inks kh a AN Seba 4 Prt fan eh need Te ty Pitt Seales wat - Pi oe win, Perens veteet eee et Rant 24 + Camis Sedeiatsioedeeatebads Sor oe 4s Dierks Mente be 7 Rtas sade ied Ange sess Mitton * is aphcatbh aly ba beseas, | SEN Ty A te ety) * ae i toh tsa tS PPRENNe , peer le , , —— isi ” inate SFP eF OS) Eratanety ark sis Sabie ¢ — ere igs eeNht 7. Peeicnys uv “ Vy 2, CASES Ne Kiley Sb terit ata Aas pie Fe f. 2 Or thee pea coe vicvscs 4) 75 iy NAESS nt Yee Lenka pe tan ra Pepate On Tee ara aN Sets letoereecints etre otic vi Sete case hye oh) HSE Oe * hee s pay 2 Siet is oy, zh A2Ns é Pits ye +3 eh isthe, * ., a Its iti’ Bast Besa es y DEA ae es fe iss be espe sy fey is Se : Dini e Gi as rrehe) nies te, oO fi ll AS i Beate Ste aa fees te eh, Z ope, ¢ ne Weir’ i - * harsraeanie fe wate Se As] is SFI aM aes S £ Were rae rit) oS 2. tigate Seu ee * ea fd \ e i : Pie] Uy aie e5 raf i; 3 Hot atte is + i Es $53 ate DUR as } y ea fastl as Oia) + is Gee Sart eet MAYS ve of * We fbx 9 PANS fi ra} Yin OR ay eres ae SER Pea Ts TIN ay ee if 4 Sites 39 ass Nt set x Retr ee s ‘o . ~ est ete On ~ eee La s% ehh “e wes ies ot a ae FS st * a Te mats SCS ue a < << ~ - regs xo Seti St Sahar hay a se Pi re i i dart po ah. vis Fis rs a TisvHTe Hist aed ettske thee ‘ 2 sigs ia ktsleeyase ig (PONSA aS 85 0) pceetcrerteeets Ul ee rect ieee Cotte PB OEER Seat r5 soto: ) Natit ase fh a Ave I tHE APPR PRTC PGE URC + oe oe 1 Teyereseyetys aR AG HR 2Ue MET ea 3 anes Ay: ase Lee 25-95 we fats cS 2 % ah iv A Di there AS w t ~ 4 + ri a Sileegeesteeites x ee ate a i dod ~" el fae eee ti enna Noe MS. ~ rt tray = om hy neta is staan led =f Ne, » a 7 44, ie i as path MS ee PRET ey ve i) i Ry! Nee were ee , “dk a ah ie = | = ont) if r MS ie | ¥ U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. © ae Ae! FOURTH REPORT US 3r: Uth or THE f ‘A CS (2 Ent. UNITED STATES - ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION, BEING A REVISED EDITION OF BULLETIN NO. 3, AND THE FINAL REPORT ON THE COTTON WORM, TOGETHER WITH A CHAPTER ON THE BOLL WORM. BY eat eS Vo RLY: Ph.D. WITH MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS. WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1885. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION authorizing the printing of thirty thousand copies of the second edition of Bulletin No. 3, or fourth report of the United States Entomological Commission. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, _ danuary 27, 1881. The following resolution, originating in the House of Representatives, was this day concurred in by the Senate: Resolved by tne House of Representatives of the United States of America, (the Senate con- curring,) That there be printed at the Government Printing Office 30,000 copies of the second revised edition, with necessary illustrations, of Bulletin No. 3, of the United States Entomological Commission, being a report on the Cotton and Boll Worus, with means of counteracting their ravages; 10,000 copies thereof for the use of the Senate; 18,180 for the use of the House, and 1,820 for the Interior Department. Attest : GEO. M. ADAMS, Clerk. 1009 ‘VU TABLE OF CONTENTS. LETTER OF SUBMITTAL..-.-.- Seis heDyly, Lea Se ER ee Seen ee eee Ss, Re RRSSE Ly City pas 2 get esa we a eS RN Oe od tee ete wae oe Sie NMREMEDRDRTMC IRE DENIS it et eae ah = ae ae a oe SS a NS oe ead att cemerbingue CHAPTER I. CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE. DESTRUCTIVENESS...-....-.---------- Popular and scientific names, 1—most desirable popular name, 1—different technical names, 1—history of these names, 1—the name Aletia xylina the correct one, 1—synonomy of the insect, 2—classificatory position, 2—importance of the family Noctuide, 2—destructiveness of the worm, 2—causes which increase this destructiveness, 2—regions where losses are greatest, 2—and least, 3—tabular statement of losses, 3—previous statements, 3—statement of loss in 1881, 4. CHAPTER II. BHAWACEMES, HAGITIS, AND NATURAL HISTORY... 5. - 252-2... 02226. 24 2122s pee eee Distinct states of growth, 5—the worm must hatch from an egg, 5—descrip- . tion of egg, 5—where the egg is laid, 5—number of eggs to a leaf, 6— time elapsing before hatching, 6—unhatched eggs perish when frozen, 6— insects’ and other eggs mistaken for eggs of Aletia, 6—characters of worm, 6—description of newly-hatched worm, 6—number of moJts, 7—different colors of worm, 7—habits of worm at different stages, 7—jumping habit, 7—only known to feed on cotton and one another, 8—odor of the worm, 8—migrations of worm, 8—method of pupation, 8—formation of cocoon, 8—the worm never burrows in the ground, 8—distinctive characters of the chrysalis, 9—duration of chrysalis state, 9—distinctive characters of the moth, 9—sexual differences in the moths, 9—different habits of the moths at night and by day, 10—their strong flight, 10—their position at rest, 10—how soon the female begins to lay, 10—her prolificacy, 10—food of the moth, 10—it injures fruits, 11—structure of the tongue, 11— mention of other Noctuids which injure fruits, 11—time elapsing from one generation to another, 11—this will average about one month, 12— time of year when the first worms appear, 12—former opinions erroneous, 12—dates of earliest appearance variable, 12—worms of all sizes found in Florida and Southern Georgia in the latter part of March, 12—first worms always few and scattered, 12—they multiply and spread irregu- larly, 12—their progress governed by the season and latitude, 13—the third generation often called the first, 13—number of annual generations, 13—there are at least seven in Southern Texas, 13—gradual progress and succession of broods, 14—the second generation exceptionally very inju- rious, 14—why not usually so, 14—extent of migratory flights of the moths, 15—probable existence of northern food-plants, 15—causes and seasons of migration, 15—behavior of migrating moths, 15—the question i IV TABLE OF CONTENTS. ha Page. CHARACTERS, HABITS, AND NATURAL HISTORY—Continued. of hibernation, 15—different former opinions and beliefs concerning hi- bernation, 16—discussion of these opinions, 16—the chrysalides are killed by a temperature below 22° F., 16—pauasited chrysalides can bear greater cold, 16—fallacy of the belief that the chrysalis winters underground, 16—ease with which erroneous conclusions can be drawn from mistaken identity, 17—the chrysalis of Aspila virescens mistaken for that of the Aletia, 17—chrysalides of other cotton larve found underground in abun- dance, 17—the chrysalis of Aletia killed by burial, 17—ability of the moth to survive the winter, 18—unreliability of most testimony as to the hibernation of the moth, 18—other moths easily mistaken for it, 18— Hypena scabralis, 18—Phoberia atomaris, 19—Leucania unipuncta, 19—ab- sence of testimony to the survival of the moths beyond March, 19—theory of annual introduction of the species from some southern foreign coun- try, 19—statement and discussion of Grote’s arguments and of others in support of this theory, 20—arguments in favor of the hibernation of the — moth, 21—both immigration and hibernation may occur, 21—summary of the evidence, 22—Aletia hibernates only as a moth and only in the ¢ ex- treme south, especially in Texas, 22. CHAPTER III. PAST HISTORY OF THE COTTON WORM IN THE UNITED STATES..-.--.-..----- 23 From 1793 to 1825, 23—from 1826 to 1846, 24—from 1847 to 1866, 25—from 1867 to 1869, 26—from 1869 to 1872, 27—in 1872 and 1873, 28—in 1873 and — 1874, 29—in 1875 and 1876, 30—in 1877 and 1878, 31-- in 1879 and 1880, 32— in 1880 and 1881, 33—history of remedies, 34—hand-picking and poultry, 34—fires, 35—other remedies, 35-36—arsenic, 36—Paris green, 36-38— planting jute, 38—machinery, 38—London purple, 38—pyrethrum, 38. CHAPTER IV. THE COTTON. WORM IN OTHER-COUNTERIES . 22222 s-eece 5-5-.-6 eo =e eee eee 38y Geographical distribution of Aletia xylina, 39—other insects injurious to cotton in the Eastern Hemisphere, 39—occurrence of Aletia xylina on the Pacific coast of Mexico, 39-40—on the Gulf coast of Mexico, 40-41—in Yucatan, 41—in the West Indies, 42—in the northern countries of South America, 42-43—in Brazil, 43-44. CHAPTER V. ON THE ANATOMY OF ALETIA.. By EDwarp BurGESS AND C. S. MINOT...--- 45 Circumstances under which this chapter was prepared, 45—external anat- omy of larva, 45—true legs, 45—prolegs, 46—colored markings, 46—stig- mata, 46—internal anatomy of larva, 47—head, 4°—ganglia, 47—diges- tive canal, 47—malpighian vessels, 47—salivary glands, 47—dorsal vessel, 47—stomach, 48—external anatomy of imago, 48—method of preparing the exoskeleton for examination, 48—head and appendages, 48—protho- rax, 48-49—mesothorax, 49—metathorax, 49-50—supposed organ of hear- ing, 50—abdomen, 50-51—spiracles, 51—legs, 51—scales, 51-52—scale- pores, 52—proboscis, 52—spines, 53—internal anatomy of imago, 53—di- gestive canal, 53—pharynx, 53-54—salivary glands, 54—cesophagus, 54— food reservoir, 54+55—stomach,. 55—malpighian vessels, 55—intestines, 55—aorta, 55—nervous system, 55—ganglia, 55—terminal body segments and organs of reproduction, 56—brush-sac, 56—male organs of reproduc- tion, 56—testes, 57—vasa deferentia, 57—penis, 57—female organs of re- production, 57—ovaries, 57—sebaceous glands, 57—vagina, 58—copulatory pouch, 58—terminal abdominal segments of the female, 58, _ TABLE OF CONTENTS. Vv CHAPTER VI. fer Ootron BELT. BY Pror. BE. A. SMITH...-.-...---~---- egw eee sense ease [101] Notice of Wm. Trelease’s ‘‘ Nectar: what it is and some of its uses,” [101 ]— teleology and dysteleology of nectar glands of cotton plant, [101]. we TLE ED GS 8 yg he Sea Rape Se a ae tr ame Re ERE ge IS Sea [101] Rapidity with which the broods of A. xylina follow one another in mid- summer, [101]—time of first appearance of worms, [101]—number of broods, [101 ]—prolificacy of moth, [101]—importance of natural checks upon its increase, [101]. LTE il le ode pha a ie De Ba a eg gree Ap ae ae Pies at a [101] Influence of winter temperature on time of first appearance of worms, [101]. wD ENE TIS ee ES aN a fo te a Fey a ce ek ae ae [101] Theories of hibernation of A. xylina, [101]—proof of hibernation of moth, [102]—importance of this proof, [102]. . NOTES 2. <. Jose FR Se a Raa ge tee Pee el ee ee [102] Influence of latitude upon time of hatching of insects, [102]. {ETERS 2 go Sone ee Se eee ae ce [102] Number of broods of A. xylina previously recognized, [102]. xIV TABLE OF CONTENTS. Possible food-plants of larva of A. zylina, [102]—there must be some be- sides cotton, [102]—failure to find any other, [102]—feeding of larva of Anomis erosa on Urena lobata, [102]—value of fiber of U. lobata, [102]— geographical distribution of U. lobata, [103]—eggs and larva of Anomis erosa distinguished from those of Aletia xylina, [103]—examination of malvaceous plants in herbarium of U. 8S. Department of Agriculture, [103]—disadvantages of such an examination, [103]—plants on which eggs were found in the herbarium, Tits |-pemien for aid in obtaining evidence of the food-plant of A. x eee in the more northern States, [103]— list of malvaceous plants growing in these States, with localities, [103]. | NOTE 16 Ce. 225 2 Se02 - tee ie en See te ee See ee fas 2 ee [104] Description of larva of Aspila virescens, [104]. INGORE. 17 222 eas eee eerie ee ee [104] Travels of E. A. Schwarz in 1878 and 1879, [104]—reference to published accounts of the results of his investigations a those of others on hiber- nation of A. xyluna, [104]. NOTES 2. ic. coe ool ce See oie elds cen bt eee 2 ee rr Platyhypena scabra, [104]—characters of larva, [104]—food-plants of larva, [104]—pupation and hibernation, [104]—characters of pupa, [104]. NOTE 195.2201. seok soot osc ct te ee: See ee [104] Seasons of larva of Phoberia atomaris, [104]. NORE 20 syn. Sta owe ela Se oe eet tae ee wee [104] Criticism of paper by A. R. Grote on hibernation of A. xylina, [104]—Grote’s arguments against hibernation, based on experience gained in the same regions which furnish arguments against the theory of annual imaiigra- tion, Hide Te posta ty of hibernation admitted by Grote, [105]. NOTE 2h St Woe oe cin oan a to pea ee nee ee ee. Sao [105] Definition of northern and southern portions of cotton belt, [105]. NOTE 02 o30 Bes yi esc Ne ake Se Ses ee 3 oe [105] References to discussion of J. P. Stelle’s claim to have first recommended publicly the use of Paris green for A. zylina, [105]. - NOTES 52.) Se Boe abies .2 See eae ee et eee eee ee ee [105] References to descriptions and figures of brush-sacs of moths, [105]. N@EH 4 ooo sn 2 2 one i gee >. Soo Seer ee ea een eo oe ee ae ee [105] Worms worse in wet weather than in dry because more protected from ene- mies, [105]—localities of first gee of worms are those of least molestation, [105]. NOTE 95 3:0 oo ithe Dt ee, See [106] Appetite of swine for cotton worms, [106]—worms eaten by dogs and cats, [106]. (CEA. Ti ee eet le ee ae Aer NE pee Ser S Fea ies | LL eee [106] Reference to list of birds of southern States, [106]. NODE Ole oo Son's sen fea nice oe oc ar Se aes] ence owe ae as eee ee [106] Range of English sparrow in United States, [106]—in hotter portions of the country it is confined to towns and villages, [106]. NO Ties) oads 2282 cts ke 2s 2 es ee eee oe 6 oe [106] Report by Dr. Geo. Marx on spiders found on cotton, [106]—preliminary list of spiders which destroy insects noxious to agriculture, [106 ]—list of spiders observed to devour larve of Aletia xylina, [106]—how they cap- ture their victims, [106]—food habits of Theridula sphaerula, [107 ]—ob- servations on habits of Cxyopes viridans, by H. G. Hubbard, [107]—ants captured by larvez of a Cicindela, [107]. NOTE 29 ..---. ------ ---- 22 2-2-2 eee ne ne eee cee eee cere eee vs verse [LOZ] Description of imago of Trichogramma pretiosa, [107]. TABLE OF CONTENTS. XV ; Page. ER eons eer taialn = ee aie ie ee en ne Anois ans eons Seat eae, | LOW] Mchitiynde n. g. and M. aleurodis n. sp., provisionally named, [107]. ee A Ree oe ee alan OR wee SeN ate asa ema haduigddens Sac owouee [108] Description of imago and larva of Apanteles aletia, [108]. EP rENrR Eee Ghee 1s eh a ea Poe RE Oo ances sae oa wey kee \|108] Apanieles aletie parasited by Eupelmus sp., [108]. La pa TES Pa ee fae eee er ee eee ee te [168] Description of imago of Euplectrus comstockii, [108]. Ee eee ee.) Ses Sie a Le OL os Seater See eek she. 2 108] Description of imago of Elachistus euplectri nu. sp., [108]. UNTER ts ie ye Pee oP Cie, nicu hace de can as ooo 1 2 ane [109 | Sarcophaga sarracenie distinct from S. carnaria, [109]—points of difference between the Sarcophage of America and Europe generally, [109]—addi- tional specific characters of S. sarracenie, [109]. LY i lest etc eee Sea ie oo a eee ea ee [109] Description of imago of Tachina aletie, [109]. Were 36. :.... Pe EE. hs aE lara ts eee ae eds oles oe gue beast eee EE [109] Description of imago of Tachina fraterna, [109]. POR oss 5. 3. son og Se SIE eg iat Se AE Be BE AI I Ya i seed ee ee ere aeeS [109 | Differences between Tachinid larva and that of Sar cophaga, [109 |—differ- ences of puparia, [109]—reference to description of larva of Senometopia atropivora, [110]—of larva and pupa of Tachina villica, [110]—description of larva and puparium of Sarcophaga sarracenie, [110]—of larva of Bel- voisia bifasciata, [110]—difference of larva of B. bifasciata from that of Tachina concinnata, [110]—structure of spiracles in normal form of Ta- chinid puparium, [110]—description of the puparium, [110]—of pupa- rium of Belvoisia bifasciata, [111]. Synonymy of Cryptus conquisitor, [111]—C. pleurivinctus erroneously given as a synonym of C. annulicornis, [111]. LE PE 2 fs Ret a Se ES eae ee eS a ee eee LLL] Synonymy of Cryptus samie, [111]. Er ERE oT PUL aE Se ad Kc ae JOS Sos bang dt we Oooh Seas eee: [111] Description of larva and pupa of Chalcis ovata, [111]—list of lepidoptera parasited by Ch. ovata, [111]—variations in size of imago, [111]. Reren ete e ABR Os go [111] Synonymy of Tetrastichus esurus, [111]—description of imago, [111]. MMAR Meret here Mente ete Fels Sr ee EE ITS ek idle Se a be wo irows [111] Description of imago of Hexaplasta zigzag, [111]—difficulty of defining the families Chalcidide, Proctotrupidea, and Cynipide, [112]—food habits of these families, [112]. ee ser eo reer see ee OS Ie ee SS Se. Se pare ae [112] Phora EGE not a true parasite, [112]—habits of this species, [112]. SRR eee ee Pe ne Sa Sh odorata nove Dara tine lee WES bm AA Alt ae ah [112] The vast majority of ithe moths attracted to light said to be males, [112]— if this is so, the usefulness of fires and lights as a remedy is almost nothing, [112]. (S'S TTP eS oe ae Aa ig ek LD ay en eee i eye ee ee [112] Antidotes for arsenical poisoning, [112]. . Bog EES 2S SE Aa aE Raa ao ee [112] Non-fertilized blossoms destroyed by morning showers or spraying, [112]— when to make wet applications of poison, [112]. alpeanncRc este ree eee es ee ese FAS coed od ob b yelveesisewanacs vaeeeses: LEO Test of purity of Pare green, [113]. XVI TABLE OF CONTENTS. SONG 48 ol Sts ewan ewe inn bo ee eee eee (got Sate ace vee: ae [113] Proportions of Paris green mixture, [113]. . NOTE A 22 u. . -- sao ct oh ee sae se ne Sei ak Pa eee [113] Effect of kerosene and kerosene emulsion on cotton plants, [113]. NOTE 5055.00. 2502 L222 cic een oon as an aage Yee Sapiens ee ee Pyrethrum willemott probably a synonym of P. roseum, [113]—reference to Willemot’s paper on P. willemoti, [113]. NOTE 5827 c 22 oo. eee ee ei Dee Denes eens Sone Coser [113] Growth of productive pyrethrum industry in California, [113]—effect of pyrethrum on warm-blooded animals, [113]—pyrethrum recommended as a disinfectant and germicide, [113]. NOTE 52 22 2. <5 Sie ee 22S FSi Et ee oe ee Sa er [113] Cost of production compared with price of pyrethrum, [113]. Enemies of Aletia xylina killed by poisoning the worms, [113]. NOTE 94.22. 550252 e ete eae 50 bs Se ee = [193] Positiveness with which various plants have been recommended as insecti- cides, [113]. . NOTE(SD 2... Octet le oa ee a ~~ fA] Insects injuring dog fennel, [114]. Novs 56 2:22. soci [feck se See ee Ses 2 hs 2b act ee ee eee Tests of spraying machinery, by Dr. W. S. Barnard, [114]—difficulties in the use of machinery in irregularly-planted fields, [114]—means of over- coming these difficulties, [114]—conveyances for underspraying apparatus, [115]—management of apparatus, [115]—rapidity of service, [115]— quantity of poison required, [115]—success of stirrer-pump device, [115]— construction of stirrer-pump, [115]—construction of nozzle-pipes, [116]— adjustment of these pipes, [116]—success of eddy-chamber nozzles, [116]—a closed system of pipes advisable, [116]—high pressure should always be used, [117]—adjustment of descending pipes, |117]—flexile joints recommended, [117]—advantages of flexile pipes, [117]—1lifting of descending pipes in turning, [118]—devices for lateral shifting of pipes, [118]—summary of conclusions from experiments, [118]. OTR DY £2055) 0520 potas Se ee eee ee [119] Recommendation to use Paris green in 1872, [119]—extract from report made on this subject by J. P. Stelle, in 1880, [119]—comment on the same, [120]. NOTH DB 220 bs. tees ek ee ee ee ae ee ee ee ee [120] Description of imago of Anomis ee n. sp., [120]. NOTE 59. 22252 Sie eet el ea we aes ede eee eee [120] Description of egg and pupa of Drasteria erechtea, [120]. MOR OO. L228 SSS Fee ce eee ee see ee = ee [121] Reprint of J. W. Boddie’s description, in 1850, of imago of Phalaena zea (Heliothis armigera), [121]. NOTE Gl. 22-20. S225. bl iweseee ce cele oo ee eee [121] Reprint of A. R. Grote’s description of Heliothis umbrosus, [121]. NOTE 6? 2. 3s 2 oo wet ee re hE See ee ee ee i oe ee [121] Remarks on specimens sent from Bahia, by R. A. Edes, in 1880, [121]— characters of egg, larva, and pupa of Anomis sp., [121]—-insects found in cotton bolls, [121]. WO DE Ais pees he aaa eas wig ee mole, osama ook eee ies a | 121] Probably Macrosila rustica stated to feed on cotton, [121]. NOTE 64 S272. 2 nets 5. Does £2 225 ee es ee [121] Larve of Aletia xylina received from Vera Cruz, [121 ]—recurrence of cotton worms at irregular periods, [122]. LETTER OF SUBMITTAL. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DIVISION OF ENTOMOLOGY, Washington, D. C., March 15, 1884. Str: On behalf of the United States Entomological Commission, and in accordance with the act of Congress, approved March 3, 1881, which provides that the reports of said Commission be made to the Commis- sioner of Agriculture, I have the honor to submit this, its fourth report. Respectfully, = | C. V. RILEY, Chief U.S. E. C. Hon. GEORGE B. LORING, - Commissioner of Agriculture. XVIII MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. C. V. RILEY, Chief. A. 8. PACKARD, Secretary. CYRUS THOMAS, Disbursing Agent. PREFACE... The present volume is the fourth of the reports of the Commission, and was originally designed as a revised edition of Bulletin 3, and a final report on the subject of the Cotton Worm. A single chapter has been added on the Boll Worm, because of the importance of this species, but other insects affecting the cotton plant are only treated of incident- ally. A good deal of material has been collected bearing on these other insects affecting the plant, and we hope some day to find time to prepare it for publication. But all work except that on the two principal insects treated of in this report has been considered of minor impertance, the main object of the inquiry being as full and accurate knowledge as pos- sible respecting those’two, especially in reference to their control or ready destruction by the planter. The sifting of truth from error; the settlement of mooted questions by test and experiment; the einer of previously unknown facts and truths, even regarding an insect like the Cotton Worm, require an amount of labor that few will appreciate who have not experienced the difficulties involved ; and whatever merit this report may have is due to the fact that the author, in prosecuting the work, has earnestly sought to get at the exact truth, wherever there were conflicting views, expe- riences, or theories, and because it represents a very considerable amount of original research. He has also endeavored to bear constantly in mind that the chief object which Congress had in ordering the investigation was a practical one, and that whatever purely entomological knowledge was acquired, however interesting to the naturalist, was of less moment, unless it had some bearing on this practical phase of the subject. Hence, descriptive matter and technical discussions are for the most part excluded from the body of the work and printed at the end of the vol- ume in a Series of notes for the benefit of the reader who may be inter- ested. Discoveries made in pursuit of some special object often sub- serve many other purposes and have wide application. This is emi- nently true in applied entomology, and many of the remedies and the devices for applying them that have resulted from this Cotton Worm investigation are of great use against many other species. This is well illustrated in the modern very general use by farmers and fruit-growers, in all parts of the country, of pyrethrum in the field, of petroleum emul- Sions, and of the cyclone spraying nozzle, all of which have had their origin in this investigation. XIX xx PREFACE. The character of the investigation was novel. There was no prece- — dent to guide or warn. The number of persons capable, through experi- ence, of intelligent field work in economic entomology was, until quite recently, remarkably small, so that the organization of the force to as- sist in the work was largely experimental and more difficult than it would have been had trained observers been at command. Under these circumstances, the satisfactory manner in which, with rare exceptions, the different agents have performed the tasks assigned to them is all the more to becommended. Many of these agents have been employed _ for but a limited time (about three months a year) or to make some special observations or experiments, and the results of their labor are either incorporated in the text of the report or in the appendices. Their work will also be found acknowledged in the introduction, in which we have endeavored to give an epitome of the history of the investigation as well as a glance at the contents of the volume. To all of them, and to the many correspondents who have so willingly and generously as- sisted, we take this public opportunity of tendering our sincere thanks. To those who have been more permanently associated with us in this work we desire to express our special acknowledgments and indebted- ness. Mr. HE. A. Schwarz, from Detroit, Mich., has assisted from the beginning both in field and office work, while since the publication of the first edition Dr. W. S. Barnard, from Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y., has also been continuously associated with us, and particularly in that phase of the inquiry pertaining to mechanical appliances. Mr. H. G. Hubbard, of Detroit, Mich., Mr. William H. Patton, of Waterbury, Conn., Prof. R. W. Jones, of the State University, Oxford, Miss., Judge L. C. Johnson, of Holly Springs, Miss., Prof. J. E. Willet, of Mercer University, Macon, Ga., Judge J. F. Bailey, of Marion, Ala., Judge W. J. Jones, of Virginia Point, Tex., Prof. E. A. Smith, of the State Uni- versity, Tuscaloosa, Ala., Dr. E. H. Anderson, of Canton, Miss., Mr. James Roane, of Washington, and Dr. J. C. Neal, of Archer, Fla., all deserve special acknowledgment. In addition to the observers mentioned, we are indebted to Prof. HE. W. Hilgard, of the University of California and special census agent, for permission to use, in the preparation of Professor Smith’s chapter and in advance of publication, the notes and observations made by himself and other special agents, while collecting the materials for his Report on Cotton Production in the United States. Mr. E. 8. Burgess and Dr. C. S. Minot, of Boston, deserve our thanks for their services in the preparation of Chapter V, and Dr. J. C. Branner and Mr. Albert Koebele for their work in Brazil. Last, but not least, we wonld express our indebtedness to those of our office assistants who have in any way contributed to the report: Mr. L. O. Howard for general assistance in the preparation of the report, Mr. Theo. Pergande for care in the breeding of the insects consigned to him, and Mr. B. P. Mann for clerical aid, especially in the prepara- tion of the index, PREFACE. XXI The colored plates illustrating the report were either drawn by the writer or by Miss Lillie Sullivan under his immediate direction. Plate _ IV is reproduced from Glover's copper-plate etchings; Plates VI to XI were drawn by Messrs. Burgess and Minot from material furnished for _the purpose ; Plates XIV to LXI were either adapted from patent draw- ings or photographs, or were drawn by Dr. Barnard or by us either - from the original machinery or from photographs thereof; Plate LXII — is made up from drawings of our own, and Plates LXIII and LXIV were drawn by Dr. George Marx. C.-V-. RB. : ¥ Rely en See ee ; : = ee | a ys es ; : e PoE Re eke * tex = ee Pe ‘ a a ed a ee , - aie pe ~. ~~ “ lee ia! ee Rana is “4 ag eee Be. Fhe Pek . « 4 - ¥ od be t et “ : 4 le * _ = + rss Re- ee Oe ’ ; in * , ¥ . = * ma ‘ Sag ¢ - ~ \ - Sy ‘ ¢ pa r3 wt ood } ¥ - ? aaa, = > ’ ; _ 1 > : =. ‘ s : ‘ aa - x § ’ e t ; | . + wae "i 7 - - F mile “ 4 " ‘ = : o ” ' a " - - 7 Vadis? : ; ; "I 4 ah é. ‘ > ! i 4 ? A 7 rd - , . F : - bs . es . < ‘ * . . , ’ - 4 INTRODUCTION. The official Cotton Worm investigation, of which this is the final re- port, was begun in the spring of the year 1878, Congress at that time having appropriated the sum of $5,000 to be expended for the purpose of such an investigation under our direction as entomologist of the United States Department of Agriculture. The results of the first nine months of the investigation are summed up in the following quo- tations from our report as United States Entomologist for the year 1878. The quotation also includes the first circular issued in the progress of the investigation: INSECTS AFFECTING THE COTTON PLANT. Pursuant to an appropriation by the last Congress for the purpose, and in accordance with your instructions, I have carried on a special investigation of the insects injuri- ous to the cotton plant. The commission of inquiry was organized by the appoint- ment of the following gentlemen: Asspecial agents, Prof. J. H. Comstock, of Ithaca, N. Y., whose position as professor of entomology in Cornell University and whose ex- perience with insects injurious to vegetation had well fitted him for such labor; and Prof. A. R. Grote, of Buffalo, N. Y., whom aresidence of several years at Demopolis, Ala., and a special study of the Cotton Worm, had also well prepared forthe inquiry. As local agents and observers: Dr. E. H. Anderson, of Kirkwood, Miss.; William J. Jones, of Virginia Point, Tex.; Prof. J. E. Willet, of Macon, Ga.; and Prof. Eugene A. Smith, of Tuscaloosa, Ala. Mr. E. A. Schwarz, of Detroit, Mich., has also been engaged during the winter to visit all the Southern States and the West India islands, with aspecial view of getting at the facts of hibernation. To Professor Comstock was assigned the cotton region of Arkansas and Tennessee and of Mississippi and Alabama north of Vicksburg and Meridian and the Alabama Central Railroad; to Mr. Grote that of Florida and Georgia and of Alabama south of the railroad mentioned; while, with the assistance of the local observers, I have myself given more especial attention to the extremities of the belt, viz: Texas, Louisiana, Southern Mississippi, and the Carolinas. — The following circular-letter was prepared for the use of agents, and distributed, with corresponding blanks, to correspondents in the cotton belt. It will explain the scope of the inquiry: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Washington, D. C., July 22, 1878. Sir: The entomologist of the department having prepared a series of inquiries for the special scientific observers to whom has been assigned the duty of studying the history and depredation of the worm known as Aletia argillacea, as well as other in- sects which injure the cotton plant, I have caused copies of these circulars to be printed and sent you, in hope that you may feel interest enough in the subject to make report thereon, XXIII XXIV INTRODUCTION. : ~ Should you do so, please observe carefully the following suggestions: Write only on one side of the paper blanks sent; and, if more room is desired to answer fully, write on another sheet, numbering and lettering to correspond with letter and number of question. If any special points arise before the termination of the season, please communi- cate freely, marking your envelope ‘‘ cotton insects.” Respectfully, &c., WI LEDUC. Suh 4G. ,; Commissioner. THE COTTON WORM. This insect (Aletia argillacea,* Htibn.) will naturally receive most attention, being, as it is, by far the most injurious of the different enemies of the cotton plant. Data are requested on all the following topics: PAST HISTORY OF THE COTTON WORM. . 5 1. Give, so far as you can from trustworthy records, the earliest year in which cot- ton was grown in your State, county, or locality. la. During what year (exact or approximate) did the worm first make its appear- ance in your locality, and, as far as you are aware, in the State; in other words, how many years elapsed after cotton first began to be grown before the worm began to work upon it? 1b. Specify the years when it has been unusually abundant and destructive. INFLUENCE OF THE WEATHER ON THE INSECT. 2. State what you know from experience of the effects of weather on the insect, and more particularly— ; 2a. The character of seasons most favorable to its inerease. 2b. The character of the summer and winter—whether wet or dry, mild or severe— _ that have preceded years in which the worm has been abundant and destructive. : 2c. Do wet summers favor its multiplication ? 2d. Effects of different kinds of weather on the eggs. 2e. Effects of different kinds of weather on the moths. 2f. Month of year when greatest injury is done. STATISTICS OF LOSSES. 3. Give, as correctly as you can, estimates of the loss to the crop in your county and State during notable cotton-worm years. MIGRATION OF THE MOTHS. It is a well-established fact that the parent moth of the Cotton Worm is often found in autumn wany hundred miles away from the cotton belt, and there is no reason to doubt that it is often carried by favorable winds to northward regions, where it cannot perpetuate its species and must therefore perish. Mr. A. R. Grote and others even believe that the species perishes each year with the plant, and that the moth always comes into the cotton States from more southern countries, where the cotton . plant is perennial; in other words, that the moth is habitually migratory, and cannot survive the winter in the great cotton regions of the States. While there are many facts that lend weight to this theory, there is also much to be said against it; and we desire to collect all facts that in any way bear on the question. While we hope to get much valuable information on this head from the Signal Bureau, we also ask for the experience of correspondents. 4, Please state, therefore, as nearly as you can fromthe records, the prevailing direc- tion and force of the wind in your locality, first, 4a. In the month of February; second, 4b. In the month of March; third, 4c, In the month of April; fourth, 4d. In the month of May; fifth, 4e. In the month of June; sixth, 4f. Whether, in your opinion, there are winds from the south that are sufficiently strong and constant to counteract the prevailing trade-winds, which are toward the equator. * The Noctua rylina of Say. ‘ — INTRODUCTION. XXV 4g. The prevailing direction of the wind from July till frost. 4h. The side of a field on which the worms first begin to work. 4i. Do local topographical features influence the extent of the worm’s ravages ? 4j. Does or can the worm feed upon any other plant than cotton, and have you ever known it to do so? HABITS AND NATURAL HISTORY. These have already been studied, and are pretty well known; but experience will differ somewhat with locality, and we call attention to the following topics: 5. State the time when the first moths are noticed in your locality. 5a. Date when the first worms have been noticed in past years. 5b. Date when the last worms have been seen in past years, or were noticed the present year. dc. Number of broods or.generations of the worms generally produced. 5d. In what other situations besides the folded cotton leaves have you known the worms to spin? 7 5e. Have you ever known the chrysalis to survive a frost, or to be found in sound and healthy condition in winter? 5f. Have you ever found the moth hibernating or flying during mild winter weather? 5g. How late in the spring has the moth been found alive ? NATURAL ENEMIES. It is a little singular that no enemies of the Cotton Worm have hitherto been re- ported. That the insect has its enemies, both special and general, there can be little doubt, and we would ask particular attention to the following topics: 6. Are any birds, quadrupeds, or reptiles known to attack the insect in your locality ? 6a. Are any predaceous insects or parasites known to prey upon it, either in the egg, larva, or chrysalis state? REMEDIES AND METHODS OF DESTRUCTION. 7. What has been the result of the efforts to allure and destroy the moths, and what methods have proved most satisfactory ? Give your estimate of the relative value for this purpose of poisoned sugar, molasses and vinegar, and fires. 7a. Are the moths most attracted to sweetened substances when smeared onto trees, boards, &c., or when contained in vessels in or near which lamps may be ‘lighted ? 7b. Are any flowers known to be attractive to the moth? If so, specify them and their season of blooming. 7e. What do you know of your own observation of the influence of jute grown near or with the cotton ? : 7d. Has any effort been made to destroy the moth in its winter quarters ? 7e. Have any systematic and organized attempts been made to gather and destroy the chrysalides, or to facilitate their collection and destruction by furnishing inviting material for the worms to spin up in? 7f. What has been done toward destroying the eggs? 7g. Has anything been found more generally useful and applicable or cheaper than the use of the Paris green mixture to destroy the worms? 7h. Have you known of any injurious effects following the use of this poison, either to the plant, to man, or to animals? 7. State what you consider the best and most effective method of destroying them in your section. : 7j. State the cost per acre of protecting a crop by the best means employed. We shall be glad to receive figures, either photographs or drawings, of machines or con- triwances employed for the wholesale use of the Paris green mixture, either in the fluid state or as a powder ; or any other kinds of machines or traps employed for the destruction of the in- sect. Models of such are still more desirable, and may be sent by express unpaid to the de- partment. OTHER COTTON INSECTS. There are many other insects that attack and do more or less injury to the cotton plant. Many of these have been figured and referred to by the former entomologist to the department, Mr. Townend Glover, but there is much yet to learn of their habits and natural history and of the best means of subduing them. Specimens of all insects that may be found upon the plant are, therefore, earnestly solicited, with accounts of their work and habits and the amount of injury,they do. These speci- mens are best sent by mail, in tight tin or wooden boxes, [If living (and all found XXVI INTRODUCTION. feeding on the plant’ should thus be sent) a supply of food should be inclosed with them; if first killed, they should be carefully packed in a little cotton, to prevent shaking and breaking. Correspondents who desire to make especial observations with a view of replying to this circular, and who wish further information as to the best manner of preserving specimens, will receive assistance and further insiructions upon communicating with the department. CHAS. V. RILEY, Entomologist. Two circumstances have somewhat interfered with the inquiry, viz, the yellow fever and the general freedom of the plant from the Cotton Worm, the serious injuries of this last having been restricted to the cane-brake regions of Alabama and to the southwest counties of Georgia, especially the country between the forks of the Flint and Chattahoochee Rivers—the more malarious portions of either State. Its appear- ance in injurious numbers, both here and in South Texas, was from four to six weeks later than usual, and this was one cause of the small amount of injury done. The weather at the time of their greatest abundance was wet and interfered with the ap- plication of remedies. ; ‘ Professor Comstock’s observations were chiefly confined to that fertile cotton-grow- ing region along the line of the Alabama Central Railroad, known as the “‘ cane-brake.”) He reached Selma July 20. There he met many prominent planters, and from them collected important statistics respecting the occurrence of the Cotton Worm and the results of experiments in the use of remedies for this species. July 23 he began his field observations near Uniontown, Perry County, and from that time on, till the mid- dle of October, he was constantly engaged in studying the habits of cotton insects on plantations in Dallas, Perry, Hale, and Marengo Counties. His only absence from this region was from August 10 to August 15, when I directed him to make a trip through the State northward as far as Madison County, where much cotton is grown. Profes- sor Comstock has prepared a full and valuable report, which will be incorporated in the final report of the investigation. ; Professor Grote’s operations Will appear by the following extract from a brief report submitted. | ‘Str: In accordance with your favor of July 18, in which you directed me to visit the States of Georgia and Florida for the purpose of making observations on the in- sects injurious to the cotton plant, I proceeded to Savannah and during the following month of August made examinations of cotton fields at different points between Sa- vannah and Atlanta. Having charged me especially with that pbase of the cotton- worm inquiry which comes under the head of migrations, I directed my chief atten- tion to making observations and collecting information on the appearance and move- ments of the Cotton Worm (Alelia argillacea). ‘A careful survey of the plantation of Dr. Lawton, near Savannah, from August to August 7, and the cotton patches in the vicinity convinced me that the worm had not then appeared. The statements made to me were to the effect that its earliest appearance was usually to be looked for about the middle of the month. Henry Gas- ton, engaged in planting cotton for nearly twenty years, said that the first brood of worms web up about the middle to the latter part of August, giving a second brood in September. The worm was first noticed in the stronger cotton on the bottom lands. * * * Hehad observed the moth before the appearance of the worm, but had never noticed it in the early spring. “This testimony is given as a sample of the information collected from various in- dividuals. While August seems to be the usual time for the appearance of the worm on the mainland on the coast of Georgia, in the neighborhood of Savannah, the testi- mony of Dr. J. S. Lawton, on the sea islands off the coast of South Carolina to the northward of Savannah, is to the effect that the worm appears sometimes as early as July and is then usually excessively injurious to the long-staple cottons. | ‘“In Southwestern Georgia the worm is noticed as early as the last week in June in some years, and the main damage inflicted in the State seems to come from this quar- ter. The worm occurs there every year, though the date at which it is noticed va- ries. ‘The question whether the so-called ‘brood’ is the first appearance of the worm in any quarter has been raised by yourself, and is one which I hope to be able to pay close attention in the spring. ‘For the present we must accept the testimony that the worm seems to advance from Southwest Georgia over the western and occasionally over the central portion _ INTRODUCTION. XXVII of the State. It seems to come from Decatur to Baker, Calhoun, Dougherty, and Lee Counties. According to present testimony its appearance is not simultaneous over this section of the Stato, the southern portions being first visited. ‘‘From testimony collected by myself in Athens, on the occasion of the meeting of the Agricultural Society of Georgia, the following counties are visited by the Cotton Worm every year, though the exact line is not, according to testimony, the same: Calhoun, Decatur, Dougherty, Lee, Mason, Schley, Taylor. ’ ** Counties in which the worm is not noticed every year are: Burke, Clarke, Fulton, Greene, Hancock, Jones, Monroe, Putnam, Richmond. “Tt will be seen that the central portion of the State is less subject to the devasta- tion of the Cotton Worm than the southwestern and western. * * * *‘T received in November, 1878, fresh instructions from you to proceed to Georgia for the purpose of ascertaining whether I could find eggs from the last moths on any portion of the plant, and any facts bearing on the hibernation of the moth. On the plantations near Savannah I found that the worm was first noticed the current year on September 4. I found a large number of the chrysalides yet on the plant on No- vember 10 to 25. The nights were frosty and the leaf withered and scant. In places sheltered by trees the leaf was still green, and here I found (November 16) a few cater- pillars not yet spun up. A large number of the chrysalides were empty; about 40 per cent. contained parasites. Less than a quarter of the chrysalides contained the undeveloped moth. _ ‘Under your instructions I have visited the Georgia sea-islands during the end of November and beginning of December. I found that the worm had appeared this year in September as on the mainland, but later in the month. It had, also, not spread, and had attacked certain corners of the fields, where I now found the chrysa- lides. None of these contained undeveloped moths, but they were either empty or ichneumonized. There had been no second brood of worms on the islands, according to testimony collected by me, and which was borne out by my own observations. “As the result of my late observations I may say that the fact is confirmed that the Cotton Worm passes the winter, when it survives at all, as a moth, and that the last fall worms do not leave the plant to web up. The full history of the worm in Georgia can be made out when the country is fully explored in the spring and before the first appearance of the worm in numbers. It will then be made clear where the first large numbers of the worm come from; whether they are the results of fresh in- vasions of the moth or the product of a first generation from eggs of hibernating indi- viduals. “‘Under your intelligent supervision of the inquiry, and with the facilities which you possess from different sections of the South, I have no doubt that this important matter will receive final and full elucidation. “‘My thanks are due to Mr. Z. Bauers, of Saint Catharine’s Island ; Dr. W. S. Law- ton, of Savannah; Messrs. T. G. Holt, of Macon, Ga.; J. E. Redwine, Hull County, Georgia; E. C. Grier, Griswoldville, Jones County; J. Pinckney Thomas, Wayne’s Bluff, Burke County, Georgia; State Geologist George A. Little, of Atlanta, Ga., and others, who have assisted me in my work. ‘Yours, respectfully, “Prof. C. V. RILEY, “Entomologist, Department Agriculture.” “A. R. GROTE. Starting south myself the latter part of August, I passed through Tennessee to Mitchell County, in Southwest Georgia, and thence, during September, through the cotton sections of the southeastern part of that State and of the Carolinas and Vir- ginia. I was at this time made painfully aware of the hindering effects of the yellow fever. ‘One can scarcely conceive of the panic and excitement that prevailed, even in regions where there was little or no danger. But a few weeks before in the thicker cotton counties of Alabama and Georgia the prevailing topic of conversation, as I learned, was the work of the Cotton Worm. At the time of my visit its injuries were forgotten in the all-absorbing stibject of the epidemic. Cotton fields were neglected, and in sight of acres of stripped and spindling stalks one heard but the universal refrain—yellow fever, yellow fever. It seriously interfered with my own plans, and obliged me to avoid the very Mississippi cotton fields which I desired most to visit. Notwithstanding this serious drawback to the present year’s operations, much that is valuable and important has been learned. * * * In fact, our chief efforts during this first year as United States Ento- mologist were devoted to this investigation, and a large amount of mate- XXVIII INTRODUCTION. rial had been accumulated for a special report on the subject, of which Congress ordered (March 3, 1879) 10,000 copies to be published. In the spring of 1879 the investigation was, by act of Congress, transferred from this department to the United States Entomological Commission, which was then under the Interior Department. Owing to difficulties which grew out of this action, we resigned the position of entomologist | to the Department of Agriculture, under Commissioner Le Due, to take effect May 1, 1879, and at the next formal meeting of the Commission, in subdividing the labors of its members, this cotton-insect work was assigned to the writer. He has, therefore, had entire charge of the same, and is alone responsible for the work and for this report. The historic facts just related have no interest here except as they necessarily bear on the investigation, which Congress evidently in- tended to be continued under the same direction as that under which it had been instituted. But, as we have just seen, a special report on the subject under the Department of Agriculture had been ordered. Under these circumstances it became very desirable not only that the work we had done on that report should be properly brought to a close, but that there should be no duplication of work subsequently and no conflict between the Department and the Commission. We left the Department with the hope that such would be the case, and in the - appointment of Prof. J. H. Comstock as our successor we anticipated the realization of our hopes, not only because of his assurances to that effect and to the effect that those who had been associated with us in the office and were familiar with the work and our plans should be retained, but because he himself had done the most efficient field work aS one of our assistants and was well qualified to complete the report. However much we may regret that those hopes were subsequently not realized, or deplore the subsequent action of the Department in ac- tively continuing this special investigation and in opposing the Com- mission, it is sufficient, in this connection, merely to mention the facts. Preparations were made, in accordance with the law, to continue the work under the Commission after J aly. 1, 1879. The following circular was sent to correspondents : (Circular No. 7.] RELATING TO THE COTTON WORM. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE U. S. ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION, b ] 18—. Mr. : DeEaR Sir: The undersigned has for many years keenly felt that there was great need of more accurate knowledge of the habits of the Cotton Worm (Aletia argillacea) and of the other insects injuriously affecting the cotton plant, as also of more satisfac- tory means of counteracting their injuries. Recognizing the vast importance of the subject to the people of the South, one of his first efforts, after accepting the position INTRODUCTION. XE of entomologist to the Department of Agriculture, in May, 1878, was to commence a special investigation looking to those ends. An appropriation to the Department was obtained for the purpose, and the investi- gation was carried on under his direction up to the time of his resignation, on the first of May last. Since that time Congress has required the United States Entomological Commission to continue the work, and said Commission, at a late meeting, decided to place this part of its work in his charge. On behalf of the Commission, he would, therefore, call the attention of correspondents to the following questions and topics, with the request that answers thereto, or experience thereon, be returned to him some time before October next. Some correspondents whom this circular will reach may already have answered a more detailed one, sent out last year by the writer while connected with the Depart- ment of Agriculture. He would beg such to again give their experience on the fewer topics of the present circular. He will be glad to receive figures, either photographs or drawings, of machines or contrivances employed for the wholesale use of the Paris-green mixture, either in the fluid state or as a powder; or any other kinds of machines or traps employed for the - destruction of the insect. Models of such are still more desirable, and may be sent by express, unpaid, to the headquarters of the Commission. Correspondence is solicited whenever any expense must attend the carrying out of these requests, in order that au- thority may be given to make the necessary outlay and thus insure the refunding of the amount. ‘ Respectfully, CHAS. V. RILEY . . sy} Chief U. 8. E. C. 1. During what year was cotton first grown in your State, county, or locality? 2. How many years elapsed after cotton first began to be grown before the worm began to work upon it? 3. Is the worm most dreaded after a mild or after a severe winter? 4. Do wet or dry summers favor its multiplication? 5. What is the earliest date at which you have known the worm to appear in spring? 6. In what locations does it most often first appear ? 7. What is your experience, and what are your views, as to the winter habits of the insect? 8. What natural enemies of the worm among birds, quadrupeds, or insects are you familiar with ? 9. What has been the result of the efforts to allure and destroy the moths, and what methods have proved most satisfactory? Give your estimate of the relative value for this purpose of poisoned sugar, molasses, and vinegar, or other poisonous substances, and fires. 10. Are the moths most attracted to sweetened substances when smeared upon trees, boards, &c., or when contained in vessels in or near which lamps may be lighted ? 11. Are any flowers known to be attractive to the moth? If so, specify them and their season of blooming. 12. What do you know, from your own observation, of the influence of jute grown near or with the cotton? 13. Has anything been found more generally useful.and applicable, or cheaper, than the use of the Paris-green mixture, or of arsenic in some form, to destroy the worms? 14. Have you known of any injurious effects following the use of this poison, either to the plant, to man, or to animals? 15. State what you consider the best and most effective method of destroying the worms in your section. -16. State the cost per acre of protecting a crop by the best means employed. — Correspondents will confer a favor by numbering the replies to correspond with the ques- tions, and by writing on but one side of the paper. xxx , INTRODUCTION. The appropriation was limited that year, and on that account a lim- ited force of assistants was employed. Mr. Schwarz spent considerable time in the Colorado bottom, at Columbus, Tex., and later at Selma, Ala., with Mr. Patton. We spent some time at both places with these — gentlemen, and visited a number of other points at which there seemed _ opportunity of gaining experience or information. But our time was — much taken up with the office work of the Commission and with the preparation of Bulletin 3, or the first edition of this work. This was issued January 28, 1880, or within seven months from the time the Com- mission took charge of the work. A summary of the work of the year is given in the introduction to that Bulletin, from which we quote the following passage, by way of deserved credit to some of the earlier stu- dents of the Cotton Worm, and particularly to the first entomologist of this department, since deceased : - | The need of such an investigation, and even of a much more thorough one than the limited means so far appropriated therefor by Congress have permitted, is, I venture to believe, made apparent from the following pages. Mr. Townend Glover, during his earlier connection, as entomologist, with the Patent Office and the Department of Agriculture, gave much time to the study of the insects affecting cotton, and pub- lished in the Agricultural Reports for 1854 and 1855 much valuable information there anent, which has been a text for most subsequent writings on the subject. The science of entomology was then in its infancy in this country, and Mr. Glover labored under many difficulties in the proper determination of species and in other ways, which necessarily prevented that scientific accuracy and thoroughness which is desirable. Yet to his labors and those of a few Southern men like the late Thomas Affleck, of Brenham, Tex., and Dr. D. L. Phares, of Woodville, Miss., we owe all that was known and in any way reliable on the subject up to within the present decade ; while his copper-plate figures of the principal insects affecting the plant, of which figures he published in 1878 a limited number of copies for distribution at his own expense, are so admirable and instructive that it is cause for regret that they were * not long since issued, with appropriate text, by the Department of which he was suv long the entomologist. It may safely be said that up to 1878 scarcely any facts had been added, by direct observation, to those which Professor Glover had published regarding the Cotton Worm twenty-five years ago. Just before the issuing of Bulletin 3 a circular was sent through the State Department to consuls and consular agents in different localities in Mexico, Central and South America, asking for such particulars con- cerning the enemies of the cotton plant as might bear upon the ques- tion of annual immigration. ‘The answers to this circular were received too late for insertion in Bulletin 3, but they have been used in the preparation of Chapter EV, and will be found in full, together. with the text of the circular letter, in Appendix VII, page [59] of this volume. During the year 1880, by virtue of increased means provided by Congress, the investigation was carried on with more vigor. Among temporary employés engaged for special work, Judge W. J. Jones acted as agent in Southern Texas, Prof. R. W. Jones was engaged in Missis- sippi making extracts and decoctions of different native plants to be tested as insecticides, and also in making special observations on the ” te . INTRODUCTION. Set Boll Worm, while Dr. Anderson and Judge Johnson represented the Commission in their respective parts of the same State, making experi- ments themselves and also assisting Professor Jones. Mr. Roane was located for some time at Selma, Ala., making extracts and decoctions of various native plants in that region, while Judge Bailey represented the Commission in the cane-brake region of the same State, and was more particularly charged with what pertains to the food habits and hibernation of the parent moth. In Georgia Professor Willet made a series of experiments to test the value of fungus germs in the destruc- tion of the worm. Professor Smith, of Tuscaloosa, Ala., was engaged in the work on the cotton belt, represented in Chapter VI. Prof. J. P. Stelle, of Mobile, Ala., spent nearly five months in Texas, traveling from place to place, under special instructions as to observations, while Mr. Patton, in addition to assisting in the office work, spent part of the summer at Selma, Ala. Here, also, Mr. Schwarz was stationed, as we found it convenient to make this point a sort of field headquarters _ for the work, especially the testing of remedies and remedial appliances. Mr. Hubbard was stationed in Florida, principally at Centreville and Crescent City. Dr. Barnard had his headquarters at Vidalia, La., in the early part of the season, making notes in portions of Louisiana and Mississippi, but later in the season joined the force at Selma, where he gave more particular attention to the machinery experimented with. Whatever time could well be spared from the office work of the Commis- sion we devoted to field work, visiting during the months of July, _ August, September, and October the different agents, and personally aiding and suggesting in the carrying out of plans and instructions. These instructions were given in special correspondence with the agents, as also in Circular No. 7, and in the following supplementary f cireular letter: SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO.AGENTS. OFFICE OF THE U. 8. ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION, No. 1700 13th Street, Washington, D. C., July 30, 1880. In addition to instractions already transmitted to you, I hereby call your atten- tion to a few important points which should have especial attention. In the application of poisons already known to be effectual the great desideratum is to ascertain the minimum quantity that can be used successfully. It is my inten- tion to perfect appliances that will throw either an extremely fine mist or an almost impalpable cloud of dust from near the ground up among the plants and on the under. side of the leaves. Test, therefore, thoroughly, by a series of experiments, whether: 1. London purple, Paris green, or arsenic can be used without diluents by forcing them dry in minimum quantity, onto the plants, and ascertaining how much ground a pound of each may be made to cover. 2. If they cannot be used without diluents, the minimum quantity of such diluents necessary. 3. How far, by fine spraying, and economy in preventing wastage on the ground, the number of gallons of water to a pound of these materials may be reduced—the XXXII INTRODUCTION. idea being, in all these desired experimen); p to reduce the bulk and expense of the diluents by forcing the poisons in finer . ‘od fewer particles up among the plants rather than down upon them, through small perforations, or (what will prove pref- erable) crescent-shaped slits of various dimensions in nozzles that will bear great ~~ pressure from within. 4. Test how far, 7. e., over how much ground, on the above principles, a pound of : pyrethrum may be nade to go and still prove effectual. : 5. Ascertain, if possible, whether the moths are not killed by sucking at the glands where the plant is poisoned from below. 6. Ascertain the effects of these different poisons on the eggs. 7. Always note the difference in effect on the very young and the full-grown worms. 8. Observe well in the woods and in the neighborhood of infested fields if the Aletia larva can be found feeding on any other plant, searching particularly Dents _ of the same family (Malvaceeé) or that to which cotton belongs. 9. Note and study any mites found preying on the eggs. 10. Send me a summary of the experiments made with yeast ferment or beer mash by the middle of August. 11. Study wel) the influence of ants in the cotton field and in how far the prove destructive to Aletia, especially to the egg or young larva. - Respectfully, A C. V. RILEY, Chief U. S. E.C. Another circular (No. 10) referred to other insects affecting either the root, stem, branch, leaf, involucre, blossom or boll, but, for reasons stated in the Preface, need not be repeated here. In the meantime the work we had left unfinished, in the Department, together with some additional work done by Mr. William Trelease under direction of our successor, had ‘been prepared for publication, and was issued in August, 1880, by Professor Comstock as author, under the title: Report | upon | Cotton Insects | prepared | under direction of the Commissioner of Agriculture in pursuance of an Act of Congress ap- proved June 19, 1878 | By | J. Henry Comstock | Entomologist to the Department of Agriculture | Washington | Government Printing Office | 1879 |. This is referred to in the following pages either as the “ De- partment Report on Cotton eoeoae ” or as “ Comstock’s Cotton Insect Report.” On July 1, 1881, the U. S, Tosi Goninon was transferred by previous act of Congress from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture, and we were soon thereafter asked to re- sume the position, which we had resigned two years previously, of ento- mologist to this last Department, under whose auspices the investiga- tion has since been carried on. The work in 1881 and 1882 was chiefly devoted to the preparation of the present report and to the testing and perfecting of the machinery that had been devised, the Cotton Conven.: tion held in the autumn of 1881 at Atlanta, Ga., offering a favorable opportunity, and much time having been given 6 the preparation of an exhibit of such machinery, which the Commissioner desired should be made there. Such further experiments as were made with insecti- INTRODUCTION. XXXII “oatites' were incidental to those made ‘eviously, and have been recorded in the publications of the Entomological Division. i. The preparation of this report for the printer was virtually finished ay the end of 1882, and we owe it to ourself and to the public to ex- plain here the reasons for the delay in its appearance. The chief reason has’ been the desire on our part to have all the more practical questions as satisfactorily settled as possible, and every one who has been en- gaged in such work knows how one experiment suggests and begets another, and how difficult it is to close up experimental work that one is deeply interested in. We also felt the need of more exact knowl- edge of the facts in reference to Aletia in Brazil as bearing on the hi- bernation and introduction of the species within the States. In pursuit of information upon these points: and upon questions concerning the cultivation of cotton in Brazil, Dr. John ©. Branner, a gentleman fa- miliar with Brazil through his connection with several exploring ex- peditions, was sent to that country with an assistant, Mr. A. Koebele, in the winter of 1882~’85. They remained there some four months and collected alarge amount of interesting material, returning in May, 1883. Dr. Branner’s preliminary report was published in Bulletin 4 of the Entomological Division, pp. 51-69, and that portion of his final report - which treats of cotton insects forms Appendix V of the present volume. The remainder of his report is published in Miscellaneous Special Re- port No. 8 of the Department, under the title “‘ Cotton in the Empire of _ Brazil; the Antiquity, Methods, and Extent of its Cultivation; together _with Statistics of Exportation and Home Consumption.” Then during this time the third report of the Commission was being prepared and issued, while the labors of the divisional work since 1881 have been greater than ever before. We have, both from choice and from necessity, made the finishing of the literary work of the Commis- sion, which expired June 30, 1882, secondary to our duties as entomologist to the Department, and the general work of the Division, together with the preparation of the bulletins and annual reports issued since 1881, have helped to increase the delay. Finally, there are delays incident to Government publication which those who have had experience with it very well understand, but which the outside public cannot well appre- ciate. Thechief of these is that the Government Printer finds it neces- Sary to set aside work on special reports during the sessions of Congress, so that the summer months are the best to get work done on such special reports—the time of year, unfortunately, when, from the very nature of the work of the entomological Division, the entomologist is most oceu- pied with the prosecution of research and has least time for literary or editorial work. Yet the fact remains that the report proper was formally submitted in March, 1884, and the bulk of it was in type, with all the illustrations made, by the fall of that year. If the foregoing account of the investigation upon which this report is based and expla- nation of the delay in its appearance indicate some of the difficulties XXV INTRODUCTION. that have beset its preparation, it must be remembered that they are — such as are incidental to most scientific work of an official nature, or done under the Government. We hope and believe, notwithstanding, that the work will prove of standard value to all in any way interested in the matter of which it treats. - - io, Chapters I and II, pertaining to classification, nomenclature, destruct- _ ‘iveness, characters, habits, and natural history of the Cotton Worm, are condensed as much as possible. The reasons for abiding by the specific name of the species originally proposed by Say are more fully given in Note 2 than in the text, and if the statements in regard to habits and . natural history have at times the appearance of being dogmatic where they conflict with previous statement by others, it is because the facts have been so fully studied as to leave no room for question. The full hibernation of the species, within our limits, was not established till the spring of 1882, by our finding the newly-hatched worms the latter part of March on rattoon cotton in South Georgia and Florida, but it was to Mr. Koebele’s unflagging industry (chiefly at night), while stationed at Archer, Fla., for this purpose, that the hibernating moths were obtained during the months ef December, January, February, and March. Chapter III consists of a summary, with as little detail as possible, of - the past marked appearances of the Cotton Worm in the United States chronologically given, and of the history of remedies proposed for it. The history of the literature is given separately in Chapter XIV. In Chapter IV. brief consideration is given to the distribution of Aletia xylina in other countries than the United States, showing that it is confined to the Western Hemisphere. Chapter V, by Messrs. Minot and Burgess, treats of the anatomy of Aletia by two competent histologists, and while it will have interest principally for the scientific reader, it will prove a valuable contribu- tion to a phase of the subject. hitherto untouched. Chapter VI, by Professor Smith, treats of the cotton belt, its general characteristics, and its peculiarities from meteorological, agricultural, ar- boricultura], and geological standpoints. This subject of the cotton belt and its characteristics is one that always interested us from the possi- bility that, after careful study, it might indicate the preferred hibernat- ing regions of the moth. Its proper consideration required not only a thorough knowledge of the country, but geological knowledge which we did not possess, and it is doubtful whether one could be found more thoroughly fitted to consider it than Professor Smith. His work has shown, if anything, that there is not, as we anticipated there might be, ally necessary connection between the surface characteristics of the country and hibernation. This last evidently depends more on mean winter temperature and earliness of spring, and if any conclusion is warranted, it would seem to be that the dark, low, and rich soils most conducive to the increase of thx worm are not the most conducive to INTRODUCTION. | XXXV x "the winter Gveservation of the moth, which finds its most favorable winter conditfons in the sheltered pine regions and dry sandy soil cov- ered with wire grass. But aside from this Professor Smith’s chapter will have a deep interest for cotton planters. In Chapter VII we have briefly considered the influences, direct and indirect, which the character and condition of the soil, of the plant, and of the weather have upon the first appearance of the worms and upon their increase and destructiveness—a subject, as the context shows, _ of no mean importance. In Chapter VIII the natural enemies of the insect are treated of and their value as checks to its increase considered. The list is a long one, and those of its own class are treated of systematically. Many previous errors are here corrected and a number of pertinent entomological facts for the first time published. When the investigation began not a sin- gle true parasite had been recorded by name, whereas over a dozen are here recorded. In Chapter IX we have dealt with such preventive measures as are worthy of consideration by planters, while in Chapter X we have dealt at length with remedies, 7. ¢., with means of coping with the insect, whether in the egg, larva, pupa, or imago state, but more particularly with substances that may be used for the destruction of theworm. This is the chapter which will probably prove of greatest value to those for whom the report is primarily intended, and we bespeak its careful con- sideration. While many substances are considered which have no value whatever, yet negative results once established have a decided value in preventing future waste of time and energy in futile work, and the matter of the chapter is based on original research and experiment. In treating of the use of yeast ferment or other fungus germs we have used essentially 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 is a very fascinating one, and is much written about just now; but unfortunately it proves most alluring to those who have had the least 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 diffi- culties involved in its applicability. Chapters XI, XII, and XIII treat of the machinery and mechanical devices which are in use or may be used for the destruction of the insect, whether direct or by facilitating the application of the various sub- stances treated of in Chapter X. Noexcuse need be offered for the rel- ative length of these chapters, as, owing to its importance, by far the larger part of the time and means employed in the investigation has been given to this part of the subject. In the early part of the in- vestigation we personally took pains te acquaint ourself with all that had been done in this direction, and studied not only the patents that 4 XXXVI INTRODUCTION. had been issued for machinery to be used against the Cotton Worm, | more particularly such as was actually in use in the field.« A summary of the results was given in Bulletin 3 of the Commission. The variety | of these inventions by Southern planters and the ingenuity displayed jn many of them compared very favorably with what had been done in ~ | similar directions in other parts of the country, and two important facts were obvious and are worthy of emphasis: . First. Though there is every reason to believe that the ravages of the _ worm were proportionally as great before as they have been since the late war, yet all the more important inventions post-date that period. Prior thereto only the more primitive and ineffective means of destrue- tion, such as hand-picking and the use of fires and lights mm the fields at night, were resorted to. * euoonals: By far the greater number of the maou have been in- vented in Texas, and this is doubtless due to the circumstance that the worm occurs more regularly and more disastrously there than in other States. Both facts are indicative of the more healthy development of the South under free as compared with slave labor. The more satisfactory machines in vogue were those which distributed the liquid poison in broadcast spray or sprinkle over the surface of the plants from some wheeled vehicle containing a reservoir for the liquid, which was either distributed automatically or by means of force-pumps. We soon became convinced that whatever improvements were possible must be, as indicated in our later instructions to agents, in the direction of spraying the under surfaces of the leaves and of reducing to a mini- mum the quantity of poison necessary to an acre, as also the labor necessary to apply it. The more important of these aims was first foreseen by Mr. W. J. Daughtrey, of Selma, Ala., who, in February, 1878, in his letters patent (see pp. 258-9), fully aimed the advantage of find spray on the under side of the leaves. Although the very ingenious machine contrived by him and described in these chapters did not work as successfully as he had hoped, and was too elaborate, heavy, and expensive to prove prac- tically successful, yet too much praise cannot be given Mr. Daugh- trey for the clear manner in which he saw what was required and the skill with which he endeavored to put the principle to practice. It has been our aim in this part of the work to develop simpler means, that may be available to the average planter for attaining the same object, and we would more particularly call attention to the underspraying ar- rangements described on pp. 288-293 and supplemented in Note 52. In order to accomplish anything of value in this field of machinery, it was necessary that some competent person should be able to devote his entire time to carrying out our ideas and to such experimentation as the objects in view suggested or required. Experience had shown that. a professional engineer was not best fitted for the work, and we were finally fortunate in securing, in the summer of of 1880, the services of INTRODUCTION. XXXVII Dr. Barnard, who, in addition to his knowledge of natural history, pos- sesses mechanical ingenuity of a high order. After giving some time to general observations in Mississippi and Alabama in the summer of _ 1880, he was called to Selma the latter part of August, and charged with mechanical work. It was there and early in September that the eyclone-nozzle originated in our endeavors to contrive something that - would throw a spray from the ground up. The question was dis- cussed between us as to whether water forced tangentially into a flat- ened disc would rotate and issue from an outlet in a straight or ina spreading jet. Dr. Barnard took the latter view, and a disc, improvised by means of two watch crystals, so as to permit the motion of the liquid ‘ to be seen, proved that he was correct. The size and form finally adopted is the result of numberless subsequent experiments covering a period of nearly two years. While we have always had a number of original ideas to carry out and our direction of this work has been active, yet Dr. Barnard’s as- sistance was fertile from the first, and there is so much that has resulted therefrom that the preparation of these chapters was finally assigned to him, and he deserves much of the credit that attaches to them. It ___was found expedient, on account of the large increase of matter, to de- . part from the general arrangement adopted in the first edition, which, while it had the merit of simplicity, did not permit of so thorough a classification. Much of the material in that first edition, is, however, used verbatim in these chapters and such is placed in quotation marks, so that any quoted passage without a or -credit may be under- stood as being from that edition. In describing these various machines and contrivances, it has been the endeavor to bring to the notice of the planter all that are worthy of mention, and to point out their advantages and disadvantages and how they may be used most economically and effectively. The planter can then judge for himself which he can most profitably adopt according as his own circumstances dictate. Many of the older machines and contrivances are thus mentioned or described (though now superseded by improved ones) because they are of interest from a historical point of view. Chapter XIV gives a short account of the history of the literature on the Cotton Worm and closes with a eccaetes up to and including the year 1881. - In Chapter XV are illustrated and described some of those insects which either in the larva state, but more particularly in the imago state, are liable to be confounded, and in fact have often been confounded, with the true Cotton Worm. As the northern Army Worm (Leucanta unipuncta) in the imago state is, from its color and frequency, most often thus mistaken in winter time, we have introduced a colored plate of the species to facilitate comparison. Chapter XVI is.devoted to the Boll Worm, and will be rea to con- - XXXVIII INTRODUCTION. 4 tain a quite full account of it, especially of its different food-plants other than cotton; of its habits, characters, natural history, and natural enemies. A summary of its distinguishing points as compared with Aletia; a full consideration of the different methods that are available - to counteract its injuries, and a bibliography are also given. I¢ is for-. tunate that the best methods of underspraying the leaves of cotton with poisons to destroy the Aletia also prove, all things considered, the best means of preventing the injury to cotton of this Heliothis. Finally, in the Appendices will be found such reports from agents and observers as have been deemed worth publishing as supplementary to the report proper. The tabulated replies to the first circular issued from the department are not included, as they were published in the Department Cotton Insect Report, while the more valuable of those in reply to Circular No.7 are given in Appendix VII. As already stated, these Appendices include also Mr. Branner’s report on observations made in Brazil, as well as the reports from consular pees upon the — insect in other countries. The Notes, as already stated in the Preface, either contain matter of a technical nature that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the main text, or matter needed to still further elucidate or supplement it. CHAPTER L CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE. DESTRUCTIVE- NESS. POPULAR AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES. Among planters the Cotton Worm is very often termed the ‘ Cater- pillar,” or the “Cotton Caterpillar,” and not infrequently the “Army Worm.” We have elsewhere shown* why this last term should be dis- countenanced in the literature of the subject, unless prefixed by the word ‘ Cotton,” and, both for the sake of brevity and to prevent con- fusion, the name used in this Bulletin, and by which the insect in this larva state is very generally known, is, on the whole, preferable. In Louisiana, more particularly, the French term “chenille,” meaning cat- erpillar, is commonly employed. For the perfect insect the term “fly” is more often used in some parts of the South than the term “moth,” but the latter is preferable from an entomological view. As to the scientific name, the species was first described by Phones Say, in 1827, as Noctua xylina, in a letter to Dr. C. W. Capers, published in the Southern Agriculturist (vol. I, p. 203), but overlooked by most later writers. Harris, in his Correspondence, placed the “Cotton Moth” near the geuus Ophiusa, while later authors more correctly referred it to Hiib- ner’s genus Anomis. Mr. A. Kh. Grote, in 1874,} arrived at the conclusion that Say’s rylina was nothing more nor less than the Aletia argillacea of Hiibner, described and figured by this author in 1823'. In this opinion he was followed by subsequent authors, and this name was adopted in Bulletin 3 of the Commission, and also in the Special Report of the Agricultural Department. lecent studies,” however, indicate that, although our Cotton Worm moth is found at Bahia, the locality from which A. argillacea was originally described, this name was, with- out much doubt, given by Hiibner to an entirely distinct species also found in the same locality, and Say’s specific name of aylina should still hold for our Cotton Worm moth. Accepting the difference between Anomis and Aletia as of generic value, our Cotton Moth should still be placed in Aletia ; and the common or popular name ‘Aletia,” which we proposed in the Bulletin, and which has come into quite extensive use in the last four years, may, therefore, be retained. *See Second Annual Report on the noxious, beneficial, and other insects of the State of Missouri, 1870, p. 37. . tProc. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. for 1874, 1875, v. 23, Seo. B, p. 13-18. 2 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. We may briefly give the corrected synonymy of the insect as follows: Noctua xylina Say, 1830. Ophiusa (?) xylina (Say), Harris, 1851. Anomis grandipuncta Guenée, 1852. Anomis bipunctina Guenée, 1852. Depressaria gossypioides Wailes, 1854. Anomis xylina (Say), Grote, 1864. Aletia argillacea Hiibn., Grote, 1874. Aletia xylina (Say), Riley, 1881, 1882. _— Aletia xylina (Say), Brooklyn Society Check List, 1882. Further particulars will be found in the Notes and in chapter XIV, which treats of Past History and of Bibliography. CLASSIFICATORY POSITION. The Cotton Worm moth belongs to that order of insects known as the LEPIDOPTERA, which includes all true butterflies and moths. The moths (Heterocera) are separated into a number of families, of which the Owlet Moths (Noctuide) form one of the most important. This family Noctuide is of great interest to the economic entomologist, for it contains not only the insect under consideration, but all the true Cut- worms, the Army Worm, the Grass Worm, the Boll or Corn Worm, the Cabbage Plusia, and many others of scarcely less importance.” DESTRUCTIVENESS OF THE WORM. An impartial calculation of the money loss to the cultivator caused by injury to the great staples of the country from their insect enemies, is sure to startle us by its magnitude when the loss is aggregated. Such . a calculation of the losses which the Cotton Worm (not to speak of other insects) inflicts on the people of the South, based upon the somewhat imperfect statistical data at command, leads to the following interesting conclusions, which for the most part receive explanation in the facts embodied in this report. The calculation embraces fourteen years after the close of the civil war, and was made by Mr. C. R. Dodge, and verified for us by Mr. J. R. Dodge, the statistician. Any extraneous causes which tend to retard the growth of the plant, also tend to swell the percentage of injury by the worm when it abounds. Where an early stand is secured, with thorough cultivation and exemption from other causes of injury, there the percentage of loss is least, even in bad Cotton Worm years. The percentage of loss is, also, dependent on location. When the injury is done early in the season, the loss in localities of heaviest production, or where the fields are numerous and contiguous, is nearly double what it is where the fields are more isolated. In years of severe injury, from 30 to 98 per cent. of the crop may be ruined upon some plantations, while on others the loss will be trifling. The highest average of loss is sustained in the southern portion of the belt, as in Florida and southern Texas. It increases also in a westerly direction, STATISTICS OF LOSSES CAUSED BY ALETIA. 3 commencing with Georgia at 16 per cent., or 16 bales out of every 100 of an average crop for fifteen years, and ending with Texas at 28 per cent. In the northern portion of the belt the averages are low, ranging from 5 to 8 per cent. for the same period; while in many parts of it, and notably in North Carolina, the worm appears so late as to generally do more good than harm by removing the luxuriant top foliage, and thus admitting the sun to the lower bolls and hastening their maturity. The following table shows the amount of loss in bales and dollars for each State in a year of severe visitation: Per cent. of loss for worst years. Crop. Losses. | Money loas. 5 hs) Pro m S|, |48e |. gs State. on ee BER ee Ss A = fy ~ : ® Aa £2 EH = Py aah aa um eS ~ © Fa HS Sag ae ED Ee o De O ols 4 a) ° > bor PROS os HjAl 4d] 4 nig eld i—ewqx“|'—___} —___ | ——— ES _ ©0732 Sa a re = ee es Pee |e 24 49, 700 12, 000 600, 600 DOR Se a ee eee 25-1 | 15 16.5 474, 600 78, 422 3, 912, 000 NIN ee a nai ot ane wana scene cee en = 5 25.2 | 1205:| 17.8 536, 700 95, 790 4, 789, 000 Esty a a ac aad naman oo 24 5 17 706,000 | 123,070 6, 150, 000 CELE ¢4d-d+ Sb oe ieee es beeen ae 20 438, 700 89, 740 4, 437, 000 Rete co ch a Nac o cnn eine ainccie wares 35 20 28 525,000 | 148,125 7, 406, 000 ELE ee ee eee ae 05 224, 500 11, 225 560, 000 SAG el eee) eee Mnenees 05 147, 000 8, 365 418, 000 = oO eee eee Cees eee 08 347, 000 27, 760 1,.380, 000 ty) BQOUNS 2. ~-->----~- Secs ores cicepece cr Bebis 4) ESAS ech eS| Sees seBece 2a ee cess Ses MESSE NE ei ore ais Stiga ami atama's fome sin Joannie 17.2 | 3,449,200 | 594,497] 29, 711,000 The terms “‘highest” and “lowest” in this table do not refer to the greatest amount of injury or to the reverse inflicted in individual locali- ties, but to a general average for the principal counties of heaviest pro- duction on the one hand, and the average for the remainder of the State onthe other. These figures are derived from the statistical reports of the Department of Agriculture. The average for the State as a whole appears in the third column, made up from the same sources. The fourth column is made up from reports of the cotton movement. The table shows a possible loss, in years of great prevalence, of about $30,000,000. On this basis the average annual loss may safely be put down at about $15,000,000 for all the cotton States for the fourteen years following the war. _ There have been two previous estimates of the loss occasioned by the worm, both of which bear out this table. In the report of the Statis- tician of the Department of Agriculture for 1877 the loss by the cotton worm was estimated for that year at $15,000,000, the greater portion of the loss being suffered in Texas, though the damage was considerable as far east as Alabama. Notwithstanding this loss the year was one of unusual harvest, hence this estimate bears out well our estimate of the average annual loss. In the report of the Entomologist in the an- nual report of this Department for 1873 (p. 164) there appears a general 4 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. statement, also furnished by the statistician, which placed the amount of damage at possibly 500,000 bales in years of insect prevalence. ‘Chis, at $50 a bale, would be $25,000,000, also closely approximating our es- —— timate of the damage in worst years. The estimate of price at $50 a bale for the fourteen years succeeding the war is low rather than high, as the plantation prices between 1860 and 1870 ranged from $180 down to $60. | That the damage was equally great before the war there is no reason te doubt, for while severe visitations have, perhaps, been more frequent since that time, the injury has been greatly diminished by the use of Paris green and other arsenical poisons since the year 1873. The subsidiary table of losses from the worm for the year 1881 illus- trates this point quite well: Loas of cotton by worms as reported in 1881. t] Oo 23 EE Total, per States. ss Loss pete 2 2 Loss. ok Ai Bales Bales. Per cent. SAVE SA i SR RS i yee ae ea pe eS Oa Sire eo 46 51, 349 509, 616 10.1 ER TEIN oe oot wae ree erwin homie minceie a mine eaters ee ae aerate 45 15, 055 407, 342 TOO oe Re B Sse cec OO nC BES eon Sap Se Abdpaoehosnicoseesoses 16 4, 077 29, 623 13.8 GOON eth eae ce cwacceavatenern onc csbainceareecctacnae men eeescas 93 20, 958 582, 332 3.6 WG aISIAH oe ees ca te cecinmnse es pavaccace at assem eee reer ems ae 29 29, 649 273, 356 10. 8 Mississippi .-.--.----------22e2 ee enn en ecco ee cree ee cee ee eens 39 38, 111 583, 763 6.5 VINA BNL oe seco iaieim 1a nina) catais matali che wlio isa oimimle nee eis fare molet ais 6xpeceatseses 16, 13522 2esce INGOT COVGlitin sls costos couseecoceReu ek wastes eoebceseapceeoue 56 204 346, 931 0.1 Sonth Caroune sep ase er eae cee cea canoes cere metas cee maine eee = 25 10, 233 413, 943 2.5 PPONHGRAGO! a sca see. ow ce seeds ane uae esc ath ances Se Slomue sere 28 1, 374 146, 150 0.9 ROXAS = so cain wicecnustewconccees seetice cosets asbuecmbc cca sls t Z 1) V1 JA, WULT, a Uke > ) (4 z \ Ag Mg Vis, Ve VL *Report of Commissioner of Patents, for 1855; Agriculture, p. 73. 