wag,

yee id Oe en ee Toy nt wh S45 § MERON
bps TPC SNARE SER teak SSNS,
eA See

Ree utis

Se

5s

vk De

¥,
Vp) Tes

ety whe
ov:

+.

Ae
a

ayes

w

se

ty

ak

a

arn Sa
Peers SSeS

> = ~ ~ % at

= 2 Sse

Moses

“ova
See
Ame ar 05
x CUI
bee

ms - Cateye Q = ats See
os o
ete werahs Spinney: aes Ne d
eS oN
. SEA

am,

NAS

ees
en

a) tt 2
te ae G8 |
<u

ayy
he ‘
ae yt

eer AD
¥ia4 Sa
‘ - ( -
_ :
> a a
La
mn) o '
' = ‘an
7 '
’ eet a
1 7 7
‘ s = l=
4 >=,
-
,
J ’
_ 7
. = : ie: : ¥ : , : >
: ES a ae i 1 ns a) 7 me li. 3 aa,
- : Oy eee Ae a io - : - eu se mn
— A : A : 7 ' Ti Ag
b 7 ene +)
, tc A : 1
= 7 ; 1 af
1 - Se Gl Oe
‘i See Ci nivie i
it 7 7s
: =
a. an] : 5 ul
- -
’ -
: :
fa ‘
- :
.
o
Cate -

Anti : .
. oe ce
; bs \e
: 7 a
e y i ort Pe
- a i 7 | > =e
a Men)
& = 2% im s \
7.) ee
4 et A ie. ea
ha va pe Rad re
- sé az qn
a” : : o -
7 i 7 . he
- ~ 5 7
_ : ~ OA
> ; af) Bia
5 " t z |
qi ” i si 7
' “>
. ’ 7 - mi
= 7 a i
= a
' ’ - : r : >
- > : ; i)
oy *)

: ' Pa :
— Ur in u 7% > .
ve c - aah : o a

y . / ou va ;
a= a . i Tia oe
a - : + n i) wi :
ws J 7 i>@ : 7 ’ - : § '
a a ae P uli Ths. a © i, ; is § :
7 7 - ae ws ‘ a Uy x Ly . a) aL jf ns : > es) q ‘ 7 :
7 arly a, =) 7 eed ee Poe |
: - weal wine ie } 7 in ae
_ 4 rn" 7 r 7 : - wh i 7 “ee
s ae | wove
7 Va oF 7 Sea , ab 8 vn i iy .
ae i a a ee |
: : - a sid a we en ‘ / a te " -
i‘ wai ee g 0 Aan +4 : 1 woh -

7 en ms ts a i Pn 7 ay ap _ a : “ae ¥ = Ds . | :

: i a 7 a 2 ‘Oe ; ; fa : 7 vi i" : Bias >
ve ee nit
‘ . 7 wera =? : oy LP? ae “ 7 AY

' 4 , ) 7” a 7 » " n vi va , a) m= * f ,
, : ay ; ;
; \: aya a Pd? eee
a op O jie or 2 : - - he
- ; = bate ‘ ae 7 - rr ” i mt

7 Ws iy : 7 oy ; ' a : : i a
* ‘ a 7 ay : vo 7 " / 7 a : : 7 a 7 i

7 o >. a Ti - i< ro 7 ; cm | a4 -

° : a, 7 7 & -2% if ic. a i ‘ 7 5 i U oT a =. ; |

| i oan “7 = ie Ot : , : oa at “ay pa 1 ; ;

: f 7 ' iM : ; 4 7 7. : 4 = J

. en y y . wb 4 ae a So ie nd Biptl 4

on ‘ : ‘ Laer 7 oa “i 7 ¥ ,. oe as " . > ri r* > Fr :

“@5 ae - —— ; ; a a +i) ;

, 7 7 - _ 7 a. eee 7) aw i.

Historic, archived document

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

Enea

mm [7 {

Issued March 21, 1913.

Uns DEPAhEVMENE OF AGRICUL TORE,

BUREAU OF ENTOMOLOGY—CIRCULAR No. 171.
L. O. HOWARD, Entomologist and Chief of Bureau.

FIELD OBSERVATIONS ON SUGAR-CANE INSECTS
IN THE UNITED STATES IN 1912

Vata. pects po daes

- ‘ om = Ng a cae
oo Tig eg A POR Gf REE IIE pp IB, FOE
TT LS By Fa PRE OFF EOS =

_ BY

TH Hel hOW AN say.

