SMITHSONIAN
LIBRARIES

” a n ener wo
: : : = UF:
ea Ge is Cc Me oe
eal x iva} = foal ee
o th NX be Oo = Oo
Zz bit Pe oy , 2
ARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLINS S31uVvud{7
= ~~ = Ups z .
fe) oa ro) cai ro)
= ee = eh ES
=) a = aun =
EY = Es pa E
= a = a =
2 m ” m wo”
= no = ” , 1
LLILSNI S3AIYvVudl SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTI
z 22) <= ” Zz ey
es = ieee = = <
; P oy 4 =
\ pe & = Bhp 5 5 S
i; 2 eS Uy a oO 2
ip a aa : E |
ys Se eye = |
ARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI_NVINOSHLINS = Sa 1uYVvug
“ 3 : SS #
te. a a a oc
< 3, a < a <x
ac S cc = nc
= 3 a 3 2
a 5 Zz am 2 a
ILILSNI NVINOSHLINS S3IYVuglt
aah, 3 ae = = a
ao. = w = a
2 Log = 0 Sn 2 a
> Sa We = > ra Vi ft >
2 NN & 2 =O fi?
m AY BS n* m
AS Zz z
7) = 7) = wn

ARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILOALILSNI NVINOSHILINS

w~
z < 2 4; < =
4 z 4 y My, z =
i 2 g Vig a8 S
2 = 2,77 YY §E 2
wo = = a 2
VLILSNI i _LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN _
Zz a = < 2
Uy,
4 = = = Uy,
= .< = < pe fe
=A a = 228 A nt)
ro) a o ceo ro) .
= _) =z <j =a
ARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI S3luvual-
Pas = rm
2 “oD =) a 5
= = ran a =
>. > =) f 3 =
Sy 0 cs = be
B = FE _ a
Zz 8 z 4B ee
MLILSNI_NVINOSHLINS SA1UVYEIT_LIBRARIES, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
eee Se i Es |
SRL Z ar e, Gia = z |
Ole i ZY 2S EAI GS
Y ‘9 ten a (@)
Vp = 2 Gy = 2 iS
os 2 ee 2

*,
RARIES SMITHSONIAN _INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLINS S3!iuvuad
SONS. JASON. KSA Or s

ES
S

ES
ES

.
>

4
| e

: oa ae 4 Pe
= SY = = = Ga = ;
: . & < ye fas 4

Cc SH SASS Cc Ve cc
a) SNES 4 ae G fe: a
ee 2 a 2 :
RIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLINS S3lyuyua!t
(1 z - z BE = e
pal “0 = w = :
5. ee = Eo) = 2
Es = = ae 2 :
a es = = -
- 2 m 2 m 2 4
ALSNI SZIYVUGIT_LIBRARIES. SMITHSONIAN ~ INSTITUTION
= n = wee n a ee Y
2 IR Ey yt NS IRE SS |
by fe) x Big fe) AY y= BW 5
Ue SGUZE = ie 2 INK
V, E 2G = NS = ie Z
2 Berea es Ae a ee
RIES SMITHSONIAN Saluvudgiy

NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLIWS

RIES

<

ep

LIBRARIES
MALIMITICAN

LIBRARIES

LIB

EN
1LSNI_NVINOSHLINS S3iYVvVudIT LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN_INSTITUTION

5

%
we
s

INSTITUTION NOHLALILSNI NVINOSHLINS S31YVUdIT

INSTITUTION NOILALILSNI
INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI

$3! uvadi

Yl

y bp
b

Sa1luvugit
saiuvugiq
ee tee

RIES SMITHSONIAN

i
NVINOSHLIWS
NVINOSHLINS

Se
SMITHSONIAN

NVINOSHLINS

“
oS

SSIYVYEIT LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

bw 4

ILSNI_ NVINOSHLIWS

LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN
PIMDDADICC CAAITIUICIANIAN

ee . us =

ran = w See.

= \ - <x am

Sc WS : : Ss

She S nal 5

J =
RIES ee TSE VION INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLINS S31IuVvusg U1
o = S = 5 ;

ke ra a =
cI a > a s :
kK: > - > _ 3
ES @ E a = a

” w” am

Zz a Z 5 ees 4
2 aos IYVuag Poul B RAR | ES SMITHSONIAN _ INSTITUTION,
‘5 =i ae XS a 5 K\ :
P + ty e S ‘ | : .* =
WY, ro) x Blo fe} OS =o 5 aS a
2 BGS BNR B aN:
YZ * = “gy = SKY z E WY :
s > = ie S z
Ww Ps w . z= tp) », <
RIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLINS S3IuVUa ig
rm) = no ra Wh 7) =
Ee os een Deacons 6). (628 | mticvan ee ge ae

‘Published Poni by the
Univeiiy: of the ee of New York

BULLETIN 304 DECEMBER 1903

—-—$<—$—$—$ ———— ——_——

N eW York State Museum »

FREDERICK J. H. MERRILL Director
is EPHRAIM PORTER FELT State Entomologist

Bulletin 72

ENTOMOLOGY 19

GRAPEVINE ROOT WORM

UY

EPHRAIM PORTER FELT D.Sc.

PAGE PAGE
BIG OUAC Ris ee crates techs oo 8 Z ES oe or |= Warietiss aikectedens .< ...aaece eae 30
MraGLOMmChOTe erste Nees esac cesta e Om Grapeberty. moth) Seeaeranae 31
Area infested...... a eO EEO ati 62> Natinalenemiesa: .. .. aces see 32
Signs of insect’s presence....... 6 | Remedial measures ..... etter an 33
PAG MAINE SCCUES io Sei. nas eee =I) Destroying the: pupae. .)ce as - 33
FROLLIES 5 aS I oa Ra 8 Coffectine beetles aa etess tact 34
Present conditions in Ohio...... 9 AT SETITeAl* POISONS. ss). so ocy- we ace 39
Haaiy Mistorytt noses oo. tes 11 | Destruction of eggs............. 44
/Description...* ... SU ee 13, Pulverizingthesoilandmounding 45 ,
MEARE USS ER V A SS tse oot wk oe LP jones Carbon: bisulfd: . ! oe. one eae 45
itiabirsror tie beetle... 30s. as 15 kéGrosene enulciont..5 os. osae 46
1) ENS, aici ie a RR ols) Came petroleniis.. . ae. ae 46
Habits of the grubs or larvae.... 23 Calcium, carbids:.- fisceace re 46
TEL io op aes eee geet aes 25 Recommendations.............. 47
Experimental work in 1903........ AG- |e Ribearapiiy 7.8 <5. so eetariyec a 47
Record of cage experiments..... 27 | Explanation of plates............. 50
Bact ater by pectic catcher... 29) "| Andes 0s. co. hrc sein Roe eee 53
LP CICA OER ONS, Sis Aa ee a eae aie a Oy | BLASS lS Orch ca wares eee face 52
: of rs
anseninn Iwate;
ALBANY se %
: ; "7 ;
UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE oF Nitw ¥6kk ( 1904
1903 G3b15.

A\
Mel12m-S3-2500 rie torn

1892

1878
1877
1877
1881
1881
1883

1885
1890
1890
1893
1895
1895

1897
1900
1901
1901
1902
1903
1903
1903
1903

University of the State of New York
REGENTS
With years of election
WILLIAM CROSWELL DOANE D.D. LL. D.
Chancellor, Albany
WHITELAW REID M.A. LL.D. Vice Chancellor, New York

CHAUNCEY M. DEPEW LL.D. - - - - New York
CHARLES Bo PircHeke LB; M/A... HD. - Rochester
WILLIAM H. Watson M.A. M.D. LL.D. - Utica
HENRY E. TuRNER LL.D. - - - - Lowville
St CLaArR McCKELway M.A. 1,.H.D. LL.D.

D.C... Brooklyn

DANIEL BEACH Ph.D. LL.D. - - - Watkins
PLINY DASE xX TON wy lD. - - - Palmyra
T. GuinForD SmrtH M.A. C.E. LL.D. - Buffalo
Lewis A. Stimson B.A. LL.D. M.D. - - New York
ALBERT VANDER VEER M.A. Ph.D. M.D. - Albany
CHARLES R. SKINNER M.A. LL.D.

Superintendent of Public Instruction, ex officio

CHESTER S. LorpD M.A. LL.D... - = - Brooklyn
THomaAs A. HENDRICK M.A. LL.D.~— - - Rochester
BENJAMIN B. ODELL JR LL.D. Governor, ex officio

ROBERT C. PRUYN M.A. - - - - Albany
WILLIAM NorrincHAm M.A. Ph.D. LL.D. - Syracuse
FRANK W. Hiccins Lieutenant Governor, ex officio

JouHN F. O’BRIEN Secretary of State, ex officio

CHARLES A. GARDINER LL.B. M.A. Ph.D. LL.D. New York
CHARLES S. FRANCIS B.S. - - - - Troy

One vacancy

SECRETARY
Elected by Regents

1900 JamMES RUSSELL Parsons JR M.A. LL.D.

DIRECTORS OF DEPARTMENTS

1888 Metvit, Dewey M.A. LL.D. State Library and Home Education
1890 James RUSSELL PARSONS JR M.A. LL.D.

Administrative, College and High School Dep’ ts

1890 FREDERICK J. H. MERRILI, Ph.D. State Museum

University of the State of New York

a a

New York State Museum

Freperick J. H. Merrity Director
EPHRAIM Porter Feit State Entomologist

Bulletin 72

ENTOMOLOGY 19

GRAPEVINE ROOT WORM

PREFACE

The grapevine root worm has proved itself such a destruc-
tive enemy of vineyards in the Chautauqua grape belt, and so
little success has attended efforts to control it, that it was deemed
advisable in 1902 to undertake an investigation of this insect.
The work of last year was embodied in Museum bulletin 59,
and the material additions to our knowledge of this pest, gained
in 1908, have rendered it advisable to issue an extended and re-
vised edition of our previous publication, because the subject is of
such vital importance that our growers should have all avail-
able information at their disposal. Many valuable facts have
been ascertained during the last two seasons; and the additional
data gained in 1903 demonstrate the value of timely cultivation
and prove that collecting the beetles is practical, the most re-
liable and probably the most economical method of controlling
this very serious enemy of the vine.

Through the courtesy of the Hon. C. A. Wietme commissioner
of agriculture, the entomologist has been able to avail himself
of the services of nursery inspector J. Jay Barden who has co-
operated with the writer very efficiently, and most of the field
investigations were carried on with the assistance of this gentle
man. Acknowledgment is due Mr D. K. Falvay of Westfield, who
kindly placed a portion of his excellent vineyard at our disposal
and cooperated with us most efficiently, thereby not only bene-
fiting himself but aiding materially in demonstrating a practical

4 NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM

method of controlling this pest, after it had become well estab-
lished in a vineyard. The breeding cage and other office experi-
ments have been conducted under the writer’s direction by his
first assistant, Mr C. M. Walker, aided by the second assistant,
Mr D. B. Young. The author is also under obligations to
Prof. Percy J. Parrott, entomologist of the Ohio Agricultural
Experiment Station, and Prof. A. F. Burgess, chief San José
scale inspector of Ohio, who kindly accompanied him in his
investigation of conditions in that state in 1902 and supplied
additional information in 1903.
HK. P. Fer
Albany N. Y. September 1903

GRAVEVINE ROOT WORM
Fidia viticida Walsh
Ord. Coleoptera Fam. Chrysomelidae
INTRODUCTION :

The control of this pest in the Chautauqua grape belt is a
serious problem which we have attempted to solve. The inséct
has, in recent years, caused enormous damages in the Ohio grape
belt and now occurs in large numbers in Portland, Westfield
and Ripley and has obtained a foothold over a large area.
Messrs Walter Northrop and F. A. Morehouse estimated in the
spring of 1902 that over 80 acres of magnificent vineyards had
been destroyed or ruined by the pest in the vicinity of Ripley,
and our investigations at the present time show that the area
of severe injury and damage is constantly increasing, and is
liable to much greater extension in the next few years. We con-
sider this insect a much more serious enemy of the vineyard than
the well known grapevine leaf hopper or white fly,1 the work of
which was so apparent and destructive in 1902 and the pre-
ceding two or three years. This leaf hopper undoubtedly causes
much mischief, but, as its operations are confined to the leaves, the
amount of damage is easily seen and, when necessary, steps |
may be taken to control it. The root worm on the other hand .
inflicts its most serious injuries under ground, where its opera-
tiens can not be readily observed, and in a great many instances
a vine or an entire vineyard is entirely ruined before the grower
observes any trouble. This pest only requires two or three years
to ruin a vineyard; and this, in connection with the secrecy of
its work and the feeding of the grubs on the large roots, where
a small amount of girdling is fatal, renders it a most dangerous
enemy. Worst of all, this insect exhibits a decided preference
for the more thrifty vineyards and is found most abundantly on
or beneath the most vigorous vines. We believe that 15 or 20
grubs about a vine or as many beetles on its foliage are sufficient
to warrant the adoption of vigorous measures for the suppression
of the pest, though we are well aware that many more are fre-

'Typhlocyba comes var. vitis Harris

6 NEW YORK STATH MUSEUM

quently seen in a vineyard still alive. The marvelous prolificacy
of the insect, as demonstrated by our studies, justifies the belief
that even a relatively small number are sufficient to threaten the ~
welfare-of a vineyard.

The season of 1902 was unusually favorable to vine growth,
and the same is true of the past summer, a condition for which
the grower should be thankful, since it has enabled the vines
to withstand insect attacks more successfully.

Area infested. Ripley appears to be the original center of
this insect’s most destructive work, though it has been found
generally present in small, numbers in many vineyards where
little evidence of serious injury occurs. The pest very probably
made its way into the Chautauqua grape belt from Ohio; and
our investigations in 1908 show that it is present in greater or
less numbers from the state line as far east as Sheridan, if not
farther and from the lake shore to the top of the adjacent hills.
We have also found it in small numbers in Hudson river valley
vineyards at Highland and Milton.

Signs of the insect’s presence. The more destructive work of
this pest is somewhat difficult to detect, and is usually indicated
by a weakness in vines and a marked decrease in the amount of
new wood. The indications of the presence of the beetles are so
characteristic that there should be little trouble in locating them.
The peculiar chainlike eaten areas, represented in numbers on
plate 6, are very characteristic of the insect and differ so much
from the work of most other pests that no difficulty should be
experienced in identifying it. The beetles show a decided prefer-
ence for leafy vines, and the general appearance of some very
badly eaten ones is shown on plate 5. The feeding of the beetle
is usually the first visible indication of its presence and is not
accompanied at the outset by signs of material injury. As the
attack progresses and the work on the roots becomes more in-
jurious, the development of the fruit is severely checked and
the bunches may be less than half their normal size. The growth
of wood is also much reduced,:and vines which are very badly
infested may die in midsummer. Cases were brought to the
writer’s attention where plants which had grown over 6 feet of
wood the preceding summer, wilted in June and died. Infested
vines as a general thing become less thrifty, develop less and

GRAPHVINE ROOT WORM 7

less wood yearly till finaily there is not enough to tie up. A
portion of a vineyard very seriously injured and where there is
not wood enough to tie up is represented on plate 3. This con-
dition rapidly becomes worse, and soon, usually in two or three
years after the insect has been present in numbers, there is no
wood, and the vines are simply a small mass of foliage resting
on an old stump as represented on plate 4.

The depredations of this pest are much more serious and
usually first apparent on light sandy or poor soils, and in particu-
lar on gravelly knolls, though we have found the beetles much
more abundant in rich, low, though not wet hollows. The insects
seem to thrive under such conditions, and a deficient growth
should lead to immediate investigation. Vines on rich clay soils
in our experience are less injured by this pest, due probably to
their greater resistant powers; and this appears to be the case
in Ohio. It should be remembered that vineyards on heavy
clay lands are not exempt from attack and should be ctosely
watched and, if necessary, active measures employed to keep the
number of beetles below the danger point.

The roots also afford a clue to the identity of the depredator.
The young grubs eat away the small feeding branches, while the
larger individuals gnaw the bark, particularly from the under-
side of the larger roots. They frequently eat away long strips,
as represented on plate 1, figure 5, though occasionally a single
grub may work along a somewhat sinuous path.

A native species. This serious pest of the vineyards is not,
like many of the forms so injurious to agriculturists, an im-
ported insect. It has long been known to occur in this country
and its work on wild grapevines was observed before its depre-
dations attracted notice in our vineyards. This insect may
develop into a general pest of the grape and perhaps in time
come to be as well known as the very destructive Colorado
potato beetle, which is familiar to almost every farmer. It is
very probable that this grape enemy was able to exist only in
relatively small numbers on wild vines and hence was rarely
very injurious. It seems to have developed a great fondness
for some of our cultivated varieties, and the growing of these
in large areas has enabled it to increase to an almost unparal-
leled degree. This may perhaps be cited as one of the cases

8 NEW YORK &STATH MUSEUM

where the devotion of extensive tracts to one crop has resulted
after years in a species formerly harmless becoming very
destructive.

It is interesting to note in this connection that the insect is
by no means new to New York State. There are examples of
the beetles in the private collection of the late J. A. Lintner,
which were taken in Schenectady in 1880 and on Virginia creeper
at Albany in 1882, and yet so far as known there is no record
of the species proving destructive in this section. The writer
also met with the insect at Albany in considerable numbers on
Virginia creeper in 1901, and, though he has frequently visited
vineyards in the vicinity, no signs of the insect were observed.
It is very possible that the death of vines in early years here
and there may have been caused by this beetle and attributed
by growers to other agencies, as was the case before Professor
Webster discovered the identity of the depredator in Ohio.

Allies. This species belongs to the jarge family of leaf-eating
beetles, known as the Chrysomelidae, a group which comprises
some of our most destructive insects. To it belongs the notorious
elm leaf beetle a species which has destroyed thousands
of magnificient shade trees in the Hudson river valley, and
may in a few years become a most serious enemy to elms in other
sections of the State. The two asparagus beetles,? are well known
enemies to the grower of this succulent vegetable. The familiar
yellow and black striped squash bug? is another ally of this
destructive grape pest, which is sometimes aided in its deadly
work by the steely or grapevine flea beetle,t a species which has
caused great injury in some New York vineyards during recent
years. A number of other related forms, nearly as injurious as
those named, could be easily listed. These destructive allies are
mentioned in this connection simply that the grape grower may
have some idea of what related species can do; and, while this
pest may not prove so generally injurious as any of these, it
has already demonstrated its ability to cause much mischief.
We see no reason at present for thinking that the history of this

'Galerucella luteola Mill.

