Historic, archived document

Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

divisiok of entomology.

Bulletin No. 17.

THE

CHINCH BUG

A GENERAL SUMMARY OF ITS HISTORY, HABITS, ENEMIES, AND OF
THE REMEDIES AND PREVENTIVES TO BE USED AGAINST IT.

By L. O. HOWAED, M. S.

ASSISTANT ENTOMOLOGIST.

WASHINGTON:

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.

1888.

12734— Bull. 17

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Page,

Letter of submittal 3

Introductory 5

Reasons for publishing at present time, 5 — Acknowledgments of assist-
ance, 5.
Past history . 5

The Chinch Bug a southern rather than a northern insect, 5— Its early ap-
pearances, 6 — First scientific description, 6 — The name " Mormon louse,77
6 — First recorded appearance in Missouri, Iowa, Indiana, and Wiscon-
sin, 6 — Damage in 1864 and 1868, 6 — Estimates of loss in 1871, 6 — The
great injury in 1874, 6 — First accurate account of early stages, 7— In-
terest in 1881, 7 — Its first injurious appearance in New York, 7 — Damage
done in 1887, 7 — Table of losses by States and crops, 8 — Counties report-
ing loss, 9.
Geographical distribution 9

In New York and New England, 10 — In Canada, 10 —In the Southern States,
10 — The States most injured, 10 — In Cuba, 10 — In California, 11 — In
Mexico, 12.
Food plants 12

The cultivated grains, 12 — Wild grasses, 12 — Rice, 13 — Probability of a
food-plant outside of the Graininea3, 13.
Stages of growth— Descriptive 13

The egg, 13— Larval stages, 13 — Pupa, 14— Imago, 14— Original descrip-
tion quoted, 14 — Le Baron's description, 15— Fitch7s varieties, 15 — Riley7s
variety melanosus, 15 — A new variety, 15.
Number of broods and hibernation 15

Early misconceptions, 15 — First accurate statement, 15 — Number of broods
south, 16 — Hibernation, 16— Influence of severe cold, 17— Odor renders
hibernating places easily found, 17 — Osage hedges in the West, 17.
Habits . 18

Flight, 18— Oviposition, 18 — Young larvse, 19 — Rate of growth, 19 — Migra-
tions, 19 — Their habits on corn, 20 — Preparation for hibernation, 20 — Er-
roneous statement as to oviposition, 21 — Exceptional habits, 21.
Natural enemies and diseases 21

No true insect parasites, 21 — A possible hair-worm parasite, 21 — The lady-
bird enemies, 22 — The lace-winged fly, 22 — True bugs which prey upon
it, 22 — Testimony against the efficacy of lady-birds, 23 — Vertebrate ene-
mies, 23 — Birds, 24 — Quail laws, 24— Diseases, 25 — Dr. Shirner's account
of the 1865 epidemic, 26 — Professor Forbes' investigations, 27 — Professor
Riley7s comments, 28.
Wet weather and the Chinch Bug 28

Wet weather inimical, 28 — Professor Forbes7 experiments, 29 — Comments,
29 — Wet weather and disease, 29 — Dr. Thomas's theory, 30 — Professor
Riley7s comments, 31 — An anonymous prediction, 31 — Table of tempera-
ture and rain-fall in North Carolina, 32 — Records of precipitation for 1885,
1886, and 1887, in Chinch Bug States, 32.

i

II TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Remedies and preventives 3:5

Early recommendations, 33— Preventives, 33— Clean cultivation. 33 — Diver-
sified farming, 33— Rotation of crops, 34— Early sowing and manuring,
34— Rolling, 34— Sowing an unattractive crop with wheat. :>.")— Direct
winter remedies, 35— Burning, 35— Fall plowing and harrowing, 35 — G
lime, 35 — Trapping, 36— Trampling, 36 — Direct xummerrena • rnt-

graiion, 36— Irrigation, 36— Burning, 37— Prevention of migration— dii
remedies during and after migration, 38 — Ditching, 38— Tarred boards <>i
tar alone, 38— Sowing -trips of plants distasteful to the bugs around the
fields to be protected, 39— Sowing sti ipsof favored food around the fields
to be protected, :'»'.> — Hot water and soap-suds, 39— Keros ne emulsion,
39— Professor Forbes' experiments, 39— The Hubbard formula, 10— Major
Tucker's experiment, 40 — Professor Atkinson's experiments, 4<> — Pro-
fessor Osborn's experiments, 41 — Mr. Warren's experiment, 4vJ.

B< >GUS C HIN'CII RUGS 4'2

The False Chinch Bug, 42— The Insidious Flower-bug, 43— The Ash-gray
Leaf-bug, 43 — The Flea-like Negro-bug, 43 — The Striped Flea beetle, 4:!.
Bibliographical list 44

LETTER OF SUBMITTAL.

U. S. Department of Agrictjlttjr

Division of Entomology,
Washington, D. C, January 3, 1888.
Sir : I have the honor to submit for publication Bulletin No. 17 from
this Division, being a paper upon the Chinch Bug prepared by my first
assistant, Mr. L. O. Howard, for the forthcoming Annual Eeport.
There are several important, or what the late Dr. LeBaron called " first
class," injurious insects, like the Chinch Bug, which I have so far not
cared to treat of in the publications of the Division, because in past
years, while State Entomologist of Missouri, I had occasion to publish
pretty fully upon them and because there is little opportunity to make
further investigations or experiments upon them in the vicinity of
Washington. I have, however, endeavored to keep a record of every-
thing published in reference to them and of the advance in our knowl-
edge of improved means of controlling them. On account of the great
interest felt just now in the Ch inch Bug and the prospect of injury from
it the coming summer in the Mississippi Valley, and from the fact that
the principal work to be done in preventing such injury is winter work,
I have decided, with your approval, to issue this paper in advance as a
bulletin, in order to supply the constant demand for information upon
the insect at the present time. It may be looked upon as an emer-
gency bulletin published because of the probable delay in the appear-
ance of the more bulky annual report beyond the time when the inform
ation will be useful for the coming season.
Eespectfully,

C. Y. Biley,

Entomologist.
Hon. Norman J. Colman,

Commissioner of Agriculture.

THE] CHINCH BUG

(BUssus leucopterus, Say.)
Order Hemiptera ; family IjYGtMIDM.

INTRODUCTORY.

The present treatment of the Chinch Bug offers little scope for any-
thing new or original. It is an extremely destructive species which has
been exhaustively treated by former writers and which, after several
years of comparative scarcity, has again become very injurious, so much
so as to occasion the loss of millions of dollars during the past sea-
son and to call forth the greatest variety of comment from the press of
the country, agricultural or otherwise. In this emergency it happens
that there are no public documents for distribution and even no books
which can be purchased which treat of the life history of and remedies
for this pest. The State reports of Eiley and LeBaron are out of print :
the small edition of Bulletin 5 of the U. S. Entomological Commission,
by Dr. Thomas, was long since exhausted ; and the recent bulletin and
circular by Forbes treat almost solely of remedies.

It becomes necessary, therefore, to bring out once more a complete
review of the subject. Previous writings, particularly those of Riley,
are freely used, and in many instances the well-known Missouri reports
of my chief are quoted at length.

Observations by Prof. Herbert Osborn, F. M. Webster, W. B. Alwood,
and Miss Mary Murtfeldt, Agents of the Division, are acknowledged as
they are used. Indebtedness to Prof. G. F. Atkinson, of Chapel Hill,
!N". C, for observations made in his vicinity, is here acknowledged. The
note-books of the Division of Entomology and the extensive records for
many years collected by Professor Riley have been at my disposal.

PAST HISTORY.

It has been quite generally accepted that the Chinch Bug is, compar-
atively speaking, a Southern rather than a Northern insect, and in so
far as the matter of destructive appearances goes, this idea is well up.
held by its past history. In our section upon geographical distribu-
tion, however, we have shown that the species is by no means confined
to the more Southern States, but that it is often found north of the

5

6 THE CHINCH BUG.

boundary line, in Canada. It was first noticed, so far as we can find,
in North Carolina, at the close of the Revolutionary war, where, as has
been so often stated, it was mistaken for the Hessian fly, which at that
time was attracting considerable notice on Long Island and there-
abouts.

Dr. Fitch, in his secoud report, gives with some little detail an account
of its early appearances, from which we may simply state that after
this first notice the insect did considerable damage for several years in
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. After a short series of
seasons it was again destructive in North Carolina in .1809, so that in
Orange County the cultivation of wheat was abandoned for two years.

In 1839, in the same States, great damage was done to corn and
wheat, and in 1810 an increase in number occurred, and the wholesale
destruction of the crops was only prevented by an exceedingly wet
season.

The first scientific description of this species was given by Say in
1831, in a pamphlet, now very scarce, published at New Harmony, Ind.,
entitled " Descriptions of new species of Heteropterous Heiniptera,*'
from a single specimen collected on the eastern shore of Virginia, and
it was probably at that time rare in Indiana, where Say resided, at New
Harmony.

It attracted much attention in 1810 in Illinois when it occurred in
numbers in Hancock County, where it was supposed to have been in-
troduced by the Mormons, and was called in consequence the " Mormon
louse."

According to Professor Riley, the first recorded appearance of the
insect in Missouri was in 1839. It was again noticed in 1S44, and has
been destructive at intervals ever since. In Iowa its first recorded ap-
pearance is in 1847, in Indiana in 1851, and in Wisconsin in 1855.

Eighteen hundred and sixty-four was a year marked by damage in
these Western States. In 1868, a season of great drought, much damage
was done by the bugs in Missouri.

In 1871 great damage was done in Illinois, southern Iowa, in parts
of Indiana, in Nebraska, in southern Missouri, and Kansas. It was
estimated by Dr. LeBaron in his second Illinois report that the loss
to the wheat, oat, and barley crops during this year amounted to
$10,500,000 in Illinois alone, and in the other six States mentioned, in-
cluding Indiana, the total loss was upwards of 330,000,000.

In 1874 they occurred again in Missouri and the adjoining States in
exceptional abundance. It was during this season that Professor Riley
sent out circulars to all parts of Missouri and at the close of which he
wrote the extended article which was published in his Seventh Report
on the Insects of Missouri.

He estimated that the total loss to the group of States of which
eastern Kansas forms a center was double that of 1871. Very care-
ful estimates by counties gave an aggregate loss of 819,000,000 for

THE CHINCH BUG. 7

Missouri alone, including only the three staple crops of Wheat, Corn,
and Oats. He mentions several facts which tend to show that this esti-
mate is low rather than high. In this report Professor Riley also gave
the first accurate and extended descriptions of the adolescent stages,
including the egg, and noticed the differences between the number of
joints in the tarsi in the young and the adult.

From 1874 to 1881 there were no serious irruptions of this pest, but
in this year it attracted considerable notice and did a great deal of dam-
age in some Western States. Much newspaper literature concern-
ing the insect was published during this year, much of which was
excited by Thomas's paper upon the "Relation of Meteorological Condi-
tions to Insect Development and Particularly to the Chinch Bug." It
was during this year also that the u Chinch Bug convention" was held
at Windsor, Kans., and it was decided to exclude Wheat from cultiva-
tion as a means of extirpating the pest.

In 1882 the work of the bug upon timothy grass was discovered in
Saint Lawrence County, N. Y., for the first time in its history. It in-
creased and spread in 1883, exciting great alarm, and occasioned several
articles from the pen of Dr. Lintner, who also issued a circular on reme-
dies and anticipating further damage.

Professor Eiley in Science (Vol. II, p. 620) and in his Report for 1884
stated that there was little cause for alarm in New York, and indeed no
particular damage has since been recorded. In 1885 some damage was
done in parts of Kansas and Nebraska, and in 1886 still more. Bulletin
No. 13 of the Division of Entomology contains reports of considerable
damage in the spring of 1886 from Kansas, Indiana, Ohio, and Ne-
braska and more especially in southern Illinois.

During the past year (1887) the injury was marked in these States
and also in some parts of Missouri, but the interesting point in the his-
tory of this season has been the occurrence of the insect in immense
numbers in portions of Virginia and North and South Carolina for the
first time in many years. As a thorough review of the localities and
damage this season is desirable, a statement has been drawn up at my
request by Mr. J. R. Dodge, the statistician of this Department, which
is submitted herewith.

Mr. Dodge reports as follows :

In accordance with your request, I take pleasure in communicating the results of
inquiries made relative to the geographical distribution of Chinch Bugs during the
past season, and to the extent of their destruction of growing crops.

I find indications of their presence throughout the southern and western States,
hut no material injuries to crops are reported except in States bordering on the Mis-
sissippi River and the Lower Missouri. Kansas, part of Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa,
Illinois, southern Wisconsin, and eastern Minnesota include practically the field of
their serious operations.

They attacked wheat and rye first, then barley and oats, and afterward corn, grass,
millet, sorghum, and broom-corn. As corn, wheat, and oats are the principal tilled
crops of this area, they represent the principal part of the damage.

8

THE CHINCH BUG.

In many places the fields were cleared, and small grain areas were ploughed up.
The pest came in some cases to districts that had never before been ravaged ; in many
others the scourge was claimed to he more sweeping than ever before.

The insect was present in injurious numbers in nearly every county in Kansas.
Correspondents in Leavenworth, in the extreme east, and Hamilton, on the Colorado
border, gave the only negative replies. The worst damage was done in this State.

Tbe infliction was general in Missouri, except in a belt in the central part of the
State, not very regular nor wholly untouched, trending northeasterly, and connecting
with a similar belt in Illinois.

Further north, no portion of Iowa was exempt, except the northwest corner of the
State, in proximity to areas of exemption from central Minnesota westwardly through
Dakota, and near to a similar area in northern Nebraska. In eastern Minnesota and
southern Wisconsin, however, the scourge was general and severe. In Illiuois com-
parative exemption was enjoyed in a central belt running in a northeasterly direction
from Christian to Champaigu, and from Adams to Bureau, fifteen to twenty counties,
in which correspondents responded in the negative as to their destructive presence.
Elsewhere the pest was nearly universal.

The southwestern corner of Indiana was alive with Chinch Bugs; elsewhere, though
present in much of the area, only about a dozen counties estimated any material
losses. They were still scarcer in Michigan. Only ten counties in Ohio reported
their injurious presence; and a few only in Kentucky indicated material damage.

These insects are reported as more or less injurious in every season of drought and
scarce or absent in all wet areas. In the area of their depredations the crops have
an annual value of more than a fourth of the entire agricultural production of the
United States, and a value nearly four times as great as that of the cotton crop.
It will readily be seen that the losses must be heavy, undoubtedly greater than those
of all other insects together, as no such values are involved in other crops subject to
insect depredations the past year.

The following table has been prepared from data, severely scrutinized, revised, aud
accurately consolidated. It makes a large sum, and yet does not comprise all the
damage done to barley and rye, millet, etc., all of which might be approximately
stated in round numbers as $60,000,000. The record by States is as follows:

States.

Corn.

Wheat.

Oats.

Bushels.

Value.

Bushels.

Value.

Bushels.

Value.

Kentuckv

Ohio....'.

Indiana

Illinois

AVisconsin

Minnesota

Iowa

Missouri

Kansas

983, 280

885, 564

1,785,000

16, 929, 600
1, 804. 250
2. 1G9, 720

22, 020, 240

15, f>04, 390

16, 840, 340

$521, 138
425, 071
803, 250

6,941,136
~.")7, 785
802, 796

7, 707, 084

5, 73G, 624

6, 230, 920

66, 678

215, 370

43:;. 936

5, 529, 150

3, 004, 490

9, 074, 750

6,977, 621)

1, 664, 640

32,100

$48,675
161,528
326. 834

3,870,405

1, 922

5, 354, 103

1, 032, 077
1,392,081

60, 196

167, 658

3, 810, 310

1. 742,750

2, 4 -

795, 86 1
6. 40G, 560

$19,263

48, 621

1, ''--

633, 922

1. 071, 101
-

2, i

Total

78. 922, 384

29, 925, 810

29, 268, 734

18, 3i- ;

19, Ss4, 414

5,935,082

Respectfully,

J. R. Dor
Sta

>GE,

istnuin.