Entomological Assistant.

75507°—13 WASHINGTON : GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1913

°

BUREAU OF ENTO MOLOG Y.

L. O, Howarp, Entomologist and Chef of Bureau.
C. L. Maruatt, Entomologist and Acting Chief in Absence of Chief.
R. 8. Cuurron, Executive Assistant.
W. F. Taster, Chief Clerk.

F. H. CurrrenDEN, in charge of truck erop and stored product insect investigations.
A. D. Hopkins, in charge of forest insect investigations.

W. D. Hunter, in charge of southern field crop insect investigations.

F. M. WessteER, 77 charge of cereal and forage insect investigations.

A. L. QUAINTANCE, in charge of deciduous fruit insect investigations.

E. F. Paris, in charge of bee culture.

D. M. Rogers, in charge of preventing spread of moths, field work.

Rotia P. Currie, in charge of editorial work.

MaBeEL Co.corn, in charge of library.

SOUTHERN FrexLp Crop Insect INVESTIGATIONS.
W. D. Hunter, in charge.

W. D. Prerce, J. D. Mrrcnett, G. D. Smitu, E. A. McGrecor, Harry PInKus,
B. R. Coap, G. N. Woxcorr, W. A. THomas, R. W. Moretanp, OC. E. Hester,
engaged in cotton-boll weevil investigations.

A. C. Morean, G. A. Runner, S. E. Crums, D. C. Parman, engaged in tobacco
insect investigation.

F.C. BisHorp, A. H. Jennincs, H. P. Woop, W. V. Kine, engaged in tick investigations.

T. E. Hottoway, E. R. Barser, engaged in sugar-cane insect investigations.

J. L. Wess, engaged in rice incect investigations.

R. A. Cootey, D. L. Van Dryg, A. F. Conran, C. C. KrumBxaar, collaborators.

[Cir. 171]
II

CIRCULAR No. 171. Issued March 21, 1913.

United States Department of Agriculture,

BUREAU OF ENTOMOLOGY.

L. O. HOWARD, Entomologist and Chief of Bureau.

FIELD OBSERVATIONS ON SUGAR-CANE INSECTS IN
THE UNITED STATES IN 1912.

By T. E. Hotioway,
Entomological Assistant.

INTRODUCTION.

The results here presented are based on the records of field observa-
tions made during the year 1912. Though the information on any
one insect is fragmentary at best, it has been thought desirable to
issue this report for the reason that so little is definitely known con-
cerning insects affecting sugar cane in the United States that even a
very incomplete treatment of the subject is a contribution to the cur-
rent knowledge.

A survey of the sugar-cane areas of Louisiana and Texas was under-
taken during the year, and this work has been supplemented by some
observations made in Mississippi and Alabama. In subsequent
reports more attention will be given to the States last mentioned, as
well as to Georgia and Florida, but the press of other work in the past
has rendered it impossible to give these SHOE the attention they
deserve.

Credit and the thanks of the writer are due to Mr. E. R. Barber, of
this bureau, for making a number of field examinations, mainly the
final observations in northern Louisiana and those in nbeeieshnc: and
Alabama.

THE SUGAR-CANE MOTH BORER.

(Diatrxa saccharalis Fab.)

Special attention was given to the determination of the percentage
of infestation of the moth borer, this being the principal insect inju-
rious to sugar cane in thiscountry. The plan adopted was to examine
125 stalks of sugar cane in a field, choosing the stalks in 5 different
groups of 25 stalks each. The uninfested and the infested stalks in
these groups were counted, and the percentage of infestation was
determined from this data.. In actual practice this proceeding was
changed to some extent. More than 125 stalks were sometimes

75507°—Cir. 171—13 1

2 FIELD OBSERVATIONS ON SUGAR-CANE INSECTS.

examined, and sometimes it seemed preferable to examine 75 stalks
in each of two fields rather than to concentrate the work on one field.
The number of fields examined in one vicinity varied from one to four,
depending on the amount of time at the disposal of the inspector.
The infestation of the moth borer seems to be fairly uniform in a given
district, and it is believed that the results obtained give a good idea
of the relative infestation by the insect.