*Crioceris asparagi Linn. andC. 12-punctata Linn.
*Diabrotica vittata Fabr.

*‘“Haltica chalybea Ig.

GRAPEVINE ROOT WORM 9

insect in Ohio may not be duplicated in the Chautauqua grape
belt, and perhaps in other sections of the State where this fruit
is largely grown.

Present conditions in Ohio. The destructive work of this serious
pest has been known in Ohio for some years. It was first
brought to the attention of Professor Webster in 1898. The
similarity of conditions existing between the Ohio grape belt
and the Chautauqua region led the entomologist to believe that
valuable data could be secured by personally investigating the
present status of the insect in Ohio. This interesting section
was visited about the middle of September 1902, and much valu-
able information secured through the kindly cooperation of
Prof. P. J. Parrott, entomologist of the Ohio Agricultural Experi-
ment Station, Prof. A. F. Burgess, chief San José scale inspector,
and a number of prominent growers. The local knowledge of
conditions possessed by the two gentlemen named enabled us to
visit the sections of most importance with very little loss of
time. Some very precise and significant statements were
obtained in 1902 from Mr T. S. Clymonts of Cleveland O., who is
not only a grower but also a dealer and one who undoubtedly has
as good a general knowledge of local conditions as any one in
that section. He stated that in the Ohio belt, extending east
and west of Cleveland, from Painesville to Avon and reaching
_back 5 miles from the lake, there had been a reduction in ship-
ments of fully two thirds during recent years. In i894, 2000
carloads of grapes were shipped from that section. This was
reduced in 1900 to 900 and in 1901 to 600. Mr Clymonts esti-
mated the output for 1902 at not over 500 carloads.

He stated that this reduction is due to various causes, the
principal ones being the ravages of the grape root worm, the
destruction caused by rot, and the prevailing low prices. He
attributed fully one third of the entire reduction to the beetles’
work and instanced a number of cases where vineyards of con-
siderable size had been killed by the operations of this pest. He
mentioned one vineyard of 60 acres, another of 25 acres, and
stated that innumerable small pieces had been destroyed by the
work of this insect, and added that the yield of one 60 acre
vineyard had been cut from 10-12 carloads to 35-40 tons by its

10 NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM

operations. Mr Clymonts’s observations led him to thiuk that as .
a rule the younger vineyards, specially those planted in the last
10 or 12 years, suffered most, and that the old ones escaped with
comparatively little harm. The most destructive work observed —
by him had been on sandy soil, or on ridges in other pieces. He
also stated that vines set in an infested vineyard to fill vacancies
do not thrive and are usually killed by the insect. A recent com-
munication, Aug. 27, 1903, states that nothing has developed the
present year to make it advisable to modify any of the above
statements. ; ;

Mr J. W. Maxwell of Euclid stated in 1902 that 50% of the
vineyards were dead in that section, and that in his opinion a
large proportion of them died as a result of the operations of this
insect. His crop of grapes in a large vineyard was reduced
fully one fourth, the most of which he attributed to this pest.
He stated that the Wordens and Brightons were killed first,
while the Concords and Catawbas were not so badly injured.
He also adds, in a letter dated Aug. 29, 1903, that renewing a
vineyard with Niagara vines seems to be quite a success, since
800 roots set two years ago in vacancies all lived and have done
well. We hope this will continue to be the case, but in the
writer’s opinion these recently set vines have just reached a very
attractive condition, so far as the beetle is concerned, and he is
afraid that injury may result in a year or two.

Mr W. H. Slade of East Cleveland estimated in 1902 that one >
fourth of the vineyards in that section had been destroyed by
this insect pest. and according to his observations the Wordens
and Catawbas suffered more than the Concords. The most seri-
ous damage in his experience was met with on the lighter soil of
knolls.

Mr W. W. Dille of Nottingham was of the opinion in 1902 that
there has been a decrease in recent years of 40% in the area
devoted to grapes. He attributed this shrinkage about equally
to the rot, which had been very prevalent, to the operations of
the grape root worm, and prevailing low prices. He stated that
the insect injuries had been limited mostly to the biuff and to
vineyards in the near vicinity of the lake shore, those back and
just under the bluff escaping with comparatively little damage.
He considers the Concord as one of the most resistant varieties.

GRAPEVINE ROOT WORM 11

A number of other growers were interviewed in 1902, and some
disparity of opinion naturally prevailed. It will be seen, how-
ever, that there are a number of well informed men in that sec-
tion who attribute very serious injuries to this insect; and,
while the estimates of scme may be excessive, there can be no
doubt that the pest has caused very serious losses. The season
of 1902 was unfavorable for observing the work of this pest
because the repeated rains enabled the vines to sustain much
greater injury than they would in times when there was less
moisture. These conditions prevented the making of personal
observations on the destructiveness of the insect, and most of
our data relating to this had to be obtained from the evidence
of others.

Considerable attention was also given to the various remedial
measures employed by different growers, and some diversity of
opinion existed. A number had sprayed their vines with arsenate
of lead and also with bordeaux mixture. A few were of the
opinion that spraying with arsenate of lead is a very efficient
check on the increase of the insect, while others believed that it
was of comparatively little value. Mr T. S. Clymonts stated that
spraying with the bordeaux mixture alone affords some pro-
tection, as the beetles migrate to untreated vines. This subject
will be discussed more at length under “ Remedial measures.”
Most of the growers agree that thorough cultivation assists the
vines greatly in resisting the depredations of the grubs. Those
on whose premises carbon bisulfid was used were not favorably
impressed with the substance. They state that in any event the
cost of application is excessive considering the prevailing low
prices for grapes. Considerable injury was caused in certain
vineyards by carbon bisulfid, and it is very doubtful if this meas-
ure can be used to advantage.

Early history. This insect was first brought to notice in 1866
when specimens were sent from Kentucky to Mr B. D. Walsh,
afterward state entomologist of Illinois. This gentleman stated
at the time that he had taken the beetle in small numbers in
both north and south Illinois, and later in the same year described
the species. He also received the insect the following year from
St Louis and Bluffton Mo., where the adults were said to be
eating both foliage and fruit. Prof. C. V. Riley, in his first

12 NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM

report on the Injurious and Beneficial Insects of Missouri, char-
acterizes this species as one of the worst foes to the grapevine in
Missouri. This condemnation was based solely on the operations
of the beetle on the leaves, an injury which is now regarded as
of little importance compared with the work on the roots. Pro-
fessor Riley received specimens from Bunker Hill Ill. in 1870,
and in 1873 Mr G. R. Crotch described the insect! and gave its
recorded distribution as the Middle and Southern states. The
identity of the species described by Mr Crotch and this insect
was pointed out by Dr Horn in 1892, when he recorded its dis-
tribution as the ‘ Middle states to Dakota, Florida and Texas.”
He aiso states that the insect: described by Lefevre? belongs to
this species. This pest was received from the vicinity of lowa
City Ia. by Prof. H. F. Wickham in 1888, and Professor Riley
has recorded this form and an allied one? as injuring grape leaves
at Vineland Ark.

Nothing further was known regarding this species till 1898,
when specimens were sent to Prof. F. M. Webster, then of the
Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, who made an exhaustive
study of the insect and published a detailed account of his inves-
tigations in 1895.

Injuries by this insect in the state of Arkansas were recorded
by Prof. J. T. Stinson in 1896, and in the same year Professor
Webster notes a decrease in the numbers of the pest in Ohio
vineyards and attributes it as possibly due to the efficient work
of two egg parasites and a small mite. The following year
Messrs Webster and Mally reported, as a result of a series of
experiments, that tobacco dust and kainit were practically in-
effective against this insect, and two years later these gentlemen
record the unusual abundance of the pest in Ohio vineyards, and
state that serious injuries occurred at Bloomington Ill. . The
presence of this beetie in destructive numbers in the Chautauqua
grape belt was recorded by Prof. M. V. Slingerland in 1900,
who at that time published a general compiled account of the
insect. Dr J. B. Smith, in his Catalog of the Insects of New

*Fidia murina Crotch

*Fidia lurida Lefevre

*Fidia longipes Melsh
*‘Heteropus ventricosus Newport

GRAPEVINE ROOT WORM 13

Jersey states that this species occurs throughout New Jersey
on the grape and Virginia creeper or Ampelopsis, and he also
records it from Staten Island. A brief note published by Dr
L. O. Howard in 1901 states that the depredations of this insect
at Bloomington Il]. continue unabated and severe damage to
vineyards is recorded. The writer, in the early spring of 1902,
published a brief notice of the extent of the injuries in the Chau-
tauqua grape belt with a summary of the life history of the pest
and outlined a series of experiments for that year, which are
reported on in detail in this bulletin together with the results
obtained in 1903.
; DESCRIPTION

The perfect insect is a small, brown, rather robust beetle
about + inch in length and rather densely covered with short
grayish white hairs. It may be recognized by aid of plate 1,
figure 1. ' :

The egg is about 5}, inch in length with a transverse diameter
about one fourth as great. Form, nearly cylindric, tapering
a trifle at each end. The shell is fiexible, and, when a number
of eggs are crowded in a small space, they may become somewhat
distorted. The eggs are white when first deposited, but soon
assume a yellowish cast. On the fourth day a narrow semitrans-
parent band appears near each end. The eggs of the clusters
normally have a somewhat concentric arrangement, and range
in number from 1 to 125. Several clusters are represented on
plate 1, figure 3.

The young larva is creamy white, about ;, inch in length and
‘tapers somewhat posteriorly. The head is a pale, yellowish
color with the mouth parts ranging from light to dark brown,
the sutures and tips of the mandibles having the most color.
The head is somewhat flattened, bilobed and with the posterior
angles rounded. The mandibles are distinctly toothed. The
body is sliglitly smaller than the head, convoluted and distinctly
segmented. Each segment bears a transverse row of small
tubercles, from each of which a long hair arises. The spiracles,
or breathing pores, are darker than the body and usually light
yellow.

The nearly full grown grub resembles the newly hatched
individuals very much in general form and color. It is then

14 NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM

about 2 inch in length, with a yellowish brown head and the
mouth parts and adjacent sutures dark brown or nearly black.
The body has a greater transverse diameter than the head, is
distinctly segmented and bears numerous irregular transverse
rows of small setae, which are relatively much shorter than in
recently hatched individuals. The spiracles are well marked and
range in color from yellowish brown to light brown. The gen-
eral appearance of the grub is shown on plate 1, figure 4. Its
white color and curled form suggest the common white grub, in
spite of its much smaller size.

The pupa ranges in length from about + to 4 inch and its
general features are represented on plate 1, figure 6. It may be
recognized by its white color with a pinkish tint about the head,
thorax and posterior extremity. The head is adorned with a semi-
circular row of four spines, the middle two being ijarger and
nearly erect, the others smaller and more divergent. There is
a similar row near the anterior margin of the thorax, though
the curve is not so pronounced as on the head. Just behind this
latter row there is a cluster of four smaller, nearly erect spines
placed in pairs, the posterior being more widely separated. The
anterior femora is armed at its tip with a stout hook, while above
and at one side is a single straight, hair-tipped spine with some-
times a second one below. The posterior femora is likewise
armed with a stout hook and with two hair-tipped spines. At
the posterior extremity, there are two fiattened, stout spines pro-
jecting dorsally. The penultimate seg-
ment is armed with a pair of small,
median spines with a smaller pair of
closely placed ones on each side, and on
the antepenultimate there is a median
cluster of tour closely placed, hair-
tipped spines, the inner two being
smaller. There is also a lateral spine
on each side [fig. 1]. The other seg-

Fie. 1 Posterior segments of z :
pupa (original) ments are each provided with a single

transverse row of minute, short bristles, and on the scutellum
there is a median pair of larger ones.

This pupa may be known by its general form and coloration,
and by the peculiar arrangement of the spines at its posterior
extremity, as shown in the figure.

GRAPEVINE ROOT WORM 15

LIFE HISTORY

The life history of this insect may be summarized as follows:

The winter is passed by the nearly full grown grubs in oval
cells in the soil, and so far as our observations go the great
majority of them occur from 10 to 12 inches below the surface
and mostly near or in the subsoil. On the approach of warm
weather, the grubs work upward, probably early in May in most
years, and are then mostly within a few inches of the surface
and usually within 15 to 24 inches of the stem of the grapevine,
though some, and occasionally large numbers, may be found near
the middle of the row. Usually very little feeding is done
in the spring. The transformation to the pupa occurs in normal
seasons from about June 1 to 20, the adults issuing approxi-
mately two weeks later or from about June 20 onward. The
great majority of the beetles appear the last of June or early in
July, though some do not emerge till the last of the month and
in rare instances much later. A pupa was met with Aug. 15,
1902, and the adults have been found in New York vineyards as
‘late as September and even in October. The latter are probably
from belated larvae. The eggs are mostly laid in July and August
under the loose bark of last year’s wood and require a period of
about two weeks to hatch. The young grubs make no attempt to
craw! down but drop, and working under the loose soil make their
way to the small feeding roots, where under favorable conditions
they grow rapidly and after increasing considerably in size attack
the larger roots, eating away long strips of the bark [pl. 1, fig. 5]. —
The latter, when a large number of grubs are present, may rest
simply on a bed of borings. Many of the grubs attain nearly full
size the latter part of August or early in September. Late in the
fall the larvae descend to considerable depths, as previously noted,
‘construct their oval cells and pass the winter within them.

Habits of the beetle. The habits of the beetle are of special
interest because it is practicable to collect these insects and thus
in a large measure prevent egg-laying and consequent damage
from the grubs. Professor Webster states that the beetles
normally begin to appear in northern Ohio about June 20. This
agrees closely with our observations. The season of 1902 was
remarkably late, and very few beetles were observed previous to

16 NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM

July 2, while in 1903 a few were taken June 19. Their first
appearance was on light soil, and the insects did not begin to
emerge in numbers on heavy land till nearly a week later. Our
cage experiments [see table on p. 27] show that over 92% of the
beetles appeared within two weeks after the first were taken,
and practically none after July 21. In other words, out
of 506 bred from under two vines, 477 emerged by July 21.
The issuing of the insects is undoubtedly considerably modi-
fied by temperature, as demonstrated by the beetles appearing in
unusually large numbers on the 26th, which was a bright, warm
day. The time of appearance and the fact that a large propor-
tion of the insects issue from the ground within two weeks are
of much importance, if anything is to be done by collecting the
insects. The beetles appear to emerge and remain on the foliage,
particularly around buds, several days before they feed to any
extent. Breeding cage experiments have fixed this period at from
one to four days. Two beetles which actually emerged under
observation refused food till the fourth day, and it is very prob-
able that this period is nearly the normal time between the
emergence of the beetles and feeding. A considerable number
may be found before any feeding has taken place, as is evidenced
_ by Mr Barden taking 12 from a vine which bore practically no
marks of their eating. The insects may be found in a field over
an extended period, which is not surprising in view of the fact
that a beetle may live over nine weeks, as demonstrated by us
. this year. Some were observed by Mr T. T. Neill Sep. 4, 1902,
in a vineyard at Fredonia, and Mr F. A. Morehouse states that
he met with individuals in October 1902.

Oviposition does not occur till some days after the appear-
ance of the perfect insects, and according to breeding cage obser-
vations this period may range from 10 to 17 days. Our breeding
cage experiments also indicate that the insect may feed from
6 to 13 days before eggs are deposited. This period was carefully
ascertained by isolating a series of males and females and pro-
viding them with as nearly natural conditions as possible. Both
of these periods are much longer than normal, since eggs were
found by Mr Barden in the Northrop vineyard July 9, 1902,
where beetles were present in very small numbers on the 2d.
This allows a maximum of only seven days between the appear-

GRAPEVINHD ROOT WORM 17

ance of the earliest insects and the laying of eggs; and, if, as
can hardly be questioned, the insects remain without taking food
for two or three days, then the time of feeding before the deposi-
tion of. eggs can hardly exceed an equal period. The first beetles
were observed in 1903 on June 19, and a few contained nearly
developed eges July 2, at which time it was very warm and there
were many pairing, and eggs were deposited a day or two later,
making about two weeks between the appearance of the first
beetles and the deposition of eggs. This period is a little longer
than was the case in 1902, but even then does not equal our breed-
ing cage records. ‘This matter is of considerable importance
because it shows how quickly collecting must be done or poisons
must act in order to prevent the deposition of many eggs.

The feeding of the beetles occurs almost entirely on the upper
surface of the leaves and, as described by Professor Webster,
“is done by gathering a quantity of the substance of the leaf in
the mandibles and jerking the head upwards, after which the
body is moved a step forward and another mouthful of food
secured as before. After securing a few mouthfuls in this way,
they move to another place and begin again, thus eating out
numerous chainlike rows of silk net” as shown on plates 5 and
6. “The insects usually eat only to the lower epidermis on
foliage having a velvety undersurface, but on others they eat
entirely through the leaf.” The beetles are shy and retiring by
nature and feed largely in sheltered places or among the grow-
ing tips, both difficult places to hit with a spray. A favorite
retreat of the insects is among the tendrils clinging to the top
wire. Many of those feeding on the leaves are easily frightened,
and when alarmed usually fold up their legs and fall to
the ground, where they remain quiet till all danger appears to
have passed. They can spring readily either with the legs or
when inverted by suddenly opening the wing covers and pro-
jecting themselves from the hand or other support. The beetles
on the canes, however, are not so easily disturbed. They can
frequently be picked from the vine, and it requires repeated
jarring to dislodge all. This is of considerable importance when
collecting beetles with any machine, and the persistence with

which some hang to the wood is an objection to this method of

18 NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM

controlling the insect. They are, however, much more easily
jarred from the vines on warm days.