Accompanying these statements of Mr. Dodge were a number of
State maps indicating the counties reporting to the Department damage
from the Chinch Bug. Many other localities had Chinch Bugs in abund-
ance and considerable damage was done in states not represented in

THE CHINCH BUG. 9

this list. These localities, however, are authoritative, and their reports
furnished the main basis for the table which precedes. We may sum-
marize these briefly as follows :

Illinois, fifty-one counties, as follows: Stephenson, Winnebago, Lake, Carroll, Lee,
Kendall, Will, La Salle, Rock, Mercer, Warren, Stark, Iroquois, Vermillion, Edgar,
Douglas, Coles, Moultrie, Shelby, Cumberland, Clark, Jasper, Effiugham, Fayette,
Bond, Madison, Macoupin, Greene, Pike, Jersey, Saint Clair, Clinton, Washington,
Marion, Clay, Lawrence, Wabash, Edwards, White, Hamilton, Franklin, Randolph,
Jackson, Williamson, Saline, Gallatin, Johnson, Pope, Hardin, Massac, and Alexander.

Indiana, twenty-five counties, as follows: Elkhart, Jasper, White, Huntington,
Wells, Blackford, Jay, Warren, Montgomery, Wayne, Shelby, Johnson, Sullivan,
Greene, Dearborn, Knox, Martin, Ohio, Gibson, Pike, Dubois, Posey, Vanderburgh,
Warrick, and Spencer.

Iowa, sixty-one counties, as follows: Winnebago, Worth, Mitchell, Howard, Win-
neshiek, Allamakee, Clayton, Fayette, Chickasaw, Floyd, Cerro Gordo, Hancock,
Palo Alto, Pocahontas, Humboldt, Franklin, Dubuque, Buchanan, Grundy, Hamilton,
Webster, Calhoun, Sac, Crawford, Carroll, Greene, Story, Marshall, Tama, Benton,
Linn, Jackson, Clinton, Scott, Muscatine, Iowa, Jasper, Dallas, Guthrie, Audubon,
Shelby, Madison, Mahaska, Keokuk, Des Moines, Henry, Monroe, Lucas, Union,
Adams, Montgomery, Mills, Fremont, Page, Taylor, Decatur, Wayne, Appanoose,
Davis, Van Buren, Lee.

Kansas, sixty-three counties, as follows: Cheyenne, Rawlins, Norton, Phillips,
Jewell, Washington, Marshall, Nemaha, Brown, Wyandotte, Jefferson, Jackson,
Shawnee, Douglas, Pottawatomie, Riley, Wabaunsee, Davis, Clay, Cloud, Mitchell,
Rooks, Graham, Sheridan, Thomas, Sherman, Gove, Russell, Lincoln, Ottawa, Ells-
worth, Saline, Dickinson, Morris, Osage, Franklin, Miami, Linn, Anderson, Coffey,
Chase, Marion, McPherson, Rice, Barton, Rush, Ness, Lane, Scott, Ford, Pawnee,
Stafford, Reno, Sedgwick, Allen, Neosho, Cherokee, Labette, Chatauqua, Cowley,
Sumner, Barbour, Comanche.

Kentucky, eight counties, as follows: Carroll, Pendleton, Bracken, Estill, Mercer,
Union, Ballard, Marshall.

Michigan, five counties, as follows: Manitou, Presque Isle, Saginaw, Shiawassee,
Saint Joseph.

Minnesota, twenty-seven counties, as follows: Hubbard, Wadena, Todd, Crow Wing,
Kanabec, Pine, Isanti, Chisago, Sherburne, Stearns, Wright, Carver, Scott, Rice, Wa-
basha, Winona, Olmstead, Dodge, Steele, Waseca, Watonwan, Martin, Faribault,
Freeborn, Mower, Fillmore, and Houston.

Missouri, sixty counties, as follows: Atchison, Nodaway, Holt, Worth, Gentry, Har-
rison, Mercer, Putnam, Sullivan, Adair, Linn, Clinton, Caldwell, Ray, Chariton, Ran-
dolph, Lincoln, Saint Charles, Callaway, Copper, Johnson, Cass, Bates, Henry, Saint
Clair, Hickory, Osage, Maries, Gasconade, Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, -Sainte
Genevieve, Perry, Iron, Bollinger, Cape Girardeau, Mississippi, New Madrid, Butler,
Wayne, Oregon, Shannon, Pulaski, Laclede, Wright, Douglas, Ozark, Christian, Web-
ster, Dallas, Hickory, Polk, Cedar, Dade, Barton, Lawrence, Barry, Newton, and Mc-
Donald.

Ohio, ten counties, as follows: Defiance, Wood, Geauga, Allen, Shelby, Darke, Frank-
lin, Fairfield, Meigs, and Gallia.

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION.

East of the Eocky Mountains the Chinch Bug seems to be indigenous
North and South, feeding naturally upon various species of wild grasses
and becoming multiplied wherever the cultivation of wheat has reached
its original haunts.

10 THE CHINCH BUG.

It was first noticed, as stated in the last section, in North Carolina,
and Say's original description was published from a Virginia specimen.

Fitch records the fact that he had collected specimens in New York,
but that it was exceedingly rare. Signoret also records it from New
York, and, as we have jnst shown, it appeared in 1883 in destructive
numbers in the northern part of this State. Harris in the first edition
of his well-known work states that it does not occur in New England,
but in a foot-note to his second edition states that wdiile the sheet was
passing through the press he discovered a single specimen in his own
garden at Cambridge (June 17, 1852). And in 1883, according to Dr.
George Dimmock (Psyche, November, December, 1883, p. 110), the
lowland between Belmont and Cambridge was swarming with them.
They have also been collected by Dr. Packard at Salem, Mass., in Maine,
and at the summit of Mount Washington in New Hampshire. Dr.
Lintner records the fact that Mr. H. L. Feruald captured one or more
specimens in 1879, 1880, and 1882, at Orono, Me.

In Canada they occurred at Grimsby, Ontario, in 18GG, and were sent
from that point in that year to Mr. Walsh. Mr. W. H. Harrington col-
lected specimens found abundantly at Sydney, Cape Bretou (N. lat. 40°
18') in September, 1884 (Can. Ent., November, 1884, p. 218). Dr. Fitch
received specimens from western Pennsylvania, and also stated that it
was sent him from Mississippi with the information that in some years
it damaged the crops of Indian corn. We have found it personally in
considerable numbers in the rice fields near Savannah, Ga.. and Mr. E.
A. Schwarz and others have collected it in Florida. In the latter State
Mr. Schwarz found it very abundantly at Biscayne Bay, bleeding in
the wingless form only in considerable numbers upon Sand Oats (Uni-
ola paniculata). Mr. Webster has noticed it in Mississippi and Louisi-
ana. It has also been collected in this same form, upon the same
plant, on the sea-shore at Fortress Monroe, Va., by Messrs. Schwarz
and Heidemanu. The States, however, in which it does the greatest
damage are Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio, Indiana,
Kentucky, Tennessee, Illinois, southern Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri,
Kansas, and Nebraska. Uhler records the species from Texas, Califor-
nia, Kansas, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, and
generally throughout the Atlantic region.

Outside of the United States it is recorded only from Cuba (see
Signoret " Essai Monographique du Genre Micropus, Spinola f Ann.
Soc. Ent. Frauce, V, 3d series, 1857, p. 31), and the Cuban individuals
are long-winged, while Mr. Schwarz never found a long-winged indi-
vidual in Florida, in spite of the fact that he lias collected in localities
the insect fauna of which is in the main Cuban. This observation con-
flicts with the general observation of Mr. Uhler that the short-winged
form seems to be more common in New England than in the Southern
States.

The only authentic published record of the occurrence of the Chinch Bug
west of the Rocky Mountains is the mere mention by Uhler, in his list of

THE CHINCH BUG. 11

the Hemiptera of the region west of the Mississippi River (Bull. Hayden
Surv. I, 306), of California as one of the States which it inhabits, but
this record has been overlooked by Californians. Its advent upon the
Pacific slope has been expected and dreaded. Matthew Cooke in his
book, published in 1883, upon injurious insects of the Orchard, Vine-
yard, etc., figured aud described it, and under the head of " Remedies n
wrote, " Should the pest appear in this State it can be prevented," etc.
In June, 1885, there were several newspaper reports on the occurrence
of this insect in great numbers in California. The San Francisco Even-
ing Post for June 23, 1885, quoting from the Woodland Democrat, pub-
lished the statement:

Messrs. Frazee and Henderson, who live southwest of Woodland, brought to this
office a bottle of tbis pestiferous insect (chinch bug) on Tuesday. Mr. Henderson
says that he recognized them as the same eastern variety that frequently does so
much injury to wheat in Missouri. These gentlemen say they discovered the bugs
traveling between the lands of Day and Clanton. There are millions of them, but as
to the extent of country covered they are unable to say. The bugs are nearly grown
and are just beginning to have wings. As soon as the wings develop they fly and
scatter everywhere. Mr. Frazee says there is no danger from them this year as the
grain is too far advanced.

So far this item seems very plausible, but it goes on to state " that
another gentleman had noticed them injuring grape-vines" which of
course introduces a probability of wrong identification.

There is no question, however, but that the Chinch Bug is to be found at
present in California, but there is no assurance of its existence in injuri-
ous numbers. Our certainty as to its presence arises from the fact that
a single specimen of a short- winged variety of this insect is among a lot
collected in the vicinity of San Francisco in 1885 by Mr. Koebele. It
is unquestionably a true Chinch Bug. Another specimen of the same
variety was collected in 1884 by some students of Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity who summered in California and was given to Mr. Lugger, of
this Division, who was at that time connected with the University.
Kecent communications from California in answer to inquiries on this
point show that the insect is not known to the entomologists in that
State. The False Chinch Bug (Nysius angustatus) has been, we learn
from Mr. Koebele, very destructive to grapes in that State the past sea-
son, and it is more than likely that this is the insect referred to in the
newspaper article just quoted. Mr. Koebele writes that the False Chinch
was so abundant around Alameda in July that in an old road at least
50 specimens could be counted under each plant of Polygonum aviculare.
He made, in 1887, a most careful search of the locality in which he found
the 1885 specimen, but could not find a single additional individual.
He also examined the large collection of Hemiptera in the California
Academy of Sciences without success. The following paragraph is from
Mr. Coquiliett's answer to our inquiries :

I have never met with the Chinch Bug in any part of California that I have visited—
neither in Merced County, around the city of Sacramento, nor on the southern part of

12 THE CHINCH BUG.

the State where 1 have collected Hemiptera extensively with the sweep-net. Dr.
Rivers, curator of the museum at our .State University, writes me that three years
ago he took three specimens of a bug that Looked much like the Chinch Bug, but was
darker and smaller, and he docs not believe that they belonged to this species ; they
were taken in Sonoma County, and were sent oil', he knows not where. He has col-
lected Hemiptera extensively since then, hut the Chinch Bug is nor among them.
Mr. Wickson, editor of the Pacific Rural Press, writes me that he has ••never seen a
specimen nor heard of one as being recognized by an observer whom I would con-
sidei as capable of recognizing the insect."

Since writing the above we have learned from Mr. Uliler that lie has
seen specimens of the Chinch Bug- from California of along winged form,
which were collected near San Francisco, probably by Mr. Henry Ed-
wards. He has also seen specimens from Cuba and from Tamanlipas,
Mexico.

FOOD PLANTS.

The Chinch Bug will feed upon all grains and grasses so far as known.
The most prominent crops which are seriously inj ured are Wheat, Barley,
and Indian Corn. The testimony in regard to Oats is conflicting, but
Le Baron's conclusion to the effect that " if this grain be sown where
Chinch Bugs abound, and especially if it is sown exclusively, it will be
damaged to a greater or less extent the first year, but that the bugs will
probably not continue to breed in it to any great extent in succeeding
years" is unquestionably correct. Broom-corn, Sorghum, Chicken -corn,
Hungarian grass, Millet, Bye, Bice, Bermuda grass (Cyuodon dactylon),
Eox-tail grass (Setaria glauca), Timothy (Phloeum pratense), Blue-grass
(Poa pratensis), Crab-grass (Panicum sanguinale), Bottle-grass (Setaria
viridis), and all of our wild grasses, so far as known, are attacked, but
beyond these no food plant lias ever been authentically recorded. Re-
ports of damage done to other crops, such as grape-vines and garden
crops, are the result of mistaken identity, and an error in the compila-
tion of Packard's Guide to the Study of Insects has doubtless done much
to perpetuate the idea that this insect is a more general feeder. This
was corrected in the later editions of this work, probably at the sug-
gestion in Professor Riley's criticism in his 7th Rept. Ins. Mo., p. 26.

Upon the Sand Oats {TJniola paniculata) in Florida Mr. Schwarz no-
ticed that the entire development of the insect is undergone upon the
highest part of this tall plant and not close to the bottom as in our lat-
itude. The probable reason for this, as he has pointed out, is, that
the strong winds are continually blowing line, sharp sand through the
lower parts of the plants, rendering it impossible for the bugs to remain
at these places and forcing them to seek their nourishment higher up.

Concerning Timothy and the Crab-grasses Professor Forbes says:

It seems to prefer timothy to blue-grass, not really relishing either as a general
thing, and takes to the crab-grasses Panicum) no I at all, or only as a last resort.
(Bull. No. 2, State Eut. 111.)

This generalization is undoubtedy correct for Illinois and the sur-
rounding States, but, as Professor Forbes himself points out in a foot-

THE CHINCH BUG. 13

note, the bags did great damage to Timothy in northern New York in
1883, and the following extract from a letter recently received from
Professor Atkinson, of North Carolina, indicates that in that State at
least the Crab-grass becomes an important item of the insect's diet.

* * * I have recently discovered that at this season of the year (October 2) the
chinch bug feeds on the "crab-grass" so common in cultivated and waste places,
and especially so abundant iii many of the corn-fields after cultivation has ceased.
The chinch bug must go to grass after the corn becomes mature and no longer yields
the sap. I have found the bugs inside the sheath and clear evidence of their having
punctured the culm. No doubt this grass affords them subsistence for quite a period
of time and then shelter for the winter. * * * I have found within the past few
days pupa3 or wingless individuals on the crab-grass. * * *

Referring again to Timothy we may state that a meadow of this grass
on the farm of J. F. Whiton, near Wakeman, Huron Connty, Ohio, was
injured considerably by the bugs in 1886. Professor Forbes, however
(Bull. 2), gives an instance where sowing Timothy with Fall Wheat
was probabably the cause of the salvation of the crop.

On cultivated Rice we found Chinch Bugs very generally scattered
throughout the large rice-fields near Savannah, Ga., in August, 1881.
Only adult specimens were found at that time and all were fully winged,
and were found upon the heads of the grain, to which they had proba-
bly flown, as the fields had been flooded for some time previously. No
particular damage to the crop was perceptible, unless their punctures
contribute to bring about the disease known as " white blast," as sug-
gested by Pr ofessor Riley in his Annual Report for 1881-'82, page 137.

We shall probably be obliged to widen our close restriction of the
Chinch Bug food plants, to admit at least one of the Polygonums. A
chance statement by Mr. Bruner that he had known this insect to feed
upon the so called "Wild Buckwheat " in Nebraska led to a letter of
close inquiry, to which he replied that there can be no mistake and that
the plant is either Polygonum dumetorum, or P. convolvulus.

STAGES OF GROWTH— DESCRIPTIVE.

The following descriptive matter is from Professor Riley's Seventh
Report on the Insects of Missouri, and is fuller and more careful than
that published elsewhere. It will be noticed that there are three larval
stages, necessitating two molts before the pupa and three before the
adult. It will also be noticed that the larvse have but two joints to
the feet, while the adults have three :

The Egg. — (Fig. la, &.) Average length 0.03 inch, elongate oval, the diameter
scarcely one-fifth the length. The top squarely docked, and surmounted with four
small rounded tubercles near the center. Color when newly laid, pale and whitish
and translucent, acquiring with age an amber color, and finally showing the red parts
of the embryo, and especially the eyes toward the tubercled end. The size increases
somewhat after deposition, and will sometimes reach near 0.04 in length.

Larval Stages. — The newly-hatched larva (Fig. lc) is pale yellow, with simply an
orange stain on the middle of the three larger abdominal joints. The form scarcely

U I i- ' » w.

14

THE CHINCH BUG

differs from that of the mature hug, hein<r bat slightly more elongate ; hut the tarsi
have hut two joints (Fig. -id), and the bead is relatively broader and more rounded,
while thejoiuts of body are sub-equal, the prothoracic joint being but slightly longer
than any of the rest. The red color soon pervades the whole body, except the firsl
two abdominal joints, which remain yellowish, and the members, which remain pale.
After the first molt (Fig. \e) the red is quite bright vermilion, contrasting strongly
with the pale band across the middle of the body, the prothoracic joint is relatively
longer, and the metathoracic relatively shorter. The head and prothorax are dusky
and coriaceous, and two broad marks on mesothorax, two .smaller ones on metathorax,
two on the fourth and fifth abdominal sutures, and one at tip of abdomen are gen-
erally visible, but sometimes obsolete; the third and fourth joints of antennae are
dusky, hut the legs still pale. After the second molt (Fig. 1/) the head and thorax are
quite dusky, and the abdomen duller red, but the pale transverse band is still dis-
tinct ; the wing-pads become apparent, the members are more dusky, there is a dark
red shade on the fourth and fifth abdominal joints, and, ventrally, a distinct circular
dusky spot covering the last three joints.