Examinations were made from May 24 to November 26, 1912. It
was difficult to determine the full infestation of the moth borer during
the first part of the season, however, and in the table which follows
the results for October and November only are given. Early in the
season the cane can hardly be carefully examined without damaging
the plant, and the infestation of the moth borer is then small com-
pared to the infestation that may be expected later. The dates of
inspection are given in the table because the infestation seems nor-
mally to increase until the cane is cut. Thus the infestation of a
certain field would probably be greater on November 1 than on
October 1. Comparisons of the different percentages can be made
more accurately if this is kept in mind.

Table showing the percentage of sugar cane infested by the moth borer at various places
in the Southern States in 1912.

|
Date of | Per cent

State. Near town or city of— Parish or county. inspec- | of infesta-

| tion. tion.

|

WeQUISIANA Messe see ae se Alexan dnigseess se eeme ease Rapidesss2s-- 22252..ee eee Nov. 8 0
Baton ROUSe ene =e East Baton Rouge. .....--.- Oct. 29 78
IB Unk @s sea eee. Sees Avoyelless sos. so seeseo ness = Nov. 7 0
Donaldsonwvilles--—- 2-2-3 ASCENSION S244 8 eee see Oct. 28 56
ey 0252.55) .0 5 Ses. a8 25 ASSUMP HONE. 2-.coses= 4 - eeae 59
Prankding {os ..ce eo ane tasseee St Mary ss2 ee eases Oct. 31 47
Wha Wayebie: oases ens sere Wuatayebtejes- eset anne mes Oct. 30 57
Morgan City 229 25-2 ss seer oe labs rg a eee ee aes aie Nov. 1 4
iNew Orleanss2= 4.2 see tee Orleans) /2-o33280 5 Seen wee Oct. 17 59
IRUStOMS: soos aca se eee ee ele WINCOM i ass sass a ee e Nov. 11 0
Shreveportes 352-2) eee CWadGose 2 Ss aager eee me ee Nov. 12 0
MEKAS fee sae ease IBTOWNS Valles ose see eee Cameronice Ss seo - eee Oct 62
Donna ees == er Ske See Hidaleos sso ee ee ee Oct. 8 99
Harlingen: 3 ose cee ee eee Cameron. 222552 tee Oct-79 65
HaAnpBenibOcce-peee cece eee lee GO. ee eee Be ea Nov. 13 61
Sugar dandeass. eee Hort Bender = eee Oct. 12 0
WACtORIaS= Sasa ctes cece MICtOnIas 2k ote ee eee Oct. 11 0
IMASSISSIPDles= tee Bilomie see eee ee ee arpisOn] ene pee eee eee Oct. 27 0
Brookhavents..-e- > 2-ss2-5—- incolnet a= ce ee eee Noy. 15 0
Hat tiesbures* =s-5--6-- soe see Horest. coos s-eee oe eeee Oct. 24 0
JACKSON <2 33.225 -See te ee In GS 8es 2 oe ee ese Nov. 14 0
JU to Wachee eee kee Monteomerys.-2-c22eose- =e Montgomery ose =o 3 gee eee Oct. 26 S

OTS bic Ye ts er Ae een ap ee en | Dallas salsa ee ee ee | Bese 0 [0

The foregoing table indicates that the infestation of the moth borer
varies from 99 per cent (or practically all canes infested) at a point
in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas to 0 per cent (or no canes infested)
at places in northern Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi, and even
at Sugar Land and Victoria, Tex. At Victoria our notes are corrobo-
rated by Mr. J. D. Mitchell, a resident agent of the Bureau of Ento-
mology, and planters near there are entirely unfamiliar with the moth

[Cir. 171]

FIELD OBSERVATIONS ON SUGAR-CANE INSECTS. 3

borer. Cane has been grown for years at Victoria for sirup making,
and it is unlikely that any new varieties have been introduced there
in a generation. :

It seems evident from these examinations that the moth borer has
never entered certain restricted districts, while it has probably been
imported with shipments of seed cane to places where an effort has
been made to obtain new and better varieties of cane. The presence
of the moth borer in Louisiana is accounted for by the belief that it
was introduced in shipments of sugar cane from the Tropics, while its
presence in the Rio Grande Valley is probably due to accidental intro-
ductions from Louisiana or Mexico, provided it is not native to that
part of Texas. However this may be, the moth borer is evidently
absent from the sirup-producing regions of Texas and Louisiana,
where sugar cane is grown only as an incidental crop, while the insect
is present in the sugar-producing regions (except at Sugar Land) where
sugar cane is of vital importance and where new and better varieties
are desired and obtained. The results from examinations in Ala-
bama and Mississippi concern sirup-producing communities, and agree
with the results from Texas and Louisiana. These findings go to
strengthen the position that introductions of sugar cane should be
made with great care if injurious insects are to be excluded.