10 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. The habits of this moth can only be studied at night, as, like almost all the rest of its family, itis nocturnal. During the day it simply starts up when disturbed, and darts by swift and low flight to some other shel- tered spot a few yards, or perhaps rods, away. After sunset, however, it may be seen leisurely hovering about, either bent on the perpetua- tion of its kind or feeding upon whatever sweets it can get, whether from the cotton or from other sources. It is very strong and swift of wing, and capable, when the necessity arises, of flying long distances. In alighting upon the plant it generally turns its head downward, and, when it rests, the wings are but shallowly roofed, the front ones closed along the back and fully hiding the hind ones. In this respect it may always be distinguished from the parent of the Boll Worm, which rests with the front wings partly open and not entirely covering _ hind ones. The female begins to lay her eggs in from two to four days after issu- ing from the chrysalis, the time varying with the different generations and according to temperature. ; In experiments which we have made with moths confined in vivaria, © eggs have sometimes been laid thirty-six hours after issuing, and the moths have continued laying for twenty-one nights, the number laid each night ranging from 4 to 45. Examination of the ovaries of females at different seasons shows a much greater prolificacy than belongs to most moths, as the number of well-developed ova may reach 500, and of potential ova half as many more. In confinement it is difficult to obtain from one female more than 300 eggs, but that fully double this number are produced in the field during the height of the season there can be little doubt, while the aver- age number may be estimated at about 400. The natural food of the moth, as we first indicated in the fall of 187 2 ed is the sweet exudation from iy glands upon the mid-rib of the leaf aad at the base of each lobe of the involucre of the cotton plant. Never- theless it is attracted to all kinds of sweets, and in most parts of the South it finds a bountiful supply in the exudation from the spikes of Paspalum leve, a tolerably common: grass, but particularly in that copi- ously secreted by glands at the apex of the peduncle just above the pods of the Cow-pea (Dolichos). In the spring of the year, as Judge Bailey, of Marion, Ala., has observed, it may often be seen in the evening feed- ing in numbers, first from the blossoms of the Chicasaw plum, and sub- sequently from those of the peach, Chinese quince, mock orange (Cera- sus carolinensis), the early apples, and blackthorn. Later in the sea- son, when the glands above mentioned begin to exude and the tree blossoms are no more, the moths do not seem to be attracted by other nectar-storing flowers, since observations in different Southern States by ourself and assistants have resulted in finding but one species of verbena ( Verbena aubletia L.) frequented, even where both moths and all sorts of * See Atlanta (Ga.) Constitution September 20, and Scientific American November 15, 1878. along its terminal half * HABITS OF THE MOTH. i 11 ‘ flowers were abundant. But fruits of all kinds as they ripen are re- sorted to, and figs, apples, peaches, plums, apricots, grapes, persimmons, --and even melons, are often greatly injured. Carefully examined, the tongueis seen to bearmed with stout and sharp spines proojecting for- ward from the upper sur- face and increasing in a density toward the tip, Fic. 7.—CoTron MOTH: a, with wings expanded; b, with wings which is beset with them closed. (After Riley.) on all sides. It is by means of this spinous tip of the tongue that the moth works a hole in these fruits, and is thus enabled to absorb the more liquid portions. Apple pomace is especially attractive to them. We have, in fact, been quite astonished at the perforating power of ' the proboscis as exemplified in the sca of hard, unripe pears. We have known such to be punctured quite deeply, the effect of the puncture being to soften and discolor the fruit for some distance around. The accompanying illustra- tion (Fig. 8), which gives an enlarged view of the partly coiled proboscis and a still we. 8—Prososcis oF ALETIA: a, the coiled proboscis, more highly magnified view Mazmiscd shart 10 diameters: 0, tp of do., more highly of its tip, will explain more clearly than words its adaptation to such puncturing. The stiff and sharp spines are, in fact, admirably suited for rasping and lacerating the puip and thus setting free its juice. This puncturing habit is possessed by several other moths, and notably by an Australian species (Ophideres fullonica), which is very injurious to oranges, and the structure of the proboscis of which has been well illus- Uf) lig ai} ca WN V Ars! trated by Mr. Kiinckel.* A number of our own North American species of Noctuidz likewise have the tip of the proboscis more or less spinose, indicating that they also possess the power of extracting juices from other sources than the nectaries of flowers. TIME ELAPSING FROM ONE GENERATION TO ANOTHER. This varies according to temperature, and therefore according to season. There is increasing activity and acceleration in development from the first appearance till July, and thenceforth decreasing activity and retardation in development till frost. Thus in midsummer the whole cycle of individual life, from the hatching to procreation, may occupy less than three weeks; while in spring and late autumn it may ’ * Comptes Rendus (French Academy), August 30, 1875. ee 12 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. oceupy twice that time. Taking the whole season through, however, the time from the egg of one generation te that of another will average about one month.” TIME OF YEAR WHEN THE FIRST WORMS APPEAR. Until the Cotton Worm investigation was begun, our knowledge as to the earliest appearance of the worms was not only vague, but mis- leading. The statement emphasized by Mr. Grote in the paper already referred to, namely, that the worm does not appear earlier than the latter part of June in the central portion of the cotton belt of Alabama and Georgia, very fairly echoes the prevailing popular belief on the subject; yet careful investigation shows the statement to be essentially erroneous. The date of earliest, appearance varies with location, and largely with the curves of isochimal lines;" it also differs somewhat in different years in the same location, according as the season may be late or early; and, lastly, it may differ to some extent in different parts of the same re- stricted locality, worms having been found just hatching in one place when, only a few miles distant, others were found nearly full grown. While these modifying circumstances complicate consideration of the subject, it is easy to arrive at definite results by taking as a basis obser- vations made at a few particular points during the year. Hence we felt the importance of having such observations made during the spring of 1579 in South Texas and South Alabama at those places where the worm was reported to have appeared earliest in past years. AS a result, the fact was fully established that the first worms of the season may, and do, in ordinary years, hatch from the middle of April to the middle of May in the southern portion of the cotton belt. And, more- over, all the facts showed that this season was a late one, for April frosts retarded the starting of cotton in those very sections of Alabama where the worms were first found; while it is the unanimous opinion of planters in South Texas, where the worms were first noticed, that cotton was from two to three weeks later in 1879 than usual. Therefore, when in ibe spring of 1882 we found the worms of all sizes on rattoon cotton during the latter part of March, in South Georgia and Florida, we were not surprised, although this was fully six weeks earlier than they had ever before been noticed or recorded.” The first worms are always comparatively few in waielinee and in iso- lated spots. They are, therefore, easily overlooked by all who do not take particular pains to search forthem. From such spots as centers the worms multiply and spread in subsequent generations, with greater or less rapidity, according as the conditions are favorable or otherwise. Such increase and spread may be confined to some part of a given county until the cotton is nearly ruined before the cotton in the rest of the county is affected. The worms will then first appear in the remainder much more suddenly and numerously than they did in the former, the parent moths migrating thereto in bevies. As a rule, however, the spread in the southern portion of the belt is gradual and the worm in NUMBER OF ANNUAL GENERATIONS. 13 _ destructive numbers is preceded by one or more scattering generations in the same field. Other things being equal, the worm must appear earliest in the south- ernmost latitudes, since extended observations on the appearance of other insects show that there is retardation of from four to seven days with each degree of latitude northward.¥ There is, in normal seasons of little injury to the crop, a similar re- tardation northward in the appearance of the Cotton Worm within the southern portion of the belt, corr esponding in some measure with the - growth and development of the plant ; “and it is a notable fact that the worm is seldom noticed’ and never in great numbers before the plant be- gins to bloom. What is generally under these circumstances called the first brood or “‘crop” has been preceded by at least one and often two generations sparsely distributed over the fields. Yet in years when the worm abounds to a disastroys extent in the southern portion of the belt, its appearance in the northern or temporary portion cannot be counted on with any certainty as to time, because it is always the result of mi- grations in the winged state, and these migrations may be more or less extended according to circumstances. Between the first appearance of the worm in the southern and northern portions of the belt there is, therefore, a marked difference ordinarily observable, it being in the lat- ter much later and in far greater numbers. NUMBER OF ANNUAL GENERATIONS. The general impression and belief that prevails in the South is that there are, in those sections where the worm is most injurious, three broods or generations, or, as the planter puts it, “erops, ” each. year. This statement of the case has also been ereueall as correct by most previous writers on the subject.4 It is, however, essentially erroneous, so far as the southern portion of the cotton belt is concerned, as the earlier and later generations are not taken into account, but overlooked. The appearance of the first generation has already been discussed, and it occurs during the latter part of April and in May in the more southern portions of the belt, and even in March in Florida. One generation follows another continuously from that time on, justso long as there are any leaves to be devoured, and we have, by protecting both plant and insect from frost, kept the moths ovipositing in the city of Washington all through November; while the worms, under like conditions, have hatched through the early part of December, matured, and spun up about Christmas time. Careful observations and experiments in 1879 in South Texas show that at least seven, and probably even more, annual generations are produced there. The first two generations are genera}ly well separated, but, owing to the irregularity in egg-laying and in individual develop- ment, the later generations so cross each other, that the insect may be US ee le ae | ; 7 Ren ey tae tate Ry Ve ee eg j Siu ar eb eo found in all stages in the same field at one and the same time. Yet the succession of broods may be recognized by the condition of the bulk of | the specimens in the field or by confining the insects for the better watching of them. | The first generation, a8 we have seen, is confined to spots. The sec- ond generation is more dispersed, but still restricted to areas in the vicinity of the hibernating centers. The third generation of worms may become, under favoring conditions, not only widespread but dis- astrous, and the moths produced from them so numerous that they acquire the migrating habit. This generation appears in South Texas during the latter part of June, and in South Alabama and Georgia somewhat later. This is usually the supposed first brood in those sec- tions, 7. é., the first which attracts general attention. The subsequent generations naturally become more and more widespread, and the in- crease during July and August, 1880, was noticeable in the face of mete- orological conditions unfavorable thereto. The worms during these months will appear in those fields in which they did not appear earlier, as on sandy, elevated prairies, soils or lands where the growth of the plant was retarded from late planting, overflowing, the injury of the — plant-lice, or whatever cause. If the weather be favorable, this August generation will, when unmolested, carry ruinin its wake. Did one gen- eration follow another in the natural ratio of multiplication, such is the fecundity of the species that there would be no hope of profitably culti- vating cotton. Fortunately for man, some of the earlier generations are liable to be so effectually kept in check by natural enemies and other adverse influences that they become innocuous and frequently es- cape notice. This fact was strikingly illustrated in May, 1879, in Col- orado and Lavaca Counties, in Texas, where the second generation, which hatched in sufficient numbers in most fields to create alarm, never- theless vanished before its enemies so completely that it was difficult, a little later, to find a perfect chrysalis. That this second generation may exceptionally become very injurious 18 shown from records, to the effect that,in the early partof Juneof the same year, while the cotton stem was yet'tender, whole plantations in the low bot- tom lands of Louisiana have been eaten to the ground; but that it more often proves harmless is probable for various reasons. The plant-lice, which are apt to be very numerous on the very young cotton, partially disappear before their natural enemies by the time this second brood of worms is developing. The ants, which were previously supplied with food by the plant-lice, have now multiplied, and are forced, by the decrease of the aphides, to seek other food. They are consequently more effectual in destroying the young worms. All the other enemies of the worm are also more active during the month of June, and gre- garious birds, like the blackbirds and ricebirds, are very common during that month, but generally leave the fields later. In the northern portion of the cotton belt the number of annual gen- ’ if 14 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. —> i MIGRATIONS OF THE MOTHS—HIBERNATION. 15 erations is, of course, fewer, and will vary according to the date of the incoming of moths from the further south, and according to other cir- cumstances. The generations are not only fewer, therefore, but more easily separated and defined. MIGRATIONS. Many persons, noting the short and clumsy though rapid and darting flight of the moth, when disturbed during the day-time, get the idea that it is incapable of extended flight. But it has great power of wing, and its migrating habits are abundantly attested. It has been observed in numbers, far out at sea, and captured in autumn off the coast of New England, around Chicago and around Buffalo—the species being identi- fied by competent entomologists like Packard, Burgess, Grote, and Westcott. We have known it to do considerable injury during Septem-: ber to peaches in Kansas, and to ruin acres of cantelopes during the same month as far north as Racine, Wis. That it is aided in these dis- tant flights by favoring winds there can be no doubt, but that it does not depend on them for dispersion is equally certain. A factor to be considered, also, in connection with these northern appearances, is the probable éxistence of one or more northern food-plants.© Dr. D. L. Phares records the destruction, by the worms, of cctton the first year planted, eighty miles from any point where cotton had been grown before; while Mr. H. P. Bee (see letter in Appendix) shows that they appeared in Mexico on cotton planted two hundred miles from any other fields. Numerous similar cases might be mentioned. The migrating habit is common to many insects and other animals, but.is almost always associated with excessive multiplication. Such is likewise the case with Aletia, as the observations of past years have clearly shown. So long as the worms are not numerous enough to materially riddle the cotton, the moths produced from them busy themselves with ovipositing in the neighborhood where they were born, spreading only comparatively short distances on all sides; but when- ever the cotton is well “ragged,” then the moths acquire the migrating habit and appear in numbers everywhere—in town and village, and at lights far away from cotton-fields. The time of year when this migrating habit is acquired varies, but it is rarely till after the third genera- tion of worms, or the latter part of June and fore part of July in South Texas; while it is most pronounced during the autumn months. At such times the moths may be noticed, during cloudy days, starting off by rapid flight and ascending high in the air till lost to sight; and the contrast between this movement and the darting and hiding of the normal day-flight is quite striking to any one who has witnessed it. HIBERNATION. No question connected with the Cotton Worm has given rise to more speculation than that of the hibernation of the insect, and this fact at once finds its explanation in the difficulty that surrounds the subject. SS . 16 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. As partly illustrating this difficulty it will be well to elaborate the statements made in a paper read by the writer before the National Academy of Science at its meeting in Washington in the spring of 1879. There are three principal theories on the subject that are worthy of consideration, and that are held by those with whom we have come in contact, or with whom we have corresponded. These are: 1st. That it hibernates in the chrysalis state. 2d. That it hibernates as a moth. ; 8d. That it does not hibernate in any part of our cotton-growing States, but comes into them on the wing from warmer climates where the cotton-plant is perennial. Some few persons think that it winters in the egg state in cotton- seed or on the dead stalk of the plant; but such views may be disposed of by the statement that they are unsupported by even the appearance of fact. 7 At first blush it would seem easy enough to dispel whichever of these theories is erronecus and settle the question under consideration by a few simple facts of observation. ‘The trouble is, however, to get at the facts. — | About one-fourth of the intelligent people of the South hold the opin- ion that this Aletia hibernates in the chrysalis state, some believing that it does so above ground, others that it retreats beneath the surface of the ground. It has generally been stated by the writers on this insect that the chrysalis could not endure the slightest frost. We have been able to prove that it will suffer with impunity a temperature of from five to ten degrees below the freezing point, but that it cannot withstand a lower femperature; and all those chrysalides which do not give out the moth before severe cold weather sets in perish beyond any doubt. How easily men are misled even on this point, however, may be gathered from thefact that Dr. Anderson kept what he believed to be living specimens until after the severe cold of December. A careful examination proved that the lifelike motions of such chrysalides were due to the living pupa which they contained of one of the parasites (Pimpla conquisitor) pres- ently to be described. The larger proportion of chrysalides that are not empty after a severe frost has occurred are infested with some kind of parasite, though many of them have perished from the effects of the frost and are either rotten or moldy. Any number of intelligent planters insist that they plow up the chrysalides in spring, and the belief that the last brood works beneath - the ground, out of reach of frost, is very firmly held by some of the most experienced cotton growers; but in every instance that has come to cur knowledge the chrysalides thus plowed up have proved to be- long to other species, most of them of the same family, and many of them having a sufficiently close resemblance to those of Aletia to con- found any but the most skilled and experienced entomologist. As an illustration of the ease with which erroneous conclusions can be drawn THE QUESTION OF HIBERNATION. 17 from mistaken identity, we will here quote part of a letter received from Professor Willet, who has particularly interested himself in this subject. “I have received to-night,” writes Professor Willet, ‘from Rev. Robert Harris, of Cairo, Thomas County, Georgia, a small tin box inclosing 25 chrysalides, which I forward you by mail. Mr. Harris is an ardent believer in the subterranean hibernation of the chrysalis of Aletia argillacea. I transcribe the portion of his letter pertinent to the case: . . ‘Catro, GA., February 22, 1879. - *Washington’s birthday and victory. Perseverantia vincit. The facts drive “analogy” to the wall. Here they are: 25 cotton-worm chrysa- lides ploughed up out of the ground in a field that was riddled by the insects last fall. ‘This is unimpeachable evidence, and in the opinion of the court is amply sufficient to convict the prisoner.’ ‘The chrysalides,” continues Professor Willet, ‘appear to my eye very like Aletia chrysalides which I have in spirits, and I await your verdict with interest.” ' _ The chrysalides referred to in this instance resemble those of Aletia so thoroughly in form, size, and general appearance that they might have been mistaken therefor even by some entomologists; yet, from certain minute structural differences, easily observable with a good lens, we were able at once to decide that they belonged to another insect, the Aspila virescens of Fabricius, a beautiful moth, with olivaceous primaries, marked with three distinct, pale, transverse lines, relieved by coincident deeper. shades, the translucent green larva of which, speckled with minute, pale, fleshy elevations, we have found feeding on Solanum sieglinge in Saint Louis. There are many species of night-flying moths which go through their transformations beneath the ground, and there hibernate in the chrysalis state. The leaves of the cotton-plant are palatable to. a very large num- ber of such, while the Boll-worm (Heliothis armigera) and the * Grass- | worm” (Laphygma frugiperda), which thus transform, are sometimes very abundant in a cotton-field. It is not at all surprising, therefore, that the chrysalides should be plowed or dug up in land planted to cot- ton. All of them, upon careful scrutiny, will be found to differ from the chrysalis of Aletia, which may be distinguished by its slender form, and particularly by the tip of the body with its armature, as shown in Fig. 4. In short, the nature of the Aletia chrysalis effectually prevents it from working beneath the ground, except where, dropping out of its cocoon, _ it happens to fall into some crack or crevice, and thus wriggle beneath the surface. It is also contrary to all analogy that a chrysalis normally found above ground in a cocoon should work beneath the soil; for all insects that pupate under ground descend while in the larva state. Experiments which we have repeatedly made prove that the Aletia chrysalis, when placed under ground, either rots and perishes or the 63 CONG——2 18 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. moth, if in a sufficiently advanced state when the chrysalis is buried, will vainly attempt to escape and push through its unnatural surroundings Regarding the ability of the moth to survive the winter, nearly one- half of the more intelligent correspondents state that they have known the moth to be found flying during warm days in the winter, and that it consequently hibernates in that state. Mr. John T. Humphreys, of Morganton, N. C., who was fora while employed by the State of Georgia in entomological work, says that he has absolute proof of the hiberna- tion of the moth. Page after page of testimony and experience from the most competent and reliable planters might be adduced in support of the fact that the moth is to be seen either hidden in sheltered situations or flying during the milder weather of winter and in spring, in all of the southern por- tion of the belt. The situations in which it is most often reported as sheltering are under the shingles of gin-houses, under rails, and under - the loose bark and in the hollows of trees and prostrate logs. In old pine stumps the sapwood separates from the heart-wood and forms ex- cellent retreats for this purpose. The general hue of the large scales of pine bark is sufficiently close to that of the moth to make the resem- blance : protective. A dense forest of long-leaved pines also modifies and equalizes the winter temperature. These facts would lead one to suppose that pine forests offer unusually favorable conditions for hiber- nation, and Mr. Humphreys has, in fact, found the moth hibernating under pine scales, while some of our most reliable correspondents report having seen the moths sporting in great numbers in the edges of pine forests during the month of March. . Nevertheless, the persistent search by Mr. Schwarz in the winter of 1878~79"", under our direction, failed to reveal the moth under pine bark; whereby we were led to the conclusion that it seeks winter shelter some distance from the ground. It has been reported by some correspondents in greatest numbers in swamps of sweet gum, oak, mag- nolia, poplar, &c., such as are found in southern Alabama. These swamps are warm, moist, and miasmatic, and the moths are said to have been seen literally packed together in a torpid state in the hollows and burrows made in rotting logs by boring larve. The evidence on this point of the hibernation of the moth would be overwhelming did it come from scientific observers; but, unfortunately, allied species are so often and so easily mistaken for Aletia that doubt still surrounds the subject. The liability to confound hibernating spe- cies is all the greater in that characteristic markings are more or less effaced or faded. The Hypena scabralis (Fabr.), a moth belonging to a different group (Deltoids), and which hibernates in the imago state all over the country, is especially common in the Southern States, and large numbers have been sent to us as the genuine Aletia. It is nearly of the same size and form, and while normally of a darker brown, faded hibernating specimens are easily mistaken for the Cotton Moth because THE QUESTION OF HIBERNATION. Le of undulating darker lines across the front wings, somewhat similar to those on the latter. Its palpi are longer and snout-like, and its front wings invariably lack the dark discal Spot and the white specks char- acteristic of Aletia. Phoberia atomaris Hiibn.,’ and many other similar moths, have been — forwarded with the remark that they were the Cotton Moth; while Leu- cania unipuncta Haw., the pa- rent of the Northern Army Worm, which feeds only on grasses and cereals, is every- where found in the South dur- ing winter, and, on account of its great similarity in color to Aletia, and of a white dis- cal spot relieved with a dark Fic. 8.—ARMY WORM MOTH: a, male moth; b, abdomen shade on the front wings, that of female—natural size; ¢, eye; d, base of male antenna; heightens the general resem- 2 base of female antenna—enlarged. (After Riley.) blance, is more often mistaken therefor than any other. It is more robust than Aletia, and a comparison of the accompanying illustration (Fig. 8) with Fig. 7, p. 11, will show the other differences. Seeing how easily non-entomologists are misled by general resemblances, we would again lay stress on the readily observed characters underlined on page 9, by which Aletia may always be recognized. Where they are absent it may be safely taken for granted that other species are in question. From this danger of confounding species it is evident that ordinary reports lose, when unaccompanied by specimens, much of their value, and must always be taken cum grano salis. Yet, after making due allowance for possible error, the number of in- telligent planters with whom we have conversed, and who, Laving long and thorough acquaintance with the moth, feel positive of their ability to distinguish it and of having seen it during the winter, is so great as to leave little doubt of the fact; while the added testimony of Mr. Grote, who is such an authority on moths that he could not thus confound species, and who states that he has found the Aletia in Alabama during mild winter weather, should dispel even that little doubt; and we may safely consider as proven that the moth does survive the winter up to the end of March. The general experience of correspondents is, how- ever, that after March these hibernating moths are no longer to be seen, and no one knows what becomes of them between this time and the ap- pearance of the first worms. | The difficulty felt in bridging this gap, together with the progress of injury from the south northward, has given rise to the theory that the Species cannot survive the winter in this country, and must necessarily come each year on the wing from some foreign country where cotton is perennial. The history of the repeated suggestions of this so-called migration theory, from Dr. Gorham’s first article in 1847, down to 20 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. _ Grote’s paper before the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in 1874, we shall give somewhat in detail in Chapter XIV, but in this connection we may appropriately devote a brief space to the consideration of Mr. Grote’s arguments:” The principal arguments urged in support of the theory by Mr. Grote are [1] the sudden appearance of the moth in quantities; [2] the first appearance of the worms so late as the latter part of June; [3] the absence of parasitic checks; [4] the highly probable exotic origin of the species and its introduction into the States; and [5] the power of flight and migratory habits of the meth. The first three lose much of their force from the facts adduced in this report, since [1] in the southern portion of the belt” the sudden appearance is more apparent than real; [2] the worms appear in April;* and [3] they have numerous parasitic checks. There is also little force in the fact of original introduction | from some foreign country, since most of our worst insect pests that are now acclimated and established with us were originally introduced from abroad; while [5] the migratory habit, as we have seen, is not developed in the first moths. Arguments urged by others in favor of the theory are [6] the periodical visitations and intervals of immunity; [7] the short life of the moth; and [8] the failure of those who have tried to keep it through the winter. To these it may be replied that [6] many other indigenous insects abound during certain years and are unknown in others, and that these changes are due to the working of well-known laws; that periodicity in the appearance of Aletia is largely imaginary, because it either refers_ only to bad years and takes no stock of small numbers, or else is local. The investigations of the Commission show that the worm has been in some parts of the South ever since the civil war, and there is no reason to suppose that it was not annually to be found in fewer or. larger numbers prior thereto. [7] The short life of the moth of the summer generations is no criterion for that of the last or hibernating brood, since any num- ber of species which produce several annual generations and have but a brief span of life in the imago state in summer are known to hibernate in this state. [8]Itisextremely difficult to attain, in a room, the propercon- ditions of moisture and freshness that belong to a sylvan atmosphere, and we have never been able to keep other Lepidoptera which hibernate in the imago state alive through the whole winter in such artificial situation, though we have tried with both Danais archippus and Paphia glycerium. For this reason it will always be next to impossible to get absolute and incontrovertible proof of the hibernation of Aletia by watching the moths from fall till they oviposit in the following year, but it may be truly said that if the hibernation of other species rested on equally absolute proof, there is not one among the Lepidoptera, or other Orders, for that matter, that could be said to hibernate. One other argument that has been > made in favor of the theory may lastly be mentioned. Itis that during the late war no cotton was grown for three years in some sections of the * See further facts in Note 12. t THE QUESTION OF HIBERNATION. at South, and that the first crop raised thereafter was infested. Professor Comstock took particular pains to make inquiries on this head, and found that some patches of cotton had been grown every year in such sections. In favor of hibernation in the southern portion of the cotton belt may be urged [1] the appearance of the moth on the wing during mild winter weather, and its being found torpid in sheltered situations, as is insisted on by so many; [2] the first appearance of the worms in very small numbers, and in the spring of the year, as attested by recent observa- tions; [3] their reappearance each year in the same spots, not on the sea-coast nearest to the tropical zone, where we should expect them on the theory of annual incoming, but at various points far inland; [4] the coming of the moths in large numbers and as immigrants into the northern portions of the belt, being always preceded by the appearance of the worms and their gradual increase at some other, generally more southern or western, points; and [5] the decrease of cotton culture in Central America and the West Indies, as appears from market statis- ties, and the absolute absence of the worm in the Bahamas since 1866, as ascertained by Mr. Schwarz while there in the spring of 1879. The strongest fact against hibernation was, perhaps, the period elaps- ing between the disappearance of the moths in March and the first appearance of the worms, or, to put it in another form, the absence of the worms on the young and tender cotton. The period during which the species was not observed is already reduced by the facts given in this report to less than one month instead of three, and this is much less than the time elapsing between the issuing from winter quarters of other well-known Lepidoptera that hibernate in the imago state, and the first appearance of their larve, numerous illustrations of which fact might be cited.* | On the whole, therefore, the weight of evidence is strongly against the theory of annual extermination, in the southern part of the belt, and the fact of the hibernation of Aletia there may be said to rest on as good evidence as that of many other species in which it is admitted without question. Yet Aletia is beyond doubt killed out each winter in the northern portion of the cotton belt, and all the arguments in favor of annual extinction and incoming de novo have force when restricted to this section. Just where the separating line lies between extinction and survival is not so easy to decide, and for the present we can only refer to that given in the Introduction as the result of the investigation so faras ithas gone. This conclusion that the moth does and can hiber- nate in the United States does not preclude its occasional incoming from foreign, more tropical countries, or the possibility of its being brought by favorable winds from such exterior regions, just as originally must have been the case when the species was first introduced. The facts indicate, however, that this kind of immigration is less frequent now-a- days than it was in the beginning of the century. | aS intervening period is still further lessened, as will be seen from the remarks on page 12 and in 0 ° Ly ;, 22 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. To sum up the evidence from present knowledge: Aletia never hiber- nates in either of the first three states of egg, larva, or chrysalis, and it survives the winter in the moth or imago state only in the southern por- _ tion of the cotton belt. Our own investigations since 1878 in every cot- ton-growing State in the Union, together with the experience and testi- _ mony of both correspondents and special agents employed in the inves- tigation, confirmed us in these conclusions, and we were consequently perfectly prepared for their justification by the facts obtained during the winter of 1881-82. During this winter we were able to obtain the moths during every month, and watched them in fact until the early part of March. In short, there is nothing more fully established now than that the moth hibernates principally: under the shelter of rank wire-grass in the more heavily timbered portions of the South, and that these moths begin laying on the rattoon cotton when this is only one inch or so high.* . 1. It is quite certain that by far the larger portion of the moths from the last brood of worms perish in various ways without perpetuating the species. All those which fly north of the cotton belt must needs thus perish, as doubtless do all those that attempt to hibernate in the northern portion of said belt. The evidence is strong that even in the hibernating portion of the belt only the exceptional few, more favored than the rest and remaining steadily torpid till early spring, survive to beget progeny. Those which are aroused to activity during the mild winter weather spend their force without finding compensating nourish- ment, as there are neither fruits, flowers, nor sweet-secreting glands at that season wherewith to break their long fast and sustain vitality. It is for these reasons that the worms are generally less injurious after mild and changeable winters, and most to be dreaded after severe and steady ones, and it may very justly be argued, that did the larger pro- portion of the moths survive, there would be no chance to grow cotton. Like perishing of the bulk of most insects that hibernate above ground is, in fact, an acknowledged rule in entomology. 2. The localities where Aletia doubtless hibernates, and where, conse- quently, the earliest worms appear, seem to be more common in the’ western parts of the cotton belt than in the Atlantic States. Since the civil war the almost complete abandonment of cotton cultivation on the sea islands of the coast of Florida and Georgia has evidently reduced the number of favorable hibernating localities there, and in so far protected the more northérn or western. portion of the Atlantic States from the immigration of the moth from those quarters. In Texas, on the con- trary, the cultivation of cotton has been constantly increasing since that time, and consectaneously the number of hibernating points and the risk of serious harm there over extended areas have also increased. *See abstract of paper read before the National Academy of Sciences at Washington, May, 1882; also Annual Report, Department of Agriculture, 1881-’82, p. 166. CHAPTER III. PAST HISTORY OF THE COTTON WORM IN THE UNITED STATES. CHRONOLOGICAL ACCOUNT OF APPEARANCES AND OF YEARS OF MARKED PREVALENCE. We have been unable to find any record of the appearance of the Cotton Worm in the United States prior to the oft-quoted statement of Spalding’s,* that in 1793 “the destruction was complete. In Major Butler’s field of 400 acres but 18 bags were made.” From this time till 1800 no mention has been made of the worm; but in that year the crops in South Carolina and Georgia suffered pecan, Dr. Capers,t and also Dr. Phares,t give 1800 as the first appearance of the worm in South Carolina; but there is a published statement of Mr. J. W. Grace § to the effect that the Georgia invasion of 1793 extended to that State. 1804 was a marked year, and we always find it referred to in the older paperson the worm. In this year the Gulf States suffered for the first time. Louisiana, which grew more cotton than any other State, suf- fered severely. The crops on many plantations were entirely destroyed ; but the caterpillars were finally killed by an unusual snow-storm. From this time to 1814 we have found no definite record of the cater- pillar, but 1814 was again a year of serious loss in Louisiana, although it does not appear to have been marked upon the Atlantic coast. In this year the rather remarkable instance is seen of the almost total de- struction of the crop as early as June. || ; 1825 was again a year of general loss from the worms. The destruc- tion was likened to that of 1804, and was universal throughout the whole cotton belt. Concerning this year we may quote from Dr. Phares: In 1825 the destruction was general in extent, embracing all the Cotton States; the late Mr. Affieck in one of his papers asserting that the destruction was ‘‘ universal and complete.” I must here be permitted to say that it was not ‘‘complete,” as I most distinctly remember and know I saw fields in which many bolls were fully matured and gathered before the chenilles injured the plant, and considerable quantities of very superior cotton were made. This was the first year that I saw the chenilles, and circumstances so impressed me that my ace ne aes of their appearance are more vivid than of any time since. *See Farmer’ 8 & Planter’s Cyclopedia, London, 1843: Article, Cotton. + Southern Agriculturist, 1828, p- 203 (Vol. I). { Rural Carolinian, August, 1870. § Report upon Cotton Insects, 1879, Department of Agriculture, p. 387. | See DeBow’s Review, 1847, p. 251 (P. Winfree), and Dr. Phares in Rural Oarolinian, August, 1870. 23 * 24 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. The insect was again destroyed by a storm, as we have seen happen less extensively several times since; the wind and rain beating them down, and the water "Sweeping them along and Fomine: immense heaps in some places. In 1826 the destruction is said by Dr. Capers to have been again uni- versal, although other testimony to this fact is lacking. In limited localities the worms were noted in 1828, ’29, 730, ’31, 732, 733, 34, 735, and ’36. Considerable. damage was occasionally done, but it was by ho means general again until 1838, the worms that year spreading over nearly the whole belt and doing especial damage in Florida and Southern Georgia. | In 1834 the worms appeared for the first time in Texas, and in 1840 in Arkansas. This last year was one of quite general injury to the crop, northern Florida suffering particularly. In 1841 Florida again suffered, . as also in 1843. In 1844 the marked feature was the severe damage in ~ central and southern Louisiana. In this State there was a shortage of nearly 50 per cent. of the crop on account of the damage done by the caterpillars. In Mississippi and Alabama some little damage was done the same year; but in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina the loss was almost nominal. In 1845 the damage was again considerable in Louisiana, and the other States suffered as well, the total loss from caterpillars being greater than in any other year since 1838. 1846, however, overshadowed, perhaps, all previous cotton-worm years. The caterpillars eo in force.much earlier than they had ever been seen before, and from Texas to South Carolina hardly a plan- tation escaped without loss. In South Carolina old inhabitants say that the ruin of the crop was complete. In Florida more than half the total crop was lost. In Alabama the loss was nearly as great. In Mississippi and Louisiana on a general average one-third of the crop was destroyed. Writing to the American Agriculturist September 9, 1846, from Wash- ington, Miss., Mr. Thos. Affleck gives the following graphic account of the situation: , The Caterpillar, Cotton Worm, Cotton Moth (Noctua xylina), or chenille of the French West Indies, Guiana, &c., has utterly blighted the hopes of the cotton-planter for the present year, and produced most anxious fears for the future. I have heard from the greater part of the cotton-growing region—the news is all alike—the worm has destroyed the crop. I haveno idea that any considerable portion of any State willescape. * * * The present year the crop is unusually backward, at least four weeks later than usual. We have but just commenced picking; usually“beginning about the last week in July or the first week in August. At this moment every field within this region of country, say south of Vicksburg, is stripped of everything but the stems, the larger branches, and a few of the first bolls, already too hard for the worms’ power of mastication. The full-grown bolls not yet become hard are com- pletely eaten out, a circumstance I have never heard of but once before, in 1825. The fields present a most melancholy appearance ; looking from the bluff at Natchez across the river to those fine plantations back of Vidalia, nothing is to be seen but the brown withered skeleton of the plant. _ CHRONOLOGICAL ACCOUNT OF COTTON WORM INJURY. 25 In Texas the coast counties were overrun, but the inland counties, with here and there a marked exception (Walker lost 50 per cent. of the crop), escaped without particular damage. It was at the close of this year that the theory of periodical recur- rence of the worms in destructive numbers every twenty-one years be- gan to be mentioned in the newspapers. Some person, noticing that the years of great disaster, 1804, 1825, and 1846, were separated by periods of twenty-one years, formulated the theory that these periods were constant, and that in 1867 another similar invasion was to be ex- pected. The confidence With which this idea was universally regarded warrants its mention here. In 1847 the months of June and July augured an exceedingly bad worm year, for the caterpillars appeared very early in considerable force and were widespread. The season, however, proved unfavorable to their great increase, since it was remarkable for periods of great heat and drought, interrupted by an occasional severe storm, and compara- © tively little damage was done by the caterpillars, although the crop suffered from the other causes mentioned. From this period to.1866 there was, as far a8 we can ascertain, not a single general caterpillar year. The worms were every year to be found, and occasionally did some severe local damage. Thus in 1849, 1851, and 1852 the crops of northern Florida were injured quite seriously ; 1852, 1854, and 1860 were quite marked in the canebrake region. In 1853, 1860, and 1864 the worms were more than usually injurious in Mississippi and Louisiana. In 1850 they made their first recorded ap- pearance in Tennessee. 1864 and 1865 were marked by the appear- anee of the worms in North Carolina. The visitation in both of these | years seems to have been severer than in any year since 1847, though it is difficult to compare them on account of the comparatively small amount of cotton grown during the war. From 1866 up to the present date the worms have been widespread every year. Itis a common thing to hear planters say, ‘‘The worm never used to be as destructive as this before the war”; and indeed the records seem to bear out the assertion. We may look for the reason, without doubt, in the general looseness and carelessness of the system of cultivation since, as compared with the clean and thorough methods before the war. A large crop in 1866 was a necessity. Cotton had risen greatly in value, and as a consequence of this and of the liberation of the planters from martial occupation the acreage was largely increased over the preceding five years. Unfortunately, however, it proved a bad worm year. The losses may be averaged about as follows: Louisiana, Texas, and Alabama about 40 per cent.; Mississippi, 30 per cent.; Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina much less. The hopes and fears for the result of this crop and the disastrous effects of the advent of the worms are well told by Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe in an article entitled ‘Our 26 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLCGICAL COMMISSION. Florida Plantation” (Atlantic Monthly, May 1879, p. 641). The worms _ were this year very destructive in southern Arkansas, and also did some damage in North Carolina. There were not lacking those who, on the coming of 1867, prophesied — a year of general devastation on account of the space—21 years—be- tween this year and 1846; but, contrary to their expectations, 1867 was but little worse than 1866. Texas, it is true, suffered severely, but the other States were comparatively exempt. The districts along the Mis- sissippi River in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi were damaged considerably, but the interior counties were injured but little. In Ala- bama, Georgia, and Florida the total losses were slight. Here and there the crop of a small district would be taken, but the average loss was low. In the latter part of the season the worms were numerous in South and North Carolina, but they injured the crop but little. 1868 proved to be one of the most disastrous years on record. The worms appeared in May in Texas, and the gravest fears were expressed from this early advent. On the whole, the loss in Texas and Louisiana did not equal that of the previous year. In Mississippi the loss was rather greater than in 1867. Alabama and Georgia suffered exceed- ingly; the loss in the latter State was entirely unprecedented. Through the central part of the State the average loss is reported at 50 per cent. In Alabama, with a few exceptions, the central and northernmost counties were damaged the most, the exceptions being Conecuh, Cren- shaw, Barbour, and Montgomery. In South Carolina the crops were injured in some localities to the extent of a loss of 33 per cent. In North Carolina, though numerous, the worms were not destructive, clear- ing away the leaves just in time to assist in the ripening of the bolls. One cannot help but notice, in studying these appearances of the worm from year to year, that they come in waves, gradually increas- ing, until at length, from one cause or another, they break and almost disappear. 1825, 1846, 1868, and, as we shall see, 1873, 1876, and 1881, are the culminating points of such waves or series of years during which the ravages of the worms. have been gradually increasing, and in the year following each of these comes the breaking, and the next wave is begun. With a few unimportant exceptions, this rule is observed throughout the entire history of the Cotton Worm. This result is natural, and arises from the tendency of the worms to in- crease in geometrical proportion and at a more rapid rate than their parasites. But whenever they have multiplied beyond the power of their food-plant to sustain them, or whenever meteorological conditions unfavorable to their increase obtain, the parasites get the upper hand and the break in the series occurs. This rise and fall has often been noticed by writers on injurious insects, but from the very Le of the case it is not regular, and cannot be depended upon. 1869 proved to be a year of drought, and there was a sudden decrease in the loss from the caterpillars. Hare and there the crop of a county - CHRONOLOGICAL ACCOUNT OF COTTON WORM INJURY. oy was taken, but the loss was by no means general. In Wayne County, North Carolina, strange to say, the worms came in August and injured the crop to aslight extent. South Carolina suffered no loss. In Geor- gia, the southern tier and the coast counties were damaged quite badly, but the remainder of the State escaped. Of the northern counties in Florida, Bradford, Leon, and Putnam sustained quite severe losses, while Santa Rosa, Jackson, and Duval suffered none. In Alabama considerable damage was Bens to a few counties, as Wilcox, Macon, Dallas, and Greene. In Mississippi and — Louisiana, the loss was insignificant. In Polk, Blanco, Matagorda and Goliad Counties, Texas, the cotton was badly eaten, but the remain- der of the State was comparatively exempt. The worms, instead of increasing in numbers in 1870, as should have been the case according to the rule just mentioned, were decidedly fewer and less destructive than in 1869, the same causes operating to produce this result, as 1870 proved to be a year of severe and long-continued drought. In North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Ala- bama, and Mississippi the worms were found, but almost no damage resulted. Isolated counties in Texas suffered, while in Louisiana by far the greatest damage of the year was done. Rapides, Avoyelles, East Feliciana, Tensas, and Jackson Parishes each sustained a loss of from 5 to 20 per cent. In 1871 the increase again commenced, the principal damage, as in _ the previous year, being done in Louisiana. North and South Carolina sustained no loss, and Georgia suffered but slightly. In Florida the crop was so severely injured by heavy storms that the worms were hardly noticed. In Alabama and Mississippi there was a decided in- crease in the number of worms. In Louisiana the crop as a whole was very badly damaged, though in many parishes the loss was slight. The distribution of the points of heaviest injury was strange and difficult to explain. Great loss was sustained in Iberia, Saint Landry, Washing- ton, Avoyelles, and Caddo; less in East and West Feliciana, Rapides, and Richland; while in Tangipahoa, Madison, Tensas, Red River, Clai- borne, Ouachita, and Morehouse but few worms were to be found. In Texas the worms were widely distributed, but in only a few counties was even the top crop (representing 5 per cent. or a little more) taken. In Lafayette County, Arkansas, the late-appearing caterpillars damaged - the crop to some extent. In 1872 occurred another and greater increase in the damage done by the worms. In fact, the loss this year was so great that 1872 is en- titled to be ranked as one of the years of general loss by the side of 1804, 1825, 1846, 1868, and 1873, although considerably inferior to the last-named and possibly to the early ones. The caterpillars appeared early in June in Florida, Louisiana, and Texas. In Texas the amount of damage was not great. In. Louisiana it fully equaled that of the previous year. Tangipahoa, Marion, Concordia, Rapides, Saint Landry, 28 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. Washington, Red River, and Jackson Parishes all sustained great loss. In Mississippi many of the central and southern counties were devas- tated, the more northern part of the State enjoying comparative immu- nity. We quote from the Monthly Report of the Department of Ag- riculture for September, 1872, as to the state of affairs in Alabama: Our August returns from Alabama foreshadowed an extensive visitation of the cot- ton caterpillar, which, as our September reports show, was fully and painfully realized. In some places the boll-worm vied with the cotton-worm in its destructive influence. Reports of either or both of these pests come from Macon, Pike, Marengo, Conecuh, Perry, Montgomery, Crenshaw, Russell, Fisk, Calhoun, Chambers, Butler, Autauga, Dallas, Wilcox, and Tuscaloosa Counties. In Crenshaw the fields were denuded of foliage. In Calhoun the crop piospect was reduced 25 per cent. in five days. In Autauga the roads, woods, and wells were full of army and boll worms. In Wilcox the caterpillars, after stripping the cotton-plant of its leaves, attacked the bolls, eat- ing the smaller ones and killing the larger ones by gnawing around them. In Perry the crop was cut down to half an average after August 20. In Conecuh the destruc- tion was almost complete, as italso was in Russell. All through the cane-brake region the loss was very severe. Butler, Clark, Wilcox, Dallas, Perry, and Tuscaloosa report a loss of one-half; Pike, Bibb, Hale, Calhoun, and Limestone a loss of one-fourth or over. In Florida also the loss was very great; Suwannee, Leon, Taylor, Columbia, Orange, Jackson, and Jefferson Counties all lost from 50 to 75 per cent. of their crops, while Clay County lost 33 per cent. Nearly every cotton-growing county in Georgia and South Carolina was visited sooner or later, but the losses were not great compared with those of Florida and Alabama. The worms were also remarkably widespread and abundant in North Carolina, although not particularly injurious. They also appeared in southern Arkansas. | In the whole history of the Cotton Worm in the United States, from 1793 down to the present time, it is doubtful whether 1873 was ever equalled (certainly never exceeded) in the loss occasioned by worms. Throughout the whole extent of the cotton belt hardly a plantation escaped, and in many cases the crop was a total loss. In many localities the caterpillar made its appearance for the first time, and has not since been reported. There must have been a very extensive hibernation of the moths, for as early as the latter part of May the worms had appeared in sufficient numbers to be reported from Florida, southern Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas. The appearance of the destructive brood at the end of June was extensively reported, and the localities are of great interest as bearing upon the subject of centers of hibernation. They areas follows: Decatur County, Georgia; Liberty, Leon, Jackson, Gadsden, Suwannee, and Columbia Counties, Florida; Clarke, Wilcox, Dallas, Tuscaloosa, Barbour, aud Saint Clair Counties, Alabama; Wil- kinson, Marion, and Jasper Counties, Mississippi; Tangipahoa, West Feliciana, Concordia, Rapides, and Carroll Parishes, Louisiana; and Atascosa, Austin, and Galveston Counties, Texas. It will be unnecessary to go through the list of States specifying CHRONOLOGICAL ACCOUNT OF COTTON WORM INJURY. 29 > which counties suffered the most. In Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida the greatest damage was done. Texas did not suffer so much proportionately, although it experienced a great loss. In Arkansas, South and North Carolina more damage was done than had ever before been known; while in Tennessee and even in Virginia the worms were found in ight numbers towards the close of the season. The following extract from the Monthly Report of the Department of Agriculture for February, 1874, shows well the relative causes of injury to the crop of 1873, and the prominence which should be given to the caterpillar: The relative influence of each cause in damaging the crop of 1873, as indicated by our correspondents, may be stated in the following order in the different States: North Carolina.—Rains, frost, worms. South Carolina.—Rains, frost, worms. Georgia.—W orms, more than all other causes combined ; rains, frost, drought, high winds. Florida.—Storms of rain, worms. Alabama.—Worms, rains, frost. Mississippi.—W orms, spring rains, drought, frost. Louisiana.—W orms, rains, high winds. Texas.—W orms, rains, drought, frost, bad gins and inexperienced ginners, Arkansas.—Rains, worms, drought, frost. Tennessee.—Drought, frost, rains, plant-lice, a cold and wet spring. In the Gulf States the greatest injury thus appears to have been wrought by worms, excepting only Florida, where the devastating storms in September and October, par- ticularly that of September 19, proved more destructive than the caterpillar, which was abundant and sufficiently injurious. The prevalence of rains will be noticed throughout the whole cotton belt in the above extract, and should be borne in mind as bearing upon the influence of rain and drought upon the abundance of the caterpillar; 1874, the succeeding year, will be seen to have been very dry and the © worms were comparatively innoxious. In 1874 the worms appeared rather early, but owing to the severe and long-continued drought did but little damage except in a few limited localities. The crop was poor, but this was entirely owing to the pro- tracted dry spell. As one correspondent of the Department aptly ex- pressed it, “the drought killed the cotton, and the worms too.” Appear- ing in early June in noticeable numbers in Texas, Louisiana, and the other Gulf States, the increase in numbers was remarkably slow until it was too late for the crop to be greatly damaged. In some counties, notably Beaufort and Richland, South Carolina; Murray, Georgia; Lowndes and Wilkinson, Mississippi; and Burnet and Hardin, Texas, the leaves were well stripped, which served to render the plant more . susceptible to the drought. Altogether 1874 may be considered a year of remarkable immunity. The growing season of 1875 up to the month of August was also dry, while that month was marked by heavy storms. Both these causes , 30 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. operated to still further reduce the numbers of the worms; hence, 1875 is to be ranked as a year of even greater immunity than 1874. The worms were not noticed at all early in the season, and in the few locali- — ties where they did injure the crop, their late coming was all the more unexpected and seemingly disastrous. These localities were confined almost entirely to northern Florida, although some damage was reported from Austin and Polk Counties, Texas; Lowndes County, Alabama, and a few other counties. 1875 ranks as a good cotton year, the gen- eral average, according to the monthly statistical reports, slightly ex- ceeding 100, the unit of comparison being normal growth and unimpaired Vitality. - | | 3A ue During the earlier part of the season of 1876 rains were very abun- dant over the larger part of the cotton-belt. Later, in September and October, the crop suffered from drought in Louisiana and parts of Texas, but in general the wet weather continued throughout the sea- son. In consequence of this disposiiicn of the weather in their favor, there was a most marked increase in the number of the caterpillars throughout the entire southern portion of the belt. In Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas, the damage was considerable; but Louisiana escaped material injury. Owing, probably, to a small hiber- nation, the worms were not noticed particularly until late in July and August; but then the extremely favorable weather caused such a rapid development and great increase that they became destructive some time before the top crop could be saved. The State suffering the most was Alabama. The worms were more or less injurious in Marengo, Coffee, Clark, Bullock, Lauderdale, Crenshaw, Monroe, Lowndes, and Hale, and especially so in Dallas, Greene, Conecuh, and Perry. In Texas, Bastrop, Burnet, Fayette, Austin, Matagorda, and Waller were damaged, while, strange to say, both south and north of this group of counties the worms were reported as coming too late to do much dam- age. In this connection we may quote from an interesting letter from an Austin County correspondent, published in the Monthly Report of this Department for September: As predicted in my last, the Cotton Worm reached us last week, and devoured every particle that was eatable, leaves, blossoms, and small bolls. Never since my knowledge have these worms appeared in sucha multitude. After having laid waste our fields, they thronged and blackened our lanes, roads, and highways; they pene- trated lawns, yards, and even dwelling-houses, lying in the pathway, requiring the constant use of the broom to repel our loathsome guests. Hens, turkeys, and geese had a feast and grew fat. In this portion of the county the loss was not 80 severe as the gathering had already begun, and most of the bolls were fully grown; but the southern part, bordering upon an extensive prairie that reaches to the Gulf of Mexico, 200 miles distant, was attacked four weeks earlier, and the loss is a very severe one. In Florida the damage was very unequal, the crops of Jackson, Jef- ferson, and Madison Counties suffering severely, while other adjoining counties were exempt. In 1877 there was a falling off in the numbers of the caterpillars in- - CHRONOLOGICAL ACCOUNT OF COTTON WORM INJURY. 31 the States which were injured the most the previous year, while in Louisiana, which almost escaped in 1876, the caterpillars this year were abundant and destructive. The September returns say: ‘‘The cater- pillar is present in all of the Gulf States, and in South Carolina, but has done little damage as yet, except in Texas. In several of the par- ishes of Louisiana the loss is considerable from this cause.” The special feature of the year was the injury in Texas. Early in July the caterpillars were proving destructive in Hardin, Jasper, Bra- -zoria, Atascosa, Victoria, and Uvalde. In August one-half of the counties sending in returns were infested more or less seriously. In Lavaca County the crop was almost completely destroyed, and Gonzales County reported a loss of 75 per cent. Before the close of the season Austin had lost 50 per cent., Hardin 75 per cent., Polk 75 per cent., and Waller, Colorado, Walker, and Fayette were all damaged to some extente Among the Louisiana parishes injured we may mention Rich- land, Claiborne, East Feliciana, and Jackson. In Mississippi, the southern part of the State, including Wilkinson, Jefferson, and Coving- ton Counties, was overrun, but the crop was not seriously damaged. Alabama and Georgia were comparatively unharmed, while in Florida the worms were numerous, but not particularly destructive. In the annual report of this Department for 1877 the loss from caterpillars for this year is estimated in round numbers at $15,000,000. Concerning the occurrence of caterpillars in 1875, we are unable to get very full statistics, since the prevalence of yellow fever in parts of _ the South rendered correspondence difficult and drew the attention of the planters from their crops to their personal safety. The worms ap- peared early in Texas, and were reported soon after the 1st of June from Uvalde, Atascosa, Matagorda, Brazoria, Victoria, Lavaca, Fort Bend, Austin, Hardin, Polk, and Jasper Counties. In spite of this early appearance they seem to have spread but little, and in none of the counties mentioned did the loss exceed one-fifth of the crop. All through the cotton belt the season was a very fine one, and the crop raised largely exceeded that of 1877. In South Carolina, the worms were reported from Richland and Clarendon Counties late in the fall. In Georgia they were not noticed until late in August, and then only in the more southern portion of the State. Baker, Thomas, Dodge, Lee, and Karly reported them in September, and later, Dooly, Laurens, and Worth. In Alabama and Louisiana the worms were, as in the pre- ceding States, not reported until late, and their injuries were not severe. Coffee, Bullock, Covington, Dallas, Barbour, Macon, Baldwin, Crenshaw, Monroe, Conecuh, Dale, Wilcox, Lowndes, Autauga, Jeffer- son, Hale, Montgomery, Perry, Greene, Sumter, and Pickens Counties, Alabama; and Concordia, Caddo, Franklin, Lafayette, Madison, Bos- sier, and Bienville Parishes, Louisiana, all returned more or less damage. In two Arkansas Counties—Pope and Crawford—the crop was also damaged. In Florida nearly all of the counties belonging to 32 REPORT: 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. the northern tier were infested, but none badly; the crop of Hills. borough County, farther south, was, however, considerably shortened. — In 1879 the worms were noticed and reported earlier than ever be- fore, but this is due to the fact that active workers, attached to the - Commission and to the Department, were on the lookout for them. They were reported in the canebrake region of Alabama by Mr. Tre- lease, and in the Colorado bottom, in Texas, by Mr. Schwarz, about the middle of May; 1879 was not, however, a bad worm year. Although . pome localities suffered considerable loss, the general loss was far from great. From the September report upon the condition of crops, issued by this Department, we learn the following: The caterpillars were pres- ent.in great numbers on the 1st of September in Beaufort County, South Carolina; Baker, Dooly, Muscogee, Brooks, Lee, and Stewart Counties, Georgia; Putnam, Bradford, Sumter, and Marion Counties, Florida, and, in a lesser degree, in Madison, Leon, Suwannee, and Gadsden. In Alabama, Wilcox, Bullock, Coffee, and Perry suffered considerably, while Dale, Lowndes, Monroe, Barbour, and Conecuh were overrun with less resulting damage. Mississippi reported the caterpillars in Lauderdale, Rankin, Scott, Newton, Carroll, Lowndes, Oktibbeha, Copiah, Sharkey, Hindes, Leake, Holmes, and Jasper. Louisiana sent in not a single report of loss; and Texas only Austin, Trinity, Waller, and Harrison; Arkansas, Drew County. The No- vember report increased this list by Thomas County, Georgia; Alachua, Wakulla, and Hamilton Counties, Florida; Ciarke, Hale, and Lee Counties, Alabama; Amite, Newton, and Smith Counties, Mississippi; and Brazos and De Witt Counties, Texas; the two last reporting the crop as being almost entirely destroyed by worms. The year, as @ whole, was not a favorable one for cotton; and the crop, as a whole, fell short of that of the previous year in spite of an increased acreage, In 1880 there seemed to be no especially marked increase in the num- ber of the worms over the previous year. The season was a favorable one for cotton throughout its whole extent in the Carolinas, Georgia, Florida, and Texas; although too wet after August in Alabama, Mis- sissippi, and Louisiana, and dry in Arkansas and Tennessee. As early as June 4, the worms were reported as doing much damage in Bossier Parish, Louisiana, and in one or two Texas counties. In July they ap- peared in Decatur, Early, Quitman, Sumter, and Dooly Counties, Georgia; Gadsden and Madison, Florida; Bullock, Hale, Perry, Bald- win, Macon, Marengo, and Greene, Alabama; Panola, Covington, | Clarke, Kemper, and Simpson, Mississippi; Pointe Coupée and Madi- son, Louisiana; Jackson, Falls, and Walker, Texas. The final reports for the season show that the damage in Georgia was considerable in Decatur, Lee, and Quitman; slight, or comparatively slight, in Screven, Troup, Early, Sumter, and Dooly; considerable in Lafayette, Florida, but less in Marion, Gadsden, and Madison; considerable again in Bar- bour, Elmore, Crenshaw, Bullock, Hale, and Macon Counties, Ala- ee ee ee “SUMMARY OF LOSSES IN 1881. 33 bama, and less again in Marengo, Perry, and Greene; considerable in Panola and Noxubee, Mississippi, and less in Jefferson, Covington, Clarke, Kemper, and Simpson; considerable in Bienville, Caddo, Bossier, and Sabine Parishes, Louisiana, and comparatively small] in Washington, Pointe Coupée, Madison, Ouachita, Saint Helena, More- house, and Calcasieu; considerable again in Comanche, EKrath, Bastrop, Harris, Robertson, Wharton, Matagorda, Brazoria, Fort Bend, Austin, Limestone, Montgomery, Walker, and Brown Counties, Texas, and less so in Polk, Bexar, Karnes, De Witt, Jackson, Falls, Titus, Victoria, Harrison, Coryell, Montague, and Paine. In Arkansas, the crop of Hempstead County was damaged. The following summary of the losses in 1881 is taken from the Annual Report of the Department of Agriculture for 1881-82: ALABAMA.—Talladega: Appeared late and only on luxuriant growth in some sections. Limestone: Shed more from want of proper cultivation andrainand drought. Lawrence: In low bottom-lands to some extent. Conecuh: All the top crop destroyed. Barbour: Partially in many fields rust preceded the caterpillars and destroyed what they would. Perry: Prairie early and sandy land later. Chilton: About three-fourths stripped of leaves early; after rain budded out but made nothing. De Kalb: Stripped in some sections. Saint Clair: Some fields were not touched while others were entirely stripped. Cherokee: Some fields stripped early, others not atall. Russell: On bottom- lands early. Marengo: Stripped entirely where no poison was used. ARKANSAS.— Hempstead: Some spots none; others as high as 50 percent. Pulaski: Earlier than ever before. Woodruff: Only the foliage and unmatured bolls. Jackson: By the Army Worm. Montgomery: Many fields stripped after the cotton had matured. Pope: Later than usual. Howard: Leaf Worm came early but did no damage. Monroe: Whole region stripped bare of foliage. GzorGia.— Bibb: On bottom and new land only. Muscogee: On lowlands early; uplands later. Lowndes: Second crop of foliage entirely stripped. Hancock: Entirely on low, wet lands. Jones: Stripped entirely on red lands; gray land suffered but little. Deely: Only partially. Morgan: In consequence of the very late fall and frost. Lincoln: Few fields. Liberty: Partially. Early: Some localities early. Oconee: Picking of the best cotton was done before the worms came. Fioripa.—Columbus: Many fields stripped. Madison: Only in portions of the county. Sumter: Was stripped entirely. ‘TENNESSEE.—Bedford: Boll-worms are unknown here, though caterpillars stripped the leaves. Lincoln: Stripped of leaves. Dickson: Very little damage done in this county. White: Boll-worms do the most damage. SoutTH CaROLINA.—Oconee: Only partially in limited localities. Greenville: Crop made before worms came. Newberry: In some localities, but so late in season as not to injure yield; rather benefit it by exposing the unopened bolls tosun. Abbeville: Where it appeared did not more than eat the leaveson the plant. Barnsville: Stripped elean of leaves and young bolls, which came too late to make anything. NortH Carotina.—Came too late to do any damage. Lenoir: Did not appear only in a few places. Columbus: Only appeared in a few places and too late to do any damage. Cabarrus: Did not appear till after crop was picked; they then stripped the plant. Wileon: A few appeared just before frost, but did no damage. Cumberland: Few fields had the leaves eaten off, but too late to do any damage. Pitt: Few places they appeared, but too late to do any damage. Cleveland: Very little. Lovuis1ana.— Union: A few places had then repurted, butnodamagedone. Jackson: Stripped, but after maturity. Lincoln: In some places, but not until after it was picked. Franklin: Not until picking was over, then only partially. Zast Carroll: Stripped, except very high land or shaded. 63 CONG 3 « eRe el pt ee ee 34 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. _ MIssissipPiI.— Union: In some localities, but after cotton matured. Tate: Second — growth eaten by them (leaves) bolls not hurt. Chickasaw: Army Worm destroyed top crop. Alcorn: In a few localities, but after the crop had mostly opened. Prentiss: Did not appear until about frost, and did no harm. Jiankin: Very little, and after bolls were matured. Jefferson: Destroyed all top crop. Clay: Bottom crop at matur- ing. IJssaquena: Only partially, and that late. Clarke: Owing to the early drought the leaves became so hard and dry that they made very slow progress. TEXxAs.—Gonzales: In some places early; others late. Bee: Damage at first of season by Grass-worm. Colorado: In some sections where not poisoned. Denton: Partially by the Web-worm. Lee: Where poison was not used the plant was gener- ally stripped. Houston: In very few sections, and very late. Wise: Came, but too late to do harm. Brazos: Very late; too late to injure. Live Oak: In some localities. Wood: Too late to damage. Lampasas: Came too late to damage. Milam: Second crop damaged in some localities. Van Zandt: Caterpillars came early and made clean sweep. Grimes: Only top crop injured, which seldom amounts to anything. Palo Pinto: Stripped but very little. Leon: In some places, but too late to do damage. Fannin: Some fields were stripped, but not until it was all opened. HISTORY OF REMEDIES. From the early days when the Creoles of Louisiana fought the che nille which was destroying their cotton, with “holy water,” down to the present time, when the improved sprinklers, with their extended arms and many jets of poisoned spray, are drawn through the fields, destroy- ing the worms upon eight to twelve rows of cotton at once, itis plain that immense improvement has been made. Let us glance at the steps by which this was brought about. Naturaliy the first remedy which the planter would try would rus to destroy the worms by hand, and this really was, so far as we can find, the first method used. The next remedy was suggested by the avidity with which poultry devoured the worms. Dr. Chisholm says concern- ing his observations in Guiana in 1801-02: “A prudent, economical _ planter will increase the brood of every species of domestic poultry, particularly turkeys; for this has a tendency to diminish the brood of the chenille in a very great degree, while profit arises from the aug- mentation of useful stock. Turkeys are observed to have a remarkable appetite for the larve of the Cotton Moth and devour prodigious quan- tities of them.” With this remedy, however, Dr. Chisholm’s practical ideas seem to cease, for he goes on to describe how the worms may be killed by burning sulphur on a chafing-dish, the plant bemg covered meanwhile by a canvas hood! By the use of this remedy (as Mr. Wailes many years afterwards very justly remarked) a hand might, with excep- tional diligence, go over an acre in fifteen or twenty days! For many years hand-picking and the keeping of large poultry yards were the only remedies practised; yet excellent success was attained where thorough and energetic planters tried to save their crops by these means, as is evinced in the following quotation from Seabrook (1843): The caterpillar appeared in several parts of the field of John Townsend, of Saint John’s, Colleton, early in August last. The plants were luxuriant in growth and tender in weed and leaf, and the weather, being warm and rather moist, was altogether Wigs | HISTORY OF REMEDIES. 35 te propitious to the spread and multiplying of the worms. By the adoption of prompt and vigorous measures, some of which are new, and a rigid perseverance in their execution, his crop escaped unscathed, while many of his fellow-laborers who lacked faith in any remedy suffered greatly. In the attainment of his ee the means resorted to by Mr. Townsend were the following: 1. His people searched for and killed both the worm and the chrysalis of the first orood. 2. On the appearance of the second brood he scattered corn over the field to invite the notice of the birds, and while they depredated on the worms on the top of the stalks and their upper limbs, the turkeys destroyed the enemy on the lower branches. 3. When in the aurelia (chrysalis) state the negroes crushed them between their fingers. 4. Some patches of cotton where the caterpillars were very thick and the birds and turkeys could not get access to them were destroyed. 5. The tops of the plants and the ends of all the tender and luxuriant branches, where the eggs of the butterfly are usually deposited, were cut off. By these means, resolutely pursued, although at one time the prospect of check- ing the depredators was most cheerless, not the slightest injury to the field was sus- tained. The experiment cost Mr. Townsend 24 acres of cotton, about 15 bushels of corn, and the work of all his people for about five days. Tt will be noticed that among the remedies used by Mr. Townsend was that of topping the cotton, under the supposition that most of the eggs are laid upon the upper and tenderer leaves. This was one of the early remedies, but has often been urged since, and has its disciples to the present day. As we shall show in discussing preventive measures, it may be employed to advantage in some cases late in the season, but at the most critical period of the year the eggs are mostly on the lower part of the plant. About 1840 Mr. Wailes first publicly eienncaial the carrying of _lighted torches through the fields at night to attract and kill the moths. Soon after, large fires began to be built in different parts of the plan- tations for the same purpose, and, later, these fires were built upon elevated platforms floored with earth. It is stated, however, by Dr. J. C. Neal, that Col. F. D. McDowell, an old Florida planter, had begun the use of fires to destroy the moths as early as 1805. First and last this remedy has been extensively tried; but the general verdict seems to be against its utility. It is held that such fires attract to a planta- tion many more moths than they kill. One author has even gone so far as to dispute that any moths are destroyed in this way, stating that repeated observation has shown to him that the rush of hot air carries them up and away before they can reach the flame. Prior to 1855 were published a number of articles recommending the flying of white flags in different parts of the fields, and stating that the moths would oviposit upon them. Each published recommendation, however, was from hearsay, and no one of the writers was able to say that he had ever seen a single egg upon such a flag. Where the idea started we are unable to say. Clean cultivation, forcing the cotton, and rotation of crops had all been urged by writers before this, and followed by many planters, no doubt with much advantage. 36 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. Many fanciful remedies had also been suggested, such as soaking the cotton seed in a poisonous mixture on the supposition that the egg of the worm was contained in the seed; fall-plowing, on the supposition: that the pupa hibernates under ground; burning the cotton stalks, as they were supposed to contain the eggs; burning the nests of the web- worms on trees, which were thought to harbor the Cotton Worms during ~ the winter, and many others equally fallacious. The use of plates with an adhesive sweet of some sort, to attract and capture the moths, had been tried for some years prior to 1855, but we believe that Glover was the first to publicly suggest the addition of poison to the mixture. So also Glover, in his 1855 report, was the first to | describe a trap lantern for catching and destroying the moths. In 1860 the idea of poisoned sweets was elaborated by Mr. J. M. Heard into a patent moth trap, which has been quite extensively used through- out the South, and which is spoken of in the chapter on remedies. After the close of the war the planters seem to have awakened from the partial apathy which they had before shown on the subject of rem- edies. In Louisiana a sweep plow was invented which brushed the worms from the plants and buried them under ground. Numerous styles of trap-lanterns were invented; solutions of cresylic soap, carbolic acid, and other less efficacious compounds, such as decoctions of quassia and infusions of China berries, were tried, but with only partial success in the case of the former, and none in the case of the latter. It was not until 1871 that arsenic began to be used in solution. In January of that year Thos. W. Mitchell, of Richmond, Tex., obtained a patent for its use against the Cotton Worm. In June of 1872, at the organization of the American Agricultural Congress at Saint Louis, it was our privilege to deliver before the Con- vention a lecture on Economic Entomology. There were many Southern delegates present, and in the discussion which followed the lecture we suggested, in answer to inquiries from General Wm. H. Jackson, of Nashville, Tenn., and Dr. J. O. Wharton, of Terry, Miss., that the Paris green mixture, which was proving so successful against the Colorado Potato-beetle at the North, might be equally efficient against the Cot- ton Worm in the South. In May, 1873, having in the meantime arene with Paris green upon various Tiepidoauemee larvee allied to the Cotton Worm, we read an essay before the second meeting of the Congress at Indianapolis, in which we strongly and unhesitatingly recommended the use of the green for this particular insect. An abstract of the essay was published in the Saint Louis Journal of Agriculture, and this was very generaily copied in the agricultural press, especially of the South. The extensive use of the green for this purpose dates in reality from this period, though there is evidence that it was used in Texas and in Alabama, in 1872, whether as an outgrowth of our remarks at Saint Louis in June, HISTORY OF REMEDIES. | 37 or from the logical reasoning of some energetic PARES or planters, it is impossible to say. Recently, however, Mr. J. P. Stelle, agricultural editor of the Mobile Register, has put forth his own claim to having been the first to pub- licly recommend the use of this poison for the Cotton Worm. This claim he bases upon an article which appeared in the Register in August, 1872. This article appeared as an editorial in the body of the paper and not in Mr. Stelle’s agricultural department, a fact which in itself would argue that he was not its author. Moreovez, the article does not specifically recommend the use of the green, but simply announces the fact that it is being tried. We quote the paragraph in which it is found : We have but little to offer in the way of remedies with which to combat this pest of the planter. Hand-picking the plants is sure but hardly practicable in all cases. Fires built about the field at night would be likely to do some good in the way of destroying the moth, as it has a natural disposition to fly into them. We know of several persons who are now experimenting with dry Paris green sprinkled upon the plants after having been mixed with 15 or 20 parts dry ashes or slacked lime, and we hope to hear a good report from them. It is, moreover, an extremely significant fact, and indicative of the au-. thorship of this paragraph, that in Mr. Stelle’s subsequent writings (see, for instance, “‘ The Cotton Caterpillar and How to Combat it Suc- cessiully,” twral Carolinian, July, 1874) he gives the entire credit of the recommendation to our essay before the Indianapolis meeting in May, 1873; and it is only recently that he has laid any claim whatever to an earlier announcement.” In the fall of 1873 the following circular, doubtless prompted by our Indianapolis address, was issued and distributed throughout the South by the Commissioner of Agriculture: PROTECTION AGAINST COTTON INSECTS. To Correspondents: The annual losses of cotton from ravages of cotton insects amount possibly to half . a million bales in years of insect prevalence. One-fourth of a million bales would be deemed a light infliction, and yet, at $100 per bale, such a loss would be equivalent to $25,000,000. The methods to be employed for lessening their ravages have been here- tofore canvassed by the Entomologist of this Department. The remedy can only be applied by the planters themselves, and their own Sa can best render practi- cable and efficient the means employed. Numerous correspondents have of late been experimenting with a mixture of Paris green and flour or plaster, dusted on the plants when wet with dew—a remedy which has proved very efficient against the Colorado potato-beetle and other insects. Some report this remedy effectual against the cotton-caterpillar, while others declare it of no value whatever; others, still, hesitate to try it for fear of poisoning. It is of the utmost importance that the facts in the experience of planters the present season should be carefully reported, showing the quality and proportions of material used, the method and frequency of its application, and the observed results, that a thorough test may be made ofits value or worthlessness. The answer of the following questions is therefore requested : he Os ar Pee NAP “ane A 4 38 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. I. What is the result of your experience or observations as to the efficacy of Paris green, or other arsenical compounds mixed with flour or plaster, for the ee of the cotton-caterpillar ? : II. In what proportions, and in what mode, time, and retails, of application have experiments been made ? III. Have any injurious effects of the poison been observed, either upon the plants or the soil, or in human poisoning in its application, or in the destruction of beneficial insects, as bees, &c. ? | IV. Have you used any other remedies, or means of extirpation, such as fires or torches in the fields to destroy the perfect moths on their first appearance, and with what success ? Yours, respectfully, FRED’K WATTS P) / Commissioner. The answers to this circular, published in the Department report for 1873, showed that the green was tried during the season in seven States and seventy counties, and that its success had been almost uniform. The same year several patents were taken out for poisonous mixtures to be used in destroying the Cotton Worm, and some of them reached a great sale for a few years—notably Preston & Robeira’s “ Texas Cot- ton Worm Destroyer,” and Johnson’s “ Dead Shot.” But it has become generally understood that the same ingredients can be used in slightly differing proportions without infringing upon the patents, so that at the present day the patents are generally disregarded. In the Monthly Report of the Department for November and Decem- ber, 1872, Mr. E. H. Derby, of Boston, remarking upon the fact that the worm would not eat jute, suggested that a belt of that plant around a cotton-field might kee» the worm away. A year later, in the Monthly Report for November and December, 1873, Mr. E. La France, president of the Southern Ramie Planting Association, detailed experiments with three fields, which seemed to prove the practicability of the use of jute as a preventive. Subsequent experiments, however, have failed, and it is probable that from this article of Mr. La Franc’s have spread the numerous reports of the efficacy of jute, which are to be found in the back files of many Southern papers. Since 1873 most of the advance in remedies has been in the way of invention or improvement of machinery for the distribution of the poi- sonous mixture upon the plants. This machinery will be fully discussed in the chapter on remedies. The cheap arsenical poison known as London Purple was first expe- rimented upon as a Cotton Worm remedy by us during the season of 1878, and the favorable results which followed its use induced extensive experiments the next year. It is hardly necessary to add thatit has grown into great favor wher- ever it has been obtained pure and has been judiciously used. The only remaining remedy of importance—Pyrethrum—was first publicly recommended by the writer tor this purpose in first edition of this work, our first experiments with it upon the worms having been made during the summer of 1878. CHAPTER EVs, THE COTTON WORM IN OTHER COUNTRIES. Aletia xylina, although widely spread in the Western Hemisphere, has not yet been found, as far as we are aware, in the Eastern. The cotton crop in the Eastern countries, in Egypt, Greece, India, Australia, has its insect enemies: in Egypt, a Noctuid larva; in Greece, various species of Out-worms; in India, the Tineid Boll-worm, Depressaria gossypiella ; in Australia, a red bug allied to the Dysdercus suturellus of the West Indies; but Aletia vylina has as yet been found only in North and South America and the intervening islands. Up to the present time the northernmost point at which Aletia has been collected seems to be Quebec; and as to its southern limit, there seems little doubt but that it is found in Sao Paulo, one of the southern provinces of Brazil. Its western limit is the Pacific, although we have no information as to its occurrence in California, even in the cotton fields in the southern part of the State. Itis found, however, upon the coast further south at Mazatlan and Manzanillo, Mexico, as shown in the following extracts from correspondence which we have had with the United States consuls at these ports, Aletia being identified in most cases from specimens received : ' CONSULATE OF THE UNITED STATES, Mazailan, December 3, 1879. * * * The Cotton Worm, or as known here by the name of the Army Worm, the Bud Worm, and the Boll Worm, are the worst insect enemies. The regular Cotton or Army Worm attacks the cotton plant every year, but about once in four years is very destructive. It appears to be deposited by a fly on the underside of the leaf, which rolls up, and in a few days the worm, of about 2 inches, appears. During the winter months it disappears. Cotton was first introduced into this State, in 1863, by an American, Mr. Francis Nolan; it was produced from seed brought from the State of Guerrero. It does not grow wildin this State. The first years but little trouble was experienced from the Cotton Worm; but each year they have given more trouble, especially if cotton is planted again on the same ground. The prevailing direction of the wind during the months from March to July is from the east in the morning, and from the southwest in the afternoon.