The tendency of this species to remain in a locality for a time,
at least, is well shown in a certain vineyard at Ripley. It had
suffered very severely in earlier years from the depredations of.
this pest and a portion of it was uprooted in the spring of 1902.
A small area was allowed to remain in the hope that it could be
brought back to a normal condition. A few rows next to the
uprooted area were fed on to a very great extent by the beetles,
which had evidently emerged from the adjacent soil and made
their way to the nearest vines, where they were content to remain
and feed. The extensive injury inflicted on these vines is well
illustrated on plate 5, which shows how badly many of the leaves
were riddled. A curious fact in connection with the abundance
of the beetles on these small vines is that few or no eggs
could be found, probably due to the small amount of wood.
Observations have shown that while there is undoubtedly a con-
nection between the amount of feeding and the number of eggs
laid, such is not necessarily true of the feeding and the number
of eggs or grubs on particular vines. This is a matter of some im-
portance because many growers are inclined to estimate the num-
ber of grubs at the roots by the amount of feeding on the foliage,
whereas it frequently occurs that more grubs are found under
vines with foliage but little eaten than under those which bear
evidence of excessive feeding. This tendency of the insects to
remain in a locality for a time is favorable to local control, since
it gives an opportunity to destroy them by collecting before there
is much dispersion. Such opportunities should be embraced
promptly, because it is well known that at times the beetles
fly to a considerable extent. Mr Schonfeldt has called the
writer’s attention to an instance where numbers of the insects
suddenly appeared on some vines close to his house. They were
so numercus that the rattling as they struck the foliage attracted
the notice of Mrs Schonfeldt, who called her husband’s attention
to the sound. The day was warm, and consequently the beetles
flew rapidly. As a rule, we believe, dispersion occurs more by a
wandering individual flight than by movements in swarms. There
is a marked tendency among the beetles to desert unthrifty vines,
probably because of the poor shelter they offer, and to attack the

GRAPEVINE ROOT WORM 19

more vigorous, thrifty vineyards. It may be that a slight over-
crowding, as in the case of some other insects, impels the beetles
to flight. This means that poor vines are relatively safe, while
the better ones are liable to injury and are consequently the
places where it is most important to control the insect. These
inflying beetles will lay eggs if conditions are favorable, and the
earlier they appear the more eggs will be deposited.

Eggs. The eggs of this insect are deposited almost entirely
under the loose bark of last year’s wood, many being found
as high as the top wire. Professor Webster states that over
700 have been taken from a single vine, and from a section 16
inches in length and an inch in diameter he took 225 eggs.
Once he found a few eggs pushed down between the earth’ and
the base of the vine, but we have failed to find eggs in any such
position. Beetles in confinement deposited eggs in crevices and
cavities of the wood and even on leaves. Eggs were found in the
field in 1902 as early as July 9, and oviposition was still in prog-
ress Aug. 15, and, though beeties were less abundant than three
weeks before, it was still easy to find individuals which con-
tained fully developed eggs. The first deposited in 1903 were
found about July 3, and in our indoor breeding cages oviposition
continued till into September. Experiments were planned, both
this year and last, to determine the duration of the period of
oviposition, the time when the eggs were laid and the total num-
ber deposited by females. A number of pairs of beetles were
isolated and provided daily with fresh food. The work in 1902
demonstrated ihat a number of beetles might continue to deposit
eggs for a period of over 40 days, and certain individuals from
seven to 13 days. These records gave totals of 187, 141 and 106
eges for individuals. This was interesting, but it was felt that
the limit had not been reached, and consequently the studies were
conducted on a more extended scale this year, and the results
more than justified the labor, as will be seen by the appended
table. .

20

NEW YORK STATH MUSEUM

Beetles taken at Wesifield July 2

Stock jar1

Oviposition experiments with Fidia 1903

Stock jar3

(409)} (179)
Wis |e ae
PAS IMMINCRe Ne eon ore

PRES Aven ates cs ete fy
30 75
450 150
300 175
400 150
650 100
200 250
150 40
175 45
SOngeaecee
RQ te ae.
175 125
D2 On Ratereees
PAO EN Rides eves te
62 175
25 | 10
30 35
200 | 50
264 50 |
185 300
70 25
G2 A gae ee se
ESO Mace leah 5
130 50
185 115
25 105

eninge 50
TOR eee

Se iSie | 76
75, | We alu

(os line

58 18

Toh anaes OS

Dvd Caweieea ens

PAS) Mts tho a oucice

SO rene

90 23
GON:

Tone ee

Sha ita
Open es

40 15

DOs ue eae

5 664 | 2 199
141 192

i Pair 1 Pair 5 Pair 19
July 4 | SOM cine ceaisena ee eee
5 | DLO eaten Teper Lae AE Ah,
6 | ALN RS Ae Usa Eel
eal PA Cy Wanita ees eal, a ae |
8 | AQ) Renata Ay PNA sey ae
9 | DAS slip ences Zoe 35
10 | SOMA ele ental eae tae ee
iil PASS APN Uses eukatiers ME PEC ores
12 SOM enero 10
13 PAS Yeeeah 10
es Sa RS a cee nes REA Ane Pe Daa a Oe
15 | SLT SU ea eRe ON AEE
TGs tees ee evacs TA Oral enti
Life eee ers ear teteeeUnnne aa MRT Sue GEN aes
18 | 33 PASAT CR Siu ak
aR Vom erreueaiararaney Ul iates TM categt | Oca an Ge
DA OW eesti NRO AHISSU aN eM al i ies
21 DA i) sexiest tala weg Ieee aN
PAA cee ye illu ent Sie 75
23 ASIN TR ihe RRS aka I INL ah
"24 | SOMA Mons 26
Qh ae Me RAE amma eames TIMER Cn ate
26 DAW aU iad cite ell diag ong a
27 PaO N(erausat areata ia goed sen a
DEINE TCR ONEONTA ana yesh bl a Beek eeD
29 PA DVRS ies ara ee Na Seat
BO} | atheersaeeaecien Care eee Neceinee (Mune esse
31 10 Onl ean nen tae
August he) 42 GOs ay ecu
Naa alpine se Se ea alo ogn ata lear a
Biles eo PAO Nansen yeti
4 | DAT eee aiersiten All dead.
lhe: ceases ROR CIME eee RRt eR Ape Cs
COE URE cre hat iain aie Ree PL ate LAL
10 DO eats aie Dae taal eey Set Neen
12 al6 TZ Ah aeetvay ee
13 PAN TAR Se MU ae ek AUR
14 | SOE eal eat aati ie
IES el Bui nee ig el le SU epee a Ea ia
17 CAA aati eats tn aa alata
aS a ARSE a te Un ee Pees IIE Rast
20 AB MNase cotiee elietrcaoea sia ae
PAN MSHT HORN AU Ari CRAIN TRS bad MESA i ad ava
22 SOM fault HEA Ne
24 | Dome Alle ads ewan:
D6 1) his a eS ee el |
September} 2 | DGig line wise ied ee ea
4 TD AN reac Se ee RUS cal eeeat crete
6 | Co lies (esac here na GON Nays lal
WL WG: dead iain ey vrs sccsn epee
|
mMOtalsian ee 902 342 156
Average per fe-
1201) ga eee MEG Ic MGIC ta yea’ al cA

a4.30°p. 1

eee ew ewe

eee ee ew ee

Cr

CeCe a

OO. Go oO 5

488

RSS A SS SE

GRAPEVINE ROOT WORM 21

An examination of the above record shows that one female
taken July 2 began laying eggs July 4 and from then to the 13th
deposited from 20 to 30 daily, and from the latter day onward
the eggs were laid usually at intervals of one to several days,
the periods of deposition being interspersed by intervals of feed-
ing. There seems to be a very direct connection between the
amount eaten and the number of eggs laid, which would be ex-
pected when it is remembered that a single female lived upward
of two months and during that time deposited the enormous
number of 902 eggs. This record is a striking testimory to the
care bestowed on the insects by Mr Walker, who had charge of
the breeding cage work. Analysis shows that 257, or over one
fourth of the total number, were laid during the first 10 days,
and 416, or nearly one half of the total number, in the first three
weeks. This record is undoubtedly exceptional and probably
approaches the maximum capacity of the insect, particularly in
the field. It will be seen, however, that one other female de-
posited 342 and another 156 eggs, while averages of beetles kept
in certain stock jars ranged from 141 to 192 and 488 to each
female, and an average based on the entire record gives nearly 175
for each female. This indicates that our highest record, 902, may
not be so very exceptional. A study of the entire number of
eges is not without interest, as it shows when the greatest num-
ber are deposited and consequently the time when the beetles
should be destroyed in order to obtain the maximum benefit.
A summarized table is given below.

Summary of oviposition record 1903

; A Stock Stock Check Per cent
DATE Pair 1 | Pair 5 | Pair 19' jar 1 jar 3 plant Total of total

July 4-18 321 165 55 | 2 987 | 1 110 435 | 5
July 19-31 179 PADS Nerve alee 1 403 810 758 | 3 175 728
July 4-31 500 190 95 | 4 390 | 1 920 | 1 193 | 8

Bae oe alae aie 902 | 342 | 156 | 5 664 | 2 199 | 1 955 |11 173
Average per fe-

TAC saa ee) Al 342 156 141 192 438

It will be seen from an examination of this that 5073 eggs were
deposited by all of the different beetles in the various jars be-
tween July 4 and 18 (or the first two weeks) making a total of

22, NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM

45% of the entire number, and that only 3175 were deposited be-
tween July 19 and 31 (or the following 12 days). It will also
be observed that 8248 eggs were deposited by all the beetles during
the month of July, and this amounts to over 73% of the entire
number produced by the beetles under observation. In other
words, a very large per cent of the eggs are deposited under
normal conditions during the first two weeks after the beeties
begin to lay, or during the first three or three and one half weeks
of their existence. There is then a decided drop during the next
10 or 12 days, and a much greater falling off in the following
weeks. ‘This record probably represents very closely indeed what
actually occurs in the field and emphasizes the necessity of de-
stroying the insects early in their career, though it will be ob-
served that considerable protection results even if the pests are
not killed till three or four weeks after they appear above ground.
The beetles which made the records both this year and last
were confined in jelly tumblers or fruit jars and were daily sup-
plied with small pieces of cane and fresh leaves. Careful records
were kept of all insects taken from the individual tumblers as
well as the large breeding jars, and, while the conditions were by
no means normal, it is manifest that valuable results were ob-
tained. In nature, it is probable that natural causes would
result in the death of many individuals early in their career, and
the same is true in the breeding jars, though deaths in the latter
are usually the result of confinement and unnatural conditions.
One to a certain extent offsets the other, and the above records
may be considered as giving a fair idea of what actually occurs
in the field. :
Our observations on eggs laid in breeding jars showed that
they are deposited in masses of from 1 to 125, the latter being
the largest number observed in one cluster. A normal egg mass
‘measures about 4 inch in length and less than one half that
in breadth. The somewhat concentric arrangement of the eggs
is shown on plate 1, figure 3. The rows of eggs often over-
lap each other like shingles, and in the center of the mass there
is frequently an appearance of two or three layers. The egg
clusters are sometimes deposited so that two thirds of the
branch is encircled, and in each case the whole mass is covered
with a sticky substance, which glues each egg to the other in

GRAPEVINE ROOT WORM 23

such a manner that the whole may be easily detached from the
vine, as is often the case when a strong wind is blowing.

The duration of the egg stage was determined by repeated
observations both last year and this as from 9 to 12 days, about
one day being required for an entire mass of eggs to develop after
hatching commenced. We were also able to verify Professor
Webster’s observation on the appearance of a narrow semitrans-
parent band or line near each end of the egg four days after
Ovipesition. Small numbers of empty egg shells, indicating that
hatching had begun, were found in Mr G. L. Hough’s vineyard
July 24, 1902; and it is very probable that in Mr Clyde Dean’s
vineyard at Portland, where conditions are about a week earlier,
young grubs had appeared some time before.

Habits of the grubs or larvae. The young larvae, after they
hatch from the eggs, drop to the ground, as observed by Professor
Webster and corroborated in our own experience. There seems
to be very little or no attempt on the part of these tiny creatures
. to crawl down the stalk. A recently hatched grub is such a small
creature that it rapidly makes its way into any crevice or crack,
and when it drops on loose earth soon disappears from sight.
Earlier writers have recommended the covering of the roots of
grapevines as deeply as practicable at the time the young hatch,
so as to present more obstacles to the grubs when making their
way to the roots. This suggested to the writer some experi-
ments to determine the burrowing and traveling powers of these
little creatures. One small grub was placed on a piece of paper
at 9.27 in the morning and its wanderings carefully traced with
a pencil till 4.48 in the afternoon. The little creature traveled
almost continuously during that entire period and showed a de-
cided tendency to turn to tke left. It covered the relatively enor-
mous distance of over 47 feet in seven hours, or an average of
about 2 yards an hour. . The grub was placed in a dry vial, and
under such unfavorable conditions lived about three days. This
would seem to indicate that the little creatures can make their
way over many obstacles if not confronted by very unfavorable
conditions.

Some tests were also planned to ascertain the burrowing
powers of these little grubs. A glass tube 17 inches long and
4 inch in diameter was bent so that 4 inches were vertical.
It was then filled with loosely packed earth, and on July 29, 40

24. NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM

recently hatched grubs were placed on the surface of the soil
in the 4 inch vertical portion. One grub had made its way
through the entire mass of soil by July 31, another by Aug. 1,
and 11 others by the 3d, making a total of 13 which had traveled
the whole length of this tube in a period of four days.

Another 4 inch tube, 10 inches long with 34 inches vertical and
64 inches of its length horizontal was similarly packed and 13
grubs placed on the surface of the soil July 29. Four of these
had made their way throughout the entire length of the tube by
Aug. 3. Another tube 12 inches long, 4+ inch in diameter, with
24 inches of its length vertical and the remainder horizontal was
filled with tightly packed soil and a number of grubs placed in
it Aug. 1. On the 7th one grub had made its way through 7}
inches of this tightly packed material. It would seem from the
above experiments that, while a great many grubs undoubtedly
perish in making their way from the vine to the succulent roots
on which they feed, they are capable of overcoming great
obstacles, and the facts ascertained above at least raise a ques-
tion as to the advisability of attempting to interpose barriers
between the grub and the roots on which it feeds.

The young larvae or grubs are undecubtedly able to exist for
some time without food. They soon make their way when pos-
sible to the young feeding roots, where they may sometimes be
found in considerable numbers. The writer, in the middle of
August 1902, succeeded in finding eight of these little creatures
under a small bunch of feeding roots. They were less than one
quarter grown, and under larger roots near them several others
were found which were about half grown. Aug. 18, 1903, quarter
and nearly full grown grubs were found in some Westfield vine-
yards. The occurrence of few half grown larvae and of con-
siderable numbers of nearly full grown individuals the middle of
September 1902 indicates that these creatures develop very
rapidly after they have found suitable roots on which to feed.
_ The finding of a small grub scarcely 3, inch long July 2 shows
that some do not attain their full growth in the fall, since this
individual could not have hatched from an egg laid in 1902, as
the beetles had hardly begun to appear, and that such individuals
must feed to some extent in the spring. It seems probable that
these very small grubs produce the later emerging beetles and are

GRAPEVINE ROOT WORM 25

therefore responsible to a limited degree for the very extended
period during which adults are found abroad. Most of the grubs
complete or nearly complete their growth in the early fall, and on
the approach of cold weather descend deeper in the earth. Pro-
fessor Webster records finding the grubs a foot below the surface
in the spring, and our own observations indicate that they descend
nearly to that depth, where they pass the winter in small oval
cells. Their ascent in the spring occurs after the appearance of
warm weather and probably some time in early May. Experi-
ments in 1903 with grubs collected the latter part of April
demonstrated the ability of full grown and apparently half grown
larvae to complete their transformations with no more nourish-
ment than is found in ordinary garden soil in which there are no
grape roots. Those about quarter grown were not able to sur-
vive the test. On the other hand, some nearly full grown individ-
uals were observed last spring feeding on the roots to a slight
extent in our breeding cage.

Pupa. Professor Webster records the finding of a very few
pupae as early as the first week in June, and Mr Barden staies
that in 1902 he observed the first pupae at Ripley June 7, though
Mr Hough is of the opinion that the larvae began to transform
as early as June 4. The great majority of the insects had trans-
formed to this stage by June 28. The present season was con-
siderably more advanced than that of last year, and 90¢ of the
insects were in the pupal stage May 29, 1903, on light sandy loam.
The cells are almost entirely within 2 or 3 inches of the surface
and usually within 2 or 3 feet of the base of the vine.

The duration of the pupa stage has been stated by earlier
writers as about a fortnight and actual observations with breed-
ing cage material have enabled us to determine this period as
from 15 to 14 days. These observations were made in the office,
where temperature conditions were uniform and rather high,
and it would not be surprising if this period was materially
extended out of doors in unusually cool weather.

The oval cells occupied by the larvae can be broken repeatedly,
and the grubs will make others, but such is not true of the pupae.
The insects are so delicate in the latter stage that the writer has
experienced great difficulty in transmitting them through the
mails, even with most careful packing. This is shown by the fact
that out of 58 mailed to Albany only 15 arrived alive; a number

26 NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM

were carefully packed in their cells or laid on moist cotton,
otherwise the fatalities would have been much higher. Cage
experiments in the field show that from 50% to 75¢ or even a
larger proportion may be destroyed by timely cultivation [see
p. 27]. These facts have a very important bearing on remedial
measures, as will be pointed out under that head.

EXPERIMENTAL WORK IN 19038

This is a very convenient heading under which to group a num-
ber of records of work carried on under similar conditions,
yielding data which can be readily tabulated and which should
be discussed under various headings. This work was conducted
in the vineyard of Mr D. K. Falvay of Westfield, who contributed
not a little to its success.