A most noteworthy result of the examinations during the year is
the discovery of eggs of the moth borer attacked by the hymenop-
terous parasite Trichogramma minutum (pretiosa) Riley, by Mr.
Guibert E. Bodkin, Government economic biologist of British Guiana,
South America. Examining sugar cane with the writer at Audubon
Park, New Orleans, in September, he found the black egg masses of
the moth borer on the leaves of the plants. Being familiar with the
work of the parasite in British Guiana he was sure that the eggs were
parasitized. Parasites were afterwards reared from the eggs by the
writer, and they were found to be of the species mentioned, which
occurs in many places in this and other countries. The parasite,
however, had not previously been reared from eggs of the moth borer
in the United States. |

Later the writer found parasitized eggs of the moth borer near
Brownsville, Tex., Donna, Tex., Donaldsonville, La., and Franklin,
La.

The larve of a predaceous beetle were found on sugar cane by
Mr. E. R. Barber, near Montgomery, Ala., on October 26, and by the
writer near-Baton Rouge, La., and La Fayette, La., in October, and
near San Benito, Tex., in November. These larvee were not observed
to attack the borer, though they may do so.

Evidences of larval parasites of the borer were detected at a number
of places, but these are somewhat doubtful.

(Cir. 171]

4 FIELD OBSERVATIONS ON SUGAR-CANE INSECTS.

THE SUGAR-CANE MEALYBUG.

(Pseudococcus calceolariex Mask.)

The examinations to determine the infestation of the mealybug
were made chiefly in connection with the work on the moth borer.
The mealybug appeared in small numbers at the experiment station
at Audubon Park during the summer of 1912, and by November 26
it was difficult to find a single stalk of the cane then on the fields
which was entirely free of the msect. Near Poydras, St. Bernard
Parish, La., a few mealybugs were found on one stalk of cane on
September 10. On September 12 a small infestation was found in
Jefferson Parish, near New Orleans (on St. Martin plantation). The
mealybug in fairly large numbers was found by Mr. E. R. Barber
at English Turn, Plaquemines Parish, La., on September 24. Near
Franklin, La., the writer found a slight infestation on October 31.
The green fungus which attacks the mealybug was observed at two
places in Orleans Parish, La.

The mealybug was discovered by the writer at Brownsville, Tex.,
for the first time on October 8. A rather heavy infestation occurred
on a limited number of canes of various new varieties at the experi-
ment station. The insect had evidently been brought in with the
cane from Louisiana or the Tropics. The infested cane was soon after
destroyed by those in charge in an effort to eradicate the mealybug
from the experiment station grounds.

It is evident that the mealybug has infested only a limited territory
in the United States. Precautions should be taken to prevent its
spread to uninfested regions. The problem of the mealybug is com-
plicated in certain parts of Louisiana, where the Argentine ant (Jrido-
myrmexz humilis Mayr) also occurs, as the two species are of benefit to
each other, and the ant aids in the spread of the mealybug.

THE SUGAR-CANE WEEVIL BORER.

Concerning the weevil borer we quote our remarks in another
eircular,! which are as follows:

A note in the possession of the writer records a weevil as having been reared from
young shoots of sugar cane which were collected at Fairview Plantation, Berwick,
La., on April 28, 1910, by Mr. D. L. Van Dine. Mr. Van Dine found the larvee just
above the surface of the ground. Mr. E. R. Barber of this office states that he found
pup of weevils in the sugar cane at Audubon Park, New Orleans, in 1911. During
the early summer in 1912 the writer found weevil borers in the young sugar-cane
plants at Audubon Park and at the experiment station at Brownsville, Tex. The

1 Insects Liable to Dissemination in Shipments of Sugar Cane. By T. E. Holloway. Cir. 165, Bur.
Ent., U.S. Dept. Agr., 1912.