—[E. G. Kelton, United States Consul. MANZANILLO, MEX., December 26, 1879. The larger worm or caterpillar (Anomis xylina) has made it appearance on this coast three times during the last twenty years, in 1866, in 1873, and again in 1878. It isa dark green looking worm, with white and black lines, and destroys the cotton plant by devouring the leaves. It is as yet impossible for me to find out the origin or even habits of this worm. I have investigated the supposed causes of its appearance, but without success; the farmers here have not the slightest idea about it. An apparent 39 | 40) REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. coincidence between the appearance of this plague and overflooding of rivers in the cotton regions should be mentioned. . 1865, September, high floods, complete inundation of cotton lands. February, 1866, appearance of the caterpillar in small numbers, not causing much damage. 1872, September, floods, partial inundation of cotton lands, high lands and ridges in the valleys not flooded. February, 1873, appearance of the plague, and total destruc- tion of cotton plantations. 1878, September, high floods, complete inundation of cotton-growing valleys. 1879, February, partial plague, small damage done by the caterpillar. I am of the opinion that the worm has not been imported into Mexico, but origin- ates in the cotton valleys in such seasons, when the peculiar condition of the soil and climate combine to favor the development of the larva. The cotton lands in this vicinity are bounded on the W. by the Pacific Ocean, on the E. by high mountains, la Sierra Madre, on the N. and S. by dense woods and tracts of uncultivated lands. These circumstances present a great many obstacles to the flight of the Cotton Moth. The nearest cotton plantations, as well to northward as to southward, are at a distance from Manzanillo of at least 100 miles. Cotton has been grown in the State of Colima for the last fifty years. It does not grow wild, but if abandoned, some plants grow up to good sized trees, bearing fruit regularly every year. The directions of prevailing winds on this coast are the following, viz: January, 8. and W.; February, W. and N. W.; March, W.and N. W.; April, N. W.; May, N. W.; June, S. and N. W.; July, S.and W.; August, S. and W.; September, S. and W.; October, S. and W.; November, 8. and W.; December, S. and W. The north and northwest winds blow generally during the day. At night these winds change to the north and northeast. I give the prevailing winds for the whole year, as our planting and picking seasons here are different from those in the United States.—[Augustus Morrill, United States Consul. On the Gulf coast of Mexico Aletia is alsofound. The following ac- count of its work in the consular district of Vera Cruz is from the Amer- ican Entomologist, Vol. III, p. 179 (July, 1880): INTERESTING COTTON WORM NOTES FROM VERA CRUZ, MExico.—In this consular district about 8,000,000 lbs. are produced. The peculiarities of culture are striking. The ground is prepared by removing rubbish, and then the seed is planted by insert- ing a sharp stickin the ground at convenient intervals; into the holesthus made the seed is deposited and covered by the foot. No plows are used in this preparation for the seed, nor are they often used in the subsequent stages of cultivation. They pull out the larger weeds or use the hoe, confining their labor to little more than such. It is clear from that kind of culture that the cotton plant must be forced into much bad company, and be assaulted with destructive enemies. After extensive inquiries I find no one scientifically informed on the full habits of these enemies. *% * * * *% * * It is ahotly disputed point as to what becomes of the worm during the “‘ six or eight years” when it does not appear, and no one in my circuit of acquaintance gives me anything better than a superstition for a solution of the problem. Our climate, never _ giving us frost, scarcely affects the constant germinal qualities of plants or the enemies thereof, and it has been asserted to me that at one place or another the Cotton Worm can always be found. However, the difficulty I have experienced in obtaining the specimens sent, induce me to doubt the correctness of that assertion. cd * * * * * * The worm has been here as long as cotton has been cultivated by the Mexicans. We have historical accounts that cotton was grown and utilized since the twelfth century, but have no data that it was or was not naturally indigenous. But if said ; THE COTTON WORM IN OTHER COUNTRIES. 41 history be reliable it is fair to presume that it was indigenous, because there is no knowledge of commercial relations with forcie? conics at that period. * * * * » The winds here are easterly and onan ly T. Trowbridge, U. S. Consul, Vera Cruz, Mexico, March 3, 1880. I send you a bottle containing various kinds of worms that destroy the cotton and plant. They are all I have been able to procure. Thisis now the part of the year in which the worms usually appear, and they have been gathered near San Andres Tuxtla, on the southern coast from here. *¥ * * * * * * On the coast they are called palomas (moth) or salomilia (chrysalis or aurelia). Said paloma is ash-color, and is nocturnal in its habits. The moth produces a multitude of microscopic eggs on the plant, which eggs create the worm, also microscopic, and which commences immediately to devour the plant, and so continues until it gets to the state of enrolment, in order to pass through the last metamorphosis. I have not been able to obtain sufficient data to say whether they were imported into this coun- try, but I am assured that they do not make their appearance every year at the same place, or, better said, they only come one or two years in succession, then disappear for six or eight years. They are not to be found inall thecountry atonetime. Their reproduction is usually ascribed to our southern coast. * » * ” * ® * I understand their invasion can be victoriously combated by sprinkling dry chloride of lime over the ground and plants, or an aqueous solution of the same, and I have recommended this remedy to those living on the coast for a trial.—R. de Zayas Enri- quez, Vera Cruz, March 2, 1880. [The worms sent by Sefior Enriquez are the genuine Aletia of all sizes, but mostly fall-grown. The facts communicated in the above reports are most interesting, not only on account of the remote period to which the growth of cotton may be traced on this continent, but also because of the general observations as to the reoccurrence of the insect in injurious numbers at irregular periods only. In other words, the in- sect presents the same phenomena in Mexico as in this country, and the same facts upon which the theory of annual immigration to the United States have been largely based will hold equally true of a country essentially below the frost line. This all goes to prove the Correctness of our conclusions that the absence of Aletia during cer- tain years is apparent only, and that its undue multiplication during other years is ' paralleled by similar phenomena in respect of many other insects, and notably of the Northern Army Worm, the apparently sudden appearance and disappearance of which over vast regions is even more marked than in the case of Aletia. Yet, as we have shown in the case of both these insects, they may always be found in limited numbers even when their presence is not suspected. } The following notes on the appearance of cee worms in Yucatan, we extract from our correspondence: UNITED STATES CONSULATE AT MERIDA, November 22, 1879. The culture of cotton is very slight here. It is cultivated only in the southern part of this city, and in very small quantity; it grows to the height of 12 feet. No other insect enemies are known but the worm, and this worm is exactly as described; that is, a green worm with white lines and black dots. This worm is alwayson the cotton leaf, and there is no doubt that eating the leaf it kills the plant. It does not touch the boll, as it remains always on the leaf. If possible I will send specimens. Cotton has been growing here for more than sixteen years and grows wild, but it is inferior to the cultivated plant. The prevailing direction of winds during March, April, June, and July is generally southeast.—[M. Ceballos, U. 8. Vice-Consul. ies. ‘ax 7 f ¥tye : i $ i mA ae a Ae ARAN 7 re 1 ne (42 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. Passing over to the West Indies, we find that the cntieepale was de- structive to cotton in the Bahamas from the earliest cultivation of the — plant. In 1788 we are told by various narrators that 280 tons of cotton _ were destroyed. In 1794 two-thirds of the crop on Acklin’s Island was lost. rom this time up to the emancipation of the slaves, in 1834, the worms were injurious every year, but at this time the cultivation of the - erop ceased until the outbreak of the civil war in the United States, when it was again begun, only to cease at the close of the struggle. According to the inhabitants, the Cotton Worm has not been seen since a great hurricane which visited the islands in 1866, and Mr. Schwarz, in the spring of 1879, was unable to find a trace of it in any stage. In Cuba the cultivation of cotton ceased some fifty years ago, and Mr. J. P. Guarché, United States consul at Matanzas, wrote the Depart- ment, in 1855, giving as the reason the superior profits of sugar cane and tobacco, and the fact that “the soil generates a worm which attacks the cotton plant and destroys the greater part of the crop almost every year. This worm is Said to infest the plantations of our Southern States, but its ravages there are represented to be ey in comparison with what they are here.” In Santo Domingo, Porto Rico, Trinidad, Barbuda, and Guadaloupe, the Cotton Worm has probably always been present, but we have no absolute information beyond the fact that in the British Museum Cata- logue of Lepidoptera, Part XIII, p.989, four specimens of Anomis grandi- puncta (synonym of Aletia zylina) are entered from Santo Domingo. In Martinique it exists without much doubt, as appears from the fol- lowing: | UNITED STATES CONSULATE, Martinique, W. I., December 11, 1879. Cotton is not cultivated to any extent in Martinique. There is not a cotton planta- tion upon the island; there are only a few traces here and there, and these grow wild upon the southern part of the island. The worst insect enemy is a green-looking worm with white points on either side. I am told that this worm has been here since © the first cultivation of cotton upon the island. The prevailing direction of the wind during the months of March, April, June, and July is east-northeast.—[W. H. Gar- field, United States Consul. Cotton was formerly one of the staple crops of this island, and Mr. Grote in his report to us states that he was informed by the Hon. Rob- ert Toombs that in 1801~’02 there was an emigration of French cotton planters from Martinique to Georgia on account of the ravages of the Cotton Worm. In the northern countries of South America Aletia is abundant with- out doubt. The British Museum (loc. cit.) possesses specimens from Venezuela, and the following note from Maracaibo refers to this species: UNITED STATES COMMERCIAL AGENCY, Maracaibo, Venezuela, February 18, 1880, ~ * * The worst enemy of the cotton plant is the caterpillar. There are two distinct kinds. One is green and rather small, and the other kind has a green belly .. iy Ee bidé bile : : i 4 y, 43 THE COTTON WORM IN OTHER COUNTRIES. and yellowish back with brown stripes. * “* * The caterpillars generally appear in the spring-time ; that is to say, in February and March, and at times in such quan- tities that they succeed in destroying whole plantations of cotton. If, however, the rainy seasons continue a short time beyond their usual period, they are almost all destroyed by the rains. These caterpillars have been known ever since the first time that cotton was raised here, and, so far as I can gather from information received, are indigenous to the coun- try and in no way imported from elsewhere. * * * The winds that prevail in that part of the country are north-northeast and south-southeast.—[E. H. Plumacher, Com- mercial Agent. The smaller caterpillar referred to is Aletia, and the larger one & large sphingid larva. In British Guiana the Cotton Worm was in former years very abun- dant and destructive. Dr. Chisholm * has given a long account of its method of work and the remedies, which is quoted freely in the Report of the Department of Agriculture on Cotton Insects, 1879 (pp. 72, 73). Dr. Ure (1835) also states that the Chenille is the most destructive enemy to the cotton crop in British Guiana. In Dutch Guiana the Cotton Worm has always been destructive, and Mr. F, W. Cragin, United States Consul at Paramaribo, writing to the Department of Agriculture, in 1856, identifies the destructive insect with Noctua xylina Say. _In Brazil, A. zylina has been found at various points. Our most trust- worthy information is contained in the report of Mr. John C. Branner (Appendix V). Messrs. Branner and Koebele, as shown in this re- port, reared this species from the larva at Bahia and at Bonito (Prov- ince of Pernambuco). In the British Museum list previously cited, A. grandipuncta is given from Santarem (Province of Para). The follow- ing concerning the Cotton Worms at Bahia is from the American Ento- mologist, Vol. III, pp. 128, 129 (May, 1880). COTTON CULTURE AND THE INSECTS AFFECTING THE PLANT AT BAHIA, BRAZIL. Cotton is not grown at present to any considerable extent in this province, and has _ esased to be an article of exportation. The cultivation is simple in the extreme, re- quiring little care or attention, but owing to the distance from this part of the cotton- producing districts, the cultivation has long since ceased to be remunerative. The insect enemies of the cotton-plant which particularly attack it, consist of two species of moths, which in the form of worms or caterpillars prey upon its leaves and stalk as also the cotton pod itself. It is also attacked by a peculiar species of bug, a specimen of which is forwarded, and by the grasshoppers, which commit great ravages on the foliage and the tender stalks. The *‘ Cotton Worm” as described by Professor Riley is somewhat different from the worm found in this province, differing in color and other respects, but it is no doubt of very similar character. The ravage committed by them is greater in the dry or summer months, say Sep- tember, October, November, and December. This Cotton Worm is believed to have been always in the country, and not imported. Cotton has been grown in this part of Brazil for as long a time as any other produc- tion, and it is also found growing wild. * Brewster’s Edinburgh Encyclopedia: Article Cotton. 44 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. The prevailing direction of the wind during the months of March, April, June, and July is easterly, varying from N. E. to S. E.—Richard A. Edes, U. S. Consul, Bahia, Brazil. One of the caterpillars referred to by Mr. Edes is the larva of a species very near and perhaps identical with Aletia argillacea Hiibn., as proven both by specimens received from him and others collected and bred by Messrs. Branner and Koebele, while the other is undoubtedly Aletia aylina. . From Pernambuco we have had the following excellent account: UNITED States CONSULATE, Pernambuco, March 20, 1880. * * ¥* The foes most fatal to the cotton plant are the different kinds of cater- pillars, which in some years increase to a frightful extent, destroying entirely the crop and the pasturage; the absence of rain, and ‘‘the blight.” * * * The Cotten Worm or caterpillar, Anomis xylina, particularly described in your letter, attacks the plant in these provinces. It appears simultaneously with the other varieties at the beginning of the rainy season, and never alone. It comes and disap- pears with the rain. So far as can be ascertained from observation, the Anomis xylina is believed to be a native of the country. During some entire years it is extremely rare to see a cater- pillar, whether there be sun or rain, wet or dry weather. Some varieties, however, seem consequent upon the action of the sun, and others upon the action of the rain, appearing and disappearing as if by enchantment.—Andrew Cone, U. 8. Consul. In the more southern provinces of Brazil there is also a destructive Cotton Worm, but its identity with Aletia has not been established. The following paragraph from the report which Prof. J. E. Willet made to us in 1878 refers to the work of this worm: - Dr. E. L. McIntyre, of Thomasville, Ga., writes: ‘‘I settled in the province of Sao Paulo, Brazil, in the year 1866, and remained there eight years and a half. The cul- tivation of cotton was of recent date then, and they were planting their fourth crop when I arrived. Prior to the year 1863 there had been some cotton planted in the country, perhaps of an indigenous variety, but no one had ever observed a Cotton Worm, and I believe they had never existed there. In 1862 the price of cotton offer- ing great inducements to Brazilian farmers, they sought to procure seeds, but none could be had, and Iam informed the seed then being used was brought from New Orleans. The first year no caterpillars were seen, but after the second they com- menced to eat the leaves, and had increased to such an extent that when I moved from there the cultivation of cotton was nearly abandoned.” 4 nee CHAPYTE f.*¥: ON THE ANATOMY OF ALETIA. By CHARLES SEDGWICK MINOT AND EDWARD BURGESS. [Plates VI-XI.] The following chapter was prepared at the request of Professor Riley, to whose kindness we are indebted for the material upon which our observations have been made. Several untoward circumstances have contributed to interfere with the progress of the investigation. The work was begun by Dr. Minot, who was subsequently joined by Mr. Burgess, in the hope that our joint labors would prove more efficient. Nevertheless we find it necessary to leave various points undecided. This incompleteness is partly due to the unavoidable imperfection of preserved specimens,* and partly to the scanty light yet thrown on insect anatomy and physiology. ANATOMY OF THE LARVA. The external anatomy of the larva need not be again described in this chapter. There are only a few points to be noted in regard to the legs, the previous descriptions of which are somewhat incomplete. The true legs, Plate VI, Fig. 4, are conical, three-jointed, and provided with a terminal hook, Fig. 6, which is curved toward the median line of the body, and has at its base a thick swelling, usually described as a fleshy pad; the adjective fleshy is hardly appropriate, as the pad is covered by a well-developed, hard crust. There are two hairs on the first joint, the lower being much the slenderer. There are four hairs on the lower ‘part of the second joint, two on the inner edge rather stout and curv- ing, and one fine one just bélow them, and a long one in front. On the last joint again are four hairs, all near the terminal claw, namely, a small one in front, a thick, curving one on the side, another thick, curv- ing one just above the pad of the claw, and immediately above this the fourth hair, which is shaped something like an Indian club, and is ap- parently somewhat flattened. The constancy of form and disposition of these hairs lead us to think that their arrangement must be of some importance, therefore we have given this detailed description. *Some material preserved in a 5 per cent. solution of chloral-hydrate was found very useful. With this preservative, specimens should be opened in several places to allow the fiuid to penetrate into the interior. Indeed this should be done with alcoholic specimens also. 45 46 REPORT 4, UNITED SLATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. — The false feet or prolegs, Plate VI, Fig. 2, of which there are five pairs, _ the first pair considerably smaller than any of the others, as is well known, differ entirely from the true, anterior or permanent legs. They | are thicker, cylindrical, and one-jointed ; they have a few long hairs, and are armed with a row of a dozen and @ half curved hooks. The hooks turn towards the median line of the body ; they diminish in size from the center of the row towards each end. Each hock consists of a more cylindrical, large basal portion, which appears to be chiefly imbedded in the flesh of the foot, and a recurved hook proper, Plate I, Fig. 3, which has a very thick cuticula. There is also a pigmented pad, which lies over the base of each hook on the inside of the foot. We could find no certain evidence of a second row of hooks such as have been de- scribed in many caterpillars, though possibly there are very small claws on the pigmented pads above described. The markings, colored stripes and dots, that decorate the lane, are produced by various means, partly by deposits in the matrix of the crust (epidermal cells), partly by colors of the crust itself. The dark- brewn color belongs to the crust, and is peculiarly distributed in a man- ner that has not,so far as we are aware, been described hitherto. Upon the outside of the crust is a very thin but distinct layer, which in cer- tain parts rises up into a great number of minute, pointed spines that look like so many dots in a surface view, Plate VI, Fig. 8. Each spineis pigmented diffusely, and together they produce the brown markings. The spines are clustered in little groups, one group over each underly- ing matrix, or epidermal cell. The stigmata of the larve are small vertical fissures on the sides of the segments. The first, fourth, and subsequent segments have each a pair, making nine in a there are none on the second and third rings. Viewed from the surface they are seen to be provided with an anterior lip, which is simple, and a posterior lip, which bears a projecting lever. Both these lie quite deep down and serve to close the trachea. Above each lip are several rows of hairs that are short, branching, and spine- like. The stigmata form the subject of a recent excellent memoir by Oskar Krancher,* a pupil of Rudolph Leuckart, the distinguished pro- fessor of zoology at Leipzig. On pages 543-546 of this essay the stig- mata of caterpillars are fully described. According to Krancher, the lever-bearing, or posterior, lip is more developed than the anterior. (The former was named by Landois the Verschlussbiigel, the latter the Verschlussband ; but these names are not specially appropriate, and we prefer to use anterior and posterior lip instead.) The lever arises from the upper end of the posterior lip. In most of the diurnal lepidoptera it isa simple chitinous rod, but in some of the Bombycide it is more complicated. Attached to the lever is a double muscle; one part, run- ning to the lower end of the lever-bearing lip, serves to approximate * Oskar Krancher. Der Bau der Stigmen bei den Insekten. Zeitschr. f. wiss. Zoologie, XXXYV, 1881, pp. 505-575, Taf. XX VILTI-XXIX. - wh the two lips, and so close the opening between them; the other part is ca ANATOMY OF THE LARVA OF ALETIA. aE. attached to the neighboring epidermis, and serves to open the lips. Only this latter division of the muscle, which is considerably the larger, was described by Landois.* The internal anatomy of the larva agrees closely with the lepidopte- rous type, as established by previous observers. In the head, Plate VII, Fig. 1, the digestive canal begins with the large mouth m, lined by a dark, firm cuticula and passing over into the narrow muscular cesopha- gus, Oe. Behind the mouth is a projecting pointed process at the tip of which opens the salivary duct. Above and in front of the mouth there is a distinct mass of tissue, of a fibrous, areolar character, spread- ing out fan-like from the upper wall of the cesophagus and attached in front to the lower part of the clypeus and to an endocranial pro- cess. In this mass of tissue lies the small frontal ganglion. Above the c@sophagus is the brain, br; below it the subcesophageal ganglion S, connected by a short commissure with the first ganglion of the ventral chain. The rest of the internal anatomy is illustrated by Fig. 1, Plate VI. In the first (thoracic) segment the esophagus expands into the enormous stomach St., which runs through eight segments, and is by far the larg- est and most conspicuous organ of the body. From in front backwards it gradually widens, but posteriorly it is rounded off. Into the hinder end open the malpighian or urinary vessels m. v., six in number, three on each side uniting together and opening by a short duct. The sali- vary glands lie upon each side of the stomach, having long ducts which reach through the anterior three segments of the body. The gland proper, Sal., is an elongated tube, gradually diminishing in diam- eter towards its posterior end or tip; its course is curious; it runs some distance straight backwards, then makes a sharp angle over the second proleg and runs forwards and upwards, then another sharp crook over the first proleg and it continues backwards again anc slightly upwards. Behind the stomach the intestinal canal consists of four parts: first a short, constricted connecting piece; second a dilated, oval division, In.; third the short rectum #.; fourth the short anal tube. The dorsal ves- sel or heart, d. v., is a long tube placed above the digestive canal, and extending through nearly the entire length of the body. The ventral chain of ganglia numbers eleven distinct knots, the last being however evidently double. The first ventral ganglion is the subesop!ageal; the second lies so near it as to be almost united with it. The others lie at regular intervals, until the tenth, which is pushed a little forward of its original position over the fourth proleg. The eleventh double gan- glion lies close to the tenth and gives off a large number of nerves, most of which run backwards. The iarge stomach alone represents the entodermic canal, and presents *Landois. Zeit. wiss. Zoologie, 1867. . . ey } 48 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. Sa the same essential peculiarities of minute structure as were acsecmeal by Minot* in the orthoptera. The lining epithelium is thrown up into — folds so as to form imperfectly differentiated glandular follicles. If the epithelium be brushed off, the characteristic arrangement of the mus- cular fibers can be seen, Plate VI, Fig. 7. There is an internal coat, com- posed of a great number of pale fibers running transversely around the stomach and more or less parallel to one another. Outside are the longitudinal striped muscles, which are distributed in single bundles, 11, and do not form a continuous layer. Each bundle is composed of a number of fibers and pursues its own course; the bundles are not parallel, but sometimes two bundles unite, or are connected by a third; their general trend is longitudinal. Finally it must be mentioned that numerous tracheal branches penetrate the muscular layers, and ramify through both them and the connective tissue. EXTERNAL ANATOMY OF THE IMAGO. To prepare the external skeleton for examination the following method is satisfactory and convenient. The whole insect, either in the fresh state or after preservation in alcohol, is placed in a test tube with a solu- tion of caustic potash and carefully boiled over a flame for a couple of minutes. Thespecimen is then thoroughly washed with water, to which a little acetic acid or vinegar is added to neutralize the alkali. The specimen while in this state may be brushed with a camel’s-hair pencil, and most of the scales removed. It is best to put it next, for twenty- four hours, in strong alcohol and to then complete the brushing upon the hardened object. With a little care and patience all the hairs and scales can be removed without injuring the crust. A view of the exoskeleton of the female is given on Plate VIII, Fig. 1. We shall follow Mr. Burgess’ memoir upon the Milkweed Butterfly, as to the homologies and nomenclature of the parts. The head is more triangular in outline, when seen from the side, than in Danais, and the eyes, H, are relatively smaller. The palpi and maxillw are very similar to those of the butterfly.- The antenne, a, are thicker and the enlarge- ment of the two basal joints is quite marked. The thorax is large and compact. The first segment (I) is small, the second (II) by far the largest of the three. The prothorax is connected with the head by a narrow neck, which is perhaps really the anterior portion of the first thoracic segment. This point is better shown in a view of the underside, Plate IX, Fig.1. The front legs are there removed; the insertion of coxe into the thorax is shown at I’; just in front of this insertion is a thickened ring of hard crust; farther forwards the integument is mem- branous, and the prothorax proper becomes directly continuous with *Minot,C.S. Histology of the locust (Caloptenus): and the cricket (Anabrua): Chapter X, in Second Report of the United States Entomological Commission. 1880. Pp. 183-224. Plates II-VI. tBurgess, Edward. Contributions to the Anatomy of the Milkweed Butterfly (Danais archippus, Fabr.). Anniv. Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., 1881. aes EXTERNAL ANATOMY OF THE MOTH. - 49 t the neck. So, too, a median section shows that the neck and prothorax are really one, Plate VIII, Fig.2. Two pendulous lobes s!, Fig. 1, Plate _ VIII, project from the upper side of the prothorax, which appear to belong to the scutum, but their real homologies are not yet determined with certainty. They: are constricted around their bases, so as to be quite movable. Upon the sides, just behind and below them, lies the first spiracle, sp'. Below the spiracle are two pieces of elongated shape, running down to the insertion of the coxe; the anterior piece, eps', is the episternum, and meets its fellow on the ventral side, forming a me- dian suture between the two coxal articulations, Plate IX, Fig. 1; the posterior is the homologue of the epimeron of the segments. The mesothorax, Plate VIII, Fig. 1, 0, is the largest segment of the body. It is longest on the upper side. The principal dorsal piece is the big scutum, s*, below the lateral edge of which springs the front wing, w!. Over the base of the wing runs back the large patagiun, pt, which is very much developed; its only connection with the body is in front, where it bends over and, as it were, hooks around the front edge ofthe wing. Thescutellum, sm?,is also prominent and extends for some distance over the metathorax. The episternum, eps’, is an oblong piece which runs backward, beginning just underneath the front end of the patagium, and is joined behind to the epimeron, epm?. It is united below with a double piece, st, which extends downwards and back- wards to the coxe, cz. This piece was determined by Dr. Packard, in Attacus, as the sternum, and his nomenclature was followed by Bur- gess in his article on Danais. From our study of the Cotton Moth, it seems doubtful whether this interpretation can be sustained. The piece is double on each side, as can be especially well seen in a ventral view, Plate IX, Fig. 1. The same aspect also shows that the two pieces do not meet in the median line, but are separated by a clear triangular space, behind which lies a pair (a, a) of pieces which separate the coxe and meet one another in the median ventral line. These are perhaps the real sternal pieces. In any case it is evident that further and extended study is necessary to elucidate the real morphology of these numerous components of the thoracic skeleton. The epimeron, epm? (Plate VIII, Fig. 1), is quite large and complicated. It consists of a hard V-shaped _ piece, between the two legs of which is a large, triangular membranous area. The anterior leg of the V is much the broader, and joins above to the episternum, and in front to the part marked st, which Packard has held for the sternum. The membranous portion between the legs presents an inconspicuous structure, whichis perhaps a spiracle, although this could not be certainly established. The coxal joint, cx, tapers rapidly ; examined from the outer surface it appears to consist of two pieces; the anterior piece has been called the coxa, the posterior the trochantine by some authors. The metathorax (III) is particularly puzzling on account of its very complex structure, due at least in part to the development of numerous 63 CONG i ’ 50 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. air-chambers in the interior, accompanied by manifold ingrowths of the — outer crust to serve as partitions between the adjacent air-chambers. As the ingrowths are connected with divisions of the exoskeleton, this - last becomes very complicated, especially in the posterior lateral region below the wing and above the leg. The scutum, s°, is well marked; immediately below it arises the hind wing, w?. The piece which Bur- gess determined as the scutellum in Danais we have not found in Ale- tia; but what in the butterfly appears merely as the tip of the scutum is distinctly differentiated in the moth and is very probably the true seutel- lum; in this case the part so named in Danais would have to be con- © sidered as the post-scutellum. On the front edge of the segment, be- tween the front edge of the wing and the coxal joint, is a single piece, eps*, which seems to correspond to the two pieces, eps? and st, of the mesothorax, fused into one. In the posterior part, epm, there are a variety of structures, of which the most important are two, marked A and B. The former is a little quadrangular flap, which hangs down from just below the posterior edge of the hind wings. The latter, B, is a deep-lying, oval, pellucid membrane, which we think is probably homologous with the tympanal membrane of grasshoppers. The rela- tion of these parts is better shown in the enlarged figure, Plate XI, Fig. 3, in which the oval membrane, B, and the flap, A, are both very dis- tinctly drawn. We have not succeeded in observing any spiracle on this segment. The boundary between the metathorax and the abdomen is not clearly marked externally. The coxal joint, ca’, is similar to that of the second leg. , . A. H. Swinton has published a paper on the organ of hearing in lep- — idoptera,*” in which he refers to the oval disk, which we have interpreted asatympanum. According to,Swinton, a nerve passes from the third thoracic ganglion obliquely across and round the elevator muscle of the hind wing to the supposed tympanum, where it is connected with a structure (Swinton’s “‘ membranous vesicle”) which is apparently iden- tical with the structure in like position in the grasshoppers, which latter was likewise originally described as a vesicle, but is now known to be really a cluster of rod-bearing, terminal organs, such aS are now known to be the essential constituents of tympanal organs. Fora gen- eral account of these apparatus see the résumé by C. 8. Minot.j It is probable that the part we have described in moths is a real tympanum, and entirely homologous with that of Acridians, but the matter must | remain uncertain until the terminal rods have been actually found. The abdomen consists of nine segments, numbered 1-9, the last two not showing in the figure, being retracted into the seventh segment. The first is smaller than the second and succeeding segments, and, therefore, appears as a sort of thick stalk uniting the abdomen with *Swinton, A.H. Onan Organ of Hearing in Insects, with special reference to the Lepidoptera. En- | tomologist’s Monthly Mag., XIV (1877), 121-126. i tMinot,C.S. Comparative Morphology of the Ear. Fourth Article. American Journ. Otology, IV (1882), 89-168. a - EXTERNAL ANATOMY OF THE MOTH. 5I the thorax. Each of the segments consists of a dorsal, two lateral (one on each side) and a ventral piece. The side piece or membrane of the first seven segments bears a spiracle. The first segment, in its trans- verse diameter, is nearly as broad as the thorax, but its dorso-ventral diameter is barely half as great. In front it bends over and inwards, especially at the sides, so that here (see Plate XI, Fig. 3) the crust, where it joins the thorax, faces towards the head. It is here that the spiracle (sp) is placed, so that in a side view of the abdomen we see the edges of the spiracle, and not its opening, as in the other segments; the spir- acle looks forwards. The structure of the spiracles is interesting. They are all essentially alike. Plate XI, Fig. 1, represents that of the second abdominal seg- ment. The spiracle is a vertical fissure with two lips, of which the an- terior is connected with a long tendon, to which are attached the mus- cles which move the lips. Outside the lips is a row of stiff hairs, or spines, which, standing out from the borders of the fissure, reach to- wards its center, so that those of the opposite sides nearly meet in the middle. Fig. 2 of the same plate gives a more magnified representa- tion of a single spine. It rises from a pore-canal (or tube running through the cuticula), makes a bend at the start, and then runs out nearly straight, a thick stem, from the outer half of which arise a num- ber of oblique prickles or thorns irregularly placed. ‘The shaft consists of a hard sheath and a core or pulp. The hairs on the front edge are a little shorter than those on the posterior. At the top and bottom of the fissure the hairs become very small. The purpose of these spines is undoubtedly protective; they serve to prevent the entrance of foreign bodies, like the similar structures in the spiracles of the caterpillar. In - the adult there is a single row of long spines; in the larva several rows of short spines. The legs offer little requiring special description. The tarsal joints are five on each leg. After removal of the scales they are seen to be armed with a double row of spines on their inner margin (Pl. IX, Fig. 2), except the last joint, which has only hairs. The spines are shortest on the upper part of each joint and increase towards the distal end, the lowest spine being the longest. The end of the last joint bears in front two long, curving hairs, and behind the two recurved hooks, between which is placed the soft hairy pad, or pulvillus, p. The other joints are distinguished by their gradual diminution in length, the first or upper being the longest and having also the largest number of spines, as well as the greatest intervals between the adjacent spines. The scales on the legs are peculiarly grouped, being inserted in little clusters of some 10 to 15. Hach cluster is very compact and elongated, in the sense of the long axis of the limb. The scales are flattened hairs, divided into a blade of variable shape and a short pedicel, by which they are attached tothe skin. The blade consists of a central portion, homologous with the core of hairs, and Sa ae : aa Nea 52 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. Biss i a cuticular membrane, consisting, of course, of an upper and lower an a ina, united at their edges and continued on the pedicel. Burmeis-— ter gives it as his opinion that the scale is empty between the two - - lamine; but we cannot accept his view, because in those scales we have examined there is always an internal pulp, which often contains — coloring matters. The scales have longitudinal stris, which are ‘pro- duced by folds of the owter surface or lamina, as is at once shown by a cross-section of a scale (Plate IX, Fig. 1A). The upper surface is more nearly flat. Thelower surface is recurved on each side. The scales are thickest in the middle line and thin out towards the edges. All these fea- tures were likewise observed by Burgessin Danais, and it is probable that they are common to the majority of the lepidopterous scales. , There has been much dispute concerning the nature of the striz on the scales, and Burgess was the first to describe their real character. Certainly Burmeis- ter isin error when he says: ‘I] n’est pas douteux que les stries bien visi-. bles des écailles soient des filets élevés au cété interne de la lame supéri- eure, Se prononcant au cété externe seulement comme stries finementim- primees.”* In many species, especially of buttertlies, there are trans- verse striae, which are said by Burmeister to be confined to the inferior lamina. In conjunction with the longitudinal strix, they divide the scales into little squares. There is great variety in the form of ‘the © scales, but the study of these variations has hitherto borne little fruit. R. Schneider has published a memoirf{ on the form and distribution of the scales over the body in Lepidoptera, treating the subject with con- siderable detail. More interesting is Burmeister’s essay, which con- tains the best general account with which we are acquainted. The scales are inserted into peculiarly-shaped oblique pore-canals (Plate XI, Fig. 5). They begin on the outer surface with a wide open funnel that leads into a bulb or spherical dilatation of the pore. From the deep-lying surface of the bulb runs inward a fine tube. Appar- ently the stalk of the mene fits into the outer funnel, and is attached to the bulb. The distribution of the scale pores: is characteristic ; fe he in little groups, which tend to spread out in lines having the care general trend, but never strictly parallel with one another (Plate XI, Fig. 4). On the legs, as already mentioned, there is a similar grouping, though not identical with that shown in Fig. 4. On certain parts, as, for example, the patagia and the membranous portions of the thoracic crust, the — pores are scattered more evenly, each by itself. The best account of the structure of the maxillz, or proboscis, of but- terflies is that given by Burgess, and an examination of this organ in Aletia reveals the same essential structure as in the butterfly, so that we may dispense with a detailed account. Plate XI, Fig. 6, represents * H. Burmeister. Description physique de la République Argentine. Tome cinquidme. Lépido- ptéres. (Examen spécial des Keailles, pp. 21-28.) Buénos-Ayres, 1878. tR. Schneider. Die Schuppen an den verschiedenen Fligel- und K6érpertheilen der Lepido- pteren. Zeitschr. f. d. gesammt. Nat.-Wiss. III (1878), pp. 1-59, Taf. I-III. =< : sale ie INTERNAL ANATOMY OF THE MOTH. 53 vial just the fo. to show its peculiar outline and the spine-like structures, bie which probably have a sensory function, They are present in all Lepi- re doptera, but under a great variety of forms; in Danais they are reduced to small warts, but in many other genera they are large and conspicu- wh ous; for details the reader may consult Darwin and Breitenbach.* The spines are evidently modified hairs, for they are each placed over a wide pore-canal of the cuticula, and are themselves pointed chitinous tubes, as Shown in the figures (Plate XI, Figs. 6 and 8). The spines consist of two parts, a cylindrical basal aaah and a double outer portion, com- posed of two tapering horns (Plate XI, Fig. 8). In some of the larger spines one of these horns is much the greater of the two, and seems to be a direct, spur-like continuation of the base, while the shorter fork is articulated to the proximal joint. In the smaller spines the inequality of the two forks is much less; the long fork is most developed on the spines of the dorsal side of the maxilla. There is difficulty in making out these characteristics in all the spines, as they often lie on the slide in positions unfavorable to microscopic examination, and there remain many points undecided. The largest spines are found a little way from the tip; on the very tip of the trunk they are a little smaller, and to- wards the base of the proboscis they gradually grow smaller and smaller, and lie further apart; they are not found on the basal half of the organ. Upon that edge of the maxillz which is dorsal when they are extended, are hairs such as are represented in Plate XI, Fig. 7. These hairs are for the most part inclined away from the tip-like barbs. Whether they are stiff, so that they serve to lacerate the flowers attacked by the moths, we were unable to determine; that this function is performed by the large spines is, we think, dapeobable, although Professor Comstock has suggested this view. INTERNAL ANATOMY OF THE IMAGO. The digesfive canal of Aletia closely resembles that of the Milkweed Butterfly, Danais archippus, as described by Burgess. We shall therefore follow his account. The canal traversing the proboscis opens into a large sa duoulag pha- rynx, which occupies much of the lower part of the head, Plate VII, Fig. 2. The pharynx is oval, and is suspended by at least two pairs of mus- cles, one dorsal, m}, and one frontal, m?. At the anterior border of . the pharynx is a triangular muscular flap, the epipharynx, m’, overly- ing the opening of the proboscis, and serving as a valve to close the Jatter.. The pharynx shows two layers of muscles, an outer, thicker one of longitudinal fibers, and an inner of transverse fibers. The pharyngeal cavity extends obliquely upwards from front to back, and is much broader than high. ‘The pharynx, as is evident from its structure, serves as a pumping *¥F. Darwin, Quart. Journ. Micros. Sci., KV, 385. Breitenbach. Arch. fiir mikros. Anat., XV, 8, and XVI, 308. Jena, Zeitschr, tf. Nat.- Wiss. organ to suck the liquid food of the animal Ander the prin ids Ne force it backwards into the digestive canal, the process being as fol- lows: The proboscis is unrolled, and. inserted into the nectary of a flower; at this moment the ae which suspend the pharynx con- — _ tract,.and its cavity is thus extended, creating a vacuum, which must be supplied by a flow of honey through the proboscis, into the — pharynx. When the latter is full its muscles contract, the valve closes the aperture to the proboscis, and the honey is forced backward into the esophagus. The pharynx is then again opened, and the same pro- cess is repeated. To prevent the food being sucked back from the — cesophagus, it is probable that some of the numerous fibers in the muscular sac near the origin of the former can, by contraction, close its opening; but in any case, asthe proboscis presents a free tube, and the cesophagus leads into the closed alimentary canal, it is evident that the former offers the easiest route for a supply to fill the vacuum Pe in the pharynx.” (Burgess.) The organ just described escaped the notice of ontonateae et one discovered by Burgess, and its functions were conjecturally aseribed to. other parts. “ The so-called ‘ sucking stomach’ thus received its name _from earlier writers, and when its structure was better known and such a purpose negatived, the capillarity of the fine tube of the proboscis, and even a peristaltic action of the latter, have been suggested to ex- plain the power possessed by the butterfly to suck up its food.” At the upper extremity of the pharynx opens the narrow cesophagus, oe, and at the lower edge of the hypopharynx the common duct of the salivary glands, sal, discharges into the expanded base of the probos- cidean canal. These glands consist of two long convoluted tubes, ex- tending along each side of the thoracic central nervous system. In the general figure, Plate VIII, Fig. 2, the glands have been removed, in order to show the course of the cesophagus and ganglionic chain. The cesophagus, Plate VIII, Fig. 2, oe, is a slender and delicate tube Jeading from the pharynx above, and after piercing the nerve commis- sure between the brain-and the succeeding ganglion, passes straight ~ through the thorax into the abdomen, in the very base of which it separates into two short branches, the upper leading into the food res- ervoir, the other the true stomach. The food reservoir, fr, (or so-called sucking stomach), is a large * membranous sac filling the anterior end of the abdomen; its walls are a very delicate cuticle, winery is interiorly thrown into very curious laby- rinthine wrinkles; near theneck is a region armed with singular processes or spines, scale-like in shape, each scale being armed with some six or eight very sharp teeth. The neck has an investment of transverse, an- nular muscular fibers. In alcoholic specimens the food reservoir is much crumpled, and in all specimens opened was empty. There are some indications that the sac is not a simple one, but has secondary lobes or partitions; but this ee Pr. & ~ INTERNAL ANATOMY OF THE MOTH. | 55 point is still unsolved. Since the organ is not for sucking, as long sup- - posed, and is evidently not digestive, it seems likely, or at least pos- - gible, that it serves simply as a reservoir. It is first developed in the pupal stage. In a lateral view, as in Fig. 2, the neck of the reservoir is concealed by the anterior end of the stomach, which projects into two short lobes on each side of the neck. The stomach, st, is very much smaller than in the Pe for it barely extends through iar abdominal segments. Its walls have the same two muscular coats as we have described in the larval stomach, vide supra, and the epithelial lining is thrown up into beautiful glandular corrugations. The stomach is overlaid with the convoluted malpighian vessels, mv, six in number, three of which, on each side, unite and open by a short, common duct into the posterior end of the stomach. At the end of the stomach begins the peculiarly coiled small intestine, i, which passes to the left of the bursa copulatrix in the female, and of _ the genitalia in the male. The intestine passes into the wide terminal ~ division, or rectum, &, from the front end of which runs out a curved blind pouch or cecum, ¢. In Danais the terminal division is clearly Separated into an anterior part or colon, and a posterior part, or true rectum, but the rectal region is less noticeable in Aletia. The course of the aorta, or anterior extension of the heart, in lepi- - doptera, was not correctly described by the older authors. Burgess ob- served its strange bend in the butterflies, and has since studied it in several forms of lepidoptera, and published his results in a short paper.* Tn this article he describes and figures the course of the thoracic aorta in anoctuid. In Aletia it enters from the abdomen behind, bends im- mediately upwards, widens rapidly, makes a slight, crook, and then, reaching the dorsal wall of the metathorax, to which it is secured by fibrous tissue, if makes a sharp bend and runs back upon its own conrse; next curves forwards, and, growing gradually narrower, runs along jast above the esophagus into the head, passing with the former through the brain. The nervous system consists of a chain of ganglia and the nerves, The supra-esophageal ganglion, or brain, occupies nearly the center of the head (Plate VII, Fig. 2, Br.), and is connected by very thick commis- sures with the sub-cesophageal ganglion, which passes gradually into the cord that leads to the first thoracic ganglion. This is quite distinct, but the second and third are almost comptetely fused, and connect with the abdominal ganglia by a very long commissure. In the abdomen (Pilate VIII, Fig. 2) there are four nerve centers (a. g., a. g.), aS is almost always the case in the Lepidoptera, lying in the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth segments respectively. The last is the largest, and is compounded of two or more ganglia fused together; the principal nerves arising from it seem to innervate the organs of reproduction. *Burgess. E. Proceedings Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist., X°XI, 153-156. . AT See ee = Hila iAy itt thee 56 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. TERMINAL BODY SEGMENTS AND ORGANS OF REPRODUCTION. in the state of rest the eighth and ninth segments in the abdomen of both sexes lie concealed within the seventh, the intersegmental mem- branes in these cases being long enough . admit of this telescoping action. The eighth segment of the male does not differ from the preced- ‘ing, except in wanting the spiracles and in its smaller size. It has, how- ever, on its under side a thick shock of long hairs or scales parted down the middle, which, when this segment is retracted within the seventh, serves to form a soft cushion between the two, although this may not be _ its only purpose. The brushes of hair, to be described below, borne by the ninth segment act in the same manner as a ‘cushion between the. eighth and ninth segments. The dorsum of the latter or terminal segment is produced backwards into a slightly curved hook, often compared with the telson of the crus- tacea (see Plate VIII, Fig. 2, and Plate X, Figs. 1 and 3, where the hook is marked with the figure 9). This hook covers the anal opening (a.), and in some Noctuids is greatly developed. Beneath it is a chitinous finger (Fig. 3, f) which is movable, but its function is obseure. The ventral portion of the ninth segment forms a broad trough-shaped _ process (Plate X, v. pr., Figs. 1-3), with upturned lateral edges, the penis lying in the bottom of the trough so formed, and hinged to each side of this segment are the “claspers,” which are narrow triangular pieces with a slender, slightly incurved apex. Their exact shape will be more readily understood by referring to the lateral, dorsal, and ventral views given in Plate X, Figs. 1, 2, and 3, ¢ left, c! right clasp. There is still another and singular organ attached to the ninth seg- ment. This is a sac with delicate membraneous walls thickly covered with slender, long-stalked scales (Plate IX, Fig. 3). The sac is very elastic, and may be protruded like a long finger and again retracted at will. The long hair-like seales give the organ the appearance of a brush. It is shown in various positions on Plate X, Figs. 1-3, b, the scales being removed in all the aie This brush-sac is attached to the base of the claspers. Morrison* first called attention to similar organs in Leucarctia acrea, and states they are protruded by being filled with fluid from within. He also noticed them in Danais, Agrotis, and Euplexia. Burgess (loc. cit.) . described their structure in Danais, where, however, they are not placed ju the same position as in Letcarctia and the Noctuids. The retractor muscle found in Danais we have not succeeded in finding in Aletia. Miller has also noticed these appendages, and regards them as scent organs. At all events it is probable they are organs for sexual excita- tion. They are not found in the female.”* The male organs of reproduction consist of a very large testis, two vasa deferentia, in each of which a tubular gland opens, a ductus ejacu- * Morrison, H. K. Psyche, I, 21. ~s wees INTERNAL ANATOMY OF THE MOTH. 5 latorius, and the penis. The testis is shaped like a very thick, nearly : _ spherical, button. (Plate VIII, Fig.2,and X, Fig.1, Te.) It is really a - compound organ composed of two testes fused together. The testes can be found in the caterpillar as separate kidney shaped organs lying. - close under the dorsal vessel* in the fifth abdominal segment. In both larva and imago the fifth abdominal spiracle sends a branching tra- cheal tree which spreads over and into the testes on each side. The vasa deferentia lead from the posterior face of the testes. After a few convolutious they dilate into pod-shaped chambers, and then contract for alength of very fine tubes until reaching the point of union with the glandule mucose, into the basal portion of which the vasa deferen- tia seem to open. A short distance farther and .the two vasa deferen- tia unite into a long, single duct, the ductus ejaculatorius, which is of larger diameter, contracting slightly near its end, again dilating into a very muscular, gourd-shaped Section (Plate X, Fig. 1), which opens into the penis. The latter organ is a slender, chitinous tube whose top projects be- tween the claspers and below the anus, and which lies in the trough formed by the ventral arch of the ninth segment, as already described. It is protruded by a muscle on either side, the protractor penis, which is attached to the ninth segment. The end of one of these protractors is shown at pp in Figs. 1 and 2, of Plate X. The retractor was not found. From the tip of the penis project two prongs, which bear on their inner aspect several stout spines and some smaller teeth, as shown in Fig. 4, Plate X. These prongs seem capable of protrusion and retraction, and telescoped within the penis can be seen other chitinous processes and spines, apparently of considerable complexity, which could not be sat- isfactorily studied in the specimens at disposal. FEMALE ORGANS OF REPRODUCTION. © The ovaries consist of four long slender tubes, lying in several folds on each side of the body. Their slender tips end in suspensory liga- ments, all eight of which unite together immediately under the dorsal vessel. At their basal ends the ovarian tubes of each side unite into a uterine chamber (Plate IX, Fig. 4, w.), the short oviducts from which unite into a single oviduct, which passes through the eighth and ninth segment and opens between the lateral ee of the latter beneath the anus. Two accessory glands—colleterial or renee glands, so called— “which are concerned with secreting the egg-shell or the cement by which the moth fixes the eggs in place when laid, open into the common ovi- duct, The anterior gland is single; the posterior is a pair of glands with asingle duct. Both consist of long cecal tubes, with pear-shaped dilations near the base, followed by another roundish dilation. (See *See Meyer. Zeitschr. wiss. Zool. I, 182. Also H. Landois, ibid., xiii, 316. 58 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL, ‘COMMISSION. ee eee eh cee C24 Plate IX, Fig. 4, a. gl.! and a.gl.2) The paired glands lie close. ade a the rectum, and would’ at first sight be supposed appendages of the lat- ( ter instead of belonging to the oviduct. At the base of the eighth segment, beneath, opens the vagina (v.), the orifice of which is therefore distinct from that of the oviduct. It is a long horny canal, which leads into a very large pyriform copulatory pouch. (Plate IX, Fig.4,¢.p.) This pouch is a very remarkable organ in the Lepidoptera. Its walls are very thick, and consist of a powerful muscular layer (ig. 7, m.), within which is an epithelial layer (sp.) or matrix which gives rise to a stout cuticula intima (cu.). This last lies in heavy folds or ridges (Fig. 5), which have a general longitudinal direc- tion, but with various curves and anastomosing branches. It is covered with little points, or teeth, which are stouter near the base of the pouch, and similar to the cuticular spines of the larval skin described at the beginning of the chapter. Each point arises in a little field of its own, separated by various-shaped boundaries from adjoining fields. (See Fig.6.) These fields probably correspond to the underlying cells of the matrix. . Near the base of the interior of the pouch a transverse tri-. angular flap or valve is suspended from above, very thickly covered _ with short teeth, like those over the rest of the pouch. _ There is a deep longitudinal furrow on the top of the pouch, so that _eross-sections of the latter give a Y-shaped cavity. The vagina itself has a smooth, stout cuticula. Near the base of the vagina a slender sperm-duct (s. d.) leads from the vagina into the oviduct, through which duct the spermatozoa pass from the copulatory pouch, where they are discharged into the oviduct where the eggs are to be fecundated. The ' sperm-duct does not expand into a spermatheca, as is often the case. “a ort In the female, as in the male, the two terminal segments are retracted, - resting within the seventh, and do not bear spiracles. The eighth seg- ment is like the preceding in shape, but smaller, with the pocket be- neath for the vaginal opening; as described. From the anterior margin, each side, a stout spur iene into the interior of the abdomen (Plate IX, Fig. 4) for the attachment of muscles to move the segment. The dorsum of the ninth segment forms merely a membranous coy- ering over the rectum and contains no ossified element. The sides of the segment are produced into two lobes (see Plate IX, Fig. 4), which flank the oviduct and form a short ovipositor. Anteriorly the lobes send out two spurs like those of the preceding segment, but they are. not shown in the figure. Ventrally the segment terminates in a short triangular piece projecting between the lateral lobes. ee Co AP Ei, WE.. THE COTTON BELT. By Prof. EUGENE A. SMITH. [Maps I and IL.] A—GENERAL FEATURES OF THE COTTON STATES, ' In this region are included North and South Carolina, Georgia, Flor- ida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, the eastern parts of Texas and the Indian Territory, Arkansas, Southern Missouri, Tennessee, and parts of Kentucky and Virginia. To these may be added, in California, the re- gion between Merced and Kern in the southern part of the State, and Yuba, Sutter, and Colusa Counties in the northern part. Almost the whole cotton crop is thus produced in the area included between the twenty-ninth and thirty-seventh parallels of north latitude, and between the seventy-sixth and one hundredth lines of west longi- tude. CLIMATE.— Winds.—As regards the direction of the prevailing winds, the cotton States may be arranged in four groups. } The first of these includes Texas, Arkansas, and the Indian Territory, in which the prevailing winds during the summer are from the south- east, south, and southwest, and from the north and northwest during the winter months. The second includes the States of Kentucky and Tennessee, lying between the Mississippi and the Appalachian chain, in which the prevailing direction of the winds, both winter and summer, is from the southwest. The third includes the States of the Atlantic slope—North and South Carolina and Georgia—whose prevailing sum- mer winds are from the southwest and those of the winter from the northwest. The fourth section, including the Gulf States, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida, partakes of the characters of the other regions surrounding it; and, while the prevailing winds are southeasterly in sum- mer and northeasterly in winter, the directions are very nearly evenly balanced, except in some parts of the Florida peninsula, where there is a very decided prevalence of easterly winds throughout the year. Rainfall—The supply of moisture for the rainfall over the cotton States comes almost exclusively from the Gulf of Mexico. The amount of yearly rainfall varies between the extremes of 28 and 64 inches. Over the greater part of this area it varies between 40 and 60 inches. The densest part of this rain distribution is over the Mississippi delta and vicinity, reaching the maximum of 64 inches in Southeast Missis- 59 - he 4 MEK gle * ; Denar hess 60 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. —S> sippi and Southwest Alabama, whence it divides, runnin g with 56 inches northeastward to Florence, Alabama, and northwestward up the Red — River to the lower part of Arkansas. The annual precipitation over the rest of the cotton States is between 44 and 56 inches, with the following exceptions: (1.) In Texas the rainfall is much less, varying between 28 and 44 ae in the cotton-producing portion of the State, and falling as low 20 inches or less towards the west. The Indian Territory Ns pe ae the same characters. (2.) Through Western North Carolina and East Tennessee, and extend- ing down through Georgia and Southeastern Alabama into Florida, there is an area in which the precipitation is between 40 and 44 inches. A narrow strip along the coasts of North and South Carolina exhibits similar conditions. (3.) In the extreme south of Florida (outside of the cotton region) there is a rainfall of 56 to 60 inches. Of great importance to the growth of the cotton plant is the distri- bution of the rainfall over the different seasons; and we find the maxi mum of precipitation during the months of June, July, and August, of 18 inches and above, (1) in the delta region of the Mississippi, and ex- tending in a narrow band up the Mobile River, into the fork of the Tom- bigbee and Alabama Rivers; and in a second narrow band northwest- ward almost to Little Rock, Ark. (2) Eastern South Carolina and Georgia, and the whole of the peninsula of Florida, show similar condi- tions, the summer rainfall in Southwestern Florida reaching 28 inches. The rest of the cotton-producing area has a summer precipitation varying between 10 and 18 inches, excepting parts of Texas and the Indian Territory, where it is less. As regards the winter rainfall, we find, as in summer, the densest area about the Mississippi delta, 12 to 18 inches, whence it spreads north- ward in three bands—one through Central Alabama and Georgia and along the eastern slope of the Appalachian chain; the second, passing through Northwest Alabama and Northeast Mississippi, crosses Central Tennessee and Kentucky in the direction of Cincinnati; the third passes up the Mississippi River, mainly to the west of that stream, to the lati- tude of Cairo. A second area, of above 12 inches, is seen in Texas, passing through Indianola and Austin, and a —- in Middie Florida, east of Appa- lachee Bay. The rest of the cotton-producing area has a winter amie varying between 8 and 12 inches, excepting the western part of Arkansas, most of the Indian Territory, a good part of Texas, and a portion of the eastern part of the Florida peninsula. It is impossible to trace any very close relation between the rainfall and the percentage of area planted in cotton, but it may be noted that . | . 1 ; { : ‘TEMPERATURE OF THE COTTON SEATES. 61 those parts where this percentage is 10 and above have a summer rain- fall below 14 inches, and a winter rainfall above 12 inches. TEMPERATURE.—The distribution of heat in the cotton States is nearly normal, as the isothermals follow approximately the parallels of latitude, the departures from this regularity being due (1) to the heat- ing effect of the Gulf Stream, by which the lines of equal temperature are elevated or deflected northward along the Atlantic coast; (2) to the cooling effect of the mountains, which causes a depression south- ward of these lines, as may be seen in the vicinity of the Appalachians; and (3) to the accumulation of heat in valleys, which carries the iso- thermals up these valleys, often to considerable distances beyond their normal position. With these general principles in view, it will be easy to understand the temperature distribution in the region of witich we are writing. The mean annual temperature line of 68° Fahr. runs nearly parallel with the southern coasts of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, where these coasts have an east and west direction, and at no great dis- tance north of this shore line. In Texas it is carried up the Rio Grande Valley, beyond the 102d degree of west longitude. The line of 64° follows approximately the parallel of 33°, running north of it near the coast in North and South Carolina, because of the Atlantic Ocean; south of it in Georgia and Alabama, because of the influence of the Appalachian chain; it is carried upward by the Missis- sippi and Red River Valleys, bending downward on each side of them, being deflected far to the south beyond Red River, in Central Texas, by the influence of the western mountains. The line of 60°, starting from the coast of North Carolina a little north of the 36th parallel, crosses that State diagonally to the eastern foot of the Appalachian range, around the southern end of which it sweeps in a great curve which passes below Talladega in Alabama, and bends northwestward to New Madrid, Mo., whence it runs westward approximately along the 36th gio! fmahek the Indian Territory into Texas, till turned southward like the preceding in the western part of that State. The isothermals between 52° and 56° lie generally north of the cot- ton States, except in the Appalachian region of North Carolina, Ten- nessee, Georgia, and Alabama, and the central parts of Tennessee and Kentucky, but in none of these localities is the production of cotton on any large scale, except in Western North Carolina, the valley of the Chattahoochee in Geor gia, that of the Tallapoosa, Coosa, and Tennes- see in Alabama, and a part of the central basin of Tennessee, where _ the mean annual temperature is between 56° and 60°. The isothermals for the summer are far less regular than those of the -year. Thus the summer line of 80°, starting at the coast near Charles- ton, runs westward to Macon, Ga.; thence south to Tallahassee, Fla. ; thence diagonally across Alabama to Tuscaloosa, to which it is raised 62 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL ‘COMMISSION. oe ‘ive by the Alabama and Tombigbee Rivers, and though partly kept up ee ai the Chickasawhay and Pearl Rivers, bends then south nearly to Baton - Rouge. Up the Mississippi Valley it is carried nearly to the 35th par- allel, and after sinking below the 33d, is carried again by the Red River Valley beyond the 35th parallel in the Indian Nation, whence it bends around southwest approximately parallel to the Texas coast, till carried far out to the west along the Pecos and Rio Grande. The rest of the cotton-producing territory of the United States is included between the summer lines of 76° and 80°, excepting where the ~ Blue Ridge in Western North Carolina and Northern Georgia and the Cumberland Mountains of Tennessee cause a great southward exten- _ sion of the summer mean of 68° to 729, and where, along the eastern slope of the Blue Ridge in North Carolina and Georgia, around its end in Alabama, and between the Blue Ridge and the Cumberland ranges in the valley of East Tennessee, and on the western slope of the Cum- berland in Middle and Western Tennessee and Kentucky, and south- ward on the water-shed between the Tombigbee and Yazoo in Missis- sippi, the mean summer temperature is between 72° and 76°. In view of the probable influence of the winter temperatures in de- termining the place of hibernation of the cotton moth, it has been thought best to transcribe upon one of the maps accompanying this article the lines of equal temperature, during the winter months, for every fourth degree, from 28° to 72° Fahr. These lines, as well as the data upon which the abcve account of the climate of this region has been compiled, have been taken from the Smithsonian Contributions, Vols. XVIII, XX, and XXI. It will be seen that these winter lines show the comparative regular- ity of those of the annual means; they are carried northward by the influence of the Gulf Stream along the Atlantic coast, and by the vari- | ous large rivers in the west, while they are carried southward by the mountains and high table lands: The chart, however, presents all these facts much more clearly than can be done by any verbal description. GEOLOGICAL SKETCH.—Through North and South Carolina, eee see, and Georgia passes the great mountain chain of the Appalachians, terminating in Central Alabama. The most elevated parts of this chain, and its southeastern or Atlantic slopes, are formed of the crystalline or metamorphic rocks, while the opposite or northwestern slope is made up of the strata of the Silurian and other Paleozoic formations. Westward of the Appalachian region of elevation these Paleozoic rocks underlie the country to the central part of Texas, not, however, continuously through the cotton-producing States, but interrupted by one great gap, which reaches up the axis of the Mississippi River as far as the mouth of the Ohio. cl ae i i TOPOGRAPHY OF THE COTTON STATES. 63 - The outer margin of these older formations is near the following towns: Raleigh, Columbia, Augusta, Macon, Columbus, Wetumpka, Centerville, and Tuscaloosa, whence it turns northward through Tennessee, meeting ’ the present Mississippi at Cairo, and thence through Little Rock south- westward as far as Central Texas. | In the waters off the sinuous shore-line, thus outlined, of the ancient continent were deposited in succession the sediments which constitute the newer formations, Cretaceous and Tertiary. By the gradual eleva- tion of this part of the continent these deposits were added to the land area already existing, and the shore line moved outward, at least as far: as its present position. By a subsequent depression these newer formations, and the lower edge also of the older, were submerged and covered with deposits of sand, pebbles, clay, and loam, brought down from northern latitudes. Upon these deposits some of the cotton States depend for their most important soils, and they will hence be again subject of special mention below. F Lastly, a re-elevation gave to the continent its present outlines. ToPpoGRAPHY.—The really mountainous portion of the cotton States is confined to the Appalachian region, in which the strata have been thrown into folds, faulted, and elevated many hundred feet above the general land surface. The main topographical features of this region conform in direction to that of the folds originally impressed upon its strata, 7. e., northeast and southwest. The unyielding nature of many of the rocks and their alternation with others more easily eroded have like- wise had their influence in determining the character of the scenery. This region, as already stated above, is composed partly of the meta- morphic rocks, and partly of the uncrystallized Paleozoic strata. The highest mountains of this chain are formed of the crystalline slates. Outside of the Appalachian region the Paleozoic rocks are approxi- mately horizontal, and, where they make the country, the topography is the result of erosion simply, and is very little, if at all, modified by the geological structure. This whole area has a gentle slope away from the Appalachian axis, and there are nowhere within its limits elevations of any considerable magnitude as compared with those of the preceding division. The presence of sandstones and beds of hard cherty limestone among these strata gives rise, however, to varied scenery of the most pleasing character. The newer rocks have a gentle dip away from the Paleozoic border. Their elevation is in general less than 600 feet above the sea, and the scenery, as in the preceding instance, is solely the result of erosion. The mantle of sands and loams which covers these newer rocks gives additional uniformity to the topographical features, which are almost entirely independent of the character of the underlying beds. The broken and almost mountainous region produced by the hard sandstones of Fachower Tertiary, and the low basin or trough of the Cretaceous a } e are the principal exceptions to this uniformity. Through all this region of the newer rocks there are alternations of nearly level table lands of 500 to 600 feet elevation above tide, bordered by red clay and pebbly hills where the tablelands break off towards a the water courses. ak The most recent formations, along the alluvial plains of some of the larger rivers and in the vicinity of the Gulf coast in Texas and Louis- iana, have almost a dead level surface. The topographical features are thus seen to be in oe measure, and particularly within the hydrographical basin of the 1] Mississippi, the result of erosion simply. The drainage of the greater part of the cotton-producing area is into the Gulf of Mexico, and the Mississippi River the prineipal chan- nel. The waters of the Carolinas and Eastern Georgia and Eastern Florida’ find their way into the Atlantic. Sorts.—The soils which are planted in cotton may be divided into two great classes. Those of the first class rest directly upon the rocks from which they - have been derived, or at most have been very little removed from their _ original places; and hence they are in composition closely related to the underlying rocks, and vary from place to place as these vary. The soils of the second class have been transported from their place of origin, and, as a rule, rest now upon rocks with which they have little or no genetic PeIanont Resulting, as they do, from the commingling of the detritus of widely- séparated a very different rocks, these soils, over great areas, present substantially the same features, irrespective of the particular geological formations upon which they have come to rest. In general terms, the Paleozoic formations possess soils which have resulted from the decay of the rocks of the country, while the newer formations have been covered with a mantle of sands, pebbles, and loams, which have been brought from greater or less distances, and which in a great measure form the soils and subsoils over the entire area, with the few exceptions presently to be noticed.* et The drift soils above named, while similar in composition over large areas, are nevertheless in places modified by admixtures with the pro- ducts of the disintegration of the underlying Cretaceous and Tertiary rocks, and in certain localities these disintegrated rocks themselves constitute the soils, as in the black prairie region of Alabama and Mis- sissippi, and in some of the Tertiary prairies of these States. *It is hardly necessary to say that, with reference to the Drift beds from which they are derived, these soils also are sedentary or in place, and the beds of the Drift are, accurately speaking, as much~ rocks as are, for instance, the limestones of the Silurian age; still, from our point of ee the dis- tinction above made has its justification in its convenience. z rs AGRICULTURAL SUB-DIVISIONS OF THE COTTON BELT. 65 Near the coast in Louisiana and Texas, and in some parts of the allu- vial region of the Mississippi and its tributary rivers, the Drift itself in turn has been covered with still more recent deposits, a kind of river- swamp or Gulf-swamp formation, from which some of the most impor- tant soils of these localities have been directly derived. _ AGRICULTURAL SUBDIVISIONS.—The agricultural characters of the Cotton States may be described under the following heads: 1. The alluvial region, including— a. The alluvial region of the Mississippi and other large rivers. b. The marsh region of the coast and lakes. 2. The lower prairie region, including — a. The central prairies of Louisiana and the coast prairies of Texas. b. The prairies and savannas of Florida. ce. The llano estacado and gypsum lands of Texas and the Indian Territory. : The long-leaf pine region, including— a. The long leaf pine hills and flats. b. The oak and hickory uplands with long-leaf pine. ce. The hammocks of Florida; the shell prairies, lime hills, and red lime lands of Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. 4. The oak uplands region, including — a. The oak and hickory uplands with short-leaf pine. b. The table lands of Mississippi and Tennessee, and the Cane Hills or Bluff region. 5. The upper prairie region, including— a. The black Cretaceous prairies of Texas, Mississippi, and Ala- bama. b. The blue marl lands and hill prairies (Pontotoc Ridge and Chunnenugga Ridge of Mississippi and Alabama). 6. The red and brown loam region, based on the older limestone forma- tions, including— a. The red loam lands of the Tennessee Basin, of the valley of East Tennessee, of the Coosa Valley, and of the Tennessee Valley in North Alabama. b. The red loam uplands and prairies of Arkansas, Indian Terri- tory, and Texas. 7. The sandy and siliceous lands of the older formations, including— a. The cherty limestone lands and “barrens” of Tennessee, Geor- gia, and Alabama; the cherty lands and their prairies of northern Arkansas. b. The Carboniferous sandstone soils of Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia. c. The sandy prairie region of Indian Territory. 8. The gneissic region. 63 CONG——5 wo 66 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. Before proceeding to the description in detail of the agricultural re- gions above enumerated, it will be convenient to give a short account of the chief botanical characters of the different parts of the cotton-pro- ducing area, and this I am enabled to do through the courtesy of Dr. Charles Mohr, of Mobile, Ala., special census agent, to whom I am in- debted for the following notes. Itis proper to state that these notes refer particularly to the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ala- bama, and Florida. | It will be seen that the regions of forest growth of Dr. Mohr corre- spond in the main with the agricultural regions above given. REGIONS OF FOREST GROWTH. a. More or less open oak woods, as they prevail on the highlands of Alabama, with Pinus mitis and P. teda ; the long-leaf pine, P. australis, occurring on the cherty and sandy ridges and on the quartzose ranges of the eastern part of the State. As upland oaks the following species are included: Quercus prinus, mountain oak; Q. Muhlenbergii, chestnut oak; Q. tinctoria, black oak; Q. stellata, postoak; Q. nigra, black-jack. The hickories are Carya amara, C.tomentosa, C. porcina. The other accompanying trees are the various haws, the snow-drop tree (Halesia), the sour-wood (Oxydendrum arboreum), and several spe- cies of Cornus and Ilex. Various species of Azalea and huckleberries make up the arborescent and shrubby growth. In the mountains bordering on the valley of the Tennessee and all the deeper valleys of the mountainous region of North Alabama, where the limestone prevails, large buckeyes (Asculus flava and glabra) make their appearance, with the Magnolia cordata, and the cucumber trees (Magnolia macrophylla and acuminata) find here their fullest growth; and nowhere are found the black walnut, white oaks, black oaks, and poplars (Liriodendron) in greater perfection, associated with the linden or basswood. ‘This region includes 6, 7, and 8 of the agricultural sub- divisions given above. b. Rich bottom lands as represented by the alluvial lands of the | Mississippi River and the Mississippi and Yazoo Deltas, and the less heavily timbered flat lands of southwestern Louisiana. The cypress swamps follow the banks of the rivers in their lower courses (mestly below the 33d degree of north latitude, except in the extensive cypress swamps of the Yazoo Delta, which reach as high as 35°). These swamps have an average width of 3 miles on each side. In their courses north- ward the bottoms are more restricted, and consequently the cypress swamps are rarer and cover a smaller area. This region corresponds with our division No. 1 a. ce. The more or less level table lands, with rich soil, once covered with heavy forests of oaks, poplars, and beech, like the rich lands be- tween the pine hills and bluffs bordering the Yazoo Delta, in central Mississippi. These are the table lands No. 4 b above. FOREST REGIONS OF THE COTTON BELT. 67 d. Of a similar character, but somewhat less heavy, is the tree growth upon the lands in central Alabama and eastern Mississippi, of the Cre- taceous plain, corresponding to our subdivision No. 5 a, or the black prairie region. This region is now almost denuded of its original for- est growth, as are also the lands of the preceding division; and it is only in the bottoms of the larger streams, more or less difficult of ac- cess, that the dense and heavy forests are still found untouched by the woodman’s ax. e. Prairies and grassy savannas, more or less wet, east of the Trin- ity River, and in the coast plains of southeast Texas and scuthwest Louisiana and the glades of Florida. High and dry ridges of live-oak scrub, with mesquite bushes, in the prairie region of western Texas. This division corresponds with No. 2 above. f (a). Region of the long-leaf pine (Pinus australis). In the coast plains of East and West Florida the long-leaf pine is as- sociated with the Cuban pine, and on the most infertile and arid ridges, with the turkey oak (Q. Catesbai). Open forests, with no undergrowth on the rolling lands; with a dense smaller growth of evergreens in the marshy depressions and along the streams, particularly towards the coast. These evergreens are Ti-ti (Cliftonia ligustrina), Magnolia glauca, M. grandiflora ; various species of Ilex, Illictum floridanum, Vacciniums, Andromeda, sweet-leaf Bumelia, white cedar (Juniperus thyoides), &e. Thisis our division No. 3 a. f(b). Upper pine region or region of mixed growth. On the sili- ceous ridges of the Drift and Tertiary, the long-leaf pine prevails. In the more fertile marly and calcareous lands, the upland oaks with various other deciduous-leaved trees preponderate and, mixed with some short-leaf pine and spruce pine (P. glabra), form dense and often heavily timbered woods. The undergrowth is mostly heavy. This is our division No. 3 b. g. Region of the short-leaf pine (P. mitis). The latter in eastern Texas often replaced by the loblolly pine (P. taeda). Pines largely pre- vailing with oaks and mockernut and pignut hickories (C. tomentosa and C. glabra). Undergrowth mostly dense. This is No. 4 a. h. The more or less stunted oak woods covering the gravelly and _ sandy ridges on the borders of the arid prairie region of western Texas. Mostly black oak, post oak, and blue-jack (Q. cinerea). This would correspond, in part at least, to the red loam region, No. 6 ¢. B.—_DESCRIPTION OF THE AGRICULTURAL SUBDIVISIONS.* 1. THE ALLUVIAL REGION. This region embraces some of the most fertile lands of the Cotton States, and the most serious trouble connected with their cultivation arises from their liability to be submerged at certain seasons of the year. *In the preparation of this description I have made free use of the material collected under the auspices of the Census Office for Dr. Hilgard’s Report on Cotton Production; but I am under special obligations to Dr. R. H. Loughbridge for notes on the agricultural characters of Texas, Arkansas, and - the Indian Nation. iain eve 4 od ee he bs 68 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. - me ; oe a. The alluvial region of the Mississippi and other large rivers.—These lands have a dense growth, consisting of sweet-gum, water, willow, red and swamp chestnut oaks, dogwood, ash, elm, maple, hackberry, &c. — These alluvial lands constitute a nearly level plain intersected by numberless bayous. The highest lands are nearest to the water-courses, whence they slope gently towards the cypress swamp, which commonly occupies the central parts between two contiguous bayous. Where the alluvial plain is very wide, islands or low ridges of uplands, with char- acteristic oaks and short-leaf pine, break the monotony of the other- wise level plain. Crowley’s Ridge in Arkansas may be cited as an ex- ample. The typical bottom soil is the so-called “buckshot clay,” named from the circumstance that in drying it breaks upinto small fragments about the size of buckshot. This soil appears to be the sediment which forms the ancient river plain, and it is most profusely fertile. Near the larger streams the soil is more sandy, and this sandiness decreases towards the cypress swamps, which in general have a heavy, MW) A OTD a clayey soil, somewhat like the buckshot soil, but which, from liability — to overflow, are very little in cultivation. | The cultivation of these bottom lands is mostly confined to the narrow strip usually above overflow, lying contiguous to the streams, and called the frontland. The backland intervening between this and the cypress swamp is sometimes also in cultivation, but is rather liable to overflow. . The quality of the soils. varies between wide limits, the buckshot soil representing the one extreme, while light, siliceous, silty soils represent the other. b. The marsh lands.—These are usually devoid. of large trees, but are occupied by rushes and sedges. They are comparatively little in cultivation and need not be further described. ; 2. THE LOWER PRAIRIE REGION. Under this heading are included, besides the lower prairies of Lou- isiana and Texas, the savanna and prairie lands of Florida, and the llano estacado and gypsum lands of Texas and the Indian Nation. These latter have very little in common with the preceding except the absence or great scarcity of timber. | With the exception of the coast prairies, they are of no importance in the cultivation of cotton, and require no special notice. a. The central and coast prairies.