Hight large, thrifty Concord vines of as nearly uniform size
and conditions as could be determined by examination were care-
fully covered by wire cages [pl. 7, 8] so arranged that no insects
such as Fidia could escape, ner could any enter from outside.
The cages were numbered respectively from one to five, running
from east to west. Numbers 1, 2 and 5 contained two vines each
and numbers 3 and 4 but a single vine. Number 1 was a check
cage, which was watched carefully for the purpose of comparing
with conditions obtaining in other cages. Number 2 included
two Concord vines around which the soil had been carefully hoed
at the time the majority of the insects were in the pupal stage.
The work was not more thorough than could have been done by a
horse and cultivator. The vine in number 3 was sprayed with
arsenate of lead, 1 pound to 50 gallons of water. The first appli-
cation was made June 19 and the second June 27. The work was
done by Mr Barden, who used a small hand atomizer and took
special pains in each instance to cover every portion of the foliage
so far as was possible. The vine in number 4 was sprayed with
a poisoned bordeaux mixture, 6 pounds of copper sulfate, 6
pounds of lime and 4+ pound of paris green being used to 40
gallons of water. The spraying was done by the same person and
in the same manner as in the case of cage 3. The vines in number
5 were reserved for the purpose of determining exactly when the
beetles appear above ground, and it was visited at intervals of
a few days to a week or thereabout and the beetles removed till
practically all had emerged. The tabulated record is as follows:

27

GRAPEVINE ROOT WORM

ITG [810], “Sep}o0q ON

sop}ooq Z

s9]}99q ST

soq}ooq §
sopooq 9
sajood 1G
so}00q EE

891}99q TP
891}00C ZT.
sais Te

“UL “® TT ‘sepjeeq OG
‘ut ‘d g ‘sopjo0q OG

sop}oaq Gy,
sop}ood Zz

S19JSN]O odd pozZIs
met gG pue yeurs
9g ‘Sofjooq Moy AIOA

S199SN]O 39 G
‘SUIAT] Moy ‘pBop oUON

peop suisuey q ‘(seq
-2eq & € sulyueserdoz)
SoSvO SUIM G ‘SoT}90q (06

“*9ul1y puoves pokvidg

suUIpooy s10UL ‘seT}o0q 9g

soq}00q ST
ATYSNor0yy pexvidg |

au N
Thesfohal en eeelvt wen aaateed ante auON

yp Ul
UBvY} SUIpedy sO
pue sopjooq o10ur
pue Ssieysnjo ssa 9

S1e}SN]O oso
‘SUIATT Moy ‘peop ouON

OOo OmO OOO O06 peop ou0 Ny
SUIPIO}y

a[qviepisuod = ‘peap

Apusoe.d T ‘sop}e0q GL

"** 9u13 puodes podAvidg

SUIpooy 910UL ‘sopqoaq 9g

0. 000 6.0.0.0. ‘o08D S9T}990q TG
Spysno10y4 poxkvidg

p97997109 seTJ90q G

OIN}XIUL XNVOpI0g pouosiog F

‘[Bs OG 04 dF pee] oyeuesuy ¢

P10 ¢ ‘T
UL UBY} SUIPVI} Ssoy
‘p 10 ¢ Ul UY} sno
-I9UNU IIOW Sap}eoq,

SUIPOe} 190
-o1 Yonut ‘sapjeeq (OT
SUIpOOy OU
Ayyeoyovid “sepyooq 2

“ur g Jo yydep
0} peoy AT[njoreg

“-aUON
shehepeheveae “-somooq 2

f 10 ¢ Ul UBYY Ssso

IoMe} pus F 10 g ‘Z
Ul UBY} SeTJe0q OMe T

SUIPOo} alqeie
-pisuoo ‘SoT}00q sa!

uoTWeAIND Z

9GO T

I ‘sny

rT . Ajni¢

aLv a

€061 sjuswitlsodxo a8ed jo p1000y

28 NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM

It will be seen, on comparison between the cage in which
cultivation occurred and the number of beetles observed in cages
1, 3, 4 and 5, that a large proportion of the insects must have
been destroyed by this means. In all probability over 50% and
possibly 75¢ or even more, were killed by cultivation, because we
find that on July 1 there were 141 beetles in cage 1, and in cages
3 and 4, which should be added together as each contains but
a vine, there were 162, while in cage 5 we had obtained at that
time nearly 400 insects. In cages 8 and 4, it will be observed
that there were 72 and 90 beetles respectively living July 1, 12
days after the first application of poison. One dead insect was
found in cage 3 and five wing cases, representing three individ-
uals, and another hanging in cage 4. The conditions, however,
in these two cages, as compared with the others at the same time,
were so similar that we could not be certain that the relatively
few insects found dead had been killed by poison, and the same
was true on July 6, 14 and subsequent dates. A study of the
record of captures in cage 5 showed that a very large proportion,
924, of the beetles appeared above ground within two weeks after
the first insects were observed abroad. In other words, we bred
from the soil about two vines 511 beetles, 477 appearing in the
first two weeks.

The experimental vineyard,| which was selected only after
extensive examinations in different vineyards in the Chautauqua
grape belt, appeared to be a place where the insects were rather
abundant and yet had not caused very serious injury unless it
was in the immediate vicinity of the cages. The plot selected

_ 1} The cultivation of this vineyard is of interest, and data relating thereto,
kindly placed at my disposal by Mr Falvay, is as follows: Ap. 28 the vineyard
was gang-plowed, and was horse-hoed the 30th; May A’ it was hoed by hand;
May 7 harrowed with a spring-tooth harrow; May 11, 350 pounds of kainit to
an acre_applied; May 14,* one furrow on sagt side of the row was turned toward
the vines; “May, 22,"the space between the furrows was cultivated; June 5,* horse-
noed for. Fidia, following with the cultivator; June 16, cultivated for Fidia.
Each process required about a day, and the cost for 5 acres was placed at $27.
The [additional ‘cultivation (*) for Fidia amounted to $8.50. The vineyard
since Aug."1,‘in addition to that given above, has been gang-plowed, harrowed
with a spring-tooth harrow and cultivated, each operation twice in a row and
one ‘after [the other, and followed by cultivation with an acme harrow. The
vineyard is showing the effects of good treatment and has developed a very satis-
factory amount of wood in spite of previous root worm injury.

GRAPEVINE ROOT WORM 29

was the portion just south of Mr Falvay’s packing house, extend-
ing over a gravelly knoll into a loamy hollow. The region next
to the packing house contained comparatively few insects, which
was probably due in considerable measure to a neighbor’s chickens
working in that section. The first 24 rows south of the packing
house were reserved largely for demonstrating the effectiveness of
collecting, and no cultivation for the destruction of pupae was
allowed on its six southern rows and also on the next six rows of
the adjacent plot. The next plot of 18 rows was sprayed with
arsenate of lead, 5 pounds to 50 gallons of water. The applica-
tion was made July 26 and special pains were taken to cover the
vines as thoroughly as possible. The 11 rows south of the
arsenate of lead plot were sprayed the same day and in the same
manner with poisoned bordeaux mixture, 6 pounds of copper sul-
fate, 6 pounds of lime and 4+ pound of paris green being used to 40
gallons of water. The next two rows were not sprayed, but were
left as checks, and the following 11, namely those just north of
the cage except one, were sprayed with an arsenate of lead mix-
ture as described above. The spraying with poisoned bordeaux
was thorough, though not quite so carefully done as in the case
of the arsenate of lead. At the time the application was made
there was a considerable evidence of feeding in the section next
the cages and also in that sprayed with the poisuned bordeaux
mixture. The row just north of the cage and that on which the
cages stood received no poison.

Insects taken by the beetle catcher. The operation of the beetle
catcher over 5 acres resulted not only in capturing a large num-
ber of Fidias but also in taking a number of other species. The
list is of interest because it indicates in a measure the excellent
cultivation and care which this vineyard has received. It will be
observed that no species appeared in any numbers compared with
those of Fidia, which fact alone is of considerable value in in-
dicating the care and clean culture given the vineyard. A few
caterpillars and other soft bodied larvae were taken but in
relatively no larger numbers, and no attempt was made to count
them. The list follows, and it will be seen that the number taken
of any species is so small that practically all may be neglected,
as regards either beneficiai or injurious powers.

30 NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM

NUMBER OF VARIOUS INSECTS TAKEN IN BEETLE CATCHER

COLEOPTERA

1 Calathus gregarius Say, July 7, 14, 26

1 Bradycellus rupestris Say, June 26

2 Megilla maculata DeG., spotted lady
bug, July 7

1 Coccinella 9-notata Hbst., nine spotted
lady bug, June 26, July 7

1 Chilocorus bivulnerus Muls., twice
stabbed lady bug, June 26

10 Brachyacantha ursina Fabr., June
26, July 7

2 Tenebrioides corticalis Melsh., June
26

1 Melanotus communis Gyll., June 26

2 Asa hes baridius Say, June 26 °

2 Pyropyga nigricans Say, June 26,
July 7

1 Telephorus carolinus Fab., June 26

1 Hydnocera sp., June 26

1 Macrodactylus subspinosus Fab., rose
beetle, June 26

1 Pelidnota punctata Linn., spotted
grapevine beetle, July 1, 14

1 Xylotrechus colonus Fab., July 1

1 Huderces picipes Fab., July 14

1 Eupogonius tomentosus Hald., June
26

1 Doryphora 10-lineata Say, July 14

1 Disonycha xanthomelaena Dalm.,
June 26

6 Haltica chalybea Jil., steely flea
beetle, June 26, July 14

1 Crepidodera helxines Linn., June 26

1 Doryphora clivicollis Kirby, June 26

4 Systena taeniata Say, pale striped
flea beetle, June 26

1 Notoxus monodon F'ab., June 26

20 Otiorhynchus ovatus Linn., ovate
snout beetle, June 26

1 Phytonomus punctatus Fab., punc-
tured clover leaf weevil, July 1

1 Conotrachelus nenuphar Hbst., plum
curculio, June 26

1 Hylobius pales Hbst., Pales weevil,
July 7

HEMIPTERA

1 Canthophorus cinctus Beauv., July
14

1 Euschistus tristigmus Say, July 1

1 Nezara hilaris Say, July 1, 7

8 Lygus pratensis Linn., tarnished
plant bug, July 14

1 Thamnotettix clitellaria Say, June 26
Observations showed that the red-

headed flea beetle, Systena fron-

talis Fab., was somewhat abundant

in Sheridan vineyards July 21 and

relatively much more so than in and

about Westfield, where most of our

experimental work was done.

Food plants. This beetle has a comparatively restricted food
habit. It was early observed by Mr Walsh on grapevines, and
the late Professor Riley recorded its feeding on the American
redbud, Cercis canadensis. It is also known to feed

on the native Virginia creeper,

frosts

Ampelopsis quinque-

Varieties affected. The Concord, as is well known, is almost

universally grown in the Chautauqua region, and consequently is
one that has suffered to the greatest extent from injuries by this
pest, though our observations convince us that the Niagara is
even more liable to injury, and in the cases we have seen the
difference was quite marked. Referring to Ohio reports, it will
be seen that Mr Maxwell states that Wordens and Brightons were
killed first, while Concords and Catawbas were not so badly in-

a a ee ee ee

GRAPEVINE ROOT WORM bl

jured, and in a later report he states that renewing a vineyard
with Niagara vines seems to be quite a success. This latter point,
we think, needs further demonstraticn. On the other hand it
will be observed that Mr Slade considers that the Wordens and
Catawbas suffer more than the Concords. The relative liability
of different varieties to injury is probably influenced to a con-
siderable extent by location and character of the soil, specially
the latter, and it is therefore not surprising to meet with some
discrepancies as to the relative amount of injury they suffer.
Extended observations «and probably careful experiments are
necessary before authoritative conclusions can be reached.
GRAPEBERRY MOTH
(Polychrosis botrana Schiff.)

This species is present in more or less numbers in most vine-
yards, and as it was met with in the course of our experimen-
tal work on Fidia, and since this latter gave some valuable
results on methods of controlling this fruit pest, a brief notice
of it is included. This species 1s specially destructive in the
vicinity of forests or in vineyards near which bushes of various
kinds, particularly sumac, are allowed to grow. It is believed to
have two generations in this country, the larvae of the first feed-
ing on the blossoms and those of the second in the fruit. There is
possibly a third brood. It is gratifying to state that we have
obtained excellent results in controlling this pest with arsenate
of lead and also the poisoned Bordeaux mixture. The spraying,
done shortly after blossoming and while the fruit was not larger
than a small pea, was primarily for the purpose of killing Fidias;
but investigation this fall shows that it was much more effective
in destroying young of the grapeberry moth, since there is cer-
tainly 50¢ less damage to fruit on sprayed than on unsprayed
rows, even when the two are side by side. The difference was so
marked that it was easily observed, and in walking between the
treated and untreated areas, it was not hard to find infested
clusters on the one side while on the other they were much less
abundant. It was also observed that not only was this insect
checked by spraying but the foliage was benefited by the treat-
ment, having a better color and remaining on the vines a longer
time. .

Our experiments were in Mr D. K. Falvay’s vineyard, and he
informs us that last year a section of six or seven rows in his

32 NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM

vineyard next to a lot of sumac and other bushes, was so badly
infested by this worm, that no attempt was made to pick it. The
wild growth was cut away last winter and burned, and the fruit
on these rows was no more infested this year than that of any
other section of the vineyard.

We therefore advise clean culture, specially the destruction of
bordering hedges and adjacent miscellaneous forest growths and
the burning of debris in a vineyard, in order to lessen shelters
where the insect may pass the winter. It is advisable to locate
vineyards when possible at some distance from woods, and where-
ever they are infested to any extent by this pest, spray with an
arsenical at least once after blossoming.

NATURAL ENEMIES

This serious grapevine pest is subject to attack by several
natural enemies. Two interesting species of egg parasites, bear-
ing the scientific names Fidiobia flavipes Ashm. and
Brachysticha fidiae Ashm., were bred from eggs of
this insect by Professor Webster in 1894, and in 1896 he ex-
pressed the belief that a marked decrease in numbers of the
Fidia was possibly due to the work of these parasites. Pro-
fessor Webster also observed a small brown aunt, Lasius
brunneus var. alienus, feeding on the eggs, and a
- small mite, provisionally identified for Professor Webster by Dr
George Marx, as Tyroglyphus phylloxerae P.&R,
extracting the contents of several eggs in succession, and also
a smaller mite resembling Hoplophora arctata Riley.
Another mite, Heteropus ventricosus Newport, was
met with by Professor Webster in 1896 who credits it with being
quite destructive to the eggs of this pest. One of these small
mites, probably a species of Tyroglyphus, was observed in our
breeding cages feeding ou the pupae, one being almost entirely
destroyed.

Several predaceous insects were found by us during field
work, specially when digging for larvae in the early spring. The
grubs of some carabid beetle were observed to be about two
thirds aS numerous as those of Fidia during the last of April,
and it is very probable that they prey on this species. We
were unable to bring any of the carabids to maturity. A small
beetle, Staphylinus vul!pinus Nordm., was associated

GRAPEVINE ROOT WORM 33

with Fidia grubs and possibly preys on them. The larva of an
aphis lion, Chrysopa species, was observed by the writer investi-
gating under loose bark where eggs were present, and it is not
at all improbable that these insects destroy many.

REMEDIAL MEASURES

It was felt when this study was undertaken that there was a
lack of definite knowledge regarding methods of controlling this
insect and it was accordingly planned to make a thorough test
of those advised as well as to experiment in other directions.
Some of these investigations gave results which appear to have a
positive value, while others only proved certain measures com-
paratively useless.

Destroying the pupae. There is no doubt as to the benefits of
cultivating vineyards for the purpose of destroying the pupae,
if the operations are properly carried out. In the first place,
plan to have a moderately high ridge of firm earth about the base
of the vines the latter part of May, so that the grubs will come
well above the roots before transforming to the pupal or “ turtle ”
stage. Then adjust operations so that horse-hoeing away from
the vines will come early in June, thus avoiding special cultiva-
tion for the purpose of destroying the insects. It may be found,
however, that some adjustment of the cultivator, so that it will
work a little deeper, or a little extra care in keeping the im-
plement close to the vine, will materially increase the efficiency
of this operation. In 1902 our attention was called in the early
part of June to a vineyard where there were from 50 to 60 grubs
about many of the vines, while repeated search the latter part of
the same month failed to discover more than three or four pupae
under a vine and in many cases not a specimen. In the interval
this vineyard had been carefully cultivated for the purpose of
destroying the pupae, and we are of the opinion that this prac-
tice was largely responsible for the scarcity of the insects. This is
further substantiated by our cage experiments in 1903 [see p. 27]
which show that from 50¢ to 75¢ or more of the pupae can be killed
by cultivation no more thorough than that given by horse im-
plements. These data lead us to believe that much can be ac-
complished by planning cultural operations so that the vineyard
will be horse-hoed at the time when the majority of the insects

34 NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM

are in the pupal or “turtle” stage. This operation may well be
deferred till some of the more advanced insects begin to brown a
little or even till a very few have changed to beetles, and its
efficiency can be further enhanced by repeating the cultivation,
with a spring-toothed harrow, about a week or 10 days after in
order to catch some of the later transforming individuals. There
may be a difference of a week or more in the development of the
insectS in a vineyard, and this means that each grower should
know the pupa and watch for its appearance. This variation is
due largely to the character of the soils, as some warm up much
more rapidly than others, and the final changes to beetles occur
correspondingly quick.

Coilecting beetles. This method of controlling the grapevine
root worm did not promise much when it was first attempted.
Professor Webster had either not considered it worth trying
or had found it of comparatively little value, and Dr Marlatt did
not even mention it in his recommendations. Professor Slinger-
land made the guarded statement in 1902 that it may be prac-
ticable in some cases to jar the beetles into a collecting apparatus,
but he apparently had little faith in the plan, except when the
insects could be jarred to the ground where they wou:d be eaten
by chickens.

Mr J. J. Barden, working under the writer’s directions in 1902,
found that, even with a plain cloth-covered frame several feet
sguare and with a small slit in one side, so that it could be slipped
under a vine, large numbers of the insects could be collected.
With this crude apparatus he was able to capture a quart of
beetles in about two hours. This indicated that much better
results could be secured with a more elaborate apparatus; and
with the aid of Mr G. L. Hough he constructed a modified form
of the Curculio catcher, which is represented on plate 9. The
machine is 6 feet long and 8 feet wide at the top, with vertical
ends and the sides sloping to a trough about 3x3x72 inches.
A central slit about 3 inches wide was cut in the side opposite
the handles and the whole mounted on a two wheeled frame.
The long trough is subdivided by a few transverse partitions,
and these spaces are partly filled with kerosene and water.
The sides, ends and trough are constructed of galvanized iron
and strengthened with iron straps as shown in the figure. The

GRAPEVINE ROOT WORM 35

wheels are from a toy cart and the handles and frame are home-
made. The method of operation is simply to wheel the machine
between the rows, and then, elevating the handles, to slip the
farther side under the wire, and the trunk of the vine entering
the slit permits the placing of the machine directly under the
vine. It then remains for the operator to jar the insects off. Mr
Barden found that it required several shakings to dislodge all
the beetles. In one case he succeeded in catching 64 by jarring
a vine once. It was found advantageous to have three machines
operating together and placed simultaneously under adjacent
vines. This arrangement facilitated the work very greatly and
reduced to a minimum the beetles jarred from vines before a ma-
chine could be placed under them.

