good
description of himself and his attitude to his
work. He considered ‘ . . . that the truly
educated man has an enormous advantage in
life as concerns his ability to detect
truth . .

(3) The low status of taxonomy and pure
science generally. Science instead was
directed towards practical ends, i.e., applied
science was held in higher esteem than pure
science. The closing remark in his letter dated
9 August 1913 to the Queensland Bureau of
Sugar Experimental Stations advising of his
intention to resign in 1914 bears on this
matter:

. . . The people of Queensland should get a good
start with scientific work in advance of
agricultural development, and while they should
demand that the work be directed to practical
ends and benefits, nevertheless they should
remember that the way of advance is difficult,
tortuous, and slow, and that men who will devote
themselves patiently, thoroughly and honestly to
the study of insects should be encouraged, no
matter whether the insects are immediately
concerned with man’s economic condition . . .

Approximately twelve months after his return
to the U.S. A. his concern for the status of pure
science prompted him to write a paper, ‘The
urgent need of the economic entomologist’ which
was published in Entomological News towards the
end of 1915. His meaning is quite clear and the
paper needs no introduction:

My experience as an economic entomologist has
taught me that when a man of science is in a position
where he is expected to be practical in the ordinary
meaning of that word, either he or the public has to
surrender. The so-called practical man is too often just
the opposite as 1 am reminded by a conversation which
1 once had with a farmer. This man was thought to
be very practical; he had a large farm which was
profitable. He was a man of affairs and family. As
a practical man, he became interested in a certain
insect which was causing him considerable loss from
year to year . . . He gave me various accounts of his
experiments but it needed no acumen to see that they
had long since been lost to him and that he was totally
confused. This eminently practical man could not
perceive his own impracticality in not making use of
the art of writing.

We see then that the word practical has a somewhat
false meaning in popular use. To expect a scientist
to be thus practical is like expecting him to renounce
himself together with all of those aids which the really
practical sense of man has laid up in store for his
proper use. I have in mind theories, books and
mechanical appliances. All are greatly abused and
most are worthless. A small minority are invaluable
and true. Practicality in life is shown by the use of
those aids made by the individual, his selection of the
worthy and rejection of the false.

* Girault, 119: 66-7; 120; 117-8.
t Girault, 406: 1.
t Girault, 1 19: 66-7.

DAHMS: G1RAULT TYPES OF AUSTRALIAN HYMENOPTERA: 1

143

It is so with the economic entomologist. Primarily
he should know biology; . . In a word, he should be
truly educated, which means self-developed, learning
from experience, accepting all of the aids within his
reach toward that end but with discrimination.

Economic entomology should be considered as being
within the broad field of applied biology, including
medicine and agriculture in their widest sense. But,
fundamentally, it is pure biology, and therefore pure
science and the efforts of the lay-man for profit to
make of the economic entomologist a creature
belonging to him and a practical man in the ordinary
sense cannot result in anything else than loss to both,
for the economic entomologist must be fundamentally
a biologist studying insects and a biologist cannot be
prostituted for gain without hurt to himself. As a
necessity, he cannot safely for gain or for any other
object whatsoever, prostitute his own mentality in
order to satisfy current or local views regarding what
is practical. Thus we come to one of the crying needs
of the economic entomologist — that he should
become no less than theoretical.

In applied entomology it is almost trite to state that
a true knowledge of the habits, instincts and home
relations of insects is the basis for all operations
against them. Yet, how few insects have been carefully
and thoroughly studied. The absence of knowledge
concerning some particular habit often results in
failure to cope with the insect, while the absence of
theories concerning the home relations of insects often
leads to faulty recommendations which may cause loss
in one way or another. If economic entomology was
on a broad biological basis, that is, theoretical, there
would be less uncertainty concerning the application
of parasitology and more certainty regarding the
importance of local conditions in causing variation in
the life histories of insects. Nothing that is true is
impractical; its practicality may not be seen at the
time, but in the end all knowledge becomes of use,
directly or indirectly. Of all knowledge, the theoretical
is the most practical and I have no doubt that as soon
as the economic entomologist becomes theoretical,
immediate practical results will be forthcoming and
new fields of prophylaxis and treatment opened.*

Most of his non-entomological writings in his
privately published papers are merely extensions
of these three ideas mostly written in an allusory
style.

Girault’s personal economic hardship, increased
by his financial contribution towards the
publication of volume four of the Memoirs, has
already been established. The period was also one
of World economic depression as a result of World
War I which meant that institutions were
financially restricted both in research and in
publication. Under these circumstances workers at
the U.S. Department of Agriculture were
apparently restricted to one paper per month.
Girault was a prolific author and he found this
restriction in outlet extremely irritating. His

privately published papers were partly to alleviate
this problem and partly to allow him redress
against the system and people he thought to be
standing in the way of his work:

. . . Making arbitrary restrictions as refusing to print
more than one article a month for any one author,
meaning that the prolific author is loaded with chains
which he must drag long . .

He was employed with the Bureau of
Entomology, U.S. Department of Agriculture
whose workers were and still are housed in the
U.S. National Museum. In times of economic
stringency it would be expected that entomologists
of an Agriculture Department should be restricted
to applied topics to justify budgets. Taxonomic
papers would have to have an applied flavour.
Girault would not accept this and he objected to
editorial alterations of this nature in his
papers:

... I once wrote in the original description of
Podagrion beneficium that this insect was so named
because I desired to say it was not beneficial to man
as cant will have it but to itself. But the sentence was
deleted, crushed like a poisonous reptile . . .f

The editor of the Journal Straits Branch
Royal Asiatic Society changed Girault’s title,
‘New Chalcid-flies from Malaya’ to ‘New Chalcid
Parasites from Malaya’ and was criticised for
it:

, . . but the editor, by this change, conveying a
secondary meaning, implying that the flies in question
were noteworth to men primarily because they had
a value (which they have not) other than their primary
and intrinsic one — namely, as objects of delight and
admiration ... He therefore descended to a deceit;
in short, bowed to Mammon, but on Truth turned his
back . . 4

This attitude carred on in the titles of some of
his privately published papers; ‘New Queensland
Insecta Captured without Any reference to use’,
‘New Pests from Australia’ (which appeared as
a series of ten papers between 1926 and 1932 and
he explained in the first, ‘These beautiful species
are quite harmless, yet they must be called pests
in order to be respectable and in order to be paid
. . .’**) ‘Some Beauties Inhabitant not of
Commercial Boudoirs but of Nature’s Bosom,
Notably New Insects’ and so on. His dislike of
economic entomology grew into a dislike of
commerce, science, America and machines which
continued throughout his life:

* Girault, 250: 351-3.
t Girault, 330: 14, ‘Tyranny’.
t Girault, 358: 1,

** Girault, 397: 1.