—In Louisiana these are of threefold character—black calcareous prairies, brown loam prairies, and gray silt prairies. In Texas the coast prairies are chiefly of the first sort, but in the eastern part of the State there are also some of the gray silt or pine prairies. In these prairies the soil varies from a black, calcareous loam to a fine, light-colored silt. They are usually nearly level and devoid of trees, pared _ THE LONG-LEAF PINE REGION. 69 except an occasional motte of live-oak, and in the silt prairies a few long-leaf pines. In fertility the soils vary greatly, the black prairie being quite fer- tile; the others are less so, but none are very extensively cultivated. The whole region is thinly settled. | The soils are derived from the clays and other sediments of tke Port Hudson group, which also yield the soils of the alluvial region of the rivers above mentioned. The silt prairies are usually ill-drained and little cultivated. A strip of this kind of land lies between the Arkansas and White Rivers, in the State of Arkansas. b. Savannas and prairies of Florida.—These are treeless regions, low- lying and nearly level. The prairies are clothed with a carpet of grass and make the best pasture lands; the savannas are usually covered during a great part of the year with water, and present the appearance of grassy lakes. The Florida everglades consist of a labyrinth of marshes and savannas, intersected by extensive lagoons and lakes. None of these are of importance in cotton cultivation, except that upon some of the prairies the sea-island or long-staple cotton is produced to a limited extent. ce. The gypsum lands and staked plain of Texas and the Indian Nation.— The gypsum lands are slightly rolling, with red loam soils, and are almost destitute of timber. The plain is interspersed with hills in which heavy beds of red clay and gypsum appear. : The llano estacado and table lands of Texas are in all probability of Cretaceous age, since the Rotten limestone with its characteristic fossils appears in the deep cations of the south. This plain is very nearly level, devoid of trees, and almost of water and grass, with some prominent sand hills or dunes along the north of the region, and also on the east of the Pecos River. ? In addition to the above, the western portion of the red loam region of ‘ Arkansas, Indian Territory, and Texas, which rests upon the Carboni- ferous formation, assumes the characiers of a prairie. See further under “Red loam region (6).” 3. THE LONG-LEAF PINE REGION. This division occupies a belt of width varying from 75 to 150 miles, and extending from eastern Texas to Virginia along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts. Its two most prominent subdivisions are based upon the proportions existing between the long-leaf pine and the upland oaks among the ‘im ber trees. These subdivisions are— _ a. The long-leaf pine hills and flats; b. The oak and hickory uplands with long-leaf pine; ec. The hammocks of Florida, shell prairies, lime hills, and red ne lands of Mississippi, Alabama, at Florida. 70 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. Of these, the first occupies the region nearer the coast, the second forming a sort of transition to the oak uplands of the Paleozoic forma- tions, while the third appears in detached bodies in the long-leaf pine region. a. Long-leaf pine hills and flats.—As is indicated by the name, the long- leaf pine forms the prevailing, and in places the exclusive, timber over | this whole region. - It is associated with black-jack and post oaks and — occasionally with the short-leaf pine, which makes its appearance wher- ever there is a slight improvement in the quality of the soil. In the vicinity of the coasts the surface is nearly level, or at most gently undulating, rising northward and inland into a somewhat bro- ken and hilly country upon which the pine is always the characteristic growth. Along the coasts the Cuban pine also is common. The soil is mostly a very light sandy loam of little fertility or dura- bility. The cultivated lands are generally confined to the creek bottoms and other low-lying lands, though some of the uplands, especially where there is a mixture of the upland oaks and hickories among the trees, are planted in cotton, and with success, particularly where commercial fer- tilizers are used. The open pine woods support a fine growth of nutritious grasses and — leguminous plants, and hence afford excellent pastures for cattle and | sheep. These open forests have very little undergrowth on the rolling lands, but a dense growth of evergreens in the marshy depressions, and along the streams. The most common of these shrubs and trees are mentioned above, in the section treating of the forest growths. b. Oak and hickory uplands with long-leaf pine—The region in which the long-leaf pine with black-jack, post, and high-ground willow oaks form the timber is interspersed with tracts more or less extensive, in which the other species of upland oaks are associated with the pine, and this association becomes almost universal in the upper districts, and has given occasion to the recognition of this region of mixed growth as a distinct agricultural subdivision. The surface is generally broken, and a red or yellow loam forms the top stratum of the drifted materials which, throughout the pine region, have been spread over the lower and older rocks. The soils vary from a tolerably fertile loam of brown to reddish colors in the best uplands to a sandy light loam in the poorer spots, and their distribution may be partly explained by the following consider- ations: The Paleozoic formations of the Cotton States are bordered towards the coasts with a belt of drifted materials consisting of sand, pebbles, and a red or brown loam. Of these materials the pebbles are mostly confined to the vicinity of this ancient shore line, except where they ap- a THE LONG-LEAF PINE REGION. AL, pear to have been subsequently taken up and redeposited further down the courses of some of the principal streams. The red loam also appears in greatest force. and most characteris- tically along the same line, while the sands have been spread much further outward. Where the red loam is the surface material the growth consists of the upland oaks and short-leaf pine; where the sands prevail the long-leaf pine becomes characteristic, so that, in general terms, the oak growth follows the margin of the older formations, while the pine prevails further outward toward the coasts.* As has been said above, the red loam is usually found as the uppermost. stratum of the drifted materials, and where in the drainage areas of the streams this capping of loam has been washed away so as to bring to the surface the underlying sandier strata, the natural growth gives evi- dence of the deterioration of the soil in the association of the long-leaf pine with the other timber, and in its complete replacement of the other trees in the sandiest localities. These strips and patches of pine land interlace so intricately with the oak and hickory lands as to render any accurate,mapping of them impossible without close and detailed surveys. ce. Hammocks, Ge.—(1) Hammocks. In the long-leaf pine region of - Florida there are patches of land in which there is a Juxuriant growth of water, willow, white, live, and other oaks, hickories, sweet gums, and other hard woods. Such areas are called hammocks, and they are ex- _ tremely fertile, forming amongst the very best of the cotton lands of the State. The hammocks are produced by the reaction of the lime- stone, which underlies the State of Florida, upon the sandy loam which forms the soil, and, according to their position, are called high ham- mocks, low hammocks, and Gulf hammocks, and their yield in cotton is frequently as high as a bale to the acre. The sea island or long staple variety is almost exclusively produced upon the hammock lands, except in the red clay hammocks (as they are called) of the upper part of the State, around Tallahassee and other lo- ealities. These hammocks are, however, about the same as the mixed oak and hickory and pine lands above mentioned. (2) Shell Prairies, Lime Hills, and Red Lime Lands of Mississippi, Alabama, and Northern Florida. The Tertiary rocks of these States in places react upon the overlying loams in such a way as to produce highly fertile calcareous lands, usually of rather limited extent, and in detached bodies among the prevailing pine lands. In some countries these form the best of the cotton lands. * In Alabama, Georgia, South and North Carolina the hilly belt (with sand and pebbles), which bor- ders the older formations, has occasionally a preponderance of long-leaf pine among the timber trees, though the pines are here in places associated with, and even replaced by, the oak and hickory growth of the better class of uplands. 4. THE OAK UPLANDS REGION. This subdivision includes some of the best cotton landsin Texas, Lou- isiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Alabama. Thetopsoilisabrownor °© reddish loam which overlies the sands and pebbles of the Drift, as above mentioned, under the long-leaf pine region. The aes older rocks throughout nearly the whole of this re- gion are the ewer Tertiary beds, which are chiefly lignitic, sandy clays. In their mode of origin it will be seen that these soils are entirely sim- ilar to those of the better class of long-leaf pine uplands of the States further east. The absence of the long-leaf pine is one of the ye dis- tinctions between the two. In respect of fertility and general agricultural value, two subdivisions may be recognized, viz: a. The yellow eon uplands, or oak and hickory land with short- leaf pine. b. The table lands of ee and Tennessee, and the Cane Hills or Bluff region. ; a. The yellow loam region.—Under this head is included that great body of oak and hickory uplands associated with the short-leaf pine, ex- tending from Texas to Alabama. The face of the country is broken, except on the watersheds, as is always the case where the red loam forms the surface over beds of Stratified Drift. The soils of the betterclass of these uplands are yellowish or brown- ish loams, varying in thickness from a few inches to as many feet, and underlaid by the sands and other beds of the Drift. On the poorer uplands the stratum of loam is very thin, sometimes almost entirely absent, and the underlying drift sands or other materials then form the soil. Between these two extremes there are all the gradations, and the different qualities of soil are so intricately interspersed. as to render it impossible to lay them down with precision. The general reinarks above given, under the long-leaf pine region, will apply equally well here, to show the principles which govern their relative distribution. b. Table Lands and Cane Hills.—(1) The table lands. These occupy a strip of 20 to 30 miles width, lying adjacent to the bluff of the river in North Mississippi and across West Tennessee, and, as the name shows, form in the main a level table land, except where the streams have cut their channels. The soil is a brown loam of great fertility, and specially suited to cotton. The timber consists of oaks and hicko- ries, and of the former the post, red, and black oaks are the most abundant. In the more clayey belts these are accompanied by the black-jack, and, on the lighter soils, by the Spanish oak. In quality the table-land soils show a gradation into the preceding class. ~ The table lands of North Mississippi have long been noted for their fertility, but there is the serious objection to them that they are so ’ THE UPPER PRAIRIE REGION OF THE COTTON BELT. 173 easily injured by washes, which carry away the top soil, and frequently leave bare the rather sterile sands and other materials of the underly- ing Drift. (2) The cane hills. This includes a narrow strip of lands, averaging perhaps 15 miles in width, lying immediately adjacent to the bluff of the Mississippi River, being best developed and most continuous on the eastern side of that river in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The surface is generally hilly and broken, and its timber consists of water, willow, swamp chestnut oaks, hickories, beech, magnolia, locust, tulip tree, and originally a dense undergrowth of cane, which has since mostly disappeared. The soil is a fertile brown. loam, 4 to 7 feet in depth, resting on a fine caleareous silt of the Bluff or Loess formation. There is in this region also a great liability to injury from washes, and many farms have thus been ruined. 5. THE UPPER PRAIRIE REGION. This region has been subdivided into two, viz: a. The black prairie lands, and ' b. The blue marl lands and bill prairies. Within the area herein included there are many varieties of soil, from the poorest sandy ridges to the richest black calcareous loams, and the names have been chosen which apply to the most characteristic soil varieties. a. Black prairie lands.—East of the Mississippi this region is com- prised in a belt extending from the eastern edge of Alabama, nearly westward through that State, and northwest through Mississippi, and north through Tennessee. In Alabama the width of the belt is 20 to 30 miles, but in Tennessee it narrows down considerably. This region oc- cupies a depression between hilly lands with oaks and pines, and its sur- face is comparatively level, with here and there small hills and ridges capped with sand and loam, the remnants of a covering of Drift which probably once covered the entire region, but which has subsequently been almost entirely removed by denudation. The underlying rock throughout the whole region is an impure lime- stone (Rotten Limestone), the disintegration of which has given rise to the peculiar soils of this region. _ The typical black prairie soil is a stiff calcareous clay of grayish to yellowish color when uncultivated, but of dark to nearly black color when mixed with vegetable matter in cultivation. In the vicinity of the ridges and hills of Drift above alluded to, the sands and loam of this latter formation are more or less mingled with the calcareous clays, and there result mixed soils of varying degrees of fertility and of different physical qualities. One of these mixed soils is known as the post-oak soil. Itis a stiff loam of reddish to yellow cOiwr supporting a growth in which the post oak is prominent. 74 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. Upon the ridges are the usual upland soils similar to those of the oak uplands elsewhere. The original growth upon the black prairie lands consisted of oaks, ~ poplar, beech, &c., of magnificent proportions, but very little of this growth now remains standing. In Alabama this is known as the “ Canebrake,” and the “‘ Black Belt,” and the ‘Cotton Belt,” from the facts that a dense undergrowth of cane once covered the land, and that it is pre-eminently the cotton-pro- ducing region of the State. This may be seen from the percentage map accompanying this article. | West of the Mississippi River this division has an extensive devel- opment in Texas, where its soils are black, wax-like clays, similar to those already described, and derived from the Rotten Limestone. In these, beds of Drift are nowhere to be seen bisa in the *‘ Cross Tim- bers.” (Loughridge.) The Cross Timbers thus appear to be the analogues of the Drift ridges which traverse the prairie region in the eastern States of the cot- ton region. . In the Indian Nation black prairie lands entirely similar to those of Texas are seen in the southern portion, coming to an end near the line of Arkansas. In the latter State small areas of sack Cretaceous prairies occupy _ the lowlands in the southwest, while the ridges between the streams and between the prairie tracts are short-leaf pine uplands, with oak and hickory. : A characteristic growth of the northeastern part of this great west- ern Cretaceous belt, in Texas, Arkansas, and the Indian Nation, is the Bois d’Are, or Osage Orange. In the States east of the Mississippi River the patches of open, treeless prairie are of less superficial extent than the wooded tracts. As in the States east of the Mississippi, the western lands of this character are largely cultivated in cotton. b. Blue marl lands and hill prairies—In Mississippi and Alabama the southern and western borders of the prairie lands are frequently made by a hard, yellowish limestone which gives rise to a broken and ridgy country, the summits of the ridges possessing soils of the usual sandy upland type, while the: hillsides and lowlands, by the reaction of _ the decaying limestone on the loams, have often stiff clayey soils, much like those of the post-oak prairies. From their position and topography these are known as hill prairies. Limited areas with loamy soils of deep red color, and full of pebbles of brown iron ore, occur along this outer margin of the Cretaceous belt both in Mississippi and in Alabama. Still another type of soils prevails in a few places in Mississippi and in the eastern portion of the Cretaceous belt in Alabama. These are THE RED AND BROWN LOAM REGION OF THE COTTON BELT. 75 the blue marl lands, derived from a blue marl \uich lies near the top of the Cretaceous series. The timber upon tiese blue mar! lands is a curious mixture of gums, bottom oaks, and long-leaf pines, all draped with the long moss. theend. Several caterpillars were replaced five or six times and dropped out of sight in the galleries of strong colonies, and, although severely bitten and bleeding, they escaped at last. A few worms succumbed to the attacks of the ants after having been repeatedly thrown back. ‘¢ The second species (Solenopsis xylont McCook) is dark brown, smaller, and less active, but much more courageous. It is often seen marching in columns, and makes long subterranean galleries just below the sur- — face of the ground, with numerous exits along its course, from which quantities of finely-divided earth are thrown out. It is much more ag- gressive than the first species, attacks a worm fiercely, and holds on with great pertinacity, but does not follow up the attack when once the cat- erpillar has made its escape. It has avery severe sting, which paralyzes _ the worm. The latter, however, recovers if not too badly bitten. Most. worms, when stung behind the middle, appear to be unable to use the anal prolegs, but can usually spring away. Sometimes the worm is en- tirely paralyzed, yet, if rescued in time, recovers, and I have bred the moths from such individnals. Notwithstanding its powerful weapon, I do not believe this ant can destroy a larva unless favored by chance, or unless the attack is made by great numbers and-upon the ground. After the caterpillar has webbed up and become helpless, both these species of ants are occasionally found to attack it. I select from numer- ous field notes the following in confirmation of the conclusions I have drawn: “August 25.—The ave do not seem to attack the young larve and eggs of Aletia which were crowded on the leaves, and yet they (the ants) swarm under the netting and eat up pup placed in jars or boxes on the ground. I think this a very fair test of the work done by the ants, since, with every condition favorable, they fail to clear off young larvee and eggs upon plants at the foot of which they have very strong colonies. ANTS VS. ALETIA. 93 “ August 27.—In the morning caterpillars dropped into the midst ofa very strong colony of brown stinging ants (Solenopsis xyloni) were very quickly destroyed; some of them made hardly any effort to escape. The same colony was experimented on in the heat of the day, and four- fifths of the caterpillars escaped. “August 28.—Experiments made with a colony of brown ants (ap- . parently Dorymyrmex flavus), by dropping caterpillars in the path of a moving column, resulted in the escape of fifteen; five were killed by the ants. I have several times observed a column of the same species of ants engaged in robbing colonies of another common species and at such times they are much less inclined to attack caterpillars in their path. I have never yet witnessed the capture of a caterpillar upon the plants by ants unless it had webbed up and was stiffened to form pupa. During the hottest hours of the day the worms were more pow- erfully affected by the sting of this brown ant, and a greater proportion were captured by them at this time; a caterpillar sometimes succumbed after being twice stung.” | The following extracts from Mr. Schwarz’s notes are interesting in this connection: “Of ants only three species were actually observed to attack worms or chrysalids, Dorymyrmex insanus, Solenopsis xyloni, and, on a single oc- casion, a small undetermined species. The first two species are very common, and, in my opinion, the only ones which are of importance in this Cotton Worm matter. The colonies of all these species are to be met with in the cotton fields. The former are always small and consist of round or oval subterranean excavations connected with the surface by a single, almost vertical gallery at the entrance of which no hill of up- thrown soil is raised. Solenopsis xyloni, on the other hand, very often forms large colonies on places not disturbed by plowing or other causes. Those in the cotton fields are usually very small, without doubt on ac- count of the frequent disturbances. There is always a hill of loose soil or sand, as the case may be, raised by this ant, through which several entrances lead to shallow but large irregular excavations below the surface of the ground. There are two or moresuch chambers, one above the other. AScarabeid beetle, Huparia castanea, is inquilinous with this ant, and hundreds of them occur in a large colony. Its larva is found in the innermost part of the nest, and feeds upon the roots of grasses; the beetle is to be found in all parts of the nest, but rarely in young colonies. ; ‘As to the efficacy of these two species of ants, I wish to remark that on several occasions I saw them at work destroying larvae or chrysa- lides which I had every reason to suppose were in healthy condition when attacked. In one instance I saw them attacking a moth just issuing from the chrysalis. More often they attack worms which are wounded or disabled by other enemies, and pupz which have been stung by some Heteropteron, or which are rotten. They attack fre- 94 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION, quently, however, the young larve in the act of molting. I never no- ticed them dragging, or trying to drag, dead worms into their nests.. At Selma, Ala., I never saw the ants destroying an egg of Aletia. [ witnessed it at Columbus, Tex., but cannot tell at present whether this. - ege had not been previously injured by some other enemy. When I * returned from Texas I had a very high opinion as to the efficacy of these two species of ants, but since my stay at Selma, where I paid particu- lar attention to the subject, I have modified my opinion. Out of about ten cases where the ants are seen destroying worms it is quite certain, in my opinion, that in nine of them the victim was previously severely — injured by some other enemy. In spite of this fact, however, there can be no doubt in my mind that the ants, on account of their enormous numbers, are to be considered as the most important enemies of the Cotton Worm.”. The reports of other agents in much the same strain seem to prove quite conclusively that the work of ants has been to some extent over- rated; still their numbers must always make them important enemies of the worm. The great difference of opinion amongst observers upon this point is to a certain extent, without doubt, due to the difference in location, as in some localities the ants may be more active than in others, or different species may be concerned. It is, moreover, a question — wherein preconceived ideas will have great weight in considering evi- dence. Take, for instance, the case of an observer who sees, upon one or several occasions, an ant in the act of devouring an egg of Aletia. He will be pardoned, perhaps, for considering this conclusive evidence of the good done by the emmets; but when we remember that many eggs are pierced and sucked by species of Triphleps and allied plant- bugs, and that in all of these broken eggs more or less of the contents is left, it becomes possible that the ants may in such case act simply as scavengers after the feast of the Triphleps. One thing seems quite con- clusive, viz., that they are useful chiefly against the newly-hatched or newly-molted or disabled worms. The leaf-cutting ant of Texas (Oecodoma fervens) should also be men- tioned here, for when it invades a cotton field it makes a clean sweep of every worm and pupa; but it also ruins the plant, taking off leaves, blossoms, bolls, and tender stalks. — 7 Certain of the true wasps | (Vespa carolina Drury, V. | germanica L.), some Paper- J wasps (Polistes bellicosa fi Cress., P. rubiginosa St. F.), ¥and some Digger-wasps | (Sphex cerulea De Geer, 8S. pennsylvanica Linn., and an- Fic. 11.—Polistes rubiginosa: a, wasp, b, spring nest. undetermined species) oc- -easionally carry off a worm. Of other larger Hymenoptera, i/onedula carolina, Fabr., Elis 4-notata, Fabr., . plumipes, Drury, Pelopeus ceruleus, BEETLES WHICH DESTROY ALETIA. 95 Linn., P. pensylvanica, Linn., and Priononyx thome, Fabr., are often found in the cotton fieids, and certain of them have been observed feed- ing on the worms. Mr. Trelease has ob- ‘served Polistes bellicosa searching the leaves for worms, and relying on the tactile sense of the antennze rather than on sight to find them. The instant a worm was touched, recognizing its enemy, it would throw itself from the leaf, the Pol- istes quickly springing after it. One wasp was observed thus to spring eight times... 181 Peetie’ name Cae unsuccessfully, the ninth time catching and Comstock.) devouring the worm. Both species of Polistes were several times seen flying about with dead caterpillars, having previously reduced them to a pulpy mass with their mandibles. COLEOPTERA, OR BEETLES.—Of this order numerous species belong- ing to the families of Tiger-beetles (Cicindelide) and Ground-beetles (Car- abide) have been observed to prey upon the worms, each species being | represented by but a very small number of speci- - mens when compared with the ants. These beetles . are nevertheless among the most voracious insects known to us. Most of them are nocturnal in their habits, and are thus more apt to escape the attacks of birds. They devour their prey bodily, and as they are frequently met with in cotton fields very remote from their hiding places, they are probably attracted by the smell attending the worms. The following is a list of the species actually observed F1s.13.—Tetracha virginica. feeding thereon: Tetracha carolina (Linn.), T. virginica (Linn.), Cicin- dela sperata Lec., Cicindela punctulata Fabr., Calosoma sayi Dej., Helluo- morpha laticornis (Dej.), H. texana Lec., Galerita atripes Lec., Brach- inus sp., Aphelogenia furcata (Lec.), Callida decora (Fabr.), Loxandrus’ lucens Chaud., L. crenatus Lec., Pterostichus sayi Brull., and Selen- ophorus lesus Lec. The number of Cicindela holes in the cotton fields is astonishingly great, the most abundant species being Cicindela Xt Mizz iinders snlendida: a laren b, head of punctulata. 'The larve drag into their holes every Cotton Worm which chances to crawl over the mouth, and many are thus destroyed during the migration of the worms, towards the end of the season. Ordinarily, | however, the number of worms captured by these Tiger-beetles is very small. The accompanying cut (Fig. 14) of Cicindela splendida from the first report of the Commission will indicate the character of these tiger- 96 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. — beetle larvae. Callida decora is an exceedingly common species in parts — of the South, and both larve and adults destroy the Cotton Worms., The _ larvee of oe beetle, upon one occasion, according to Mr. Hubbard, were sufficiently numerous to cause a tated decrease in the number of the worms in certain parts of the field (at Crescent City, Fla). They cap-— tured the young larve upon the leaves in great quantities, and even successfully attacked grown worms many times their own size and weight. The imago of the beetle not only destroys full-grown worms, but was found eating the chrysalides. A number of iinet Lady-birds (Coceinellide@) are constant found upon cotton, and their larve have occasionally been observed to eat the - eggs of Aletia. These larve havealso been found to destroy large chrys- alides of other moths while yet soft after the transformation, biting large holes in them and sucking the juices, and will un- doubtedly be found to destroy Aletia pape in the lent or cottony larve, belonging to the genus Scym- nus, are especially abundant, but they have never Lalsbirl: a, larve, ga. been satisfactorily proven to prey upon Aletia in pa; c, beetle. (After Riley.) any state. Soldier-beetles (Telephoride) and ‘“Fire-flies” (Lampyride) are also quite common on cotton. The beetles are pollinivorous, while the larve are predaceous, and in several instances have been known to destroy Aletia. Two full-grown larve, which AA we recognize as those of Chaulho- aa: b gnathus americanus, were found by of Mr. Hubbard feeding upon Cotton Nac Worm chrysalides on the leaves. _ One of these larve had devoured Fic. 16.—Chauliognathus americanus: a, larva; ONC entire pupa and was engaged b, enlarged head of same; ¢, d, f, g, h, mouth parts of same; e, leg; 7, beetle; a, 0, natural size, the UPON another when captured. rest enlarged. (A fter Riley. ) We have also observed, as has also Mr. Patton, the same species feed- ing upon pupe of Aletia in Alabama. In addition to what we have published on the habits and transformations of this beetle (Mo. Ent. Reports, I, p. 57, and IV, p. 28), the following notes by Mr. Hubbard on its earlier life-history are interesting: The eggs of Chauliognathus pensylvanicus, which you gave me at Savannah, August 4 (my No. 62), hatched during the night of August 9. On August 10 I mounted twelve of the larve in balsam (Slide No. 62). I succeeded in feeding them on young aphids from cotton, the bodies of which I crushed. They were very timid, and ate sparingly. The color is silver_gray, almost white. August 12 the larve retreated to bottom of earth in the bottle, and curled up in clusters. In two or three hours (10.45 a.m.) they had moulted. Their color now changed to a lead color, or mouse color. Immediately after moulting they became very active, climbing all over the sides of | the jar. I gave them crushed Phora aletie, and they sucked the juice readily. They attacked the uninjured maggots, but were unable to pierce the skin. I preserved severalin Wickersheim solution (No. 62, B). I gave them, August 15, a species of large, red Aphis, found on cockle-burr, but they did not relish them, and ate but little. They same way. The small, obscure beetles with floccu- - ° THE HETEROPTERA WHICH PREY UPON ALETIA. 97 . _ also ate sparingly of crushed Aletia larve, but prefer the Phoras to everything else. August 17 they retired to bottom of the bottle, and were torpid two days. August 19 all had completed their second moult, and are darker in color. They are now quite strong, and can pierce the skin of Phora maggots given them for food. The markings on dorsum are now quite distinct. (H.G. Hubbard, Centerville, Fla., August 21, 1880.—American Entomologist, III, pp. 249, 250. ) | A number of other beetles, as, for instance, Collops quadrimaculatus (Fabr.), having carnivorous habits, are found upon the plant, and may by further observation be added to the enemies of Aletia; while a minute, yellowish-brown species (Sericoderus flavidus Lec.), belonging to the Corylophide, has been found feeding on the forming chrysalis while yet soft and helpless. HETEROPTERA, OR HALF-WINGED BuGs.—Next to the ants in use- fulness as natural checks are sun- ; dry species of rapacious or Soldier- 2X bugs, as they are popularly called. These belong exclusively, so far as observed, to the families Cydnide, aoaioesridd Scutelleride, and Re- Fic. 18.—Podisus spino- US: a, pupa; b, larva;-e, Fic. 7s Sop di 5 > I + Sees a. ere duvide. ties suck out tHe; juices See rich ine ge) pee ee brett of their prey by means of a short but sharp beak, and ter Riley.) the young have precisely the same habits as the mature insects, though often differing greatly in appearance. They are almost all active during the day, but a few work also at night. The species actually observed destroying : Cotton Worms are: Podisus cynicus (Say), P. spinosus (Dall.), P. punetipes, Huschistus jissilis Uhler, Proxys punctulatus (Beauy.) (see Fig. 20), Prionotus cristatus (Linn.), Apiomerus crassipes (Fabr.), Phymata erosa Fic.20.—Proxys g A eat punctulatus. = ai (Linn.), Melanolestes picipes (H. Sch.), Steno- (Caen) dema. (After Riley.) poda cinerea Lap., Gibalus pugnax (Fabr.), (see Fig. 21), rele. taurus (Kabr.), Aceratodes cornutus Burm., Zelus bilobus (Say), | Triphleps insidiosus (Say), Raphigaster hilaris (Say), Sinea diadema (Fabr.) (see aie. 19). pe Metapodius Fa abr). (see Fig. 22). The opined Soldier-bug (Podisus -spt- ‘Y nosus, Figs. 17 and 18) seems to be per. ic eas haps the mosf abundant and effective of - (Original.) the above list. It is found all through the cotton belt, and seems to prefer to attack the full-grown worms, though it is frequently seen suck- ing the juices of the less protected chrysalides. Its ie. 22—etapodius puneture is not always fatal to the worms. Mr, 7”7"™s (Orginal) Schwarz on one occasion had under his observation two worms which he thinks had been stung by the Soldier-bugs, and succeeded in both 63 CONG——7 a b 98 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. | cases in rearing the moths. Podisus spinosus was never observed suck- ing the cotton bolls; but P. punctipes was frequently caught in the act. The bugs, however, are so closely related that their habits are probably - on similar. The eggs of P. spinosus (Fig. 18c) are bronze- balored: caldron-shaped objects, with a convex lid, around which radiate fifteen or sixteen white spines. They are attached side by side, in clusters of a dozen or more, to leaves and other objects, and are very subject to the attacks of a Proctotrupid parasite of the genus Telenomus. The young bug is ovoid, shiny black, with some bright crimson about the abdomen. Inthe full- grown larva (Fig. 18)) four yellowish spots appear on the thorax, and the abdomen becomes more yellowish. In the so-called pupa, distin-— guished by wing-pads, the ocher-yellow extends still more, and in the perfect insect the black entirely disappears. In the immature stages the shoulders are rounded, not pointed. The antenne are four-jointed instead of five-jointed as in the adult, and the feet or tarsi have but two joints instead of three. The diet of the young seems to be principally vegetarian, but we have mentioned (Fourth Rep., Ins. Mo., p. 20) instances where the larva has often been seen to destroy larve of the Colorado Potato- beetle four or five times-its own size. ; The thick-thighed Metapodius (i. femorata, Say, Fig. 22), which in the first edition was placed in the list of probable enemies, has since been observed in the act of destroying full-grown worms. It has also, however, been seen to pierce and suck bolls. Much more effective than the larger Heteroptera were two small spe- cies, both extremely abundant on cotton near Selma, and very fre- quently observed attacking Aletia. The one is Triphleps insidiosus, which, with its larva, may be considered as a special destroyer of Ale- tia eggs. It was very often found with its beak inserted in the eggs, busily engaged in sucking out the contents. The empty eggs, with the hole plainly observable, were also frequently met with. It was also often met with in large numbers in half-empty pup, which it had possi- bly killed; but it has not been seen to attack the worms. Another species was often seen sucking worms of all sizes and also pupe, ard even on one occasion a moth was attacked just as it was coming forth from its pupa-skin. aR following species, commonly found in cotton fields, but not yet . z—,. actually observed to feed on the worms, may safely be regarded as having the habit, while several others might f N the plant-feeding trait: Stiretrus jimbriatus (Say) (see Fig. 23), var. diana (Fabr.), Huschistus punctipes (Say), H. ) tristigmus (Say), Thyanta custator (Fabr.), Hvagoras F1G.23.—Stiretrus Viridis Uhler, Merocoris distunctus Dall., Anasa armigera ae Ag gees (After Say, and Mecdel pensylvanica De G. be added, some of whieh combine the carnivorous with — e ee oa gu MOON ices - ' DIPTERA AND ORTHOPTERA WHICH DESTROY ALETIA. 99 DIPTERA, OR Two-wINGED F'LiES.—In this order the only species that. attack the worms, and probably the moths also, belong to the Asilide, a family of large, fierce flies . that pounce upon other insects as a hawk pounces upon other birds, and suck their substance by means of: a strong beak. But two species—one the Procta- canthus milberti Macq. (see Fig. 24), the other an undescribed Asilus—have been seen destroying the worm so far. Asilus sericeus has been observed to catch the moths upon the wing, afterwards eating ; iN them; while Braz apicalis Wied., Diog- His) 24.—Proctacanthus milberti. (After mites discolor Loew, and several species belonging to the above-named genera and to Promachus, Laphria, and Dizonias are not uncommon in the cotton fields. These flies deposit their eggs under ground. The following descrip- tion of the act of oviposition is taken from a note by Mr. Hubbard, in the American Entomologist (vol. ili., p. 250): ‘“‘T also observed a light yellow Asilus-fly ovipositing in the ground in an open space between the cotton rows. She inserted her abdomen to a depth of half an inch, and deposited only three or four eggs, which I secured. During oviposition she imitated most comically the actions of a dog dropping its dung, Aa after finishing, immedi- ately raked the earth into and over the hole, apparently very carelessly, but so effect- ively, that although I had marked with my eye the exact spot, I failed to detect it, until I unearthed the eggs. ,The eggs are oval, yellowish white, smooth, and quite large.” Fie. 25.—Mantis carolina: a, female; b, male. (After Riley.) ORTHOPTERA, OR STRAIGHT-WINGED INSECTS.—The Carolina Mantis ‘(Mantis carolina L., Fig. 25) is also occasionally found in such situa- tions, usually confining itself to the borders of the field. It is to be 100 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES See COMMISSION. ” regretted that this voracious insect is not more abundant in the cotton | fields; but it undoubtedly de-. =_, Stroys many. worms. It is— =) popularly known as ‘‘the rear _ horse,” “the camel cricket,” or _ ‘“‘the devil’s riding horse,” and — feeds upon all sorts of living Fic. 26.—Chrysopa: a, eggs; b, larva; ¢, cocoons; d, , ; x fly, with left wings detached. (After Westwood.) insects. AS an instance of its voracity, we have already described (First Mo. Ent. Report, p. 169) how a single female devoured eleven Colorado Potato-beetles in one night. The eggs are glued tightly together ina peculiar mass and are deposited in all Se LED us sorts of situations, but principally on the ie aa twigs of trees. The eggs areextensively 5, -o7_ LOhrysopa with eggs. (From infested by a Chalcid parasite of the Packard:) ~ genus Podagrion, and the adult Mantis is destroyed by a Tachina fly. NEUROPTERA,OR NERVE-WINGED INSECTS.—The only species of ~ . = this order that are likely to prey / upon Aletia belong to the Ant- lions (Myrmeleonide), the Lace- wings (Hemerobide), and the : Dragon-Flies (Libellulide). The Ant-lions work in the larva state in pits in the ground, and the con- Fic. 28.—Myrmeleon obsoletus. (From Harris.) stant plowing thereof will always prevent them from doing any material good, and they are naturally scarce. The Lace-wings are. numerous, but their larve feed, like the lady-birds, on the plant-lice, and have refused to touch Cotton Worms when confined in boxes with them. The curious eggs | \t& of these flies (Fig. 27), attached to the end of a delicate filament, & are often supposed to be those of Aletia. Many planters state that these flies are always to be found where there are larve of ? Aletia, and Dr. Phares states that their larve devour the eggs Myra ae and young Cotton Worms. This is not improbable, though his 1arva. statement is as yet unconfirmed by other observers. The larvze have been seen by Mr. Trelease feeding upon the nectar of the foliar glands. The Dragon-flies or Mosquito-hawks are aquatic in the larva state, but the perfect insects are active in their pursuit of prey while on the wing, and are reported on good authority to attack Aletia both in the worm and moth states. Fig. 30, Libellula trimaculata, is one of the commoner species. Dr. F. M. MeMeekin, of Morrison’s Mills, Alachua County, Florida, considers them as the ate valuable enemies of Aletia, and states that it is a common sight to see them catch the moths on tne wing. LEPIDOPTERA.— BUTTERFLIES AND Morus.—lIt is incontestably proven by the evidence of almost every observer we have sent into the field PARASITES OF ALETIA. 101 during the past five years that the Boll Worm (Heliothis armigera) when - approaching full growth develops a strong, carnivorous appetite, and not only destroys the = smaller worms of its own “species, but also enters ‘the loose cocoon of the Cotton Worm and feeds upon the inclosed pupa. Ce - There is good evidence that the Grass Worm (Laphygma frugiperda) occasionally eats the Cot- ton Worms, a fact which seems probable from the known habits of La- Fie. 30.—Lbellula trimaculata. (After Sanborn.) phygma, and even the Aletia larva, like many other species of its order, when hard pressed, will develop cannibal propensities. PARASITES. Up to the time of the appearance of the first edition of this work in January, 1880, or rather up to the time of the appearance of a prelim- inary article by us in the Canadian Entomologist for September, 1879, no _ parasites of the Cotton Worm had been recorded by name so as to be rec- ognized by entomologists, and the belief was quite general that: Aletia was entirely free from parasitic checks. This belief, as we have already seen, was used by Mr. Grote as an argument in favor of the arrival of Aletia de novo from some foreign country Whenever it appears with us. The fact remains, however, that one of the most important of these par- asites had been mentioned without name by six writers at least, and that two tolerably good figures ofthe species had been published. In- deed, the very fact of the existence of such a parasite had been used by Dr. Gorham to found a theory similar to Mr. Grote’s, as we shall show under the head of ‘‘ History of the literature.” The following species have been discovered since we began this Cot- ton Worm investigation. The observations of the past two years have added four parasites to those published in the first edition of this work: Infesting and issuing from the egg: (1.) ZLrichogramma pretiosa Riley. Infesting-and issuing from the worm (the parasitism of No. 5 doubtful): (2.) Apanteles aletie Riley. (3.) Huplectrus comstockit Howard. (4.) Sarcophaga sarracenice Riley. (5.) Cyrtoneura stabulans Fallen. (6.) Tachina aletie Riley. (7.) Tachina fraterna Comstock. 102 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. Infesting and issuing from the chrysalis: (8.) Pimpla conquisitor Say. (9.) Pimpla annulipes Br. (10.) Cryptus nuncius Say. (11.) Chalcis ovata Say. (12.) Cirrospilus esurus Riley. Species issuing from the chrysalis and not true parasites of Aletia, : though easily mistaken for such: (13.) Hexvapiasta zigzag Riley. (14.) Phora aletie Comstock. Infesting and issuing from the Egg.—Tur TrichoGramMa EGG-PARASITE.— (Trichogramma -pretiosa Riley)”: Attacking Aletia in its earliest state, the unhatched egg, this winged atom must be, when abundant, a most effectual check, and the scarcity of the Cotton Worm in certain seasons may doubtless be partly parasite has in the New England = States relieved the shade trees — — Ss from the ravages of Canker- - European sparrows, notwith- standing they received the ‘credit for it, were unable to ac- complish. This Trichogramma is a yellow fly, so small that were it not for its activity in jumping it could not be distin- fomale abdonen , fonale antenna; @maloatoima tal SS ee PY the Une greatly enlarged). (Original.) an animated being, and it finds sufficient nourishment in a single egg. of the Aletia to support its growth and maturation. It emerges from a round hole which it gnaws through the egg-shell, and eggs infested by it or which have been destroyed by it may be recognized by their bluish or blackish color or the presence of this perforation. When examined under the microscope, the perfect fly is found to be an object of much beauty, the hairs upon the wings being arranged in regular lines. Some specimens of both sexes—the male may be distinguished by the bristly antennee—were found to have one or more of the wings imperfectly developed, presenting the appear- ance of a paddle. The accompanying figure (Fig. 31) will serve to illus- trate its character and render furtber description unnecessary. This minute creature was first noticed by Professor Comstock in 1878, near Selma, Ala., and in October, 1879, we found it quite common in Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia, fully one-fifth of the eggs in some fields being infested. Mr. Schwarz found it rather rare in Texas, and ascribed to its work. It is at — SS ae LES least known that a similar egg-. Sa << worms—a good deed which the _ § : 4 q ja THE TRICHOGRAMMA EGG-PARASITE OF ALETIA. 103 according to Mr. Hubbard it is very abundant in Florida. The obser- vations of the latter are interesting and well illustrate the importance of the species. He found that this little egg-parasite, unaided and alone, almost completely annihilated the fifth brood. At the beginning of the fourth brood less than half the eggs of Aletia were destroyed. July 27, when the eggs of ‘this brood had nearly all been deposited, - about 75 per cent. were found to have been parasitized, the proportion in some parts of the field reaching 90 per cent. About the middle of Au- gust, while the eggs of the fifth brood were being laid, the proportion destroyed by the Trichogramma exceeded. 90 per cent. in all parts of the fields, while, at the brood centers, careful estimates showed that but three or four eggs out of a hundred escaped. He gives the following account of the eggs of the species: ‘“The mother works chiefly by day, depositing two ova in each egg of Aletia or Heliothis. The eggs of the parasite hatch in forty-eight hours, while that of their host darkens, and in a few days turns almost black. On the seventh day after being stung it is vacated by the parasites, which issue through an irregular hole gnawed in the side, each making its own opening. Frequently after the inclosed parasites have formed their pupa the shell of the Aletia egg shrinks about them, leaving two little oval cells indicating the positions of the parasites within. A day or Fic. 32.—Apanieles aletie: a. female fly; b, outline of head of larva in position to show the chitinized parts of the mouth, the mandibles not-visible, being withirawn; c, one of its mandibles as seen within the head of a mounted specimen; d, cocoon; ¢, joimt of antenna—all enlarged: uat. size of a and din hair-line (after Kiley). two before they issue the ruby-colored pupz of the parasites can be plainly distinguished through the translucent shell of the destroyed egg. I have invariably obtained two Chalcids from each discolored egg of Aletia or Heliothis collected.” 104 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. Our experience accords with that of Mr. Hubbard, though thenumber jnfesting a single egg is not invariably two. We have often obtained but: one from a single egg, and, according to Mr. Schwarz’s experience, three may exceptionally be obtained. As will have been gathered from Mr. Hubbard’s notes quoted above, the Trichogramma has been raised from the eggs of Heliothis armigera—the Boll-Worm moth. It has also been reared from the eggs of Laphygma frugiperda, the Grass-Worm moth, and from the eggs of an unknown Tortricid on orange. We have also found a minute yellow parasite of somewhat similar general ap- pearance and easily mistaken for it, but in reality very distinct when carefully examined, infesting the larva and the pupa of an undescribed Aleurodes that is common on cotton, two or more flies issuing fromeach — - Aleurodes.?"2 Infesting and issuing from the Worm.—Tur CoTton-wormM MIcROGASTER.— This species, described by us as Apanteles aletiw,* has been very fre- quently found during the past few seasons in Florida, Alabama, and Texas.” ‘The egg is laid in the posterior portion of the body of par ee grown larve of Aletia (never in very young or full-grown worms). - is a solitary parasite, only one specimen infesting a single Cotton se st) We quote the observations upon the species made by Mr. Hubbard, who has watched it more carefully than any of the other agents: “Late in August, while the worms of the fifth brood were in process of devel- opment, I discovered on the underside of lower leaves of cotton and upon grass growing under the shade of the oak tree at the center of this brood, a number of little oval cocoons of white, flossy silk, about 4™™ (0.16 incu long. Close beside these dangled the dead body of a young cotton worm, suspended from the leaf or from the cocoon by a thread of silk. In about a week each cocoon produced a Microgaster (most of my notes relating to this parasite having been lost, 1 am unable to give the exact periods in which it undergoes its transformations). Subsequently I observed the larva, naked and memberless, its body tinged with green by the juices of its prey, in the act of spinning its cocoon.~ The larva forms the exterior by throwing out loops of ropy fluid which, under a lens, are seen to become rigid as they fall, and to harden rapidly, forming rather a coarse strand of white silk, which is often beautifully furred. These loops are piled one upon another and the walls of the cocoon rise rapidly until they meet overhead. The in- side is lined in the manner usual with lepidopterous larve until the whole has become opaque. The process of spinning occupies about two hours’ time. After August 20, nearly all the young larve of Aletia col- lected were found to contain this parasite, which kills and emerges from the worms when they have attained a quarter of their full growth. In quitting its host the parasite maintains its connection with the body “* Transactions of the Academy of Science of St. Louis, Vol. 4, No. 2. EUPLECTRUS PARASITE OF ALETTA. 165 of the latter by ineans of a single thread. After crawling to a distance of about half an inch it fastens this thread to the surface of the leaf, and begins its cocoon. The body of the caterpillar is dislodged in time, and falls from the leaf, but usually remains suspended by the connect- ing thread. As the parasitic grub within its body increases in size, the young caterpillar weakens and often falls to the ground, in which case the parasite climbs the nearest blade of gtass and there makes its co- coon.” In escaping, the fy makes a lid-covered opening in the cocoon, as do the other members of the genus. Mr. Schwarz is of the opinion that this parasite does not always kill the worm, as upon several occasions he raised to the perfect state worms which were scarred upon the pos- terior end of the body, just as if one of these parasites had emerged. Two secondary parasites have been bred from the Apanteles—the one a Chalecid® and the other an Ichneumonid belonging to the genus Hemiteles. Comstocx’s Evprecrrus.—Professor Comstock, in the Report on Cotton Insects, 1879, figured and quoted passages from his notes concerning a parasite of the Cotton Worm, which he called “the unnamed Chalcid.” In the August (1880) number of the Canadian Entomologist the species was described by Mr. Howard as Euplectrus comstockit. This description he has somewhat revised, and it will be found in the notes.” During 1880 this parasite was studied by us and by different agents of the Com- - mission in Alabama and Florida, and in the January (1881) number of the American Naturalist Mr. Schwarz gave a very full account of its life history. From this article we take the following facts: The egg of the parasite is elongate oval, stron gly convex above and somewhat flattened beneath; no aoutptare, is visible under an ordinary lens. Its color is uniformly hae and almost black just before hatching. The number of eggs laid by the female Euplectrus on - single Cotton Worm varies from Fic. 33.—Aletia larva infested by larve of Euplec- one to fifteen, the most common '¥s comstockit. ~(Original.) numbers being three, five, and seven. They are always laid in a group, the individual eggs sufficiently separate from each other to allow room for the development of the larve. It seems altogether probable that the time required for the development of the eggs does not exceed two days. The Cotton Worms attacked by these parasites are usually less than one-third grown, but not less than one day old. The eggs of the para- site are laid on the middle of the back of the worm, sometimes a little to one side or the other, and upon one occasion they were seen fastened just above one of the middle pair of thoracic legs. The delicate egg-shell splits longitudinally and discloses the white larva, which gradually works the shell down the sides of its body until, in less than twelve hours, it disappears below the rapidly-growing para- 106 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. site. This last, as soon as it has freed its head from the egg-shell, pierces the skin of its victim and thereafter remains stationary with its head buried. As soon as it has fairly begun to feed the white color. changes toabright bluish-green. The growth of the larvais very rapid, but seems to vary according to the season, averaging three days in August and four days in September. When full-grown, the larve crowd each other, and if there are five or more of them on a caterpillar they form a semi-globular lump of very striking appearance. (Fig.33.) Usually their ecrowth is uniform, and retardation in develop- y ment of individuals in the group results in death. When full-grown they turn yellowish- white and relax their hold. The worm, which / __4 up to this time showed no signs of being af- 53 fected, except by its sickly yellowish color and ye by.its very slow growth, collapses and dies as , Fic. 34.—Larval skin of Aletia ‘ ta fastened to_a leaf by Euplectrus soon aS a Single one of the parasitic larvee cocoons. (Original.) withdraws, and the same fate overtakes those Euplectrus larve which are at the time less advanced in their development or immature. If one- of the parasitic larve be removed by hand, both the victimized worm and the remaining parasites quickly dry up. The parasitic larve always remain stationary on the worm which the parent fly has chosen as its victim, and they never even move from the spot where the egg has been laid until they are full-grown. Every attempt made to transplant a parasite from one worm to another invariably resulted in the death of the parasite. 7 In preparing for pupation, the larve manage, by a peculiar elonga- tion and sudden contraction of their abdominal joints, to work from the back of the worm to the ventral or attached side, where they spin fine, silken threads which more fully secure the worm, which is now a mere empty skin, to the leaf. As the Euplectrus latve take their places side by side, the caterpillar skin is fastened its whole length to’ _ the leaf, if there are five or more of the parasites; but if there are fewer, only one portion of the skin, usually the anterior end, is fastened, the remaining portion either hanging down or breaking off. This web of the Euplectrus larve consists of an irregular mesh of yellowish-white silk, recalling some kinds of mold, and is spun to secure the caterpillar skin to the leaf, in addition to a few other threads to prevent the pupa from being moved from its place. (Fig.34.) Protected by the caterpillar skin as by a roof, the Euplectrus larva changes to a pupa, the color of which is dark honey-yellow, with the head and abdomen very soon ‘be- coming pitchy black. The duration of the pupa state varies from three to eight days. The Euplectrus is subject to the attacks of a secon- dary parasite of its own family (Zlachistus euplectri),* and its pupa is sometimes destroyed by another enemy, probably some Carabid beetle. It is very common in the vicinity of Selma, and in October, 1880, in company with the Apanteles aleticw, it caused the almost complete de- h _ , xe a ae eT: as Jd ee opie ' ss HE DIBTEROUS PARASITES OF ALETIA. ». 10F struction of the worms. This species—comstockti—is by no means confined in its attacks to Aletia larve, but has been bred from or ES SES SSS aK \ ANY Se a y SN wy 1) — eS ~— —> CRYPTUS NUNCIUS (Fig. 41).—A_ third ~ x . ; Ichneumon-fly, belonging to a different ee ” genus and having similar habits with the Outline Unplas just described, except that the pupa _Fic. 40.—Pimpla annulipes : side view of female and of male abdo- js formed in a cocoon, may (considering the men. (After Riley.) LTE : : the known variability of coloration in the species of the genus) be referred to Cryptus. nuncius, Say. It is a black and red, four-winged fly, with transparent wings, and issues from the Aletia chrysalis during the spring. It is a well-known parasite of our 63 CONG 8 | = 114 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. _ large native silkworms, Callosamia promethea, Samia cecropia, and An- therwa polyphemus, from the cocoons of which it emerges in the Northern States early in the spring, a considerable number of the parasites ap- pearing from a single cocoon. i A female specimen from Aletia has the head and thorax black, the 8th-10th joints of the antennx white, the palpi black, the legs including all the coxe red, with the tips of the posterior femora and of the posterior tibie black, and the posterior tarsi tinged with brown. The first four joints of the abdomen are entirely red, the suc- ceeding joints and the sheaths of the ovipositor black, the ovipositor itself reddish ; the apical joints of the abdomen have a white spot above. Relying upon the length of the ovipositor as a character for separating nuncius, Say, from samie, Pack.,(39) the female of the present species may be distinguished by the ovipositor being much shorter than the’ abdo- men, as shown in Fig. 41, 0; Fig. 41, a repre- senting Cryptus samie. Fig. 41 cindicates the form of the abdomen in the male. THE OVATE CHALCIS (Fig. 42).—In the next family (Chalcidide) to the Ichneumonide, to which the preceding three species belong, we have two par- asites which issue from the pupa, the larger and more abundant of which is the Ovate Chalcis (Chalcis ovata Say). It is one of the largest of the North Fic. 41.—Cryptus sami: a, female; b, fe- 3 ; . maleabdomenof C. nuncius ; c, male abdomen; American Chalcids, measuring 5™M in d, highly magnified piece of wing—hair-line : ie, ee showing naturallength. (After Riley.) length, and may be readily distin- guished from the other Cotton Worm parasites by its swollen hind thighs and by the glaxsy appearance of its abdomen. ‘The species is also easily distinguished by the hind thighs being black, with a yellow spot at tip, and by the tegule being entirely yellow. The species is widespread in the United States, and occurs also in Mexico and the West Indies. We have reared it from Aletia ehrysalides collected by Professor Willet in Georgia, Professor Comstock in Alabama, Mr. Schwarz in Texas, Dr. Anderson in Mississippi, and by us in the first-mentioned State and in North Carolina; while we have likewise reared it from Desmia maculalis (the Grape leaf-folder), in Missouri, and found it commonly infesting the chrysalides of certain Hackberry-feeding worms (Apatura lycaon, Fabr., and A. herse, Fabr.) in several of the Southern States. Unlike the Watchful Pimpla, the Ovate Chaleis seems to be almost equally abundant throughout the season, increasing but little towards fall. Mr. Schwarz is of the opinion that the species is perhaps more abundant in Texas than in Alabama, and that only full-grown worms or possibly, occasionally, a newly-formed chrysalis, are attacked. He arrived at this latter conclusion from the fact that in all the chrysalides examined which contained the full-grown parasitic larve the moth was - already formed and its abdomen destroyed, while the young parasitic larvee were always found in apparently healthy chrysalides where the | §PECIES MISTAKEN FOR. PARASITES OF ALETIA. 115 moth was not yet formed. ‘The duration of the pupa state of the Chalcis was found to be from eight to ten days in August. In issuing from the Aletia pupa it almost invariably eats a hole through the dorsal part of-the thorax.” THE DEVOURING TETRASTICHUS (Tetrasti- chus esurus Riley).4'—The chrysalides of Aletia, formed during the latter part of the season, are frequently infested with this little parasite, each chrysalis nourishing a number which eat ~ their way through the shell in the form of small black flies. This parasite is quite generally. distributed, and has been bred in Texas, Ala- bama, and Georgia. The larve are pale, elon- . gate, egg-like maggots, and the flies issue all Fic. 42.—Chalcis ovata, female; 2 3 ; hair-line showing natural size. throughtheautumn, during mild winter weather eae ; and (the later ones) in the spring. There exists a possibility that this insect is not a so-called primary parasite of Aletia, but that it infests naturally one of the large ichneumonid parasites of the Cotton Worm. This supposition is, however, contradicted by the fact that Aletia pup parasited by this chalcid are always found packed to overflowing with the Tetrastichus, whereas were the latter simply para- sitic upon Pimpla or Chalcis, they would in all probability be found only in the abdomen of the Aletia pupa. This parasite has also been bred from the fall broods of the worm only, which fact may be due to the possibility of its parasitism upon Pimpla conquisitor, or from its being, during the summer months, parasitic upon some larva other than the Cotton Worm. SPECIES THAT ARE EASILY MISTAKEN FOR PARASITES OF ALETIA. HEXAPLASTA ZIGZAG® (Figs. 43 and 44).—In September, 1879, a num- ber of minute parasites were sent us by Professor Comstock, with the : | statement that they had issued from chrysalides of Aletia. The species was undescribed, and as we could placeitin no known genus, we erected the genus Didictyum, and described the species as D. zigzag in the Amer- ican Entomologist, ILI, 52, and also in the first edition of this Bulletin, p. -44, Later, however, we learned, through the courtesy of Mr. W. H. Patton, of Waterbury, Conn., that Didictyum is synonymous with the ; : Cynipid genus Hexaplasta of Foer- Fic. 43.—Hexaplasta zigzag: showingfemale from ‘* : é - tae ee = Jomals ee eee ster, and published the fact in the American Entomologist, LIL, 293 (note 12). We also there expressed the belief, based on careful observation, 116 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. that this parasite does not belong to Aletia, but that it in reality attacks __ _ Phora aletie Comstock—the next insect which we discuss—and that Pro- | - fessor Comstock was misled by appearances in consider it a true parasite of Aletia. The Hexaplasta ig’ is certainly a parasite of Phora, as £=22-\ the following extracts from Mr. Hub- #8 bard’s notes plainly show: ki ‘““ CENTERVILLE, August 21.— In one of my tin boxes, in which I keep a supply of Phora larve feeding upon moldy leaves, dead caterpillars, &c., I to-day observed a minute chaleid (?) — fly [H. zigzag] puncturing one after : another the bodies of a cluster of re. fies eer zigzag: female from side. newly-hatched Phoras. I separated ge | these maggots and the parasite. The parasite, watched under a lens, was seen to insert her ovipositor with a strong, steady motion once into the body of each larva and immediately withdraw it. The Phora larvee- were confined in a small vial with crushed Aletia pup for food. Ex-~ amined October 13. Six parasites are seen walking about the vial. They disclosed from six Phora pupe.” This fully confirms our own experience, and leaves no doubt that Hexaplasta is actually parasitic upon Phora, and this fact being proven it is altogether unlikely that it is also a parasite upon Aletia, although we have no absolute proof to the contrary. _We introduce the account of this insect in this place, as it was considered, upon Professor Comstock’s authority, under the head of the true parasites in the first edition. PHORA ALETILE Comstock (Fig. 45)—Under the head of true parasites ~ of Aletia, Professor Comstock has given ' detailed descriptions of a species of Phora com- mon throughout the South, as Phora aletic, — with, as it seems to us, very insufficient reasons in support of his view that it is a true parasite. These reasons were, firstly, that it had been reared in great numbers from chrysalides collect- ed by Mr. Trelease in the Fic. 45.—Phora aletic, larva, pupa, female, and male abdomen, ~ highly enlarged. (Pergande del.) field, which appeared either sound or parasited; and, secondly, that the Ph. incrassata of Europe is, according to Paekeal: (aereee Naturalist, 1868), a true par- asite of the hive bee, HABITS OF PHORA ALETIZA. 117 ~ To answer the last argument it may be stated that Ph. incrassata has never been satisfactorily proven to be a bee parasite, in spite of Dr. Packard’s statement to the contrary. | In regard to the first argument, our experience with this particular Phora has been quite extensive, and has proven that the eggs are laid in masses, not necessarily upon the insect, and never upon living or healthy insects. The larvz very soon attack any decaying animal or vegetable substance; but while they may be thickly crawling about and over living larve, they do not penetrate the same. After the insect was considered a parasite of Aletia we took pains to have the actual facts ascertained and verified, and the observations of Messrs. Hubbard and Schwarz are conclusive. A note in the American Entomologist, ILI, 228, by Mr. Hubbard*® to the effect that, from his observations, the flies gathered about moldy food and the excrement of larvae, but never deposited eggs unless they found dead moths, larve or pup, and moisture, was the occasion for the following interesting letterfrom Baron Osten Sacken on the habits of the genus, which was published in the November (1880) number of the American Entomologist: The opinion expressed by Mr. Hubbard in your September number (p. 228) about Phora not being a true parasite holds good, no doubt, in the majority of cases. Among the literature which I have collected on the habits of Phora,I find only one direct statement about larve of this fly having developed in a living insect. Mr. Brischke (Kleinere Beobachtungen iiber Insecten) received from a coleopterist some pupx and | imagos of Phora, with the remark that the pupz had come out of the anus of a living Osmoderma. The friend very probably meant to say that larve had come out and had immediately transformed into pupe. The statements of Bouché (Naturg. d. Ins., p. 101) are less direct. He obtained larve of Phora from several specimens of Sphinx con- volvuli in captivity, and from caterpillars of a Tinea. Although he does not say that: the Sphinxes and caterpillars were alive when the larve emerged from them, we are justified to assume from his wording that the larve of Phora had lived in their host, _ while he was alive, although they may have escaped after death. Brischke (1. c.) also takes it that way. Perris, in his Insectes du pin maritime, had expressed the same opinion as Mr. Hub- bard, that the larvee of Phora are scavengers, not parasites; but later (Résultats de quelques promenades entomologiques, in Ann. Soc. Ent, Fr., 1873, p.74) he confesses his doubts about the matter. .He had obtained a Phora from the nymphe of Coceinella 7-punctata, these nymphe not showing any signs of decay. Curtis (Brit. Ent., 437) and Rondani (Atti, &c., Milano, 1860) relate similar observations. In such cases the larve of Phora may have been carnivorous without being parasites; they may have killed the nymphe and eaten their contents. Zetterstedt’s statement, ‘‘larva (Phore) in Geotrupe nasicorni inventa, teste Marklin,” may or may not refer to a case parallel to that of Osmoderma. The case related by Goureau (Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr., 1855, p. 21) of pup of Phora,found in a box,in which, for about a month, he had kept a pinned Psithyrus, is likewise not conclusive, because the Phore may have slipped in the box and laid eggs on the putrescent specimen. Still, there is enough to show, in what pre- cedes, that there is something to be learned yet about the habits of, Phora.—[C. R. OSTEN SACKEN, Heidelberg, Germany, October, 1880. Mr. Schwarz’s observations on Phora aletie give, in good form, the habits of the species, and are herewith given in full: “My acquaintance with this particular species of Phora dates back so far as the spring and early summer of 1875, In that year, while in 118 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSSON. camp near Enterprise, Fla., I was greatly annoyed by the appearance of | these flies within the paper boxes where I kept the insects collected by me. These insects were killed by leaving them in the cyanide bottle for not less than 12 hours. I never noticed any Phoras in perfectly tight boxes, and they infested only such not perfectly tight boxes as con- — tained large insects, especially Orthoptera, which in the moistair of a Florida rainy season are very difficult to dry and which were in a state of slight decomposition. The larve of these flies either fed externally upon the softer parts of the dead insects, or internally, and the puparia were either formed on the outside of the insects or simply fastened to any part of the box. On my second trip to Florida I had similar ex- perience, though I was better prepared for the attacks of Phora, a lib- eral and frequent use of carbolic acid doing good service in keeping the flies out. Being thus familar, or at least believing myself familiar, with the habits of this Phora, I was not astonished to see it around my breeding jars and pill boxes with insects during my stay in Columbus, Tex., during the summer of 1879, and considered it as a matter of course to see the flies emerging from the jars where I kept chrysalides of Aletia, a portion of which I knew to be rotten. It never occurred to me then that this Phora would ever be considered as a parasite of Aletia. Af- ter Professor Comstock had declared it as such, 1 paid more attention to the insect during my stay in Selma. A number of sound Aletia chrysalides were crushed and put in a jar which was partly open. Sey- eral Phoras were seen in the jar 24 hours afterwards, and four days later the rotting mass was alive with the fly larve. Another lot of sound chrysalides was crushed outdoors in their webs, but only two of them were found afterwards to be infested with Phora, the others were either eaten out by the ants.or simply dried up without attracting any- thing. Larve of Phora aletie# were not unfrequently found in the last week of August and the first week of September in chrysalides of Aletia which hung down from the naked stems and leaf-ribs, the worms hav- ing previously utterly defoliated the plants. Many hundreds of these chrysalids which are thus unprotected from the rays of the sun or from the rain were examined by me during the time just mentioned, and by far the greatest part of them—at least three-fourths of the whole number—proved to be rotten, the contents being a light brown, badly smelling fluid. No parasitic larve could be discovered within, and the chrysalides showed no outward signs whatever of having been attacked byanyinsect. The remaining one-fourth of these chrysalides were either in healthy condition, or killed by some enemy (mostly by ants and Po- disus), or infested with parasites (Chalcis ovata and Tachina), or con- tained Sarcophaga and Phora larve. I have to emphasize the fact that the chrysalides containing Phora larve contained the same rotten fluid of the same disgusting smell as the majority of the chrysalids mentioned above. From 150 specimens of such chrysalides put in a large glass jar I obtained only 5 or 6 moths, a number of the above- ~ h ee \ / HABITS OF PHORA ALETIA. 119 mentioned parasites, and a great many Phoras. At the same time a very large number of chrysalides were examined which had webbed up in the leaves of Artemisia tridentata and other weeds and shrubs adjacent to the devastated fields. Nota single rotten chrysalis was found among them, by far the largest number being healthy, and only the-usual pro- portion contained Chalcis or Tachina larve or pupe. Not one of them contained Phora larve, nor was any Phora raised from about 150 chrys- alides which I took indoors and preserved ina tight jar. The fact that the greater portion of the chrysalides which were on the naked leaf- ‘ribs of the devastated fields proved to be rotten, while at the same time those which had regularly webbed up in the leaves of the adjacent weeds were healthy, is probably due to the influence of suushine and - rain on the unprotected chrysalides. A large portion of these hung downward, suspended only by one thread or the remaining portion of the web. This unnatural position causes them to be stretched, the soft ligaments between the segments thus exposed offers a convenient place for the young Phora larve to enter the interior of the chrysalis. “After it has once been asserted that Phora is a true parasite of Aletia, and since it is an undisputed fact that Phora has actually been raised from chrysalides of Aletia, it is, of course, difficult to prove the contrary. My observations prove only that Phora lives as a scavenger on other dead and decaying insects as well as in decaying chrysalids of Aletia.” . CHA PPE. ix: PREVENTIVE MEASURES. MODE OF CULTIVATION.—Our knowledge of the natural history of Aletia and the yearly recurring experience with its ravages, teach us that the principal and most effective means of- prevention is to hasten the maturity of the plant, so that a portion of the crop shall be beyond the reach of harm from the more disastrous July and August broods of ~ the worm. The importance of this subject has long since been recog- nized by intelligent planters, and important results have at times been obtained. Mr. J. C. Mathews, of Crittenden’s Mills, Dale County, Ala- bama, writes, in answer to question 15 of the circular, as follows: “We have improved our cotton seed so much that our cotton is all of a month earlier than it was when the worm first ate us up. Last season our cot- ton was nearly all open in August and September.” Judge Jones, of Virginia Point, Tex., also writes us, September 5, 1880, as follows: ‘©T have been more sensibly impressed than ever before, that early . planting and timely cultivation will give the cotton plant such a vig- orous and early growth as to discourage the mother moth, and will ma- terially retard their destructive movements. In nearly every instance that has fallen under my observation this season, where cotton had an early start, with faithful and diligent cultivation, the injury to the plant and its fruit has been comparatively light, He has been entire ex- emption from the worm.” Improving the cotton seed in the direction just mentioned can be ac- complished principally by careful selection of early maturing varieties of cotton; or by introducing seeds from more northern regions. arly planting is strongly to be urged in this connection, though, of course, it has its drawback in the risk of exceptionally late frosts. Another way to hasten the maturity of the crop has been sug gested, viz., by planting the seed in hot-beds during winter, and transferring the young plants thus raised to the field when there is no longer danger of frost, on the plan adopted by Northern growers of the sweet potato. 7 120 a ae ee i ‘ Cains natn’ ts poe DIFFERENT PREVENTIVE MEASURES. 121 This same idea forcibly occurred to us on our first visit to the South; but upon suggesting it and urging it to experienced planters, they in- variably replied that the cotton plant forms such a long tap-root and is SO very Sensitive to removal or transplanting, that the method becomes impracticable. The only way in which cotton plants could be success- fully transplanted would be from smail pots, and such mode is precluded on account of the expense, though paper bags, it seems to us, might in many instances be successfully used for this purpose. Careful and fre- quent cultivation, which, moreover, has the tendency to disturb and knock off the worms, will materially assist in producing a crop before these appear in force; and such well cultivated fields, while they are subject to the attacks very early in the season, will, at the critical pe- riod, be least injured. Topping the cotton is recommended and practiced in some sections to hasten maturity, and while it will no doubt help to produce the desired effect, the labor necessary would hardly be repaid by the success, since it includes the loss of the top crop. Where done in order to destroy the eggs of Aletia, the labor is more or Jess wasted, as only a small propor- tion of the eggs are laid on the top leaves fens the season when the chief injury is being done. - Every other means that will give the cotton plant an early and vigorous growth, e. g., rich manuring, or soaking the seed, before plant- ing, in sulphuric acid, ought to be employed, and will assist in prevent- ing the ravages of the pest. Taking the opposite view, Dr. Phares has suggested that by sys- tematically deferring the plains of cotton till the end of May, or until all the hibernating moths had perished without finding food for their ' issue, and then planting some early-maturing variety, we might entirely prevent the injuries of the worm. This would be an excellent sugges- tion could the planter know beforehand that it would be necessary, and were there not decided advantages, as just set forth, in getting early maturity. While it has been believed that the long-staple cotton is more injured by the worm than the short staple, yet the belief is by no means general, and there seems to exist no variety of cotton which, for its comparitive immunity from the attacks of the worm, deserves to be cultivated in preference to other varieties; nor have we at present any reasonable hope of producing, by careful selection of seed, a variety which is less subject to injury, a process which, if possible, would require many years to bring forth any noticeable results. For several years past a paragraph has been going the rounds of the newspapers of the South, to the effect that a planter in Texas had pro- duced, after many years of experiment, a “‘worm-proof cotton,” by hybridizing cotton with a certain weed, and that he was willing to sell his secret to the Government for a handsome sum. We have not seen this ‘‘ worm-proof cotton,” nor can we learn that any trustworthy planter ~ 122 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. has ever seen it, and it is safe to put down this so-called important in- vention either as an illusion or as an imposition and humbug. There are several other points in the cultivation of cotton which, though of minor importance, should be borne in mind in this connection. The frequent exemption of small fields that are separated from larger @nes, or surrounded by some other crops, suggests the advisability of ereaking up the very large and continuous cotton fields, and the adop- tion of a more diversified agriculture. It will be well, also, to avoid planting cotton in those spots where the worms have been known to first reappear from year to year. The method of interspersing the cot- ton with corn, often practiced in the South, may well be recommended from an economical standpoint; but less so from the entomological view, for while it may have some effect in lessening the Cotton Worm, there is not yet sufficient confirmation of the fact, and the custom doubtless helps to increase the injury from the Boll Worm. There exists a wide-spread belief among planters that by surrounding cotton fields with certain plants, or even by planting a few such plants between the cotton rows, the latter will be protected from the ravages of the worm. This belief is evidently based on the idea that the parent moth is prevented from ovipositing on such cotton by the odor emitted by such plants. : Jute (Corchorus capsularis) is the most noted and familiar of these “protecting” plants. When and where the belief of the protecting power of the jute originated is difficult to prove at the present time, and the following paragraph on the subject from the New Orleans Times of December 25, 1873, is evidently written after this belief had Baia made much headway: . It remains for us to notice the further important fact that the culture of jute in this State is likely to prove the death of the Cotton Worm. On this point we have the experience of Mr. Emile Lefranc, who assures us that neither flies nor butterflies ever stop in the jute plant. It appears the plant gives out an odor which drives them away, and the consequence is that no caterpillar will appear on the plantation where jute is grown. Desiring to verify this important and valuable discovery, the ‘‘ Ramie Planting Association” last season planted three several different fields of cotton, and surrounded them with a jute growth belt. No leaf, no flower, no boll was destroyed. The fields were entirely free from the caterpillar, while other cotton fields on adjacent plantations were invaded by the voracious insects. This statement has been verified. by many gentlemen of New Orleans. In the present precarious condition of cotton culture, the fact we have mentioned is assuredly worthy of the earnest attention of all intelligent planters. How much truth there is in the verification of this “ valuable discov- ery” we do not know, but no subsequent experiments seem to have been made and recorded, and the more recent writers on the subject, and especially Mr. J. C. Waldo, of New Orleans, who advocates this pre- ventive measure, seem to draw only from the source quoted above. Jute is planted but very little in the South at the present time, and it was not until 1880 that one of the observers in the field, Dr. Anderson, had ~ PROTECTION OF THE NATURAL ENEMIES OF ALETIA. 123 the opportunity of seeing jute planted side by side with cotton. He _ writes in his report as follows: | In my investigation this season I had the opportunity of seeing the jute grow- ing in the midst of cotton. It had been planted in May, and when I saw it, late in August, had attained the height of 8 to 10 feet, and was luxuriant. The row, about 200 feet long, was surrounded by cotton, the row of the jute running parallel with the rows of cotton, and the worms were abundant on the cotton in the midst of the jute, and touching theirleaves. Its effect was nihil. In the fall of 1881, in the experimental grounds of the cotton exposi- tion at Atlanta, Ga., we had an excellent opportunity of observing the effect of jute which was planted in the midst of cotton. Not only was the cotton adjacent to the jute utterly defoliated by the worms, but they had spun up in great numbers on the jute leaves. Other plants which are believed to have similar protective influence are hemp (Cannabis sativa), the China tree (Melia azedarach), the Dill (Anethum graveolens\, and lately the Pyrethrum plants, not to mention others which are known only under local popular names, and which we have been unable to identify. While we do not doubt that the plants just mentioned are generally free from insect injury, it is safe to say that none of them have any protective influence whatever over other plants in their neighborhood, and none whatever on the appearance or non-appearance of the Cotton Worm. Reports of success are illusory, the non-appearance of the worms being due to other causes. PROTECTION OF NATURAL ENEMIES.—Hardly less important than early planting is the protection of those natural enemies of the Cotton Worm that permit of it. In the present state of our knowledge no practicable method presents itself that will enable the planter to pro- tect or propagate, or in any other way encourage,on a large scale, the most efkective of these enemies; viz., the parasites of Aletia; but much good can be accomplished by the protection of many other enemies, and foremost among them of the birds. The shooting and trapping of all smaller birds, which is so industriously practiced at the present time by the freedmen throughout the cotton States, as well as the collecting and destroying of birds’ nests and eggs, should be prohibited, while the killing of hawks and other birds of prey should be encouraged. Tame fowls, such as chickens, turkeys, and guinea-hens, have proved valu- able in protecting small fields near the house, and would accomplish much good if brought up near those spots where the first worms occur. Lizards, frogs, and toads, which are familiar objects to every one, and a great many of the insect enemies of Aletia, e. g., Ground-beetles, Soldier-beetles, Lady-birds and Soldier-bugs, which by their size or col- oration are conspicuous enough to be recognized by the planter from the figures given in the chapter on Natural Enemies, should never be wan- tonly destroyed. The leaving of an occasional stump in the field is, we believe, advisable, because the nests of ants in the ground are less lia- ble to be washed away and destroyed by rains in fields where trees and stumps occur. o 124 REPORT 4, UNITED STATFS ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. Where hand-picking is followed, the pupz should not be erushed at y once, but placed in a barrel covered with a wire screen to admit of the escape of the parasites, and at the same time-to retain the moths and — cause them to perish. IMMUNITY OF COTTON UNDER TREES.—The immunity of cotton | growing under single trees that are left standing in the field has long been noticed and attributed to the protection and attraction afforded to birds by such trees. We had adopted this view in the first edition of this work, but the great regularity with which this phenomenon occurs throughout the cotton belt, and several other circumstances connected with it and presently to be mentioned, induced us to have the subject re-examined. ‘There is no doubt in our mind that this exemp- tion of cotton is due to the direct influence of the tree on the plants growing under it, and not to the birds and other enemies of the worm. Mr. J. P. Stelle, during his stay in Texas, conducted an experiment which throws some light on the subject, and which he records in his — diary as follows: - August 30, 1881. It is thought by all planters that shade protects cotton from the work of the Cotton Worm, and it grows out of the fact that plants growing under trees --are more or less exempt. I have attributed the exemption to the work of birds; but | the planters declare it to be shade. To settle the question I have to-day erected a temporary shed over a number of plants by stretching an old tarpaulin above them, on stakes in the center of ‘a field. September 3. My temporary shade has proven a opeise Uo to the plants; the worms are not working under it to amount to much, though all around they have completely stripped the cotton. Other observations show that cotton erowing under a dense tree is not only exempt from injury, but even not touched by the starving and migrating worms. This fact alone indicates that the presence of birds cannot be the true explanation. It has been further observed that a small tree, or a dead one, even if it has many branches, has but little protective influence, or none at all, on the plants growing under it. That this influence cannot be entirely due to the shade alone ap- pears more than probable, since it is exerted on all sides of the tree. Whatever the real cause may be that prevents the work of the worm under such circumstances, it likewise affects the cotton injuriously, for on poor soil such cotton remains very poor and small, while on rich soil it grows rank, and consequently bears very few bolls or none at all. There is no way of making any practical use of this influence of trees on the work of the worm. | PREVENTING OVIPOSITION OF THE MoTu.