This method appealed so strongly to Mr Hough, who by the
way is a very practical business man, that he used it daily for
a time on certain badly infested vines, and found that, in the
ease of the third jarring, he did not get over three or four
beetles to a vine, whereas at the first operation 40 to 50 were
secured and 15 or 20 at the second jarring. An examination
in this vineyard July 24 showed that the beetles were not nearly
so abundant as two weeks before, largely due to four collectings
in two weeks. The Hough beetle catcher was further tested in
1903, with the result that 18438 beetles were taken June 26 from
approximately 110 vines, or an average of over 12 to a vine. The
principal difficulty with this device is the relatively large amount
of time consumed in placing it under a vine and making the
necessary jarrings.

Collecting beetles, if rapidly done, appeared to be a feasible
method of checking this pest and cur plans contemplated a rigid
test of its possibilities in 1903. Mr F. A. Morehouse of Ripley
designed an improved form of catcher, the essential idea of which —
is continual motion and jarring. We arranged to have one built
and thoroughly tested, believing the situation justified the experi-
ment, and the results have been most gratifying. This
machine, illustrated on plates 10, 11, 12, is essentially a
pair of troughs on wheels and is drawn through the vVine-
yard astride the row. The troughs are connected over the vine
by bracing arms and wires (placed high enough to clear all
posts) and are hung by 4 inch iron rods, which permit the side

36 NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM

springs to push the troughs under the vines so that their inner
edges are close to the stems or posts as the case may be. The
outer slope of each trough is a 8 foot strip of oilcloth stretched
over a frame, while the inner is a 10 inch rubber belt 11 feet long.
These sloping sides guide the insects so that they fall into the
eaves trough, which is divided into small sections by a number of
water-tight compartments each of which contains a quantity of
water with a small amount of kerosene fioating on its surface.
The whole machine, as will be seen by the illustrations, is a home-
made affair, and was built simply to test the practicability of the
idea. The dimensions are as follows: length 12 feet, width 5 feet,
hight 7$ feet, length of trough 11 feet, of runners for same 12
feet, diameter of wheels 24 feet. It can undoubtedly be made
considerably more efficient; the troughs, for example, should be
broader in order to accommodate more insects and debris. The
common wooden springs could be replaced by steel ones and the
rough wooden wheels by well made wooden or iron ones, and,
instead of being on a fixed axle, it would be a decided advantage
if they were on a swivel axle. All these improvements can be
easily made later in case the machine commends itself to
growers. This device was drawn over two rows of approximately
120 vines and took therefrom 1583 beetles, or an average of about
18 to a vine. This was at a time when not over 17 could be
counted on a vine, though there were probably more. The entire
operation consumed Jess than 20 minutes, and, somewhat to our
surprise, the efficiency of the machine appears to be a little higher
than that of the Hough beetle catcher. It was also operated over
nine other rows and 3306 beetles secured, an average of about
six to a vine. These rows were not quite so badly infested as the
two mentioned above. The record of collecting with this machine,
in addition to that above, is of interest and is given herewith.

July 2, 2650 beetles were taken from two check: rows, which
were in reality but one and one half rows, owing to many of the
vines being very small and some missing. June 80 and July 1,
72,000 beetles were captured with this machine from all the ex-
perimental plots. July 7, 34,550 and July 14, 8380. Comparing
the last three catchings, which were all from the entire area,
it will be seen that there is a decrease of over 50% between the
eatch of July 1 and 7 and that the catch of the 14th was less

GRAPEVINE ROOT WORM 7h

than 254% of the catch on the 7th. About 154,900 beetles were
tuken from this area of approximately 5 acres, 3 of which were
much less infested than the 2 next the experimental cages. This
means that an average of 59 beetles was secured from each vine
_ in spite of the fact that a considerable proportion of the area had
been previously cultivated for the special purpose of destroying
the pupae. These figures give some idea of the immense number
of insects which must have been in the vineyard when work was
begun last spring.

As further evidence of the value of collecting for this insect,
it may be interesting to state that last spring, sample diggings
under different vines in the experimental area, gave from 8 to
50 or more grubs or as calculated from 60 to 400 or more to a vine,
in one case it was estimated that there were fully 1000 under a
Single vine. Sample diggings in October resulted in obtaining
no grubs from three vines, one only from each of three, and two
only from two others, indicating that there were very few which
had more than 12 or 15 grubs, and that, in all probability, the
number to each vine would hardly exceed eight or nine. In other
words, cultivating and collecting in one season reduced the num-
ber of grubs about 98%. These figures are sufficiently striking, -
so that no further comment is necessary on the efficiency of
collecting and destroying the beetles; in fact, this vineyard after
one season’s work may be considered more free from the pest
than almost any other in that section, and it will compare very
favorably with those in places where Fidia has caused practically
no injury.

Our experience with collectors has demonstrated the practica-
bility of catching the beetles, and we recommend this operation
for all badly infested sections, and that the collecting be begun
as soon as the beeties appear on the vines in any number, say,
when there are 12 or 15 on one. The operation should then be
repeated at intervals of five to seven days till the vines have
been gone over two, three and possibly four times, dependent
somewhat on the number of insects which are captured. It will
be found that it is much easier to catch the beetles on warm
days, when it should be done, than in cool weather.

38 NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM

It may be added that the efficacy of a machine of this char-
acter could be materially increased by the adoption of various
devices which would tend to lessen the open spaces under the
vines and to increase the length of the catching surface. It is.
interesting in this connection to note that vineyardists in Mis- ,
souri have been resorting to various catching devices for the
protection of their vines from this pest. Many of them employ
simple sheets and jar the beetles on them, while others are using
a wheelbarrow arrangement on the suggestion of Professor
Stedman.

Mr R. S. Blowers, of Portland, after examining the work of
our beetle catcher at Westfield, constructed a very effective and
cheap device [pl. 18], which is at least worthy of illustration
and comment in this connection.

Its essential features are two long frame troughs covered with
oilcloth, which hangs over an eaves trough divided into water-
tight compartments, as in the ordinary catcher. These two sec-
tions are each 24 feet long, the outer edge about 3 feet high,
while the inner edge is approximately 18 inches high, and each
is braced so that a man can pick it up at the center and move
it toward or away from the vines. The original plan was to
carry it through the vineyard and place it between the posts,
jarring the vines and continuing in this manner. This was found
rather laborious, and the work was made lighter by the con-
struction of a pair of low bobsleds, fastened together by wires
so that each was about 6 feet from the end of the trough, which
at this point was provided with a transverse broad base so that
it would rest on the bob without tipping. The inner edge of
each bob was also provided with a small roll, so that the operator,
by tipping the trough slightly toward the row, could roll the
entire structure under the vines and, after jarring was completed,
could roll it back. A horse was used to draw each half of the
collector, and in this way about 3 acres a day could be gone over.
This collector has the advantage of being comparatively cheap, .
since the outside expense for it would not exceed $9 for each half,
or a total of $18. Most of the material, except the oilcloth, can
usually be found around a farm, and the actual outlay, if the
vineyardist made it himself, would be very little.

GRAPEVINE ROOT WORM 39

The late Prof. C. V. Riley, in his report for 1868, calls atten-
tion to the fact that one man whose vineyards were very badly
infested by this insect had trained his chickens to go between
the vines and pick up the beetles as they were dislodged by
_jarring. Mr.F. A. Morehouse of Ripley, who has many chickens
in the near vicinity of his vineyard, has practised the same thing
with excellent results. The only trouble is that this method
has a comparatively limited application, since it is not always
practical to have chickens in large vineyards.

Arsenical poisons. A number of experiments were tried with
arsenical poisons in 1902 for the purpose of ascertaining their
efficiency in controlling this species. Two brands of arsenate of
lead and paris green were used. Breeding cage experiments with
arsenate of lead, using 2 pounds to 50 gallons of water, showed
that seven days were required to kill 9 out of 10 beetles, and
that, when 4 pounds of the poison were used to the same amount
of water, all of the insects were killed within eight days. The
Spraying in both instances occurred July 5, and the record is as
follows:

2 POUNDS OF ARSENATE OF LEAD TO 50 GALLONS OF WATER

July 7, 6 beetles dead July 10, another beetle dead
3 alive July 11 oe
1 missing July 12 .
4 POUNDS ARSENATE OF LEAD TO 50 GALLONS OF WATER
July 7, 4 beetles dead July 10, another dead
July 9, 4 more dead July 13 a

It will be seen by examining the above records that in the
case of the first over half were killed within 48 hours after the
spraying, and in the second less than half within 48 hours and
four fifths within four days. It should be added that in the
above experiments the leaves were sprayed very thoroughly and
the poison allowed to dry before the treated foliage was placed
in the cage.

The breeding cage experiments with paris green were less
successful than those with arsenate of lead, and, though in one
experiment 20% of the beetles were killed within 48 hours after

40 NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM

spraying the leaves with 1 pound of the poison and 1 pound of
lime to 100 gallons of water, and 40% more died within four days
after the spraying, the general results were not at all satis-
factory, and the reason therefor can not be given.

The breeding cage experiments with arsenate of lead would
lead one to expect most excellent results in the field, but such
was not the case last year, though this may have been
due to the fact that the spraying was done shortly before
considerable rain fell, and was followed by nearly daily precipi-
tations. The initial application was made July 8, 1902, and
repeated the 9th, the rain of the preceding day making it ad-
visable to go over the entire field a second time. The ground at
the time the spraying was done was so wet that it was almost
impossible to drive a team slowly enough to do good work. Care-
ful search in the vineyard eight days after failed to reveal a
single dead beetle. July 31 there were pienty of beetles and
many eggs in Mr Northrop’s vineyard, where the vines had been
sprayed. The necessity of two sprayings resulted in the applica-
tion of considerable poison, and about five weeks after the treat-
ment it was seen that the sprayed vines had developed very little
new growth as compared with untreated ones. There was no
perceptible burning, yet the edges of the leaves were somewhat
erumpled, and it is very probable that the poison checked the
development of the more tender shoots.

The breeding cage experiments in 1902 led us to expect excel-
lent results in the field, and our not obtaining the same after
making two applications was attributed largely to the exces-
sively wet weather, which not only washed off the poison but
interfered with work in the vineyard. Similar experi-
ments in 1903 gave even less satisfactory results than the year
before. It required nine days to kill three out of five beetles.
Arsenate of lead and poisoned bordeaux mixture were severely
tested in caged outdoor vines, as detailed on page 26, 27. It will
be seen by consulting the record that, though the vines were
sprayed thoroughly on both June 19 and 27, there were fully as
many living beetles on both July 1, 18 days after the first appli-
cation, as on the two vines in the check cage, and the same was
true July 21. Careful observation, during the remainder of the

GRAPEVINE ROOT WORM 41

period when beetles were to be found in cages, failed to disclose
any substantial difference between the insects on the poisoned
vines and those on the untreated ones. ‘These cage experiments
were further supplemented, as detailed on page 29, by exten-
Sive spraying. This was done June 25, and July 1 no dif-
ference could be detected between the sprayed and the un-
sprayed vines. This, in connection with our cage experiments,
led us to abandon reluctantly further outdoor tests, and the
poisoned areas were collected over in order to prevent what we
deemed would be an extensive deposition of eggs. In other words,
no experiments, other than those confined to small tumblers where
the beetles could obtain absolutely nothing except poisoned
foliage, gave results which are at all decisive. The reasons for
this are several: the beetles do not succumb readily to poison,
and being more or less secretive by nature, feed to a considerable
extent on under leaves and in concealed situations where it is
difficult to throw the spray. In addition they have a marked
tendency to feed on the more tender leaves, which at the time
spraying should be done appear almost daily on vigorous vines.
These factors make it very difficult to control the insect.

The most decisive results obtained with an arsenical spray are
those published by Mr John W. Spencer of Westfield, in the
issue of the Grape Belt for July 24, 1903, in which he gives some
definite figures in favor of spraying. Our only regret in this
connection is that his experiments were not conducted on rapidly
growing vines, because in our judgment these need protection
much more than those in poor condition and on which the insects,
as previously pointed out, can not be controlled nearly so
readily.

Several vineyardists sprayed their vines in 1903 for the pur-
pose of controlling this insect, and as it was stated by various
growers that the poison applications had been successful, at their
request these vineyards were inspected by us the first week in
October, and much to our regret, we found that the reported good
results were more apparent than real.

An examination in the vineyard of Mr Frank Monfort, of Broc-
ton, resulted in finding 5, 45, 10 and 9 grubs respectively under
as many Concord vines. The first record relates to a

42, NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM —

vine which had very poorly developed roots, and consequently
was not a fair sample of conditions in the vineyard.
Mr Monfort not only sprayed his vineyard twice with a power
sprayer, making the first application at the time the beetles ap-
peared and the second a week later, but went to the additional
trouble of going over the entire area carefully with a hand pump
for the purpose of spraying any which the machine might have
missed. He certainly tried to do a thorough job, and yet sample
diggings in an adjacent vineyard belonging to Mr Morse gave
respectively 3, 6, 3, 6, 16 and 9 grubs under different vines. The
two latter records could hardly be compared with those in Mr
Monfort’s vineyard because they were fully + mile distant and
relate to vines which were much more healthy and vigorous.
It may be claimed that this is not a fair test of the poison and
to a certain extent this is true, yet these are results obtained by a
practical man in an earnest effort to reduce the pest, and as they
agree with our own experience are not without value. The differ-
ence between 75 and 150 grubs under a vine, and 5 to 12 or there-
abouts, represents in our mind the relative efficiency of collecting
and poison sprays, and our judgment is that these figures mark
the difference between protection and serious injury.

The evidence concerning the efficacy of poisons in Ohio, as
pointed out on a preceding page, is somewhat contradictory.
Reporting on work done in 1899 Professor Webster states that
an examination of sprayed fields showed nothing to indicate
that arsenate of lead would not prove entirely effective. This
differs from some later experiments performed under his direc-
tion by Messrs Newell and Burgess, the unpublished records of
which through the kindness of Prof. P. J. Parrott have been
placed at my disposal. The summary of this later work is as
follows:

“Where beetles were abundant last year and vines seemingly
badly injured and the arsenate of lead or disparene used this
year (1900) few vines have died and all appear in a more healthy
condition, but this is true also where none of these insecticides
were used, beetles appearing later and in less numbers than for
several years.” Professor Webster, at the writer’s request, has
commented on the above experiments as follows. He states that

GRAPEVINE ROOT WORM 43

early results, though satisfactory, were not thought by him to be
conclusive, and that a marked decrease in the number of the
beetles vitiated later experiments to some extent, so that he did
not consider them as either conclusive in themselves or as dis-
proving the earlier work of Mr Mally. He states that arsenate of
lead must be tried thoroughly several times where conditions are
such as to enable one to obtain decisive results either one way
or the other before it will be safe to make definite statements.
Professor Stinson reports only fair success in destroying the
beetles with poisons in Arkansas.

It seems very probable, therefore, that some of the Ohio
growers have been led to attribute the relative scarcity of these
beetles to the use of poison whereas it may have been due almost
entirely to natural conditions. |

Mr T. S. Clymonts states that in his experience spraying with
bordeaux mixture has proved of some benefit, since the beetles
prefer untreated vines and will migrate to them if near by.

Mr J. W. Maxwell, Euclid O., writing under date of Aug. 29,
1903, states that he called Prof. F. M. Webster’s attention to the
insect in 1893 and adds that in all his experience, now extending
over a decade, he has not found a poison that will “ exterminate ”
the insects, or, in other words, that has given satisfactory results.

Prof. F. M. Webster has recentiy called our attention to a
case in Bloomington I1]., where the owner of a badly infested
vineyard, began spraying thoroughly with arsenate of lead. He
says that the vineyard at the outset was in very poor shape, that
now it is returning to somewhere near its normal condition, and
that he fails to find the slightest indication of beetles except on
one or two vines. This has been accomplished within two or
three years; and the owner, Mr J. L. Lampe, attributes it to the
use of the insecticide, with which Professor Webster is inclined
to coincide. Our experience with the pest suggests that possibly
many of the insects may have forsaken this vineyard because of
its poor foliage and gone to others where there was better shelter,
and that therefore the protection afforded by the arsenate of
lead may have been overestimated. In a later com-
munication, Professor Webster. states that he has found great
numbers of dead beetles under sprayed vines and none under those

44. NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM

free from poison, a fact that shows that some protection is
afforded. This, however, was in a vineyard which had been seri-
ously injured and was therefore not making much growth.

We have been to considerable pains in looking up evidence
both for and against arsenical poisons and the above summary
of results obtained in Ohio, in connection with the work done
in New York and elsewhere, leads us to the conclusion that,
while the arsenical spray may, under certain conditions, give
some protection from this insect, either by driving away the
beetles or possibly killing them, we are by no means certain that
this will result, specially in the case of more thrifty vineyards,
and we are inclined to believe that in some instances the bene-
_ fits resulting from poison applications have been greatly overesti-
mated. We do know, on the other hand, that collecting and kill-
ing the insects, if it be done early enough, means protection, and
for the present we prefer to recommend the latter method of fight-
ing the pest rather than to indorse the use of a poison, the general
utility of which has not been proved for Fidia. Hnough
has been done to warrant more extended work with poisons and
it may be that another year or two will enable us to determine
their true value.

Destruction of the eggs. This seemingly difficult operation was
accomplished by Mr William Barden of Ripley by rubbing the
canes with a gloved hand. He found that most of the eggs
were deposited on the middle shoots, and that the great majority
of them were crushed by rubbing. The operation, though slow,
is not necessarily very expensive, as a man could go over approxi-
mately an acre a day without difficulty.

We have also conducted some experiments to test the resistance
of the eggs to insecticides and have learned that a whale oil soap
solution, 1 pound to 4 gallons of water, has no effect on them.
It is doubtful if they can be destroyed with a spray. The
extended period during which eggs are deposited, however,
renders Mr Barden’s method of controlling the insect of some-
what questionable value, and its employment can be advised only
when a vineyard is found to be badly infested with eggs, and
there is, therefore, no other method of getting at the insects
before the grubs commence their operations.