Fig. l!

Immature stages of Chixch Bug. —a, ft, eggs; c, newly-hatched larva; d, its tarsus ; e, larva after
first molt ; /, same after second molt; g, pupa— the natural sizes indicated at sides ; /;, enlarged leg of
perfect bug; j, tarsus of same still more enlarged ; i, proboscis or beak, enlarged.— [After Riley.]

[Fig. 2.]

Pupa. — (Fig. l,g.) In the pupa the coriaceous parts are brown-hlack, the wing-
pads extend almost across the two pale abdominal joints which are now more dingy,
while the general color of the abdomen is dingy gray; the body above i.s slightly
pubescent, the members are colored as in the mature bug; the three-jointed tarsus is
foreshadowed, and the dark horny spots at tip of abdomen, both above and below,
are larger.

Imago. — (Fig. 2.) The perfect insect has been well described
and I will append the origiual description :

Lygaeus leucopterus (Chinch Bug). Blackish : hemelytra
white, with a black spot.
Inhabits Virginia.

Body long, blackish, with numerous hairs. Antennas,
rather short hairs; second joint yellowish, longer than the
third: ultimate joint rather longer 1 ban the second, thickest ;
thorax tinged cinereous before, with the basal edgepiceous;
hemelytra white, with a blackish oval spot on the lateral mid-
dle: rostrum and feet honey yellow ; thighs a little dilated.
Length less than three-twentieths of an inch.
I took a single specimen on the eastern shore of Virginia.
The whiteness of the hemelytra, in which is a blackish
spot strongly contrasted distinguishes this species readily
I Say, Am. Entomology, I, p. 329).

The above description originally appeared in 1832 in a pam-
phlet entitled "Descriptions of new species of Heteropterous

CHINCH BUG : Ilairlinemi
derneath showing natu-
ral size. [After Riley. 1

Hemiptera of N. A.

THE CHINCH BUG. 15

Length If lines, of three-twentieths of an inch. Body black, clothed with a very
fine grayish down, not distinctly visible to the naked eye ; basal joint of the antennae
honey yellow ; second joint of the same tipped with black ; third and fourth joints,
black; beak brown ; wings and wing-cases white; the latter are black at their in-
sertion, and have near the middle two short irregular black lines, and a conspicuous
black marginal spot; legs dark honey yellow, terminal joint of the feet, and the
claws black. (Dr. Wm. LeBaron in the Prairie Farmer for September, 1850, Vol. X,
pp. 280, 281, where the name of Rhyparochromus devastator is proposed for it.)

Dr. Fitch also enumerates the following varieties of this insect :

a, immarginatus. — Basal margin of the thorax not edged with yellowish. Common.

b,dimidiatu8. — Basal half of the thorax deep velvety black, anterior half grayish.
Comn on.

c, falvivenosiis. — The stripes on the wing-covers tawny yellow instead of black.

d, albivenosus. — Wing-covers white, without any black marks except the marginal
spot. A male.

e, apterus. — Wingless aud the wing-covers much shorter than the abdomen. (Fig. 3.)
/, basalts. — Basal joint of the antenme dusky and darker

than the second. [Fig. 3.]

g, nigricornis. — Two first joints of the antennae blackish.

h,femo7'atus. — Legs pale livid yellow, the thighs tawny red.
Common.

i, rufipedis.—Ijegs dark tawny red or reddish brown.

To these varieties, all of which occur with us, I would
add one which may be known as melanosus, in which the
normal white of the wings is quite dusky, and contains addi-
tional black marks at base and toward tip, and in which all
the members and the body except the rufous hiud edge of
thorax are jet black.

In addition to these varieties mentioned by Dr.
Eiley, an interesting form has been collected by Mr.
E. A. Schwarz at Lake Worth, Fla,, and by Mr. O. sX£'wrKr R?ie£ ] H
Heidemann at Fortress Monroe, Ya. This variety
is at once distinguished from other short-wiuged varieties by its more
slender and pointed wing-pads, and by the color of the antennae, the first
three joints of which are honey yellow, while the last joint or club is
nearly black. It seems also to be more thickly clothed with silvery
pile, but this is probably due to the fact that the specimens studied were
mounted dry, while all others which I have seen have evidently been
placed in alcohol. This variety, so far as we know, has been collected
on the sea- shore only.

NUMBER OF BROODS AND HIBERNATION.

For many years there existed a misconception concerning the number
of broods of insects in the West. It was always understood that there
was more than one brood, and some newspaper writers insisted that
there are as many as five or six annual generations. Professor Riley, in
the Practical Entomologist, Yol. I (March 26, 1866), was first to publish
the definite statement that the Chinch P>ug is two-brooded in northern
Illinois, and Dr. Shimer the succeeding year published the same state-

16 THE CHINCH BUG.

inent from liis own observations. This number of annual generations
holds through the entire northwest and as far south, certainly, as the
latitude of Saint Louis. Thomas states that there is some evidence of an
occasional third brood in the extreme southern part of Illinois and in
Kentucky, but that it is not sufficient to justify him in stating it as a
fact, or to satisfy him of its correctness. In North Carolina there seems
no question but that the second generation gave birth to still a third,
which, as we are informed by Professor Atkinson of Chapel Hill, was
found in a half-grown condition on Crab-grass about the 1st of Oeto-
ber. November 17 most of the specimens found in the same locations
were full-grown. This third generation probably hibernates in the adult
condition.

The Chinch Bug passes the winter in the perfect state. As cold
weather approaches, most of the fulhgrown bugs leave the hardened
corn-stalks or wild grasses upon which they have been attempting to
feed, and seek some convenient shelter in which to pass the winter. They
collect in fence cracks, in sheds, hay stacks, straw stacks, corn-shucks,
under leaves, mulching, and rubbish of all kinds upon the ground, under
the loose bark of adjacent trees, in stumps and logs, under stones and
clods of earth, in fact in any situation which will offer shelter. They
seem to prefer dry situations. Bunches of old dead grass and weeds otter
them a particularly attractive place for hibernation. Professor Atkin-
son writes us that the Crab-grass in Xorth Carolina not only affords the
bugs sustenance after the corn-stalks harden, but also gives them shel-
ter for the winter, as they work their way down between the leaf-sheath
and the stalk. Mr. J. O. Alwood. writes us from Columbus, Ohio, that.
October 26, 1887, he observed them lying torpid within the leaf-sheaths
of an uncut field of Pearl Millet. During cold weather they remain tor-
pid. On a warm, sunshiny day they will stretch their legs and begin
to move about to a slight extent; but as the cold becomes severe they
press back deeper into their hiding places. They can withstand the
severest cold, and in fact, as with so many other hibernating insects.
the more sustained the cold weather the more the insects winter
successfully. An instance is related by a reliable correspondent of
Dr. Thomas' in which the bugs frozen into ice were thawed and
when warm manifested signs of life, crawling about as in the spring.
Dr. Shimer's observations upon this point are sufficiently interesting to
quote :

After the early autumn frosts they left their feeding-grounds on foot in search of
winter quarters ; none could be seen on the wing as at harvest time. For a winter
retreat they resorted to any convenient shelter they might chance t * * find, as long
grass, weeds, boards, pirces of wood, rails, fallen-tree Leaves, etc.

In .January, 1865, I next examined their condition. Tims,- that I found in
sheaths of the corn-leaves above the snow, and had hern thus exposed during the pre-
vious severe-weather — when for several days the thermometer was 1.". to 20c below
zero — were invariably found dead without exception, and those beneath the snow

THE CHINCH BUG. 17

were alive. This observation was made in the common farm corn-fields, as they
might be fouud anywhere all over the wide country, for in autumn the chinch bugs
remained in great numbers in the corn-husks and under the sheaths of the blades as
well as in other winter retreats. Upon various occasions, as the winter advanced, I
brought in corn-husks filled with ice, inclosing the chinch bugs in the crystallized
element; when the ice was thawed they were able to run, apparently unaffected by
that degree of cold. It is therefore proved that these insects possess vitality suffi-
cient to withstand the effect of a temperature below the freezing-point, and perhaps
below zero, as must have been their condition in these ice-bound husks ; but when in
the open air, exposed to the sweeping prairie winds, 15° to 20° degrees below zero,
for a long time, they succumb to the cold.

March 7, 1865, the snow having cleared off from the ground, I examined the condi-
tion of a host of these chinch bugs that had chosen for their winter covering cord-
wood sticks lying on the ground, entirely surrounded by frost and ice ; of these 20 per
cent, were living ; those that were more fortunate in their selection of winter quarters
fared much better. From a single haudful of leaves picked up at one grasp from be-
neath an apple tree I obtained 335 living and 312 dead chinch bugs ; and of their lady-
bird enemies that had entered the same winter quarters with them, 50 were living
and 10 dead. Of these chinch bugs I placed a number in comfortable quarters in the
house in a small pasteboard box, not in a stove room, together wTith some coleopterous
insects casually gathered among the chinch bugs ; after one month I found the latter
all dead and the former living.

The entire month of March was rain, snow, thawing, freezing, alternately, seeming
to be very uncomfortable for any living creature to remain out of doors with so poor
a shelter and on top of the ground.

April 1-6, I again made repeated examinations of these chinch bugs in their winter
quarters, and found about the same proportions of them living as noted on the 7th
of March. At this time they wandered away on foot from their winter quarters.

Mr. G. A. Waters, in the Farmers' Eeview for October 19, 1887, gives
the following interesting observation bearing on the same point :

In 1881-82 I observed a bunch of fodder that had fallen into a ditch that the heavy
rains had washed near by a shock. The fodder had been overflowed with water,
which had stood over the fodder iong enough for a sheet of ice to form over it. The
water subsiding in a few days and some thaw occurring, I pulled the stalks out
of the mud to get the ears of corn off, and in husking the ears found quite a number
of chinch bugs which had been immersed for a week or more. On exposing them to
the warm sun they crawled around lively.

Where they are hibernating in numbers they can often be detected
more readily by their strong " bed-buggy v odor than by sight, as was
pointed out by Dr. Eiley. Dr. Lintuer, in October, 1883, found this
method of searching for them more convenient and infallible than look-
ing for them.

Mr. Bruner calls our attention to the fact that the Osage and other
brushy hedges in the West are great collectors of leaves and trash
blown there by winds, and that they form exceptionally good hibernat-
ing places for the Chinch Bugs, which take advantage of them in great
numbers. So great a nuisance are the hedges from this point of view,
that Mr. Brnner seriously advocates their gradual removal and the sub-
stitution of a less compact division between fields.
12734— Bull. 17 2

i i^i u> i i_n^».

18 THE CHINCH BUG.

HABITS.

With the warm days of spring the hibernating individuals issue from
their winter quarters and copulate. Dr. Shinier has described a love-
flight which he noticed at this time. The date was May 1G, 1SG5. and
the atmosphere was swarming with Chinch Bags on the wing. As
shown by Walsh and Riley (Am. Bnt., I, 173) it is probable that this
occurrence was exceptional, and that the insects do not normally mate
in this way 5 that the swarming flight was the result of a great abun-
dance of the insects. The insect flies in spring and fall, and also some-
what in late July and early August, as the first brood becomes winged.
In the fall they attain wings as the corn hardens, and their flight is
then the result of a starvation impulse. In July and August the flight
of the fledged individuals of the first brood is not very common, except
when they occur in exceptionally great numbers. During the past sea-
son Professor Osborn observed them coupling at Ames prior to July
25, while upon this date he observed them swarming in the air, flying
past his window in immense numbers and with the wind (southeast to
northwest). They were first noticed shortly after 1 p. m. July 1*7
they were again noticed on the wing, but not in such great numbers as
before. They were flying with the wind, from northwest to southeast.
August 3 hosts of them were observed on the wing, while others were
coupling on the ground. Others were observed coupling as late as
August 16. The majority of the hibernating individuals seem, from
the evidence, to copulate in the spring and without flying, but, accord-
ing to Professor Eiley, many of them make love in the fall preparatory
to seeking winter quarters, and Mr. James O. Alwood, of Columbus,
Ohio, writes that he found them copulating in a field of uncut Pearl
Millet at the Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station as late as October
27, 1887.

The eggs of the Chinch Bug, which we have already described, and
which are figured at Fig. 1, a, b, are laid in the spring for the first
brood, and usually underground and upon the roots of plants infested.
They are, however, often found above ground upon the withered
sheaths near the bases of the grain stalks or often upon the blades of
the leaves. They are deposited in small clusters. Professor Riley says :

A wheat plant pulled from an infested field in the spring of the year will gener-
ally reveal hundreds of these eggs attached to the routs, and at a somewhat later
period the young larvae will he fouud clustering on the same and looking like -o many
moving atoms.

The eggs are not specially small when we consider the small size of
the female which lays them. Dr. Shinier says that each female lays 500,
and this seems very large until we reflect that they art- not all deposited
at once, and that after the laying of the first lew others are probably
developing in the ovaries, for the process of opposition occupies from
ten days to three weeks. It has long been known that the eggs were laid
in the ground, although an accurate description was much more recently

THE CHINCH BUG. 19

drawn up. The relative abundance of the eggs upon the stalks and
upon the roots may be changed somewhat, as Dr. Thomas has pointed
out, by the character of the soil. Where the soil is very damp the
majority of the eggs are doubtless laid upon the stalks, whereas if the
earth is dry and easily penetrated the great majority of them will
be found upon the rootlets and upon the stalks beneath the ground.
According to Professor Biley the eggs hatch on the average in two
weeks. The young larvae begin to take nourishment as soon as possi-
ble after hatching. They insert their beaks sometimes even before they
emerge from the earth, but more often crawl up the stalk before be-
ginning to pump. They growl with considerable rapidity and swarm
over the stalk upon which they were born, walking about with ease
and wandering from one stalk to another if occasion demands. As we
have already shown, four molts are undergone before the insect reaches
the perfect state, and generally from five to seven weeks elapse from
the hatching to the final molt. Dr. Shinier' s repeated observations show
that at Mount Carroll, 111., the imago usually appears in from fifty-
seven to sixty days after the laying of the eggs, and about forty-two days
from the hatching of the larvae. By the time the majority of the insects
Of this first generation are full-grown, or even before, the wheat has
become too hard to offer them much nourishment, or harvest time has
arrived, and they begin to migrate in search of food. Neighboring corn-
fields offer a more tempting diet, and in seasons of great abundance
they march in numerous colonies, moving by a common impulse from the
wheat to the corn. Strange to say, although the commoner form pos-
sesses wings the insect does not generally take flight, but prefers to walk
along the ground. Occasionally, however, at this time they take wings
and scatter. This, however, is rarer when the insects are plentiful than
when they are comparatively scarce. Under no circumstances will
these insects take flight to escape danger. Dr. Shimer says :

No threatening clanger, however imminent, whether of being driven over by grain-
reapers, wagons, or of being trodden under foot, will prompt it to use its wings to es-
cape. I have tried all imaginable ways to induce them to fly, as by thrashing among
them with bundles of rods or grass, by gathering them up and letting them fall from
a height, etc., but they invariably refused entirely to use their wings in escaping from
danger.

The migration takes place often, and, according to some authors,
usually before the majority of the brood have attained full growth.
There are always many immature individuals among a large host, and
often the army is composed almost entirely of such. In fact, at these
times there is apt to be a general confusion of so-called larvse, pupae,
and adults, owing to the fact that some hibernating females oviposit
much in advance of others and to the other fact, previously mentioned,
that a single female takes several days or even weeks to lay all of her
eggs. Professor Forbes records egg-laying presumably by hibernating
individuals from the last week in May (at Decatur) until the last week in
June (at Warsaw), thus making certain individuals of the first brood one

20 THE CHINCH BUG.

month later in development than others, iu two localities not far distant
(140 miles) and of about the same latitude. There are many accounts
in print which are almost incredible tales of the size of these migrating
hordes, and yet they are probably only too true.