—As a possible means of prevention, the idea suggested itself to apply some substance to the plants which, by its odor or otherwise, would drive off the moths, and thus prevent oviposition. This idea opens, of course, a large field for experimentation; but we confess that, for several reasons, we do not hope for important results in this direction. The few experiments that have been made are far from being encouraging, and are simply re- a Oh | 7 j PREVENTING OVIPOSITION OF THE MOTH. 125 corded here to show that this suggestion, which, theoretically, looks plausible enough, is practically beset with great difficulties. We quote the following paragraph from Mr. Schwarz’s report on experiments _ made at Selma, Ala.: While experimenting with decoctions and extracts of various plants, and knowing that the moths were ovipositing at the time, I tried the following three substances, with a view to ascertain whether they rendered the plant sufficiently distasteful to the moth to prevent her from ovipositing: 1. Infusion of Ailanthus leaves; 2. in- fusion of Walnut leaves; 3 decoctionof Hoarhound. The firstI selected wihout any special reason, being fadgehoert only by the universal beliefin its efficacy ; the second because I knew by experience that it rendered the leaves distasteful to the worms; the third, on account of its most powerful and unpleasant smell. The application of the three substances was made very easily, asthe moths ovipos- ited at this time (September 5) with preference on the leaves of the young shoots arising from near the roots of the plants. Three small shoots, each on a different plant, were then examined for eggs, and, after removing these with a knife, the infusions were plentifully applied so that each leaf was fairly drenched from both sides. (Selma, Ala., Sept. 5.) Examination on the 7th of September shows that none of my decoctions had the slightest effect, the number of eggs laid on the three shoots being quite considerable, and apparently not less than on other shoots not treated with any substance. There was a heavy shower yesterday, but the leaves being sprinkled on both sides, the rain could not have washed away every trace of the decoctions. Observations in the field seem to show that common road dust could possibly be utilized to prevent oviposition of themoth. Mr. Stelle says, in one of his letters from Calvert, Tex.: A much traveled road runs east and west through the field; on the south side of it the cotton is badly eaten by worms, while for 40 feet along the north side it does not seem to have been much disturbed. I investigated for the cause of this exemption, and found it to be the result of a south wind blowing the dust stirred up in the road over the plants. It seemed to have at least retarded the work of both Boll and Cot- ton Worms. Mr. Schwarz, while speaking of those spots in cotton fields which had . escaped the general destruction by the worm in August, 1880, says: _ .The outside row or rows of a field are very often exempt, sometimes even to a re- markable degree, but by no means always. In some instances this immunity may be due to the direct influence of the road dust that thickly covers the leaves, but it oc- curs also where there is no road, and consequently noroad dust, and where, therefore, another explanation is necessary. I fail to find any satisfactory explanation, unless, perhaps, in suck cases the outside rows grow under conditions less favorable to the plants, which thus have less attraction to the moth. Mr. Stelle himself noticed later the exemption of the outside rows of cotton fields. He writes in his diary, September 3, 1880: I have noticed in fields that the plants growing adjacent to open spaces, as along roads, even though but little traveled, are more or less exempt from the working of the worms. In the midst is about one-fourth of an acre in sweet potatoes, rank-growing and clear of weeds. For about the width of two rows around the patch the cotton is scarcely touched, while everywhere else it is completely trimmed. I have seen a similar case along the side of a patch of peas (Dolichos) where the exempt rows were several hundred yards in length. Similar facts have often come under our — and are quite com- monly observed, a eed gt ss eee 126 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. _ Some experiments with road dust, but more with a view to drive the : worms off, were carried on and will be recorded later. It suffices to state here that the results obtained render it highly probable that a thick coating of dust not only protects the plants from worms but would also prevent oviposition of the moth. There is also but little doubt that flour, ashes, in short every pulverized material that can be made to adhere thickly to the plant, and especially to the underside of the leaves, could be substituted for road dust. EARLY APPLICATION OF DIRECT REMEDIES.—As preventive meas- . ures we must further consider the early application of the direct reme- dies, in other words, every attempt to destroy the insect early in the season before it is numerous enough to do much injury. The remedies themselves will be discussed later on; it suffices to say that we have to ~ deal here with the destruction of the hibernating moths, or those of the first generations, and the poisoning of the first worms. The importance of either method is too apparent to need further advocating, but the ap- parent advantage disappears to a large extent upon practical considera- tion. The gravest obstacle is that the concerted action of the planters over an extended area is necessary to insure a decided success in the early application of direct remedies, the work of the individual planter, or even of the majority of them, being more or less frustrated if a portion remain passive. Without suitable laws to enforce concerted action, there is but little prospect of making much headway in the general adonibe of preventive measures of this character. Still the individual planter would do well not to omit any opportunity to destroy either the first moths, or the first Worms. Poisoned sweets should be placed at suitable localities on warm even- _ ings during the earliest part of the season, say from the beginning of - February till the middle of April. With each female moth caught in this way the planter might save a great deal of the expense in poison- ing the worms; and not only could Aletia moths be destroyed in this way, but also other hibernating moths, a great many of which are the parents of destructive Cut-worms. The poisoning of the first worms requires knowledge of places, usually limited in extent, where they occur, and this is not always easily obtained in large fields. The field-hands should be instructed to watch carefully, while cultivating the field, for evidence of the work of the first worms, and when such places are dis- covered the application of poison should never be neglected. The pois- oning of limited areas where the first worms occur requires but little outlay of time and money. The children should be made thoroughly familiar with the appearance of the worm and its work, and should be sent over the field at least once a week during the months of April and May in order to discover the places where the first worms occur. The worms could then easily be destroyed by hand-picking or by immediate application of poison. : i 1 , a ee ee Se ee ee ae \ by ee ee ee a A SYSTEM OF WARNINGS—FALSE THEORIES. 127 - A general poisoning in advance of the first appearance of the worms has been recommended, but it is evident that there is little to be gained by this method, first, on account of the rapidity with which a new growth of leaves is made thus early in the season; secondly, because the poison would be washed away after the lapse of one or two weeks, and mueh earlier in unfavorable weather; and, thirdly, because it is an un- necessary expense, since the first worms appear only in isolated spots, which may be discovered by careful watching.. Corron WORM WARNINGS.—In the more northern portions of the cotton belt the worm appears only after it has multiplied or been very bad in one or several places in the more southern portion. The impor- tance to the more northern planter of keeping posted as to the progress of the worm in the hibernating centers is, therefore, evident, as he will thus be enabled to provide beforehand the means of destroying the pest. To provide for and keep up such Cotton Worm signals and warnings is. a very easy matter when compared with the Locust warnings in the West. The permanent region of the Locust is the least accessible and ' least populous region of the country, while that ‘of the Cotton Worm is the richest and most densely populated portion of the South, traversed by numerous railroads and telegraphs, with populous cities and an en- terprising press. As ameasure intended to reduce the number of hibernating moths, it ‘may be suggested that, as vast numbers of late chrysalides are usually carried into the gin-house, and as the moths issuing therefrom are so likely to find the requisite winter protection there, the expediency of removing and destroying these chrysalides as soon as possible, and of not allowing them to remain in the gin-house until they hatch, is ap- parent. FALSE THEORIES.—There is, of course, no want of theories regarding preventive measures, mostly based upon wrong conception of the nat- ural history of the insect; nevertheless, they always find advocates. One of these proposed measures is to burn, in winter time, the old stalks of. the cotton plants, instead, as is generally done now, of breaking them down iu the spring, the intention being to kill the insect supposed to be hibernating within the stalks. Another measure frequently recom- mended is to plow the fields in winter time in order to expose the chrys- alides, supposed to be in the ground, to the rain and frost. The premises being false, the theories with their suggestions are worthless. Another widely disseminated notion prevails as to the preventive power of salt sown on the field while planting cotton, or even after the plants are up. This method has been tried by reliable planters, and, aS might have been foreseen, with indifferent results, the rows where salt had been used being no less injured by the worms than the rows not salted. That salt has a beneficial influence as manure in certain kinds of soils therecan be no doubt, but its supposed protective influence is wholly imaginary, being based on the vague notion that the salt is absorbed by the plant, which is thus rendered distasteful to the worm. CHAP RHR ae: REMEDIES: MEANS OF COPING WITH THE INSECT: SUB- , STANCES USED FOR ITS DESTRUCTION. In this chapter we shall treat of remedies against the insect, but more particularly of methods and principles and of substances that may be used for its destruction. Mechanical contrivances and machinery for the proper application of the remedies will be considered in subse- quent chapters; for while it is not always easy to discuss a remedy with- out including the means of its application, yet this classification of the matter of the report has been found most expedient. DESTRUCTION OF THE EGGS, CHRYSALIDES AND MOTHS. DESTRUCTION OF THE EGGS.—The exact knowledge of the natural history of any injurious insect enables us to recognize its vulnerable points, and to indicate those stages in which it may be dealt with most effectively and most economically. The eggs being laid singly on the under side of the leaves, and being, moreover, hardly perceptible, from their small size and protective color, it is at once apparent that every attempt to mechanically destroy them in large numbers must be fruit- less. Topping the cotton, as a means of destroying the eggs, 1s, aS We have already shown, of little avail at the most critical period. Experi- ence has shown that the vitality of the egg is not destroyed by the ap- ~ plication of a moderate quantity of insecticides of any description. Mr. Stelle reports that ‘‘London purple has destroyed and prevented tke hatching of the Aletia eggs” to which it was applied three days previ- ously, and numerous experiments proved that kerosene also, when brought in contact with the egg, will destroy it. However, in order to destroy the egg, both London purple and kerosene have to be applied in such quantities as to be injurious to the plant. DESTRUCTION OF THE CHRYSALIDES.—The chrysalis of Aletia, more or less perfectly protected by leaf and web, affords little chance for its successful destruction. The destruction by crushing or otherwise of any chrysalides observed early in the season ought not to be neglected, but later in the season, when they abound, they cannot thus be econom- ically destroyed. There are, however, periods when the extensive de- struction of the chrysalides would seem practicable. Whenever a field of votton has been defoliated, the worms web up thickly in the sur- rounding weeds and brush, which may then be cut and burned. This 128 / ee MEANS OF DESTROYING THE MOTH. 129 mode of destruction would be of no special or immediate benefit to the planter who undertakes it, but if done generally in the district defoli- ated by the worms, it would help to prevent the emigration of the moths to other regions, or if done late in the season it would lessen the num- ber of hibernating moths. . DESTRUCTION OF THE MoTH.—Kasy as it may seem 46 prevent the mischief done by the worms, by trapping or otherwise killing the parent moth, and notwithstanding the fact that one method of attracting them has been known and used for very many years, and that another method of doing so has been more recently discovered, yet the results that have followed the attempts to destroy or exterminate the moths by these methods are not, as a rule, encouraging. The unsatisfactory results may be attributed to, first, lack of concerted action; and, second, delayed attempts to kill until the moths had already become too numerous and the worms had done considerable damage. It has already been remarked, with regard to the first point, that con- -certed action over the whole cotton-growing country cannot be expected ; but if the planters in those more or less limited districts that. are known. as the distributing centers of the insect, or even in those particular spots where the worms appear and reappear year after year, would make - earnest effort, at the right time, to trap and kill the moths, there is lit- tle doubt but that the excessive increase of the insect would be either retarded or prevented. If this pest is suffered to increase until the third or fourth generation, any attempt to lessen the number of worms by killing the moths will necessarily prove futile. To make this method of preventing injury of any avail, action must be taken early in the season.” | Lights for attracting the Moth.—That the moth is attracted by light is an old and well-known fact, and in the days of slavery the only remedy generally -used by planters, besides the hand-picking of the worms, was to light large fires in, or have burning torches carried through, the fields at night. It isimpossible to say at the present time whether or not these efforts were successful, but it remains a certainty that in “ worm years” the progress of the ravages was never pre- vented by such means. Itis almost needless to remark that in those days, as in the present, such means were generally resorted to when the moths had become quite numerous, and when, therefore, no success was to be expected. Special fires intended for this purpose were generally made of dry wood placed upon earth elevated on platforms. While for the reasons here given we have little faith in the utility of such means at any other season than early spring, yet the practice of cleaning the fields of all rubbish and old stalks by making large bonfires in winter—a practice that prevailed before the war, but which has been largely abandoned since—is greatly to be commended on general grounds. It has been found troublesome, and, in some parts of the country, even 63 CONG——9 130 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. expensive, to keep up large fires during the whole or greater part of the night; and during the last decade a great many lamps have been invented to take the place of fires. A lamp is more effective in attract- ing the moths than is a large open fire; for the heat and smoke of the latter scare away great numbers. Where lamps are employed there - must be connected with them devices to kill the moths that are attracted by the light, and such killing is best accomplished by placing the lamps in pans filled with various substances of a sticky or destructive nature. During the earlier part of the summer of 1879 extensive experiments ‘were made by Mr. Schwarz at Columbus, Tex., to test the efficacy of Jamps. Though it was already too late in the season to check the in- crease of the insect, some of the results are not without interest. The number of moths nightly killed by a single lamp varied very much ae- cording toits location, but averaged not more than six specimens in the latter part of June, the number increasing rapidly during the next month. It was also found that these lamps attract and killan immense number of other insects. Among these are many injurious insects, as Heliothis armigera (the parent of the Boll Worm), which, by the way, appears to be more readily attracted than the Cotton Moth, and several species of May-beetles (Lachnosterna) and others; but also, unfortunately, large numbers of the natural enemies of the Cotton Worm, as the nocturnal ‘Tiger-beetles, Ground-beetles, and some of the Heteroptera already men- ‘tioned. Aboveall, it was found that the moths were not prevented from Ovipositing even in the immediate vicinity of the lamps, and that on the -fields where the lamps had been used there were no less eggs deposited ‘than on those where no lamps had been kept burning. It becomes ques- ‘tionable, therefore, whether the lamps are not more productive of harm ‘than good, especially at times when the moths are numerous. However, . ‘if, as is doubtless the case, the hibernating moths fly about early in — ithe spring, then this will be the best time to use lamps in places where ‘the moths have been seen flying, as in the vicinity of gin-houses, &e. -In the month of March and in the earlier part of April they should be ‘placed at those spots in the fields where the first worms have been ob- served in previous years. | During the month of March, 1882, we instructed Mr. Koebele, then at Archer, Fla., to try on several successive nights to attract the moths bylights. Though freshly deposited eggs were constantly found at this Season, and it was certain, therefore, that the hibernated moths were fly- ing about, yet not a single specimen was attracted by the lamps. This result is certainly not encouraging, but it must be remembered that success in this method of collecting largely depends on locality, on the state of weather, and on other conditions. Experiments made under our direction have proved that during moon- light nights fires or lamps have but little attraction for the moths, and, further, that better results are obtained before than after midnight. The only instance with which we are familiar where lamps (those made MEANS OF DESTROYING THE MOTH. 131 by Colonel Lewis and described in Chapter XIII) have been used on a sufficiently large scale to fully test the efficacy is that around Hearne, Tex., in 1878. Over 1,000 lamps were used in that vicinity during a period of several weeks, and while it was. true that cotton was not injured that year, the same was equally true throughout that whole section of the country; so that it was impossible to draw any satisfac- tory conclusions. Still, where they were used pretty extensively in 1879 they did not prevent final injury to the cotton, and where but a few are used in some particular fields, it is undoubtedly true, and in ac- cordance with general experience, that more harm than good ensues to the individual using them—the moths being allured from other fields and frequently laying their eggs before perishing. The worms are, con- sequently, often more numerous at such centers than elsewhere. At the Atlanta Exposition Hotel, in the autumn of 1881, these moths swarmed in myriads about the electric lights outside of the building. Beneath these the ground was strewn with dead moths, and a quart of them would often accumulate during a single night in the glass globe surrounding each light. It is to be inferred that the more brilliant the light is the farther will it attract, and the less heat it exhibits the closer will the moth approach. On these accounts electric lights may be the best, and probably the calcium lights and gaslights will rank next; but at present these are generally not economically applicable for field use. In general a kerosene Jantern will be found most convenient. The whitish flames give as good results as, and probably better results than, colored flames. There is not satisfactory evidence that these in- sects take cognizance of the qualities of the light, but its degree of in- tensity seems to be a more important consideration. Movement of the light has long been recognized as enhancing the chances of capture. These facts came to light with the practice of carrying torches between the rows and at the same time agitating the plants. In Louisiana and Arkansas we were informed that parties of several persons abreast have gone through the fields in this way, and claimed that the moths were thus successfully destroyed. Probably this method was observed also in Texas, as the portable lamp or torch machines of Le Blane and Ford- - tran appear as though they might have been suggested byit. The noc- turnal labor and the machinery required prevent these methods from becoming popular. ! The various kinds of trap lanterns which have been invented will be described and figured in Chapter XIII. Poisoned Sweets and Fluids as Means of destroying the Moths.—It has long been known that the Cotton Moth, like most of the other species of its family, has a great fondness for sweets. Southern writers upon the insect repeatedly mention the fact that the moth is numerously at- tracted by barrels or other vessels containing molasses, by sugar-vats, &c.; while, as we have already seen (p. 11), it is very fond of most ripe fruits. The second peach-crop very often suffers materially from the 132 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. attacks of these moths, as, by means of the spinous tip of their tongue, they literally work through the skin, suck out the juices, and excavate large holes. Figs and melons are often injured in the same way; in- deed, it is almost impossible to raise some of the finer varieties of figs if these moths are abundant. | There was some hope of beneficial results being obtained by using baits that would prove at the same time attractive and destructive to the moths, since, if we kill the parents, we prevent the injury by their progeny. Taking advantage of the fondness of the moths for sweet substances, many planters have been in the habit of breaking open ripe watermelons, sprinkling them with Paris green or arsenic, and deposit- ing them in cotton fields. Very good results have followed, so far as the destruction of the moths is concerned; and it is a little surprising, viewed with the preconceived notions of entomologists, that compar- atively coarse substances like these minerals should be sucked up through the proboscis. A number of experiments, with a view of testing the most attractive as well as the most deadly substances, have been made in various parts of the cotton belt during the past few years under our direction. Ripe peaches dusted with arsenic or drenched with a solution of arsenic and dried peaches moistened with water and poisoned in the same way, were placed in boxes on the ground in the fields. On examining the boxes the next morning, several dead moths were found in those containing the fresh peaches, but none in those with the dried ones. Experiments with a mixture of molasses and rum, or vinegar, or beer, poisoned with a small quantity of arsenic, Paris green, London purple, or cyanide of potassium, and smeared on the trunks of trees, or on fence poles near cotton fields, or again on the leaves of the plants, also proved that a, number of moths may be killed in this way, though it is difficult, if not impossible, to get at the exact number, since many fly away before dying. The mixture of molasses and beer seems to have the greatest attractiveness, and the virtue of all these mixtures for this purpose may be enhanced by the addition of the essence or flavoring extracts of _ certain fruits, as peaches and apples. None of these mixtures are as attractive, however, as the fruits themselves, or even as watermelons. The liquids may be employed not only by smearing in the manner set forth, but also in shallow tin pans or vessels placed in the fields upon pedestals, as in the case of the lamps to be described. Where such pans or other vessels are used there should be a wooden lattice-work made to float on the liquid, so that the moths may reach it without drowning, and thus be able to get away to perish elsewhere and make room for others. These liquids are frequently used in wide-mouthed bottles distributed over the fields. One general rule should be observed in the employment of these liquids and poisons. It is that they be placed in the field only about sunset, and not allowed to remain during the day; otherwise, more beneficial than injurious insects are actually MEANS OF DESTROYING THE MOTH. | 133 allured. The smearing has the advantage’over the use in pans and bot- tles, in that fewer beneficial insects are destroyed. We cannot say that these experiments have led us to be in any way sanguine of substantial benefit flowing from this mode of killing the moths in the autumn, which is the season when they are most gasily so destroyed, for they do not seem to care much for such baits except when they cannot get their more natural food in the shape of saccharine ex- udations. The fact that early or summer ripening peaches are not in- jured—a fact that is well attested by many correspondents—also indi- cates that the moths do not care so much for fruits even, so long as they can obtain nourishment in the cotton fields, and so long as they are not congregating in numbers. Experiments made in the summer season with these artificial baits in- dicate that a much smaller percentage of moths is allured thereto, and while there can be no question of our ability to kill a certain number in this manner, it would prove a most expensive remedy if used on a suffi- ciently large scale to materially reduce their numbers. In fact, we have become convinced that there is very little use in attempting to destroy the parent moth in the latter part of the season. In what has been pre- viously said on the natural history and the hibernation of the species, it has been made pretty clear that the great bulk of the moths are nat- urally destined to perish in any event, so that the labor is largely thrown away. Until, therefore, we discover some baits that shall have a greater at- traction for the moths than the natural sweets they feed upon, there is little to expect from this mode of warfare. There is a season, however, when the use of these baits is strongly to be recommended, and, oddly enough, it is the season when nobody thinks of using them. It is in this as it is with the lights; the greatest good will result from attracting and destroying the first moths in spring after they issue from their win- ter quarters. Every female killed at that season is equivalent to the destruction of several hundred worms later in the season; whereas not one in a thousand, and perhaps not one in a hundred thousand, of the Moths killed in autumn would, in the natural course of events, have sur- vived to beget progeny. Gundesbad action is just as necessary here as in the use of lamps. As it has been proven beyond doubt that sweets poisoned with Paris green or London purple do not lose their attractive power to the moth, and that such poisons are taken up by the moth, it appeared most de- sirable to poison the glands on the cotton plant, which, as we have seen, furnish, with their saccharine secretion, one of the principal food supplies of the moth. Experiments on plants covered with netting, and others kept in breeding cages, made it certain that the moth can be killed by poisoning the under side of the leaves, the moths feeding on the poisoned glands. So long, however, as there were no means known to apply the poison from below, this plan could not be adopted ; but, 134 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. as the perfected machines supply this want, we may justly expect that the efficacy of the arsenical poisons is considerably increased by the de- struction of many Moths before these have deposited their eggs. Finally, in this connection, we would mention a- theory or proposed remedy by Dr. J. Lupton, of Winchester, Frederick County, Virginia. Noticing that the Bee Moth was more attracted to a fluid sweetened and flavored from the hive than to any other kind, he conceived the idea that the Cotton Moth would also be most attracted by sweetened water which was flavored with the bruised leaves of the cotton plant. Prof. N. T. Lupton, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, made an experiment in 1872 which seemed to indicate that the liquid thus prepared with cotton leaves had the greater attractiveness for the moth as compared with ordinary molasses and water, and being anxious to decide the ques- tion we took pains to have the proposed remedy fully tried. We quote from Mr. Schwarz’s report the following account of experi- ments made by Mr. Patton and himself at Selma on the attractive power of the cotton-leaf essence: In accordance with your instructions, I gathered, while at Selma, Ala., a quantity of fresh cotton leaves. From about 8 pounds of these leaves one pound of alcoholic extract was obtained, and from another lot of leaves a simple decoction was made. During the first week of October there appeared to be a good opportunity for experi- menting, as the evenings were warm again (after a preceding cold spell), and as the moths began to hatch. On October 8 and 9I “sugared,” in company of Mr. Wm. H. Patton, a number of trees, fence boards, and posts, in a favorable locality, with the following substances: 1. Mixture of molasses and beer. 2. Mixture of molasses and extract of cotton leaves. 3. Extract of cotton leaves alone. Care was taken to apply each mixture on equally favorable places, or at least on places which appeared to us equally favorable. The result was as follows: A very large number of Noctuide was attracted, especially on the first evening, when there was no wind, but Aletia was by no means the most numerous species among them, being the third in rank. The places sugared with No. 3 proved decidedly less attractive than the others, and only a few moths of all species were found at them. The probable reason thereof is that the extract evaporates too quickly without addition of a sticky substance. At the places sugared with Nos. 1 and 2, 70 Aletias were captured, 50 on the first, and 20 on the second evening. The latter were just equally divided between mixtures 1 and 2, but of the 50 Moths on the first evening there was a decided difference in favor of mixture No. 2, 30 Moths being found attracted by the molasses and cotton-leaf ex- tract, and only 20 by molasses and beer. There were 12 places sugared with Nos. 1 and 2, six with each mixture. Four of these proved to be not attractive at all to the moths, the remaining being more or less attractive. But one fence-post, sugared with No. 2, proved, by far, more attractive than the rest, and it was this spot alone which made the difference in favor of No. 2, the number of moths collected on the other places being remarkably equal. I have no doubt that had this fence-post been sugared with No.1 the difference would have been in favor of No.1. My opinion, therefore, is that the attractiveness of sweets is not increased by the addition of cot- ton-leaf extract, and that such extract alone has, to say the least, not a greater attrac- tive power than other sweets. Iintended to test the cotton-leaf decoction on one of the next evenings, but the weather continued to be cold until my departure from Selma. KILLING THE WORMS MECHANICALLY. 135 That decoctions or extracts from cotton leaves should prove attrac- tive to the moths was to be expected, since they contain a great deal of saccharine matter; but from the comparative experiment quoted above and from the established fact that the moth is indiscriminately attracted by all sorts of sweets, we are constrained to believe that Mr. Lupton’s theory has no more practical value than the other plans men- tioned above to attract the moth. From the experience gained since the beginning of this Cotton Worm investigation we have come to the conelusion that of the two methods to kill the moth, that of alluring it to poisoned sweets appears by far preferable to any of the lamp traps that have been recommended. In combating this pest it would be unwise, however, to rely solely upon any attempt to killthemoth. The principal effort of the planters should be directed toward killing the worms; yet, considering the cheapness and effectiveness of killing the moths by poisonous sweets, any judicious and timely attempt in this direction is well worth trying. Whether or not the hibernating moths can be attracted to poisoned sweets during mild evenings, in winter or early spring, we are not prepared to say. There has not been much opportunity to settle this question by con- tinuous experiments made at the right place and at the right season, and from the failure of a few isolated attempts it would be unjust and premature to draw general conclusions. The recommendation to use white rags in the field has frequently been made in the Southern papers, on the supposition that the female moth is attracted to such rags and will lay her eggs thereon. We know not how this idea originated, but so far as we are able to learn it is one of the many fallacies that have prevailed regarding the habits of the insect. MECHANICAL MEANS OF KILLING THE WORMS. Even in a very thickly settled country, and with the employment of hundreds of hands, it would be next to impossible to save, in the height of the season, a large cotton-field from destruction by simply collecting the worms. In our Southern States, where field labor is at present by no means abundant, picking off the worms when they are in destructive force in large fields is out of question, and can be profitably resorted to only on smal] patches favorably situated. Yet it is comparatively easy and requires but little time and a small force to thus destroy the worms of the first generation, though it cannot be denied that poison- ing the places where the first worms have been observed would be far more safe and economical than hand-picking. If, therefore, the planter care to stimulate the efforts of children or field hands to find the first worms by offering some reward, it should be given for the discovery of the spot where the worms occur, and not for the capture of every worm up to a certain date. It has been proven by experience that every means by which the 136 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. worms can be disturbed and knocked down or brushed off from the plants has, to some extent, a beneficial influence in lessening the num- ber of the worms, the explanation being that once on the ground they can be crushed in some way or that they are very liable to the attacks of the ants. In very hot and dry weather the knocked-off worms are very often unable to regain the plant, and perish on the hot soil. Thus, frequent cultivating and working of the cotton will have some benefi- cial effect in this regard, and a number of contrivances have been sug- gested to expedite this mechanical method of killing the worms. One of the best, in the words of Dr. J. D. Hoyt, of Livingston, Ala.,* “is to drag something like a piece of cotton-bagging along over the rows of cotton, forward and back, which may be long enough to extend across several rows, and having short lines attached to one edge, a little fur- ther apart than the width of the rows, and a hand at each line, and all abreast pass along between the rows, and then back; when the brush- ing and shaking of the stalks by the bagging will clear the cotton mostly of the worms. In this way a set of hands ean go over their crop in a day or two, when they should return to the beginning and go over again, and continue so doing as long as any number of worms are found on the stalks.” At best, however, only a portion of the worms are knocked off, for no amount of shaking or brushing, even when violent enough to injure the plants and knock off the bolls, will dislodge all the worms, and particularly will not disturb most of the young ones. As this subject will, however, be treated of in its proper place in Chapter XIII, we will pass at once to the consideration of the sub- stances which may be employed against the worm. POISONING THE WORMS. MINERAL INSECTICIDES. With the introduction of mineral poisons for the destruction of the WOrms a Dew impetus was given to the invention of machines and con- trivances for the application of these poisons either as powder or in water. The large number of such inventions that have been perfected, and the activity still displayed in adding improvements, furnish evi- dence that this poisoning of the worms has so far proved most satis- factory in protecting the crop. The fact is that a judicious and timely application of the best poison will always, even under unfavorable con- ditions and in bad “ worm years,” enable the energetic planter to save at least the larger portion of his crop. The progress in improving the quality of the insecticides already in use, and the discovery of new and more effectual ones, is slower than the invention and improvement of machinery, because of the numerous difficulties in thoroughly testing any remedy in the field, the most seri- ous being the great susceptibility of the cotton plant to injury by some of * Practical Modes of Destroying the Cotton Worm; A Prize Essay. Selma, Ala., 1874. MINERAL POISONS FOR KILLING THE WORMS. for the most effective insecticides. Still, considerable progress has been made since the investigation began. The improvements and discover- ies will not only greatly benefit the cotton-planter, but the agricultur- ist in all parts of the country, since many of the discoveries are of gen- eral application to most of our leaf-eating insects. The most important point to be insisted upon is, that the planter in the southern portion of the belt should consider the poisoning of the worms as inseparably connected with and part of the cultivation of cot- ton. So many days’ labor in the year, and a certain expenditure of money to purchase, prepare, and apply the poisons, and to buy and keep in repair the requisite machinery, are inevitable. In a very favorable season the poisoning, it is true, may not be necessary, but experience very plainly indicates that no year now passes when the worm is not in- jurious in some part of the cotton belt. Cases of complete or compara- tive immunity occur almost every year even in the hibernating por- tion of the cotton belt, but as they depend on locally restricted condi- tions, the planters ought never to rely upon them. It ought never to be forgotten that labor and money expended in a judicious application of poison are always amply repaid by a corresponding increase of crop. The various insecticides now be considered are divisible into two classes: first, those which act through the stomach—the arsenical poi- sons, and some allied ones; secondly, those which kill the worm upon actual contact, such as oily substances and pyrethrum. A vast num- ber of other substances cannot at present be brought under these two heads, as they are still in the experimental stage, and many of them will, no doubt, upon further experimentation, be altogether rejected as of little or no value. The action of the poisons of the second class is immediate, but not lasting, the substances being more or less volatile ; whereas the poisons of the first class have no immediate effect, but their action is lasting. This difference in character requireS some modifications in the prac- tical application. The greater the adhesiveness given to the poisons of the first class, without injury to the plant, the better; while in the poisons of the second class no such precaution is necessary. The use of arsenical poisons has the advantage that only the enemies of the plants are killed directly, though the killing of birds and other enemies of the worm, by eating it when poisoned, has occasionally been reported. Those insecticides that affect by contact, on the other hand, kill friend and foe alike. Other relative advantages and disadvantages will be pointed out further on. ‘It is very evident, from the habits of the worms, as already detailed, that the poisons of either class will prove most satisfactory if applied to the under side of the leaves ; and, as we shall see in the chapter de- voted to it, the recently invented machinery overcomes the obstacles which were formerly in the way of such application. The importance of an early application of poison has already (p. 126) been pointed out. gta, ‘ - 138 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. — Finally, too much stress cannot be laid on the importance of having the materials ready, prepared in advance, or on their use as soon as the eggs or young worms are noticed. Itis too often the habit to wait until — the plants begin to be “ragged” before attempting to poison. The operation is always more costly and unsatisfactory at this period, and there is danger that, with the most strenuous efforts, irreparable dam- age will be done before all the cotton is gone over. It often happens, — also, since the same influences cause the multiplication of the worms over pretty large areas, that a sudden and general demand for the poi- sons by those who have not previously laid in a stock increases the price or exhausts the market, so that many are left without hope of saving their crop. ; ARSENIOAL COMPOUNDS. Arsenical compounds have the acknowledged disadvantage of being dangerous to man and beast. Some writers, taking a most narrow and theoretical view of the subject, bitterly object to their use on the score of their dangerous character, exaggerating in their enthusiasm the in- jury that has resulted from their use. Not only hundreds of tons, but thousands of tons of these mineral poisons have been employed during the past decade by farmers throughout the country, whether to protect the potato crop, or the cotton crop, or other products of the soil from the ruinous attacks of insects. The general experience during this long period and over the whole country is so emphatically in favor of their use and their perfect safety and harmlessness, with ordinary precan- tions, as to render almost laughable the objections of the few persons referred to. No advancement, no improvement, no general benefit to the human race is ever accomplished without some attendant danger, and those who inveigh against such improvements as increasing the risks to life stand on the same footing as the opponents to arsenical poisons as insecticides. Itis a noteworthy fact that, since we have been pursuing this cotton-insect investigation, not a single fatal case of human poisoning by the use of these minerals against the worm has come to our notice from the South, notwithstanding they are often used in that section of the country with great recklessness. Nevertheless, it is no uncommon thing to hear of partial poisoning among negroes, resulting from that indifference which comes from constant use, and the importance of care and caution cannot be too strongly urged, especially near towns or in thickly settled neighborhoods.” None of the correspondents of the Commission report serious injury to man by arsenical poison in its application for the Cotton Worm, and only one of them reports directly a case of poisoning a horse; all others report such cases from hearsay. It has been our principal ambition to discover some substitute for these poisons that shall be equally effectual, harmless to man, and cheaper. The experiments that have been carried on by the Commis- Sion with this object have been sufficiently encouraging, as the sequence ~ ARSENICAL COMPOUNDS FOR POISONING THE WORMS. 139 will show. In fact, we do not doubt that arsenical poisons will in time be superseded by insecticides that are harmless to man, but as matters stand, the cheapest and most satisfactory remedy has been found in the application of certain arsenical poisons. Another disadvantage of arsenical poisons should be borne in mind, viz., the susceptibility of the cotton plant to their caustic action, the leaves being more or less blis- tered or burnt by an overdose, while leaves, blossoms, squares, and even young bolls may be killed by an excess; so that they are valuable, ceteris paribus, in proportion as they are harmless to the plant. We cannat give in simple numbers the minimum quantity of any of these arsenical poisons to be applied with safety to the plant, and at the Same time with the desired effect on the worms. This is due to the lack of unity in the application and consequent unequal amounts of poisoned mixtures distributed per acre. If, e. g., by one machine 50 gallons of a given mixture are distributed over one acre, while by another only 10 gallons are needed over the same area, it is evident that the minimum quantities of poison required per gallon cannot be the same in both cases. Further, the size of the plants, the width of the rows, the state of the weather, the character of the admixtures used, all have an influ- ence in determining the minimum quantity. The figures given below must therefore be considered as the average, derived partly from trustworthy experiments which we have made, partly from the rates which are locally adopted and which have proved satisfactory by long practice, but which differ widely in different parts of the country. It is to be hoped that with the general adoption of the most improved machines, which distribute the mixtures most eco- nomically, a more uniform rate can be established. The question has been raised lately whether a certain amount of scorching by arsenical poisons is really so injurious to the plant as is generally believed, or to put the question in its extreme form, whether a strong overdose of poison does more harm than the worms if they are allowed to have full sway? If the worms are very numerous they wil! not only defoliate the plants, but also destroy the blossoms, squares, and bolls, with the exception of the largest of these last. They eat the bark of the more tender twigs, and they very much injure the lint of the open bolls by the excrement and the particles of gnawed leaf which fall thereon, and not only stain it, but depreciate its value, since no ginning can entirely cleanse it. A strong overdose of poison kills the leaves and causes the blossoms and squares to drop, but does not so seriously affect the bolls. Fields stripped by the worms the latter part of August do not fully recover till about two months afterwards, while those which have been seriously injured by poison recover two weeks earlier. It will thus be seen that the injury caused by the worm is of a more serious nature than that caused by arsenical poisons, pro- vided that the worms have been all killed by the poison. A small over- dose of poison blisters or scorches the leaves, or, at worst, kills the 140 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. more tender leaves; but it has, so far as our experience goes, no influ- ence on the unopened blossoms,“ the squares and bolls, and this slight injury is much less serious than that which would have been caused ° by the worms. With the improved machines and with some practice | the best arsenical poisons can always be so applied that they will effect- ually destroy the worms within forty-eight hours and without injury to the plants. If the plant be injured to any considerable extent the fault will lie either in the mode of application or in the inferior quality of the poison. | Most of these arsenical poisons can be applied to the leaves either in water or dry, but some of the compounds are prepared so as to be used only in the former manner. DRY APPLICATION.—When applied in powder the poison must be mixed with other ingredients, in order to render it sufficiently econom- ical and to avoid injury to the plant. The ingredients should mix readily with the poison; they should be cheap and, in the application from above, as far as possible adhesive, in order to prevent their being washed away by therains. Of the various ingredients that have been used with success common flour gives most satisfaction, though it is somewhat expensive. Flour not only mixes most readily and homogeneously with the poison, but possesses also great adhesive qualities, even with- out further admixtures. Other materials used with success as dilu- ents are land plaster (gypsum) and cotton-seed meal, both being very cheap in some sections of the South, and to be recommended during dry weather, but having the disadvantage of being much less adhesive than flour. Both materials can, however, be advantageously used when mixed with the flour, the proportion being immaterial, provided the flour occupies the greater bulk. Finely-sifted wood ashes are not readily mixed or kept mixed with the much heavier arsenical poisons, and, hav- ing little adhesiveness, are not to be recommended alone, but are im- portant when combined with flour. By the admixture of about one-third of wood ashes to two- thirds of flour, the cost of the application is not only considerably lessened, but another important advantage is obtained. The action of rain and dew converts the flour on the plants into a kind of paste, which, while it ad- heres firmly to the leaves, is somewhat injurious by excluding the air and by increasing the caustic action of the poison. Both these diffieul- ties are measurably overcome by the admixture of wood ashes, and the good results obtained in Texas in the application of various arsenical poisons are largely due to the prevalence of the use of such ashes. A . good supply can be collected during the winter, at no expense and with but little trouble. The substitution of common road dust for the diluents mentioned above has been taken into consideration, and we have carried on experi- ments as to its feasibility. The results show that very finely-sifted dust, which contains as little sand as possible, may, if nothing else is at - ARSENICAL COMPOUNDS—DRY APPLICATION. 141 hand, be used as a diluent, but that it is a poor substitute for flour. Its chief demerit is its greater weight, which renders the application both inconvenient and wasteful. Before applying any poison in powder form it must be mixed*with some of the diluents already mentioned. This mixing, generally done by farmers in a most primitive way by simply stirring the poison into a kettle or wooden box full of flour or other diluent, is a matter of no small importance,.as the success or failure of the application largely depends on the way in which the mixing has been done. Mr. George Little, of Columbus, Tex., has constructed a very simple and useful contrivance for mixing the ingredients. It consists of a bar- rel which has a longitudinal wooden axle projecting somewhat at each end. Five or six staves run through the barrel longitudinally, but do not project at either end, and on one side is an aperture large enough to admit the ingredients. "When they are in, the aperture is closed and the barrel is placed over a large open box, or fixed in any way so that it can be revolved by means of a handle attached to the projecting axle. By this simple and cheap contrivance much labor is saved and a thorough mixing assured, while all possible danger which might be incurred by hand-mixing is avoided. Large spikes driven through the sides so as to project inwardly will add to the efficacy of the device. In the matter of applying the powder, many planters prefer simply to scatter it by hand, after the manner of seed-sowing, as being more economical and rapid than any other method inuse. It has, moreover, the advantage that, if the plants are high enough, the poison can be ap- plied to the under side of the leaves. Planters who use this method assert, upon inquiry, that no evil consequences have ever followed their handling of the mixture in this way, but it strikes us as being altogether too unsafe to be recommended, and cannot compare on a large scale with the devices described in the ensuing chapters. The principal expense in the dry application, as hitherto practised, consists not so much in the cost of the poison as in that of the diluents, and it occurred to us to try and reduce the amount of these diluents to a minimum or to dispense with them altogether by applying the re- quired amount of poison unmixed. The experiments made in this di- rection have not been satisfactory for want of suitable machinery, the amount of poison used for each plant being always too large and not evenly distributed. They prove, however, that with our improved blow- ers much may be done in the direction of reducing the diluent. In the application from above it has been found useful to add a cer- tain amount of finely-powdered substances of still greater adhesive qualities than is possessed by any of the diluents. mentioned, in order to prevent the poison from being washed away by the rain. Such sub- Stances are dextrine, gum arabic, slippery-elm bark, or rosin. In very rainy weather it is better to add a larger proportion of them than in dry (142° REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. weather. Two pounds of adhesive material to each 25 pounds of poems and diluents may be given as an average proportion. The principles that should be followed in the dry application are, to. mix the poison thoroughly with the diluents, and to apply the mixture © as evenly and slightly as possible on the plants when the worms are still very young. The best time of the day to apply the poison is early in the morning when the plants are still wet with dew. Dry and windy weather is unfavorable to an even and economical application. WET APPLICATION.—This is a much simpler process than the dry application. The required amount of poison is stirred up in a certain amount of water, the liquid being then evenly and economically dis- tributed upon the leaves of the plants. The large series of machines invented for this purpose accomphsh this in a more or less perfect way, the water being broken up into a very fine spray. Most of the arseni- cal poisons not being soluble in water must be kept suspended by stir- ring, but this difficulty is easily overcome either by the employment of an additional hand to keep the water stirred up or by adding to the various pumps with which the poison is distributed a simple self-acting lever inside of the barrel or other vessel containing it. This, together with the motion of the pump, is sufficient to prevent settlement. It pays to add two or three pounds of flour or starch to each barrel of the poison mixture, not only because of the greater adhesiveness which they give to the poison (a very desirable object, especially in wet weather), but because, by their color, they help to indicate the quantity that has been distributed, and, also, because they serve to keep the poisons suspended in the water. In using flour it will be found advisable to mix it first in a bucketful of water and allow it to remain until it sours, the object being to prevent it from forming lumps. Another ingredient that may be advantageously added is very finely sifted wood ashes in such quantity as not to interfere with the distribution of the poison. They tend to dessen the caustic action of the poison on the plant. The most important point in wet applications is to have a good supply of water handy and readily accessibie near the field, and it should be as free as possible from impurities. The best time for applying wet poisons is in the afternoon, or at least after the dew has disappeared. Dry weather is the most favora- ble, while in rainy weather the wet application, especially from above, should not be attempted. The relative advantages and disadvantages of the two methods of applying arsenical poisons may be briefly summed up as follows: The wet application is by far the cheaper so long as we are obliged to use a large amount of costly diluents in the dry application. It isalso the quickest method, as a liquid spray can be thrown over more rows of © cotton than a dry powder. During dry weather the wet application is preferable, while in rainy weather the dry application may be found more advantageous or even necessary, not only because its effect is less THE USE OF PARIS GREEN AGAINST THE worms. 143 impaired by the rains, but because dry poisons can, if necessary, be ap- plied without the aid of heavy machines, which cannot be drawn through the fields in very wet weather. Dry arsenical poisons, especially when mixed with diluents, are much less liable to injure the plants than when applied in liquid suspension. PARIS GREEN. The nature and effects of this poison are now too well and generally known among planters to need consideration. Planters have too often found in its use a path leading from threatened ruin and bankruptcy to be much influenced by theoretical arguments against it. A study of its effects, based upon experience and experiment, whether upon the plant or upon the soil, shows that no harm results from its judicious use.* Our expectations in first suggesting its use as a Cotton Worm destroyer at the Saint Louis meeting of the National Agricultural Congress, in 1872, and more.confidently recommending it before the same body at Indianapolis, in 1873, have been fully realized by the experience of the past seven years. Complaints of its inefficacy are readily traceable either to faulty application or to the use of an adulterated article. Its principal disadvantages are its great cost, often increased by the ex- orbitant profits demanded by merchants, and the consequent temptation to adulterate or imitate the genuine article.” Its advantage over the other arsenical poisons, besides its undoubted efficacy, is that it is least liable to scald the leaves and cause the young bolls to shed. 3 * If used in liquid suspension the amount of the green to be distributed over one acre should not exceed one pound or be not less than half a pound. The former amount is that more generally used, but, taking into account the wastage and loss through rain or dew, the actual work- ing quantity per acre is not much above one-half pound. The generally accepted practice has been to take 1 pound of the green to each 40 gal- lons of water, which amount of water was sufficient to go over one acre when applied from above in a moderately fine spray or rain. The great advantage of the improved methods of application given in this report is that they extend a given amount of liquid poison over more than three times the area without loss of efficacy, and thereby re- duce the cost to less than one-third of what it hitherto has been. If the green were as cheap as the other arsenical poisons, this saving would be of little consequence; but, as the matter stands, it is of the greatest importance, as will be seen from the following computation : The price of Paris green in the South averages 40 cents per pound, being rarely lower, and in times of general demand reaching as high as 75 cents or $1 per pound. We arrive at the cost of the wet application per acre by adding to the cost of the poison and admixture that of the ma- * A discussion of this subject will be found in a work by the writer entitled “ Potato Pests,’ pp. 69-75. . . 144 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. — chine and the labor. Both of the last two items are extremely variable, and it is difficult to get at the average cost. One of the improved — sprinklers will cost, onan average, say, $15, and will last for several - seasons with but little expenditure for repairs. Two hands are neces- _ sary to operate the machine. One hundred acres of cotton can be poisoned in a day by these two men with one machine, 16 pounds of Paris green, and (not absolutely necessary) a small amount of flour and ashes. This dry method of applying Paris green has proved satisfactory under the conditions already referred to whenever a genuine article has been obtained and properly applied. Reported cases of failure must be attributed to adulterated poison, or to the use during very wet weather of ingredients of inferior quality. The proportion of the green to the ingredients actually in use in the South varies from 1 pound of the green to 20 pounds of ingredients, to 1 pound of green to about 35 pounds of ingredients, the stronger mixture being generally adopted in Texas, the weaker in the more eastern portion of the cotton belt. This great difference is partially explained by the fact that the mixture is as a rule more economically applied in Texas than further east. The origi- nal idea was to distribute 1 pound of the green over one acre of cotton of average size, and by a very slow and careful manipulation of the sieves it is indeed barely possible to accomplish this satisfactorily if 20 pounds of ingredients areadded. Practically, however, the amount of the mixture used per acre always exceeds 30 pounds, and often reaches 50 pounds or even more. This great wasteis the necessary consequence of the imperfect implements that have been employed so far, and par- tially also of the carelessness of the hands. The small tin sieves so ex- tensively used in the cane-brake region of Alabama are especially waste- ful in the distribution of the mixture, and one barrel (almost 200 pounds) is, on some plantations, not expected to go over much more than three acres. That 1 pound of the green to 30 pounds of diluents applied at the rate of not more than 20 pounds to the acre is efficient has been proved by actual experienée over and over again, and all stronger ad- mixtures of the green should, therefore, be abandoned. But in every | application of this mixture during dry weather another point of still greater importance can be learned: Wherever the mixture is applied very slightly, so as to be a mere dusting of the leaves, it is fully as effi- cient as where it thickly covers the plant. One of the chief aims we have had in mind has been to ascertain by experiment the minimum quantity of the poison that could advantageously be used, and Mr. Schwarz was intrusted with experiments in this direction. He reports as follows: “Minimum quantity of Paris green.—That the method of applying dry poisons by means of common bread-sieves, and still more by means of small tin sieves, is a very wasteful one, needs no further remark, and a PARIS GREEN—ITS USE AS A POWDER. 145 large series of trials with poisons in powder form convinced me that this waste cannot be materially lessened by a careful handling of the sieve, or by employing several, more layers of muslin in addition to the one or two now generally used. Application by means of the bellows is too irregular, while application with the hand is, with some practice, considerably less wasteful. “The most economical distribution of the mixture I could devise, for experiments on a small scale, was by means of a stiff brash. A com- mon shoe-brush is dipped in a flat vessel containing the mixture.* The greatest portion of the adhering poison is then shaken off by knocking with a stick on the handle of the brush. The still adhering poison is then thrown on the plants by drawing a stick across the brush. The poison can thus be applied from any direction, and the amount be reg- ulated at will. Three average-sized plants were accordingly dusted on September 2; the first very slightly from above, the two others from below. In applying from below, the poison finally covers both the un- derside as well as the upper side of the leaves. I am quite unable, however, to calculate the amount of poison mixture I used, but it is cer- .tain that each plant did not receive the tenth part of the amount it would have received in the applications with the sieve. The plants were dusted early in the morning, the poison adhering very well also to the underside of the leaves. There were numerous worms on all plants at this time, while others were continually hatching. A moderate rain shower about six hours after application washed off most of the poison applied from above, while it had but little influence on that applied from below. However, wherever there were holes in the leaves, the. poison on the underside was converted into paste, and, in a few places, washed away. ‘““The application on the first plant proved to be of very little use, though I found three dead worms under the plant next morning. The two other plants were, however, fully protected for about five days, and almost entirely cleared from the worms, when the migratory worms over- ran them. Against the superior number of these worms the poison was of no avail, though a vast number of them were killed before the plants were stripped. I have not the slightest doubt, however, that in ordinary times such slight application of dry Paris green from below is fully sufficient to protect the plants.” That such application from below is not only practically possible, but can be effected much more rapidly than the sieving method, will be de- monstrated further on in discussing the machines invented for this pur- pose. The adoption of the new machines will considerably reduce the cost of the dry application of Paris green without in the least lessening its efficacy. Its cost per acre of cotton, when applied with the sieve, ranges from 75 cents to $2, according to the first cost of material and different modes of application, or, again, to the size of the plants at the time of the application. 63 CONG——10 146 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. Five patents have been issued for different combinations with Paris green. In 1868 Mr. J. P. Wilson, of Illinois, took out a patent (No. 82468) for one part of Paris green and two of mineral paint to be used — to kill potato-bugs. In 1871 Mr. Lemuel Pagin, of Niles, Mich., claimed a mixture (patent No. 112732: Paris green, 2 pounds; rosin, 24 pounds; gum arabic or slippery-elm, 4 pound; wheat-flour, 5 pounds; middlings, 1 bushel) for the same purpose. In 1873 Mr. G. F. Whisenant, of Chapel Hill, Texas, obtained a patent (No. 134959: Paris green, 4 pound; arsenic, 1 pound; lime, 26 pounds, and flour 5 pounds) for destroying caterpillars on cotton. In thesame year Mr. William B. Royall, of Brenham, Tex., obtained patent for the same purpose (No. 140079, June 17, 1873), the ingredients being Paris green, 1 peund; cobalt, 2 ounces; flour, 17 pounds; powdered gum tragacanth, 3 ounces; powdered licorice root, 6 ounces; and subsequently still another (No. 151439, May 26, 1874: Paris green, 1 pound; flour, 4 pounds; cotton-seed meal, 16 pounds) for the substitution in part of cotton-seed meal for ordinary flour. Regarding these patent mixtures it must be borne in mind that the value of Paris green with some diluent as an insecticide had been widely made public before any of them were issued, and we can but repeat our ~ previously expressed opinion* that “it is to be regretted that patents ean be obtained at all for remedies of this nature after they have become generally known and rightfully belong to the public. When the dis- coverer of such a remedy does not see fit to patent it, no one subse- sequently has a moral right to, whatever speculative right he may pos- sess. Fortunately, in this case the patentees cannot interfere with the public rights, and it is be to hoped that no planter, either of potatoes or cotton, will be induced by flaming circulars and threats to pay even one cent per thousand acres, much less the demanded $20 per 100 acres, for the privilege of using these patented mixtures. The very fact that so many patents have been granted for the same purpose, all of them having Paris green as a base, shows clearly that the patent covers only the particular combination. By ringing the changes on the different proportions of the several ingredients, a thousand of these patent rem- edies may be obtained; and any one who diverges but a fraction from the particular patented combination ceases to infringe upon it. It will therefore be utterly impossible for the patentees to enforce the penalty for infringement without proof that precisely the same ingredients and combination as patented were used; and to get such proof will, I take it, be no easy matter; for were it, we should hear of hundreds of thom- sands, of prosecutions where now we hear not of a single one.” Experience has justified this advice; for, while immense sums have been paid by planters to some parties for the right to use Paris green mixtures, the patentees have been unable to get protection from the courts whenever they have sued for infringement in the independent *Sixth Rep. Ins. Mo., 1873, p. 21. ARSENIC FOR DESTROYING COTTON WORMS. 147 use of them by planters. The letter of the law too often negatives the spirit of the law, and it seems that the Patent Office has been forced to issue the patents above alluded to on the ground and decision that any change in the compounds of a mixture makes of it, in law, a new sub- stance. ARSENIC. While commercial arsenic, salts of arsenic, and their various com- pounds are much cheaper than Paris green, yet this advantage is more than counterbalanced by the injurious property they possess, in a more or less marked degree, of scalding the leaves and causing the squares and young bolls to shed. Moreover, on account of their white color, there is more danger of injury to man and animals in their use than in that of colored preparations, which are less likely to be mis- taken for harmless substances. Great care and precaution are, there- fore, necessary in applying these arsenic poisons. When applied in just the right proportions to kill the worms without injuring the cotton they are valuable substitutes for the more expensive Paris green, but unfortunately these proportions vary with each particular combination, the condition of the plants, temperature, and weather, and time of ap- plication, so that they can be satisfactorily ascertained only by abso- lute experiment. It is for this reason that the Paris green mixtures have held their own against the cheaper compounds, and most planters, even where these last are used, find it desirable to still mix a certain proportion of the green with them. The cheapness of the arsenic, combined with the fact that under very favorable circumstances it is not uncommonly applied with success, will give to it a conspicuous place among the remedies for the Cotton Worm, so long as mineral poisons are not superseded by others. The high price asked for some of the patented compounds is entirely unwarranted, as their value in every case depends on the arsenic. Commercial arsenic, costing from 7 to 10 cents per pound, is applied in powder form at the ratio of 4 pound to from 18 to 25 of any of the ingredients used with Paris green. Used in water, these arsenic com- pounds give less satisfaction because of the dangers to the plant already alluded to, which are then increased. Counting 40 gallons of liquid for one acre of cotton, the arsenic used should not exceed 1 pound to 200 gallons of water; and this mixture must be very evenly distributed, as even a slight overdose will scorch the leaves. It is an interesting fact that already in 1871 a patent was obtained for the use of arsenic against the Cotton Worm by Mr. Thomas W. Mitchell, of Richmond, Tex. (No. 110774, January 3, 1871; reissue No. 5935, June 30, 1874: 92 grains of opaque arsenic, or 293 grains of transparent arsenic to one pint of water). | Arseniate of soda.—This has the advantage of being perfectly. sol- 148 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. uble in water, but has the same disadvantages as commercial arsenic. For a number of years an arsenical compound has been advertised un- der the name of ‘‘ Potato-pest poison,” by the Lodi Chemical Works of . Lodi, N. J. it is put up in pound packages, which are sold at $1 each, with directions to dissolve 4 ounces in 2 quarts of hot water, then pour into a barrel containing 30 gallons of cold water, and use on the plants in as fine a spray as possible. The common arsenic water, which every druggist knows how to make, will answer well. To make it from the white arsenic (arsenious acid) and common baking (carbonate of) soda is cheaper than to buy the arseniate, although the arseniate method of preparation involves less time and labor. One-tifth of a pound of sal soda to a pound of arsenic should be boiled in a gallon of water until dissolved. The solution is permanent, no stirring or shaking being necessary to keep the poison mixed. One quart of the solution to forty gallons of water is used on each acre.. Fowler’s solution.—This compound is said to consist of arsenious ox- . ide, dissolved in a solution of sodium or potassium carbonate in water. It has been used quite extensively in some parts of the canebrake re- gion of Alabama, but does not. appear to be patented. A more complicated compound, “‘JOHNSON’s DEAD SHOT,” has been patented by Judge J. W. Johnson, of Columbus, Tex. (No. 151,666, June 2, 1874), consisting of 8 ounces arsenious acid, 1 ounce cyanide of po- tassium, 8 ounces dextrine, dissolved in 40 gallons of water. Jne of the claims for this compound was that the vapor of the cyanide of po- tassium even killed the moths which came in the vicinity of the plants that had been sprinkled with the ‘‘ Dead Shot.” Experience has shown that the claim was unwarranted, and in fact, in the packages offered to the public, Judge Johnson did not adhere to the specification, being finally afraid to use the cyanide of potassium, and making a mixture composed of 3 pounds of commercial arsenic, 1 pound of starch, 1 pound of salts of tartar, ground up together. This was made up in powder packages, to be nsed at the rate of 5 pounds to 500 gallons of water, and sprayed by means of his patent sprinkler presently to be described. This was found to have the same drawback, common to arsenical mix- tures, of injuring the plant, and the later packages, advertised under the name of ‘“ Johnson’s Improved Dead Shot,” put up in 4-pound tin boxes, and to be used at the rate of 4 pounds to 500 gallons of water, consist (according to the inventor’s own statement to us) of 2 pounds of commercial arsenic with a due proportion of rosin, caustic soda, and sulphate of copper, all boiled together. This is sold at $1.25 per box. It has, however, proved too often unsatisfactory and inefficient, and Mr. Johnson has been obliged to add or recommend the addition of one pound of Paris green to the mixture. A patent (No. 151078, May 19, 1874) was obtained by Messrs. J. D. Braham and A. Robira, of Galsestonl Tex., for their ‘‘TExas COTTON - LONDON PURPLE—ITS COMPOSITION. 149 Worm DESTROYER,” which is essentially the same as the Lodi prepa- ration, and put up at the New Jersey works for the Galveston firm. Fifty grains of. arseniate of soda and 200 grains of dextrine are to be dissolved in one gallon of cold water. The mixture formerly sold at the exorbitant price of $1 per pound, and is now offered for 50 cents per pound. Itis put up in packages of 60 and 100 pounds, and thus sold at a discount of 10 percent. It is to be used at the rate of 4 ounces of the mixture to about 40 gallons of water, making the cost of one ap- plication per acre about 123 cents. It has been extensively used. Another “ pest poison,” also essentially the same as the Lodi prepa- ration, but faintly colored with rose aniline, is put up by the Kearney Chemical Works of New York, in 4-pound packages, sold at 50 cents, and to be dissolved in 60 gallons of water. LONDON PURPLE. This powder is obtained in the following manner in the manufacture | of aniline dyes: Crude coal-oil is distilled to produce benzole. This is mixed with nitric acid,and forms nitro-benzole. Iron filings are then used to produce nascent hydrogen with the excess of nitric acid in the benzole. When distilled, aniline results: tothis are added arsenic acid, to give an atom of oxygen which produces rose aniline, and quicklime to absorb the arsenic. The residuum which is obtained by filtration or settling is what has been denominated “ London purple,” the sediment being dried, powdered, and finely bolted. The powder is, therefore, composed of lime and arsenious acid, with about 25 per cent. of car- bonaceous matter which surrounds every atom. Experiments which we made with it in 1878 impressed us favorably with this powder as an insecticide, and its use on the Colorado potato-beetle by Professors Budd and Bessey, of the lowa Agricultural College, proved highly satis- factory. We were, therefore, quite anxious to test its effect on the Cotton Worm in the field on a large scale, and in the winter of 1878~79 induced the manufacturers to send a large quantity for this purpose to the De- partment of Agriculture. The analysis made of it by Professor Collier, the chemist of the Department, showed it to contain : Per cent. [eS Sh SPSL Ee) TOE Eee Se a ee eT SE ee ee ne ae Pe Rene Cae ee 12. 46 6p ORLTI: BGI SS Ss OT ee OEM PERE et me Ret nO PTE rae Re ee Eee Ne gaan 43.65 TLE ce cine eu ie cee Rad al ae pal I al mn: Sg SPARE fe Ee oes eae 21. 82 a DESL ASE su Shey 5 TEAL os cae eG he's Loh uh hag Sil Ce RES) ag ag Te i a al 14, 57 enmenomnircnaerene ns arin Vy bye ety} UU Ooh CSR Ve ig 1.16 ne tune ere tai. Py PEE SI Fes) POR a Astle acts Wale te ba es gee Yueh eew at dite ERS eo ee BLL OES SS ES Se ee Pe DORN ee ee Te ee en ee ee eee 4.07 100. 00 Through the liberality of the manutacturers, Messrs. Hemingway & Co., a number of barrels of this powder were placed at our disposal 150 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. during the season of 1879 and distributed to various observers and agents in Georgia, Alabama, and Texas. Early in the spring of the following year Mr. A. R. Whitney, of Franklin Grove, Il1., found it to be a perfect antidote to the canker-worms which had not been prevented from ascending his apple trees. In the following year (1880) large quantities of the purple were used by many planters in various parts of the cotton belt, while, at the same time, in the Northern States the experiments were vigorously continued. It would lead us too far to report and discuss here all the experiments which have been made on other insects than the Cotton Worm, and it — suffices to state briefly that the purple has proved to be a perfect substi- tute for Paris green. As to its value as a remedy for the Cotton Worm, the matter stands as follows: In Texas, where the purpie has been most extensively used, according, as we may add here, to the directions given by us, the unanimous verdict of the planters is in its favor, not a single case of failure having been reported. We have on file very many reports and letters received from that State, and statements that have appeared in the daily papers which express this favorable opinion. In the other States the opinion is not uniform on the subject, and there has been, especially in Alabama, considerable adverse ex- perience with it. Mr. James Roane, agent of the Commission, wrote as follows on the subject: ‘¢T have been introduced to quite a number of planters, and upon con- -versing with them find that they are divided as to the efficacy of Lon- don purple. Some repudiate it altogether, while others are loud in its praises. One thing is certain, that there has been a very large demand for it. Mr. Wilkins tells me that in the space of one day he sold no less than 2,000 pounds, saying at the same time that he could have readily disposed of 20,000 pounds if he had had it. Major Hardie, who, as you know, is a gentleman of the highest cultivation and attainments, tells me that he has little faith in London purple, having used it on his plantation under his direct supervision, without obtaining the satisfac- tory results of Paris green. He mixes 1 pound of the purple with 40 of flour, and sifts it over the plant. The main objection he urges against it is its failure to kill the worm anything like as quickly as Paris green. He acknowledges, however, that next to Paris green it is the best, be- cause the only remedy to be obtained. ‘‘Tmmediately after Major Hardie gave his opinion on the purple, an old planter, who just stepped in, said that he had used London purple very extensively on his cotton-fields with the most flattering results. He used the poison suspended in water.” In the majority of cases the failure was plainly due to an overdose of the poison applied, many planters having used it in the same pro- ' portion as Paris green, simply because they chanced to have read Mr. Trelease’s report (see Report on Cotton Insects, 1879, Department of Agriculture), who, strangely enough, always experimented with strong DRY APPLICATION OF LONDON PURPLE. hgh overdoses of London purple. In other cases the failure was plainly to be attributed to the imperfect implements used for the distribution of the dry and wet poisons. In still other cases the cause of the fail- ure could not be made out. The conclusions we arrived at during the season of 1879, after a long series of trials made by ourself and Mr. Schwarz, and assisted by the most experienced planters in the vicinity of Columbus, Tex., and which were published in the first edition of this work, have been proved correct by the experience of subsequent years, and wherever pure and genuine London purple has been applied according to the directions, it has always given satisfactory results. It should be remembered that the introduction of a new remedy, especially if it is not without drawbacks, is always a difficult task, and experience must be bought at the cost of disappointment and failure. We need only recall to the reader the history of the introduction of the Paris green, and how long it took before its efficacy was firmly estab- lished, and before the farmers and planters had gained full confidence that it was a perfect remedy for some of our worst insect enemies. London purple has, in common with all arsenical poisons, the disadvan- tage of danger, but it is one of the cheapest remedies of this class, being a mere refuse which, from its poisonous nature, was a drug to the manu- facturers, and had to be gotten rid of by being dumped long distances out at sea. This substance can be put upon the market at the bare cost of transportation. It can be sold in New York at the low rate of 6 cents per pound, and there is no reason why it should not be obtained at any of the large shipping points in the South at figures ranging be- tween 7 and 10 cents a pound. This means virtually that the cost of destroying the worms by this powder is reduced to such a minimum as to depend mainly on the labor and the other ingredients or diluents employed; in other words, that, while the planters, as heretofore, were obliged to pay as much as $1 for the first cost of the active poison needed for one acre, and never less than 15 cents, they may now obtain it for from 3 to 5 cents. An advantage of minor importance is its red hue, as it colors the ingredients so as to prevent their being mistaken for harmless material. The finely pulverized condition of the purple seems to be of less ad- vantage than we were formerly inclined to believe, as it increases the caustic power of the poison upon the plants. Finally, its cheap price removes the temptation of adulterating the poison, as every adultera- tion would prove more expensive than the genuine article. Dry application.—Experiments on a large scale have been made with the dry application at the rate of 2 pounds to 18 pounds of diluents, also at the rates of 1, 4, 4, and 4 pound to 18 of thediluents. The last proved only partially effectual, and in no case were the plants injured or the leaves even burned. In all but the last case the worms were killed, but as the mixture, at the rate of + pound, was applied with greater care and regularity than is generally had on a large scale, and s 152 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. also in very dry weather, the proportion of 4 pound to 18 of the dilu- ents is most to be recommended. This refers to very economical appli- cation by means of a careful handling of the sieves. As the sifting is © generally done less economically, the following proportion is to be recommended : One pound of the purple to about 45 pounds of diluents, the latter most advantageously consisting of 15 pounds of wood ashes and 30 pounds of flour, including the usual amount of adhesive mate- rials. This would give about 4 pounds of the purple to 1 barrel of flour. As to the cost per acre of cotton, the remarks made under the head of Paris green also hold true here, the low price of the purple rendering its application of course so much cheaper. The expe:iments made by the agents of the Commission in applying the purple without diluents have completely failed for want of machines wherewith to apply evenly the very small quantity of the poison re- quired for each plant, the results invariably being that the leaves were considerably scorched. The invention of machines bringing about the even distribution of very small quantities of poison will naturally open a wide field for further experimentation. That even a very sli ght dust- ing with the purple mixture mentioned above is fully efficient has been proved by the experiments made in Texas in 1879; but ‘such economic application is impossible on a large scale, so long as we cannot dispense with the sifting methods. | Wei application.—Like Paris green, it is not soluble,* but is much easier kept suspended in water than the former. If applied in this way some care has to be taken in stirring it in the water, as it has a tendency to form lumps, owing to its finely-powdered condition. Experiments on a large scale with this material diluted in water gave the following results: When used in the same proportion as Paris green, namely, 1 pound of the poison to about 40- gallons of water, one experimenter reports that the leaves were slightly crisped, while four others report perfect success, and no injury whatever to the plant. Experiments by ourself and Mr. Schwarz in the year 1879 showed that when applied in the proportion mentioned and thoroughly stirred up in the water the leaves were partly crisped, though by no means so much as by arsenic, even when applied in weaker solution. When used in smaller propor- tion, or at the rate of 2 or $ pound to 40 gallons of water, it did not burn the leaves, and still proved effectual in destroying the worms. Ke- peated experiments on a smaller scale confirmed these results obtained on large fields, and also showed that the proportion may be still farther reduced, and when applied with great care and in very dry weather 4 pound to 40 gallons will kill. Still farther reduction in the proportion of the powder used gave negative results. I would therefore recom- mend tlie use of 4 pound of this powder to from 50 to 55 gallons of water as the proportion most likely to give general satisfaction by effectually destroying the worms without injuring the plants. * The manufacturers can render about 13 per cent. of it soluble if desired. 4 om ae wee a ae OTHER MINERAL SUBSTANCES USED AGAINST THE WORMS. 153 All that has been said under the head of Paris green as to the desir- ability of adding a small quantity of flour or other substance to give adhesiveness to the liquid will hold equally true of London purple. This method is very cheap; labor and machine constituting by far the greatest part of the expense, while the cost of the poison per acre does not exceed 3 cents. OTHER MINERAL SUBSTANCES. SALT AND SALTPETRE. We have heard common salt frequently recommended as a remedy for injurious insects, and it unquestionably possesses insecticide properties, especially when dissolved in water, affecting and killing the insect upon contact. Unfortunately, however, its effects on the plants are much more marked, and we have thus the same obstacles to its application as with kerosene and other oils. Moreover, salt is decidedly inferior to kerosene as an insecticide, but scarvely less injurious to the plant; hence in the case of salt it is much more difficult to find the “right proportion” in which it could effectually be applied; in other words, that proportion of salt which is not injurious to the plant will be much too weak to seri- _ ously affect the worms. Nevertheless, in view of the constantly recurring recommendations of salt as remedy for the Cotton Worms in the papers, we had some ex- periments made in the field by Professor Stelle and Mr. Schwarz. The former gives the following report in his diary: September 27, 1880.—Sprinkled two rows of cotton across a square acre with a solution made of saltpetre in proportion of 1 ounce tothe gallon of water; also two rows with a solution of common salt, 3 ounces to the gallon of water. September 28.—Can see an effect favorable on all the rows of cotton sprayed yester- day, though the worms have not entirely disappeared from any. September 29.—Looking over my work on Monday, I find considerably less worms on the saltpetre rows than where nothing has been used, and very few indeed where the coniumon salt was applied. The salt has slightly curled some of the leaves. Sprinkled two rows carefully with common salt in proportion of 2 ounces to the gallon of water. September 30.—The rows sprinkled wiih salt yesterday have shown no satisfactory result. This report would seem to give a satisfactory result as to the applica- tion of salpeter, but no further experiments Lave been made so far. Much less favorable is the following report by Mr. Schwarz on an experiment made with common salt: August 26.—I applied common salt in the proportion recommended to me, viz., at the rate of 1 gallon of salt to 40 gallons of water. The salt was thoroughly dissolved in the water and the liquid applied by means of the fountain pump, wetting the leaves onsome plants pretty thoroughly. Upon examination, 16 hours afterwards, a small number of dead worms (not 10 per ceut. of the whole number), mostly young ones, were found, the leaves being somewhat shriveled up even where not exposed to the sun; bat wherever the solution was applied thickly the leaves had assumed a peculiar pale green color and were quite stiff. The worms did not feed upon such leaves, which, on the second day, proved to be killed. August 28.—Applied the solution at the rate of 1 gallon of salt to 60 gallons of water. No effect upon worms observed the next day or afterwards. 