GRAPEVINE ROOT WORM 45

Pulverizing the soil and mounding. Prof. F. M. Webster, as a
result of his studies, advised thorough cultivation of the soil
during the hatching period, taking special pains to keep it
banked up over the roots. Professor Webster’s idea was that
the young insects dropping in the dry sand would be quickly
destroyed wherever exposed to the sun, that the looseness of the
surface layers would prove a serious hindrance to their burrow-
ing, and that the increased depth over the roots would also pro-
vide an additional barrier to the grubs. Thorough cultivation
is undoubtedly a most excellent thing, and the additional vigor
arising therefrom is a valuable asset in enabling the vine to
withstand very serious injury. Our experiments on the travel-
ing and burrowing powers of these little grubs, however, lead
us to believe that this measure, so far as preventing access to
the roots is concerned, is not of much value. This is confirmed
somewhat by the experience of Mr T. 8. Clymonts, who states
that a Seriously injured vineyard can be renewed by thorough
cultivation, and that he has experienced no difficulty in doing
this with flat cultivation. In fact, Mr Clymonts is of the opinion
that mounding the earth about the vines is injurious in other
ways and therefore does not advise it. He recommends cutting
back the vines to the living wood, enriching the land liberally
with stable manure and applying about a barrel of salt to the
acre. Then he cultivates with a disk harrow or other tool which
will not stir the earth to a great depth, since he believes that
deep plowing cuts off'a large number of roots and is very
injurious to the vines. He states that in several cases known to
him where this has been done and flat culture adhered to, badly
damaged vineyards have been restored to a very satisfactory
condition.

Carbon bisulfid. Prof. F. M. Webster instituted some rather
extensive experiments with carbon bisulfid against this insect,
and the summary of his results is as follows. He found that
the substance could not be used to advantage in soil that was
very dry or saturated with water, and that it must be used in
that which is damp. He states that the most satisfactory
results will probably follow its use in the spring, in a damp

soil, when it is applied in such a manner as to fumigate the

46 NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM

roots without the fluid coming in contact with them. He
recommends from 4 to 6 ounces for each vine and states that
it is not possible to kill every worm about a vine, and that it
is doubtful if the low price then current for fruit would justify
its use. Growers in the vicinity of Cleveland have not used
this insecticide to any extent since the time Professor Webster
made his experiments, and they give the high cost as the reason
for its not being adopted. It should also be added that con-
siderable care is necessary or the vines will be severely injured.

Kerosene emulsion. Several writers have advised killing the
grubs at the base of the vines by the use of a kerosene emulsion,
which is to be washed to a greater depth by copious watering
or subsequent rain. We have seen very few cases where the
grubs were congregated sufficiently to warrant any attempt at
killing them in this manner, and it hardly appears practical in a
large vineyard. :

Crude petroleum. It was hoped that it would be possible to
destroy the grubs of this pest by the application of this sub-
stance to the soil, and there seemed a chance of using it to
prevent the young larvae from making their way to: the roots.
Some experiments in the office, however, demonstrated that the
grubs easily penetrated soil which had the surface layers moist-
ened by a fine spray of the oil, specially if placed on the soil 30
minutes to half a day or more after treatment. This substance
appears to have very little value in controlling this insect.

Effect of calcium carbid refuse on grubs. Our attention was
called to this substance by the statement that it had proved
very valuable against the Phylloxera in France. Some of the
material was kindly sent us from the Union Carbide Co.’s
plant at Niagara Falls, and various experiments with the grubs ‘
were tried. One part of this substance mixed with 10 pounds
of soil was placed in a box and some grubs added. One was
dead the next day after having burrowed about + inch and two
others went to the depth respectively of 14 and 2 inches. No
additional fatalities occurred even after 10 days. Several other
experiments gave the same general results, and apparently we
can have no hopes of this substance being of value in this particu-
lar case.

GRAPEVINE ROOT WORM 47

Recommendations. Apparently no one method can be relied
on to control this insect, and our recommendations may be sum-
marized as follows. Plan cultural operations so that a firm ridge
of earth may be horse-hoed from the vines or otherwise cultivated
or disturbed when the great majority of the insects are in the
pupal stage and take special pains to stir the soil thoroughly in
the near vicinity of the stem. Thorough cultivation and well en-
-riched soil will do much in aiding the vines to withstand attack.
This, supplemented by collecting beetles, particularly with a de-
vice which will catch them without the delay incident to stopping
at each vine, is advisable on badly infested areas during the first
two weeks after the adult insects appear in any numbers. The
latter may possibly be supplemented or replaced by thorough
spraying with an arsenical poison, preferably arsenate of lead,
when the beetles begin to appear. Evidence at hand regarding
spraying for this insect is not satisfactory, and for the present
we prefer to limit cur indorsement to above named methods of
known value. We believe that these two courses, intelligently
applied, afford a most feasible and thoroughly practical solution
of the difficuity. HS ee ane

1886 Walsh, B. D. Pract. Ent. 1:99. (Injurious in Kentucky)

1867 Pract. Ent. 2 :87-88, fig. (Original description and
observations on habits and allied species)

1867 —— Pract. Ent. 2:118. (Injurious in St Louis and
Bluffton Mo.)
1868 Riley, C. V. Noxious, Beneficial and other Insects of
Missouri. ist Rep’t, p.182-33. (Brief general notice) ; same in
Mo. State Board Agric. 4th Rep’t 1868, 1869.

1870 -——- Amer. Ent. and Botanist, 2:307, fig. 188. (Re-
ceived from Bunker Hill Mo.)

1872 Kridelbaugh, 8. H. Ia. State Hort. Soc. Rep’t 1871, p.159.
(Injurious to leaves, remedies)

1873 Crotch, G. R. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. Proce. 24 :33-34. (De-
scribed as F. murina)

1879 Stout, 0. E. Kan. State Hort. Rep’t 9:89. (Brief notice)

1885 Lefevre, Ed. “ Catalogus Eumolpidarum ” Soc. Roy. Sci.
Liege Mem. Ser. 2, v.11, separate, p.76. (Described as F.
lurida)

48 NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM

1892 Horn, G. H. Amer. Ent. Soc. Trans. -9:198. (Synonymy
and distribution )

1894 Howard, L. 0. Insect Life, 7 :48. (Injurious in Ohio)

1894 Webster, F. M. Ohio Agric. Exp. Sta. Newspaper bul.
140; Ohio Farmer, Sep. 27, p.257. (Injurious at Lawrence, Kan.) ;

7 (Injuries in Kansas) ; —— Oct 25, p.387.
(Life history and results of experiments) ; —— Nov. 1, p.357.
(Carbon bisulfid and enemies); —— Dec. 6, 27, p. 453, 505..

(Remedial measures, distribution )

1895 Dille, W. W. Ohio Farmer, June 20, p.497. (Review
Walsh & Riley life history, completes life history) ; —— July 11,
p-37. (Results of experiments)

1895 Webster, F. M. Ohio Agric. Exp. Sta. Bul. 62, p.7T-95.
(Detailed account of investigations) ; Ohio State Hort. Soc. An.
Rep’t 1894-95, p.16-19. 1pl. (Summary account) ; Ohio Farmer,
Aug. 22, p.147. (Identified from Kansas)

1896 Marlatt, C. L. U. S. Dep’t Agric. Yearbook 1895.
p.391_93. (Brief general account)

1896 Murtfeldt, M. E. Colemans Rural World, March, p.97.

1896 Smith, J. B. Ent. News, 7:82—-88. (Comments on value
of arsenical poisons)

1896 Stinson, J. T. Ark. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bul. 48, p.114-16.
(Injurious in Arkansas. Brief notice)

1896 Webster, F. M. U. S. Dep’t Agric. Div. Ent. Bul. 6 n. 8.
p.69. (Decrease in numbers possibly due to egg parasites and
a mite)

1897 —— & Mally, C. W. U. S. Dep’t Agric. Div. Ent. Bul. 9
n. 8. p.44-45. (Tobacco dust and kainit ineffective)

1898 Marlatt, C. L. U.S. Dep’t Agric. Farmers bul. 70, p.9—i1.
(Reprint from yearbook for 1895)

1899 Lugger, Otto. Minn. Agrie. Exp. Sta. Bul. 66, p.2238—24.
(Brief notice) ; same in Ent. State Exp. Sta. 5th Rep’t, p.189_41.

1899 Webster, F. M. & Mally, C. W. U. S. Dep’t Agric. Div.
PEnteBull 20) nies: p. 70. (Insect unusually abundant, serious
injuries at Bloomington I11.)

1900 Slingerland, M. V. Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bul.
184, p.18-82. (Record of injuries in New York and general com-
piled account, after Webster) °

GRAPEVINE ROOT WORM 49

1900 Smith, J. B. Insects of New Jersey, p.303. (Occurs
throughout New Jersey and on Staten Island on grape and
Ampelopsis)

1900 Webster, F. M. Ohio State Hort. Soc. Rep’t 1899, p.771.
(Arsenate of lead apparently very effective)

1901 Howard, L. 0. U. S. Dep’t Agric. Div. Ent. Bul 30 n. s.
p-97. (Serious injuries at Bloomington I11., continued)

1902 Felt, E. P. Country Gentleman, May 15, 67:413. (Brief
general account with outlines of proposed experiments) ; ——
July 10, p.574-75. (Pupae readily destroyed by cultivation) ;
State Entomologist. 17th Rep’t 1901, 1902, p.733-34, fig. 8
(established about Ripley, collected about Albany in 1880), p.837
(partial bibliography) ; same in East. N. Y. Hort. Rep’t. 6th
An. Meeting 1902, p.215-16; U. S. Dep’t Agric. Div. Ent. Bul.
37 n. 8. p.102-8. (Injuries in Chautauqua grape belt)

1902 Slingerland, M. V. Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bul. 208.
(Investigations and remedies)

1903 Felt, E. P. N. Y. State Mus. Bul. 59, p.49-84. (Detailed
account, specially of recent work) ; same in Grape Belt, issues for
Jan. 9, 13, 20, 27 and Feb. 3 and 10; Country Gentleman, Mar. 19,
68:255. (Corrects reported error); N. Y. State Fruit Growers
Ass’n. Rep’t. 1903, p. 94. (Brief account) ; Grape Belt, June 16,
p. 2. (Remedial measures) ; American Agriculturist, June 20, 71:
648. (Injuries and remedies); Grape Belt, June 26, p. 1, 6.
(Habits of beetles, efficiency of destroying pupae, value of beetle
catchers) ; Grape Belt, June 30, p. 4. (Beetles bred from two
vines, efficacy of catchers) ; Grape Belt, Sep. 4, p.1. (Brief sum-
mary of observations and experiments); same in Jamestown
Journal, Sep. 4, p. 1; also in Country Gentleman, Sep. 24, 68 :828;
Grape Belt, Oct. 20, p.1. (Results obtained by collecting beetles
and spraying) ;

1903 Slingerland, M. V. Grape Belt, June 19. (Summary of
present conditions)

1903 Spencer, J. W. Grape Belt. July 24. (Results with
arsenate of lead)

50 NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM.

EXPLANATION OF PLATES

Plate 11
1 Beetle, much enlarged
2 Leaf badly riddled by the beetle .
3 Eggs on last year’s wood; the loose bark has been lifted so

as to expose them

Larva or grub, much enlarged
Work of larva or grub on larger roots
Pupa or “turtle stage” in cell
Same much enlarged

AS oF

Plate 2
Vineyard somewhat injured by Fidia, August 1903
Healthy vineyard with vigorous foliage, August 1908

=

ko

Plate 3

Vineyard badly injured by the grapevine root worm. Observe
that very few of the vines extend to the top wire. The wires and
posts would ordinarily be concealed in a thrifty vineyard.

Plate 4 .

Vineyard more seriously infested than the preceding. A por-
tion of this was uprooted last spring, and the area shown was
kept simply for experimental purposes.

Plate 5

Portion of two vines represented on the preceding plate and
showing how badly the beetles may eat the foliage when abundant.

Plate 6

Leaves from badly eaten vine, illustrating the peculiar, chain-

like eaten areas
Plate 7

Breeding cages, distant view, showing also the general con-

dition of the experimentai area, June 1903

Plate 8 |
Breeding cages, near view, showing general condition of the
vines near by, June 1903

1 Executed from nature under the author’s direction by L. H. Joutel.

GRAPEVINE ROOT WORM 51

Plate 9
Beetle catcher devised by Messrs Hough and Barden

Plate 10

Morehouse beetle catcher
: Plate 11
Morehouse beetle catcher . : ;
Plate 12 |

Morehouse beetle catcher in cperation, June 30

Plate 13
Blowers collecting machine

ue

crt
fee

Plate 1

L. H. Joutel, 1902

Grapevine root worm

Plate 2

Photo August 1903
1 Vineyard somewhat injured by root worm

Photo August 1903

2 Healthy vigorous vineyard

a

(*szsod puUv SOIIM 9} 19A0D P[NOYS SOUIA oy ,) WAOM 4oor outAodeass Aq poanfur A[peq pareXour,
ZOG6I ‘ST “BnV o10ud = - - — ao — — ——

€ 23eI1d

y

1,

ie

(‘SSo[qZ10M se touMo 044 Aq yno u104 seM doord SIU) wW410M yoor sutaedeis Aq poanfur Ajpeq £19 paeXour,
061 ‘ST “any 100d : sine TA

GO06T “GI “Sny O00g
Fs —

seqzeeq Aq uezee ATpeq osetjto

ru

SBIIG popote oyI[ULeYoO AeT[Noed oY} SuUlyerZSHI[I ‘VUIA mMe4ve A[peq wWoOay soAvorT

9 938d

S06T 29UNe O10GT

‘L ayia

19}M90 IveU sedeo SUIpsoIg pue paeAourA TequouT.edxy

Nearer view of breeding cages

Plate 8

Photo June, 1903

I9Jo7Bd 9[}90q Ysnoy

GO6I ‘ST “Sny Of0Ug

SSeS SS ae eee Te

Plate Io

Photo June 1903

Morehouse beetle catcher

Plate 11

Photo June 1903

Morehouse beetle catcher

UorHyei1edo UL 1eq40}¥0 a[J00q asnoysi1o;
eune oyoug

£061

ay,
xan

Goer
ba
ee
Coe

t a
Ao

I9Y}VO 9[}90q SIeMOTT

€06T nanny oJoyg
Z SS SE

‘€1 93%Id

INDEX

Albany, insect at, 8.

Ampelopsis quinquefolia, insect on, 8,
13, 30.

Ant, small brown, 32.

Aphis lion, 33.

arctata, Hoplophora, 32.

Arkansas, injuries at, 12.

Arsenical poisons, 11, 26, 29, 39-44.

asparagi, Crioceris, 8.

Asparagus beetles, 8.

Barden, J. Jay, services of, 3; observa-
tions, 16; on pupae, 25; spraying
done by, 26; construction of ma-
chine for collecting beetles, 34

Barden, William, destruction of eggs
by, 44.

Beetle catcher, insects taken by, 29- 30;
efficacy, 36-38; Blowers, 38; Hough,
34-35; Morehouse, 35-36.

Bibliography, 47-49.

Bloomington Ill., injuries at, 12, 13,
43.

Blowers, R. S., beetle catcher, 38.

Bluffton Mo., specimens sent from, 11.

Bordeaux mixture, 11, 26, 29, 43.

botrana, Polychrosis, 31-32.

Brachysticha fidiae, 32.

Breeding cage experiments,
39-41. :

Brightons injured, 10, 30.

brunneus, Lasius, var. alienus, 32.

Bunker Hill Ill, specimens from, 12.

Burgess, A. F., acknowledgments to,
4, 9; experiments by, 42.

1G) 2

Cage experiments, 16, 27, 39-41.

Calcium carbid, effect of refuse on
grubs, 46. ;

Carabid beetle, 32.

Carbon bisulfid, 11, 45-46.

Catawbas injured, 10, 30, 31.

Cercis canadensis, 30.

chalybea, Haltica, 8.

Chrysomelidae, 8

Chrysopa sp., 33.

|

Clymonts, T. S., statements on depre-
dations in Ohio, 9; on spraying with
bordeaux mixture, 11, 43; on culti-
vation, 45.

Collecting beetles, 3, 16, 34-39, 44, 47.

comes var. vitis, Typhlocyba, 5

Concords injured, 10, 30, 31, 41.

Crioceris asparagi, 8.
12-punctata, 8.

Crotch, G. R., description of insect, 12
cited, 47.

Cnliaiten of soil, time for, 33-34,
45, 47.

Curculio catcher, modified form, 34.

Dean, Clyde, vineyard, 23.

Diabrotica vittata, 8.

Dille, W. W., statements on depreda-
tions in Ohio, 10; cited, 48.

Disparene, 42.

duodecim-punctata, Crioceris, 8.

Egg parasites, 12, 32.

Egg stage, duration of, 23.

Eggs, 13, 16, 19; number laid, 20-23;
destruction of, 44.

Elm leaf beetle, 8.

Experimental work in 1903, 26-30.

Explanation of plates, 50-51.

Falvay, D. K., acknowledgments to, 3;
vineyard of, 26, 31-32.
Felt, E. P., cited, 49.
Fidia longipes, 12.
lurida, 12.
murina, 12.
viticida, see Grapevine root worm.
fidiae, Brachysticha, 32.
Fidiobia flavipes, 32.
flavipes, Fidiobia, 32.
Food plants, 30. *

Galerucella luteola, 8.
Grapeberry moth, 31-32.
Grapevine flea beetle, 8.
Grapevine leaf hopper, 5.

54 NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM

Grapevine root worm, allies, 8-9;
beetles, time of appearance, 16;
area infested, 6; beetles on canes, 17;
depredations on poor soils, 7, 10;
description, 13-14; early history,
11-13; eggs, 13, 19-23; duration of
the egg stage, 23: experimental
work in 1903, 26-30; beetles feeding

on upper surface of leaves, 17;

-oflightvof beetles, 18; food plants, 30;

“ihabits ‘of beetle, 15-19; hibernation,
-15;larva, 13; habits of larvae, 23-25;
burrowing and traveling powers of
larvae, 23; life- history, , 15-26;
length of life, 16; a native species,
7-8; natural enemies, 32; present
conditions in Ohio, 9-11; oviposi-
tion, 16-17, 19; in Portland, West-
field and Ripley, 5; prolificacy, 6,
20; pupa, 25; pupae easily destroyed,
25-26; will ruin a vineyard in two
or three years, 5; signs of insect’s

presence, 6-7; tendency to remain |

in a locality, 18; preference for
thrifty vineyards, 5; on wild grape-
vines, 7. See also Remedial meas-
ures.