[Cir. 171]
4

ee ae as

:
;
.

FIELD OBSERVATIONS ON SUGAR-CANE INSECTS. 5

weevils found at Brownsville were in the larval stage in dying plants of stubble
cane, below the surface of the ground, and near the point where the young shoot
left the old stubble. In plant cane at Audubon Park the weevil larvee were also found
below the surface, and near the point where the young plant joined the seed cane.
The larvee were from one-eighth to one-fourth of an inch in length. Sometimes a
borer was found in the middle of the stem, while in other cases the borers were near
one side of the stem. The injury to the plant is like the “‘dead heart” caused by our
moth borer. It seems probable that the moth borer is blamed for some of the injury
caused by the weevils.

Very likely these borers have been introduced in shipments of sugar cane from
the Tropics. They are small, and their work is hard to find, so that they might
easily have escaped the eye of the average person. So few of the weevils have been
found up to date that there may be no occasion for alarm, while on the other hand
they may increase in numbers so as to become a serious pest.

THE FALL ARMY WORM.
(Laphygma frugiperda 8. & A.)

Following the wet weather of the spring of 1912 an outbreak of
the fall army worm, or southern grass worm, was noticed in the
Southern States. Corn, rice, and forage crops suffered more than
sugar cane, but one field of cane that came under the writer’s observa-
tion was ruined by this or a nearly related species. This field was
near La Fayette, La., and was examined on July 20, 1912. The
land was comparatively low and undrained, thus providing a suitable
place for the development of the “grass worm,” which prefers a wet
soil. The characteristic work of the larve was observed, though no
larvee were found. Larve, however, were found attacking sugar
cane at Audubon Park, New Orleans, during July, 1912.

In most cases it seems that no great injury from this species was
suffered by sugar cane, and the plants recovered so completely that
in the grinding season the injury was hardly perceptible, and only a
few leaves could ordinarily be found showing traces of the work of
the larve.

THE SUGAR-CANE BEETLE.
(Ligyrus rugiceps Lec.)

No definite records have been obtained during the year regarding

the sugar-cane beetle, and it is probable that it has done very little

damage this season.

May beetles oS spp.) are also known to attack sugar
cane, but no injury due to them was observed during the year, and
very few adults of the beetles were seen at New Orleans.

[Cir. 171]

6 FIELD OBSERVATIONS ON SUGAR-CANE INSECTS.
THE SUGAR-CANE APHIDID.

Winged and wingless forms of a dark brown aphidid, or plant louse,
were observed on sugar cane at Audubon Park, New Orleans, on
July 29, 1912, and at various times thereafter. They were attended
by the Argentine ant in the same way as the mealybug is attended by
this species. Very little is known concerning this aphidid. It is
found in small colonies on the outside of the leaf axils on the cane
plant, and apparently works in a manner somewhat similar to that of
the mealybug, though it has been observed on the leaves of the cane
rather than on the stalks themselves. In large numbers this species
might be injurious to the eyes of cane for planting.

These aphidids were also found near Donaldsonville, La., Franklin,
La., Harlingen, Tex., Morgan City, La., and Poydras, St. Bernard
Parish, La.

INSECTS OF MINOR IMPORTANCE.
ANTS.

The large red ant of Texas (Pogonomyrmez barbatus Smith), usually
called the agricultural ant, was recorded during the year as attacking
sugar cane. Near Brownsville, Tex., on June 12, the writer observed
ants of this species busily gnawing a few young cane plants. The
sound they made was similar to that of a gentle shower of rain. The
ants had eaten the leaves of plants about 2 feet high, as well as the
entire tops of two little plants about one-eighth inch in diameter.
This seems to be an exceptional habit on the part of the agricultural
ant.

Another species of ant was found nesting in holes in cane stalks
made by the moth borer and in the spaces between the leaves and the
stalks. This observation was made near Brownsville, Tex., on Octo-
ber 7, 1912.

These ants should not be confused with the Argentine ant, which
is of prime importance in its symbiotic relationship with mealybugs,
scale insects, and aphidids.

LEAFHOPPERS.

Leafhoppers in very small numbers were observed several times
during the season on sugar cane, but no injury due to them could be
detected.

FROGHOPPERS.