154 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. SULPHUR. A machine for the application of the vapor of this mineral is described | in Chapter XIII; but,so far as we can see, the machine has not been used to any extent. Nor is it probable that sulphur vapor will destroy the worms, when applied in the open air. RED LEAD. The following account of experiments with this substance is from Mr. Schwarz’s report : At the suggestion of Professor Barnard I made a few experiments with red lead. September 4 I dusted five worms slightly with the powder and placed them in a glass jar together with a few fresh leaves. No effect visible after twenty-four or forty- eight hours. Placed a few worms in a glass jar and fed them with leaves thickly dusted with red lead. After eight hours no effect visible, but the worms did not seem to have eaten of the leaves. After twenty-four hours three of the worms were dead, two others showed the color peculiar to those poisoned by Paris green or London purple and died in the course of the day. September 19.—Red lead diluted with five parts of flour and the mixture thrown on some plants which were fairly alive with young worms. Twenty-four hours after- wards some poisoned worms were found; thirty-six hours after application some more dead worms, but in the mean time most of the mixture had been washed away bya heavy rain, and the remaining worms were sufficient to defoliate the plants. I fully believe, however, that this mixture would have been efficient to protect the plant if the rain had not interfered. ; September 22.—Applied a mixture of one part red lead to ten of flour. Within 48 hours I noticed a few dead young worms, presumably killed by the poison, but most of the worms were not affected, or, if so, not seriously affected. I had no further op- portunity to experiment with this substance, but do not believe it can be advanta- geously used as asubstitute for Paris green or London purple, asit evidently does not act so powerfully as either of the two. Further experiments are, however, necessary to obtain a definite opinionregarding its value as an insecticide. Its price (so faras I un- stood) is cheaper than Paris green, but more expensive than London purple. Its value as an insecticide will, of course, depend also upon its influence on the plant, a cir- cumstance to which I omitted to pay attention, though there was certainly no marked’ injurious influence in my experiments. ROAD DUST AND ALLIED SUBSTANCES. The protection from the attacks of the worm and the prevention of the ovipositing of the moth accomplished by thickly dusting the leaves on both sides has already been mentioned on page 126. It still remains here to speak of the property of road dust to drive off or kill the worms. If a powerful jet of water is directed on the soil at the base of the plant so as to splash the softened mud on the lower leaves, the worms on them will be covered with the soil and many of the young ones are unable to remove it. They fall to the ground and exhaust themselves in frantic and fruitless efforts toclean themselves. The same result can be accomplished by throwing dry dust on the plant during or shortly after rainy weather, or after the plants have been thoroughly wetted with a sprinkler. Not every kind of dust is suitable for this purpose, and for utilizing ee ee nate — —— KEROSENE AS AN INSECTICIDE. 155 it as a substitute for flour in the application of arsenical poisons and pyrethrum powder. On this subject Mr. Schwarz reports as follows: At first I selected dust from the nearest road at hand and sifted it through a very fine sieve covered with a quadruple layer of fine muslin. I found, however, that this dust was largely composed of particles of sand without any adhesive power whatever, and which, moreover, rendered the dust very heavy and quite unsuitable for any ex- periment. This sand is very fine, and I failed to eliminate it by using additional layers of muslin. I did not succeed better with dust prepared from the dry clay so common along the river bank near Selma. Finally I obtained a suitable very fine dust by sifting the rich black earth, which of course I had previously well dried. This dust is comparatively light, and of considerable adhesive power even in dry weather. While we attach but limited value to dust either for preventing the moths from ovipositing, driving off the worms, or killing them in the man- ner just mentioned, still it might prove valuable as a diluent for arsen- ical poisons where flour and other diluents cannot be obtained, and more attention ought to be paid to this cheap and easily obtainable substance as a remedy for various insect pests other than the Cotton Worm. The insecticide property of dust mentioned in this connection is not peculiar to road dust alone, but is possessed by every substance which adheres to the worms in a sticky, paste-like covering. Thus by _ the application of flour stirred up in water many small worms may be killed, and the only results obtained by our agents in the application of diluted dough and yeast are attributable to their action in the manner here alluded to. OILS AND ALLIED SUBSTANCES. KEROSENE. Jt is a well-known fact that this is a most powerful insecticide, and ex- periment has shown that a fine spray of kerosene applied to the leaves will kill all worms thereon in a remarkably short time. This deadly effect is produced by contact, a very small quantity of the oil applied to the worm causing death. We have thus a very cheap and sure rem- edy, which, moreover, cannot be called poisonous to higher animals, but unfortunately the oil has the same pernicious effect on the plant as on insect life, and the problem is to apply it in such fine spray, or so much diluted as not to injure the plant and at the same time touch every worm. The finest spray, produced by a parlor atomizer, of the undiluted oil is sufficient to kill the leaves, the cotton plant proving to be exceedingly sensitive to the effect of the oil, much more so, in fact, than many other plants. The use of the undiluted oil being, therefore, impracticable, there remains only to try to apply it in dilution. The only available diluent hitherto known being water, a new difficulty arises, viz., to mix the oil with the water so as to produce a homogeneous or nearly homo- geneous mixture of the two. Toa limited extent, and only on a small scale, this can be accomplished by very violently agitating the mixture. More useful, but also practicable only on a small scale, is the following method, recommended by Mr. William Saunders, of the Department of 156 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. Agriculture: *‘The requisite amount of kerosene and water is placed in | a barrel or pail, and with the syringe a syringeful several times squirted into the barrel, when the mixture must be quickly applied before the oil and water separate.” When converted into soap by means of lye and boiling, kerosene, like any other oil, can easily be diluted with water to any extent, but loses in this form much of its deadly quality ; hence its application in soap form has but little effect on the Cotton Worm, though it is more useful for many other insects more readily affected by sapo- naceous compounds. When mixed with a sufficiently large quantity of wood ashes, kero- sene can be applied to the leaves without damaging them, but the mix- ture cannot be sprinkled in particles small enough to have much effect on the worms. A patent was obtained by Mr. George W. Powell, of Halifax County, Virginia, in April, 1876, for the simple mixture of one- half pint of kerosene to one quart of fine, dry, well-sifted wood ashes. The patentee claims that by sprinkling or scattering this preparation lightly over the plants it will drive off or destroy insects of every kind without injury to the leaves. An attempt has been made to apply the oil in form of vapor by means of steam. There is no question but that the worms are killed by this ap- plication, and, perhaps, without injury to the plant; but the machine necessary for the production of the vapor, which will be described fur- ther on, is so ponderous and awkward as to be of no practical value. The above-meutioned methods of applying kerosene are of little or no value in our warfare against the Cotton-Worm but an important step to- ward a practical solution of this difficult question was made in the summer of 1880. Professor Barnard, while in the field at Selma, Ala., suggested the use of milk as a medium to facilitate the mixing of kerosene and water. Firstit was found that the oil mixes much more readily with the milk than with water. If a small quantity of the oil is stirred up in a much larger quantity of milk, the oil particles will remain much longer suspended in the milk than in water, thus permitting a practical application of the mixture. “It was further found that even a large pro- portion of the kerosene could be mixed with milk by violently shaking up the closed vessel containing the mixture. Thus one part of kerosene to two parts of milk would unite after several minutes’ shaking to form a kind of emulsion, in which the two ingredients did not separate until after many hours, and which then could always be restored, by shaking, to its apparently homogeneous condition. Though, in the light of subse- quent discoveries, this emulsion proved to be a very imperfect one, and, in fact, no emulsion at all, but only a more or less finely divided mixture of the oil and milk, stillit was found most useful for experimentation on a small scale and vastly superior to any of the old methods of applying kerosene. Therewas no difficulty experienced in experiments ona small scale in diluting this emulsion of one part of kerosene with three parts of milk with any desired quantity of water. A portion of the oil sep- ——— EMULSIONS OF KEROSENE—PREPARATION OF. 157 arated soon and rose to the surface of the water, but the larger por- tion of the oil remained suspended in the water for a considerable length of time. Whatever were the shortcomings of this discovery at the time, we called attention to it in a communication to the Scientific American,* and it is difficult to understand why its importance was not fully ap- preciated by allinterested in economic entomology. As it wasit proved to be the stepping-stone to the successful solution of the problem of mixing kerosene with water without changing the nature of the former. This mode of obtaining a perfect and stable emulsion was discovered by Mr. Hubbard while experimenting with kerosene for scale-insects affect- ing the orange tree. We quote his description of it. t+ ‘¢The process of forming a perfectly stable emulsion of kerosene and milk is compar- able to that of ordinary butter making, and is as follows; The oil and milk in any desired proportious are poured together and very violently dashed or churned for a period of time, varying with the temperature, from fifteen to forty-five minutes. The churning, however, requires to be much more violent than can be effected with an ordinary Better churn: ‘‘The Aquapult force pump * * * maybe satin Getty used for this purpose where moderate quantities only are required. The pump should be inserted in a pail or tub containing the liquids, which are then forced into union by continuous pumping back into the same receptacle through the flexible hose and spray-nozzle. After passing once er twice through this pump the liquids unite and form a creamy emulsion, in which finely divided particles of oil can plainly be detected. This is as far as the process can be carried by stirring or by dashing in an ordinary churn; the product at this point will not bear diluting with water and separates or rises at once to the surface. On continued churning through the pump the liquid finally curdles and suddenly thickens to form a white and glistening butter, perfectly homogeneous in texture, and stable. ‘‘The whole amount of both ingredients solidify together, and there is no whey or other residue; if, however, the quantity of the mixture is greater than can be kept in constant agitation, a portion of the oil is apt to separate at the moment of emulsi- fication and will require the addition of a few ounces of milk and further churning for its reduction. “This kerosene butter mixes readily in water, care being taken to thin it first with a small quantity of the liquid. The time required to “ bring the butter” varies with the temperature. At 60° F. it is half to three-quarters ofan hour; at 75°, fifteen minutes, and the process may be still further facilitated by heating the milk up to, but not past, the boiling point. Either fresh or sour milk may be used, and the latter is even preferable. “The presence of kerosene does not prevent or hinder the fermentation of the milk; on standing a day or two the milk curdles, and although there is no separation of the oil the emulsion thickens and hardens and requires to be stirred, but not churned, until it regains its former smoothness. “Tf sour milk is used no further fermentation takes place, and if not exposed to the air the kerosene butter can be kept unchanged for any length of time. Exposure to the air not only permits the evaporation of the oil but also of the water necessary to hold the oil in emulsion; the keroseve slowly separates as the emulsion dries up and hardens. “Kerosene emulsions may be made of almost any strength; the quantity of milk re- quired to hold the oil does not exceed one-tenth. But emulsions containing over 80 per cent. of the oils have tvo light a specific gravity and are not too readily held in suspension in water. On the other hand, the process of. emulsification, kerosene loses * Scientific American, October 16, 1880. t Annual Report Department of Agriculture, 1881-’82, pp. 112, 113. 158 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. a portion of its value as an insecticide, and emulsions containing less than 30 per cent. of the oil, although they do not at all, or only very slowly, rise to the surface when diluted with considerable quantities of water, are nevertheless too much weakened for effective use against Scale insects. “The killing power of a diluted emulsion depends less upon the amount of emnision used in the solution than upon the percentage of oil contained in the emulsion. To increase the efficiency of an application we should rather add to the percentage of oil in the emulsion than increase the gross amount of emulsion used in a single applica- tion, the amount of the diluent remaining in each case the same.” The following emulsions were used in the orange insect investigation by Mr. Hubbard, and were published in the Annual Report of the De- partment of Agriculture for 1881 and 1882, p. 115: Kerosene, 1 pint; sour cow’s milk, 2 fluid ounces, dashed with a ladle; 2 drachms of powdered chalk was first added to the milk, and 2 ounces water during the stirring. An imperfect emulsion not readily suspended in water. Kerosene, 1 quart; solution of condensed milk, 3 parts; water, 5 spe 12 fluid ounces. Emulsion made by spraying through the Lon! pump and back into the pail. Stable, and readily suspended in water. Kerosene, 1 quart; condensed milk, 12 fluid ounces, diluted with water, 36 ounces; emulsified with the Aquapult. Kerosene, 25.6 fluid ounces ; condensed milk, 4.8 fluid ounces; water, 14.4 ounces; emulsified with pump. Kerosene, 2 quarts; condensed milk, 12 fluid ounces (1 can), water, 20 ounces; with pump. Kerosene, 2 quarts, 4 fluid ounces; condensed milk, 12 finid ounces; water, 24 ounces; with pump. The following kerosene and soap emulsion has more recently been recommended by Mr. Hubbard: Kerosene, 2 gallons. Common soap, 4 pound; water, 1] gallon. Heat the mixture of soap and water, 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 oiliness to the surface of glass. Dilute, before using,1 part of the emulsion with 9 parts of cold water. The above formula gives 3 gallons of emulsion, and makes, when diluted, 30 gallons of wash. With this important discovery a wide field for further experimentation with kerosene has been opened, while at the same time the perfected atomizing machines permit the kerosene water to be applied, even on a large scale and from below, in such fine spray as to greatly lessen the danger resulting from the influence of the kerosene on the plants. These improvements, in material as well as in appliances, being of recent date, we have had but little opportunity to try them in the field for the Cotton Worm. The experiments in 1880 of Mr. Schwarz, and upon which he gives the following report, were made with the imperfect emul- sion mentioned above: In my experiments with kerosene I uniformly used an emulsion of 1 part of kero- sene to 3 partsof milk. In view of the opinion expressed by Professor Comstock that such emulsion cannot be diluted with water, I would state that neither Professor Barnard nor myself experienced the slightest difficulty in this respect. This dis- crepancy is in all probability due to the circumstance that our experiments were carried on on a small scale, where the difficulties in mixing the two ingredients are USE OF KEROSENE EMULSIONS AGAINST THE WoRMS. 159 hardly felt. Moreover, Professor Comstock’s ‘‘emulsion” may have been less perfect than that used by ourselves. The kerosene water was applied in the following exper- iments by means of a hand-atomizer, because from former experience I felt convinced that the oil can successfully be applied only in the form of the finest spray. Refined kerosene was used, instead of crude coal oil, because the former was more readily procured at Selma than the latter. From my experience with the crude coal oil in 1879, I am inclined to think that thereis not much difference between the two, either in regard to insecticide property or to their injurious effect on the plant. The chief difficulty to overcome ‘in the application of kerosene being the susceptibility of the plant, a series of experiments was first carried on to ascertain the proportion of the oil that could be applied without harm to the plant. This was in the first part of September, when but very few worms were at hand. The emulsion was first diluted with five times that amount of water, thus giving 1 part of the oil to 19 parts of milk and water; then with ten times that amount of water, and then used in still weaker dilutions. That the stronger mixture considera- bly scorched the plant was to be expected, but I would mention in this connection - that a mixture of 1 part of kerosene to about 25 parts of water, which was incident- ally applied to a few corn-stalks and cow peas, did not seem to injure those plants. The limit where the spray is less injurious to the plant begins with a mixture of about 1 part of oil to 120 parts of water, but I cannot give in exact figures the mixture that can safely be applied to the plant, as much depends on the amount of the fluid actually applied. Withasmall hand-atomizer the leaves nearest at hand receive a much larger amount of the fluid than those farther off, the force of the spray which strikes fullest the nearest leaves undoubtedly increasing the influence of the oil. A mixture of 1 part of the oil to 160 parts of milk and water, when moderately applied, is not injuri- ous to the leaves. In these and the above-given figures I have not included the excess of the oil which floats on the surface of the mixture, and which I took care not to ap- ply to the plant. Howmuch this excess is in proportion to the amouni of oil used in preparing the emulsion I had no means to determine, but the amount of oil actually applied to the plants is at any rate smaller than the figures given above. Old leaves and bolls are the least liable to be injured by the kerosene spray; very young shoots and squares somewhat more so, while young leaves fully developed and blossoms are most readily affected. In bright, hot weather the effect of the oii on the plant is visi- ble in a few hours, dry and crisp spots appearing on the leaves, and extending more and more, according to the amount of strength of the kerosene mixture. In cloudy weather the effects are less marked, and appear muchlater. Another series of experi- ments was carried on with a view of ascertaining the minimum amount of the oil neces- sary to killthe worms. Pure kerosene, or strong kerosene water, when sprayed upon the worms, has very much the same effect a3 benzine, young worms collapsing at once and dying in less than two minutes. Old worms are not so quickly killed; they do not show any signs of pain, and die without falling into violent convulsions. The effects of diiuted kerosene water on average-sized worms are not instantaneous, as with pyrethrum, but if the worms are not affected within 15 minutes after application they have either not come into contact with the oil, or the mixture was too weak to have any effect. For very young worms, i. e., not over two days old (in the month of Sep- tember), a very weak mixture seems to be sufficient, but with the growth of the worms the resisting power is considerably increased. The mixture of 1 part of the oil to 160 parts of water is not sufficient to kill the average-sized worm, if applied in very fine spray and in moderate quantity; that of 1 part of oil to 120 parts of water is sufficient to kill the worms, but in all cases where I applied this mixture so as to kill the worms the leaves were considerably injured. The improvement made in the atomizing machines, which obviates entirely the danger of clogging, suggests another method to lessen the injurious influence of the kerosene on the plant, viz., by the addition of a quantity of very finely sifted wood ashes to the kerosene water, the 160 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. idea being that the excess of the oil on the surface of the leaves would be taken up by the ashes, and thus prevented from entering into the system of the plant, while at the same time the ashes would not inter- fere with the effect of the oil upon the worms. / The following account of Dr. Neal’s experiments with improved kerae sene emulsions is from his report, published in Bulletin 1 of the En- tomclogical Division : As directed, I have confined my experiments to emulsions of kerosene, and noted the effects of applications of such solutions upon the cotton-plants and Cotton Worms. My efforts were made to determine: 1. Substances best adapted to emulsify kero- sene; 2. Maximum dilution of kerosene destructive to the larve; 3. Minimum dilu- tion of kerosene destructive to the cotton-plants. It was soon apparent that kerosene could not be used to advantage simply with water, from its tendency to collect at the top; nor if the water were made slightly alkaline or acid wonld much benefit be observed. A strong solution of various soaps made a good emulsion, presenting some points of advantage. ; Soda soap, potash soap, whale-oil soap, and other varieties were tried, but a cheap grade of yellow bar-soap, especially one in which rosin was largely used, proved best, and suggested the manufacture of a soap containing a still larger quantity of rosin, which could be cheaply sold for this purpose. After many trials I found that 4 pounds of this soap to 1 gallon of hot water would emulsify 1 gallon kerosene, forming a gelatinous compound that was quite stable. Less than this percentage of soap acted badly with kerosene, and a greater amount did not appear to emulsify a large amount of kerosene. This mixture, containing 50 per cent. kerosene and costing 26 cents per gallon, I adopted as a standard. : I prepared the following dilutions: A. One gallon standard solution to 24 gallons water, 2 per cent. kerosene, cost 1.04 cents per gallon. : B. One gallon standard solution to 39 gallons water, 1.25 per cent. kerosene, cost 0.65 cents per gallon. C. One gallon standard solution to 49 gallons water, 1 per cent. kerosene, cost 0.52 cents per gallon. D. One gallon standard solution to 79 gallons water, 0.625 per cent. ee cost 0.325 cents per gallon. E. One gallon:standard solution to 99 gallons water, 0.5 per cent kerosene, cost 0.26 cents per gallon. Emulsions A, B, and C presented a eons color, and were quite permanent; D and E showed some tendency to disintegrate after four days’ standing. I tried solutions of many native plants, and found the zamia finely adapted for an emulsion, especially when used immediately. Six pounds of zamia ‘‘roots” were washed and grated. The pulp boiled an hour in 3 gallons of water; then strained, and while hot stirred in 4 ounces sal-soda. This emulsified 1 gallon kerosene, forming a beautiful pinkish jelly, containing 25 per cent. kerosene, costing 6 cents per gallon. One gallon of this solution was added to 24 gal- lons of water. This emulsion contained 1 per cent. kerosene, and cost 0.24 cents per gallon. Dextrine, starch, flour, mucilage of bene (sesamum) leaf, mucilage-of root of Pteris aquilina, aud other substances were tried, but proved to be of little value. Milk emulsions.—By gradually adding, with agitation, one gallon kerosene to one gallon fresh milk, an elegant emulsion was formed that bore dilution well, but as fresh milk is often not attainable the condensed milk was used, and the following seemed most easily made: One part condensed milk dilute with five parts water; to this add gradually eight * EXPERIMENTS WITH KEROSENE EMULSIONS. 161 parts kerosene, with vigorous agitation. When the kerosene disappears, add three parts water, and agitate till a homogeneous emulsion is formed. This is more pleasaut to use than soapy solutions, and costs— Cents per gallon. fear sointion, 50 per cent. kerosene ...2.. 6-2 ss cece tenes - cence saclees 22 IEA 1 OT COIN, MOTOSENE: .). vo nde ae ere a ok nisi ose held igi Soe eee sabes 0.88 Paucion 5’, 1.25 per cent. kerosene.........--.-------«+-+ AUD SAAN Ae pe ae 0. 55 Peer E Der GENh. KETOSONE .. .-.. occ. eee ln ee ee eae oae pees sams ee ose 0. 44 Rennes Gros Fler Cent. KOTOSeNe..- 22. 56. o. -- a ene eo ee te ence een 0. 225 Sine oF per vent. kerosene... -4-. 2005.22. 4- 2 ls ce. Sine een ee eee 0. 22 The A’ and B’ were not stable longer than two days; the remaining dilutions barely one day. ‘With the exception of the zamia emulsion, all others were better to use the day of manufacture. ; A mixture called murvite was sent me for trial. It gave similar results to the milk emulsions, when diluted in a corresponding manner. Effects wpon the Cotton-plant.—These varied greatly, owing to the weather subsequent to the application. Emulsions A and B, A’, B’, 14 to 2 per cent. kerosene, didnot harm the cotton-plant if two cloudy or showery days followed their use. A bright sunny day scorched the tips and edges of the tender leaves badly. Emulsions C, D, and E, C’, D’, E’, produced no bad results upon leaves or bolls, and were repeatedly tried, with uniform effects. Effects upon Larvw.—l1. I colonized five hundred full-grown larve upon five cotton- plants, and sprayed them with emulsion A, soap series. In five minutes forty larve | dropped off the plants, trembled, and soon died; in an hour but one hundred re- mained, none feeding, all hanging from the stems and leaves; in three hours but eight survived; the next day all were dead, and the cotton-leaves badly withered. 2. I prepared forty gallons of solution B’, milk, and sprinkled thoroughly one-fourth acre ofcotton. The stalks average 7 feet in height, and the worms were very plentiful. The next day apparently but one in each hundred was living; the day following that the difference was quite marked, and at this time, three weeks afterward, the surrounding cotton is defoliated, the sprinkled section remaining vigorous and green. 3. I colonized one hundred larvz, all ages, on a cotton-plant; sprayed these with solution C’, milk, fifteen worms fell off in twenty minutes; the remainder quit feed- ing. The next morning but two remained, feebly alive. 4. One hundred large larve were colonized and sprayed with solution D’, milk. In ten minutes ten dropped off; in half an hour but thirty-five showed vitality ; in four hours all were dead. ' 5. One hundred larvz, small size, were sprayed with the one per cent. kerosene- zamia emulsion ; all died within an hour. 6. One hundred small larve sprayed with emulsion B, soap, died in one hour. 7, Three hundred large larv#® were sprayed with solution C’, milk. The next day but twelve showed signs of life, and they were evidently moribund. 8. Three hundred large larve were sprayed with the zamia emulsion; all died within four hours, and the repetition of experiment 3 with this solution gave better results than with milk orsoap emulsions, the zamia perhaps contributing some toxic action. _ I repeated these experiments with all the emulsions till satisfied that an emulsion of one per cent. kerosene, thoroughly applied, was fatal to all larve it reached, and harmless to the cotton-plant. I noted that as soon as sprinkled the small larvz stopped eating, straightened, and quickly fell to the ground. Older larve would tremble, evacuate feces, and hang suspended some time. The anal extremity lived longest. The addition of one pound sulphide of potassium to forty gallons of any emulsion seemed to increase the rapidity of its toxic action, but it is objectionable as to smell and its destructive action upon rubber hose. 63 cone——I11 162 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. The sulphides will bear further study. Still, with all these emulsions, their cheapness and safety, I have a grave donbe as to the applicability of any to long-staple cotton. I tried a number of experiments to determine the minimum quantity Recded to thoroughly spray an acre of cotton during August or September. In one very care- fully conducted experiment I found most of the plants averaged 6 feet high, in rows — of 4 feet apart, and 2 feet between the plants in the drill. In this case 160 gallons barely sufficed for one-half an acre, and as it could not be applied from a cart it was hand-carried. Two field hands required four hours to com- plete the experiment. The labor of preparing solutions, and for carrying and using a fountain pump, will prevent small farmers, especially colored people, from trying these remedies. The cost of this experiment was, 160 gallons solution C’, 70 cents; labor, 60 cents, or $2.60 per acre, and with the close margin between profit and expense in cotton- growing, this slight cost will deter many.” We hardly need to add that Dr. Neal’s method of application has been very crude and wasteful. Instead of barely reaching over one- half acre the 160 gallons of diluted emulsion ought to suffice for at least five acres, and his estimates of cost are of course much exaggerated. OIL OF CREOSOTE. This cheap material has lately been recommended to us as an insect- icide, but we have had no opportunity so far totry it on the Cotton Worm. However, the experience we had with it last fall as a remedy for Cabbage Worms (Pieris and Noctuid larve) is by no means encouraging, one tablespoonful of the oil stirred up (after Saunders’ method) in one gal- lon of water not being sufficient to kill the larger worms, while at um Same time the spray ruined young turnip- -plants. OIL OF TAR. This does not appear to differ essentially from the former, its effect on the plant being likewise more violent than that of kerosene. Mr. Schwarz reports the following experiment with this material: No oil of tar could be obtained at Selma, but only a small bottle in which some of the oil had been, a few drops still adhering to the glass. The bottle was filled with water, the contents,shaken up, and then applied to plants and worms by means of the parlor atomizer. I estimate the proportion of the oil to the water to be less than 1 to 300. This mixture proved deadly to every worm, but also scorched the leaves much more than kerosene. Owing to the very small quantity of the oil at hand I could not make any further experiments with still weaker solutions. Since these two oils are not cheaper than kerosene and are inferior as insecticides, they are not likely to come into general use. GAS-TAR WATER. If water is left standing for several days over common gas-tar it be- comes strongly impregnated with the smell of the tar, and the idea occurred to us to utilize such water against the Cotton Worm. Experi- siuesiinesbemndiei diem en om ~— — A mS i ll * eh eneitatian OTHER OILS USED AGAINST THE COTTON WORM. 163 ments made by Mr. Schwarz showed that such water does not injure the plant, and when liberally applied was sufficient to kill the very young worms, but had no effect on the larger worms. . Luthy & Mara’s insect-powder.—This material, manufactured by Luthy & Marx, Philadelphia, might be mentioned in this connection, because one of its ingredients, judging from the smell of the powder, is tar or some allied substance. A box of the powder was sent by the above-named firm to Selma, Ala., in order that it might be tested for the Cotton Worm, and it was applied in dry form as well as stirred up in water, but had no effect, even on the very young worms. It proved equally harmless to the plant. CARBOLIC ACID. The fact that this is so commonly used in the South for the “Screw Worm,” and as a general disinfectant, and that it is not yet employed against Aletia, is fair evidence that it has little value in this connec- . tion. Our own experience in trying it for other worms is that it has little effect on the worms when made weak enough to be harmless to the plant. Mr. Trelease has experimented with it for the Cotton Worm, and we give here his report to Professor Comstock : September 10, a number of gallons of water, containing from a half teaspoonful to a teaspoonful of carbolic acid per gallon, were applied with a fountain pump. This water was stirred so that the acid was suspended through it as very small globules. It was found to kill some caterpillars, but by no means enough to save the cotton; and, used in these proportions, it injured the cotton considerably. COTTON-SEED OIL. Of the various cheap vegetable oils this can be most abundantly and easily obtained in the South, where its manufacture is steadily on the increase. For this reason it recommended itself for experimentation against the Cotton Worm. Like kerosene, it can be emulsified by the aid of milk, but, being heavier than kerosene, the two ingredients mix less readily and separate easier when diluted with water than in the kerosene emulsion. In its action upon the worm it is very similar to kerosene, but a larger proportion of the cotton-seed oil is necessary to kill the average-sized worms, while in its effect upon the plant it is somewhat milder than kerosene. This circumstance renders cotton- seed oil (and, in all probability, all heavy vegetable oils) inferior to kerosene as an insecticide, at least in regard to this Cotton Worm ques- tion, and experiments with it were discontinued as soon as this infe- riority was recognized. It occurred to us that by making a soap by using this oil and the ashes from cotton-seed hulls, which are so gener- ally used for fuel in the manufacture of cotton-seed oil, we might ob- tain a liquid that could be sprayed upon the plant with good effect, thus, on the principle similia similibus curantur, employing the products of the plant itself as an antidote to its worst enemy, these products * oY) 1 \ 164 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. being easily obtainable at nominal cost at all points where cotton-seed oil and cake are being manufactured. The experiments made by Mr. Schwarz certainly show that there is a possibilty of successfully utiliz- ing these materials where they can be abundantly and cheaply obtained. A strong suds from this soap was found to destroy the young worms, — but seems to have little effect on the larger or full-grown ones. In this respect it acted very much as any other strong soapsuds would, and it cannot be said to have any advantage over other saponaceous com- pounds except in the cheapness and abundance of materials at com- mand by planters in the vicinity of cotton-seed oil factories. VEGETABLE INSECTICIDES. PYRETHRUM. HISTORY OF PYRETHRUM.—There are very few data at hand concern- ing the discovery of the insecticide properties of pyrethrum. The pow- der has been in use for many years in Asiatic countries south of the Caucasus Mountains. It was sold ata high price by the inhabitants, who successfully kept its nature a secret until the beginning of this century, when an Armenian merchant, Mr. Jumtikoff, learned that the powder was obtained from the dried and pulverized flower-heads of certain species of Pyrethrum growing abundantly in the mountain region of what is now known as the Russian province of Transcaucasia. The son of Mr. Jumtikoff began the manufacture of the article on a large scale in 1828, after which year the pyrethrum industry steadily grew, until to-day the export of the dried flower-heads represents an important item in the revenue of those countries. Still less seems to be known of the discovery and history of ie Dal- matian species of Pyrethrum (Pyrethrum cineraricefolium), but it is prob- able that its history is very similar to that of the Asiatic species. At the present time the Pyrethrum flowers are considered by far the most valuable product of the soil of Dalmatia. There is also very little information published regarding either the mode of growth or the cultivation of pyrethrum plants in their native home. As to the Caucasian species, we have reason to believe that they are not cultivated, at least not at the present time, statements to the contrary notwithstanding.* The well-known Dr. Gustav Radde, director of the Imperial Museum of Natural History at Tiflis, Transcaucasia, who is the highest living authority on every thing pertaining to the © natural history of that region, wrote us recently as follows: ‘The only species of its genus, Pyrethrum roseum, which gives a good, effective insect powder, is nowhere cultivated, but grows wild in the basal-alpine zone of our mountains at an altitude of from 6,000 to 8,000 feet.” From this it appears that this species at least is not cultivated in its native *Report Comm. Patents for 1857, Agriculture, p. 130. THE CULTIVATION OF PYRETHRUM. 165 home, and Dr. Radde’s statement is corroborated by a communication of Mr. S. M. Hutton, vice-consul-general of the United States at Mos- - cow, Russia, to whom we applied for seed of this species. He writes that his agents were not able to get more than about half a pound of the seed from any one person. From this statement it may be inferred that the seeds have to be gathered from the wild and not from the cul- tivated plants. As to the Dalmatian plant, itis also said to be cultivated in its native home, but we can get no definite information on this score, owing to the fact that the inhabitants are very unwilling to give any information regard- ing a plant the product of which they wish to monopolize. For similar ‘reasons we have found great difficulty in obtaining even small quantities of the seed of P. cinerariefolium that was not baked, or in other ways tampered with, to prevent germination. Indeed, the people are so jeal- ous of their plant that to send the seed out of the country becomes a serious matter, in which life is risked. CULTIVATION OF PYRETHRUM.—The seed of Pyrethrum roseum is ob- tained with less difficulty, at least in small quantities, and it has even become an article of commerce, several nurserymen here, as well as in Europe, advertising it in their catalogues. The species has been suc- cessfully grown as a garden plant for its pale rose or bright pink flower- rays. Mr. Thomas Meehan, of Germantown, Pa., writes us: “I have had a plant of Pyrethrum roseum in my herbaceous garden for many years past, and it holds its own without any care much better than many other things. I should say from this experience that it was a plant which will very easily accommodate itself to culture anywhere in the United States.” Peter Henderson, of New York, another well-known and experienced nurseryman, writes: ‘I have grown the plant and its varieties for ten years. It is of the easiest cultivation, either by seeds or divisions. It, now ramifies into a great variety of all shades, from white to deep crim- son, double and single, perfectly hardy here, and I think likely to be nearly everywhere on this continent.” Dr. Barnard reports that ‘in the garden of the Starling plantation, on Lake Chicot, at Sunny Side, Ark., I found Pyrethrum which had been growing perennially for many years. This is toward the northern limit of the cotton belt and, for the river country, the most northern point of serious in- juries from the Cotton Worm. Since the plant does not freeze out there it will certainly withstand the winter throughout the region of se- rious depredation from the worm.” Dr. James C. Neal, of Archer, Fla., has also successfully grown Pyrethrum rosewm and many varieties thereof, and other correspondents report similar favorable experience. None of them have found any special mode of cultivation necessary. In 1856 Mr. C. Willemot made a serious attempt to introduce and cultivate the plant® on alarge scale in France. As his account of the cultivation of Pyrethrum is the best we know of, we quote here his experience with but few slight omissions: ‘“ The soil best adapted to its culture should be 166 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. composed of a pure ground, somewhat siliceous and dry. Moisture and the presence of clay is injurious, the plant being extremely sensitive to an excess of water, and would in such case immediately perish. A southern exposure is the most favorable. The best time for putting the — seeds in the ground is from March to April. It can be done even in the month of February if the weather will permit it. After the soil has been prepared and the seeds are sown they are covered by a stratum of ground mixed with some vegetable mold, when the roller is slightly ap- plied to it. Every five or six days the watering is to be renewed in order to facilitate the germination. At the end of about thirty or forty days the young plants make their appearance, and as soon as they have gained strength enough they are transplanted at a distance of about six inches from each other. Three months after this operation they are’ transplanted again at a distance of from fourteen to twenty inches, ac- cording to their strength. Each transplantation requires, of course, a new watering, which, however, should only be moderately applied. The blossoming of the Pyrethrum commences the second year, toward the end of May. and continues to the end of September.” Mr. Willemot also states that the plant is very little sensitive to cold, and needs no shelter, even during severe winters. The above quoted directions have reference to the climate of Franee, and as the cultivation of the plant in many parts of North Ameriea is yet an experiment, a great deal of independent judgment must be used. The plants should be treated in the same manner as the ordinary Asters of the garden or other perennial Composite. As to the Dalmatian plant, it is well known that Mr. G. N. Mileo, a native of Dalmatia, has of late years successfully cultivated Pyrethrum cinerariefolium near Stockton, Cal., and the powder from the California- -grown plants, to which Mr. Milco has given the name of “ Buhach,” re- tains all the insecticide qualities and is far superior to most of the im- ported powder, as we know from experience. Mr. Milco gives the fol- lowing advice about planting—advice which applies more particularly to the Pacific ceast: “Prepare a small bed of fine, loose, sandy, loamy soil, slightly mixed with fine manure. Mix the seed with dry sand and sow carefully on top of the bed. Then with a common rake disturb the surface of the ground half an inch in depth. Sprinkle the bed every evening until sprouted; too much water will cause injury. After it is well sprouted, watering twice a week is sufficient. When about a month old weed carefully. They should be transplanted to loamy soil during the rainy season of winter or spring.” Our own experience with Pyrethrum roseum as well as Pyrethrum cinerariefolium in Washington, D. C., has been so far quite satisfactory. We have observed that the seed often lies a long time in the ground before germinating, and that it germinates best when not watered too heavily. We think that the too rapid absorption of moisture often causes the CULTIVATION AND PREPARATION OF PYRETHRUM. 167 seed to burst. prematurely and rot, where slower absorption in a soil only tolerably moist affords the best conditions for germination. The seed of both species sown, whether in the fall of 1880 or in the spring of 1881, germinated tolerably well, though some was evidently worthless when received. A few plants of rosewm from that sown in the fall of 1880, bloomed the ensuing autumn, while all sown in the spring of 1881 bloomed profusely the following summer. Both species withstood the winters very well, and as these were ex- treme winters, the one very severe and cold, the other open and mild, the test may be considered avery thorough one. The older leaves died off, as is the custom with many allied perennial species, but the plants began growing very early in spring and were, in fact, among the vernal adornments of the garden. Roseum began blooming early in May, and showed every variation in color from almost pure white to deep crimson. It also showed considerable variation in the green of the leaves as well as in the form, some plants having the leaves much more finely cut than others. Cineraricfolium which has a much smaller flower, with pure white petals, very strongly resembling the common Ox-eye Daisy, began blooming a month after rosewm had passed its prime. It proved uniform in color, and is always distinguishable from rosewm, even before bloom- ing, by the whitish or glaucous green of the leaf, and its much deeper and broader incisions. | A portion of the flower heads were dried and pulverized, the powder proving to be fully equal in efficacy to the imported article; while the powder from dried stems and leaves is decidedly weaker, but still useful when applied in large quantities.*! PREPARATION OF THE PLANTS FOR USE.—In regard to manufactur- ing the powder, the flower heads should be gathered during fine weather, when they are about to open, or at the time when fertilization takes place, as the essential oil that gives the insecticide qualities reaches, at this time, its greatest development. When the blossoming has ceased the stalks may be cut within about four inches from the ground and util- ized, being ground and mixed with the flowers in the proportion of one- third of their Weight. Great care must be taken not to expose the flow- ers to moisture, or the rays of the sun, or still less to artificial heat. They should be dried under cover and hermetically closed up in sacks or other vessels to prevent untimely pulverization. The finer the flower heads are pulverized the more effectually the powder acts and the more economical is its use. Proper pulverization in large quantities is best done by those who make a business of it and have special mill facilities. Lehn & Fink, of New York, have furnished us with the most satisfac- tory powder. For his own use the farmer can pulverize smaller quan- tities by the simple method of pounding the flowers in a mortar. It is necessary that the mortar be closed, and a piece of leather through which the pestle moves, such as is generally used in pulverizing phar- maceutic substances in a laboratory, will answer. The quantity to be 168 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. — pulverized should not exceed one pound at a time, thus avoiding too high a degree of heat, which would be injurious to the quality of the pow- der. The pulverization being deemed sufficient, the substance is sifted through a silk sieve, and then the remainder, with a new addition of flowers, is put in the mortar and pulverized again. The best vessels for keeping the powder are fruit jars with patent covers, or any other perfectly tight glass vessel or tin box. THE USE OF PYRETHRUM AS AN INSECTICIDE.—Up to a compara- tively recent period the powder was applied to the destruction of those insects only which are troublesome in dwellings, and Mr. C. Willemot seems to have been the first, in the year 1857 (?), to point out its value against insects injurious to agriculture and horticulture. He goes, however, too far in his praise of it, and some of his statements as to its efficacy are evidently not based upon actual experiment. Among others: he proposes the following remedy: “In order to prevent the ravages of the weevil on wheat fields, the powder is mixed with the grain to be sown, in proportion of about ten ounces to about three bushels, which will save a year’s crop.” This is simply ridiculous, as every one who is familiar with the properties of Pyrethrum will under- stand. We have during the past few years largely experimented with it on many species of injurious insects, and fully appreciate its value as a general insecticide, which value has been greatly enhanced by the discovery that it can be most economically used in liquid solu- tion ; but we are far from considering it a universal remedy for all in- sects. Nosuch universal remedy exists, and Pyrethrum has its disad- vantages as has any other insecticide now in use. The following are its more serions disadvantages: (1) the action of the powder, in what- — ever form it may be applied, is not permanent in the open air. If é.g., it is applied to a plant, it immediately affects the insects on that plant with which it comes in contact, but it will prove perfectly harm- less to all insects which come on the plant half an hour (er even less) after the application; (2) the powder acts in the open air—unless, perhaps, applied in very large quantities—only upon actual contact with the insect. If, e.¢., it is applied to the upper side of a cotton leaf the worms that may be on the under side are not affected by it; (3) it has no effect on insect eggs, nor on pupe that are in any way pro- tected or hardened. These disadvantages render Pyrethrum in some respects inferior to arsenical poisons, but, on the other hand, it has the one overshadowing advantage that it is perfectly harmless to plants or to higher animals ; and if the cultivation of the plants in this country should prove a sue- cess, and the price of the powder become low enough, the above men- tioned disadvantages can be overcome, to a certain degree, by repeated applications. It‘is to Prof. E. W. Hilgard, of the University of California, that we rT PYRETHRUM AS USED AGAINST THE COTTON WORM. 169 owe the first accurate determination of the destroying principle in Py- rethrum. He wrote us as follows on this subject: I have had Milco’s product in hand for some time, and have tried it on various bugs both in powder and infusion. To understand the best manner of using it in each — case, it must be kept in mind: 1. That the active substance is a volatile oil. : 2. That said oil, under the influence of air, not only volatilizes, but is also oxidized, and thereby converted into an inert resin. It follows from 1 that the pyrethrum is at a disadvantage when used in the shape of powder in the open air, especially when the wind blows; from 2 that it is of the greatest importance that the substance should be fresh, or should have been kept tightly packed, for the same reason that hops must be similarly treated. Hence I find that Milco’s fresh powder isof greater efficacy than the best imported, although some of the latter contains twice as much matter soluble in ether; but the extract from the ‘‘ buhach” is a clear greenish oil, while that from imported powder, and especially that from ‘‘ Lyon’s magnetic ”—ground-up refuse, stems, &c., as I take it—is dark and thickish, or almost dry and crumbly. The real nature of the effect of this volatile oil on insect life has not yet been studied, and still remains obscure. Different species of insects are differently affected by the powder, but since no other animals are affected so far as we yet know in anything like the same degree, it may be inferred that with insects those organs are affected which are essentially characteristic of them, viz., those connected with respiration. Some insects resist the action of the powder to quite a marked degree, e. g., very hairy caterpillars, and especially spiders of all kinds; while others, especially all Hymenoptera, succumb most readily. Inno case are the insects killed instantaneously by Pyrethrum. They are rendered perfectly helpless a few minutes after the applica- tion, but do not die till some time afterward, the period varying from several hours to two or even three days, according to the species. Many insects that have been treated with Pyrethrum show signs of intense pain, while in others the outward symptoms are much less marked. The effect of Pyrethrum on the Cotton Worm may be described as folloys: The worm becomes uneasy in from 5 to 20 seconds after the application, according to the amount of Pyrethrum applied, and, again, according to the size of the worm. Very shortly afterward it attempts to bite off or to remove the particle or particles of the powder adhering to its body, during which operation a greenish juice emanates from its mouth. Its motions become more and more violent, until at last, within from 4 to 10 minutes, the whole body is thrown into convulsions, the worm having lost all control over itself. These convulsions continue for many hours, the worm getting weaker and weaker until death ensues. Small worms die in about 3 or 4 hours; half-grown ones often not before 24 hours have elapsed. Full-grown worms are not easily affected, and generally recover from the effects of even a pretty strong dose of Pyre- thrum, while very young worms are mos¢ readily affected even by a very : : ; | 170 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. weak dose. If the dose is not strong enough, the convulsions of the we . worm are much less violent, and it recovers fully within a few hours. The action of the poison depends, however, less upon the amount of powder used than upon the part of the body of the worm which it touches, and on the method of applying it. Very small particles placed upon the sides of larve, especially near the anterior spiracles, produce a more marked effect than larger quantities dropped upon their backs or lodged among the hairs. The effect is also enhanced by driving the powder with force against the worms by means of a bellows, for exam- ple, as the particles are thus driven into closer contact. After the preliminary trials made in 1878. and the more extensive ones made in 1879, the encouraging results of which are recorded in the — first edition of this work (pp. 62-64), we had the experiments vig- orously continued by the agents of the Commission in subsequent years, and at various points within the cotton belt. These experiments were made partly with buhach kindly furnished by Mr. G. N. Mileo, of Stock- ton, Cal., partly with imported insect powder made from Pyrethrum roseum, and which had been liberally placed at the disposal of the Com- | mission by Messrs. Lehn & Fink, of New York. There seems to be but little difference in efficacy between these two kinds of powder. To test their relative strength, Mr. H. G. Hubbard made the following experi- ment: ‘¢ Sixty Cotton Worms were collected and divided into two lots as equally as possible, so that neither set should contain an undue propor- tion of old oryoung worms. Each set was placed in a Mason jar, and thoroughly dusted with a small quantity of powder, one jar with the buhach, and the other with the imported pyrethrum. The worms were immediately afterwards turned out upon newspapers spread upon the ground. Those dusted with buhach were paralyzed and unable to erawl about in from 15 to 20 minutes. Those treated with imported pyrethrum were similarly affected in from 25 to 30 minutes. In both ,lots the worms began to be affected. in less than one minute, and nearly all died within 12 hours. Another experiment was made upon 100 worms of all sizes in which the powder (imported) was applied in the open air by means of abellows. Worms one-fifth to one-third grown were completely paralyzed in 10 minutes; worms one-half grown, in 30 to 45 minutes; full-grown worms showed the full effect of the poison after several hours. In about three hours the smaller worms appeared to be dead. The oldest worms did not die before night.” Pyrethrum can be applied—1, as a dry powder; 2, asa fume; 3, as an alocholic extract diluted; 4, by simple stirring of the powder in water; 5, aS a tea or decoction. 1. APPLICATIONS OF PYRETHRUM AS DRY. POWDER.—The following experiments were made by Mr. Hubbard at Centreville, Fla., to ascertain the minimum quantity of the dry powder that could be used with effect _ | PYRETHRUM AS USED AGAINST THE COTTON worm. 171 | upon very young Cotton Worms, the powder experimented with being the Californian buhach:. All the larve experimented with were hatched last night (August 10) from eggs laid in breeding jar during the night of August 7, except larva (m) which was only a few hours from the egg. | (a) Three minute fragments of pyrethrum laid upon back (terminal half of body) with the point of a needle; larvx affected in 15 seconds; convulsed in 1 minute and 15 seconds; died in p. m. (b) One minute fragment applied on back (anterior segments) ; fragment dropped off in 3 minutes; probably only adhered to hairs of body 34 minutes; larva appeared affected but slightly ; after three hours larva appears to have recovered; p. m., went to eating and fully recovered. This is a very vigorous larva, probably several hours older than the rest. (August 12, has grown larger and is eating well.) (c) One almost microscopic fragment applied with needle-point to side near spira- cles; evidently affected in fifteen seconds; convulsed in 1}minutes. Fragment ad- hered 1 minute. Larva died in p. m. (d) One very minute fragment (almost microscopic fragment) applied on side of body near middle. Larva lost sight of during 4 minutes, at end of which time was ‘entirely convulsed. Died in p. m. _ (e) Several (three or four) small fragments applied on side of body; affected in 30 seconds; convulsed after 2 minutes, 15 seconds. Died in p. m. (f) One minute fragment on middle of back; affected in1 minute, 15 seconds; con- vulsed in 3 minutes; fragment dropped off in 3 minutes. Four o’clock p. m., larva recovering; later, went to eating; entirely restored. (August 12, alive andwell.) * (g) One microscopic fragment on back at anal extremity of body and very soon lost off (20 seconds?). Seemed affected after 5 mivutes; examined after 2 hours; seems not injured. In p. m. entirely well—see (g) below. (h) One large fragment (size of ‘‘blow-fly” egg) applied for 5 or 6 seconds to side of body, near or upon spiracles; affected in 2 minutes; convulsed in 4 minutes; 2 hours, unable to move about; 4.30 p. m., still alive but disabled. Died before night. (i) One entirely microscopic fragment applied to back of neck; affected in 14 min- utes; convulsed in 3 minutes; 4.30 p. m., appears recovering. (August 12, larva died this morning.) (k) One entirely microscopic fragment applied underneath anterior segments be- tween legs; adhered only a few seconds; appears affected after 15 minutes, but able to move about; 4.30 p. m., recovering and eating; later, fully recovered. (August 12, alive and well.) Note.—Larve (1) (m) and (n) were treated as follows: A small quantity of pyrethrum placed on a piece of paper was lightly sprayed with an atomizer, and allowed to re- main covered with drops of moisture for about ten minutes. The larve were then touched with a needle dipped in this poisoned dew. (1) A single, very slight, and probably insufficient application beneath anterior seg- ments; no moisture adhered to larva; affected after 1 minute, 15 seconds; 1 hour later appears torpid, but. not convulsed; 4 p.m., recovered and eating. (August 12, alive and well.) (m) Touched with poisoned dew about anterior segments and moisture left upon back of the segment, more thoroughly applied than in preceding larva; affected in 45 sec- onds; convulsed in 2 minutes; 4.30 p.m.,recovered. (August 12, alive and well.) (n) A very young larva, probably hatched late this morning, was allowed to crawl along needle and over a drop of poisoned dew; instantly affected; convulsed in 15 seconds. Diedin p. m. (g) Second experiment with larva (g) madein p.m. One fragment (size of ‘‘ blow- fly ” egg) laid on back, middle of body, not touching the skin, but adhering to hairs; dropped off in 30 seconds; evidently affected in 45 seconds; completely convulsed in 2 minutes. Died in few hours. 172 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. The practical application of such minute quantities in the open field is out of the question, and so is the use of the undiluted powder on a large seale, so long as its price is much higher than that of common flour. Mr. Hubbard contintes: | Experiments in the fields with the dry powder sifted upon the plants gave very unsatisfactory results unlesslarge quantities of the powder were used. On August 28, a very windy day, I tried an application with the bellows, allowing the wind to carry the powder in fine clouds through the foliage, and using about one pound to the acre. In this way, owing partly to the impossibility of securing an equal distribution, some worms were affected at a distance of ten or fifteen feet, while others, much nearer, were not affected at all. I have reason to believe that very few worms were killed outright at this trial. Some recovered in a few hours. A number of those which showed signs of pain, but had been very lightly dusted, I confined in vivaria, and all completed their transformations in the usual time. At the time the fore- going experiment was made the léaves were quite wet with recent rain, and another heavy shower occurred later in the day. Prof. J. P. Stelle carried out, during his ae at Calvert, Texas, simi- lar experiments with the same amount of undiluted powites and with the same unsatisfactory results. Fortunately it has been found that if unadulterated and fresh (which cannot be said in many instances of the powder sold at retail by our druggists) it may be considerably di- luted with other pulverized material without losing its deadly effect, the use of the powder thus becoming much cheaper. Of the materialse which can be used as diluents, common flour seems to be the best, but finely-sifted wood-ashes, sawdust from hard wood, &c.—in short, any light and finely pulverized material which mixes well with the pyre- thrum powder—wiil answer the purpose. It has also been found that if the mixture of Pyrethrum and flour is applied immediately after preparation it is always weaker in effect than when left in a perfectly tight vessel for at least twenty-four hours be- fore use. In the experiments made in 1879 we found that a mixture of one part of Pyrethrum with ten parts of flour, applied immediately after preparing, is sufficient to kill the average-sized worms with which it comes in contact; and that the mixture of one part of the powder to sixteen parts of aye is equally efficient after being kept for some days in a tight glass jar. The experiments made subsequently do not alter these results to any considerable extent. It would be quite superfluous to mention here the experiments made with very strong mixtures of Pyrethrum and flour, since they add nothing new to our experience, and we shall refer rather to those which were made to ascertain the minimum quantity of the powder necessary. The following series of experiments was made at Selma, Ala., by Mr. Schwarz: Experiment 1, August 27.—Pyrethrum powder, one part, mixed with twenty parts of flour, applied with the sieve immediately after preparing. Worms mostly more than half-grown. Only a small proportion of the worms came in contact with the mixture, though it was applied toward evening. These worms were affected within the usual time, but upon examination, about ten hours afterwards, much more than half the number had recovered. The mixture in this elege and applied with the sieve, is evidently a failure. PYRETHRUM AS USED AGAINST THE COTTON woRM. 173 Experiment 2, August 27.—The same mixture applied with the bellows while going slowly between the rows. A large proportion (estimated at two-thirds) of all the worms on the plants were affected, but most of them had recovered the next morning. Experiment 3, August 27.—The same mixture applied with the hand. I had seen this method in use in Texas, where flour and Paris green were used, and convinced myself that it was an excellent and very economical method of applying dry powders to high plants. I found, however, to-day that it requires some practice to distribute the mixture evenly and economically. The result was about the same as in Experi- ment No. 2. The mixture is evidently too weak if applied in moderate quantity. Experiment 4, September 4.—Pyrethrum 1 part, mixed with 10 parts of flour, applied immediately after preparing, by means of the bellows. Comparatively few worms on the plants, and no very young ones. Again, about two-thirds of the worms affected, of which none or very few recovered. This mixture is evidently strong enough to kill all the worms with which it comes in contact, though it was distributed in small] quantity. Experiment 5, September 4.—Pyrethrum 1 part, mixed with 15 parts of flour, applied with the bellows, in part thickly, i. e., walking very slowly and using the bellows freely, and in part very slightly applied. In the former case the mixture is as efficient as that mentioned in Experiment 4, about two-thirds of the worms being killed; in the latter case a great proportion of the worms recovered. Experiment 6, September 5.—Finely-sifted wood-ashes were substituted for the flour; ratio, 1 part pyrethrum to 10 parts of ashes. Applied with the bellows. Effect the same asin Experiment 4. The mixtureis much lighter than flour, and spreads more, but for this reason is not useful in windy weather; moreover, the preparation of the wood-ashes is somewhat troublesome, as they must be sifted through a very fine sieve. Experiment 7, September 21.—Finely-sifted prairie soil was substituted for the flour; 1 part of pyrethrum to 10 parts of soil. The mixture could not be applied by means of the bellows, as it is too heavy; neither can it be applied by means of the sieve, as the -two materials separate at once, the powder coming to the surface. It was finally applied by throwing it with the hand, but it is evident that even then it is inferior to flour and ashes, owing to its weight, which prevents its spreading and flying about like the much fiser and lighter flour. Otherwise,the mixture acts as powerfully as that of pyrethrum and flour mixed at the same rate. Experiment 8, September 21.—The same mixture as in experiment No. 1 applied after it was left standing in a tight glass jar ever since August 27. Applied in moderate quantity by meaus of the bellows. Worms very plentiful and mostly small. Again, about two-thirds of the worms were affected, of which only a small proportion, if any, recovered. The mixture isevidently by far stronger now than when freshly prepared, and would undoubtedly be strong enough for average-sized worms. Experiment 9, September 26.—A small remnant of the mixture used in experiment No.8, which had been diluted, September 21, with about one-half the amount of flour, was applied by means of the bellows. Worms very plentiful, and of al! sizes. When applied thickly the mixture still kills the small worms; the larger ones that were afiected had, with few exceptions, all recovered the next day. When applied slightly, even a portion of the smaller ones recovered; very small worms were, however, still destroyed. N. B.—Full-grown worms are not taken into consideration in these experiments, as they usually recover, unless they get a very large dose of the mixture. A numberof trials in and out doors proved that for newly-hatched worms a mixture of one part of pyrethrum to 20 parts of flour applied slightly and immediately after preparing is- amply sufficient. In these experiments, I used both the Californian buhach and im- ported insect powder (furnished to the Commission by Messrs. Lehn & Fink), with- out noticing any difference in efficacy between the two. Prof. R. W. Jones obtained very similar results. He writes, ‘“ One part of Pyrethrum to 20 parts of wheat flour, thoroughly mixed and ~~ 174 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. shut up in a tight tin box for 24hours. This, blown by bellows, proved iv very efficient in destroying Aletia larve which it touched.” While it isthus proved that one part of Pyrethrum mixed with ten parts of flour and applied immediately after preparing, or the same amount of Pyrethrum to twenty parts of powder, applied after being kept in a tight vessel for some time, is sufficient to kill the average-sized worms, the problem yet remained to apply this mixture so that it would touch all worms on the plants. That this cannot be accomplished by an application from above is apparent from the habits of the older worms to hide, during the day, on the under side of the leaves, and even if ap- pled at night the mixture would, under the most favorable circum- stances, be but partially successful, as the young worms, which do not come at all to the upper surface of the leaves, would not be killed. Ap- plication from below is therefore imperative to insure success, and suit- able machines for this purpose will be described farther on. In the year 1880 we estimated that it would require one and three-quarter pounds of Pyrethrum powder to go over an acre of cotton of medium height when mixed with 20 pounds of flour. With theimproved appliances the amount per acre will probably be reduced to less than one pound. The price, when the first edition of this work was published, averaged 75 cents per pound, but is much lower at the present writing.” 2. APPLICATION OF PYRETHRUM IN FUMES.—Whatever advantages — this method may have in a closed room it is evidently impracticable on a large scale in the field, and consequently no experiments have been made. : 3. ALCOHOLIC EXTRACT OF PYRETHRUM.—The not inconsiderable differences in the results obtained by the agents of the Commission while experimenting with extracts are principally due to the fact that the extracts can be obtained in various ways and of varying strength. A good extract may be obtained either by distillation or by the reperco- Jation process. Which of the two methods is preferable it is difficult to say. The former seems, however, to more thoroughly extract the oil than the latter; but in both kinds of extract the residuum of the powder may be kept in suspension so that no particle of the strength of the pow- der is lost. The extract by distillation is easily obtained by taking a flask fitted with a cork and a long and vertical glasstube. Into this flask the alcohol and pyrethrum are introduced and heated over a steam tank or other moderate heat. The distillate, condensing in the vertical tube, runs back, and at the end of an hour or two the alcohol may be drained off, and the extract is ready for use. Prof. E. A. Smith, of Tuscaloosa, Ala., found during the year 1879 that the extract thus obtained, if diluted with water at the rate of one part of the extract to 15 of water, and sprayed on the leaves, kills the worms that have come in contact with the solution in a few minutes. The mixture in the proportion of 1 part of the extract to 20 parts of water OE Crt Si ite c THE ALCOHOLIC EXTRACT OF PYRETHRUM. 175 was equally efficacious, and even at the rate of 1 to 40 it killed two- thirds of the worms upon which it was sprayed in'15 or 20 minutes, and the remainder were subsequently disabled. In still weaker solu- tion, or at the rate of 1 to 50, it loses in efficacy, but still kills some of the worms and disables others. Professor Jones, of Oxford, Miss., reports his method of preparing the extract, and the results of his experiments, made in 1880, as fol- lows: In all my first preparations I proceeded as follows : I intreduced into a glass flask about 4 ounces of insect-powder, and added about half a gallon of aleohol; corked, and allowed to stand for 24 hours, Ithen perforated the cork and introduced a glass tube, one-fourth of an inch in diameter and 36 inches long; then subjected the flask to the well regulated heat of a water-bath, not allowing the temperature to reach the boiling point of alcohol. I usually applied this gentle heat for about 5 hours; then set aside to cool. At first I decanted the extract from the residue, and, betore using, diluted with water, as shown in the experiments mentioned farther on. Subsequently I shook up the solid residue of the insect-powder with the extract, and diluted the whole with water, and in applying kept the solid matter suspended by agitation. I found the latter plan economical. The residue, being wet with alcobol, readily spreads througheut the water, and evidently adds something to the value of the extract. I have never seen any statement or suggestion in regard to the use of wood-spirit as the menstruum. It occurred to me to try it. I found it to be a quicker solvent of the essential oil and coloring matter of pyrethrum powder than common 95 per cent. alcohol. I find that 1 pint and 2 ounces (by measure) of wood-spirit will ex- tract all the useful material out of an ounce of pyrethrum. Good wood-spirit can be bought for $1.25 per gallon. The extract made with wood-spirit will bear dilution with a somewhat larger quantity of water than the extract made with ethyl alcohol. On this. point I state my results thus: One pound pyrethrum powder to 20 pints (23 gallons) wood-spirit ; this can be safely diluted in the earlier part of the season, when the worms are small, with 40 parts of water; hence, 1 pound pyrethrum and 24 gallons methyl alcohol will, when diluted, make 100 gallons of liquid for the destruction of insects. Allowing 40 gal- lons to the acre, the cost of this insecticide would be $1.50 ; with improved atomizers this will be lessened. Wood-spirit is more volatile than ethyl alcohol. This, I think, gives it consider- able advantage over ethyl alcohol as the solvent for the essential oil of the pyrethrum, when the extract is to be used for Boll Worms that are working on the contents of the bolls. By its ready volatilization it distributes the insecticide rapidly into the adjacent air, and when not directly thrown into the hole cut by the Boll Worm it is carried into the chamber by rapid diffusion, and, affecting the worm, causes it to come forth from its concealment upon the moistened parts of the plants, where by the contact of the liquid it is poisoned to death. The extract made with ethyl alcohol is also volatile, and produces this same effect, though in a Jess degree, to the extent that its volatility is less than that of methylalcohol. The extractive power of methyl alcohol on pyrethrum is so great that it is hardly necessary to apply any heat. The alcohol may be allowed to stand 24 hours on the powder, being shaken up a few times, and then the whole, both the extract and solid residue, may be mixed with water, so as to give 100 gallons to the pound of pyrethrum. I found that the use of the liquid is much to be preferred to the powder. It reaches all parts of the plant better, it is more easily handled, and it kills quicker. » Co) ce a | be tos Another series of trials with the extract obtained by repercolation was carried on by Mr. Schwarz, at Selma, Ala., in 1880. Hereports as — tollows: The extract I used was prepared by Messrs. Wilkins & Brooks, druggists, at Selma, — from imported insect-powder, by the repercolation process as prescribed in the Ameri- can Pharmacopeia. From 1 pound of the powder 1 pint of extract was obtained, 1 drop of the extract thus representing 1 grain of the powder. The extract is a dark-brown fluid, with but a very small amount of sediment, which is very easily shaken up and does not interfere in the least with applying the fluid through very small orifices. The actual cost of preparing the extract was 50 cents. The residuum ot the powder from which the extract was made was tried several weeks afterwards and did not seem to have lost much of its strength, as upon application with the in- sect-gun a number of pea-weevils, which were just at hand, were immediately affected. It is thus quite possible that another pint of extract of the same strength as the first could have been obtained from the same pound of powder. This must be taken in account in the results obtained by my experiments. The extract was diluted with water, and by a series of trials I found that 10 drams of the extract to 2 gallons of water, when applied with the fountain-pump or atomizer, is sufficient to kill the average-sized worms which come in contact with the fluid. Full-grown worms mostly recover, while very young worms are fatally affected by a moderate application of a mixture of 4 drams of the extract to 2 gallons of water. * The mixture of 10 drams of extract to 2 gallons of water was applied by means of the fountain-pump from above as well as from the side. There were plenty of worms mostly below average size on the plants. In the application from above, i. e., imi- tating the common sprinkling arrangements, the liquid was very liberally used, the upper side of the leaves being entirely wet. Very many worms were affected and killed by the liquid, but a large proportion were not reached by the spray, and the application did not protect the plants, for they were denuded of leaves in the same time as those not experimented with. ‘The same mixture was applied from the side with the fountain-pump, the liquid being also used freely at a rate which I estimated at from 60 to 70 gallons per acre, great care being taken to apply the liquid to every part of the plants. Upon examination about 14 hours afterwards only a few large worms were found on the plants, all the others being dead or dying. Numerous trials proved that the same mixture, when applied in the mist-like spray of a parlor-ato- mizer, is fully sufficient to kill the worms, the amount of the liquid necessary being very small. A mixture of 8 drams of the extract to 2 gallons of water was thoroughly applied toa number of plants by means of the fountain-pump. All worms on the plants were affected within the ‘usual time, but 16 hours afterwards a considerable portion of the larger worms had recovered, and were again feeding. My experiments would thus show that 1 pint of the extract (which is equal to 1 pound of powder) could only be diluted with about 26 gallons of water, or barely sufficient to go over one acre of cotton. This would be a rather unfavorable result, considering that to the cost of the powder that of making the extract has to'be added; but, as above stated, the extract I used was far from being a perfect one, or else better results would have been obtained. Although the results obtained by Professor Jones and Mr. Schwarz do not accord with each other—a divergence which is easily ex- plained, however, by the different extracts employed—they show suffi- ciently that the extract can be used more economically than the pow- der, a result which could not have been anticipated from the experi- ments made in 1879. Professor Jones estimates that 1 pound of powder converted into extract is sufficient to give 100 gallons of liquid, while earir het « mn mien, we (ee a 176 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. | PYRETHRUM AS USED AGAINST THE COTTON WORM. Wy by 7 Ee. oie calculates 1 pint of extract, or 1 pound of powder, to each 26 gallons of water; but his extract oaste only 50 cents in addition to the cost of the powder, while that of Professor Jones costs about$ 3.15 in addition to the powder. Allowing 75 cents for 1 pound of Pyrethrum and 20 gallons (with the improved atomizing machines) of fluid per acre of cotton, we arrive at a cost of 78 cents for Professor Jones’s ex- tract, made by distillation, and 96 cents for Mr. Schwarz’s extract, made by repercolation. Taking into account that Mr. Schwarz’s extract was not a very strong one, the real cost of the application will be nearer the former figure. Further experiments will no doubt lessen the cost of making a perfect extract, but considering the high price of the alcohol necessary to its preparation, Pyrethrum, in the form of alcoholic ex- tract, will remain a somewhat expensive remedy. On the other hand the extract is extremely convenient to handle, and can be kept for an indefinite length of time without losing its efficacy. 5. PYRETHRUM IN SIMPLE WATER SOLUTION.— That a portion of the - volatile oil contained in Pyrethrum is soluble in water, was made known in 1879 by Professor Hilgard; but that the powder simply stirred up in water would prove a most satisfactory and economical method of appli- cation was a most encouraging discovery that resulted from the experi- ments made at Selma in 1880. The powder is most readily stirred up -in water, and the slightest disturbance or irregular movement of the ves- sel containing themixture is sufficient to keep the particles in suspension, owing to the very light nature of the powder. This is an important point, since it has been proved by experiment that the mixture, if applied after the powder particles have settled to the bottom, is less efficacious than when kept stirred up. Itis also advisable to apply the mixture immediately or at least soon after preparing it, as it gradually loses its strength, even.if kept in a tight vessel. We had intrusted Mr. Schwarz, during his stay at Selma, Ala., with conducting experiments with Pyrethrum-water, and he reported a fol- lows: : As I was not prepared to find this method of applying pyrethrum so efficient and economical as it proved to be, I carried on a number of experiments with a much larger proportion of the powder than I found finally to be sufficient to kill the worms. The enumeration of these preliminary experiments, in which I was constantly lower- ing the proportion of pyrethrum, is therefore omitted as superfluous. After many trials I found that 200 grains of powder, stirred up in 2 gallons of water, are sufficient to kill all worms which are brought in contact with the fluid, only some of the full-grown ones recovering; that if a weaker mixture is used a portion of the average-sized worms recover ; and that very young worms are fatally affected by a mixture of 100 grains of powder to 2 gallons of water. With the mixture of 200 grains of powder to 2 gallons of water, the following four experiments were carried on by myself and Mr. Hubbard, in the latter part of September, and each repeated several times, so that but tittle doubt can be had re- garding the correctness of the results. There were plenty of worms on the plants at the time. Experiment 1.—Two gallons of the liquid applied by means of the fountain pump from above, thus imitating the action of any of the sprinklers now innse. The liquid 63 CONG 12 178 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL ‘COMMISSION. was applied freely, the upper surface of the leaves so far as they were not vations % by others above them being pretty thoroughly wetted. Results far from being sat- — isfactory. A large number of worms were affected and killed, but a far greater © proportion did not come in contact with the fluid, and were consequently not affected. Experiment 2.—The liquid was again applied by means of the fountain pump, but from one side. In this case the jets strike the leaves and branches with considerable force, and the liquid is consequently much more scattered than in the application from above. The result was that by far the largest portion of the worms were affected and killed, but there remained enough on the plants to do serious injury. Experiment 3.—The liquid applied as in the foregoing experiment, but from the two opposite sides. Two corners of the field were treated in this way. Result: The plants were effectually freed from the worms, and only a very few full-grown ones were found about twelve hours afterwards. I must state, however, that the amount of liquid used in this mixture was very large, estimated at the rate of not less than 80 gallons per acre. Experiment 4.—The liquid applied by means of the parlor atomizer. This could nat- . urally be carried on only on a very small scale, but was often repeated. The result I can draw from this experiment is that the very fine, mist-like spray of the atomizer is most effective, and even more so than a coarse and copious spray. One pound of Pyrethrum, if used at the rate mentioned in these ex- periments, viz., 200 grains of the powder to 2 gallons of water, could thus be diluted with 75 gallons of water, which would be sufficient for 24 acres of cotton, calculating 30 gallons per acre. The cost of this ap- plication (not counting in labor and machinery), consists only in that of the powder, and putting this down at 75 cents per pound, we arrive at the amount of 30 cents peracre of cotton. Itmust further be considered that 30 gallons of liquid per acre, applied with the improved atomizers, is a liberal allowance, and that, therefore, the cost of the application can in all probability still.be lowered considerably without loss in efficacy. At any rate, this method of applying Pyrethrum is by far cheaper and simpler than any other at present known to us. It is of course not free from the principal drawback of Pyrethrum as an insec- _ticide, and a repeated application is necessary to protect the cotton from one generation. of worms. But even this double application is cheaper than the dry Paris-green remedy, as carried on by the sifting method. 5. THE TEA OR DECOCTION OF PYRETHRUM. —Professor Hilgard, who first called our attention to this method of using Pyrethrum, ex- presses himself most favorably as to the results of this experiment. He says: I think, from my experiments, that the tea or infusion prepared from the flowers (which need not be ground up for the purpose) is the most convenient and efficacious form of using this insecticide in the open air; provided that it is used at times when the water will not evaporate too rapidly, and that it is applied, not by pouring over in a stream, or even in drops, but in the form of a spray from a syringe with fine holes in its rosé. In this case the fluid will reach the insect despite of its water-shedding sur- faces, hairs, &c , and stay leng enough to kill. Thus applied, I have found it to be efficient even against the armored scale-bug of the orange and lemon, which falls off in the course of two or three days after the application, while the young brood is almost instantly destroyed. As the flower tea, unlike whale soap and other washes, leaves the leaves perfectly clean and does not injure even the most tender growth, it ey : eae RELATIVE EFFECT OF PYRETHRUM ON DIFFERENT INSECTS. 179 is preferable on that score alone; and in the future it can hardly fail also to be the cheaper of the two. This is the more likely, as the tea made of the leaves and stems has similar, although considerably weaker, effects; andif the farmer or fruit-grower were to grow the plants, he would save all the expense of harvesting and grinding the flower-heads by simply using the header, curing the upper stems, leaves, and - flower-heads alltogether, as he would hops, making the tea of this material by the hogshead, and distributing it from a cart through a syringe. It should be diligently kept in mind that the least amount of boiling will seriously injure the strength of this tea, which should be made with briskly boiling water, but then simply covered over closely, so as to allow of as little evaporation as possible. The details of its most economical and effectual use on the large scale remains, of course, to be worked out by practice. Having no sufficient supply of flower-heads at our disposal we have been unable so far to repeat these experiménts. Mr. Hubbard made an. infusion by pouring hot, not boiling ‘water upon the powder, but found it ineffective and quite worthless, and we have had similar re- sults with the decoction of the powder. The wet application of Pyrethrum, in whatever form it may finally prove most convenient, is unquestionably superior to its application in powder form, the former being by far more economical and, with the improved appliances, enabling us the better to reach all the worms. EFFECT OF PYRETHRUM UPON OTHER INSECTS.