Grapevines, soils, 7, 10; condition of
the roots, 7; younger vineyards
suffer most, 10; varieties affected,
30-31.

Haltica chalybea, 8.

Heteropus ventricosus 12, 32.

Highland, grapevine root worm in, 6.

Hoplophora arctata, 32.

Horn, G. H., record of distribution,
12; cited, 48.

Hough, G. L., vineyard, 23; on pupae,
25; construction of machine for
collecting beetles, 34, 35; number
of beetles collected by, 35.

Howard, L. O., statement of depreda-
tions, 13; cited, 48, 49.

Illinois, specimens from, 12; injuries
at, 12, 13, 43.
Iowa City, specimen from, 12.

Kainit, 12. :
Kentucky, specimens sent from, 11.

|

Kerosene emulsion, 46.
Kridelbaugh, S. H., cited, 47.

Lampe, J. L., vineyard, 43.

Larvae, described, 13-14;
23-25.

Lasius brunneus var. alienus, 32.

Leaf hopper, 5.

Lefevre, Ed., insect described by, 12;
cited, 47.

Life history, 15-26.

Lintner, J. A., examples of beetles in
collection of, 8.

longipes, Fidia, 12.

Lugger, Otto, cited, 48.

lurida, Fidia, 12.

luteola, Galerucella, 8.

habits,

Mally, C.W., report of experiments,
12; mentioned, 43; cited, 48.

Marlatt, C. L., mentioned, 34; cited, 48.

Marx, George, mentioned, 32.

Maxwell, J. W., statements on depre-
dations in Ohio, 10; on spraying, 43. .

Milton, grapevine root worm in, 6.

Missouri, specimens from, 12; grape-
vine root worm in, 12.

Monfort, Frank, vineyard of, 41.

Montana, specimens sent from, 11.

Morehouse, F. A., estimates of dam-
ages, 5; observations, 16; im--
proved form of catcher designed: by,
35-38; trained chickens to eat
beetles, 39.

Morse, vineyard, 42.

murina, Fidia, 12.

Murtfeldt, M. E., cited, 48.

Natural enemies, 32-33.

Neill, T. T., observations, 16.

New Jersey, distribution in, 13.

Newell, experiments by, 42.

Niagara vines, renewing a. vineyard,
with, 10; injured, 30.

Northrop, Walter, estimates of dam-
ages, 5.

Ohio, present conditions in, 5, 9-11;
evidence concerning efficacy of
poisons in, 42-44,

Oviposition, 16-17, 19; experiments

| with Fidia, 20-23.

INDEX TO GRAPEVINE ROOT WORM 55

Paris green, experiments with, 39-40.

Parrott, Percy J, acknowledgments
to, 4, 9, 42.

Petroleum, crude, 46,

phylloxerae, Tvroglyphus, 32.

Plates, explanation of, 50-51.

Polychrosis botrana, 31-32.

Portland, grapevine root worm in,
5, 23.

Pulverizing the soil, 45.

Pupa stage, duration, 25.

Pupae, 14, 25; destroying the, 33-34.

. Recommendations, 47.

Redbud, 30.

Remedial measures, 33-47; arsenical
poisons, 11, 26, 29, 39-44; bordeaux
mixture, 11, 26, 29, 43; carbon
bisulfid, 11, 45-46; disparene, 42;
effect of calcium carbid refuse on
grubs, 46; collecting beetles, 3, 16,
34-39, 44, 47; destruction of eggs,
44; destroying the pupae. 33-34;
kainit, 12; kerosene emulsion, 46;
paris green, 39-40; crude petro-
leum, 46; pulverizing the soil and
mounding, 45; tobacco dust, 12;
whale oil soap, 44; recommenda-
tions, 47.

Riley, C. V., cited, 11-12, 39, 47; on
food plants, 30.

Ripley, grapevine root worm in, 5,6, 18.

St Louis, specimens sent from, 11.
Schonfeldt, observations, 18.

Slade, W. H., statements on depreda-

tions in Ohio, 10, 31.

Slingerland, M. V., account of insect,
12; on collecting beetles, 34; cited,
48, 49.

Smith, J. B., cited, 12-13, 48, 49.
Spencer, John W., results obtained
with arsenical spray, 41; cited, 49.

Spraying, see Remedial measures.

Squash bug, 8.

Staphylinus vulpinus, 32

Staten Island, injuries in, 13. She

Stedman, suggestions, 38.

Stinson, J. T., injuries recorded by,
12; on use of poison in Arkansas,
43; cited, 48.

Stout, O. E., cited, 47.

Tobacco dust, 12.

Typhlocyba comes var. vitis, 5. —

Tyroglyphus sp., 32.
phylloxerae, 32.

ventricosus, Heteropus, 12, 32.

Vineland Ark., injuries at, 12.

Virginia creeper, insect on, 8, 13, 30.

viticida, Fidia, see Grapevine root
worm.

vittata, Diabrotica, 8.

vulpinus, Staphylinus, 32.

Walker, C. M., assistance from, 4.
Walsh, B. D., specimens sent to, 11;
cited, 30, 47.
Webster, F'. M., discovery of grapevine
- root worm in Ohio, 9; account of
investigations, 12; report of experi-
ments, 12; on habits of beetle, 15;
on feeding of beetles, 17; on num-~
ber of eggs from a single vine, 19;
on transparent band near each end
of egg, 23; on habits of larvae, 23;
on pupae, 25; on finding grubs in
spring, 25; on enemies of grapevine
root worm, 32; mentioned, 34; on
efficacy of poisons, 42-43; on spray-
ing with arsenate of lead, 43; on
time for cultivation, 45; experi-
ments with carbon bisulfid, 45-46;
cited, 48, 49.

Westfield, grapevine root worm in, 5.

Whale oi! soap, 44.

White fly, 5.

Wickham, H. F., specimen sent to, 12.

Wieting, C. A., acknowledgments to, 3.

Wordens injured, 10, 30, 31.

Young, D. B., assistance from, 4.

a

University of the State of New York

New York State Museum

PUBLICATIONS

Postage or express to places outside of New York State must be paid in addition
to the price given. On 10 or more copies of any one publication 20% discount
will be given, the buyer to pay transportation. Editions printed are only large
enough to meet special claims and probable sales. When the sale copies
are exhausted, the price for the few reserve copies is advanced to that
charged by secondhand booksellers, in order to limit their distribution to cases
of special need. Such prices are inclosed in brackets [ ]. All publications are in
paper covers, unless binding is specified.

Museum annual reports 1847-date. All in print to 1892, soc a volume, 75¢ in
cloth; 1892-date, 75c, cloth.

These reports are made up of the reports of the director, geologist, paleontologist, botanist and
entomologist, and museum bulletins and memoirs, issued as advance sections of the reports.

Geologist’s annual reports 1881-date. Rep’ts1, 3-13, 17-date, O; 2, 14-16, Q.

The annual reports of the early natural history survey, 1837-41 are out of print.

Reports 1—4, 1881-84 were published only in separate form. Of the fifth report four pages
were reprinted in the 39th museum report, and a supplement to the 6th report was included
in the 40th museum report. The 7th and subsequent reports are included in the 41st and fol-
lowing museum reports, except that certain lithographic plates in the 11th report (1891)
and 13th (1893) are omitted from the 45th and 47th museum reports.

Separate volumes of the following only are available.

Report Price | Report Price Report Price
12 (1892) $.50 16 $1 19 $.40
? 14 75 apenas aN eri 20 .50
Wy 2A 2 18 ole) 21 -40

In 1898 the paleontologic work of the State was made distinct from the geologie and will
hereafter be reported separately.

Paleontologist’s annual reports 1899-date.

See fourth note under Geologist’s annual reports.
Bound also with museum reports of which they form a part. Reports for 1899 and 1900 may
be had for 20c each. Since 1901 these reports have been issued as bulletins. ,

Entomologist’s annual reports on the injurious and other insects of the State

of New York 1882-date.

Reports 3-17 bound also with museum reports 40-46, 48-55 of which they form apart. Since
1898 these reports have been issued as bulletins. Reports 3-4 are out of print other reports with
prices are:

Report Price Report Price Report Price
i! $.50 8 $.25 13 $.10
2 .30 9 -25 14 (Ent. bul. 5) .20
5 .25 10 .35 NEC eee 9) 15
6 .15 il 25) 16 oe 10) 25
7 .20 12 .25 17 ce 14) .30

ales (C 2 17) .20

_ Reports 2, 8-12 may also be obtained bound separately in cloth at 25c in addition to the price
given above,

Botanist’s annual reports 1867-date.

Bound also with museum reports 21- date of which they form a part; the first porarieize report
appeared in the 21st museum report and is numbered 21. Reports 21-24, 29, 31-41 were not
published separately.

Separate reports 25-28, 30, 42-50 and 52 (Botany bulletin 3), are out of print. Report 51 may
be had for 40c; 53 for 20¢; 54 for 50c; 55 (Botany bulletin 5) for 40c; 56 (Botany bulletin 6)
for 50c. Since 1901 these Yeports have been issued as bulletins.

Deseriptions and illustrations of edible, poisonous and unwholesome fungi of New York have
been publistied in volumes 1 and 3 of the 48th museum report and in volume 1 of the 49th, 51st,
52d, 54th and 55th reports. The descriptions and illustrations of edible and unwholesome species
contained in the 49th, 51st and 52d reports have been revised and rearranged, and, combined
with others more recently prepared, constitute Museum memoir 4.

Museum bulletins 1&87-date. O. 1'o advance subscribers, $2a year or 50c u

year for those of any one division: (1) geology, economic geology, mineralogy,
general zoology, archeslogy and mi#&cellaneous, (2) paleontology, (3) botany, (4)

' ~ entomology.
Bulletins are also found with the annual reports of the museum as follows:
Bulletin Report Bulletin Report Bulletin Report
12-15 48, v.1 20-25 ys Sify Ab 35-36 54, v. 2
16-17 OO keee 26-31 Be ae 37-44 Sea aes
18-19 a ee 32-34 rN pails 45-48 “vid

49-54 Bon Vane
: The figures in parenthesis indicate the bulletin’s number as a New York State Museum bul-
etin.

UNIVERSITY OF THH STATH OF NEW YORK |

Geology. G1 (14) Kemp, J. F. Geology of Moriah and Westport Townships,
Essex Co. N. Y., with notes on theiron mines. 38p. 7pl. 2 maps, Sep. 1895.
Toe.

2 (19) Merrill, F: J. H. Guide to the Study of the Geological Collections of the
New York State Museum. 162p. 119pl. map. Nov. 1898. [s50c] New
edition in preparation.

G8 (21) Kemp, J. F. Geology of the Lake Placid Region. 24p. Ipl. map.
Sep. 1898. 5c.

G4 (48) Woodworth, J. B. Pleistocene Geology of Nassau County and Borough
of Queens. 58p.il 9pl.map. Dec. 1901. 25¢c.

G5 (56) Merrill, F: J. H. Description of the State Geologic Map of 1901. 42p.
2 maps, tab. Oct.1902. oc.

G6 Cushing, H. P. Geology of the Vicinity of Little Falls, Herkimer Co. In
preparation.

Crystalline Rocks of the Northeastern Adirondacks In preparation.

Kemp, J. F. Crystalline Rocks of Warren and Washington Counties. In
preparation.

Woodworth, J. B. Glacial Geology of New York Jn preparation

Economic geology. Eg1(3) Smock, J: C. Building Stone in the State of
New York. 152p. Mar. 1888. Oué of print.

- Ege (7) First Report on the Iron Mines and Iron Ore Districts in New York.
6+70p. map. June 1889. Out of print.
Eg3 (10) Building Stone in New York. 210p. map, tab. Sep. 1890 oc.

Eg4 (11) Merrill, F: J. H Salt and Gypsum Industries in New York. 92p.-
12pl. 2 maps, 11 tab. Ap. 1893. oc.

Eg5 (12) Ries, Heinrich Clay Industries of New York. 174p.2pl.map Mar.
1895. joc.

Eg6 (15) Merrill, F: J. H. Mineral Resources of New York. 224p. 2 maps.
Sep 1895. soc.

Eg’? (177) —— Road Materials and Road Building in New York. 52p. 14pl..2
maps 34x45, 68x92 cm. Oct.1897. z5c.
Maps separate Toc each, 2 for I5C. ,
Egs (30) Orton, Edward. Petroleum and Natural Gas in New York. 1386p.
il. 3 maps. "Nov. 1899. I5C.

Eg9 ($5) Ries, Heinrich. Clays of New York; their Properties and Uses. 456p.
140pl. map. June 1900. $v, cloth.

Eg10 (44) Lime and Cement Industries of New York; Eckel, E. C. Chap-
ters on the Cement Industry. 332p.101pl.2 maps. Dec. 1901. &c, cloth.

Eg11 (61) Dickinson, H. T. Quarries of Bluestone and other Sandstones in
New York. 108p. 18pl.2 maps. Mar. 1903. 5c.

Mineralogy. M1 (4) Nason, F. L. Some New York Minerals and their Lo-
calities, 20p. Ipl. Aug. 1888 [zoc]

M2 (58) Whitlock, H. P. Guide to the Mineralogic Uollections pai the New York
- State Museum. 150p. il. 89pl. 11 models Sep. 1902. oc.

M3 (70) —— New York Mineral Localities. 110p. Sep. 1903. 20c.

Paleontology. Pal (384) Cumings, E.R. Lower Silurian System of Eastern
Montgomery County; Prosser, C:S. Notes on the Stratigraphy of Mohawk
Valley and Saratoga County, N. Y. 74p.10pl. map. May 1900. z5c.

Pa2 (39) Ciarke, J: M.;Simpson, G: B. & Loomis, F:B. Paleontologic Papers 1.
72p. il. 16pl. Oct. 1900. z5c.

Contents: Clarke, J: M. A Remarkable Occurrence of Orthoceras in the Oneonta Beds of
the Chenango Valley, N. Y

——Paropsonema eryptophya; a Peculiar Echinoderm from the Intumescens-zone (Port-
age Beds) of Western New York

——Dictyonine Hexactinellid Sponges from the Upper Devonic of New York.

——The Water Biscuit of Squaw Island, Canandaigua Lake, N

Simpson, G:B. Preliminary Descriptions of New Genera of Paleozoic Rugose Coratis.

Loomis, F:B. Siluric Fungi from Western New York.

Pa3 (42) Ruedemann, Rudolf. Hudson River Beds near Albany and their
Taxonomic Equivalents. 114p. 2pl. map. Ap. 1901. 25.

MUSEUM PUBLICATIONS

Pa4 (45) Grabau, A. W. Geology and Paleontology of Niagara Falls and
Vicinity. 286p. il. 18pl. map. Ap. 1901. 65c; cloth goc.
Pad (49) Ruedemann, Rudolf; Clarke, J: M. & Wood, Elvira. Paleontologic
Papers 2. 240p. 13pl. Dec. 1901. oc.
Contents: Ruedemann, Rudolf. Trenton Conglomerate of Rysedorph Hill.
Clarke, J:M. lLimestones of Central and Western New York Interbedded with Bitumin-
ous Shales of the Marcellus Stage.
Wood, Elvira. Marcellus Limestones of Lancaster, Erie Co. N. Y.
Clarke, J:M. New Agelacrinites.
——Value of Amnigenia.as an Indicator of Fresh-water Deposits during the Devonic of
New York, Ireland and the Rhineland.
Pa6 (52) Clarke, J: M. Report of the State Paleontologist 1901. 280p. il. 9pl.
map, 1 tab. July 1902. oc.

Pa7 (63) Stratigraphy of Canandaigua and Naples Quadrangles. 2 maps.
In press.

Pa8 (65) —— Catalogue of Type Specimens of Paleozoic Fossils in the ‘New
York State Museum. 848p. May 19038. $7.20, cloth.

Pa9 (69) —— Report of the State Paleontologist 1902. 464p. 52pl. 8 maps.

Nov. 1903. 7, cloth.

Zoology. Z1(1) Marshall, W:B_ Preliminary List of New York Unionidae.
20p. Mar. 1892. 5c.

Z2 (9) —— Beaks of Unionidae Inhabiting the Vicinity of Albany, N. Y. 24p.
Ip]. Aug. 1890. zoc.

Z3 (29) Miller, G. S. jr. Preliminary List of New York Mammals. 124p. Oct.
1899. z75¢c.

Z4 (33) Farr, M.S. Check List of New York Birds. 224p. Ap.1900. 25c.

Z5 (38) Miller. G.S. jr. Key to the Land Mammals of Northeastern North
America. 106p. Oct. 1900. zs5c.

Z6 (40) Simpson, G: B. Anatomy and Physiology of Polygyra albolabris and
Limax maximus and Embryology of Limax maximus. 82p. 28pl. Oct.
1901. 25¢.

Z7 (43) Kellogg, J. L. Clam and Scallop Industries of New York. 36p. 2pl.
map. Ap. 1901. zoe,

Z8 (51) Eckel, KE. C. & Paulmier, F.C. Catalogue of Reptiles and Batrachians

of New York. 64p. il. lpl. Ap. 1902. z5c.
Eckel, KE. C. Serpents of Northeastern United States.
Paulmier, F.C. Lizards, Tortoises and Batrachians of New York.

Z9 (60) Bean, T.H. Catalogue of the Fishes of New York. 784p. Feb. 1903.
Sr, cloth.

Z10 (71) Kellogg, J. L. Feeding Habits and Growth of Venus mercenaria 30p.
4pl. Sep. 1903. zoc.

Farr, M.S. Birds of New York. In preparation.

Letson, Elizabeth J. Catalogue of New York Mollusca. In preparation.

Entomology. Enl (5) Lirtner, J. A. White Grub of the May Beetle. 32p.
il. Nov. 1888. zoc.

En2 (6) —— Cut-worms. 36p.il. Nov. 1888. zoc.