Dr. Thomas states that the migration upon foot seldom exceeds 80
rods, but the winged individuals fly to much greater distances. In-
stance was given in the Farmers' Review for August 17, 1887, where a
little patch of sweet corn grown in the midst of pine woods in northern
Wisconsin, 8 miles from a cultivated crop of any kind, was badly in-
fested with the Chinch Bug. This appearance of the bugs probably re-
sulted from the flight thereto of mature individuals.

It naturally results from the wide difference in the method of growth
of the crops that the Chinch Bugs after migrating from wheat to corn
appear to be much more numerous upon the latter crop than they were
upon the former, in spite of the great numbers usually killed in the act
of migrating; for a single stalk of corn will be obliged to support the
Chinch Bugs from a great many stalks of wheat. Moreover, the bugs
swarm upon the first few rows and destroy them before invading the
entire field generally. The outer rows, of course, under these circum-
stances are often black with bugs. The pupae work their way down
between the leaves and the stalks and there cast their skins and issue
as adult insects. The leaf sheath is often thus completely filled with
exuviae. The eggs for the second brood are also often if not usually
deposited in this same situation — behind the sheaths of the lower
leaves — and on hatching the young bugs remain there feeding and
growing, and casting skins, sometimes even until the advent of cold
weather and their consequent winter torpor. Others issue from these
sheaths, particularly when they are especially abundant, or failing to
find satisfactory locations on the outer rows take wiugs and fly to the
center of the field and become generally scattered. They feed upon the
Corn or Eye as the case may be, and upon the surrounding grasses or in
the fields of Millet or Hungarian grass until the approach of fall, by
which time nearly all are once more full-grown. Mr. Webster observed
them at Lafayette, Ind., in August, 1887, forcing themselves down into cut
stubble of Setaria glauca for the purpose of undergoing the last molt.
He counted upwards of twenty in a single stalk. We may mention in
this connection, as reported to us by Prof Osboru and also as published
in the Country Gentleman for August 25, 1877, that President Cham-
berlain, of thelowa Agricultural College, dug a single root of Hungarian
grass at Ames, Iowa, the first week in August upon which were counted
3,025 bugs. E irth was removed with the root to the depth of 3 inches
(1 inch surface), in all about 4 cubic inches.

In the north the majority of them are ready to hibernate by the time
the field corn is harvested. Farther south, however, the corn grows
too hard for them aud considerable time before the weather is cold
enough to compel them to seek winter shelter. In Xorth Carolina, as

THE CHINCH BUG. 21

we have already shown, a third brood has appeared by the time the
corn becomes hard, and the bugs seek the Crab-grass and there feed
until ready for hibernation, finding in this grass, moreover, good shelter
for the winter.

The general statements here given apply to the average Chinch Bug
year in Illinois, Missouri, and the surrounding States, as the articles
from which we have drawn our main facts are the results of observa-
tions made in these States. The life history and habits of the species
undoubtedly differ considerably in the more southern States, where,
however, it seldom does much damage. It is very doubtful, however,
that the habits differ so greatly as to admit of the correctness of the
statement quoted by Fitch from the Southern Planter (XV, 269), that
the eggs are laid in the ground in autumn where they remain through
the winter and until the warmth of the ground the following year
causes them to hatch! This great error (at least for the West and
North) is unfortunately perpetuated by Dr. Lintuer in his second re-
port as State entomologist of New York, p. 153. There seems, in fact,
every reason to suppose that this was simply a guess on the part of the
editor of the Southern Planter without the slightest observation to
substantiate it. At our request, Professor Atkinson examined a num-
ber of females found near Chapel Hill, N. C, in November, but found
no evidence of mature eggs. He also searched carefully for deposited
eggs with, of course, negative results. He states that Mr. Thomas S.
Weaver, of Chapel Hill, has observed the bugs for the past ten years
and states that they never oviposit in autumn.

In exceptional seasons and under exceptional conditions the life-his-
tory and habits will vary considerably even in the localities referred to;
for example, in 1882, according to Professor Forbes's first Illinois report,
there was evidently in some parts of the State but one brood, and the
first young bugs were not seen before July 10. The eggs of the first
brood were in some localities this season laid upon corn.

NATURAL ENEMIES AND DISEASES.

Insect Enemies. — No true internal insect parasites of the Chinch Bug
have yet been found. In fact very few of these smaller Heteroptera are
parasitized except in the egg state. The minute Proctotrupidse belong-
ing to Teleas and Telenomus infest the eggs of allied species and may
ultimately be found to attack the eggs of the Chinch Bug. Outside of
these genera, however, we can hardly expect any aid from parasitic in-
sects. In this connection, although it does not strictly come under this
head, we may mention that in 1885 Mr. Webster found a species of Mer-
mis (" hair-snakes") among the dried moltings and dead bodies of certain
Chinch Bugs in a stalk of Setaria, which gives rise to a strong proba-
bility that one of these creatures will be found to infest the bug. Many
predaceous insects destroy them, although their disgusting odor is prob-
ably more or less a protection.

22

THE CHINCH BUG.

Mr. Walsh in 1SG1 mentioned four Ladybirds, viz, the Spotted Ladybird
{Hippodamia maculata, Fig. 1), the Trim Ladybird (Coccinella munda,
now called Cycloneda sanguined, Fig. 5), and two species of Scymnus. In

[Fig. 4.]

Spotted Ladybird.

Trim Ladybird.

1882 Prof. Forbes found five species of Ladybirds (iucluding the first
two mentioned by Walsh) extremely abundant on corn (15 or 20 to a
hill) which was infested by hosts of Chinch Bugs. The contents of the
stomachs of a few specimens of each were examined with the following
results : In three specimens of Hippodamia maculata no traces of Chinch
Bugs were found, the food consisting of the spores of lieheus, the pollen
of Bag- weed, and traces of Plant-lice. One- third of the food of Hippo-
(lamia conrcrgens (5 specimens examined) consisted of equal parts of
Chinch Bugs and Plant-lice. In 4 specimens of Hippodamia glacial ix 8
per cent, of the food was found to be Chinch Bugs, 18 per cent. Plant-
lice, and the rest vegetation. A single specimen of Coccinella 9-notata
had eaten no insect food. Three specimens of Cycloneda sanguined had
eaten some Plant-lice, but no Chinch Bugs. From these observations
Professor Forbes concludes that it is possible that the Ladybirds were
attracted ''rather by the stores of fungi in the field than by the Chinch
Bugs and Plant-lice."

The Weeping Lace-winged Fly (Chvysopa plorabunda, Fitch) described
originally by Dr. Shinier as Chr. lllinoiensis, has been found by Dr.
Shimer to destroy the Chinch Bug. Professor Kiiey records the fact that
the Insidious Flower Bug (Triphleps insidiosus, Say., Fig. G), an insect

[Fig. 6.]

[Fig. 7.1

Insidious Flower-Bug. [Alter Riley.]

Many-banded Robber. fAiter Riley,

which is often found in company with the Chinch ling and which has
been mistaken for it, in reality feeds upon the pest. This is the insect
which was sent to Dr. Fitch as a Chinch ling, and which he described
as Anthocoris pseudochinche in his second report. Professor Eiley also

THE CHINCH BUG. 23

records the fact that he has observed the Many-banded Robber (Milyas
cinctus, Fab., Fig. 7) in the act of preying upon the Chinch Bug, and Dr.
Thomas considers this insect the most efficient of the insect enemies of
the pest.

Two of Professor Riley's correspondents in 1874 stated that ants de-
stroyed the eggs of the Chinch Bug, but the observation lacks scientific
confirmation. Professor Forbes in 1882 observed a small ant (Lasius
flavus) in extraordinary numbers in fields of Broom-corn and Sorghum,
and both he aud the farmer, whom he does not mention by name, made
each an independent observation upon an ant which was carrying off a
Chinch Bug in its jaws, but repeated dissections of ants found in such
fields failed to show that they had fed on the bugs.

Professor Forbes in his 1882 report adds to the list of observed insect-
enemies a common Ground-beetle — Agonoderus pallipes (Comma) Fabr. —
of which, upon dissection, one-fifth of the total food was found to be
Chinch Bugs. This is the insect figured upon Plate 1 of Bulletin 12 of
the Division of Entomology and which is there stated to destroy seed
corn in the ground, so that its beneficial qualities are offset by its inju-
rious tendencies.

The evidence of Dr. Shimer, Dr. Walsh, and others, is quite sufficient
to establish the fact that the Lady-birds and the Lace- winged Fly men-
tioned will feed upon the Chinch Bug, and Dr. Shimer's evidence in favor
of the latter insect is particularly strong. His testimony as to the great
abundance of the Lady-birds upon corn infested by Chinch Bugs is of
course only presumptive evidence of their good work in destroying this
insect. It is unquestionable, however, that the Lady-birds prefer Plant-
lice to the Chinch Bugs ; aud in at least one instance which has been re-
ported to us, when the Lady-birds were present upon corn in considerable
numbers, and when this crop was infested by the Chinch Bug, a careful
study by the observer (Mr. Lawrence Bruner) showed that the Corn
Aphis was also present, and that the Lady-birds were feeding upon these
latter, and did not, so far as he could see, touch the Chinch Bugs. Pro-
fessor Forbes' stomach examinations previously mentioned also tend to
cast discredit upon the Lady-birds as Chinch Bug destroyers.

Vertebrate Enemies.- — Professor Riley published many years ago
in the Prairie Farmer the fact that the common Quail, or Bob White
(Colinus virginianus), was a most efficient destroyer of the Chinch Bug,
and this fact has since been confirmed by other writers. Dr. Riley says :

In the winter time when hard pushed for food they must devour enormous numbers
of the little pests which winter in just such situations as are frequented by the quail,
and this bird should be protected from the gun of the sportsman in every State where
the Chinch Bug is known to run riot.

We may add the corroborative evidence of Mr. Bruner, who combines
the knowledge of an entomologist with that of an ornithologist:

Protect the birds, and above all the quails, for they destroy countless numbers of
hibernating insects of various kinds that are to be picked up about the hedges and
such like resorts frequented by these birds throughout the winter. Although be-

24 THE CHIXCH BUG.

longing to the gramnivorous birds the quail is essentially insectivorous, except in in-
clement weather, when insects are not easily obtained. In my profession as taxider-
mist I have dissected many different species of birds in the crops of which were con-
tained injurious insects of various kinds — the chinch bug among others. In no other
instance do I remember of the presence of this insect in the crop of a bird in so great
numbers as in that of the quail. Asa rule but few birds, mammals, reptiles, or rapac-
ious insects seem to relish any of the odoriferous members of the Eemiptera or true
bngs. In winter, however, this repugnance is partially overcome, and now and then
even a chinch bug seems a delicate morsel when " meat " is scarce.

The Prairie Chicken, the Eecl- winged Black-bird, and other birds have
been reported as feeding upon the Chinch Bug, and Professor Forbes
mentions the fact that one Cat-bird, three Brown Thrushes, and one
Meadow Lark were found in 1880 to have eaten these insects " in barely
sufficient number to show that the birds have no unconquerable prej-
udice against them. A single House-wren, shot in 1882, had also eaten
a few Chinch Bugs." Dr. Thomas states that the common frog, accord-
ing to Professor Ross and others, consumes a large number of the bugs :

Professor Ross goes so far as to express the belief that the destruction of these ani-
mals by draining their natural haunts is one reason why the chinch hug is enabled to
multiply as it does in some seasons.

No account of an injurious insect is complete without an enumeration
of its natural enemies and hence this summary has been given. It is
plain, however, that the foes of the Chinch Bug are neither so numerous
nor so active in its pursuit as are those of most injurious insects. Al-
most the solitary exception seems from the evidence to be the common
Quail, and on this account the following short table has been compiled.
It illustrates the mouths in which the shooting of quails is allowed in the
States in which the Chinch Bug becomes or may become injurious, and
it shows that while these birds are in the main tolerably well protected,
certain of the States which suffer most from the Chinch Bug might
with profit follow the example of Colorado or Dakota and protect the
Quail altogether for a series of years.

New York. — Shooting of quails allowed from November 1 to Janu-
ary 1.

Maryland. — Shooting of quails allowed from November 1 to Decem-
ber 24. There are, however, in this State, local county laws, some of
which allow the shooting as early as October I. ■

Virginia. — Shooting of quails allowed west of the Blue Ridge October
15 to January 1, except in Rockbridge County, where it is allowed from
October 15 to January 15 ; elsewhere October 15 to January 15.

Texas. — Shooting of quails allowed from October 1 to April 1.

Georgia. — Shooting of quails allowed from October 15 to April 1.

Wisconsin. — Shooting of quails allowed from November 1 to Decem-
ber 1. Trapping prohibited.

Michigan. — Shooting of quails allowed from November 1 io January 1.
No trapping or snarin g allowed for market.

Pennsylvania. —Shooting of quails allowed from October 15 to Jan-
uarv 1.

—

THE CHINCH BUG. 25

Tennessee. — Shooting of quails allowed from October 1 to April 1 in
Butherford, Shelby, Tipton, and Fayette Counties; September 1 to Feb-
ruary 1, in Bobertson, Davidson, Lincoln, and Maury Counties; Septem-
ber 15 to March 1, in Montgomery and Cheatham Counties.

Missouri. — Shooting of quails allowed from October 15 to February .1
Trapping prohibited except by owner of premises.

Delaware. — Shooting of quails allowed from November 15 to Jan
uary 1.

Worth Carolina. — Shooting of quails allowed from October 15 to April
1, except in counties of Clay, Cherokee, Graham, Henderson, Jackson
Macon, Transylvania, Tyrrell, Johnston, Jones, Ware, Onslow, Carter
ret, and Columbus, in which tney are not protected. In Currituck
County, December 1 to April 1.

Iowa. — Shooting of quails allowed from October 1 to January 1. No
more than twenty-five quails to be killed in any one day by any one
person.

Dakota. — Quails protected absolutely to 1890.

Illinois. — Shooting of quails allowed from November 1 to January 1.
Snaring a,nd trapping forbidden.

Ohio. — Shooting of quails allowed from November 10 to January 1.
Snaring and trapping forbidden. In Fulton County quails protected
to November 1, 1890.

Nebraska. — Shooting of quails allowed from October 1 to January 1.
Snaring and trapping forbidden.

Indiana. — Shooting of quails allowed from October 15 to Decem-
ber 20.

Minnesota. — Shooting of quails allowed from September 1 to Decem-
ber 1. Trapping prohibited.

District of Columbia. — Shooting of quails allowed from November 1
to February 1. Trapping prohibited.

South Carolina. — Shooting of quails allowed from October 1 to March 15.

Montana. — Shooting of quails allowed from August 15 to November 15.

Arkansas. — Shooting of quails allowed from October 1 to March 1.

Colorado. — Quails protected at all times.

West Virginia. — Shooting of quails allowed from October 15 to Jan-
uary 1. Snaring prohibited.

Kentucky. — Shooting of quails alio wed from October 15 to February 1.

Idaho. — Quails protected until September 1, 1887. (Present status
of law unknown.)

New Mexico. — Shooting of quails allowed from September 1 to May 1.

Kansas. — Shooting of quails allowed from November 1 to January 1.

This compilation is drawn up in the main from an extended abstract
of the State laws, published in the American Field for August 20, 1887,
Vol. XXVIII, No. 8.

Diseases. — The Chinch Bug has long been known to be subject to a
so-called bacterial disease, which occasionally kills it off. Dr. Shinier,

20 THE CHINCH BUG.

in his long article in the Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences
of Philadelphia, gives the following account of his observations upon
this disease in 1SG5. (Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences
of Philadelphia for 18G7.)

July 16. — A farmer four miles from here informed me that a black coleopterous in-
sect was destroying tbe chinch bugs on his farm wry rapidly, and, although I found
his supposition to be an error, yet I found many dying on tbe low creek-bottom laud
from the effects of some disease, while they are yet in the larva- statu — a remarkable
and rare phenomenon for insects thus in such a wholesale manner to be dying without
attaining their maturity, and no insect enemy or other efficient cause to be observed
capable of producing this important result. * * *

On the low grounds the young chinch bugs are all dead from the disease above al-
luded to, aud the same disease is spreading rapidly on the hills and high prairies.

The weather has been very wet since the first of July, aud the barley above al-
luded to, which I plowed beneath the ground, did not die, but assumed a yellow,
sickly appearance ; in its shady, compressed, unnatural position, the ends of the
heads project from beneath the furrows. The chinch bugs also remained alive for a
time, but feeding on the sickly grain and shaded from tbe sunlight — what little we
had — were attacked by disease in the same manner and about tbe same time as those
on the low creek-bottom lands, meeting very rapidly the same fate, so that very lew
of them ever found their way to the neighboring corn.