—While arsenical poisons directly ** affect only those insects which feed on the leaves of the cotton plant, or, in other words, only the enemies of the plant, Py- rethrum affects all insects that happen to be on the plants at the time | of the application. Since among these are great numbers of some of the most efficient enemies of the worm, it is not without interest to record here such observations as have been made incidentally in regard to the effect of Pyrethrum on other insects besides Aletia, even if they include some that have no connection with the cotton plant. Mr. Hub- bard reports as follows: - Tried upon different insects, pyrethrum appears to affect the higher Hymenoptera more than other insects. Ants are almost instantly affected. Wasps continue feed- ing for about 20 seconds, and are violently affected in from 1 to2 minutes. Larve of all kinds are more quickly affected than imagos. Termites, owing probably to their tender bodies, are instantly affected and soon killed. Spiders resist longer than any- thing else. They sometimes change their skins when dusted with the powder. Copris and Phaneus are slightly affected and long resist the action of the powder. Scolo- pendride affected similarly to spiders. Bugs slightly affected, especially the large and heavily armed predaceous species. Roaches very violently affected. These ob- servations refer to the immediate action of the dry and undiluted powder, and are comparative only. Mr. Schwarz records the following observations on this point: A thorough application of my alcoholic extract (10 drams to 2 gallons of water), and of my pyrethrum-water (200 grains of powder to 2 gallons of water), affected other insects as follows: They had no visible effect on all spiders, without exception, on the larvze of Lagoa sp., Hyperchiria io, Acronycta oblinita, and Ecpantheria scribonia ; they affected, but not fatally, the common Black Cricket, the various species of grass- hoppers and their larve, the ground-beetles so common under the fallen leaves at the base of the plants (Anisodactylus rusticus, Platynus punctiformis and P. maculicollis), 180 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. various Ladybirds, and large Chrysomelide. Fatally affected were all Hymenopter- : ous insects, all Heteroptera and Homoptera (no opportunity, however, to try on Aphids) ; several species of naked Noctuid larve, Callida decora, Coptocycla aurichalcea and its larvee, Monocrepidius lividus and M. vespertinus, Ladybird larve, larve of Chry- sopa, Hemerobius and Syrphus. Of all these insects the ants are by far most readily affected. The mixtures hardly affected Pieris larve, and not at all those of Terias nicippe. It cannot be denied that this promiscuous destruction of friend and foe alike is a disadvantage, but all observers agree that the Cotton Worm is one of the first insects to succumb to the effects of the powder. When, in 1879, we began to experiment: with Pyrethrum in the field, _ there was little hope of successfully applying this expeasive material on a large scale, but we haye seen that even at the high price of 75 cents per pound the powder can be successfully used in the field at a cost not exceeding that of the dry Paris green method, and against an insect. which is remarkably well protected by its habits and by the large size ofthe plants upon which it depredates. That the price of Pyrethrum can and will be considerably lowered admits of no doubt. Mr. Mileo, of Stockton, Cal., wrote us in 1879 that the cost of production, milling, _ &e., on a large scale need not exceed 6 to 7 cents per pound. ‘The seed of Pyrethrum roseum and P. cinerariefolium was, in 1880, distributed by the U. 8S. Entomological Commission, while another supply of seed was - sent out in 18381 and 1882 to parties all over the country by the Depart- ment of Agriculture, accompanied by a circular containing all.available information regarding the. cultivation and use of the plant. Though many failures have been reported, the plants have grown well in other case’, and it can hardly be doubted that the cultivation of pyrethrum will prove a success in many portions of the Eastern States, and that the market price of the powder will be lowered in a future not very far remote. That the farmer or planter is able to raise his own supply of powder is an important point not only in regard to cheapness of the ma- terial, but also as a protection against adulteration, which is the more dangerous in this case as the adulterated article cannot be distinguished from the genuine one except by continued experimentation. EXPERIMENTS WITH THE POWDER FROM OX-EYE DAISY. In the summer of 1880 Mr. William Saunders, of the Department of © Agriculture, called our attention to the possibility of discovering in one of our most common plants, the well known Ox-eye daisy, insecticide properties similar to those possessed by Pyrethrum. He wrote us as follows: ‘‘On running over the pages of your Bulletin on the Cotton Worm I notice that you have something to say about pyrethrum pow- . — der, which reminds me that Dalmatian Insect Powder is, according to some authorities, made from the Leucanthemum vulgare, our Ox-eye- daisy. In Europe it is called Chrysanthemum leucanthemum. Could we not so utilize that vile weed? I think the subject is worthy of experi- ment.” When perfectly dry these were finely ground, and we obtained \ - a » ae iL v Ag 2 - $XPERIMENTS WITH OTHER EXTRACTS AND DECOcTIoNS. 181 a powder so alike in color and smell to Pyrethrum powder that the two could not readily be distinguished. But however great this external resemblance, the two differed widely in efficacy as insecticides. Dr. Barnard, who, while still in Ithaca, New York, made some preliminary trials with the alcoholic extract from the fresh or half dried flower heads, wrote: | “JT have no evidence that the extract will prove of any practical value, after having atomized it on to many specimens of larval po- _tato-beetles, aphides, young grasshoppers, Mamestra peu Pieris rape, and other caterpillars.” As to the experiments with the dry powder, Mr. Schwarz reports as follows: ‘‘ Ox-eye daisy powder was repeatedly applied to Cotton Worms in the earlier part of October in the following forms: Ist, as dry pow- der, mixed with flour, and undiluted; 2d, stirred up in water; 3d, as alcoholic extract (made by repercolation) diluted with water and undi- luted; 4th, as tea; 5th, as afume. In no instance even the slightest effect on young or old worms was observed, though powder and fluids were applied in large quantities and undiluted. The experiments were all conducted with a view to ascertain the effect of the powder on the worms by actual contact, and not by acting through the stomach. I am also not prepared to say whether or not this powder has any effect on other insects; but there can be no doubt that if applied like pyre- thrum, it is utterly worthless as a remedy for the Cotton Worm.” . Other experiments with infusions and decoctions made from the fresh and dried flower heads and other parts of the plant, gave no better re- sults, and every hope of obtaining in this plant a substitute for py- rethrum had to be abandoned. EXTRACTS AND DECOCTIONS FROM VARIOUS PLANTS. That there are plants which contain volatile oils similar in effect to that possessed by Pyrethrum, admits of little doubt. Professor Barnard extracted from bitter Almonds an oil which, upon experimentation, proved to be equal or even superior to pyrethrum powder. However, this oilis so expensive that no further experiments were made with it. The vapor exhaled from the husk of certain South American nuts is so strong as to be dangerous even to man, but we were not able to pro- cure such to ascertain their effect upon insect lite. The method prac- ticed by European entomologists of killing microlepidoptera and other delicate insects by the vapor emitted by laurel leaves also deserves men- tion here. But few of our insecticides are, so far, drawn from the vegetable kingdom, the most important of them being tobacco, hellebore, and py- rethrum; but there is a wide field in this direction for investigation. The task of discovering among the multitude of plants such as may possess insecticide properties is a difficult one, since we have little to 5 » 182 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. — be ; ~ guide us., Plants that are poisonous to man and the higheranimalsare __ usually harmless to insects; others may possess insecticide qualities only at a certain season or only when they are dried or otherwise pre- pared ; in still other plants only one part, e. g., the flower or the root, may prove useful, perhaps only at a certain stage of development, and the rest worthless. Hence experiment in this direction must be more or less tentative, and practical results will follow only, if at all, the most extensive trials. Other difficulties also present themselves. Two observers, while experimenting with the same material, with the same instruments, and under precisely similar conditions, often report vary- ing results; or the same observer after a favorable result in the first trial obtains a quite different result in subsequent trials. In the case of the Cotton Worm, with its rapid development, there is, also, great risk of drawing false conclusions, the most frequent cause being the appar- — ent sudden disappearance of the worms, or at least of a large portien of them, after the application of the “‘remedy.”. The worms may have simply changed to chrysalides or may have been carried away by enemies. Again, the presence of a number of dead worms upon and under the plants is often misleading, as such worms may have been killed by their numerous enemies. Finally, very young worms, or such as are just in the act of molting, are often killed by the mere force of a spray thrown upon them, while others that have fallen to the ground, and are more or less covered with soil, exhaust themselves in Hien _frantic efforts to get rid of the Pa ee In this connection, also, it must be remembered that experiments made indoors are without practical value unless confirmed by repeated | experiments in the field. j The plants with which we have experimented are partly such as were recommended by correspondents as being efficient for the Cotton Worm or other insects;* partly such as from their immunity from insect at- _ tacks might be presumed to possess insecticide properties. Prevalence and cheapness being desiderata in any plant that might prove to have destructive qualities, many of the weeds that by their abundance, per- © sistency, and power of adaptation are so obnoxious to agriculture in the South were tested. In order to test such plants thoroughly they should be used both fresh and dry, and in flower, fruit, leaf, and root. Thisis a work of considerable magnitude which cannot possibly be accomplished in one or two seasons, and for the purpose of this investigation we _ deemed it advisable, with few exceptions, to first try alcoholic extracts and decoctions, mostly made from the fresh plants, leaving for the future more complete experiments with such as give promise of success. While the results thus far obtained-seem discouraging, considering the outlay in money and time, and while in no case was the effect upon the worms such as would warrant the recommendation of any of these plants for * A few of these plants could not be recognized from the popular name given by the correspondent, ; and could, therefore, not be tested. ; EXPERIMENTS WITH DifFERENT EXTRACTS AND DECOCTIONS. 183 the purpose intended, yet we are not without hope that some of them will ultimately prove valuable additions to the list of insecticides from the vegetable kingdom. No uniformity in preparing the extracts and decoctions was required from the agents of the Commission, as we deemed it best to have them prepared in different ways and in various proportions. This may ex- plain, in some measure, the discrepancy in the results obtained. Mr. James Roane prepared during his stay at Selma a large number of extracts, decoctions, and infusions, reporting as follows in regard to their preparation: ‘“‘ My infusions and decoctions are made in various _ degrees of concentration, while the alcoholic extracts (prepared by macerating the crude drugs in one part of pure alcohol and one part water for fifty hours and then subjecting them to a strong pressure in a screw press) have been made of uniform strength—of the green leaves four ounces being taken to the pint; of the dried, twoounces. In all of _ my preparations I have used the leaves and herbal parts of the plant, ex- cepting the bark of the root of sassafras and the berries of the China tree. The decoctions and infusions have been made in quantities rang- ing from two quarts to a gallon and the alcoholic extract invariably a pint.” These preparations, amounting in all to forty-eight, were tested at Selma, Ala., during the months of July, August, and September, by Mr. Schwarz. Professor Jones prepared at Oxford a smaller number of vegetable extracts and decoctions, mostly from the same species of plants used by Mr. Roane, the preparations being made in various degrees of strength, the plants or parts of the plant being first carefully dried in the shade. He tested them himself at Oxford on the Cotton Worm as well as on other injurious insects, and sent also a supply for experi- mentation to Selma, Ala. Professor Jones’s decoctions were made in large quantities, so that they could be used on an extensive scale. Similar experiments were conducted by Dr. Barnard, at Ithaca, N. Y., with a small series of extracts prepared by him. As hehad no Cotton Worms at hand he tested his preparations on various other insects, but he forwarded samples to Selma, Ala., where they were also tested on the Cotton Worm. Finally, Professor Stelle briefly gives in his report the results of a few experiments with vegetable preparations made during his stay in Texas, while a few other experiments made by Mr. Schwarz, in 1879, have al- ready been recorded in the first edition of this work. The effects of these substances on the Cotton Worm may be threefold first, they may kill it by contact; secondly, they may, like the mineral poisons, act through the stomach; thirdly, they may render the leaves of the plant so distasteful to the worms as to drive these from the plant. Effect upon contact is easily observable even where not fatal. It usually takes place very soon after application, and it may safely be 184 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. assumed that if there is no effect observable about one hour after ap- : _ plication, the substance is innocuous. A general disturbance of the — worms immediately follows the application of any substance, however harmless, and should not be taken in account. Effect through the — stomach is not visible until after at least twenty-four hours, and in some instances not until the second or even the third day after application, as the worms (prompted no doubt by instinct) do not feed upon a sub- stance injurious to them until they get hungry. As to the third point, » almost any strange substance thrown or sprayed on the leaves stops the worms from eating for a shorter or longer period, and observations as to the final result must, therefore, be extended over several days. A fourth point, viz., the pasenhie influence of such apphean on the ovipo- sition of the moth has already been referred to. The following list of plants experimented with is given without any systematic arrangement. If no effect on the worms was obtained by several independent experimenters, we have simply added ‘‘no result.” Otherwise the results obtained by the individual observers are given in condensed form, with the name of the observer added in brackets. AILANTHUS TREE (‘“ Tree of. heaven,” Ailanthus dba Decoc- | tion and infusion of leaves. No result.*4 JAMESTOWN WEED (Datura stramonium). Alcoholic extract from dried . and ground seed. No result. [R. W. Jones.] Alcoholic extract and de- coction from leaves. No result. [E. A. Schwarz.] BONESET (Eupatorium perfoliatum). “ Powdered leaves applied to the plant seemed obnoxious to the worms.” [J. P. Stelle.] Infusion from leaves. Nosuccess. [H. A. Schwarz. ] DoG FENNEL (Helenium tenuifolium and autumnale). “This plant, of — which I entertained considerable hopes, will render the cotton plant so obnoxious that the worms won’t feed upon it, but it won’t kill the | worms.” |J.P. Stelle.] Decoction, infusion, and alcoholic extract. No result. [R. W. Jones and K. A. Schwarz.] Flower heads dried and powdered. No result. [K. A. Schwarz.]*° COCKLEBUR (Xanthium strumarium). Alcoholic extract and decoc- tion. Noresult. [E. A. Schwarz.] | BUCKEYE (Zsculus glabra). Alcoholic extract from fruits. No result. [R. W. Jones.] Alcoholic extract and decoction of leaves. No result. [E. A. Schwarz. | RAG WEED (Ambrosia trifida). Decoction, infusion, and alcoholic ex- tract. No result. | Hoe WEED (Ambrosia artemisiefolia). Alcoholic extract and decoc- tion. Noresult. [E. A. Schwarz.] INDIGO WEED (Buptisia tinctoria). Alcoholic extract and decoction. No result. [H. A. Schwarz.| DEADLY NIGHTSHADE (Atropa beliadonna). Decoction and alcoholic extract of leaves. No result. [E. A. Schwarz.| ToBacco (Nicotiana tabacum). ‘Strong decoction of dry leaves freely tye Ca Mmiar \ °. ~ - EXTRACTS AND DECOCTIONS OF DIFFERENT PLANTS. 185 applied affects and kills by contact very young worms, but has little or ~ no effect upon the average sized and full-grown ones. They do not feed, however, for a considerable length of time, changing their places in search of fresh leaves.” [I. A. Schwarz. | PRICKLY ASH (Zanthoxylum carolinianum). Powdered leaves. ‘Seemed obnoxious to the worms.” [J. P. Stelle.] SMARTWEED (Polygonum hydropiper). Decoction of leaves and alco- holic extract. No result. | | MULLEIN (Verbascum thapsus). Alcoholic extract and decoction of leaves. No result. [H. A. Schwarz.]| PENNYROYAL (Hedeoma pulegioides). Alcoholic extract, decoction, and infusion. No result. [R. W. Jones.] HORSEMINT (Monarda punctata). Alcoholic extract of leaves. No re- sult. [H. A. Schwarz. | HOREHOUND (Marrubium vulgare). * This decoction emits a very pow- erful and disagreeable stench, which I could still smell on the cotton- plants two days after application, but it had no effect whatever on the worms, nor did it prevent the moths from ovipositing. The alcoholic extract did not possess this unpleasant smell, and had likewise no effect whatever.” [H. A. Schwarz. | CHINA TREE (Melia azedarach). “Isprayed a decoction of leaves and small twigs on the cotton plants, and I think it had a large effect in preventing the moths of Heliothis and Aletia from ovipositing, but it did not destroy the larve. The alcoholic extract of the berries and _Jeaves adulterated with twice its quantity of water was sprayed on twelve Aletia larve, full-grown; most of them fell to the ground, and four . died. This experiment was repeated with about the same result; but when the extract was diluted with ten parts of water it failed to bring the worms to the ground.” [R.W. Jones.] ‘This plant, in the form of alcoholic extracts as well as decoctions, undoubtedly possesses some in- secticide properties, acting upon the worms by contact, but in a manner quite different from pyrethrum and kerosene. The acting principle seems to be of a narcotic nature, the worms not showing any unusual disturbance after application. They seem to get benumbed, and, gradu- ally losing their strength, finally loosen their hold and drop me the ground, where they lie without falling in convulsions. The more full-grown worms are, however, but little affected, and of the smaller ones a large proportion recover. This is the most promising plant of the whole number I experimented with, though the extracts and decoctions as ap- plied by myself-are altogether too weak to be used as a remedy for the worms. The preparations made from the berries are evidently more effective than those from the leaves, and the extracts and decoctions _ Inade by Mr. Roane proved to be more effective than those I received from Prof. R. W. Jones, of Oxford. For further experiments I would recommend preparations from the dried green berries.” [H. A. Schwarz. | ve aay 186 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. IRON WEED (Vernonia noveboracensis). Alcoholic extract and decoc- tion. Noresult. [E. A. Schwarz.] : os TANSY (Tanacetum vulgare). Alcoholic extract and infusion. Nore- — sult. Dock WEED (Rumex sp.). Alcoholic extract. No result. |E. A. — Schwarz. | , SPEARMINT (Mentha viridis). Alcoholic extract. No result. [E. A. Schwarz. | JERUSALEM WEED (Chenopodium anthelminticum). Alcoholic extract and infusion. ‘This is another exceedingly strong-smelling substance, especially in the form of alcoholic extract made from the blossoms and green fruits, but no effect whatever was observed.” [E. A. Schwarz.] SASSAFRAS (Sassafras officinale). Alcoholic extract from the dried bark of the root. No result. [E. A. Schwarz.] GOAT WEED (Croton texanum, CO. glandulosum, 0. capitatum, and C. monanthogynum). Decoction from leaves and blossoms. Also a very strong-smelling fluid. No result. [E. A. Schwarz. | BLACK WALNUT (Juglans nigra). Alcoholic extract and decoction. “A substance which, especially in the form of decoction, deserves fur- ther attention. It has no effect on the worms upon contact, but renders the leaves decidedly distasteful to them. On the second day after ap- plication the leaves which had received alarge amount of the decoction remained fully intact, the worms having removed to the lower branches and to those portions of the plants which were not, or but little, treated with the decoction. Several worms kept in captivity without food ex- cept leaves drenched with this decoction finally fed upon them and successfully changed to pupe. The decoction stains the leaves dark brown, but apparently without injuring them.” [E. A. Schwarz.] HORSE NETTLE (Solanum carolinense and S. eornutum). _ Decoction. No result. INDIAN HELIOTROPE eon: ytum indicum). Decoction. No result. [E. A. Schwarz. | MOocK ORANGE (Philadelphus eae 2). This is recommended as an insecticide all over the South, for the only reason, it seems, that it is injurious to stock. Decoction, infusion, and alcoholic extract had no effect whatever on the worms. WHITE-BORDERED EUPHORBIA (Huphorbia marginata). Decoction. Noresult. [E. A. Schwarz.| COFFEE WEED (Cassia occidentalis). Alcoholic extractand decoction. “This has undoubtedly some effect on the worms, though much less than the China tree berries. Appears to act upon contact, though very slowly. The worms appear to get affected several hours after applica- tion, resting motionless and without feeding, but were recovered on the second day. Some young worms were found dead one day after appli- cation, but it is doubtful whether from the effect of the decoction or killed by the force of the spray.” [E. A. Schwarz.] _ EXTRACTS AND DECOCTIONS OF DIFFERENT PLANTS. 187 POKEWEED (Phytolacca decandra). Decoction of leaves and berries ; also alcoholic extract from the dried root. No result. [R. W. Jones.] “T did not obtain any effect with the decoction prepared by Messrs. Jones and Roane, but a very small quantity prepared by Professor Bar- nard had a decided effect, killing the young worms and seriously affect- ing the older ones. It was applied undiluted, by means of a hand at- omizer. The extract acted upon contact ina very short time, the young worms falling in convulsion of short duration before dying. The old worms had all recovered the second day. Professor Barnard afterwards told me that this extract was a very strong one.” [H. A. Schwarz. | MANDRAKE (Podophyllum pelitatum). Powder from dried root dusted on the worms; also applied stirred up in water. No result. [l. A. Schwarz. | QUASSIA TEA (2 ounces to one-half gallon of water). ‘ Worms feeble next morning, but alive.” [C. V. Riley.| Capsicum.—Mr. Schwarz experimented with this substance, and re- ports as follows: September 18.—Undiluted capsicum was sprayed (with the hand atomizer) indoors © on some cotton worms of average size. No immediate effect visible and none one hour afterwards, but twelve hours later all worms were dead. September 19.—The same experiment repeated in the field on worms on an isolated plant. No effect visible after two hours, but six hours later ali worms sprayed with the substance were found dead. Applied capsicum diluted with five times the amount of water. No effect visible after twelve hours, the worms feeding again on the leaves sprayed with the mixture. The experiments were then discontinued on account of the most unpleasant effect of the capsicum upon myself. From my last experiment, however, I do not believe that capsicum will bear much dilution without losing its efficacy on the worms. It undoubtedly affects the worms by contact, though I am unable to explain the exaet manner in which it acts. None of these vegetable preparations appear to be hurtful to the plants, though in several instances it has been observed that the leaves became slightly scorched upon application during very hot, bright sun- shine, especially in forenoon after the dew had disappeared. As the same substances were subsequently or previously applied without injury to the plants, there can hardly be any doubt that this injurious influ- ence must be attributed to other conditions. While speaking of arsen- ical poisons and kerosene, I mentioned that they are more liable to injure the plants when applied during hot sunshine than during cloudy weather or toward evening. In the case of these vegetable preparations the same conditions doubtless prevail. As a remarkable fact in connection with these experiments, we would still mention the slight effect produced on the worms by alcohol. Many of the alcoholic extracts experimented with consisted of one-third alco- hol, and had no effect whatever, even upon very young worms. Even pure aleohol, when sprayed on the worms, only kills the youngest ones, the average-sized ones soon recovering, while the full-grown ones are hardly affected. ‘ a0 Vw YEAST FERMENT: FUNGUS INFECTION. The fact that insects, like other animals, are subject to diseases of an ~ epidemic nature and of a fungus origin has led some persons to hope and believe that the germs of destruction could be, so to speak, arti- ficially sown among those which it was desired to destroy. Dr. J. L. LeConte, of Philadelphia, was the first in this country, so far as we are aware, to suggest the introduction and communication of such diseases — at pleasure for the destruction of insect pests, in a paperread at the Portland (1874) meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Sci- ence. Dr. H. A. Hagen, of Cambridge, Mass., has elaborated. the idea, and strongly recommended as a general insecticide the use of beer- mash, or diluted yeast, applied with a syringe or asprinkler. Wequote ~ the following somewhat sanguine words from an article which he pub-— lished in Canadian Entomologist-(vol. xi, June, 1879): Dr. Bail asserts that he has proved by many skillful experiments that four species of microscopical fungi are merely different developments of the same species. One of them, the fungus of the common house-fly, is the vexation of every housekeeper. The dead flies stick in the fall. firmly to the windows, or anywhere else, and are covered by a white mold not easy to be removed. The second is the common mold, known to everybody, and easily to be produced on vegetable matter in a damp place. The third is the yeast fungus, a microscopical species, and the basis of the work done by yeast of fermentation. The fourth is a small water-plant, known only to professional botanists. Dr. Bail contends that the spores of the fungus of the house-fly develop in water in this last species, out of water in mold, and that the seeds of mold are trans- formed in the mash-tub into yeast fungus. . The experiments made by Dr. Bail cover a period of more than a dozen years, since the numerous objections which were made against his results induced him to repeat again and again his experiments in different ways. Iam obliged to state that even now prominent botanists do not accept Dr. Bail’s views, which he maintains to be true and to be corroborated by new and sure experiments, This question, important as it may be for botanists, is without any influence regarding my proposition, as Dr. Bail has proved that mold sowed on mash produces fermentation and the formation of a yeast fungus, which kills insects as well as the fungus of the house-fly. I was present at the lectures of Dr. Bail before the association of naturalists, in 1861, which were illustrated by the exhibition of mold grown on mash on which the fungus of the house-fly had been sown, and by a keg of beer brewed from such mash, and by a cake baked with this yeast. - * * * * * : % * Dr. Bail has proved by numerous experiments that healthy insects brought in con- tact with mash and fed with it are directly infested by the spores of the fungus with fatal consequence. These facts, not belonging strictly to the main part of his experi- ments, were observed first by chance and later on purpose. The most different in- sects, flies, mosquitoes, caterpillars, showed all the same results. The experiments were made in such a delicate manner that a small drop of bloed taken with an ocu- list’s needle from the abdomen of a house-fly left the animal so far intact that the same operation could be repeated in two days again. Both drops examined witb the mi- croscope proved to be filled with spores of fungus. * *¥ * * * * * Considering those facts, which are doubtless true, and considering the easy way in which the poisonous fungus can always and everywhere be procured and adhibited, I believe that I should be justified in proposing to make a trial of it against insect oh a “1 7% ary es 4 a 188 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. YEAST FERMENT: FUNGUS INFECTION. 189 : calamities. Nature uses always to attain its purposes the most simple and the most effectual ways; therefore it is always the safest way to follow nature. Beer mash or diluted yeast should be applied either with a syringe or with a sprinkler; and the fact that infested insects poison others with which they come in contact will bea great help. Of course it will be impossible to destroy all insects, but a certain limit to calamities could be attained, and I think that is all that could reasonably be expected. In greenhouses the result would probably justify very well a trial, and on currant worms and potato bugs the experiment would not be a difficult one, as the larve of both insects live upon the leaves, which can easily be sprinkled. But it seems to me more important to make the trial with the Colorado grasshopper. I should recommend to infest the newly-hatched brood, which live always together in great numbers, and I should recommend also to bring the poison if possible in contact with the eggs in the egg-hdles to arrive at the same results, which were so fatal to Mr. Trouvelot’s silk raising. After all the remedy proposed is very cheap, is every- where to be had or easily to be prepared, has the great advantage of not being obnox- ious to man or domestic animals, and if successful would be really a benefit to man- kind. Nevertheless I should not be astonished at all if the first trial with this rem- edy would not be very successful, even a failure. The quantity to be applied and the manner of the application can only be known by experiment, but I am sure that it will not be difficult to find out the right method. I myself have more confidence in the proposed remedy, since it is neither an hypothesis nora guess-work, but simply the application of true and well-observed facts. I hear the question, When all this has been known for so long a time, why was it not used long ago? But is that not true for many not to say for all discoveries? Most of them are tike the famous Colum- bus egg. . It will be seen that Dr. Hagen attaches little importance to the pres- ent opinion and judgment of mycologists as to the non-identity of the several fungi alluded to. We have corresponded with some of the lead- ing cryptogamists of this country on this subject, and they are quite unanimous in the opinion that there is no one ‘of the least reputation,” to use Professor Farlow’s words, who admits that there is any connec- tion between the fly fungus, known as Hmpusa musce but belonging to the genus Saprolegnia, and the yeast fungus, Saccharomyces cerevisia. It is to be regretted, also, that more precision has not been used by Dr. Hagen in referring to these fungi, for the “common mold known to everybody” is most vague, since many different species of mold are recognized by specialists, while “a small water-plant, known only to professional botanists,” is such an indefinite expression as to inspire little confidence in the theroughness of Dr. Bail’s experiments. Leav- ing to the specialist, however, the question as to the kind of relation existing between the lower forms of fungi intended to be referred to by Dr. Hagen, we felt that the suggestion coming from so eminent an entomologist was well worthy of practical trial. We took occasion, therefore, to experiment with beer mash by spraying and sprinkling it upon various plants that were to be fed in our vivaria to Lepidop- terous larve. The principal larve thus experimented with were of Papilio asterias, Danais archippus, and Pieris rape. The results gave no encouragement to the hope that anything practical would result from the proposed remedy. The larve fed with equal avidity and went through their transformations as well as the same species had done on 190 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. repeated occasions without being treated to beer mash. An incident — | connected with these experiments which we made is, however, well worthy of being mentioned; because it shows how very easily single experiments may lead to false hopes and conclusions. A certain pro-_ portion of the last-named larve—the proportion differing in the differ- — ent lots treated—perished before or while transforming to the chrysalis state. They became flaccid and discolored, and after death were little more than a bag of black putrescent liquid. We should have at once concluded that the yeast remedy was a success had we not experienced the very same kind of mortality in previous rearing of this larva, and had we not, upon returning to the field from which the larve in ques- tion were heel found a large proportion similarly dying there. Though from ie experience we had little faith in the value of the proposed remedy as against the Cotton Worm, we nevertheless took pains to have it tested in 1879 both by Professor Smith in Alabama and Professor Willet in Georgia, and in 1880 by Messrs. Bailey, Hub- bard, Jones, Schwarz, and Stelle in various parts of the cotton belt. The pera iie were made in each instance during the latter part of the season, when the vitality of the worms was already considerably | lowered, a condition which, in our experience with fungus diseases in insects, was eminently favorable for satisfactory trial. But in spite of these favorable conditions the uniform result of all the experiments showed that there was no insecticide virtue in the ferment. For this reason we merely add it to the other substances just enumerated which proved to have no insgemds property. =" 2.4 ant ale aor CHAPTER XI. MACHINERY AND DEVICES FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WORM. By Pror. W. 8S. BARNARD, PH. D.. Assistant. I.—SPRAY NOZZLES. Since most of the nozzles invented have been claimed independently of insect-destroying devices, yet are applicable for throwing poison, and any nozzles may be used on other machines than those they were first em- ployed on, it has seemed to me advisable to treat them all in a separate chapter, and to consider them in what I have found to be four natural classes, viz: 1. Many-punctured nozzles; 2. Slot-uozzles; 3. Deflector nozzles; and, 4. Centrifugal nozzles. The nozzles which at present seem to be the best will be described under the last of these classes. MANY-PUNCTURED NOZZLES. [Plates XIV and XV.] The nozzles of this class are constructed on the dissection principle, dividing the liquid into a group of small jets by forcing it through a many-punctured face. The best nozzles of this group are such as have the tangential en- trance. A removable face is of great importance; also, the perforations should be made and located, or directed, according to the principles explained below. The old-fashioned sprinklers and sifters, with which all are familiar, whether made of perforated sheet metal or wire-gauze, have enemetiny proved unpractical for administering insecticides, because of the fine holes becoming clogged by the poison and other materials. To prevent this, various stirring, shaking, and straining appliances have been com- bined with them, but without as good results as are to be desired. The manner in which the holes are made often causes much trouble. These are sometimes so cleanly drilled or punched that little or no burr surrounds them; but usually they are so punched that on one side a high burr or ridge is formed around the puncture, while on the other side each hole appears in the bottom of a funnel-shaped pit, which, if on the inside, is excellently calculated to collect and hold particles over 191 192 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. the hole to clog it. If a sharp center- eh be eraploeee the. holes ought to be punched from the outer surface. In this manner, each hole, _ as approached upon the inner side, is upon an eminence where clogging iG eae 5 © - materials find unstable equilibrium, and they cannot well lodge except } between the holes. Though this may seem a small matter, very much trouble arises from its not being observed. The spray should generally be made to spread rather broadly, and | can get its divergent or radiating form from the convexity of the face from which it is discharged; but where the face is flat, as is sometimes advisable or necessary, especially where the face is made reversible, the divergence can be obtained by drilling a part or all of the holes in a — somewhat radiating direction. Also, where the water is squirted with considerable force, a fine spray will be obtained, and with ample spread, © by boring the holes straight through a concave face, or else in such a direction through any thick face that sets of two or more jets converge to a focus, and there collide to dissipate each other into a finely atom- ized condition. Using this principle, a well-dispersed spray of better volume and quality can be produced from a smaller number of holes of larger capacity, whereby they are less liable to choke. On this plan the best many-punctured force-pump nozzles of the future will probably be made. The rose sprinkler-heads of watering pots and nozzles are commonly provided with no openings except the narrow-neck by which they join upon the spout, and this does not admit the removal of foreign matters which collect inside. The head should be made of easily separable parts, to allow the interior face of the perforated side to be cleaned, as will be seen in the patterns, some of which have the punctured face re- versible. Squirting through the perforations in an opposite direction cleans them without injury, while punching through them with any hard instrument is a slower process and sure to damage. It is advisable to strain the water before it is admitted to nozzles, of whatever kind, by some of the devices shown in combination with the various reservoirs for carrying it and pumps for forcing it, as described later in thisreport. Thereis always an advantage in strainers, although they add to the machine an increased number of holes to be clogged, for, if fine enough, they soon clog; yet it may be used for a longer time without stopping, and the damage to the fine perforations of the face by punching dirt out of them should be avoided. The strainer should be large, and does not have to be cleaned so often as would the nozzle proper; still, where the gauze surface is exceedingly fine, or where the fluid squirted is much laden with solid particles, the strainer may clog very quickly. EDDY-ROSES.—AIl the many-punctured heads may be ‘inne upon - by introducing the liquid in an eccentric manner, and parallel to a tan- gent to the circumference, to cause it to whirl inside, and thereby make less liability to clogging by keeping active any internal rubbish which Pa MANY-PUNCTURED NOZZLES. 193 would tend to dam up the small outlets. Such material, if kept in mo- tion, does not impair the spray. ‘Some of the examples showing this principle in many-punctured nozzles, as discovered and applied by myself, are represented in Plate XIV, Figs. 1, 2, 3, and 4. In Plate XIV, Fig. 1, ¢ and ¢ indicate two can-screw caps, s the per- forated circumference, and a the spout which enters the chamber at a tangent at x. A section showing the interior of a similar nozzle, which has but one can-serew opening, appears in Fig. 2,in which a designates the eccen- tric spout, and 7 a rotary brush inside of the rotation chamber, where it is made to whirl by and with the water to wipe away clogging materi- als from the perforated periphery. Differently formed brushes or other bodies may be inserted on an axis or free, and one or more small, loose projectiles can be placed inside for the same purposes. When nozzles of this form are used on watering pots it is generally preferable to have-the perforations on the outer rim, as shown, in order to throw a flat fan-shaped spray ; but a head may be made as in Plate XIV, Figs. 3and 4, with a punctured face toward one side as a conven- ient form for spraying sidewise in a broadcast manner or vertically down or upwards. A sprinkler made on this plan, but with a flat cap-plate or an inserted plug instead of the projecting screw-cap described, and with divergent or colliding jets, is the best many-punctured nozzle for dragging or car- rying beneath plants to squirt an upward spray; but better sprays for this purpose are made by nozzles of class 4. PLUG-ROSES.—These are certain nozzles which emit the spray through grooves cut in the surface of a plug or its Surrounding wall. A rather curious nozzle of this class was used in the machine patented in 1873 (Nos. 145571, and 145572) by Mr. Jehu W. Johnson, of Colum- bus, Tex.; and is illustrated in Plate XV, Fig. 4. A plug with parallel grooves as water passages along its outer sur- face, and fitted into a cup-like expanded end of a tube, is held in place and may be set out or in, to increase or diminish the spray, by an ad- justable thumb-screw. The resultant spray is bell-shaped. Mr. J. C. Melcher, of Black Jack Springs, Texas, is making a nozzle in which a metallic grooved plug is used. The plug is a very flat cone, and its rim projects beyond the jet pipe enough to spread the spray quite wide. Inside of the pipe the apex of the cone has a projecting eye, through which a string is drawn with its ends passed out through the sides of the tube at points farther back, where the two ends are tied together to hold the cone in place. A somewhat simular irrigating nozzle containing a grooved plug for dividing water into a spray was patented in 1878 (No. 205733) by Mr. Samuel Dawson, of Hempstead, N. Y., and a more spirally-grooved plug for the same purpose and for giving a rotary motion to the spray was patented in 1879 (No. 220277) by Mr. F. N. Foster, of Buffalo, N. Y. 63 CONG——13 . 194 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. | Another modification of the same principle appears ina nozzle cle : in an insecticide machine in patent No. 260761, July 11, 1882, by Mr.G. G. Lynch, of INawara, La. The sprays from all fhose lee ee are comparatively coarse and cannot be well adapted to poisoning on under- surfaces, while the pores are very liable to become stopped. COLLIDING JETS.—The nozzleresembling a gas-jet (in Plate XV, Fig. 5), having two converging outlets by which the two streams emitted meet, as shown by the arrows, to form a fish-tailed spray, has been used. When great pressure is applied to the water forced through it, as by a force- pump or by Mr. Daughtrey’s air-_pump machine (Plate XX X V1), the two streams meet with such great dispersing force as to dash each other into a fine spray. The arrangement of the outlets at the closed end of a tube and their smallness in size and number as used in machines here- tofore, and as they must be to give small enough sprays for single rows in poisoning from beneath, subject them to clogging to an extent un- practical for this purpose. The stoppage of either hole destroys all the spraying power. For very large sprays in broadcast sprinkling the size of the outlets may be increased to a practical extent, and a number of such converging and interrupting streamlets may be produced from holes in the same plane or from the surface of a pipe or the face of a noz- zle which is coneave or funnel-shaped. In rose-heads, with or without reversible faces, the holes can be cut in pairs of twos or in threes, such that their jets will collide, and a row of such pairs can be used on the side of a trailing pipe. For spraying upwards I have produced the twin jets from the side of a tube, near its end, and from a terminal chamber. The tube should open by a cap or plug for cleaning out, and in its best shape has a ter- minal recurrent or rotation chamber or passage as described elsewhere. A nozzle-end essentially the same as the perforated one used in gas- jets and combined in Mr. Daughtrey’s machine, but without the internal - cone, n”, which is more likely to assist clogging than prevent it, was pat- ented in 1878 (No. 202207) as an attachment upon the ends of hose- nozzles, by Mr. Adolph Weber, of Detroit, Mich. A nose-piece hav- ing this kind of discharge and also a parallel main bore for a solid jet, but combined with the end of a hose-pipe by a slide-plate base, so that either kind of jet may be adjustably set in use instead of the other, was secured to Mr. A. B. Prouty, of Worcester, Mass., in patent No. 225721, March 23, 1880. On account of the holes being larger and fewer, with the dispersion principle to produce ae these are certainly among the best noz- zles of this class. T-RosES.—Broad sprays have been produced through tubular T- shaped, many-punctured nozzles. This principle is used in the ordinary street-sprinklers, but similar long perforated cross-pipes have been hauled above the cotton plants for sprinkling them. A good illustration of this is seen in the “Yeager Cotton Sprinkler” (Plate LIV, Fig. 7), _MANY-PUNCTURED NOZZLES. 195 In such nozzles it is economy to pierce only those sections of the cross- tube that come over the rows, and leave blank spaces with no spray be- ' tween, as in the figure just referred to. Any perforated tube of this character should have its ends closed by screw-caps or plugs. The pipe can then be easily cleaned by opening these and passing through a long handle bearing one of the cylindrical brushes used for cleaning lamp-chimneys. Small hand-nozzles of essentially the same form have been made. One used by Mr. Warner on his “ Saddle-sprinkler,” de- scribed further on, has the cross-tube curved as in Plate XIV, Fig. 6, to throw the spray broader, and needs the improvements just suggested. DIVIDED ROSE-HEADS.—A rose-head that separates from its neck, or from a solid jet-nozzle, by a clutch-coupling, which is the simplest way of joining and detaching these parts quickly, is sold by Messrs. Mast, Foos & Co., of Springfield, Ohio. It also leaves the interior some- what accessible for taking out materials which choke it. Mr. William Westlake, of Chicago, Ill., patented in 1871 (No. 174221) -the use of the common sheet-metal can-screw as a large separable neck for rose-heads. In this way can be made a very cheap sheet-metal rose, , as on Plate XIV, Fig. 7, with a wide hole through which to remove clogging materials from the interior. But a still larger sheet-metal screw-coupling, separating the perfor- ated face immediately from the body of the rose, as at d, in Plate XV, Fig. 2, was secured to Mr. L. B. Foss, of Boston, Mass., in 1876 (No. 174291), The preceding rose-heads are of cheap construction, and the last-mentioned one is the best of the very cheap ones heretofore made entirely ef thin sheet-metal. 3 | Mr. 8. H. Fox, of Saint Louis, Mo., patented in 1880 (No. 223332) a strainer-nozzle, a plan-view of which is shown in Plate XIV, Fig.8. It cousists of two concentric cylinders. The inner one is of fine wire gauze. Through this the water entering by the inlet, a, must pass to the cuter cylinder before reaching the very finely perforated sprinkler-face which emits the spray, s. This face is a-screw-cap removable for cleaning. — Also the gauze cylinder may be renovated by taking off a similar cap which bears the inlet-tube. This produces an uncommonly finely-divided spray for a nozzle of its class. . Yet the idea of removing the perforated rose-face from its body by a cut screw-juncture and screwing it on reversed, existed much earlier, and was embodied in a patent in 1869 (No. 87321) by Mr. James Bar- rows, of Hyde Park, Mass. Another good rose with the face reversible was obtained in 1875 (Patent No. 116164), by Mr. W. T. Vose, of Newtonville, Mass. A plan- section of thisis shown in Plate XV, Fig. 3, where a represents the neck to be connected with a spout or solid-jet nozzle and ¢ is a screw-band which clamps the reversible circular face, b, to the walls of the chamber or rose-head, a. Being constructed of brass, nicely finished, it is probably the most durable and serviceable rose-head made. A number of difler- 196 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. — ent sizes are offered, and there is a series of face plates substitutive for each other, but differing in the sizes and number of perforations. PERIPHERAL-ROSES [DIVIDED]|.—Mr. J. C.. Melcher, of Black Jack Springs, Tex., devised a discoid sprinkler head with a many-punctured circumference, patented in 1876 (No. 172467). This is now made with a lid clamped fast by a screw and removable for cleaning out the interior. To Mr. George Yeager, of Flatonia, Tex, was granted in 1873) (No. 219337) what he regards as an improvement in nozzles of this style, which consists in closing the top and base with sheet-metal screw-caps, detachable for taking out accumulations from within, while the cap held lowest serves to store the heavy sediments. A nozzle, Plate XV, Fig. 6, producing this form of spray, is cee on the Ruhmann eonon but die arrangement for cleaning the interior is different, as may be seen in a Sectional view, Plate XV, Fig.7. By turning the T-shaped thumb-handle above, a small brush inside is made to sweep the inner surface of the punctured rim. It will be seen that such sweeping may be kept up constantiy by an automatic process to be described in chapter XIII. For others seep. 193 and Pl. XIV, Figs. 1 and 2. ROSE-COMBINATIONS.—There are many attempts to combine the rose- head and solid-jet pipe in one nozzle. This is done satisfactorily by having the rose separable from the pipe by a clutch, or screw coupling, a plan which has been already spoken of, but which is illustrated in longitudinal section in Plate XV; Fig. 1 representing a nozzle patented in 1874 (No. 150742) by Messrs. W. Barry and L. H. Prentice, of Chi- eago, I]. The circle shows the plug-cock perforated by the cavity of the solid-jet pipe that terminates inside of the rose-head b, which can be separated and screwed upon the nib d, for carrying it while a solid jet is used. Compare the clutch-rose, p. 195. Several other devices for combining the rose and solid-jet in one noz- zle have been found, but they are usually either a little too complex or costly to become popular, or else the construction is such as to impair either the spray or the solid-jet, or both. SLOT-NOZZLES. [Plates XVI, XVII, and XVIII. ] In slot-nozzles the form of the spray is given by a slot or group of slots from which it is emitted. The fluid forced from a slot expands in a somewhat fan-like shape, and then breaks up into a sheet of spray. The best of these are such as have a slightly divergent discharge from the side of an eddy-chamber, with or without a deflector lip. - The examples shown on Plate XVI, Figs. 4 and 5, now seem to be the most valuable, though, for broadcast work, such kinds as are shown in Figs. 1, 2, and 3 may sometimes be selected. To lessen the clogging of small jets adapted to poisoning from be- neath, only a single slot can be safely used, its lips should be far apart, alll 4,7 SLOT-NOZZLES. 197 and any reduction of the discharge capacity should be made by short- ening thelips rather than by narrowing their interspace or slot. Dimin- ishing by this rule the smallest slot attainable becomes only as long as it is wide, and loses the slot character. | lf coarse slots do not make the spray fine enough, the latter may be thinned by adding a very short deflector lip, for it will be seen further on that the principles of deflection and rotation may be advantageously superadded upon or combined with the slot in almost all cases. If the many-punctured principle is the worst for small jets, the slot principle cannot rank much better for this purpose. Wehaveseen that to get a spray of very limited size the slot must be made either so nar- row as to clog too much or must be shortened until it is about as long as wide, or the spray is not thrown thin and broad enough without add- ing a deflector. This suggests the substitution of the deflector in place of the slot. The round-hole deflector certainly ranks higher than the slot-nozzle for small jets, but it. in turn is superseded for this purpose by the eddy-jets, as we shall see further on. The slot answers for heavy broadcast sprinkling; but also in this work, if it has aperture enough not to clog, the spray will be too coarse for administering poison homogeneously, and if narrow enough to give sufficient fineness it will choke too much. Yet by certain improvements these defects may to some extent be remedied. The slots may be cut in various combinations, and several slotted rose-heads have been pat- — ented. A number of straight slots may be arranged as parallels, or as whorls of radials, or diagonals; also, curved slots may be grouped con- centrically, or as whorls of radials, or diagonal curves or spirals. The only object in multiplying the number of slots in one and the same noz- zle is to increase the volume to make large sprays without diminishing the quality by making a smaller number of slots coarser; for the finer the slot the finer the spray and the less its volume. Where force is ap- plied groups of slots are preferable to the groups of smaller perforations of the many-punctured nozzles of the preceding group, and when rota- tion of the liquid is introduced in many-slotted chambers the cuts should be preferably concentric and thus parallel with the rotary current. The slits may be cut on ends or sides of pipes, heads or nose-pieces of all forms, each end-form like each slot-pattern having its own pecu- har adaptation; but the slotted surface should generally be in some way curved with cylindrical, conical, or spheroid contour to emit the Spray in a radiating manner, and thus spread it more widely, or collid- ing slot-jets can be used. A rounded end should preferably have an Internal cavity of capacity and form suited to adapt it for a rotation- chamber, since the rotary principle may also be introduced as an im- provement in nozzles of this group. Selecting with reference to these principles, and also for the purpose of adopting a nozzle-end of such form that it can be cut with slots of any form or grouping that may be made on either sides or ends, and 198 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. - especially with reference to the possibility of angular sprays for throw- ing vertically as well as direct ones for broadcast work, the general style of end shown in Plate XVI, Fig. 4, which is a rotation-chamber, ¢, with — an eccentric entrance, x, seems preferable. For broadcast throwing it will generally be most convenient to use a fan-shaped spray, projected straight ahead in the direction of the axis © of the supply pipe. This is attainable by a slit cut as from z to vin Plate XVI, Fig. 3. ve But for throwing sidewise or upward or downward at an angle with the spout axis and in the plane of rotation, shown by the arrow, a sim-. ~ ilar slot from v to o or from z to s should be used. If such a side-spray is desired, but in a plane at an angle with the plane of rotation, the incision is made in the plane of the spray desired, and preferably between s and z, at or very near the entrance, where it will correspond to the hole of a whistle and be benefited by the in- creased spraying power at that point where the ingoing and outgoing streams conflict with each other. The chamber should be capable of being opened to remove accumula- tions from within, as will be shown in several of the nozzles described further on in this section. . The lips of slit-nozzles ought to be cut slightly beveled, and bent inward so that their innermost margins are most approximate and pro- jecting somewhat into the chamber, in order that what passes through these cannot lodge beyond and what strikes upon them will be in un- stable equilibrium and cannot rest there. If the inverse form of lip be tried particles will wedge into the slit rapidly, and much difficulty from clogging arises. The slot needs to expand outwardly only to a slight extent, but this is very essential, especially if the lips are thick, although this may in a small degree impair the quality of the spray if the bevel is much extended. To remedy this defect it is better to bevel only one lip, and have that. bear a deflector lip or rim to correct irregularities and equalize or thin the spray to the quality desired. Such a deflector may be high or steep, to change the direction of the spray when this is wished, but it must be observed that too much lip is apt to cause drip — of the fluid retarded by the adhesion or friction of its surface, or by its resistance from being too steep, which is not advisable. Yet with large broadcast sprays this waste can be collected and returned to the reser- voir by Mr. Schier’s device, shown in Plate X XIII, Fig. 1, and explained further on; or by an arrangement patented by Mr. Anthony Iske, of Lancaster, Pa., in 1880 (No. 232131), or others. The deflector may be adjusted higher or lower by a movable slide or screw-juncture for the purpose of pitching the spray bigher or lower, and for covering part of the slot to lessen or increase its discharge capacity at will. A deflector of this kind is preferably made in the form of an inclined-edged slide or as a bevel-edged screw-band around the nozzle. Also, the two lips can be adjustable toward and from each other to er SLOT-NOZZLES ) 199 open or close the slot, or they may be entirely separable, better to enable cleaning and repairing. The part of the slot where the pressure or velocity is greatest, as where the injected stream strikes with the most force, should be narrowest, and vice versa, to get an evenly-distributed spray. Inrotary slit-nozzles the width of the slot should increase some- what, but very slightly and gradually, in the direction of rotation, as a long, triangular fissure. If the inverse is tried, particles flowing in the direction of the current naturally wedge fast between the lips, but with a gradual expansion in the direction of the movement the wedging along the slot cannot occur so often. In this class of nozzles, more than in any other, is the use of a rotary body or projectile in the rotation chamber, and caused to whirl around by and with the fluid therein, of value for wiping away and keeping in motion or disintegrating internal foreign bodies tending to lodge upon and clog the excurrent orifice. A rotary brush or any tough body may be used. A pebble, piece of stone, or very hard metal wears off the inner surface of the lips very rapidly, though this process goes slowly if the surfaces are or become very smooth; when a body is thus used the smoothing process progresses quite rapidly, as with metal castings put in arattler. A pebble thus used soon becomes smoothly coated with the metal. Perhaps the best plan is to use a piece of material softer than that of which the chamber is constructed. Compare Eddy- roses, p. 193. To be able to observe the internal whirling action the chamber was made with one face of glass. The whirling is exceedingly rapid, tend- ing to produce a vacuum, and certainly generating a rarification in the center which cannot be filled with liquid during the motion. This cen- tral vacuity is quite large, and the water appears as a band around its outside. So rapidly does the fluid rotate under high pressure that bodies carried in it are invisible. If a very small body be put in such a nozzle and blown upon, it flies about invisibly fast and strikes so rap- idly as to make one continuous sound, but as you blow with gradually diminishing force the sound breaks into a series of rapid ticks, and by looking closely the little body may be observed flying around. The following are some of the nozzles which have been devised and perfected in my work under Professor Riley, whether for the Entomo- logical Commission or the Department: In Plate XVI, Fig. 6, is seen a coarse, bevel-lipped side-slot, s, in the tubular part, a, which bears a cap, c, with a beveled edge, which may be Set so as to form a deflecting lip to the discharge, or to close it in part, or entirely. Thus is made an adjustable slot, and the cap may be re- moved, if necessary, for cleaning out. By different bevels, and by set- ting the cap farther on or off, the spray can be deflected at a right angle, or in planes at various other angles, which may be especially of advantage in spraying upward. In Plate XVI, Fig. 7, a similar nozzleis shown, differing chiefly in the use of a plug, ¢, in place of a cap, and having the deflecting rim oppo- 200 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. — sitely inclined, and formed by the end of the tube ats. A nozzle con- structed on this plan can be made to throw nearer to the direction of ‘its axis. It should be observed here that in both the above nozzles at least one of the slot-lips is beveled to make the inner edges of the lips more approximate, and these same edges should preferably project slightly inward to make clogging less liable. ° Allied to the foregoing is a third form of nozzle, as shown in Plate XVII, Figs.land2. It differs from that in Plate XVI, Fig. 6, chiefly by | the cap possessing one or more Slots, s, of its own, with lips beveled op- positely, so that either can be set as a deflector, and shut or partially close the corresponding tube-slot by being set back orforth. A nozzle of this kind combines all the deflecting advantages of both the styles just described. Probably the best way to construct this is to let the deflector lips on the outside be formed by the margins of the cap ¢, on the one side, and of a band, 7, on the other, these parts being either independent or narrowly joined at one or two or more places by a drop of solder, or by a small narrow piece bridging across from one to the other. Such a bridge may be turned to where it will divide the tube-slot into two, and in this manner two or more Separate sprays are produced from the same ~ nozzle. A similar nozzle is inversely constructed by having the inner slot in a hollow plug, the outer lips formed by the rim of the ensheathing tube, and with a band fixed to, or independent of, the same, to combine with either of the two sides of the plug-slot. I find that a very simple way of holding a deflector lip to a tube and its outlet is to clamp it beneath a rubber band or rubber tube slid on as a sheath. For example, a flat piece of sheet metal can be conformed to the surface of the tube or nozzle, and then have one end bent up or beveled as a deflector, while the other end may be shoved under the rubber sheath, which will hold it in place. The plate can be pulled out, or replaced, or adjusted, and when not needed over the discharge, it is carried under the opposite end of the rubber. Of course metal sheaths or partial bands can be used. similarly, and a very good plan is to use for a side clamp a spring ring soldered-or riveted fast at one point and elsewhere free, but severed on the opposite side with inwardly beveled ends to clamp the lip-slide. A similar ring attached to the lip serves well for fixing it. The principle of rotation may be introduced with advantage in all the preceding chambered forms of slot-nozzles by making the supply en- trance eccentrically parallel to a circumferential tangent to the rotation chamber. I have made cheap sheet-metal nozzles, involving this prin- ciple, after the plans indicated in Plate XVI, Figs. land 3. In Fig.3 the spout, a, enters tangentially into the chamber, ¢, being soldered to it at x. Near the outside of this juncture is the cross-slot, s. The chamber is formed of two concave pieces, or can be short, cylindriform, and may have, for cleaning out, an opening closed by a can screw or otherwise, SG: De ore teeia SLOT-NOZZLES. } 201 But it will be simple to make the spout, a, so short that obstructing matter may be removed through it. In Fig. 1 is seen a similar rotary nozzle, but with a slot, s, following in its cylindrical periphery. The slot increases.in width in the direction of rotation (from right to left) for reasons given above. The screw-cap c affords a large entrance tothe chamber. I have used this same kind of nozzle, made of brass, in the more compact form shown in Fig. 2, where the opening above is by a screw-plug, c. The plug may be solid or it can be hollow and have a slot also. In this case it may be set by screw or otherwise towards either of the outside lips, which then serve individually as deflectors or for partly closing the inner slot to thin the spray. Nozzles of this kind may have the rotation chamber of small diam- eter, even as small as that of the supply tube’ as shown in Plate XVI, Figs. 4 and 5. Of these, Fig. 5 has its discharge on the side, at right angles to the spout, and is for spraying upwards, while Fig. 4 ex- hibits anozzle for direct sprays. in this figure is also presented a plan- section of the latter. The lettering is the same fer the three figures. The slot is marked s, the plug, c, the spout, a, and o represents an ec- centric entrance, admitting the liquid from the spout, a. These rotary slot nozzles are very compact and convenient, supplying the spray in any direction desired. The nozzle shown in Plate XVIII, Figs. 2 and 3, presents some other additions which may be made in this nee The spout, a, leads to a cham- ber, h, formed by two plates or caps, ¢, held together by the screw or thumb-serew, w. One or both of these may have a part of one edge cut away to leave a slot-like outlet between them, as ats. Here it will be seen that the outlet grows wider in the direction of rotation, and one lip has a bevel beyond which it shows a deflector-rim in section at p. A free, loose projectile, ¢, whirls with the liquid inside of the annular chamber, to wipe away or disintegrate any obstructing materials which lodge upon the interior of the slot. It is preferable to unite the screw fast to one cap, which then answers as a thumb-head for it, while the other works as a nut. By unscrewing, it can be opened. In Fig. 2 the same parts will be seen, and it differs in having the slot continue en- tirely around between the caps, which do not at any point quite meet by their margins, but are held thus apart by a central column penetrated by, or formed on, the screw. With a low deflector this would throw a circular or dish-shaped spray, but with the rim, p, higher, as shown, the Spray is thrown in a bowl-shaped form. After this consideration of the more essential pr pple pertaining to Slot-nozzles we are prepared to judge better of the value of various kinds that have appeared in the trade. SIMPLE SLOT-NOZZLES.—The practice of squeezing the end of a hose to flatten the jet of water into a spray has long been in vogue, and the = : Z she += Pee 902 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION, | thimble shaped gas.jet which discharges through a slit across its end is another early simple form of slot-nozzle used for spraying liquids. In 1874 Mr. J. H. Fowler, of Oakland, Cal., patented (No. 153672) a slotted thimble-nozzie with the end flattened and broadened somewhat to enable greater length of slot, and hence throw a larger volume of | spray than the simpler thimble form, but the shape is such as to render it very liable to clog, and there is no easy way for cleaning it out. A slot-nozzle of this description, but having a crook so that its dis- charge is at a strong angle with its supply pipe, has been claimed, with some other pump-details, by Mr. W. W. Mallory, of Holland Patent, Oneida County, N. Y., in patent No. 237193, February 1, 1831. Mr. Anthony Iske, of Lineaster, Pa., patented (No, 232131), in 1880, a nozzle, consisting of a slot ia the side of a small box which is perfo- rated by a supply tube having an inlet hole from its side into the box. The bottom of this chamber has small leak-holes. The drip from these and the slot collects in a large cup beneath them and mounted on the -same tube. This principle also looks like a poor one, but I have not had an opportunity for testing it, and hence cannot speak with cer- tainty. . PLUG SLOT-NOZZLES.—Mr. A. I’. Allen, of Providence, RB. I., pat- ented in 1869 (No. 89456) and in 1872 (No. 152617), what may be ealled a plug slot-nozzle, the latter patent having added an internal gate-valve to shut off the discharge which would generally not be needed in spray- ing poison. The water is spread. by a conical plug held so loosely in the discharge orifice that a sheet of liquid can issue all around it and break into a spray. -The plug is attached by small rods to a nut which serews back and forth on the outside of the nozzle, by which the plug may be set tight enough to close the end or loose enough to let out a sheet of liquid of any thickness desired. With a different plug a solid jet alone or a solid jet and spray combined is made by the same nozzle. A slit-nozzle involving some of the principles in Mr. Allen’s nozzle, some in Mr. Ruhmann’s improved cone-deflector, and others in Mr. John- son’s grooved plug-nozzle is called ‘“‘ The Niagara Lawn Sprinkler” and is being made at Sacramento, Cal.* The cone deflector serves as an ad- justable loose plug, to change the quantity of water emitted around it. A rod through the axis of the nozzle barrel projects beyond the dis- charge, where it is cut with a spiral thread, on which the truncated per- forated cone can be screwed and placed at such distance as to regulate the size of spray desired. Mr. F. T. Pinter, of Schulenburg, Tex., patented (No. 233431) in 1880 a nozzle having 4 semi-funnel-shaped discharge, and fitted into the same a semi-cone as a plug set farther in or out by a clamp screw. The curved narrow space between this plug and the concave wall is the out- *See Treatise on insects injurious to fruit, &c., of the State of California, by Matthew Cook, Sac- ramento, 1881. Figure and description on p. 46. ¢ . Le a SF Boe cao ae , ~ SLOT-NOZZLES. : 203 let orifice, having a curved-slot shape. The device is essentially a crooked adjustable slot, but such that, when set wide open, its lips act only as deflectors. REMOVABLE SLoTS.—A slit-nozzle manufactured under the joint pat- ent (No. 251448, Dec. 27, 1881) of Messrs. P. Long, De W. C. Vestal, and A. F. Merigot, of San José, Cal., consists of a screw-cap having a large round perforation through its top, beneath which a slotted circu- lar disk can be clamped on the end of a pipe. Disks with slots of un- like capacity are separably insertable to produce sprays of different sizes. Thesame arrangement permits clogging material to be removed. JAWED SLOTS.—Attempts have been made to combine the slit-spray and solid jet in one nozzle. Most of these are not well suited for our purposes, but I must notice one which will answer well for large broad- — cast sprays. This is sold in the market under the title of “The Boss Nozzle” as patented (No. 208122), in 1878, by G. N. Raymond, and G. B. Perkins, of Bridgeport, Conn.. It is shownin Plate X VU, Fig. 5, and in section at Fig. 6; b represents its hose attachment, a the barrel and ¢ its head, through which the passage is controlled by a faucet- plug, d, so cut thatit may be turned by the head d to direct the water through the solid jet-pipe 7, or through the slot s, at will. This slit allows the water to spread broadly and the plug is adjustable to flatten the spray still more to any degree of thinness desired, or allow it to discharge with the full capacity of the slot. This adjustment enables the washing or cleaning out of foreign materials instantly from the slit, simply by turning the plug, which is one of the greatest advantages in this nozzle. A solid jet, with lips that close to form a slot-spray, was invented by Mr. L. B. Smith, of Chelsea, Mass., and secured in 1881 (No. 245096). A section view of it appears in Plate XVII, Fig. 4; a indicates the bar- rel upon which a long thumb-nut, 0), may be screwed backward or for- ward. The two peculiarly shaped lips, yy, with sides, ec, are hinged, at 00, upon which joints they may open or shut. The lips also have back- ward lever arms, vz. The nut screwed forward beneath these, holds the lips shut, leaving only the slot outlet, while moving the nut back to disengage it from the levers allows the lips to open and a solid jet is discharged. Similarly the slot can be opened to permit obstructing matters to wash out of it. In 1874 (No. 153977) Mr. Biddle R. Moifett, of Swedesborough, N. J., patented the nozzle shown in Plate XVII, Fig. 3. ‘“ The spout, a, is cut under suitable inclination, and closed by rubber or other packing, }, applied to the similarly inclined front end of a spring-lever, J, which is pivoted to standard, f The packing, 0, is of elliptical shape, and fits tightly over the spout of the nozzle, so as to prevent the escape of any water therefrom. A band spring, wv, acts on the handle of the lever, and forces the front end on the spout until opened by pressure on the lever handle, /, or on its lip. 204 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSSON. For the purpose of watering, the nozzle is held in one hand and the spring lever depressed by the other, so as to produce the release of the packing and theescape of the water. The water being thrown out with certain force, impinges on the front packing of the lever, which stands at a certain angle with the direction of the water and causes thereby the deviation from its course and its spreading into a broader sheet. The water is thrown to a greater or less distance from the spout as the lever is opened more or less.’’ In case the discharge-crack clogs, it can be suddenly sprung wide open and the obstructing particles as quickly washed away. It should also be observed that the packing projects to serve as a deflector and thus make the spray thinner. Somewhat similar to this are the three following styles: Plate XVIII, Fig. 1, shows a modified plan of nozzle which was made by Mr. Williams, of Selma, Ala., and used on his pump noticed further on. The water-pipe, a, opens into a chamber formed of a can-screw, ¢, upon a saucer-Shaped base, s. These are soldered together only in the region marked z From this to s is an open crack out of which a sheet of wa- | ter is thrown and spread still more thinly by striking the upwardly in- clined rim, s. The pressure of the water inside tends to force said crack open wider, but it is set and held at any width desired by the thumb-nut, on a bolt which perforates the base and has its head soldered to the cap above. When the nut is removed, the cap bearing the bolt can be unscrewed and taken off, leaving the top open for removing clogging materials from within; but generally the crack will clear itself if the thumb-screw is loosened a little to let it gape somewhat wider for an in- stant. Mr. Ruhmann caveated two nozzles shown in Plate X VIII, Figs. 4and 5, combining principles already seen in the two just described. Each consists of a spout, a, with its diagonally cut end covered by a plate, p, which is partly soldered fast, as at x, and partly free, the free part be- — ing adjustable to and from the end to open or close the intervening crack, s, whence the Jiquid is ejected. In Fig. 4 this adjustment is by the thumb-screw, t, working through the stiff arm, b, and having on its point a knob-like expansion inside of a discoid elevation seen on the plate, p, enabling the plate to be pulled from or pressed toward the spout by working the screw for changing the size of the spray and allowing solid accumulations to wash out. In Fig. 5 is a different arrangement for the same purposes. Here the plate, p, has attached to it the lever, b, passing loosely through the fulcrum, f, and operated by a person’s fin- ger upon the end, b, while it is capable of being set close or wide by the thumb-screw, t, working against the spring, 7. Mr. F. T. Pinter, of Schulenburg, Tex., has recently sent to the Agri- cultural Department a nozzle very similar to those just described. The flexible half of the plate is a separate piece and only attached to the other half by a small piece of spring metal across the center of the SLOT-NOZZLES. 205 juncture. This holds the plate off from the diagonally cut end of the spout while it may be depressed to diminish or close the outlet by screwing down uponit a flanged thumb-nut. Also, the tube crooks near the plate so that its stem or handle is parallel to the course of the spray. Its operation is not essentially different from that of the other nozzles just noticed. — A slot-nozzle patented in No. 223402, January 6, 1880, by Mr. J. W. Stanton, of New York City, consists in a solid jet pipe with one-half its barrel longitudinally cut off at its discharge end and for some distance - back so that the thumb can there be applied against the side of the stream to flatten and disperse it. SIDE SLOTS.—The diagonal slot-nozzles have led us naturally to those which discharge from a slot in the side. Of this kind I have tested two or three different styles devised by Mr. John Schier, of Etinger, Tex. Plate XVI, Fig. 8, shows his simplest sort, which is a vertical screw-cap, with a horizontal slit cut near its top. The slit, s, is so deep as to throw a broad semicircular spray, while that in Plate XVI, Fig. 9, differs only in having the spray divided into three with intervals be- tween. In this way the one nozzle may be made to supply three rows without wasting much spray between them. LHither of these short cap nozzles can be screwed on the end of a vertical discharge pipe, and in case of clogging can be removed by unscrewing them, while their shallowness makes the interior easily accessible. ; eae. 1880. {Most of the facts from Turner: makes the astonishing statement that the Cotton Moth is nine inches long and that the breadth of wing is the same. | American Naturalist.—‘‘ The Cotton or Army Worm of the South.” Vol. iv, p. 52, March, 1870. {A shert acceunt from Proc. Ent. Soc. London, of the injury done to the cottan crop in Louisiana by the ‘‘Army Worm’’—“‘ Heliothis armigera”’—undoubtedly Aletia xylina. } Anderson, E: H.—‘‘Cotton Caterpillars and their habits.” Rural Carolinian, ii, p. 695, 1871. {A short review of the Peet history of the*Cotton Worm, withnotice of a longer paper soon to be brought out.) Anderson, E. H.—‘‘More about Cotton Caterpillars.” Rural Carolinian, iii, pp. 204-207, 1871. [A controversial reply to Mr. Grote’s criticism.] Anderson, BH. H.—‘‘ Report of E. H. Anderson, M. D., of Kirkwood, Miss.” Report upon Cotton Insects, Department of Arriculture, 1879, pp. 352-356. [Dr. Anderson’s report of observation~ «:.d experiments for the year 1878-] Another Cotton Planter.—‘‘On the Cotton Caterpillar.” Southern Agriculturist, p. 489, 1829. American Cyclopedia.—‘‘Cotton Worm.” Vol. v, p. 419, 1874. |A short article on the past history, natural history, habits of, and remedies for, the Cotton Worm. ] Atlanta Constitution.—‘‘The Cotton Worm.” October 3, 1878. [Editorial notice of the work cf the Commission during the summer of 1878.] Atlanta Constitution.—“ The Cotton Worm Investigation.” July 20, 1880. {Plan of work of the Commission for 1880. | Bailey, J. F.—American Entomologist, iii, p. 77, 1880. [A mere note accompanying specimens of the Cotton Moth captured February 12, on Mock Orange. | Bailey, J. F.—‘‘ Pyrethrum on Cabbage and Cotton Worms.” American Entomolo- gist, iii, p. 296, 1880. BIBLIOGRAPHY. | 5 a) | Bailey, J. F.—‘‘ Yeast ferment for Cotton \Worms.’’ American Entomologist, iii, p- 296, 1880. Bailey, J. F.—‘‘ Destruction of fruit by Aletia.” American Entomologist, iii, p. 297, 18x0. Barbee, W. J.—‘‘ The Cotton Question.” New York, 1866. [On pp. 151-238 quotes, entire, Glover’s articles in Department of Agriculture Reports for 1854~'55. ] Beach, A. E.—‘‘ Remedy for the Cotton Worm.” Science Record, pp. 370, 371, 1874. [Paris green. ] Bethune, Rev. C. J. S.—Discussion with Riley, Mann and Lintner on Northern oe- eurrences of Aletia. [See Report of the Proceedings of the Entomological Club, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1880, in Canadian Entomologist, xii, p. 176, September, 1880.] Boyle, J. F.—“‘On the Culture and Commerce of Cotton in India and elsewhere. London, 1851. [Gives on p. 232 an accountof the chenille—W. zylina—made up from Chisholm, Ure, and Seabrook. ] Brandt, Louis.—‘‘A Suggestion.” Cuero (Tex.) Bulletin, January 3, 1882. [Has experimented with salt and found it of no avail; but advises the introduction of the English Sparrow.] Breed, Daniel.—“‘ Description and figures of recent inventions for insect destruction.” Field and Forest, iii, p. 92, 93, fig. 23-27, December, 1877—Psyche, Record No. 946 n. [For destroying Aletia, Leucania and Doryphora.} Burnett, W. I.—‘‘The Cotton Worm of the Southern States.” Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, iv, pp. 316-319, 1854. [An account of the insect, short and mostly from hearsay. Proposes the migration theory. ] Capers, C. W.—‘“On the Cotton Caterpillar.” Southern Agriculturist, i, p. 203, May, 1828. [Quotes Say’s original description as sent to him in MS.; gives a full account of ravages from 1804 to 1827 and describes in a general way the egg, larva, pupa, and adult. ] Carolina Farmer.—‘‘ Death to the Cotton Worm.” 1869, p. 142. [Report of a meeting of planters at Opelousas, La., at which it was decided to unite in mak- ing fires to destroy the moths. ] Carolina Farmer.—‘‘ The Cotton Caterpillar (Anomis xrylina).” Vol. iv, p. 278, 1872. Carolina Farmer.—‘‘ The Cotton Caterpillar.” Vol. i, p. 142, 1868. Chisholm, Dr.—‘‘ Cotton.” Sir David Brewster’s Edinburgh Cyclopedia. Edinburgh, 1830. [Draws up a description of the chenille in Latin. Gives an extended account of its habits as observed by him in Demerara (British Guiana) in 1801-’2, and proposes, asa remedy, fumi- gation with sulphur. ] Colorado Citizen.—‘‘ Of the Cotton Worm.” July 17, 1879. [Result of an interview with Professor Riley, giving progress of work of the Commission. ] Colorado Citizen.—“ Investigator and the Cotton Worm.” September 11, 1879. [An editorial defense of Professor Riley against ‘‘ Investigator.”’] Columbus (Ga.) Inquirer.—“ The Cotton Caterpillar.” February 11, 1874. [Advocates at length the spontaneous generation of the caterpillar. } Comstock, J. H.—Report upon Cotton Insects. Washington, 1879 (Department of Agriculture). May 18, 1880. (Devotes the first 284 pages to the consideration of Aletia, with a colored plate and many illustrations. Results of the first year’s investigation under Riley, together with reports from Mr. William Trelease.] ' Comstock, J. H.—The previous work condensed in Annual Report of the Commis- sioner of Agriculture, 1879, pp. 263-332. 332 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. Connerly, D. C. B.—‘‘The fight with the Vermins.” Eutaw Whig and Observer, August 7, 1873. [On the use of Paris green for Aletia.] “ Cotton.’’—‘‘ The Cotton Caterpillar, No.5. The Moth Fly, or Imago.” BE (Tex.) Tablet, June 11, 1880. [Seems to be a cofianiation from Bulletin 3, United States Entomological Commission. 1" “Cotton.”—‘‘The Cotton Caterpillar, No. 7. How to destroy them.” Navasota (Tex.) Tablet, June 25, 1880. D., J. R—‘‘ The Cotton Caterpillar.” American Cotton Planter, August, 1850. {Advises poisoned sweets and striking down the moths with paddles.] - Reimpr.—Cotton Planter’s Manual, by J. A. Turner. New York. p. 160, 1875. Dana, W. B—Cotton from Seed to Loom. New York. 1878. [On p. 117 gives a short account of the caterpillar.] DeBow’s Industrial Resources of the Southern and Western States.—“ The Cot- ton Caterpillar.” p. 170, 1852. (Quotes extensively from Afileck.] De Bow’s Industrial Resources of the Southern and Western States.—“‘ Cotton Worms.” p. 171, 1852. [Advocates use of Plaster of Paris.] De Bow’s Review.—‘‘ The Cotton Worm, its Character, Habits,” &c. Vol. xvii, pp. 451-459, 154. Department of Agricuiture.—“ Birds and the Cotton Worm.” Monthly Report of Department of Agriculture. p. 273, 1870. [Advocates the sowing of millet in the fields to attract birds, and also the introduction of the English Sparrow.] Department of Agriculture.—‘‘ Cotton Insects.” Special Report No. 8, p. 8, Sep- tember, 1878. [An account of the progress of the investigation up to September. ] Dickerman, C. W.—How to make a farm pay. Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Chicago, and St. Louis. 1869(?). . [On pages 222-223 speaks of the Cotton Moth; quotes mostly from Lyman.]} Dodge, C. R..—‘“‘A Word about. Cotton Caterpillars.” Rural Carolinian, iii, pp. 87— 88, 1871. Dodge, C. R.—‘‘ Cotton Caterpillars; One Word More.” Rural Carolinian, iii, pp. 263, 264, 1871. [Corrects statements in nite last-mentioned paper.] ee Dodge, C. R. —‘‘The Paris Green Remedy for the Cotton Caterpillar.” Rural Caro- linian, v, pp. 193-195, 1874. [Summarizes the ones to the mura of Agriculture circular of 1873.] Dodge, C. R.—‘“‘ Injury to Cotton by Insects.” Rural Carolinian, v, pp. 417, 418, 1874. [Tabulates the first appearances of the worm, and states Professor Glover’s theory of the partial hibernation of the insect in all states, which the table upholds.) Dodge, Lewis A.—‘‘ The Cotton Caterpillar.” American Naturalist, vil, p. 213, April, 1873. {Gives popular southern ideas and wrongly figures Heliothis phlogophaga Gr. for the Bolj Worm. ] Doubleday, Edward.—Transactions of the London Entomological Society, 1848. Proceedings, p. 33. | Mentions having received the American Cotton Moth from T. W. Harris, and states that it belongs to no European genus, coming nearest to Ophiusa.] Doubleday, Edward.—Entomological Correspondence of T. W. Harris. Boston, 1869. p. 173. [In a letter to Harris, dated April 2, 1847, states that the Cotton Mothis near to Ophiusa but is anew genus.) BIBLIOGRAPHY. 333 Du Bose, J. W.—‘‘Influence of Winds on Aletia.” American Entomologist, iii, p. 105, 1880. Bdwards, Bryan.—History, Civil and Commercial, of the British Colonies in the West Indies. Philadelphia, 1805-6. {Containing an account of the ravage of the chenille in flie West Indies in 1788 and 1794.] Evening Star (Washington, D. C.).—‘‘Cotton Worm and Cotton Culture in Foreign Countries.” April 13, 1880. [Brazil and Mexico. ] Farmers’ Home Journal.—‘‘ Cotton Moths.” May 14, 1881. {An account of successful experiments by J. D. Austin, of Fannin County, Texas, with trap-lanterns. Also published in the Galveston News of July 21.) Farmers’ Review.—‘‘ The Cotton Worm.” August 26, 1880. [Copies the supplementary circulars sent by Professor Riley to agents of the Commission. } Ferguson, James M.—‘“‘The Cotton Worm.” Monthly Reports of the Department of Agriculture, 1867, pp. 288-289. [Gives observations on the natural history of the Cotton Worm and advises hand-picking of the first brood.] Fletcher, James.—‘ The Cotton Worm.” Canadian Entomologist, xiii, p. 233, No- vember, 1&81. [Report ofthe Annual Meeting of the Entomological Society of Ontario. Letter from Mr. Fletcher, asking for observations on Aletia; and notes of their capture, by Messrs. Moffat and Reed.] Florida Dispatch.—‘‘ The Cotton Plant.” July 16, 1879. [A lengthy article, one of the sub-heads being ‘‘ The Cotton Caterpillar.”” A short review of the natural history, advising Paris green as a remedy. ] Forsley, C. G.—‘‘ Cotton Worms—Noctua gossypii.” New OrleansCommercial Times, September 22, 1846. Pugate, R. N.—‘‘ The Cotton Worm, or Caterpillar.” Southern Farmers’ Monthly, August, 1880. {Hibernation of Moth and Influence of Weather. ] Fuller, A. S.—‘‘ Paris Green and the Cotton Worm.” New York Weekly Sun, Novem- ber 4, 1874. Galtney, J. R.—‘‘The Cotton Army Worm.” Southern Herald, Liberty, Mississipi, May and June, 1869. [Nos. 1 and 2 are devoted to an attempt to prove the hibernation of the insect in the chry- salis state. No. 3advisesasremedies hand-picking, fires atnight, sowing castor-bean and cow- pea in the cotton field, and late fall and winter plowing]. * Galveston News.—‘‘ The Cotton Caterpillar.” September, 1879. [Contains extracts from the report of Dr. G. E. Gillespie to Professor Riley, on hiberna- tion and the encouragement of birds.]} Galveston News.—‘‘ The Cotton Worm Investigation.” August 14, 1880. {An interview between a reporter of the News and Professor Stelle on the work of the Com- mission]. Gaumer, Geo.—‘“‘Injury to Fruit.” Kansas Farmer, October 3, 1877. (Gives an account of injury to ripe peaches by Aletia zylina in Kansas.] Gartenbau-Zeitung.—‘‘ Die Baumwollraupe.” October, 1876. [A short account in German of Aletia argillacea and Laphygma frugiperda (Graswurm). Illustrated. ] Glover, Townend.—‘“‘ The Cotton Caterpillar (Noctua xylina).” Annual Report of the Commissioner of Patents (Agriculture), 1855, pp. 71-76. [Gives popular descriptions of al] states of the insect, and an historical account of its ray- ages. Details the remedies known. Figures all states.]} Glover, Townend.—Insects Injurious to Cotton Plants. No. 3. Cotton Caterpillar, or Cotton Army Worm (Noctua [Anomis] xylina) Say. Monthly Report of the De- partment of Agriculture, 1866, p. 331. [Substantially the same article as that in the Annual Report for 1855; very few changes.] 334 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. Glover, Townend.—Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, 1867, pp. 58-61. {Describes the Cotton Worm in all states, with good figures. Speaks of the northward migration ot the moths, and of the great good done by the ants in destroying both the eggs and the larve. Gives a popular description also of what is evidently Pimpla conquisitor.] Glover, Townend.—Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, 1871, pp. 83, 84. |Gives an account of the occurrences of the worm in 1871, and speaks without specifie reference of a recently invented machine for sprinkling poisons. Advises strenuous efforts to destroy the first crop of worms. ] Glover, Townend.—Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, 1872, pp. 118-120. [An account of the ravages of the Cotton Worm in 1872.] — Glover, Townend.—Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, 1873, pp. 163-169. {Injuries in 1873; summary of experience in favor of the green.] ; Glover, Townend.—Monthly Reports of the Department of Agriculture, 1874, p. 125. [His belief quoted that the insect hibernates in all states in the more southern portions of the cotton belt, and as the season advances migrates northward. ] Glover, Townend.—Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, 1874, pp. 128, 129. [A review of Mr. Grote’s paper on the migration of the Cotton Moth.] Glover, Townend.—Manuscript Notes from my Journal—Cotton, and the principal Insects, &c., frequenting or injuring the Plant in the United States. _Washing- ton, 1878. (A few copies printed from stone for private distribution. ) [On plate x figures the Cotton Worm in all stages. ] Gorham, D. B.—‘‘ The Cotton Worm, its History, Character, Visitations, &c.” De -Bow’s Commercial Review, iii, p. 535, 1847. Reimpr.