En3 (13) —— San José Scale and Some Destructive Insects of New York
State. 54p.7pl. Ap. 1895. zs.

En4 (20) Felt, E. P. Elm-leaf Beetle in New York State. 46p. il. Spl. June

1898. 5¢ ,
See En15,

En5 (23) —— 14th Report of the State Entomologist 1898. 150p. il. 9pl.
Dec. 1898. 2o¢.

En6 (24) Memorial of the Life and Entomologic work of J. A. Lintner

Ph.D. State Entomologist 1874-98; Index to Entomologist’s Reports 1-13.
316p. Ipl. Oct. 1899. 35c.
Supplement to 14th report of the state entomologist.

En7 (26) Collection, Preservation and Distribution of New York Insects.
36p. il. Ap. 1899. se.

En8 (27) —— Shade Tree Pests in New York State. 26p. iJ. 5pl. May 1899. se.

En9 (31) —— 15th Report of the State Entomologist 1899. 128p. June 1900.
I5C.

UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

En10 (86) 16th Report of the State Entomologist 1900. 118p. 16pl. Mar.
1901. 25c.
En11 (37) Catalogue of Some of the More Important Injurious and Bene-

ficial Insects of New York State. 54p. il. Sep. 1900. zoc.
En12 (46) Scale Insects of Importance and a List of the Species in New
York State. 94p.il.15pl. June 1901. 25c.

En13 (47) Needham, J.G. & Betten, Cornelius. Aquatic Insects in the Adiron-
dacks. 234p. il. 36pl. Sep. 1901. gsc.

En14 (53) Felt, E. P.. 17th Report of the State Entomologist 1901. 232p.
il. 6pl. Aug. 1902. joc.

En15 (57) Elm Leaf Beetle in New York State. 46p.il.8pl. Aug.1902. zs5c.

This is a revision of En4 containing the more essential facts observed since that was prepared.

En16 (59) Grapevine Root Worm. 40p.6pl. Dec. 1902. z5c. See En19.
En17 (64) 18th Report of the State Entomologist 1902. 110p. 6pl. May
1903. 2o0¢.

En18 (68) Needham, J. G. & others. Aquatic Insects in New York. 322p. 52pl.
Aug. 1903. Soc, cloth.
En19 (72) Grapevine Root Worm. 58p. 13pl. Nov. 19038. 20c.

This is arevision of EKni6 containing the more essential facts observed since that was
prepared. 5

Felt, E. P. & Joutel, L. H. Monograph of the Genus Saperda. In press.

Botany. Bol (2) Peck, C: H. Contributions to the Botany of the State of
New York. 66p. 2pl. May 1887. Out of print.

Bo2 (8) Boleti of the United States. 96p. Sep. 1889 [soc]

Bo3 (25) —— Report of the State Botanist 1898. 76p.5pl. Oct. 1899. Out o/
print.

Bo4 (28) —— Plants of North Elba. 206p.map. June 1899. 2oc.

Bod (54) —— Report of the State Botanist 1901. 58p.7pl. Nov. 1902. oc.

Bo6 (67) —— Report of the State Botanist 1902. 196p.5pl. May 1903. soc.

Archeology. Arl (16) Beauchamp, W: M. Aboriginal Chipped Stone Imple-
ments of New York. 86p. 23pl. Oct. 1897. 2s5c.

Ar2 (18) Polished Stone Articles used by the New York Akorigines. 104p-
35pl. Nov. 1897. 25¢.

aah ree: Earthenware of the New York Aborigines. 78p. 33pl Oct.

25.

Ar4 (32)
1900. oc.

Ar5 (41) Wampum and Shell! Articles used by New York Indians. 166p.
28pl. Mar. 1901. joc.

Ar6 (50) —— Horn and Bone Implements of the New York Indians. 112p. 43pl.
Mar. 1902. oc.

Aboriginal Occupation of New York. 190p.16pl. 2 maps. Mar.

Ar7 (55) Metallic Implements of the New York Indians. 94p. 38pl. June
1902. 25c.
Ar8 (73) —— Metallic Ornaments of the New York Indians. In press.

History of the New York Irequois. In preparation.

Perch Lake Mounds. In preparation.

—— Aboriginal Use of Wood in New York. In preparation.

Miscellaneous. Ms1 (62) Merrill, F: J. H. Directory of Natural History
Museums in United States and Canada. 236p. Ap. 1903. joc.

Ms2 (66) Ellis, Mary. Index to Publications of the New York State Natural
History Survey and New York State Museum 1837-1902. 418p. June
1903. 75c, cloth

Museum memoirs }1889-date. Q.

1 Beecher, C: Ei. & Clarke, J: M. Development of some Silurian Brachiopoda.
96p. 8pl. Oct. 1889. Out of print. -

2 Hall, James & Clarke, J: M. Paleozoic Reticulate Sponges. 350p. il. 7Opl.

1898. $2, cloth.

| MUSEUM PUBLICATIONS

8 Clarke, J: M. The Oriskany Fauna of Becraft Mountain, Columbia Co. N. Y.
128p. 9pl. Oct. 1900. Soe. ae,
4 Peck, C: H. N. Y. Edible Fungi, 1895-99. 106p. 25pl.. Nov. 1900. -75c.
This includes revised descriptions and illustrations of fungi reported in the 49th, 51st and 52d
reports of the state botanist. 2 :
5 Clarke, J: M. & Ruedemann, Rudolf. Guelph Formation and Fauna of New
% York State. 196p. 21pl. July 1903. J$z.50, cloth.
e 6 Naples Fauna in Western New York. In press.
_ Felt, HE. P. Insects Affecting Park and Woodland Trees. In preparation. |
Merrill, F: J. H. Geology of New York City and Vicinity. Jn preparation.
Ruedemann, Rudolf. Graptolitesof New York. Pt 1 Graptolites of the Lower
Beds. In preparation.

Natural history of New York. 30v.il. pl.maps. Q. Albany 1842-94.

DIVISION 1 zooLoGy. DeKay, JamesE. Zoology of New York; or, The New

- York Fauna; comprising detailed descriptions of all the animals hitherto ob-
served within the State of New York with brief notices of those occasionally
found near its borders, and accompanied by appropriate illustrations.
dv. il. pl. maps. sq.Q. Albany 1842-44. Out of print.

Historical introduction to the series by Goy- W: H. Seward. 178p-

_ y.1 pti “Mammalia. 13+146p. 33pl. 18412.

WJ 4 300 copies with hand-colored plates.

y.2pt2 Birds. 124+-380p. 141pl. 1844.

* Colored plates.

_ y.3pt3 Reptilesand Amphibia. 7498p. pt4 Fishes. 154+415p. 1842.

. pt3-4 bound together.

_ y.4 Plates to accompany v.38. Reptiles and Amphibia 23pl. Fishes 79pl. 1842.

= 300 copies with hand-colored plates. :
v.d ptd Mollusca. 4+4271p. 40pl. pt6 Crustacea. 70p.13pl. 1843-44.
Hand-colored plates : pt5-6 bound together.
_ DIVISION 2. Borany. Torrey, John. Flora of the State of New York ; comprising
full descriptions of all the indigenous and naturalized plants hitherto discovered

in the State, with remarks on their economical and medical properties. 2v. il. cay

pl. sq. Q. Albany 1848. Out of print. See =

y. 1 Flora of the State of New York. 12+-484p. 72pl. 1843. o

~ 800 copies with hand-colored plates. : ; aS
_ v.2 Flora of the State of New York. 572p. 89pl. 1848. ae
‘- 300 copies with hand-colored plates. ae ‘w
DIVISION 38 MINERALOGY. Beck, Lewis C. Mineralogy of New York ; comprising ei 5)

; detailed descriptions of the minerals hitherto found in the State of New York, 3
- and notices of their uses in the arts and agriculture. il. pl. sq. Q. Albany a
1842. Out of print. : Re
% _y. 1 pti Economical Mineralogy. pt2 Descriptive Mineralogy. 24+5386p. 1842. ec
Bs 8 plates additional to those printed as part of the text. \ .
DIVISION 4 GEOLOGY. Mather, W: W.; mmons, Ebenezer; Vanuxem, lardner nae
_ & Hall, James. Geology of New York. 4v. il. pl. sq. Q. Albany 1842-43. 9. oa #
P Out of print. mse

- v.ipti Mather, W: W. First Geological District. 87-+-653p. 46pl. 1843.
_ v.2pt2 Emmons, Ebenezer, Second Geological District. 10+487p. 17pl. 1842.
-v.3 pt3 Vanuxem, Lardner. Third Geological District. 3066p. 1842.

v.4 ptt Hall, James. Fourth Geological District. 22+683p. 19pl. map.
- 1843.

DIVISION 5 AGRICULTURE. Emmons, Ebenezer. Agriculture of New York; com-
prising an account of the classification, composition and distribution of the
soils and rocks and the natural waters of the different geological formations,
together with a condensed view of the meteorology and agriculturai produc-
tions of the State. Sv. il. pl. sq. Q. Albany 1848-54. Outof print. —

y.1 Soils of the State, their Composition and Distribution. 11+871p. 2ipl.
1846. =

vy.2 Analysis of Soils, Plants, Cereals, etc. 3438-46p. 42pl. t
With een sina Ne onesies Al a SP : se oe

wy or. f

mE ee eT

,

UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

v.3 Fruits, etc. 8+3840p. 1851.

v.4 Plates to accompany v.38. 95pl. 18951.
Hand-colored. -

v.5 Insects Injurious to Agriculture. 8+272p. 50pl. 1854.
With hand-colored plates. 3 en

DIVISION 6 PALEONTOLOGY. Tall, James. Palaeontology of New York. §8v. il.
pl. sq.Q. Albany 1847-94. Bound in cloth. Se:

v. 1 eae Remains of the Lower Division of the New York System. 28-+838p.
99pl. 1847, Out of print. ;

v.2 Cae Remains of Lower Middle Division of the New York oe ;
8-+862p. 10Ipl. 1852. Oud of print.

v.3 Organic Remains of the Lower Helderberg Group and the Oriskany Sand-
stone. pti, text. 121532p. 1859. [$3.50].

— pt2, 1438p]. 1861. [$2.50] q

y.4 Fossil Brachiopoda of the Upper Helde erberg, Hamilton, Portage and Che-
mung Groups. 11+i1-+428p 89pl. 1867. $2.50. ,

vy. 5 ptt Lamellibranchiata 1. Monomyaria of the Upper Helderberg, Hamilton -

and Chemung Groups. 18-+268p. 45pl. 1884. $2.50. :
Lamellibranchiata 2. Dimyaria of the Upper Helderberg, Hamiiton,
Portage and Chemung Groups. 62-+-293p. d!pl. 1885. $2.50. =
pt2 Gasteropoda, Pteropoda and Cephalopoda of or Upper Helderberg,
Hamilton, Portage and Chemung Groups. 2v. 1879. v.1, text. 15-+492p;
v. 2, 120bl. $2.50 for Ba. :
v.6 Corals and Bryozoa of the Lower ‘and Upper Helderberg ea Hamilton a
Groups. 24+298p. 67pl. 1887. $2.50. “ag
vy. 7 Trilobites and other Crustacea of the Oriskany, Upper Helderberg, Hamil-
ton, Portage, Chemung and Catskill Groups. — 64-+-256p. 46p1_ 1888. Cont.
supplement to v. 5, pt. Pteropoda, Cephatopoda and Annelida. 42p. 18p].
1883. $2.50. . “
v. 8 ptl Introduction to the Study of the Genera of the Paleozoic Brachiopoda. 4
16-+317p. 44pl. 1892. $2.50.
— pt2 Paleozoic Brachiopoda. 16+394p. 84pl. 1894. $250.

Catalogue of the Cabinet of Natural History of the State of New York and or -
the Historical and Antiquarian Collection annexed thereto. 242p. O. 1853. 7
Handbooks 1893-date. 74x124 cm. :
In quantities, 1 cent foreach 16 pages orless.. Single copies postpaid as below.

H5 New York State Museum. 52p.il. ge.
Outlines history and work of the eee with list of staff 1902.

HT3 Paleontology. 12p. 2c. = a
Brief outline of State Museum, work in paleontclogy under heads: Definition; Relation
to biology; Relation to stratigraphy; History of paleontology in New York.

H15 Guide to Excursions in the Fossiliferous Rocks of New York. 124p. Sc.

Itineraries of 32 trips covering nearly the entire series of Paleozoic rocks, prepare épecially ag
for the use of teachers and students desiring to acquaint themselves more intimately with the —

classie rocks of this State.
H16 Entomology. 16p. 2c.
H17 Economic Geology. In preparation.
H18 Insecticides and Fungicides. 20p. 3c.
H19 Classification of New York Series of Geologic Formations. 32p. 3c. a
Maps. Merrill, F: J. H. Feonomic and Geologic Map of the State of New
York; issued as part of Museum bulletin 15 and the 48th Museum Report, —
v.1. 59x67 cm. 1894. Scale 14 miles to 1 inch. Separate caer out. at d
print. x
—— Geologic Map of New York. 1901. Scale 5 miles to 1 inch. In atlas
¥. form $3; mounted on rollers $5. Lower Hudson sheet 6oc.
The lower Hudson sheet, geologically colored, comprises Rockland, Orange, Dutchess, Put-
nam, Westchester, New York, Richmond, Kings, Queens and Nassau counties, and parts of

Sullivan, Ulster and Suffolk counties; also northeastern New Jersey and part of western Con
necticut.

Map of New York showing the Surface Configuration and Water Sheds 3
1901. Scale 12 miles to 1 inch. z5c.

- re

fies ie Bo be
ohh ye

ea ae

i bas *
. i a
§ ‘ So
7a
q
4 i
j
ite } i
oe {
we ‘
Ps ad \
= v4 De
Koss Vege ‘
iY
“ f
.
{
+
, x
% -
‘
‘
A
*
1
;

INSTITUT
INSTITUT

NOILALILSNI saiuvudit SMITHSONIAN

GK

LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLIWS

LIBRARIES

\.

NVINUSHLINVGS oSsiava
NVINOSHLIWS S3IuVY
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUT
NVINOSHLINS S31uVy:

SMITHSONIAN

Sale

LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN

5 wn = a = aXe.

g = “3 = Z WS

= Se, Ee o c FRAN

5 : : 77

ue co pe faa} ees ea

2 3 S sj S :

eo ttt _S4 fyVvug ryt! BRARI ES_ SMITHSONIAN

e) aa fw °o = oO Yo, eo

aa kes \. = e = 4Y sai:

=) = Pv) = My 3 ff

2 aN : : =

= 2 KS i ay, Ee, ad

3 7 ow 2 fi : m

= — Ww = w
LI B RARI ES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILALILSNI NVINOSHLIWS

ns = aya g = Z

ee = — — =" —

5 = 5 = 5 =

Z SIN 8 2 “2

= Wve Zz = 2 = =

oe Bee 2 = 4
NOILNLILSNI_NVINOSHLINS | Sa luvug [7 LIBRARI ES SMITHSONIAN INSTI

i att

! G a a Ry wl a OG

is a 22 = oc fa

< Kc WSS é e eS or

: 2° NO" 5 = 5 =

ma 3 SS ep S ca =

oad y pa) z
LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLINS S93 le

z : a So Sn

a4 - af ; “ a = S =

20 =e ify Cal > a 5

2 - Gy Ea = St i

. NOILNLILSNI_ NVINOSHLINS S31NVe IT SMITHSONIAN INSTI

= Ey Sl Sie = <

= z 4 tl fy 2 4 ZN

= S Be hia 5 = DS WS

Ww Ww Lee) ee Hye -_W 22) wn SS

S a a ie e 3 =

= = 275) - = A anys St)

= (ep) = <p) . =z ”

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOILNLILSNI NVINOSHLINS S31}

‘a
i

RC
«&
NOILNLILSNI

SMITHSONIAN

NOILNLILSNI

NoriTy 7%
LF VA) OW

NVINOSHLINS “SS1uvudit

SS
\ <Gul
AKA . ASHE.

LIBRARIES

‘30 NG
< <4
Lh. D>

TION NOILNLILSNI
I811 LIBRARIES
G17 LIBRARIES
TION NOILNLILSNI
Cy: ji
Vs

Uf
17 LIBRARIES

TION

Jo

ZON, Dc.

SILALILSNI NVINOSHLINS

INSTITU

Len gy35)
INSTITL
“e
SA
SA
S S3I¥V
Kay
‘,
Ore
INSTITU
Re DSN:
of

LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN

SJIYVUGIT_LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITU’

SMITHSONIAN _ INSTITUTION

NVINOSHLINS SAIUYYV?

SMITHSONIAN

NVINOSHLIW
SS
\~

SMITHSONIAN

NVINOSHLINS S3IY¥Ve

= s
e % - 4 a
= 5 : 2
Ses 8 —
= a
NVINOSHLINS S3!1YVYdIT LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN _ INSTITU
20 E 0 E _
: = > = ne
a 2 0 = |
m me m a m
wn is = wo = w
po MITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOLLALILSNI | NVINOSHLIWS, $3 1uVvy
= < = gt, : = yf
Se S \S r Wy, 5 = Ye
= fe SS . Ss 2 Aff is oA = z e: ¥
5 See. S =
_NVINOSHLINS SSIYVYEIT_ LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN
Zz . 2 rs 2
o me w = a
= = = oc me
e es & * 'c
= 2s 4 ac =i
fe) a 3 eT o
Zz a 2 SF Zz
BRARI Be Se TSOMAN IN MPR QeN NOUMNILSN! NVINOSHLINS S3IY¥Ve
-
= “0 2 ow i S
2 ttyl aw - 0 ke
EZ > Fa > ' =
- OF oa rs ad i
2 om 22) m 7)
= ra) = wn <
SENLILSN nowt avaal LIBRARIES |
aD ig ei cs z
z 4 stl Jy = =
re) LY ,
2 bY vig % D
fe 2 “Gy 2 =
= S : > =
ow = 2 a

NOILALILSNI NVINOSHLINS SJIYVY
WSS
Wx \

ss

SMITHSONIAN _ INSTITUTION

RIES

RN
SK
NOILNLILSNI

LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN

gg—NVINOSHLIWS SJIYVYUdIT LIBRARIES

ITION NOILNLILSNI
Ydit LIBRARIES

UTION
way

a
>
mS
ygit

ATOLL

3 9088 01300 7216