July 28.— In the fields where sixty days ago I saw plenty of eggs, and forty-t wo days
ago an abundance of young chinch bugs, the imago are beginning to develop quite
plentifully. Great numbers, in all stages of their development, are dying of the pre-
vailing disease.

Aiujiost 8. — The majority of the chinch bugs yet alive are in the imago state, but they
are being rajndly destroyed by the prevailing epidemic disease, more fatal to them
than the plague of Asiatic cholera ever was to man, more fatal than any recorded
disease among men or animals since time began. Scarcely one in a thousand of the
vast hosts of young bugs observed at the middle of June yet remain alive, but plenty
of dead ones may be seen everywhere, lying on the ground, covered with the common
mold of decomposing animal matter, and nothing else, even when examined by the
microscope. Even of those that migrated to corn-fields a few weeks ago, in such
numbers as to cover the lower half of the corn-stalks, very few are to be found re-
maining alive; but the ground around the base of the corn-bills is almost literally-
covered with their moldering, decomposing dead bodies. This is a matter so common
as to be observed and often spoken of by farmers. They are dead everywhere, not
lying on the ground alone, but sticking to the blades and stalks of corn in great
numbers, iu all stages of their development, larva, pupa, aud imago.

August 22. — It is almost impossible to find even a few cabinet specimens of chinch
bugs alive, so that I am quite sorry that I did not secure a large supply of specimens
while they were so numerous in former years; for it really appears quite probable
that even cabinet specimens will be hard to secure, whereby to remember the fallen
race of the unnumbered millions of former years.

September 13. — After a whole day's searching in the corn-fields, 1 have just been able
to find two larvae and a few imago chinch bugs, against the great numbers above al-
luded to in the corn about this time last year.

It is generally believed, among entomologists that insect enemies are the inosl effi-
cient means in nature for exterminating noxious insects; bin in this remarkable fad
in the history of insects, the great epidemic of L 865 (there ran be no donbt about
this being an epidemic disease, because the insects died without attaining their ma-
turity), we find a greater enemy, the greatest insect enemy ever recorded, a dreadful
" plague," that in a tew days almost utterly annihilated a race of beings living in the

THE CHINCH BUG. 27

northern part of the valley of the Mississippi, outnumbering all the human beings
that have ever lived on this planet since the morning of creation.

This disease among the chinch bugs was associated with the long-continued wet,
cloudy, cold weather that prevailed during a greater portion of the period of their
development, and doubtless was in a measure produced by deficient light, heat, and
electricity, combined with excessive humidity of the atmosphere, whereby an imper-
fect physical (" bug") organization was developed. The disease was at its maximum
during the moist weather that followed the cold rains of June and the first part of
July. The young chinch bug spent a great portion of its time on or near the ground,
where its body was colder than the atmosphere; hence, upon philosophical principles,,
there must have been an excessive precipitation of watery vapor in the bronchial
tubes. These are the facts in the case, but in the midst of the great obscurity that
envelops epidemic diseases among men, it would be only idle speculation to attempt
to define the cause more definitely than the physiological laws already observed seem
to indicate. At all events it will require many years of warm, dry summers, and ac-
companying winters of plenty of snow for protection, to reinstate the lost innumera-
ble armies of this insect.

During the summer of 1866 the chinch bugs were very scarce in all the early spring,
and up to near the harvest I was not able, with the most diligent search, to find oue»
At harvest I did succeed in finding a few in some localities.

Professor Forbes took up the study of the Chinch Bug Disease in Au-
gust, 18S2? and has published several interesting accounts of his results.
A short summary was published in his first report as State Entomolo-
gist of Illinois, for the year 1882, of the long account of his studies and
experiments, and it is in such shape that we reproduce it here:

On the other hand, a much more important role is apparently played by certain ob-
scure parasites, not previously detected. One of these is a minute bacterium (Micro-
coccus insectorum, Burrill), infesting the alimentary canal, closely allied to the micro-
coccus found in the stomach and intestines of silk-worms, and now known to cause
some of the destructive diseases of that insect. From the fact that these parasites
were extremely abundant in specimens from a field where the bugs were rapidly dying,
while in those from adjacent fields there were relatively very few, it was considered
probable that they were related to this destruction of the bugs. This conclusion was
supported by the fact that they were more abundant in old bugs than in young, while
the mortality referred to evidently also chiefly affected the older individuals. It was
found easy to cultivate the bacterium artificially in organic infusions, but no oppor-
tunity offered to apply it to healthy insects. Until this experiment is made and the
effects carefully studied, it must remain possible that the coincidence noted was-
merely accidental, and of no particular significance.

Another parasite discovered is similar to that well known as a common enemy of
the house fly, and belongs to the same genus (Entomophthora). This attacks both old
and young chinch bugs, and finally embeds their bodies in a mass of mold. There is
some reason to believe that this was the active agent in an immense destruction of
chinch bugs which occurred in Northern Illinois in 1866, as described by Dr. Shimer,
of Mount Carroll. Evidence is adduced of the possibility of artificially cultivating
this parasite also, and applying it to the destruction of insects.

Since the publication of this report Professor Forbes has taken up
the study of bacterial diseases of certain other insects, but there has
been, so far as we are aware, no practical outcome as yet. The subject,
however, has a rather hopeful look, although we should be inclined
to expect more from the Micrococcus than from the JEntomophthora. The
evidence mentioned as to the possibility of artificially cultivating the

28 THE CHINCH BUG.

latter is chiefly a translation of a paper by Metschuikoffin the Zoolog-
ischer Auzeiger for 1880, pp. 44-47 in which it is shown the Russian
naturalist successfully induced the growth of the fungus, Isaria de-
structor, which had destroyed the celebrated Anisoplia Austriaca, a grain
pest in Russia, in beer mash. Successful attempts were made to infest
healthy larvae with green spores taken from diseased larva' found in
the fields, but no mention is made of success, or even of experiment with
the only practical substance — the beer-mash culture.

Professor Riley has always doubted the possibility of any practical
success in this direction, and has pointed out the difficulties in tin- way.
(See American Naturalist, November, 1S83, p. 1170.)

In the introduction to the Fourth Report of the U. S. Entomological
Commission (LXXXV) he makes use of the following language :

In treating of the use of yeast ferment or otlx-r fungus germs we have us<
tially the language of the first edition. Time has only served to confirm us in our

opinion of their practical futility in the field. The question of the practical use of
these micro-organisms — these disease germs — as insecticides i> a very fascinating one,
and is much written about just now ; but unfortunately it proves most alluring to
those wbo have had the lease practical experience in coping with injurious insects in
the field, and is much more apt to assume importance to the closet theorists than to
those who, from experience, are conscious of the difficulties involved in its applica-
bility.

It will also be apropos to quote Professor Forbes' latest utterauee
upon this point. He says :

Finally, the artificial cultivation of the germs of the contagious diseases of the chinch
bug, with a view to spreading these diseases at will by means of such artificial cult-
ure. This is a theoretical remedy only, and much additional study and experiment
will be required to put it on a practical basis.

WET WEATHER AND THE CHINCH BUG.

The great preponderance of evidence favors the idea, now considered
well established, that wet weather is inimical to this insect. Dozens,
we may almost say hundreds, of instances are on record in which the
Chinch Bugs, after successfully hibernating in great numbers, have been
rendered harmless by a wet spring, and in which, having laid their eggs
and appeared again as the spring brood with greatly increased forces,
a spell of rainy weather in early summer has caused them to vanish.
Hence, it follows that dry seasons favor the increase of the pest; and
careful observation convinced Riley and others that after a season of
moderate abundance (presumably therefore not a wet season) the occur- t
rence of the bugs in destructive numbers the next season depends al-
most entirely upon the wetness or dryness of the ensuing spring.

The exact method in which wet weather accomplishes the destruction
of the insect is a somewhat disputed point. That it is not actual sub-
mergence was pointed out by Professor Riley in his second .Missouri
report, and still further proven by an observation made by Hon. Will-
iam McAdams and reported by Professor Forbes in his first report as

THE CHINCH BUG. 2$

State entomologist of Illinois, and which is sufficiently interesting to
quote :

In bis vicinity, in Jersey County (Ills.), they (the chinch bugs) were extremely
abundant in the grain early in the spring, but were all apparently swept out of the
country by a long and violent storm. Some days afterwards, when the water had
subsided, he noticed in pulling over the drift-wood in the river bottoms immense
numbers of chinch bugs among the rubbish, most of them still alive and crawling
about.

Professor Forbes also concludes that simple exposure to moisture
hardly has the effect attributed to rain from expeiiments which he made
as follows :

A number of hills infested by the bugs were successfully transplanted to boxes and
variously treated with water for ten days. Some selected examples were thoroughly
drenched every day, both ground and stalks; in other boxes only the ground was-
watered ; in still others the corn was sprinkled every day, but the ground protected ;
and the remainder were left with only sufficient attention to keep the corn alive.
During the time for which these experiments were continued, no appreciable effect
whatever was produced upon the bugs infesting the stalks. Those where the corn
was watered were washed down upon the ground each time, but soon dried off and
climbed up the stalk. At the end of this time the bugs under observation all com-
menced to disappear indiscriminately, without reference to the mode in which the
corn had been treated, and the experiment was thus abruptly closed. Enough was
learned, however, to show that a succession of heavy daily showers for more than a
week would have no appreciable effect upon these insects in that stage. The weather
was warm and pleasant, and the conditions under which the experiments were carried
on made it impossible to saturate the air.

So general a conclusion it seems to us is hardly warrantable from the
conditions under which the experiments were made. If "the weather
was warm and pleasant, and the condition under which the experiments
were carried on made it impossible to saturate the air," the effect could
hardly help but differ from that of a heavy shower in a corn-field, par-
ticularly from that of " a succession of heavy daily showers for more
than a week," when there would be considerable cloudy weather and
the atmosphere on the whole would be moist.

Professor Riley mentioned the fact that the larvae and pupae are more
readily killed by the wet weather than the adult insects, but that the
latter are also killed.

Mr. Walsh (Am. Ent. 1, 175, 1869) gives the emphasis of italics to the
following sentence :

In a hot, dry season chinch bugs are always the worst ; in a wet season it is im-
possible for them to do any considerable amount of damage.

,Dr. Shinier (loc. tit.), in his account of the epidemic, argued that it was
doubtless the indirect effect of the wet weather. Dr. Thomas (Bull. 5,
U. S. E. 0.) expressed the opinion that the wet weather gave rise to a
minute fungus which is the direct cause of the death of the insect.
Professor Forbes says: -

The phenomena connected with the action of parasites, which I have above de-
scribed, were apparently independent of any appreciable general cause, as they were
most manifest at a time when the weather had been warm, dry, and altogether un-

30 THE CHINCH BUG.

exceptionable for from one to two mouths. It is not unlikely, however, that wet
weather may have the effect to stimulate the development of this parasite, either di-
rectly or indirectly — a hypothesis which will reconcile all the facts now known, as
well as the conflicting explanations of them which have been hitherto put forth.

Assuming the dry weather abundance and wet weather scarcity of the
Chinch Bag' to be proven, Dr. Thomas in 1880 published an elaborate
article in which by a comparison of the rain-fall for forty years, with the
destructive appearances of the insect for the same period, he not only
established a definite relation between them, but upon an admittedly
somewhat uncertain septennary periodicity of rain-fall advanced the fol-
lowing practical conclusions :

The first and very important practical fact revealed is that we may expect at
most but two chinch bug years In every seven, with the strong probability, amount-
ing almost to a certainty, that there will not be two in succession. As heretofore
stated, two successive dry years are necessary in order to develop this species in ex-
cessive numbers; the rain-fall records seldom show three dry years in succession, hence
the chinch bugs are not likely to appear in injurious numbers in two successive years.
The years 1854 and lb55 may, perhaps, form au exception to this rule. It is possible
that the second brood of the first year may be sufficient to excite alarm, but experi-
ence has shown that they do but little injury. We may, perhaps, with safety assume,
as a general rule subject to occasional exceptions, that they will not appear more
than once in excessive numbers during auy of the septennary periods.

If the facts shown in reference to periodicity in our rain-fall are continued by future
investigations, and this periodicity shown to be a meteorological law of the area in-
dicated, the practical advantage of this knowledge to our farmers is apparent to every
one. By this knowledge they will be enabled to predict with a reasonable degree of
certainty wheu to expect these insects, and can rotate their crops so as to sutler the
least possible injury. This knowledge will also enable them to dispense with precau-
tionary measures except in such years as are likely to be followed by the appearance
of the bugs.

Experience has shown, and farmers are now becoming fully aware of the fact, that
spring wheat and corn are the crops that chiefly aid in sustaining and developing
this pest. Why corn should aid in this respect is easily seen, as it is the only exten-
sive crop on which the second brood can feed. But why spring wheat should aid
more in developing them than winter wheat is uot so easily explained, but that such
is the fact must be admitted. It may possibly be accounted for on the presumption
that the climate of the spring wheat region is more congeuial to them than that of
the winter wheat area.

These facts, combined with a knowledge of the time when tbe dry seasons are to
be expected, will enable the farmers to substitute other crops as far as possible in
place of spring wheat and corn. Even if the conclusion in reference bo periodicity in
rain-fall should prove erroneous, the fact that two successive dry years are necessary
to develop this species in excessive numbers will suffice to give notice at least one
season in advance and allow the farmers to adapt their crops to the circumstances.
When a dry season comes and an examination shows that the bngs are on the. increase,
winter wheat, wherever it is possible to do so, should be substituted for spring wheat ;
and oats, as far as possible, for corn.

The uncertainty in reference to temperature will, perhaps, always prevent as from
predicting with certainty that a coming year will be marked by the appearance of
these insects, but we may say with assurance that a wet year will not bo followed by
a chinch-bug year. Although this i9 not all we desire to know in this respect, it is,
nevertheless, a very important fact and may be used to manifest advantage by our
agriculturists.

THE CHINCH BUG. 31

It is proper to remark at this point that we have been speaking only of the rain-
fall over the whole area designated and the general appearance of the chinch hng
over the same area.

That these insects have appeared even in injurious numbers in limited localities in
intermediate years, or times different from those indicated as possible chinch -bug
years, is certainly true. But, if the theory advanced is correct when applied to the
area designated as a whole, it will probably prove true when applied to more limited
localities. That is to say, if the meteorological record of a given locality within this
area for a long series of years is examined, it will probably reveal the fact that there
is a similar periodicity in the rainfall, though possibly not septennary. If this is
fouud to be true, then the farmers of that locality will have a guide by which to ro-
tate their crops and to take precautionary measures.

It therefore becomes important for each section to keep a record at least of the rain-
fall, for this will be of advantage, not only in counteracting the chinch bugs, but
numerous other species, and if a periodicity is ascertained will enable the farmers to
adapt their crops as far as possible to the wet or dry seasons.

In the October (1880) number of the American Entomologist (Vol.
Ill) Dr. Thomas published practically the same article as that above
quoted and stated that the bugs would probably appear over the region
indicated in 1881. He advised, in consequence, the sowing of large
areas of oats iu 1881. Prof. Riley, in his Annual Report for 1881-'82 (p.
87), mentioned this prediction and advice, and showed that the predic-
tion was fulfilled in part, at least, by the occurrence of the bugs in de-
structive numbers in several Western States. With regard to the adop-
tion of Dr. Thomas' advice, however, he pointed out the rather curious
fact that Dr. Thomas' own State (Illinois) was the only one of the large
oat-producing States in which the acreage of this crop was not increased,
but was somewhat diminished. Dr. Thomas in the letter of transmit-
tal to his report for 1881 announced the fulfillment of his prediction
and predicted immunity for 1882. Professor Riley (loo. cit.) showed that
in spite of frequent rains in the spring of 1882, and in spite of the fact
that 1881 was a Chinch Bug year, the bugs appeared in great numbers
in parts of Illinois, Kansas, and Missouri in April and May, but that
by June the reports were less alarming. The year as a whole was not
marked by any extensive damage.

Upon Dr. Thomas' theory the year 1888 should not be a Chinch Bug
year, and, while not desiring to encroach upon his prerogative as a
seer, we are inclined to hold the same opinion concerning this season at
least.

Curiously enough, an anonymous writer (J. C. H. S., of Sedgwick
County, Kans.) in the Prairie Farmer for June 10, 1882, commenting
upon and criticising Dr. Thomas' theory, himself predicts that 1887
would be a year of drought and consequently a Chinch Bug year — a much
more daring prediction than Dr. Thomas cared to make, and which has
yet been perfectly fulfilled. According to this writer's somewhat arbi-
trary system, 1894 will again bring a severe drought.