Mr. Gilbert E. Bodkin and the writer found froghoppers on sugar
cane, weeds, and grass near Poydras, St. Bernard Parish, La., on
September 10, 1912. The froghoppers start on rank growth and then

{Cir. 171)

FIELD OBSERVATIONS ON SUGAR-CANE INSECTS. 7

transfer their attention to sugarcane. For this reason the fields should
be kept free of weeds and tall grass, especially in moist situations, as a
humid climate is favorable to the development of these insects.

TERMITES.

The writer found termites or ‘‘white ants” in sugar cane which
had been cut into pieces of three joimts each and planted. On
June 12, 1912, when some of the cane was dug up and examined, the
shoots from it were apparently weak and some of the eyes had not
germinated. The cane was planted near Brownsville, Tex., and had
been imported from Porto Rico, but the writer believes that the
termites were probably native to this country and that they attacked
the cane readily, being attracted by the many cuts. It seems inad-
visable from the entomological standpoint to cut cane in small pieces
before planting, as many insects may easily gnaw into the stalks
through the unprotected ends.

GRASSHOPPERS.

On August 9, 1912, Mr. E. R. Barber found grasshoppers very
abundant in the cane fields near Sugar Land, Tex. Many stripped
leaves, due to their work, were seen. The writer visited Sugar Land
on October 12, but found no grasshoppers at that time. The cane
seemed to have recovered from the injury it had suffered earlier in
the season from these insects. A grasshopper in the act of gnawing
a cane leaf was observed near Baton Rouge, La.

CONCLUSIONS.

The peculiar weather during the season of 1912 probably accounts
in part at least for certain unexpected developments in insect life
during the year. A long and cold winter was followed in Louisiana
by a wet spring. Breaks in the levee of the Mississippi River caused
vast areas of land to be flooded, and the excess of water complicated
matters further. We find a slow development of the moth borer
and the mealybug, which are tropical species and evidently require
a greater amount of warm weather than our native insects. As to
the sugar-cane beetle, the statement has been made by some planters
that this insect does most damage in dry seasons and on high, sandy

soils, so that we may believe that the wet weather retarded its

development. The fall army worm, or southern grass worm, on the
contrary, 1s More injurious during wet weather, which will account
for its extraordinary abundance during the summer of 1912.
Practically no moth borers or mealybugs were found in the dis-
trict near Morgan City, La., which had been overflowed some months
(Cir. 171]

8 FIELD OBSERVATIONS ON SUGAR-CANE INSECTS.

previous to our observations. This indicates that these insects
may possibly be controlled by flooding or excessive irrigation.

Though these inferences are mainly, perhaps, of scientific interest,
they may at some time be useful in an economic way. More impor-
tant from the planter’s point of view, however, is the evidence of
the uneven distribution of the principal insects which are injurious
to sugar cane. It seems that with reasonable caution in the ship-
ment of cane the spread of most species, at least, can be curtailed
if not altogether prevented.

The number of species which were detected injuring cane is per-
haps surprising, and it is possible that still other species will be
discovered as the work progresses. Some of the species are appar-
ently of no great importance, though there is a possibility that the
weevil borer and the froghopper, which are now rare, may increase
in numbers and become formidable pests. The aphidid, also, which
is rather widely distributed, is to be regarded as an insect which
“may be capable of considerable injury.

Approved:
JAMES WILSON, 7
Secretary of Agriculture.

Wasuineton, D.C., January 18, 1913.

(Cirsag |

pee COPIES of this publication
may be procured from the SUPERINTEND-
ENT OF DOCUMENTS, Government Printing
Office, Washington, D. C., at 5 cents per copy

1 tains

me

t
ok
i

Di I
: ~ 4 si PSY AN? . Yi
Pay, fe ca PAIN
Seagate
ee
AS Seah

ie

AC
Sere
se Sri

s *y

-

<<

s.

fon.
ne

LATS
Ay

« &

ei

Sfeipenye

Pretend
fs
Ne

+e,
eS
~

~
ae

SSeS eens

~

so
ae,
we

ons
)

ti aN :

o
3

ri
a

,
>

5 4 A ic Fe
3 Ay CIS I8§ wit
f ¥ is i A i] ‘
1s (pick oer
“tt j qt iG P +f
ie Rena NOONAN
AGS aye ASK CCUS I

Gee!
she: it

NN CaN
Het)

J,

ei