We introduce here, as bearing upon the rain-fall influence in the in-
teresting North Carolina locality, the following table of temperature and

32

THE CHINCH BUG.

rain-fall at Chapel Hill, compiled by Professor Atkinson. It will be
noticed that while the total rain-fall in botli 1886 and 1887 was greater
than in 1885, that daring September, October, and November, 1886, and
March and April, 1887, was comparatively slight, and that dining June
and July, 1837, high temperature occurred with the comparatively
heavy rain-fall.

Table of temperature and rain-fall for spring^ summer, and autumn, at
Chapel Hill, X. C.,for the years 1885, 1880, and 1887.

[The temperatureis expressed

in degrees Fahrenheit.]

1883.

Highest temperature
Lowest temperature.
Mean temperature. ..
Rain-fall (inches) —

Highest temperature.
Lowest temperature..

Mean temperature

Rain-tall (inches)

1887.

Highest temperature.
Lowest temperature. .

Mean temperature

Rain-fall (inches)

75
15

42.3
3.5

80
24
49.3
4.97

. !)3

>.

p.

c«

<

S

94

90

31

40

55.3

66.5

2.71

4.34

93

93

33

46

59.6

67.7

5.99

4

91

93

28

45

58.3

70.6

2.56

6.59

63

74.7
1.32

100 94

61 57

77. 3 74. 8
3.95 L.9S

98. 5 96
53 62

78. 8 76. 9 75. 9
6. 22 7. 48 9. 91

101.8 103

•49. 7 65.7

74. 7 79. 8 74. 4

G. 22 G. 11 10.8

92

52

92
46
68

G.45

52
75.9

2. 8e

36
69
1.39

81
35

56.6
6.27

35

58.6
1.47

71
27

52.3
3.81

77
24

49.1
2.79

~ :

24. 25

41.43

The following tables are published for comparative purposes. They
are kindly furnished by the Chief Signal Officer, and include the official
records of precipitation in Chinch Bug States for 1885, 188G, 1887 :

Stations.

Precipitation.

1885.

4G 04

36.55

41.85

it;.:;:,

02

Maryland :

Baltimore

Virginia :

( !ape Henry

Chincoteague

Lynchhurgh

Norfolk

Xorth Carolina:

Charlotte

Batteras

Kitty Hawk

Macoii, Fort 62. 34

Smithville (now South port)

Wilmington

Indian;! :

1 . reen castle

Indianapolis

Ohio:

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbus 42. 25

Sandusky

Toledo . .'.

1887.

Inches. ,

52. 11

M4.7C
45. 2:;
51.85
54.33

54.72

-

31.35
31.00

Inches.
43. 59

-19. 74
4". 62

47. 72

51.26

51. 47

' "33." 08

!

Closed Decerabei

d .111110 18, 1--:.

'

THE CHINCH BUG.

33

Precipitation.

1885.

1886.

Part

1887.

Illinois:

Inches.
31.99
44.37
38.61

30.70
32. 58

19.96
22.68
25.33
16.58

'47. 05
45.59

HI. 11
23. 71
43.64

Inches.
37.98
26.77
31.69

22.49
31.46

33.37
26.76
22.89
15.04

33.48
44.34

28.24
19. 35
22.25

Inches.
26. 75

29.13

25. 15

Wisconsin :

17.37

30.46

Minnesota :

JJuluth

28.56

21.97

25.85

18.47

Missouri :

35.72

35.30

Kansas :

25.26

15. 80

37.05

Ten months' record.

Eight months' record.

REMEDIES AND PREVENTIVES.

The remedies and preventives recommended as late as the publication
of Professor Kiley's 7th Eept. Ins. Mo., and there considered by him are
as follows : Irrigation, burning, trapping, trampling, rolling, manuring,
early sowing, mixing seed, or protecting one plant by another, prevent-
ing the migration from one field to another by upright boards or by
plowed furrows or ditches, abstaining from cultivation of grains upon
which the insect feeds. These remedies were also treated in detail by
Dr. Thomas in Bulletin 5 of the Commission. Since this, although many
changes have been rung in the agricultural newspapers on these reme-
dies, very few entirely new ideas have been advanced. We may men-
tion more particularly, before taking up a more detailed consideration
of this question, the successful adoption of the kerosene emulsion for
application at the time of migration or immediately afterwards.

Preventions.

Clean Cultivation. — With no insect more than the Chinch Bug is there
greater necessity for clean cultivation. We have shown already that
the insect hibernates under rubbish of all kinds, and that the grass and
weeds growing in the fence corners and the leaves which accumulate there
are admirable places for these insects to collect and winter. Where
corn-stalks are left in the fields, and where rubbish of any kind is al-
lowed to accumulate, there the bugs will surely be found. Therefore,
the more thoroughly a field is cleaned up in the fall, the more carefully
the fence corners are weeded out, and the more the bare soil is turned
under the fewer will be the chances for successful hibernation.

Diversified Farming. — It follows from what we have said concerning
food plants of this insect and the crops most attacked, that, from the
12734— Bull. 17 3

34 THE CHINTCH BUG.

Chinch-bug standpoint alone, to say nothing of its other advantages,
the more diversified the system of crops the better chance there will be
for preventing it. A farmer who plants only Winter Wheat, Corn, and
small vegetable patches, as is the practice in so many parts of the West,
will always be liable to lose a large share, if not all, of his expected re-
muneration, from the attacks of this insect. " Diversified farming, with
wheat mainly left out," is the editorial recommendation of the Prairie
Farmer (September 17, 1887), and is certainly an exemplification of con-
densed wisdom. Theobjectof the omission of Wheat, particularly Winter
Wheat, is, of course, to afford aslittle food as possible for the first genera-
tion. Similarly the plan has been suggested of abstaining from Corn in
wheat and other small-grain growing regions, with the purpose of afford-
ing aslittle food as possible for the second brood. The result of this
plan will be that after harvest the bugs will make their way to the wild
grasses, will disperse more, and vastly fewer will successfully hibernate
than if there were the usual superabundant supply of food for the sec-
ond generation.

Rotation of Crops. — From these same facts it also follows with self-
evident clearness that crops attractive to these insects should not be
sown year after year upon the same ground. This idea is so plain as to
require no elaboration. Abstaining from the cultivation of grain upon
which the insect feeds where, in spite of the efforts for protection else-
where mentioned, the Chinch-bug damage is still great, will, of course,
end the difficulty. Wheat, Barley, Eye, Hungarian Crass, and Millet
are all important crops, but there are others such as Buckwheat, Clover,
Flax, Hemp, all vegetables and fruits which could well be made to take
their place for a year or two, or more, if it should become necessary.
The one great result of the Chinch-bug convention held in Kansas in
1881 was the adoption of a resolution to abstain from the cultivation
of Wheat, the length of time not being mentioned. As we have pre-
viously shown, large areas of Oats could be successfully grown, but in
corn-growing regions most small grains must be left alone, and above
all Winter-wheat and Barley. Even without concert of action among
the farmers of a certain region, it will benefit the individual to abstain
from Wheat and to grow Oats in preference in a year when bugs are
expected, but concert of action is tar preferable.

Early Sowing and Manuring. — From the evident fact that a strong,
healthy, well-grown plant will better resist the attacks of the insect the
deduction follows that Winter Wheat sown early \\\nm well-manured
ground and given careful cultivation will be farther advanced in the
spring and will suffer less from the attacks of the bug. Heavy manur-
ing will also cause a denser growth, which experience shows to be
prejudicial to the bugs.

Rolling. — The female Chinch Bug in the spring seeks preferably fria-
ble ground in which to lay her eggs: consequently rolling the land in
the fall after the crop of Winter Wheat is put in will render it less favor-

THE CHINCH BUG. 35

able to such egg laying. The same thing may be done with even better
success after sowing Spring Wheat.

Solving an unattractive Crop with Wheat. — Good results have been ob-
tained, as shown by Professor Riley, by sowing 1 or 2 quarts of Flax
to the acre in the spring among Fall Wheat. It is put in in early spring
with a light harrowing and rolling. Its growth does not materially in-
jure the crop. Flax and Barley have also been sown mixed upon the
same ground, the seed being separated in cleaning. Similarly, corn-
fields which promised a poor stand have been harrowed and sown to
Buckwheat. We have already mentioned in our section on food plants
the successful experiment detailed by Professor Forbes in sowing Timo-
thy in the fall with Winter Wheat or Rye, and the same author states that
in southern Illinois the sowing of Clover in spring on Winter Wheat is
largely practiced "with unquestionably good effect, provided that the
clover grows freely enough to shade the ground by the time the young
Chinch Bug gets fairly under way." In that latitude, however, he states
that the clover often makes too slow a start to effect this purpose. Pro-
fessor Riley also states that it is recommended to sow 1 bushel of Whi-
ter Rye with each 12 bushels of Spring Wheat, either for the same reason
or from the idea that the bugs will prefer the younger to the older grain.

Direct Winter Remedies.

Stress should be laid upon the great necessity for concerted work in
winter time.
Burning. — Professor Riley says :

I can not lay too much stress on the importance of winter work in burning corn-
stalks, old boards, and all kinds of grass, weeds, rubbish, and litter around grain fields,
and even the leaves in the adjoining woods, in and under all of which the little pest
hibernates.

In almost every locality the insects will be found to have some par-
ticularly favored hibernating place, where they can be attacked and
burned out. The locality studied by Professor Atkinson in North Caro-
lina and mentioned in a previous paragraph is a particularly good in-
stance. There a little careful search in the fall showed the bugs pre-
paring to hibernate in great numbers in the Crab-grass, and nothing
could be easier in the winter than to burn down every spear of this
grass in the vicinity of the grain fields. In the newer parts of the West,
where unbroken prairie land adjoins fields of grain, it is advisable to
burn over the former early every spring. Indeed this course is an ab-
solute necessity under such conditions.

Fall Flowing and Harrowing. — After burning, if the soil can be plowed
and harrowed, the chances for successful hibernation of the bugs which
escape burning will be reduced to a minimum. In the same way, with-
out burning, late fall plowing and harrowing will do much good.

Gas Lime. — Where gas lime can be easily and cheaply obtained an
application of two hundred bushels to the acre will prove valuable as a
fertilizer and will destroy such hibernating insects as it may reach.

36 THE CHINCH BUG.

Trapping. — We quote again from Professor Kiley :

Much good winter work may be done also in the way of trapping the bugs. In
seeking winter quarters they show a decided partiality for any flat substance, Bach as

old hoards, that do not rest too closely upon the ground. If all old hoards that can
he ohtained are laid around the held in the fall in such manner that the larger part
of the lower surface will not quite rest on the ground — which of course it will not do
if the ground is in the least uneven or covered with grass — the bugs will collect under
such traps and dining the cold weather of winter may he scraped from them on to
dry straw and hurned.

He has also suggested that shocks of corn-stalks should be made
at intervals throughout the held before winter sets in so as to attract
the bugs, which will congregate in the shocks, where they can be burned
at leisure. Almost any inflammable rubbish could be used for this pur-
pose. In the neighborhood of sorghum mills bagasse has been used
with good effect. The piles should not be too large or too compact.
They should be placed during September and should be burned in De-
cember.

Trampling. — The following. paragraph is from Professor Riley :

Where the custom of allowing cattle to range during the winter in the busked
corn-fields, even the few Chinch Bugs which secrete in the stalks are apt to get killed
by the feeding and trampling.

Direct Summer Remedies before Migration.

As is the case with so many other destructive insects, it is not until
they are under full headway and in the act of doing their greatest
damage that an appeal is made to the entomologist for relief, and at
such times it is usually by far the most difficult thing to give any ad-
vice. A wheat field full of Chinch Bugs is as disagreeable a sight to
the economic entomologist as it is to the farmer who owns it, for
nothing can be done to save it. If the hand of Providence should in-
terpose with a long-continued drenching rain relief would be gained,
but in almost no other way are the crops to be saved.

Irrigation. — It was the fact just mentioned which led Professor Riley,
in his 7th Report on the Insects of Missouri, to strongly recommend
irrigation where it can be practiced. He says :

Irrigation, where it can he applied, and it can he in much of the territory in the
vicinity of the Rocky Mountains, where the insect commits sad havoc, and with a
little effort in many regions in the heart of the Mississippi Valley, is the only really
availahle, practicahle remedy, after the hugs have commenced multiplying in the
spring. I wish to lay particular stress on this matter of irrigation, believing, as I do,
that it is an effectual antidote against this pest, and that hy overflowing a grain
field for a couple of days, or hy saturating the ground for as many more iu the mouth
of May, we may effectually prevent its subsequent injuries. * * * We can not. at
the critical moment, expect much aid from its natural enemies, for these are few
ami attack it mostly in the winter time. We must, therefore, in our warfare with
this pest, depend mainly on preventive measures where irrigation is impossible.

Later (Amer. Agriculturist, Dec, 1881, also Ann. Rept. as Entomolo-
gist Dept. Agr. for 1881-'82, pages 88-89) he expressed himself even
more explicitly upon this subject:

THE CHINCH BUG. 37

I have fouDd no occasion to change my opinion as to the value and potency of
irrigation as a remedy for Chinch-bug injuries, a remedy, too, that is within the reach
of most farmers, for there are few who might not, with the aid of proper windmills,
obtain the water requisite for irrigating their fields at the needed time, while many
have natural irrigating facilities. I have repeatedly laid stress in my writings on
the importauce of irrigation in combating several of our worst insect enemies, and
aside from its benefits in this direction, every recurrence of a droughty year, such as
the present, in large portions of the United States, convinces me of its importance as
a meaus of guarding against failure of crops from excessive drought. I am glad to
kuow that many farmers, and especially small fruit-growers in the vicinity of New
York, are preparing in one way or another for irrigation whenever it becomes nec-
essary, and I was pleased to hear Dr. Hexamer, at the late meeting of the American
Pomological Society, urge a general system of irrigation as the most profitable invest-
ment the cultivator can make in a climate subject to such periods of drought as
ours is known to be.

Burning. — In addition to winter burning the remedy can be used to
good effect in other cases. For instance where the attack of the bugs
appears to be confined to a definite portion of the field, that portion
shouLl be overlaid with straw and burned, if not too large. Another
pertinent suggestion is made by Dr. Thomas in Bulletin 5, U. 8. E. (7.,
and this has the indorsement of practical use by certain Illinois farmers.

If it is found at the time wheat is harvested that the bugs have not taken their de-
parture, as is the case in the winter-wheat section, this fact maybe taken advantage
of to destroy a very large portion of them. If the wheat is at once thrashed and the
straw scattered over the stubble and burned, it will destroy all or most of those that
are there. I know of one section of southern Illinois where this has been practiced for
a number of years by the German farmers with good results.

This remedy is very practical and doubtless can be used to good effect
under such circumstances.

The following experiments in burning were made the past season at
Ames, Iowa, by Professor Osborn, and the account is taken from his
manuscript report:

On July 16 the stubble adjoining a corn field was observed to contain large numbers
of bugs traveling toward corn. In the afternoon this migration was going on quite
.ac tively , and as the stubble was no w quite dry it was fired with a view of destroying bugs
remaining in it. Where tolerably thick, and when there was a fair breeze, it burned
readily, but it was necessary to take some pains in carrying the flame along past thin
spots to keep it from dying out. A considerable portion of the field, however, was
successfully burned over, and the dead bodies of many bugs not completely consumed,
which could easily be found on examining the burnt area, testified to the destruction
of hosts of the pests. The bugs thus killed were mostly young larvae, the majority of
the adults and larger larvae and the pupse having already moved out. The number
destroyed, however, must, 1 think, have well repaid the little trouble necessary to
burn the stubble.

Early in August the bugs had so muitipled in a field of Hungarian grass that no
further growth seemed probable, and most of the field was mown and the hay secured.
A narrow strip, however, was left next the corn, the plan being to burn this as soon
as bugs began passing to the corn. When the bugs started, however (August 13),
the grass was not dry enough to burn except in spots. In such places as would burn,
however, hosts of bugs were consumed. This strip was at once mown, and after dry-
ing a few hours another attempt made to burn it, as also on the following day; but
portions were still too green to burn rapidly, and, unfortunately for the experiment,

38 THE CHINCH BUG.

the two or three days following were not hot and dry enough to render ir fit to burn
readily. A few days later, however, on a dry day with a fair breeze, most of the strip
remaining unburnt was binned over, and examination showed that great numbers of
young bugs remaining were destroyed. Bugs, if under ground or secreted in roots of
stubble, will not be killed: hence to destroy greatest numbers, as well as to secure
mo t rapid burning, the fire should be started in the hottest part of a dry day. when
bugs in greatest number will lie moving.

Prevention of Migration — direct Remedies during and after Migration

As has been so often pointed out, a great deal can be done in the
way of destroying the insects at the time wheu they migrate from
the wheat fields, towards the close of the first generation, to corn and
other neighboring crops.

Bitching. — As long ago as Le Baron's first paper and as Fitch's second
report the method of digging a ditch or plowing a furrow around the
infested field was in vogue. If a plowed furrow be made the perpen-
dicular side should be towards the field to be protected and the earth
should be kept friable by dragging a log or brush occasionally through
it, or, better still, a triangular weighted trough. The migrating bugs
will fail to climb the side of the furrow and will fall back into it, where
they can be covered with straw and burned. With care and activity
the neighboring fields can be thus protected.

A modification of this plan appears in an unplaced newspaper cut-
ting in our possession. It is as follows :

AVhen they first appear, as they usually do, on the side of the corn field, and be-
fore they have entered it, cut five or six rows of the corn and clear the ground ; then
plow a strip of land 3 or 10 feet wide, leaving a deep furrow inthe center of the same.
Then take the corn stalks which were taken from the laud, and place them across the
dead furrow, and the trap is complete. When the bugs approach the held, they will
pass in under the corn placed across the dead furrow, and, preferring the shade and
moisture, remain there until the stalks become perfectly dry. when they can be put
through a process of cremation that will prove effectual in destroying them. Should
they first appear in the middle of a field of corn (as it not unfrequently happens they do),
they can he surrounded ou the foregoing plan and destroyed in the same way. This
plan we consider the most practical of any that has come under our observation, and
is corroborated to some extent by the experience of J. YV. Martin, an observing farmer,
whose experiments are given in the Osage Mission (Kans.) Journal.

Tarred Boards or Tar alone. — The plan has been adopted and is recom-
mended in the reports of Professor Kiley and others of using common
fence boards — 6 inches wide or less — setting them upon edge and mak-
ing a barrier of them around the infested fields, care being taken to cover
the lower edge so that the bugs will not crawl under them. The upper
edge is spread with fresh tar, which is occasionally renewed. Vast num-
bers are taken out from holes dug at intervals on the hithersideof the
barrier, in which the marching armies collect. Commenting- upon this
remedy Professor Riley says: "with a Little care to keep the tar moist
by renewal the boards may be dispensed with and the tar poured out
of a kettle on to the ground; about a gallon is required t<> the rod, and
it should be renewed every other day. otteiier when rams prevail, until

THE CHINCH BUG. 39

the bugs are destroyed." According to Dr. Le Baron this method was
extensively used in the central part of Illinois and especially in the
vicinity of the Bloomington gas works in 1872. He saw the operation
performed near Blooniington, where the tar was poured from an old
tea kettle on the ground along the exposed sides of a corn-field. This
remedy, however, will seldom be used on account of its expense, except
in such situations as that mentioned, where the tar can be readily and
cheaply procured.

Solving Strips of Plants distasteful to the Bugs around the Fields to be
protected. — This remedy has been urged by certain authors, and the crops
to be used as barriers are preferably Flax, Hemp, Clover, and Buckwheat.
The effect of this will be to deter and destroy the migrating individuals
and cause the death of the young ones by starvation. It is, however,
not a thorough remedy, and is not to be compared with the more direct
remedies which caused the almost complete destruction of the insect.

Solving Strips of favored Food around the Fields to be protected. — A strip
of Timothy, Hungarian grass, or Millet may be sown around the corn-
field to good advantage with the object of entrapping the migrating
bugs by plowing it under and burning the ground over when it has be-
come filled with the migrating armies in transit. The bugs of the first
generation, which are full grown, will lay their eggs by preference in
this protective strip, and these will be destroyed by the plowing and
burning.

Hot Water and Soap-suds. — The application of strong soap suds to the
insects when gathered upon the outer rows of corn was recommended by
a writer in the Southern Planter many years ago, and was also given
by Dr. Fitch. Statement is made that a half gill or a gill poured upon
each stalk will kill them all, and that the labor is not half so great as a
single hoeing of the crop. Hot water has been recommended for a*
similar purpose by subsequent writers.

Kerosene Emulsion. — A new and, under certain circumstances, very effi-
cacious remedy for the Chinch Bug was introduced when Professor
Eiley, in 1882, first suggested to Professor Forbes the advisability of ex-
perimenting with this substance upon this insect. Professor Forbes's
first experiments were reported to this Division and the results were
published in Bulletin No. 2 (February,' 1883), pages 23 to 25. The fol-
lowing solutions were used in these experiments :

Solutions with which dilutions were made : (1) Soap-suds, 1 pound soap to 10 gal-
lons water; (2) soap-suds, 1. j>ound soap to 20 gallons water; (3) potash, 1 pound to
50 gallons water.

EMULSIONS AS DILUTED.

Per cent, of kerosene.

A. 2 parts kerosene, 1 par!; milk, 45 parts water (about) 4

B. 1 part kerosene, 1 part milk, 18 parts water ,.. . 5

C. 1 part kerosene, 1 part milk, 18 parts solution 1 5

D. 1 part kerosene, 1 part milk, 38 parts solution 2 2£

E. I part kerosene, 1 part milk, 38 parts water 2-J

F. 1 part kerosene, 1 part milk, 38 parts solution 3 'l\

G. 1 part kerosene, 1 part milk, 30 parts solution 2 3

40 THE CHINCH BUG.

All of these were efficacious. Fortunately at the time when such ap-
plication is to be made, viz, just after wheat harvest, help is abundant
and the work can be done at a reasonable expense. Experiments made
by Professor Forbes show that a simple mechanical mixture of one part
of kerosene to three of water will kill the bugs and will not injure half-
grown corn if it is kept constantly agitated. But the original soap
emulsion, recommended so often in the reports of this Department and
made according to the formula originally proposed by Mr. Hubbard,
will be much safer and will do thorough work. It will do no harm to
repeat this formula:

Kerosene 2 gallons = 67 per cent.

Common soap, or whale-oil soap 4 pound ? ^ „aT, OQ .

Water i gallon \~ M per ctut'

Heat the solution of soap and add it boiling hot to the kerosene.
Churn the mixture by means of a force-pump and spray-nozzle for five
or ten minutes. The emulsion, if perfect, forms a cream which thickens
on cooling, and should adhere without oiliuess to the surface of glass.
Dilute before using one part of the emulsion with nine parts of cold
water. The above formula gives 3 gallons of emulsion and makes,
when diluted, 30 gallons of wash.

We realize the objections to recommending anything complicated in
the way of a mixture and of apparatus for applying it, and in conse-
quence we may state, as showing that an ingenious individual who is
in earnest need not be hindered by lack of a proper apparatus for apply-
ing this mixture, the experience of Maj. R. S. Tucker, of Raleigh, X. C,
as published in the News and Observer, and in a special bulletin of the
State Department of Agriculture, Raleigh, June 29, 1887. His letter
stated in brief that having tried a number of remedies he learned of the
kerosene emulsion at a time when the pest was most abundant upon
the outer rows of corn. Not having any force pump or spray-nozzle with
which to churn the emulsion, he whipped the mixture in a large recep-
tacle with a bunch of twigs for ten or fifteen minutes and then applied
it to his outer rows of corn with a common water-sprinkler. The results
were admirable, and certainly he deserved success for his trial.

Another practical test was made by Professor Atkinson, and reported
upon in the bulletin just mentioned, as follows :

Mr. William F. Stroud, of Chapel Hill, had a field of wheat which was infested
with the chinch hugs. When the wheat was harvested they iiu mediately hetook them-
selves to the corn which was adjacent. Some of the corn stalks for 1 foot or 18 inches
above ground were literally black with the mass of insects, aud sometimes wheu they
could not he seen outside they were found in great numbers between the sheath of the
blade and the stalk.

[Here follows the kerosene-soap emulsion formula just given.]

I found these proportions made the liquid a little weak, and I diluted iu the pro-
portion of six parts of cold water to one of the emulsiou. The application of this to

THE CHINCH BUG. 41

the corn, June 25, was a perfect success in killing the bugs, and the corn was examined
later and was found to have sustained not the slightest injury.*

In my experiment I used a spraying apparatus, manufactured by A. H. Nixon, Day-
ton, Ohio, which consists of a square tank, which has a capacity of 8 gallons, with
with a force-pump hose and spray-nozzlo attached. This machine (called the Lit-
tle Gem) was placed upon a rough sled made for the purpose, which was drawn be-
tween the rows by a mule.

As the spraying apparatus produced too wide a stream to apply the liquid rapidly
and effectively to the stalks of corn, I removed the spraying portion of the nozzle and
used the part which produces a very narrow but strong stream (one-sixteenth of an
inch in diameter). The liquid would run down the stalks and between the sheath
of the blade and stalk, killing instantly the hundreds of insects with which it came
in contact. The two rows were sprayed as far as the stream would reach on each
side, aud then the mule moved on to stop for another application. In this way the
corn was gone over very rapidly. Where a force-pump can be obtained it is better
to apply it with this, but the nozzle should be very small, so as to throw a very nar-
row stream or spray directly against the stalk. If a force-pump can not be obtained,
a common watering pot, with a narrow nozzle, could be used very effectively. Sev-
eral of these could be used, the operators going quite rapidly from one stalk or hill
to another.

There is no reason why all should not get rid of the chinch bug on corn, for a fail-
ure to kill the bugs would arise from some fault in the application, and the applica-
tion can be made cheaper than a dressing of the corn could be made with the hoe.

This application was made late in June, and Mr. Stroud reported
several times later in the season that nothing more had been seen of
the bugs, and Professor Atkinson, visiting the field October 17, found
no Chinch Bugs in the corn-stalks where the emulsion was used, nor in
the neighboring Crab-grass. Some were found, however, about 40 rods
away in some late corn, but they were few in number.

Professor Osborn's experiments with kerosene emulsions, made dur-
ing the summer at our request at Ames, Iowa, are reported by him as
follows :

A number of trials were made with kerosene emulsion first with a view to testing
its value under various conditions, and afterward for the sake of checking the dam-
age threatened to corn.

The first trial was made July 15, the emulsion used being the common one, consist-
ing of kerosene, soap, and water diluted to about 5 per cent, kerosene. The bugs
were killed very quickly by this application, and great numbers of them could be
reached, but many in particularly secreted places, in folds of leaves and under lumps
of earth, escaped. Thrown on to the leaves and running down between leaf and
stalk, it dislodged and killed immense numbers. Thrown against stalks where they
were congregated it would quickly dislodge the mass, and while it was impossible to
see whether all driven off in this way were sufficiently wet to kill them, it was cer-
tain that most of them were. This application was at the rate of about 1 gallon of
emulsion or 12 gallons of the diluted mixture to 5 rows of corn for 32 rods, or what
would equal 5 gallons of emulsion, 60 gallons of diluted mixture to the acre, or a cost
for material of less than 60 cents per acre. In trials of the emulsion diluted to range
from 2 per cent, to 7 per cent, of kerosene, less than 4 or 5 per cent, was found to be
unsatisfactory, and at the lowest figure bugs even when thoroughly drenched and
kept for a time in the fluid were able to recover. A mixture (about 2 per cent., pos-

* Professor Atkinson has since written that subsequent tests convinced him that one
part of the emulsion to nine of water made the mixture quite strong enough. — L.
O. H.

42 THE CHINCH BUG.

sibly a little less) which killed plant lice almost instantly, affected chinch bugs but
slightly, if at all, and they afterward recovered and lived in confinement for many
days.

On August 15 applied kerosene emulsion to bugs accumulating on corn, using an
emulsion diluted to contain about 6 per cent, kerosene and spraying with cyclone
nozzle. Great numbers of bugs could be found dead within a few minutes after ap-
plication, and on the followiug day hosts of dead could be found on the ground
around the hills treated. In places, however, the stalks had become well covered by
live bugs that had moved into fill the place of the slain.

Subsequently the farm department applied it on a larger scale, using 5 to 6 per cent.
emulsion, and spraying from barrels in a wagon, one man working the force-pump
and another manipulating the hose and cyclone nozzle, walkiug rapidly among the
hills of corn and directing the spray upon the masses of bugs. This resulted in the
destruction of great numbers. In this application the cyclone nozzle was found by
all means most satisfactory.

I suggested its trial to some of my correspondents, and one letter received in reply
is of sufficient interest to be noted :

Cambridge, Iowa, July 20, 1887.

Dear Sir : Your most satisfactory letter received some time since. The conclusion
is a success; it was instant death to the chinch bugs. But it takes so much when
you want to go over five or six acres that one can not staud the expense. It could be
stood to go over it once or twice if I could have got the bugs all on the corn, but they
would a part stay on the corn while the rest would lie under sods and anything else
that would protect them from the sun. When your letter reached us they had left
the wheat (which they fully destroyed), and had gone into the corn, which they killed
for ten or twelve rows in some places, and some places not so far. Then they
scattered over more territory for a time, but now they have left the corn (almost),
having down away, I think. I am under obligations to you for your kindness.
Very respectfully,

J. E. Warren.

Professor Osborn,

Ames, loica.

The use of kerosene can hardly be expected to prove of value except when the bugs
are massing on corn. At this time, application to an acre or two of the field next
to stubble may do much to save the rest of the field. By arranging nozzles with
special reference to most efficient work in corn rows, and while corn is small enough
to drive a team in the field astride of one row, I think spraying can be done quite
thoroughly at a cost of 30 to 40 cents per acre for material.

A cyclone nozzle, with pressure sufficieut to do good work, discharges about 1 pint
of liquid per minute. Adjusting three nozzles to play upon one row of corn, one each
side, and one from above, and allowing teams to walk slowly 2 miles per hour, and it
will take 30 gallons of liquid per acre, which, usiug 5 to 6 per cent, emulsion, costs
about 30 cents, exclusive of labor, which for team and man an hour and a quarter
would be about 40 cents more. First cost of force pump must, of course, be consid-
ered; the cost of labor on the farm, however, where the farmer uses his own team
and does the managing of apparatus himself, might be counted less. By using only
two nozzles or by driving faster the expense will be lessened.

BOGUS CHINCH BUGS.

Professor Riley figures ami describes in bis Seventh Report on the
Insects of Missouri four species of Heteroptera which are frequently mis-
taken for the Chinch Bug- and are often the cause of unnecessary alarm.
We here reproduce the figures of these species. The first is the False
Chinch Bug (Nysitis augustatusTJh\., Fig. 8), which was frequently sent

THE CHINCH BUG.

43

[Fig. 8. J

False Chinch Bug:— b, pupa; c,
mature bug. [After Riley.]

to Professor Eiley. It is found all over the country and occasionally dam-
ages certain crops quite seriously — grapevines, strawberries, j)otatoes,
young apple grafts , and all cruciferous plants.
It is also very fond of Purslane and, as men-
tioned elsewhere in this report, it is found
in California congregating under Polygonum.
It is the insect which caused the alarm in Cal-
ifornia in 1885. It was originally described
by Uhler under the name above given, but
was subsequently red escribed by Mr. Wil-
liam E. Howard as Nysius raphani and by
Professor Eiley as Nysius destructor. Profes-
sor Eiley ?s description was, however, drawn
up with Mr. Uhler's sanction, as the latter

author at that time considered that the form described by Professor
Eiley might be distinct.

The Insidious Flower- bug (Triphleps insidiosus Say, Fig. 6) is another
of these bogus Chinch Bugs. It is also a very wide-spread insect, and
so far from being injurious it is one of the comparatively few insects
which prey upon the Chinch Bug.

The Ash-gray Leaf-bug (Piesma cinerea Say, Fig. 9) is another wide-
spread species which occasionally damages grape blossoms in early
spring, but lives principally upon forest trees and
shrubs. This species is also often mistaken for our
insect.

The Flea-like Negro-bug (Corimelcena pulicaria
Germ., Fig. 10) is the fourth.

Its appearance is more different from the Chinch
Bug than any of the insects mentioned under this
head, as is plainly shown by the figure. It feeds
abundantly upon the fruit of the Easpberry and punc-
tures also the stem of the Strawberry and the blos-
soms, leaves, and fruit stems of the Cherry and Quince.
It is also injurious to certain garden flowers and to cer-
tain weeds, among which Professor Eiley mentions
Ceanothus americanus and Veronica peregrina.

We may mention under this head the rather
curious fact that the Striped Flea-beetle — Systena
elongata Fab. — was found the past season in great
abundance in company with Chinch Bugs in fields
infested by the latter in Nebraska by Mr. Bruner.
They appeared to be working upon grass and upon
the wild Buckwheat. Their appearance accompa-
nying the Chinch Bug had, of course, no especial
significance, but at the same time occurring in such a way they were
liable to be mistaken for another form of the Chinch Bug.

[Fig. 9.]

Ash-geay Leaf-bug.
[After Riley.]

[Fig. 10.]

Flea-like Negro-bug.
[After Riley.]

44 THE CHINCH BUG.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL LIST.

[This is simply a list of the more importaut of the Chiuch-bug articles. No men-
tion is made of a very large number which we liave seen, but which contain nothing
new or original. Every progressive step of knowledge is mentioned in some one of
the articles here mentioned.]

1831. Say, Thomas. LygcBus leucopterus. Descriptions of new species of Heterop-
terous Hemiptera of North America, New Harmony, Ind., Dec. 1831. Com-
plete writings. Ed. by LeConte, Vol. I. p. 329.

(Original description ; described from a single specimen taken in Virginia.)

1845. Prairie Farmer, V., 227.

(Injuries in Hancock County, Illinois.)
Prairie Farmer, V., 287. Chinch Bugs.

(Injuries in Tazewell County, Illinois. An account of their season's history.)

1846. Prairie Farmer, VL, 134. The Chinch Bug.

(Injuries in Sangamon County, Illinois.)
Prairie Farmer, VI., 245. Chinch Bugs.
(Injuries in Cass County, Illinois.)

1850. Le Baron, Wm. Rhyparochromus devastator. Prairie Farmer, Vol. X, p. 200.

(Described imago, and proposes specific name devastator,- mentions that eggs are de-
posited on roots; points out its destructive characters as an insect enemy.)

1851. Prairie Farmer, XL, 335. The Chinch Bug.

(Distribution within the State of Illinois.)

1852. Harris, T. W. Rhyparochromus leucopterus. Treatise on insects of Massa-

chusetts.

(Describes briefly imago ; speaks of distribution and injuries. Records finding in his
garden in 1852.)

1855. Fitch, Asa. Micropus leucopterus. The Cultivator, 3d series, III, 237-239.

(Correspondent writes from Indiana. Fitch gives account of habits and injuries, past
history, and nomenclature. )

1856. Fitch, Asa. Micropus leucopterus. Second Rep. Ins. N. Y., pp. 227-297, Plate

IV, figs. 2 and 2*.
(Gives 1783 as date when first known as insect depredator on wheat in Xorth Carolina.
Notes its occurrence at several times during next fifty years in such numbers as to
nearly destroy the wheat crop. Farmers ceased to plant wheat for a couple of years
as only known remedy. Alludes todrought which prevailed during period of injury,
and their destruction by wet weather, 1840. First attracted attention in Western
States, 1840-'44. Describes young larvae. Mentions briefly a nnmber of varieties.
Gives history of nomenclature. Suggests spraying infested fields with water as a
practical remedy.)

1857. Signoret, V. Micropus leucopterus Say. Essai monographique du Genre Micro-

pus, Spinola, Ann. Soc. Ent. de France, V, 3d series, p. 31.
(A technical description from specimens received from New York and Cuba.)

1861. Walsh, B. D. Chinch Bug. Insects injurious to Vegetation in Illinois.

Trans. 111. State Agr. Soc, Vol. 4, 1859-'60, pp. 346-349.

(First notice of four Ladybird enemies of the Chinch Bug. Figures Hipp, maculata, and
Coccinella munda.)

1862. Harris, T. W. Rhyparochromus leucopterus. Insects injurious to Vegetation,

3d ed., pp. 197-200, fig. 84. (See under 1852.)
1865. Riley, C. V. The Chinch Bug. Prairie Farmer, September 19, 1865.

(Exposes the fallacy of a reported observation by Mr. D. II. Sherman in the Waukagan
Gazette, to the eflfect that the eggs are laid upon the wheat-head.)

THE CHINCH BUG. 45

1866. Walsh, B. D. Chinch Bugs. Practical Entomologist, Vol. I, p. 95.

(Prints a clipping from Prairie Farmer, stating that the "bugs " had been successfully
fenced out of a field by putting boards on edge around it and coating upper edge
with coal-tar.)

1866. Walsh, B. D. Micropus (Lygceus) leucopterus. Pract. Ent., Vol. II, p. 21.

(Notices specimens of short-winged variety from Canada.)
1866. Riley, C. V. Chinch Bug. Pract. Ent., Vol. I, No. 6, p. 47.

(Exposes fallacy of a current theory that the eggs are deposited on the grain, and fields
become infested from its use. Gives methods of depositing eggs and states that
there are two generations in northern Illinois, and possibly three in more southern
latitudes.)

1866. Riley, C. V. The Chinch Bug. Prairie Farmer, Mar. 3, 1866.

(Devoted principally to remedies, recommending ditching, winter work, mixing rye or
tame grass with spring wheat.)

1867. Shimer, Henry. Micropus (Lygceus) leucopterus. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila.,

Vol. XIX, pp. 75-80.

(Full journal account of observations during 1864-65 in Illinois. Conclusions as to
causes of their destruction in 1865.) Page 234. (Reference to epidemic.)

1869. Walsh & Riley. Micropus leucopterus. Am. Ent., Vol. I, pp. 169-177, fig. 122.

(Popular inferences, past history, natural history, checks to multiplication ; review of
Dr. Shimer' s prophecies about appearance.)

Ibid., pp. 194-199, figs. 138, 139.

(Predaceous foes of, damage done by, remedies for ; summary of conclusions : (1) they
hibernate iu imago stage in rubbish, which should be burned; (2) early sowing in
spring is an advantage; (3) compacting the soil acts as preventive; (4) heavy rains al-
ways injure or entirely destroy them.)

1869. Packard, A. S., Jr. Blissus leucopterus. Guide to the Study of Insects, pp. 543,

544, fig. 547.

(Describes imago, life history, injuries of; epidemic diseases of 1865. Cites its occur-
rence in Maine and at summit of Mount Washington. Notices the theory that wet
weather during breeding season is destructive to them.)

1870. Riley, C. V. Micropus leucopterus. 2d Rep. State Ent. Mo., pp. 15-37, figs. 1

and 2.

(An extended account and the best yet published ; discusses past history, natural history,
destructive powers, heavy rains, natural enemies, amount of damage, remedies, and
bogus Chinch Bugs.)

1871. Glover, Townend. Bhyparochromus (Micropus) leucopterus. Rep. Com. Agr.,

1870, p. 89.

(Refers to observations of others as to deposition of eggs, etc.)

1872. Bethune, C. J. S. Micropus leucopterus. Rep. Ent. Soc. Out., 1871, p. 55.

(Refers to accounts of early history, habits, enemies of, natural remedies, etc.)
1872. Le Baron, William. Micropus leucopterus. 2d Rep. St. Ent. 111., 1871, pp.
142-156.

(Estimates loss from depredations current year in Illinois ten and one-half millions dol-
lars ; treats of their prevention and destruction under five heads : (1) natural enemies,
(2) early sowing, (3) preventing migrations, (4) destroying by burning rubbish, (5)
cease cultivating the affected crops.)

1872. Glover, Tow> end. Bhyparochromus leucopterus. Rep. Com. Agr., 1871, p. 84.

(Merely refers to its injuries in Western States and mentions salt being used as a
remedy.)

1872. Le Baron, William. Chinch Bug. Experience of 1872. Prairie Farmer,
August 24.

(Believes that a sufficient number of these insects hibernate under dead leaves in the
woods to perpetuate the species ; also that the wet spring of 1872 destroyed large
numbers of the Chinch Bugs.)

46 THE CHINCH BUG.

1874. Glover, Tow.vk.vl>. Micropus (Rhyparochromus) leucopterus. Rep. U. S. Com.
Agr. 1872, p. 121.

(Mentions injuries in Western States to Corn. "Wheat, Sorghum, etc.; three broods re-
pot ted observed in Missouri.)

1874. Johnson, B. F. Chinch Bug. Country Gent., Vol. XXXIX, p. 661.

(Abundant in central Illinois. Stock was poisoned by eating fodder. Suggests sow-
ing plats of noxious plants. Tobacco, Night-shade, Henbane. Stramonium, Hemp-
etc, to assist in checking their ravages.)

1875. Glover, Townend. Micropus (Rhyparochromus) leucopterus. Rep. Com. Agr.,

1874, pp. 127, 128.

(Gives localities in Southern and Western States where reported as injurious.)
1^75. Riley, C. V. Micropus leucopterus. 7th Rep. State Ent. Mo., pp. 19-60; appen-
dix, pp. 51-71, figs. 2, 3, and 4.

(Resume of previous history, full descrlj, nis stages, natural history, extended

account of injuries in 1874, exhaustive discussion of preventive measures and reme-
dies, mentions irrigation, predaceous enemies. Appendix, correspondence of farm-
ers relating to 1874 damage.)

1875. Riley, C. V. Locusts vs. Chinch Bugs. N. Y. Weekly Tribune, August 4. 1875.

(A letter from Lyons, France, remarking upon the abundance of Chinch Bugs and allay-
ing fears as to great destruction by them.)

1876. Uhler, P. R. Blissus leucopterus. List of Kemiptera of the region west of the

Mississippi River, including those collected during the Haydeu explorations
of 1873. Bulletin U. S. Geol. and Geog. Sur. Terr., I, second series, Xo. 2, p. 306.
(Mere mention, with a list of localities.)

1877. Packard, A. S., Jr. Blissus leucopterus. 9th Rep. Geol. and Geog. Sur. Terr.,

1875, pp. 697-699, fig. 4 and map.

(Refers to its destructiveness in the Western States, quotes estimates of different State
Entomologists, notices briefly some of the remedies.)

1878. Thomas, Cyrus. Blissus leucopterus. 7th Rep. State Ent. 111., pp. 40-71, 2 figs.

(Resume of history, natural history, descriptions, etc. Two brooded in northern Illinois,
possibly three in southern Illinois. Remedies and general discussion of same).

1879. Riley, C. V. Entomological Notes. The ChiDch Bug. Farmers' Review

(Chicago), February, 1879.

(Discusses weather influence and advances parallel between Rocky Mountain Locust and
Chinch Bug. Review of life history and summary of facts from Seventh Kept. In-.
Mo. Prediction of bugs in 1879 if weather prove dry.)

1879. Thomas, Cyrus. Blissus leucopterus. Bull. U. S. Ent. Com. Xo.5. Ten figures,

map showing distribution.

(Exhaustive resume of present knowledge with facts concerning injuries, natural his-
tory, predaceous enemies, full discussion of preventive and remedial measuj -

1880. Kansas State Board of Agriculture. Quarterly Report for the quarter

ending June 30, 1880, Topeka, July 20, p. 61.
(An account of damage to Sorghum.)

1830. Thomas, Cyrus. Temperature and Rainfall aa affecting the Chinch Bag.
Am. Ent. New series. Vol. I, pp. 240-242, with diagram.

(Condensation of his theory about periodicity of seasons of drought and their relation to
appearance of this insect.)

1881. Thomas, Cyrus. The Relation of Meteorological Conditions to Insect De-

velopment. 10th Rep. State Ent. 111., pp. 47-59, with diagram.

(Discusses theory of Septencan Cycles of Meteorological conditions; believes it possi-
ble to predict with considerable certainty the season when Chinch Bugs will appear
in injurious nnmh

1881. Riley, C. V. Am. Nat., October, p. B20.

(Calls attention to the verification of Prof. Cyras Thomas's prediction that this would be
a bad Chinch-Bug year. )

THE CHINCH BUG. 47

1881. Riley, C. V. Am. Agriculturist, Nov. and Dec, 1881.

(Reviews natural history and remedies, and discusses the practicability of irrigation as a
remedy.)

1882. Howard, L. O. Rep. U. S. Dept. Agr., 1881-82, p. 137.

(Mentions it as infesting Rice affected by "white blast.")
1882. Riley, C. V. Chinch Bug Notes. Kept. Eut., Anu. Rept. U. S. Dept. Agr.,
1881-'82, pp. 87-89.

(Calls attention to Professor Thomas's prediction of injury during 1881 and the fact that
it was partially fulfilled ; discusses briefly remedies and methods of prevention.)

1882. Forbes, S. A. Bacterium. A parasite of the Chiuch Bug. Am. Nat. Vol. XVI,
p. 824.

(Account of discovery of parasitic disease among Chinch Bugs.)
1882. Forbes, S. A. Blissus leucopterus. 12th Rep. State Ent. 111., pp. 32-63, fig. 6.

(Gives full account of observations on life history, etc., for the year, insect enemies,
a new insect enemy, bird enemies, account of observation on a bacterium para-
site. Experiments in drenching with water under artificial conditions (not fully
carried out), report of experiments with topical applications.)

1882. Riley, C. V. The Chiuch Bug. Am. Agriculturist, p. 476, 3 figs.

(General account of, habits and natural history, meteorological conditions affecting.)

1883. Lintner, J. A. Cir. No. 1, N. Y. St. Mus. Nat. Hist.

(Directions for arresting Chinch Bug invasion of northern New York.)
1883. Lintner, J. A. The Chinch Bug in New York. Country Gent., Nov. 8, 1883.

(Directions for co-operation among farmers to prevent ravages coming year.)
1883. Forbes, S. A. Experiments on Chinch Bug. U. S. Dept. Agr., Div. Ent., Bull.
No. 2.

Memoranda of experiments with kerosene emulsion and mixtures, made at the sugges-
tion of Professor Riley; found them quite effective.

1883. Forbes, S. A. Entomological Notes of the Season. State Dept. Agr., Cir. 106,
111., crops for 1883, p. 177.

(Notes the deposition of eggs for first brood on the roots of Indian Corn.)
1883. Saunders, Wm. Micropus leucopterus. Rep. Ent. Soc. Out., pp. 59-62.

(Account of appearance in New York ; quotes from Lintner.)

1883. Riley, C. V. Chinch Bug in New York. Science, Vol. II, 1883, p. 621.

(Cites facts to show that their appearance in New York is not an invasion, but extraor-
dinary development of the species, dependent upon climatic conditions.)

1884. Riley, C. V. The Chinch Bug in New York State. American Naturalist, Jan.,

1884, Vol. XVIII, p. 79-80.

(A reprint of an unplaced article in Scientific American criticising Dr. Lintner's conclu-
sions as to reasons for alarm in northern New York.)

1884. Lintner, J. A. 37th Auu. Rep. N. Y. St. Mus. Nat. Hist., pp. 53-60.

(Not seen.)

1885. Bruner, Lawrence. Blissus leucopterus, Rept. Ent., Ann. Rept. Dept. Agr.,

1884, p. 399.

(Cites an instance where large numbers disappeared immediately after a heavy rain.)
1885. Riley, C. V. Chinch Bug Notes. Rept. Eut., Ann. Rept. Dept. Agr., 1884,
pp. 403-405.

(Refers to occurrence in New York and considers that there is no cause for alarm ; pre-
dicts they will attract no further notice.)

1885. Forbes, S. A. Ent. Calendar. 14th Rep. St. Ent., 111., pp. 4-5/

(Notes on life history for year 1884.)
1885. Lintner, J. A. Blissus leucopterus. 2nd Rept. State E.ut., N. Y., pp. 148-164;
figs. 37-38, 39 and 40.

(Account of its occurrence in northern New York, resum6 of its history, life history,
remedial measures employed and recommended.)

48 THE CHINCH BUG.

1886. HUNT, Thomas F. Blissus leucopteras. Bibliography of insects injurious to
corn. Misc. Essays ou Economic Ent., 111. St. Bd. Agr., 1885.

1880. Webster, F. M. BJissus leucopterus. Insects affecting Fall Wheat. Kept, of
Ent., Ann. Rept. Dept. Agr. 1885, p. 318.

(A brief record of Chinch Bag observations (lining the season. Records Biennis as
a possible parasite.)

1886. FORBES, S. A. Chinch Bug in Illinois. Circular of information from the

office of State Entomologist.

1887. Bruner, Lawrence. Notes of the season. Bull. No. 13, Div. Ent.. I". S. Dept.
Agr., pp. 34,35.

(Brief notices of their appearance in "Western States in 1886.)
1887. Forbes, S. A. The present condition and prospects of the Chinch Bug in Illi-
nois for 1887-'88. Bull. No. 2 of the State Entomologist.

(Speaks of ravages for three years past, life history, food-plants, preventive remedial
measures exhaustively discussed.)

r,

*r i