—Southern Cultivator, 1847, p. 114. Reimpr.—De Bow’s Industrial Resources of the Southern and Western States, 1852, p. 158. [Contains an account of previous visitations of the Cotton Worm, and extended remarks upon its natural history. Proclaims the migration theory in fall, and gives arguments for it. Draws up a description of what is evidently Pimpla conquisitor (the first mention of a para- site on the cotton worm).] Grote, A. R.—Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Philadelphia, iii, p. 541, 1864. [Announces the identity of Noctua zylina Say, and Anomis bipunctina Guenée, and pro- poses the name Anomis xylina Say.) Grote, A. R.—‘‘Anomis xylina. A Review.” Rural Carolinian, iii, pp. 88-92, 1871. (An extended criticism of a paper by Dr. Anderson’s in vol. ii, p. 695. Gives a hint at the migration theory which he elaborates in 1874.] Grote, A. R—‘‘Dr. E. H. Anderson and Cotton Caterpillars.” Rural Carolinian, iii, pp. 302, 309, 1871. {A review of Dr. Anderson’s paper on pp. 204-207. ] Grote, A. R.—‘ Anomis xylina (Say).” Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences, i, p. 170, 1874. [First suggestion with a reservation that Hiibner’s Aletia argillacea is the same as Say’s Noctua xylina.} Grote, A. R.—‘‘The Cotton Worm.” American Naturalist, viii, p. 562, 1674. Grote, A. R.—‘‘On the Cotton Worm of the Southern States (Aletia argillacea Hiib- ner).” Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, XxXili, part ii, pp. 13-18, 1574. Adv. pr.—Hartford Courant, xxxviii, No. 195. Adv. pr.—New York Tribune Extra No. 21, pp. 61-62. Adv. pr.—American Naturalist, viii, pp. 722-727. [Habits and synonymy of the Cotton Worm. Proposes the migration theory. The final print, as published in the American Naturalist and the A. A. A.S& Proceedings, is altered and differs from the first print in essential particulars.] Grote, A. R.—‘‘The Cotton Worm; its Habitat. Means against it.” Scientifie American, ¥xxi, p. 168, 1874. Grote, A. R.—‘‘List of the Noctuide of North America.” -Bulietin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences, ii, 1874~75. [On page 24, the Cotton Moth is entered under Hiibner’s name of Aletia argillacea, and its synonymy is given.] BIBLIOGRAPHY. 335 Grote, A. R—“ The Cotton Worm.” Geological Survey of Alabama, Report of Pro- gress for 1875. Montgomery, 1876, pp. 199-204. [An account of the natural history of the Cotton Worm, with arguments favoring the mi- gration theory. ] Grote, A. R.—“ Report of A. R. Grote, of Buffalo, N.Y.” Report upon Cotton Insects, Department of Agriculture, 1879, pp. 351-382. {A short account of Mr. Grote’s doings in Georgia and Alabama as an observer in the in- vestigation. } Grote, A. R.—‘‘The Cotion Worm.” North American Entomologist, i, p. 68, March, 1880. * [A vain criticism of Bulletin 3, United States Entomological Commission. } Grote, A. R.—“‘Aletia argillacea.” In ‘‘North American Noctuids in the Zutrege.” Canadian Entomologist, xii, p. 116, June, 1880. [Gives his views on migration. } Guenée, A.—Spécies général des Lépidoptéres. Noctuélites. Vol. ii, p. 400; ibid., p. 401; vol. iii, p. 397; 1852. [In vol. ii, p. 400, the Cotton Worm Moth is described as Anomis grandipuncta ; on page 401 it is again described as Anomis bipunctina, and again, in vol. iii, p. 397, under the latter name (see Chapter J). | Harris, T. W.—‘‘A Treatise on some of the Insects of New England which are Inju- rious to Vegetation.” Boston, 2d edition, 1852, p. 457. [A very brief account of Noctua xylina Say.) Harris, T. W.—‘‘ Entomological Correspondence.” Boston, 1869, p. 169. [In a letter to Doubleday mentions having received specimens of the moth and asks fora generic determination. Date of letter, October 24, 1846.) : Hempstead, O. H., jr.—‘‘ The Cotton and Boll Worm.” Monthly Report-of the De- ‘ partment of Agriculture, 1867, p. 214. ; [Favorable experiences with home-made trap-lantern. ] Henderson, Stephen.—“ The Army Worm.” Farmers’ Register (Va.), 1840, pp. 660- 661. {An interesting account of the ravages of Anomis zylina in Louisiana in 1840.] Holly Springs South.—‘‘A Committee of Entomologists.” April 7, 1880. _ [Announcement of a memorial presented to Congress by Hon. V. Manning, from the pro- fessors of the University of Mississippi, asking for a cotion-insect investigation. ]j Howard, W. R.—‘‘Anomis (N) zylina.” Phillip’s Southern Farmer, vii, pp. 361, 362, 1873. [Gives a short account of the natural history of the CottonWorm; states atlength the con- flict of opinion on the subject of the hibernation of the insect, quoting the opinions of all the prominent writers, and asking all planters to try and solve the problem. } Howard, W. R.—‘‘Cotton Worm.” Phillip’s Southern Farmer, November, 1874. {Arguments in favor of the hibernation of the moth, and remarks upon patents for arseni- cal mixtures. ] i Howard, L. O.—‘‘A new Silk-spinning Chalcid.” Canadian Entomologist, August, 1880, p. 152. [Describes Euplectrus comstockii nu. sp., a parasite on the Cotton Worm.] Hoy, P. R.—‘‘ The Occurrence of Aletia argillacea in Wisconsin.” [Read before the Entomological Club of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Saratoga meeting, 1880.]} Hoyt, J. D.—‘‘ Practical Modes of Destroying the Cotton Worm.” Prize Essay. Seima, Ala., 1874. [Paris green, arsenious acid, knocking the worms from the plants, fires, lantern traps.] Hubbard, H. G.—‘‘ Notes on the Cotton Worm in Florida.” American Entomologist, lil, p. 227, 1880. Hubbard, H. G.—‘“‘Phora aletie not a true parasite.” American Entomologist, iii, p. 228, 1880. 336 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. Hubbard, H. G.—“ Ants vs. Cotton Worms.” American Entomologist, iii, p. 249, 1880. Hubbard, H. G.—‘‘ Vertebrate Enemies of Aletia.” American Entomologist, iii, p. 250, 1880. Hubbard, H. G.—‘‘Spider and Cotton Worm.” American Entomologist, iii, p. 250, 1880. Hubner, Jacob.—Zutrige zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, bestehend in Bekundigung einzelner Fliegmuster neuer oder rarer nicht europiiischer Gattun-— gen, Augsburg, Verfasser. 1818-1823, Centur. ii. [Contains the original description of Aletia argiliacea.] “Investigator.’’—‘‘The Cotton Worm.” Galveston News, September 9, 1879. ~- [Casts unwarranted reflections on the work of the Commission. ] Johnson, Cuthbert W.—Farmers’ and Planters’ Encyclopedia of Rural Affairs. Lon- don, 1843; Philadelphia, 1868. [In article on ‘‘ Cotton,” quotes from Spalding’s essay as in Ure.] Jones, R. W.—“ Boll-worm devouring Cotton-worm.” American Entomologist, iii, p. 253, 1880. Jones, R. W.—“ Uselessness of Yeast Ferment.” American Entomologist, iii, p. 296, 1880. “J., W.” (Wm. Jones ?)—‘“‘ The Cotton Caterpillar.” Southern Cultivator, 1867, p. 167. [Advises extermination of the first brood by destroying the eggs.] Jones, Wm.—‘‘ Cut-worms and Caterpillars.” Southern Cultivator, 1869, pp. 106, 107. [Editorial answer to questions about Cotton Worm. “Arguments for the hibernation of the - chrysalis, and notes on extensive parasitism of the last brood of worms. } Jones, Wim.—‘‘ The Cotton Caterpillar.” Southern Cultivator, 1870, p. 67. [Editorial answer to letter from A.S. M., asking for information concerning Cotton Worms. States that little is known, and dwells upon disputed point of hibernation. | Jones, Wm. J.—“ The Cotton Caterpillar.” Galveston News, August 19, 1879. [A long article advocating hibernation of the pupa.] Jones, Wm. J.—‘ The Cotton Caterpillar Question.”. Galveston News, October 31, 1879. . [A controversial answer to Professor Riley’s letter, published in the News of October 24, 1879.] Jones, Wm. J.—‘‘ Report of Judge Wm. J. Jones, of Virginia Point, Texas.” Report upon Cotton Insects, Department of Agriculture, 1879, pp. 356-358. {Judge Jones’s account of observations during 1878.] Jones, Wm. J.—‘‘ London Purple in Texas.” American Entomologist, iii, p. 251 1880. : “K.”—“How to destroy Caterpillars.” Southern Farm and Home, 1871, p. 135. [Believes that the webs on trees through the winter contain the germs of the cotton worms. Hence, advises to burn all such webs. ] Kellicott, D. S.—‘‘Aletia in New York State.” American Entomologist, iii, p. 297, 1880. |Specimens found October 16, 1878, and November 6, 1880.] Landon, M. D.—‘‘ The Cotton Caterpillar (Noctua xylina).” Report of the Commis- missioner of Agriculture, 1864, p. 92. [A short account of the natural history of the insect, with figures of larva, chrysalis, and moth. Advocates the hibernation of the meth.] Legree, J. D.— Southern Agriculturist, 1829, p. 427. [In a foot-note to an article on rotation of crops, advises rotation of crops for Cotton Cater- pillar, and also warns against the injudicious use of manure in a state of fermentation.] BIBLIOGRAPHY. 337 Lintner, J.A.—‘‘ Entomology in Americain 1879.” Address of the President of the En- tomological Club of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. American Entomologist, iii, p. 16, 1880. |Gives a long notice of Glover’s Manuscript notes —, Cotton, and cites it asa model.] Loring and Atkinson.—Cotton Culture and the South. Boston, 1869. [On p. 64 gives a very meuger notice of the Cotton Worm. | Lyman, Joseph B.—‘“‘ Cotton Planting.” Report of the Commissioner of Agricult- ure, 1866, p. 193. [Under the head of ‘‘ Enemies of the Cotton-Plant, and how to destroy them,” the Cotton Moth is described. Advises sugaring for the moths, fires at night, catching the moths in hand-nets, and picking the leaves on which the egzs are deposited. The article contains some glaring errors. | Lyman, Joseph B.—Cotton Culture. New York, Orange Judd & Co., 1868. ‘‘The Cotton Moth,” pp. 86-39. [A short account of the metamorphoses, with figures of the different stages. ] “M.”—‘“ The Cotton Moth.” American Agriculturist, vi, p. 22, January, 1847. [Effect of weather on the period of development and number of broods ; hypothetical biog- raphy of NV. zylina.] McCook, H. C.—‘“‘ Formicariz.” Report upon Cotton Insects, Department of Agri- culture, 1879, pp. 182-189. [A short report upon the species of ants collected by the observers connected with the Cotton Insect Investigation. Treats of (1) Dorymyrmez insanus (Buckley), (2) D. flavus, n. var., (3) Iridomyrmex maccooki Forel, (4) Crematogaster lineolata (Say), {5) C. clara Mayr, (6) Solenopsis xylont n. sp., (7) Monomorium carbonarium Smith, and figures nos. 1, 4, and 6.] “McG.”—“' Diseases of the Cotton Plant and their Remedy.” De Bow’s Review, xi, p. 7, 1857. Reimpr.—De Bow’s Industrial Resources of the Southern and Western States. 1852, p- 158. McKinnen, Daniel.—Tour through the British West Indies in 1802~3. Giving a Particular Account of the Bahama Islands. London, 1804. [Gives an account of the ravages of the chenille on Acklin’s Island, Bahamas, and also of the appointing of a commission by the general assembly of the islands, in 1801, to investi- gate the causes for the repeated failure of the cotton crop, the principal cause being the rav- ages of the chenille. ] Macon Telegraph and Messenger. — ‘‘ The Cotton Caterpillar.” July 29, 1880. [Contains a press report of Professor Riley’s Mobile Cotton Exchange address, and also prints in full Circular No. 11 of the Commission. ] Marion (Ala.) Commonwealth.—‘ Prof. C. V. Riley.” July 3, 1879. [Editor’s notice of Professor Riley’s views on hibernation and announcement of the pro- posed investigation. ] Mobile Register.—‘‘ The Cotton Caterpillar.” August 18, 1872. Reimpr.—Carolina Farmer, September, 1872. Reimpr.—Southern Farm and Home, October, 1872. {An editorial on this subject, mentioning in the concluding paragraph the fact that Paris green was being used by several persons at that time.] Mobile Register.—“ The Cotton Worm.” June 2, 1880. [Editorial notice of the United States Entomological Commission and a lengthy plea for extended appropriations. ] Montgomery (Ala.) Advertiser.—‘‘ Cotton Caterpillar.” August 15, 1873. [Detailed experiments on the breeding of Aletia in jars.] Morrill, Augustus (United States Consul at Manzanillo, Mexico).—‘‘Cotton Cult- ure and the Cotton Worm at Manzanillo, Mexico.” American Entomologist, iii, p. 152, 1880. Morrison. H. K.,and Hagen, H. A.—‘‘Is Aletia argillacea winter-killed every year?” Psyche, ii, p.23, March-April [9 July] 1877.—Psyche Record, No. 1381. [Support the negative of the question. ] 63 CONG 22 338 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. Morse, George W.—‘ The Cotton Caterpillar.” Monthly Reports of the Department of Agriculture, 1267, p. 249. . [Advises that summary measures be taken to destroy the first brood of worms by offering a reward for the first worm, and as soon as that is found turning a force into the'fields te search for them.) Motheral, W.—‘‘ The Cotton Worm.” Rural Sun, Nashville, Tenn., February 25, 1875 [Gives an incomplete account of the natural histery and advises the introduction of the English Sparrow into the South. ] Mullen, S. B.—‘‘ Stink Bush as an Insecticide.” American Entomologist, iii, p. 228, 1880. [Advises its use for Aletia.} Natchez Democrat and Courier.—September 7, 1880. [A short article (editorial) on London purple and Pyrethrum. j New Orleans Picayune.—‘‘ The Cotton Worm Commission.” August 13, 1878. {Editorial notice of the organization of the investigation with an explanation of the migra- tion theory. } New, W. W.—Southern Planter, 1842. {In an address before the Agricultural Society of Hinds County, Mississippi, 1839, advises planting cotton in hills, giving the plant more light and sun and lessening the protection ot the insect. ] Our Home Journal and Rural Southland.—‘‘ The English Sparrow—A remedy for the Cotton Worm.” 1873. Packard, A. S., jr. pe oeate to the Study of Insects.” Salem, 1869, pp. 313-315. 4. rylina. {Short account of natural history and habits.] Packard, A. S., jr.—‘‘The Cotton Army Worm, Aletia argillacea Hiibner; Anomis rylina, Say.” Report on the Rocky Mountain Locust and other Insects now in- juring or likely to injure Field and Garden Crops in the Western States and Ter- ritories. Extracted from the Ninth Annual Report of the United States Geologi- eal and Geographical Survey of the Territories for 1875, pp. 775-778. [A general account of the insect, compiled from Riley, Grote, and Glover. | Packard, A. S., jr.—American Naturalist, xiv,p. 535, 1879. [Editorial notice of the transfer of the Cotton Worm Investigation from the Agricultural Department to the United States Entomological Commission. | Packard, A. S., jr.—‘‘ Riley on the Cotton Worm.” American Naturalist, xiv, p. 283, 1880. [Notice of Bulletin 3, United States Entomological Commission. } Packard, A. S., jr.—American Naturalist, xiv, p. 753, 1880. [Editorial account of the organization of work on the Cotton Insect Investigation for 1880. | Phares, D. &.—‘‘The Cotton Army Worm (Anomis zylina, Say).” American Ento- mologist, i, p. 242, 1869. [States that the insect hibernates as amoth, and describes the egg. Advoeates hand-pick- ing if it can be done by concerted action on the jee of the planters. Advises also sugaring and fires in May or June. | Phares, D. L.—‘‘ The Cotton Caterpillar (Anomis aylina).” Lecture delivered before the Farmers’ Club of Woodville, Miss., May 4, 1869; abstract published in Rural Carolinian, i, pp. 633, 695, August, 1870. {This article is accompanied by a full page lithograph of cotton-stalk infested by larva, chrysalis and adult, and engravings of the Cotton Worm (Anomis zylina), the Boll Worm (Heliothis armigera), and the Grass Worm (Laphygma frugiperda) in all stages. The article has the following heads: History. Willthe caterpillar cause cotton culturetocease? Why is the caterpillar worse some years? Errors. Proposed modes of destroying. Propagation. ] Philips, M. W.—‘‘ The Cotton Worm.” Southern Cultivator, 1448, p. 28. [Quite an extended article, giving a description of the larva and chrysalis. } Porter, Geo. R.—Tropical Agriculturist. London, 1833. [On p. 24, in speaking of cotton in Guiana, he copies part of Chisholm’s article on the che- mille. | a —_ —_ = ee Peng oP . . * ? BIBLIOGRAPHY. 339 “R.”’—“‘Chrysalis—Paris Green—Professor Riley—Cavairy—Infantry.” Selma (Ala. ) Times, August 7, 1874. [Paris green, arsenious acid, patent pumps, and hand-picking the pup& discussed. } Read, John E.—F arming for Profit. Philadelphia, 1880. [On p. 285 speaks of Cotton Caterpillar and advises the use of Paris green with precautions. | Reese, W. P.—‘‘ Paris Green and the Cotton Caterpillar.” Rural Carolinian, De- eember, 1873. [A short note, preliminary in its nature. | Reese, W. P.—‘‘ The Cotton Caterpillar Again.” Rural Carolinian, v, pp. 565, 566, 1874. : [The cotton worm said to hibernate in the chrysalis state under leaves, &c.; hence, asa remedy, burn leaves in fall. Also gives formula for use of Paris green in solution.] Riley, C. V.—‘‘ The Cotton Army Worm (dnomis xylina, Say).” Second Annual Re- port on the Noxious, Beneficial, and other Insects of the State of Missouri, 1870, pp. 37-41. [An account of the habits and natural history of the insect, with popular descriptions of all stages and figures of eggs, larva, chrysalis, and adult.) Riley, C. V.—‘ Remedy for the Cotton Army Worm.” Proceedings of the National Agricultural Congress ; Indianapolis meeting, 1873. [Urgently advises the use of Paris green.] Riley, C. V.—“‘ Remedy for Cotion Worm.” Read at National Agricultural Con- gress, Indianapolis, 1873. (First printed in Illustrated Journal of Agriculture, Saint Louis, June, 1873; copied by Rural World, Rural Alabamian, Mobile Register, Farmers’ Advocate, and other Southern periodicals. )e {Recommends Paris green.] Riley, C. V.—‘‘ A Remedy for the Cottén Worm.” Vicksburg Herald, May 1, 1874, from the New York Tribune. [Paris green.] Riley, C. V.—‘‘The Cotton Worm.” Sixth Annual Report on the’Noxious, Benefi- cial, and other Insects of the State of Missouri. 1874. pp. 17-24. [This article has the following heads: Paris green; Patents on the Paris green mixture; Hibernation of the insect; Natural enemies; Range of the insect; Other questions. ]} Riley, C. V.—“‘ Insects affecting the Cotton Plant.” Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, 1878. [A short report on the progress made in the Cotton Insect Investigation; embodies a report by A. R. Grote.] Riley, C. V.—‘‘Cotton Worm.” Atlanta Constitution, September 8, 1878. ; [Contains first published suggestion that the moths feed from the extra-floral nectar glands. ] Riley, C. V.—‘‘ The Migrations and Hibernation of Aletia argillacea.” [Read before 1879 meeting of the National Academy of Sciences. | Notice of the same.—Washington World, May 10, 1879. Notice of the same.—Science News, June 1, 1879. Notice of the same.—Scientific American, June 14, 1879. [Reviews the different hibernation theories, and states his belief in the hibernation of the moth in certain seuthern parts of the Cotton Belt.] Riley, C. V.—‘‘ The Cotton Worm.” Mobile Register, July 9, 1879. [Report of a lecture before the Cotton Exchange, in which mention was first made of the relation of the natural enemies to the wet-weather abundance and dry-weather scarcity of the cotton worm.] Riley, C. V.—Review of National Academy paper. American Naturalist, xiii, p. 726, 1879. Riley, C. V.—“ Parasites of the Cotton Worm.” Canadian Entomologist, xi, p. 161. September, 1879. [Describes Trichogramma pretiosa n. sp., Cirrospilus esurus n. sp., and Tachina aletie, n. sp.} 540 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. Riley, C. V.—‘‘ The Cotton Worm in the United States.” Proceedings of the Ameri- can Association for the Advancement of Science, xxviii. Saratoga meeting, 1879. [Brings forward arguments against the migration theory and gives recent discoveries made in the course of the official investigation. } Riley, C. V.— The Cotton Worm in the United States.” Abstract of a paper read be- fore the Saratoga meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. American Entomologist, iii, p. 93, 1880. [Refutes Grote’s migration theory. ] Riley, C. V.—‘‘The Cotton Worm.” Galveston News, October 24, 1879. [An answer to W. J. Jones and to the charges of ‘‘ Investigator.’’} Riley, C. V.—“On the Hibernation of the Cotton Worm.” From advance sheets, Bulletin 3, United States Entomological Commission. American Entomologist, iii, p. 6, 1880. [A long article favoring the hibernation of a small percentage of the moths in the more southern portions of the Cotton Belt.) Riley, C. V.—‘‘ Two valuable Insecticides.” American Entomologist, iii, p. 41, 1880. From advance sheets, Bulletin 3, United States Entomelogieal Commission. [London purple and Pyrethrum.]} Riley, C. V.—“‘The Cotton Worm.” Bulletin 3, United States Entomological Com- mission. Department of Interior. Washington, 1880. [A paper-covered volume of 144 pp., one colored plate and many wood-euts.] Riley, C. V.—‘‘A new Genus of Proctrotrupide.” American Entomologist, iii, p. 52, hea [Describes Didyctium n. g., zigzag n. sp., a parasite of the Cotton Werm.]} Riley, C. V.— Cotton Caterpillars.” Selma Times, June 25, 1880. Riley, C. V.—‘‘ How to manage the Cotton Worm. Suggestions to Cotten Planters.” Farmers’ Review, July 8, 1880. Riley, C. V.—‘The Cotton Worm.” American Entomologist, iii, p. 67, 1880. [From Bulletin 3, United States Entomological Commission. ] Riley, C. V.—‘‘Sowing Cotton Seeds in hot beds and transplanting as a means of preventing injury from the Cotton Worm.” American Entomologist, iii, p. 107, 1880. [Suggestion disapproved on account of difficulty of transplanting without injury. ] Riley, C. V.—‘‘ Cotton Culture and the Insects injuring the plants at Bahia, Brazil.” American Entomologist, iii, p. 128, 1880. (Contains a letter from R. A. Edes, United States Consul at Bahia.} Riley, C. V.—‘‘ Early appearance of the Cotton Worm.” American Entomologist, iii, p. 149, 1880. : [Appearance of the worms in 1880 noted on April 29 and May 8.} Riley, C. V.—‘‘Sprinklers and Atomizers.” American Entomologist iii, p. 185-211, 1880. {Principally extracted from Bulletin 3, United States Entomological Commission. } Riley, C. V.—‘‘Supplementary Instructions to Agents of the United States Ento- mological Commission.” American Entomologist, iii, p. 218, 1880. Riley, C. V.—‘‘The Cotton Destroyers.” New Orleans Democrat, September 21, 1880: Selma Times, September 29, 1880. [A long letter to the Democrat with the subheads: Principles established ; The best pot- sons; London purple; Pyrethrum; Oils; Improved appliances; Poisoning from below ; Early poisoning ; Weather; Conclusions.) Riley, C. V.—‘‘ Additional Experiments with Pyrethrum.” American Entomologist, iii, p. 242, ,1880. [An account of experiments upon Cotton Worms made by Mr. H. G. Hubbard.] Riley, C. V.—“ Insecticides now in use in the South for the Protection of Cotton.” American Entomologist, iii, p. 245, 1880. From the Scientific American. nL pe ae =— BIBLIOGRAPHY. 341 Riley, C. V.—‘‘ Synonyms of Parasites; Mistakes corrected.” American Entomolo- gist, iii, p. 293, 1880. {States Didyctium zigzag—a supposed cotton-worm parasite—to be a Hexaplasta ; also sur- mises it to be a parasite of Phora aletie, and not of Aletia itself.}: Riley, C. V.—Answers to Correspondents concerning Cotton Worm inquiries; also, small notes there-anent. American Entomologist, iii, pp. 107, 108, 129, 154, 181, 204, 205, 206, 228, 278, 1880. Riley, C. V.—‘‘ Cotton Worms and Cicadas, Professor Stelle’s Logic.” Selma Times, July 19, 1861. ; [A controversial answer to certain publications of Professor Stelle’s, and especially to that in the Mobile Register of January 15, 1881.] Riley, C. V.—‘‘ Hibernation of the Cotton Worm Moth; Ease with which mistakes are made.” American Naturalist, xv, p. 244, March, 1881. [A correspondent mistakes Leucania wnipuncta for Aletia. } Riley, C. V.—‘‘ Notes on North American Microgasters, &c.” Transactions of the Academy of Science of Saint Louis, iv, No.2, April 16, 1881. [On pp. 3, 11, and 12 treats of Apanteles aletie,a new species parasitic upon the Cotton Worm. ] Riley, C. V.—‘‘ Moths Mistaken for Aletia.” American Naturalist xv, p. 486. June, 1881. - [Platyhypena seabra and Phoberia atomaris. | Riley, C. V.—‘‘ The Cotton Worm.” Address of Hon. Geo. B. Loring, and other Pro- ceedings of Cotton Convention held at Atlanta, Ga., November 2,1881. Govern- ment Printing Office. 1881. [A lengthy address devoted principally to a description of improved machinery for the de- struction of the worms. } Report of same address.— Atlanta Constitution, November 5, 1881. Say, Thomas.— “‘ Correspondence relative to the Insect that destroys the Cotton Plant.” Southern Agriculturist, i, p.203. 1828. Rempr.—New Harmony Disseminator. 1830. _ Reimpr.—Transactions of the Agricultural Society of the State of New York, 1857. _-p. 883. Reimpr.—Say’s Entomology of North America. Ed. Le Conte,i. pp. 369,381, 1859. (Consists of a letter from C. W. Capers to Thomas Say, transmitting specimens of the cot- ton worm, and Say’s reply, descriking the insect as Noctua zylina. } Schwarz, E. A.—Colorado Citizen, September 9, 1879. {A short letter defending Professor Riley against the charges of ‘‘ Investigator.’’] Schwarz, HE. A.—‘‘ Report of E. A. Schwarz, of Washington, D.C.” Report upon Cotton Insects, Department of Agriculture, 1879, pp. 347-350. [An account of Mr. Schwarz’s trip to the Bahamas in seareh of Aletia, together with ‘‘Re- marks on the Hibernation of Aletia.’’] Schwarz, E. A.—“‘ Biological Note on Euplectrus comstockii Howard.” American Nat- uralist, p. 61, January, 1881. [Gives habits of this Cotton Worm parasite. ] Reimpr.—Naturalists’ Leisure Hour, January, 1881. Scientific American.—‘‘A Probable Cure for Cotton Worm.” October 26, 1878. [Editorial notice of the discovery by Riley that the moths feed on the foliar glands.] Seabrook, Whitemarsh B.—A Memoir on the Origin, Cultivation, and Uses of Cot- ton, from the Earliest Ages to the Present Time, with Especial Reference to the _ Sea Island Cotton Plant, including the Improvements in its Cultivation, and the Preparation of the Wool, &c., in Georgia and South Carolina. Read before the Agricultural Society of St. Johns, Colleton, November 13, 1843, and the State Agricultural Society of South Carolina, December 6, 1843, and by both societies ordered to be published. Charleston, 1~44. [On pp. 42-45 is a short historical sketch of the ‘‘ caterpillar (Noctua xylina), with an ac- count of the methods used in Colleton County to exterminate them; also some remarks upon the natural history of the insect. ] 342 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. Seabrook, W. B.—‘‘ The Cotton Caterpillar.” American Farmer, ii, 308. 1847. From the Charleston Mercury. [States that he does not believe in the hibernation of the moth.] Selma Times.—‘‘ The Cotton Worm Investigation.” Editorial in Selma Times, July 21, 1880. : ei Reimpr.—American Entomologist, iii, p. 197 (1880). Selma Times.—‘‘ Hogs as Destroyers of the Cotton Caterpillar.” September, 1878. Southern Cultivator.—‘“‘ Cotton Caterpillar.” 1846, p. 157. Southern Cultivator.—‘‘ The Cotton Worm; its History, Character, Visitations, &c.” 1847, p. 137. {Editorial answer to Dr. Gorham’s migration theory.] Southern Cultivator.—‘‘ Destroying the Cotton Moth.” viii, p. 132, 1850. [Advocates ‘‘sugaring" for the moth with molasses and vinegar. ] Southern Cultivator.—“ The Caterpillar.” 1869, p. 13. | Advocates hand-picking as the only sure remedy. ]} Southern Cultivator.—‘‘ The Cotton Worm.” 1869, p. 18. | Advises the use of Dr. Heard’s moth-trap.] Spalding, Thomas.—‘‘The Cotton Caterpillar.” American Farmer, ii, p. 283, 1847. From the Savannah Republican. [Advocates burning all rubbish in the spring, destroying the moths before they lay their eggs.] Stelle, J. Parish.—‘‘ Southern Notes. The Coming Cotton Worm.” American Ento- mologist and Botanist, ii, p. 124, 1870. [States that the worm is always worse after a mild winter. Gives differences between ‘‘ grass worm and cotton worm.’’] Stelle, J. Parish.—‘‘ The Cotton Caterpillar.” The Rural Alabamian, i, pp. 78-80, 1872. ; [Arguments to prove that the ravages of the Cotton Worm are worse after a severe wia- ter than amild one. A description of the moth and notes upon the habits of the worm. Hand-picking and fires are advised as remedies.] Stelle, J. P.—‘‘The Cotton Caterpillar. All about how to save the Cotton Crop.” Mobile Register, July 5, 1873: (Gives figures of the insect and describes all stages, with ashort account of habits. Strongly advises the use of Paris green. Quotes from Riley’s paper and says that he him- self tried experiments the previous year with the poison. } Stelle, J. P.—‘‘That Patent on Paris Green.” Mobile Weekly Register, November 21, 1874. : [Contains a lengthy and interesting correspondence between J. P. Stelleand W. B. Royall, relative to the ground covered by Royall’s patent. ] Stelle, J. P.—‘‘The Cotton Caterpillar and how to combat it successfully.” Rural Carolinian, v, pp. 511-515, 1874. [An account of habits, with description and figures of the insect in all stages. use of Paris green. Gives the formula for the Texas Cotton Worm Destroyer.] Advises the Stelle, J. P.—‘ Ants vs. Aletia again.” American Entomologist, iii, p. 251, 1880. Stelle, J. P.—‘‘ Road Dust vs. Cotton Worms.” American Entomologist, iii, p. 252, 1880. Stelle, J. P.—‘‘ The Cotton Worm.” Southern Farmers’ Monthly, June, 1880. Stelle, J. P.—‘:To save the Cotton.” Mobile Register, September 4, 1880. [Paris green and London purple, a long editorial.] Stelle, J. P.—‘‘ Cotton Worms in Mexico.” Mobile Register, February 12, 1881. {Quotes the letters of S. T. Trowbridge, United States Consul at Vera Cruz, and R. de Z. Enriques of the same place; and quotes Professor Riley’s comments in the American Eato- mologist.] a w ~ = & iam = 4 | 1 »-n | | | | ass Diane aS mire ; aA) ina es | Ss eat a ee (eee eee | ee nes al em eee Pe RS oe he ie 7-----]-------- \p28seee | 1 gn..-.---|--------.--- pote as Pee pea eee: Bene eee (Seis ae eo) Dig 2 Db tN eR a Sane ce Bean ses | ee ee PREM Here | Site mae 8s |---=--<-~~=-|-----0-- pt he cee sia as | Axillary leaf Ber eee ier es ie ae ioe saass+ oe Cpe ONL e ppeecltene es it PE Leno Seen : CNN ae rene pe BelS) oo) KOA RGRAY BRR ik! > anes | ee en on ae ee | eens Souk ay ke RSs SES OR eee Rete See a6 ue 20) eae re | eee | 1gn..----.|- : = Senate wee Sota segs at 0 | Axillary leaf. Laas SRS SAS) |S aS Se (Sse e552 555558 ee ee ete ca ee “TSN RSE OR abs Beaee eee set eee eee ere are ad ee | Invelucre of flower-bud. Zs eae ae | lgn | 2en . | tee | gba: i Cel aeek fiekel A large leaf, badly ragged. aE eS ia Ws eg eet Paes Cee opetan, oeerenls ...-| XX | Young but full-grown leaf. eee ‘he ae Fe oS ee Ek ees: pees! REEER POPE te Ee | Full-grown leaf, badly | : ) | ragged. eit re) See ee (pee = Peseceesee ue Bs PSS, Ber Xx | Involucre of flower*bud. 7) Oe ipa 2a Sees Se UL eee ee jeoeene Pee | ee Sad eee ot | Stunted, axiilary leaf. nk es ee ee poe Ph a ree ae ee a | Old, large leaf. seb Bred oS eee toe 1 Pera) Petes hog tes joeeiies Si Cae y < Do. cae a RED Ee fe Pe ae ye Mee le ie Fearne 6, [rae | Hatched, Young leaf, egg-shell on up- | | shell. | persurface. (LL alana [en PER ta Hepices © spu see ame (Eee. ah! Geese Peels coe x | Involucre of flower-bud. <1 2D Be oes Riga | Ef ge Sel | Sea a ene ae jones ease Dd | Large leaf, hardly ragged. ie ee =e dens) Vent ote: te ae ee roee Pee ae ee RH nee | Axillary leaf. ee 7: Coe a es ee i em be oe ee A hisiy 1 se Se ey SNe ; Badly sanded leaf. 58 ..-.) lgn.--|..-..---|------------ fle Sap te [eee Poe fo Seo See | Immature leaf of a sprout at | . . | base of stalk. : or Lavette ae erase 43 Spt ae Gaaanacingee™ tee otegad Oe rs x i A large branch joining main Ww. ct Nee ce ein ars Se cay oc ors, BAG ug ho dee ea '\ stem at base, with seven- Rea lp Fea. erage reo NWaNaeioey Se ary racer (Geant) ic anne ate | teen leaves, less mature ee RS) eer Si ePMaRin cede momcrS bas g Toll don is MER EN than those of main stalk. rE ARE Aa (ek tide RIE RINNE REARS ANRRES Muti i ARP Se ITS at J 8 | 5 18 7: 2 1 10 The main stalk bore sixty leaves, of which twelve were immature and but slightly fretted by larve. The Jeaves are nimbered from the top downwards, Nos. 1 to 26 being upon the upper half, Nos. 1 to 60 upon the lower half of the plant. The lower leaves were all somewhat sanded. gn. indicates worms of green color; bk., those with dark bands; x indicates eggs parasitized by Trichogramma and turn- ing black; the single sound egg is marked 0. 3 —ee ee + I a i i i REPORT OF H. G. WUBBARD. [9] As the moths live and continue to lay eggs for many days, it follows that the suc- cessive generations rapidly become intermingled and confused. Any division into exact periods is therefore hypothetical, but the maximum number of generations can be arrived at with certainty by combined observations in the field and in vivaria. The following statement exhibits in tabular form the conditions observed in the field, together With the periods of time occupied in each stage of growth, as deter- mined by numerous experiments made from time to time in vivaria indoors and under nettings in the field: Ai fo) —_ RM io) bp a P= © ie) I =< Oo pom do 2) I © = © =. Ai <3) 2) ee fH = EX M eal fQ Ee en Zi = =~ H iam ‘) Ay rn a= 1 = rH ee ‘quvova [[v Ayzvou adnug - ‘poytova ednd Auvut 9012 vo 4 ‘eg ysndny ‘ednd Auvm 0011 Yvro 4v ‘cz 0} Zz WSNSNYy ‘punog ednd Moy @ 0017 Vo 9v ‘OZ YNSnYW ‘PpoPVOVA SHIJF-INoF ‘ZL ysnsny ‘POJVOVA SPATYJ-OAY ‘TT Jsnsny ‘poTBoVa JOU [[IS AUBW ‘OT JnsNVy ‘Aqduo o1v punoy adnd oy} yo 4soul ploy jo sjyaed ottlos ur ‘6 JSnony "SYJOU OY} POSOlo -SIp OABY J[vy-ouo Yoh you ‘Gg ysnony ‘suIsve1our AjTpidet zoquinu ‘oe Ajne 103300 Sano ur [vuorsvodo90 ‘oz Apne ‘punoj oaou ‘yt Arne ‘wedng ‘00.14 3180 "BALvy sunos 10 qv dn poqqom ju Aj1wom ‘92 ysnSny| ssdo Moy A19A 901} Hvo 38 ‘0g ysnsNy (9014 yeo uv Aq poxyrvu Aq1[vo00]) pos “SBI 10}J0O !KOZIS ][B JO BAIT O10Y ‘m0}300 suNOA OT} Wool ODmeISTP G48 punoyz 10}N99 poorq B ‘0g Jsnsny *(poo1q snotaocid JO SJUvUMIOI per0g}BOs) Sploy oY Ul punoy sUTIOM AOF AIOA ‘QT 4SNSNW ‘u0}j09 SuNoA Jo pooqaoqysreu Ul e1oyMAUB U9OS CMON ‘ON, 4JsNnSNYy "OLOTAL -Auv punoy oq 03 Moz AzOA ‘Gg Qensnyw 109400 Sunod OY) UT dn SUIQqoA SULIOM 4S8v] OY} ‘2 IsSHSNW ‘sAUp 0014} ISV] OY} UL poyednd oavy Aqriofeur 044 ‘c ysnsnyw *posovd SUIMLODSY 109700 ‘yuRpUNnge A1OA O10 SmOA ‘109900 Sunod Ul punoy s0jyu00 pooiq wv ‘og Ane "M0018 [Vv AywoN «“saavotT ceddn uo sasqunu SUISvo10OMl UL sutIvodde ‘ez 09 0g AInE *(poorq patty moi suotdcrays AlTqeqoid) ploy oy} FO syed {Tv ul woes Moz eT ‘pT ADE "MAMOIG [[DJ 0} YYJG-ou0 MOIy BAIV'T ‘quepunge jou w@arry sunod ‘9, Jsnsnyw "SOIUIETIO kucur fq poyov}ye ware, Son0x ‘pozizisvivd o1v OOM 10 4099 10d 06 4nq ‘soso XI8 0} eNO WIOIy IvOq Jou Op YOITA SeAvoT MoJ AIOA ‘G] JSS! ‘muunsboyorny, Sq poziisvaied Jyeq aeqzo10m1 4nq ‘ploy jo sqivd {je ul privy sedo ‘TT ysnsny ‘JVO] MOU UI U0Z}00 SuNnod ‘OT snsny ‘punoy A][VUOIsYd00 BOSH ‘S1OQUINM Ur suIsvo10ep ‘gz Ajne * *g 09 T ‘soseqs 1070 [[v 038390 Jo u0l4.10d01d ‘G07 T ‘BAI JOPTO 04 Sunod jo uory10doid ‘209200 SunoA poysojur uo ‘9z Aine ‘1908 AT[BVUOISvd00 ‘cz 04 OZ AINE pre] sureg Mou AT Qe -qoid 02% poorq {Ano Jossso ‘pT Ane ‘ware Sunok pur ss3q | puve sw10js exoaos ‘'g 19quieydeg "poo1g JSvy OT} OF S19q “Tan ee UW 40u 4nq ‘SuIsocyo “sip A[pidv1 uonvi9ues mon 001} FVOYW ‘ouos avd yvois UI UOMvsoUed ysv_ ‘gz ysnBuy ‘Buyrvoddesip ysvy Tonvi0uled 4se[ JO osot} ynq ‘ees syyJOUr emos 0012 Heo 4u ‘oz ysnsny ‘SUOUIMIISIOd Mo]TV, qnoqu yuvpunqe 10 ‘yt ysnsny ‘O1OYMAIOAS SUIMIIVAS ‘OT ond W “PIod UI o10YMAIOAO UoOs ‘8 YSNSNW ‘qqo1u Jo Jley Ysay 9Y} Satmnp s1oqunTa 4Void UL SUISOTORIp [148 ‘2 Jsnony "‘POsopOsIp OABY S1OqUINM yvois ‘g ysnony ‘OSO[OSIP 0} Surunisoq ‘2 ysnsnWw ( ‘dn Surqqom snvuyuq ‘SUIpoo} [[198 Artsofep, “BArvy M00is OY} JequInujno oO} UIs -Oq YoVvlg ‘soavoyT jo poddiays Ajorryjyue §=sjuejd Auvur ‘sdr4s UL Mo4vo 107300 Sunock ‘og ATnE? "PIS. JO Jou100 ouO ut moos ‘yt A[nE ‘STOW OW OSVIOAY ‘skup g o8e -LOAB ! BAVP BOF L‘ednd jo powog ‘shep OT ‘osv10 “AG ‘shep OT 04 6 ‘porod yeaaqvy ‘SINOT, FR 0} sinoy ZL—sAepe ‘950 JO WOT}eqnoUy ~ "g coqmieydeg 0% 6 ysnsny ‘¢ ‘shep $2 qjour 09 Sso woz PMI} OSVIOAY ‘sABp G‘osv10AR ‘shup IT 0} g ‘poraod jednd jo uorneangy ‘sfep ZT ‘oov1e | -av Ssi{ep FT 03 6 ‘potted [vary “‘sAVp ‘9.00 JO TOIYVQnoUy "6. 48n3 ny 0} ot Aine “> ‘sXup 0g ‘porsed stq] 4B qyOUL 04 Sido WoIy OT] Jo YSU] O[QeQoIg ‘poor sIq} Jo sUOTyeAIOSqoO ON |* A[nE puB ouNnL ‘g ‘LT ouNnL ynoge posopostp A;quqoad sqyoyY “Avp Suraojjoz oy} dn poqqos yorqa ‘g oun puNnos BAR] UAOIS-[[NJ OMT, |" oun puv Avy_ *Z ‘6 Avy ‘sivok 1OULIOJ Ul MOOS SUIIOA FSOT[IVO CYT, ‘OSST Ul UOLwAIESsqo pedvoso poor sty, | Avy puvpudy ‘Tt *SMOTZVIOUOS JO WOISsoDONG "39j0U p)9yf fo ,UIWASUDLAD LD)NGVT ‘08ST ‘spoorg [11] HUBBARD. G. REPORT OF H. “SOPISB -red £q pososysop [ye Sunod pur s33qq ‘quBpuNnqds jou 8390 901} YVO VW ‘posoposIp OAvy sozisvred TOM wo1y s]joqys Aydme Jo s1oquInU }voID _ 1044300 Sunok ‘posofo SmOTyeAIOSgo ‘fF LoquIEydog ‘O10oYMAUB SULIOM ON | OG} UL SSSo Moz AtOA ‘gz ysnSnW ‘7IMIF WOTTBF JNOQGe SqjOU MOT VW ‘m01y8jUv]d 94} JO sjavd 19940 ul oUOT ‘oyisvied wajspbosorpy Aq pofo148 ‘qs0d 010} & UI dUIpUS ‘yooAL ‘sAup 1z ‘ Yjour £9013 YVO JV JJoT Mozy ‘QZ YHNonY | -op [[e ware, Sunod ‘gz 07 OZ ysnsnyY | ysvd oY JOZ suUIBI 4UEySuOO 04 39 woud {12] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. As the earlier broods did not fall under my observation, there may be a question as to their number, but the season of 1880 being an early one, it is probable that the first brood was no later in making its appearance than in former years, when grown worms were seen early in May. In this case the first brood will have begun in April. The two larve found by Mr. Roberts on June 5, and which pupated on the following day, will then fall into the second brood; and the moths appearing about the middle of the month, an interval of thirty days remains to be occupied by the third brood. During this period the eggs were scattered over the entire plantation, and as their deposition was probably continued many days, the succeeding generations became confused, The past season has been hot, and with an unusual amount of rainfall, particularly during the month of August, conditions which are usually regarded as favorable to the development of Aletia, and unfavorable to enemies, but which at Centreville do not appear to have hindered in the slightest degree the spread of certain parasites— notably the minute egg parasite (Zrichogramma). My observations upon the egg of Aletia simply confirm what has been already noted by other observers, and I have not thought it of advantage to multiply tables which would give results not differing materially from those shown in the one already pro- duced. I found the eggs almost invariably deposited on the under side of the leaf, often close to but very rarely upon a vein. Exceptionally they were found upon the upper surface of a leaf, and in one or two instances upon the involucre of a flower. In July an undue proportion appeared to be deposited upon axillary leaves, i. e., those growing upon the main stalk, in the axils of branches. Such leaves are often aborted in size, have smooth surfaces, and, though very mature and tough, are seldom rusted or infested with plant lice. They appear to afford the most favorable food material to the very young larve. The middle third of most plants bears the great- est number of eggs, although the lower leaves, even when much sanded, are often not disdained by the mother moths. These, as a rule, deposit but one egg upon a leaf; rarely two appear to be laid upon the same leaf by a moth, in which case they are found close together, and were probably deposited simultaneously. Upon leaves marked for special observation I have had three eggs deposited during the same night. The number found upon a single leaf will depend upon the abundance of moths, the condition of the plants, &c. I have never observed more than seven unhatched eggs upon the same leaf. Eggs are laid during the first part of the night and early morn- ing. I believe few are deposited between midnight and 2 o’clock a.m. In the period of incubation I found little variation; the young worms appeared on the fourth day, seventy-two to eighty-four hours from the laying of the egg, hatching usually in the early morning. The young worms appear upon the outer or upper leaves of the plant when nearly half grown. Only green worms were seen until the fourth brood was well advanced, in the lat- ter part of July. Worms with dark stripes then appeared, and gradually became more numerous, until at the close of the fourth and throughout the fifth brood they outnumbered the green worms. Numerous tests failed to show any difference in time of development between the two forms. The worms were seldom ‘seen feeding at night, and only on bright moonlight or starlight nights. Many specimens were, how- ever, bred from the egg to the moth in tight tin boxes, and this exclusion of light appeared to have no effect upon the coloration. Of those fed upon immature leaves a greater proportion remained uniformly green; but the experiment was not conclu- sive, as not a few of those fed upon mature leaves remained equally light-colored, while dark forms occurred in all my breeding-boxes. I was unable to find the worms feeding upon other plants than cotton, either in the cultivated fields or woods in the vicinity. Although I sometimes failed to observe more than three or four molts, a variation from the normal number, five, was never satisfactorily made out. It is often asserted by the planters that cotton in the shade of trees is not eaten by the caterpillars. My own observations upon this point gave conflicting results. While in some cases I found cotton thus shaded entirely untouched, although the surround- ing plants were much ragged, in other marked instances shade appeared to exercise no protective influence. The following transcript from my notes gives one case in point. It records the discovery of a brood center belonging to the fifth generation. August 20: I learned to-day of a portion of the field where caterpillars were to be found, and visited it. It is a small area of ‘‘ bottom land,” bordering upon the road. The cotton is somewhat ragged, and worms of all sizes are moderately abundant. There are worms just webbing up and pupz2 both vacated and living. Young worms (one-third grown) are the most abundant, but eggs are scarce, and I saw but one or two moths. This is evidently a center of the brood following that in the ‘‘ young cotton,” which is in the same field about a quarter of a mile distant. By the side of the road, and covering a portion of this bottom, stands a very large oak tree, with low, spreading branches, casting quite a dense shade. The tree has been girdled and is slowly dying, but has not lost its leaves. The cotton rows under it are unbroken. The plants standing close about its trunk are very tall and rank, with large and fully REPORT OF H. G. HUBBARD. We bd; matured leaves; they are covered with caterpillars, and even more badly ragged than those outside in the sun. Cases of apparently whimsical exemption from attack are sometimesmet with. As for example two fields, separated only by the turn of a furrow, one of which is eaten up to the last row and the other left untouched. In these, as well as in cases where shade is found to exercise a protective influence, I. am inclined to suspect an explana- tion will be found, as has been suggested by others, in a difference in the nectar se- cretion of the leaf glands, the moths being perhaps attracted to those plants where the flow of nectar is greatest, and avoiding those where, from some cause, but little is secreted. As to the laws which govern the secretion of nectar I know nothing. , The period of larval existence was, at Centreville, about nine days in July and ten daysin August. Invivaria in the house the time was extended to fourteen days in the former and sixteen days in the latter month. The worms occupy nearly the whole of one day in completing their webs or cocoons; the following day they change to pupe, - which attain their full brown color before morning of the third day. The pupa, except in cases of accidental reversal, is invariably found with the head towards the base of the leaf. The pupa state lasts from eight to eleven .days in July, from seven to eight days in August. The warm, damp nights in August seemed to hasten their development. The moths begin to emerge from pupa soon after sunset, and continue to appear - during a great part of the night. In August, on cloudy days, large numbers disclosed -at 6.30 p.m. The period of existence in the imago stage is difficult to determine with certainty. The males probably die soon after copulation. In the fourth and fifth broods the life of the female is certainly not more than fifteen days. Under net-— ting in the field, they survived nine or ten days, laying eggs nightly during at least half of this period, and dying without having deposited all their ova. I am inclined to think the average life of a moth in freedom is about ten days. In vivaria, when deprived of moisture, they invariably died in four or five days. By keeping the airin the breeding jar moist, and giving them fresh cotton leaves sprayed with water, their life was prolonged in some cases eleven days. They drank greedily, lapping up with their proboscis the artificial dew produced by an atomizer. I first observed copu- lation in my breeding jars on August 7. The following is a transcript from my notes of that date: At 6 o’clock this morning I found two Aletia moths in copulation ; they disclosed last evening from pup that I was handling. I watched them about fifteen minutes, when they quietly separated. The male. genitals were not much protruded. The two terminal plumes clasped the body of the female on either side, but I was unable to observe the position of the other parts. The male rested with wings horizontal in the usual position, the female held the wings raised vertically, a position I have never seen it assume. Neither sex made any movement until they separated, when the male genitals were retracted at once to the normal position. My next observation was on August 14, when I found two pairs in copulation at 4 a.m. On this occasion I watched my jars during the entire night, except between the hours of 2 and 4 a. m., when I unfortunately fell asleep. On awaking at4 a. m., I found one pair ia coitu in jar No. 9 and another pair in jar No. 11. Both contained moths which had emerged from pupa three nights before (August 11). Evidently copulation had been in progress some time, for they soon separated, when disturbed by the fluttering of the other moths. Both sexes held the wings horizontal. As to the position of the genitalia nothing new could be made out! Many fertile eggs had been deposited in the same jar earlier in the night, and probably by moths that had copulated during the first or second nights. My breeding jars have been under observation at all hours up to 1 a. m., but copulation was never seen during this part of the night. Up to August 14 my night work in the fields had never been continued later than 1 a. m., and consequently I had never seen copulation there. Subsequently I made observations during the early morning hours, and on several occasions found moths in coitu just before daybreak. The coupling ceased as soon asit became light. During the day it is the invariable habit of the moth on alighting to turn the head downward. After dark and throughout the night, they retain indifferently any posi- tion they may happen to take on coming to rest. At dawn, as the light increases, it is a curious sight to see the moths, one after another, reverse their positions, and set- tle themselves for their diurnal nap. Aletia does not appear to me to be greatly at- tracted by light; on the contrary, the moths often seem to be repelled by it. In carrying a lantern through the fields at night, an occasional specimen flew against the glass, often, as it seemed to me, in anger. Multitudes, disturbed by the light, flew up at my approach and vanished in the darkness overhead. So wary do they become when a strong light falls upon them that observations of their habits by night are rendered exceedingly difficult, and I never once succeeded in watching closely a moth in the act of laying her eggs. Late in the season, when the mothsroam far and wide in search of fruit, many fly into lighted rooms through the open windows, show- ing that for certain individuals light has some attraction. NN [14] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. I believe also that a broad glare, like that of a bonfire, attracts a greater number than the concentrated light of a lantern. I have also known them to fly at the glow-. ing end of a cigar. That the moths are exceedingly fond of fruit, is a fact too well known to require iteration. I found them clustering upon figs, peaches, and especially upon persimmons, which attract them from great distances. * * * * * * * EXPERIMENTS WITH POISONS. Pyrethrum.—Samples of the powder sent me by the Commission were of two sorts, Milco’s Californian Buhach and an imported product. To test their relative strength, sixty Cotton Worms were collected and divided into two lots, as equally as possible, so that neither set should contain an undue proportion of old orof young worms. Each set was placed in a Mason jar, and thoroughly dusted with a small quantity of powder, one jar with the Buhach, the other with the imported pyrethrum. The worms were immediately afterwards turned out upon newspapers spread upon the ground. Those dusted with Buhach were paralyzed and unable to crawl about in from 15 to 20 minutes. Those treated with imported pyrethrum were similarly affected in from 25 to 30 minutes. In both lots the worms began to be affected in less than one minute, and nearly all died within 12 hours. Another experiment was made upon one hundred worms of all sizes, in which the powder (imported) was applied in the open air by means of a bellows. Worms one-fifth to one-third grown were com- ‘pletely paralyzed in 10 minutes; worms one-half grown in 30 to 45 minutes; full- grown worms showed the full effect of the poison after several hours. In about three hours the smaller worms appeared to be dead. The oldest worms did not die before night. Experiments were made in the field upon Aletia larve, using very small quantities of pyrethrum powder. A few particles dropped with the fingers upon worms from half to full grown produced convulsions in from 3 to 10 minutes. The action of the poison is much more powerful upon young than upon old worms, but depends in each case less upon the amount of powder used than upon the part of the body it first touches or the method of applying it. Very small particles placed upon the sides of the larve, especially near the anterior Spiracles, produce a more marked effect than larger quantities dropped upon their backs or lodged among the hairs. The effect is also enhanced by driving the powder with force against them, by means of a bellows, for example, as the particles are thus driven into closer contact. The effect of Californian Buhach (pyrethrum) powder upon young Aletia larve is shown in the following experiments, the object being to ascertain the minimum quantity that could be used with effect : All the larve were hatched last night (August 10), from eggs laid in breeding jar dur- ing the night of August 7 (except larva [n], which was only a few hours from the eg¢). (a) Three minute fragments of pyrethrum laid upon back (terminal half of body) with the point of a needle: larva affected in 15 seconds; convulsed in 1 minute and 15 seconds. Died inp. m. (b) One miuute fragment applied on back (anterior segments): fragment dropped off in3 minutes; probably only adhered to hairs of body 34 minutes; larva appeared affected but slightly; after three hours larva appears to have re- covered. P.m., went to eating and fully recovered. This is a very vigorous larva, probably several hours older than the rest. (August 12th; has grown larger, and eating well.) (ec) One almost microscopic fragment applied, with needle point, to side near spiracles: evidently affected in 15 seconds; convulsed in 14 minutes. Frag- ment adhered one minute. Larva died in p. m. ‘ {d) One very minute fragment (almost microscopic fragment) applied on side of body near middle. Larva lost sight of during 4 minutes, at end of which time was entirely convulsed. Died in p. m. (e) Several (3 or 4) small fragments applied on side of body: affected in 30 seconds; convulsed after 2 minutes 15 seconds. Died in p. m. (f) One minute fragment on middle of back: affected in 1 minute 15 seconds; con- vulsed in 3 minutes; fragment dropped off in 3 minutes. Four o’clock p. m., larva recovering ; later, went to eating; entirely restored. (Aug. 12, alive and well.) {g) One microscopic fragment on back at anal extremity of body and very soon lost off (20 seconds ?).. Seemed affected after 5 minutes ; examined after 2 hours, seems not injured. In p. m., entirely well [see (g‘)]. {h) One large fragment (size of “‘ blowfly” egg) applied for 5 or 6 seconds to side of body, near or upon spiracles: affected in 2 minutes; convulsed in 4 minutes; 2 hours, unable to move about; 4.30 p.m., still alive but disabled. Died be fore night. REPORT OF H. G. HUBBARD. [15] (i) One entirely microscopic fragment applied to back of neck: affected in 1} min- utes ; convulsed in 3 minutes; 4.30 p. m., appears recovering. (Angust 12, larva died this morning). (k) One entirely microscopic fragment applied underneath anterior segments be- tween legs: adhered only a few seconds; appears affected after 15 minutes, but able to move about. 4.30 p. m.j recovering and eating; later, fully recov- ered. (August 12, alive and well.) Note.—Larvze (1) (m) and(n) were treated as follows:-A small quantity of pyre- thrum placed on a piece of paper was lightly sprayed with an atomizer, and allowed-to remain covered with drops of moisture for about 10 minutes. The larve were then touched with a needle dipped in this poisoned dew. (1) A single, very slight, and probably insufficient application beneath anterior seg- ments: no moisture adhered to larva: affected after 1 minute 15 seconds; 1 hour later, appears torpid but not convulsed. 4p. m., recovered and eating. (August 12, alive and well.) (m) Touched with poisoned dew about anterior segments, and moisture left upon the back of the segments; more thoroughly applied than in preceding larva; affected in 45 seconds; convulsed in 2 minutes. 4.30p.m., recovered. (Au- gust 12, alive and well.) (n) A very young larva, probably hatched late this morning, was allowed to crawl along needle and over a drop of poisoned dew: instantly affected; convulsed in 15 seconds. Died inp. m. (g') Second experiment with larva (g) madein p.m. One fragment, size of blowfly egg, laid on back, middle of body, not touching the skin, but adhering to hairs; dropped off in 30 seconds; evidently affected in 45seconds ; completely con- vulsed in2 minutes. Died in a few hours. Pyrethrum powder was blown with a bellows upon Aletia moths clustering upon ripe figs at night. The moths wereevidently affected, but flew away in a few minutes. No fresh moths alighted upon fruit thus dusted, but as the powder rapidly loses its _ strength when exposed to the air, the protection afforded by it to fruit probably lasts only a few hours, and it cannot therefore be recommended for this purpose. Tried upon different insects, it appears to affect the higher Hymenoptera more than other insects. Anisare almostinstantly affected. Wasps continue feeding for about twenty seconds, and are violently affected in from one totwominutes. Larve of all kinds are more quickly affected than imagos. Termites, owing probably to their tender bodies, are instantly affected and soon killed. Spiders resist longer than anything else. They sometimes change their skins when dusted with the powder. Copris and Phaneus are slightly affected, and long resist the action of the powder. Scolopendride afiected similarly to spiders. Bugs slightly affected, especially the large and heavily armed predaceous species. Large grasshoppers slightly affected. Roaches very violently affected. These observations refer to the immediate action of the dry and undiluted powder, and are comparative only. There is no doubt that insects often recover from slight applications. Experiments in the field, with the dry powder sifted upon the plants, gave very un- satisfactory resulis, unless large quantities of the powder were used. On August 28, a very windy day, I tried an application with the bellows, allowing the wind to carry the powder in fine clouds through the foliage, and using about one pound tothe acre. In this way, owing partly to the impossibility of securing an equal distribution, some worms were affected at a distance of ten or fifteen feet, while others, much nearer, -were not affected at ail. I have reason to believe that very few worms were killed outright at this trial. Some recovered ina few hours. A number of those which showed signs of pain, but had been very lightly dusted, I confined in vivaria, and all completed their transformation in the usual time. Aft the time the foregoing experi- ment was made, the leaves were quite wet with recent rain, and another heavy shower occurred later in the day. Infusions made by pouring hot (not boiling) water uponthe powder were found in- eifective and quite worthless. With a strong extract I have had yo opportunity of experimenting. Alcohol poured upon the powder, extracts a sufficient quantity of the poisonous oil to be very effective when used with an atomizer, but is too expensive for use on a large scale. London purple—Several experiments were tried in which small quantities of this powder were dusted upon the plants without diluents. Whenever a quantity was used sufficient to kill the worms the leaves were badly scorched. Poisoning the moths.—At a time when the moths swarmed at night about the fallen fruit under persimmon trees in the fields, I poisoned the fruit with London purple, and also with white arsenic. In this way many moths were undoubtedly killed, butas | numbers of them flew away to die, the exact proportion could not be ascertained. Under nettings covering cotton plants, moths were readily killed by giving them poi- soned fruit. They do not appear to dislike the frnit even when mixed with an excess of London purple or arsenic, and settle quite as readily upon the poisoned as upon [16] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. the unpoisoned fruit. By poisoning the nectar glands moths were killed under net- tings, but the result was not as satisfactory as with poisoned fruit. Although I do not think much practical benefit can be secured by attempts to kill the moths late in the season, yet, in view of its cheapness and effectiveness, baiting them with poisoned fruit seems preferable to any device in which lamps are used. Whether or not the moths of the early brood can be destroyed by poisoning dishes of fruit, as for exam- ple dried apples soaked, and exposed in the fields, I am not prepared to say, but I think it more likely to succeed than any of the lamp traps that have been recom- mended. Yeast.—The results of experiments with yeast are: (1) in the field, yeast sprayed with an atomizer upon feeding larve, and sprinkled upon the leaves with a brush, had no effect during either dry or wet weather; (2) yeast poured upon pup in their webs, no effect, the moths subsequently disclosed; (3) in a very foul tin box in which frass, &c., had been allowed to accumulate, the worms neglected and in unhealthy condition, eleven caterpillars two-thirds grown were sprayed August 18 with yeast diluted with water tothe thickness of milk ; the diseased condition of the worms was immediately aggravated. Two died in twelve hours ; August 20, three more had died ; August 21, five worms alive, all unhealthy, but one webbing up; all finally died; (4) @ tin box containing healthy larve, raised from the eggs, and ten days old, was thor- oughly sprayed three or four days in succession, but box kept clean, fresh food and air supplied every day. All completed their metamorphoses, unafiected by the yeast; (5) three glass jars and several tin and wooden boxes containing healthy larve and pupz of Aletia sprayed several times in succession, without any effect. Early in the season it was my habit to freshen the air and contents of my breeding cages daily with pure water sprayed in by an atomizer. Late in August I found many of my boxes infected so that the contained insects died, or the contents became moldy after spraying with water, and I was obliged to abandon this practice. At this time, if yeast and water were used, the effect was simply to hasten the appearance of mold and the diseases of the insects confined in close boxes. THE BOLL WORM (Heliothis armigera) Hiibn. I have often heard the statement made by planters that the Boll Worm did them more injury than the Cotton Worm (Aletia). I think, however, the amount of injury done is frequently exaggerated, the dropping of the squares and young bolls from many causes being often attributed to the attacks of Heliothis. During my season’s work I nowhere found it abundant, although everywhere present. The life history of Heliothis having been thoroughly studied by Professor Riley and others, I did not give very much time toit. I found, however, that the eggs are laid singly, more often upon the leaf than upon the involucres of the flowers. They hatch in three to four days. The young worms feed at first upon the leaves, then upon petals of flowers, and finally upon the bolls. I, however, found comparatively few eating entirely into large bolls, and believe the worm sometimes eats only leaves and flower petals through- out its life. As before noted, they frequently devour the pupa of Aletia. In confine- ment the larval period lasted about twenty days, and the pupa twelve days. The only parasites are Trichogramma pretiosa and a Tachinid fly which also preys upon Aletia and has already been noticed. Very respecfully, H. G. HUBBARD. Prof.iC.-V.. BILey; APPENDIX II. REPORT OF PROF. Rk. W. JONES. OXFORD, November 27, 1880. Sir: I herewith mail to you a brief report of work done by me and under my direc- tion according to authority from you. I had the valuable assistance of Prof. J. W. Kilpatrick, A. M., now of Central Col- lege, Mo., during August. In gathering material and handling it for making the large number of extracts, in- fusions, and decoctions, which I tried here, and many of which I shipped, on your order, to Selma, Ala., to be used by yourself and Mr. Schwarz, I had the co-operation of Messrs. F. S. Chew and R. W. Jones, jr., both students of the university. Accept my acknowledgments for your uniform courtesy in our correspondence and work, and be assured of my high appreciation of the valuable services you are ren- dering to the cotton interests of the Southern States. Very respectfully, &c., R. W. JONES, University of Mississippi. Prat YY. Ritny, M. A., Pu. D., iS Chief United States Entomological Commission. fHE COTTON BOLL WORM. (Heliothis armigera.) This worm is far more injurious to cotton in this part of Mississippi than the Cot- ton Army Worm or any other insect pest. I believe the cultivators of cotton are by - _ no means aware of its devastating power. It begins its work here in May, sometimes in June, and continues until about the end of September. Its mode of work, and the great variety of its plant-food, give it marked advantages in the struggle for life and inmultiplying. Itis well known to all students of this subject that the moth of the Cotton Army Worm (Aletia xylina), in visiting a field of cotton, begins at a selected spot that affords moisture and tender, juicy plants, and lays its eggs within quite a limited area, so that the worms, as soon as hatching begins, are there in considerable numbers. This fact makes it comparatively easy and inexpensive to apply insect poisons for Aletia larve. But the moth of Heliothis lays its eggs over a much wider area; the young worms are scattered more sparsely on the cotton, and therefore itis more costly and laborious to poison them. Moreover, during much of the time, these larve of Heliothis are hid- den wholly or partially in the bolls into which they eut their way. It is difficult, there- fore, to affect them by means of those poisons which must be projected upon the food of insects, and be devoured by them, in order to their destruction ; and, no matter what kind of poison might be employed, a much larger quantity would be needed to reach the scattered Boll Worms than the same number of Aletia feeding close together. It is not to be inferred that the damage in a field is small because the worms are scattered. The amount of damage done by a single worm is astonishing. I have counted 18 young bolls, shriveling, decaying, and falling or fallen, besides many blooms and unopened flower-buds pierced; all the work of one Boll Worm and that not grown. : I gave particular attention to two fields near Oxford this summer. I think the damage by the Boll Worm amounted to 25 per cent. of the crop. I visited a field with Judge Lawrence C. Johnson, of Holly Springs. Judge Johnson estimated the loss by Heliothis to be 20 per cent.; I thought his estimate a very moderate one. ‘ Food-planis.—Besides cotton, this worm feeds on young corn plants, tender silks and grains of ears of corn, peas, beans, tomatoes, and okra. They may also feed on other plants on which I have not found them. These worms are specially fond of the blades and tender stems of young corn plants 63 CONG—AP 2 [17] [18] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. and of the silks and grains of the growing ears. The presence of the worm on young corn plants is indicated by round holes cut in the blades, and the worm and its excre- ment may usually be found in the sheath. There is generally no external evidence - of the worm on the ear; it eats the silk and tender grains at the distal end, and as it consumes the juicy grains it lies in the cavity thereby made, the excrement remain- ing behind it and between the husk and cob. In order to find the corn worm ( Helio- this armigera) on the ear, it is, therefore, necessary to open the husk. I have found the worm grows more rapidly when it feeds on corn grains than on any other food, though the size of the worm at maturity is no larger, and I could not discover that the moth raised from the corn worm differed from other Heliothis moths more than those raised on cotton differed from each other. After these general remarks I will give the history of Heliothis as it was developed by my studies. It is proper to re- mark that my systematic work began about the middle of July, and even then my attention was for some time mainly directed to the preparation of vegetable extracts, infusions, and decoctions, in the hope of finding some plant or plants indigenous to this locality that possessed insecticide and insectifuge properties. The egg.—lt was very difficult to find the eggs. I never found, with the most care- ful search, more than two or three on a plant; sometimes not an egg on a plant. The egg is white, clear white, with sometimes a yellowish or brownish coloration at the apex. It is fastened to the part of the plant on which it is deposited, very- much as the egg of Aletia, by a gum. It is a little larger than the egg of the Cotton Worm Moth (Aletia), and sculptured very much in the same way. I found them on the involucre of the flower or young boll, on the pedicel or flower stem, near the torus or receptacle, on leaves and on petioles or leaf stems. In the hot weather of July and August, the larger number of eggs was found ou the under side of the thickest, darkest leaves. The duration of the egg state is from three to five days. : The larva.—The larva hatches and at first feeds on the tender parenchyma of in- volucre or leaf, and makes its way as quickly as possible to a flower or young boll. In July and August the large majority of young Heliothis larve were found within the corolla, eating sometimes the essential elements of the flower and sometimes the petals. They seemed to be specially fond of these floral parts. While on the buds of flowers feeding they were quiet, but if seen on the leaf or stem they exhibited signs of restlessness and moved from point to point. Every flower bud and every flower attacked by them fails to produce fruit. The worm, when small, moves with great ease and with comparative rapidity, ‘‘ looping” as it goes. As it grows larger its movements are less easy, and it is more liable, when disturbed, to fall from the plant. When a few days old, if bolls are on the cotton, it attacks these, seeming at first to prefer the small, tender bolls and afterwards the large ones. It bites off the outside slick, hard covering sufficient for a hole, allowing the entrance of the worm, and thereafter it feeds on the juices and seeds and cotton in the interior of the boll. Some- times it cuts off a part of the outside of the boll in one, two, or three places without entering the interior, but this always insures the falling or rotting of the boll; the bite of the worm seems to be poisonous to buds, flowers, and bolls. The hole in the boll is often made between the boll and the calyx, so that the worm is concealed while at the work of perforation, though this is not always the case. Pca If a worm feed on a large boll and the excrement on the boll be exposed to rains, the coloring matter will be washed away and the fibers of cotton can be seen dis- tinctly. i observed this for the first time on September 14; during the few days following before the disappearance of Heliothis, Isaw numerous instances of it. The cellulose was unchanged by passing through the worm. In September I saw Helio- this feeding on cotton leaf ina field of cotton in which Aletia was abundant and where whole leaves were very rare; a good proportion of bolls was yet unopened. I observed Heliothis on corn and on cotton at the same time and in different parts of the same field. The number of Heliothis did not seem to increase on cotton after the corn was matured. Boll Worms eat each other. I have seen the statement that if two or more Boll Worms are started in a single package, even with a full supply of appropriate food, only one reaches the destination, and that if more than one larva is confined ina breeding cage one invariably devours the others. The latter statement Iam prepared to contradict; repeatedly during the summer I had as many as three moths to issue about the same time in the same jar. Boll Worms eat the chrysalids of Cotton Worms. I have seen them in the act, but I have never seen the larva of Heliothis eating the larva of Aletia. The color of the Boll Worm varies greatly ; when young it is slender and green, hav- ing a number of yellow and white bands and lines running longitudinally from the back of the head to the anal extremity; rarely these larve retain the green color throughout the larva state, but generally the color changes, as the worm grows, to yellowish or brown, the longitudinal lines and bands remaining; each segment of the body bears eight black spots, from each of which projects a stiff bristle. On the seg- REPORT OF PROF. R. W. JONES. [19] ment these black spots are arranged in two rows; tbe spots of the front row are closer together on the back; those of the rear row extend down farther on the side. Duration of the larva state from fifteen to twenty days. Chrysalis.—The larva bores into the ground to assume the pupastate. In my breed- ing jars they went down two or three inches, the tube being oblique and open except a very slight covering at the top and some of them leaving the entrance uncovered. I deem it unnecessary to give a description of the chrysalis, as you doubtless will do so from specimens at hand which you will accompany with accurate drawings. The fact that the chrysalis of the Boll Worm is under ground will prevent any one from confounding it with the chrysalis of the Cotton Worm. On the Boll Worm chrysalis there is much more of a yellowish cast and more luster. The time during which the pupae remained in ground ranged from eleven to sixteen days. ; The whole time, therefore, elapsing between the laying of the egg and the appear- ance of the moth from it is from thirty to forty days. The moth.—The habits are very much like the moth of Aletia; it is larger, measur- ing asmuch as 1% inches across the wings, and the largest being }% inch long. It begins to fly soon after sunset. Ihave watched it a great deal, but never saw it on any flowers or leaves except those of cotton. It would often alight in the grass. It feeds on the nectar of cotton. I put out lights in the cotton during part of the sum- mer; some were attracted and killed, but the success was not such as I expected. I have not seen the moth of Heliothis since the cold rainy weather about the last of September. The thermometer early in the morning for several days was down to 40° Fahrenheit. I have searched diligently without finding one. Weather.—Warm,damp weather favors the multiplication of Heliothis. In dry weather, when it was very warm,I have seen the worm dead on the bolls without having apparently suffered any violence; the circumstances were such that I inferred it died of heat and lack of moisture. The larve of Heliothis are very quickly affected by cold rains. During the rains previously referred to, occurring at intervals from September 10 to 30, though the tem- perature was by no means low enough for frost, I found larve of Heliothis in the bolls in a state of torpor, and in some instances they were dead. They are very sensitive to.cool rains. In many cases throughout the season I found bolls which had been pierced more or less by Boll Worms, occupied by white footless grubs of a fly. The fly deposits its egg in the decaying contents of the boll that has been abandoned by the worm. These eggs hatch and the maggots feed on the putrefying matter. Ihave seen some persons who supposed that the maggots caused the rotting of the boll and that the fly injured the boll in oviposition. This cannot be true. The boll rots be- cause of the injury from the Boll Worm, and the decaying boll invites the fly. Natural enemies.—These (so far as I have been able to ascertain) are the same as those mentioned in your Bulletin No. 3, which attack Aletia. I have observed the following enemies: Birds: Swallows, Bee Martin, King Bird, Bluebird. Insects: Spiders, larve of Lady Bird, Acanthocephala femorata, Whee] Bug, Soldier Bug, Tiger Beetle. Bats catch many moths. Parasites: In the latter part of the season a great many larve of Heliothis and Aletia bore a white egg, which was found to be that of a Tachina. In some in- stances the moths hatched out notwithstanding the egg of the parasite. In other cases the chrysalis was destroyed by the grub; the latter was generally the case. Sometimes as many as five eggs of Tachina would be found on one larva of Helio- this er Aletia—more generally on Aletia than Heliothis. This Tachina must be an exceedingly formidable enemy of both Aletia and Heliothis. Much has been said of the destruction of Heliothis by Ants. I have never seen Ants eating them in any state until they had been killed or injured by some other agent or had died, except when the worms were confined in jars; even this was a very rare occurrence. I think I observed it but twice, and both these instances were at my residence ; no instance occurred in the laboratory where my work was done. Before proceeding to give an account of the vegetable preparations which I made and my experiments with them, I will make a few observations on the COTTON ARMY WORM. (Aletia xylina.) I will not refer to any facts coming under my notice that are contained in your Bulletin No. 3. ; After a protracted season of cloudy days and frequent rains with a warm wind from the South, we found Aletia, September 11, in a field near here; the locality in the field was identically the same as that in which you found them October, 1879. From that jocality they gradually spread over the greater part of the field of 20 acres in cotton. [20] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. The number of moths from the first brood of worms was very large; they were not appreciably diminished by any enemies. The principal resting place by day was a part of the field in which the grass was thick and overlapped the middle of the rows ; by night these went over wellnigh the whole field, depositing eggs mostly on the large, full grown leaves about one-third the height of the plant from the ground. Of the next brood of worms a large proportion bore eggs of the Tachina fly, the maggot from which destroyed a great many chrysalids; specimens of larve bearing Tachina eggs I forwarded to you. Whilst the moths were so abundant I put out in the fields some pans containing poisoned sweets as follows: (1) Molasses and vinegar and white arsenic. (2) Molasses and vinegar and corrosive sublimate. (3) Molasses and vinegar and potassium cyanide. (4) Molasses and vinegar and copper sulphate. (5) Molasses and vinegar and strychnine. In some cases I substituted for vinegar alcohol and water. I did not succeed in destroying many. The fluid in the pan was covered by a per- forated top. In this way the greatest effect was by molasses, vinegar, and white ar- senic. But I destroyed a larger number by using open pans containing thick molasses with a little vinegar; the moths were caught by the molasses. I noticed Aletia moths on flowers of Solidago or golden rod, which blooms here in September. I saw frequently the chrysalids of Aletia enveloped in the leaves of Morning Glory; but never saw the larvex feeding on that plant. On October 13 and 14 the weather began to grow cool; the wind blew from the northwaré; it was not by any means cold enough for frost; during this wind I observed Aletia moths moving southward, leaving the cotton field and entering the wooded land lying south of the field. They frequently alighted on the oak leaves and remained a long time. They did not move in numbers together, but singly. I saw no eggs deposited on the oak leaves. On night of October 15 a cold rain fell, and by the afternoon of the 16th the greater part of the moths disappeared ; late that afternoon I looked carefully for them where they had been so abundant in the grass and found but a few; those that remained were to a great degree benumbedand their movements much impaired. Larve were still on the plants; they, too, were affected by the cold. ; The three or four days succeeding were somewhat warmer, though the nights con- tinued cool, the thermometer being in the early morning as low as 41° F. Then the moths showed themselves more, but not a fifth of the number that were in the field prior to the 15th. Ithink alarge proportion of these last issued from pupe during the warm days. On October 23 I visited the field after a considerable frost ; found the larve still living, and leaving the upper frosted leaves for lower ones that had been sheltered ; ee larvee fell, and were eaten by spiders and beetles. Several days later many worms and chrysalids fell and were eaten by hogs which searched the whole field. I searched in the grass and found some moths, almost in a state of torpor, scarcely able to move; others had been devoured, as I knew from the wings found and from the partially consumed bodies of some. I reared many Aletia larve and kept many chyrsalids for transformation. One was only five days a chrysalis, becoming a moth on the sixth day. VEGETABLE PREPARATIONS. I will now proceed to mention the vegetable preparations which I made in the hope of finding some indigenous plant possessing effectual insecticide properties. In every case, I used the plants or parts of plant after carefully drying them in the shade. (1) Ailanthus (Tree of Paradise): Made decoction three-fourths pound leaves to 21 gallons water; infusion, 1 pound leaves to 2} gallons of water. : ; (2) Pokeweed (Phytolacca): Decoction, 8 ounces leaves to 1 gallon water; infusion, 8 ounces to 1 gallon water. Pokeweed root: extract, 2 ounces dried root to 1 gallon of mixture of alcohol and water in equal parts. (3) Ragweed (Ambrosia): Decoction, 1 pound of stems and leaves to 1 gallon water. Infusion, as above, 8 ounces to one-half gallon alcohol and one-half gallon water mixed. (4) Helenium autumnale: 1 pound to 24 gallons water. Decoction and infusion. (5) Helenium tenuifolium: 1 pound to 24 gallons water. Decoction and infusion. (6) Pennyroyal: 2 ounces to gallon of alcohol and water mixed. Extract, 2 pounds to gallon water. Decoction and infusion. (7) Datura stramonium (Jamestown weed): Seed dried and ground. 8 ounces to quart of alcohol. (8) Mock orange (Prunus caroliniana): 4 ounces leaves to quart of water. Decoction. (9) Yeast ferment. (10) Buckeye (Asculus) fruit. Extract. REPORT OF PROE. R. W JONES. [21] All the foregoing I used frequently and freely diluted with varying quantities of water. None of them injured the worms, either on cotton (Heliothis and Aletia) or those on cabbage, ruta bagas, &c. I made a decoction of China leaves and small twigs. This I sprayed freely on the cotton plants, and I think it had a Jarge effect in preventing the moths of Heliothis and Aletia from ovipositing ; but it did not destroy the larve. The alcoholic extract of the China berries and leaves, adulterated with twice its quantity of water, was sprayed on twelve Aletia larve, full grown. Mostof them fell to the ground, and four died. This experiment was repeated several times, with about the same result; but when the extract was diluted with ten parts of water it failed to bring the worms to the ground. I concluded from this fact that the cost of the alcohol would be so great as to prevent the use of this preparation. I made a decoction of elder (Sambucus canadensis), using the leaves, small twigs, and berries; also an infusion of the same. This, projected in spray on Aletia, Heliothis, and on the worms infesting cabbage, caused them to cease eating, and in several in- stances caused them to abandon the plant, whether cotton or cabbage. It is well known that in all such cases the cotton worm is much more likely to be devoured by predaceous insects than it is to reascend the plant. Pyrethrum.—As an insecticide this is superior, incomparably superior, to all other substances with which I have experimented. I used it in powder diluted with wheat flour, and as an extract variously diluted with water. The success attending my ex- periments with this were eminently gratifying and satisfactory. It may be proper to remark that I used the pyrethrum (Buhach) raised by G. N. Mileo, of Stockton, Cal., some sent me from the headquarters of the U. 8. Entomo- logical Commission under the name of ‘‘ Caucasian Insect Powder,” and some which I purchased of Messrs. Bullock & Crenshaw, Philadelphia, Pa., as ‘‘ Persian Insect Powder.” When used in the state of dry powder, that of Milco seemed to have a considerable advantage, but the others seemed to be quite equal to it in the power to yield deadly extracts. Mode of preparing powder: 1 part of pyrethrum to 20 parts of wheat-flour, thor- oughly mixed and shut up in a tight tin box for twenty-four hours. This blown by bellows proved very efficient in destroying Aletia and cabbage worms which it touched. It did not kill squash bugs, though it drove them for the time from the plants. It killed the Boll Worms upon which it was projected, but did not disturb those that were concealed within the bolls. Extracts: A. Made with common (ethyl) alcohol 95 percent. B. Made withmethyl alcohol (wood spirit). In all my first preparations I proceeded as follows: I introduced into a glass flask about 4 ouncesof insect powder and added about half a gallon of alcohol, corked and allowed to stand for twenty-four hours. I then perforated the cork and introduced a glass tube, one fourth of an inch in diameter and 36 inches long; then subjected the flask to the well regulated heat of a water bath, not allowing the temperature to reach the boiling point of alcohol. I usually applied this gentle heat for about five hours, then set aside to cool. At first I decanted the extract from the residue, and before using, diluted with water, as shown in the ex- periments mentioned farther on. Subsequently, I shook up the solid residue of the insect powder with the extract and diluted the whole witli: water, and in applying kept the solid matter suspended by agitation. I found the latter plan economical. The residue being wet with alcohol, readily spreads throughout the water and evi- ‘dently adds something to the value of the extract. I have never seen any statement or suggestion in regard to the use of wood spirit asthe menstruum. It occurred to me to try it. J found it to be a quicker solvent of the essential oil and coloring matter of pyrethrum powder than common 95 per cent. alcohol. I find that 1 pint and 2 ounces (by measure) of wood spirit will ex- tract all the useful material out of an ounce of pyrethrum. Good wood spirits can be bought for $1.25 per gallon. The extract made with wood spirit will bear dilu- pie ‘he a somewhat larger quantity of water than the extract made with ethyl al- cohol. On this point I state my results thus: One pound pyrethrum powder to 20 pints (24 gallons) wood spirits. This can be safely diluted in the earlier part of the season when the worms are small with forty parts of water. Hence one pound pyrethrum and 2} gallons methyl alcohol will when diluted make 100 gallons of liquid for the destruction of insects. Allowing 40 gallons to the acre, the cost of this insecticide would be $1.50. With improved atomizers this will be lessened. Wood spirit is more volatile than ethy] alcohol. This, I think, gives it considerable advantage over ethyl alcohol as the solvent for the essential oil of the pyrethrum, when the extract is to be used for Boll Worms that are working on the contents of bolls. By its ready volatilization it distributes the insecticide rapidly into the adja- cent air, and when not directly thrown into the hole cut by the Boll Worm it is car- [22] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. ried into the chamber by rapid diffusion, and, affecting the worm, causes it to come forth from its concealment upon the moistened parts of the plant, where, by the con- tact of the liquid, it is poisoned to death. The extract made with ethyl alcohol is also volatile and produces this same effect, though in a less degree to the extent that its volatility is less than that of methyl alcohol. The extractive power of methyl alcohol on pyrethrum is so great that it is hardly necessary to apply any heat; the alcohol may be allowed to stand twenty-four hours on the powder, being shaken up a few times and then the whole, i. e., both the ex- tract and the solid residue, may be mixed with water, so as to give 100 gallons to the pound of pyrethrum. I found that the use of the liquid is much to be preferred to the powder. It reaches all parts of the plant better; it is more easily handled and it kills quicker. EXPERIMENTS. 1. Sprinkled powder on half dozen Heliothis in cotton blooms in the field. In a few minutes they left the blooms, crawled upon the leaves, fell to the ground and attempted to crawl off; before going far they stopped and rolled over, as if in pain, then crawled a little farther with further rolling and twisting. Aftexsome hours, they were considerably shrunken, and became of a light yeilow color instead of green. Tobserved these until night; when I left none were dead; next morning, none of them could be found. From this single experiment, I would not have known whether the worms died and were devoured by other insects during the night, or whether they re- ever and made their escape; but subsequent experiments satisfied me they must have died. 2. I tried a similar experiment on Heliothis, which I brought into the laboratory, putting them in blooms and on leaves in such manner as to supply the natural condi- tions. JI applied the powder as aboveat 11 o’clock a.m. They were affected as those in experiment (1,) except that they seemed to be more violently attacked. They were not dead late in the afternoon; they were all dead next morning, the size of the worms when dead being less than half their size before the application of pyreth- rum. In these experiments, I was careful that some of the powder fell on each worm. Of course, this would not be the case in ordinary field-work. My object was to see if, when fairly applied, powder of this strength would kill insects. I found that insects with a thick chitinous covering frequently flew away, not seeming to be seriously affected. I tried this powder on Cabbage Worms; it kills them when it touches them; but on cabbages the worms are so.well protected by the width and arrangement of the leaves that many escaped. It did not protect the cabbage plants, except for a short time, from the flea beetle. 3. August 27 I sprinkled extract pyrethrum, 1 part alcoholic (ethyl) extract to 20_ parts of water, on a cotton plant where there were three Boll Worms. One of these had penetrated a boll so far that only a small part was extended outside the boll; other two were on the flowers. In five minutes the worms were rolling and twisting, falling to the ground; died in a few hours. August 30. Used same extract as above on three Boll Worms. Result substantially same so far as Heliothis was concerned. Two young grasshoppers were quickly killed, and a Jady bird fell to the ground. It was-not dead, but struggling, as if in pain, when night came on; had disappeared next morning. . 4. September 17: In the following experiment I used some of the same extract spoken of in preceding experiment. The quantity this time was half pint extract to five pints water. I selected a spot in the cotton-field where Alctiz were tolerably numerous. There were three stalks of cotton growing close together, and the vines of morning glory had densely intertwined themselves with these three plants, making the foliage very thick and hard to penetrate. I caught a number of Aletiz from other stalks of cotton and put them on these until I could count 120. In all this time neither I nor either of the gentlemen present to witness the experiment noticed a boll worm (Heliothis). I used a small fountain pump made by Rumsey & Co., Seneca Falls, N.Y. We sprayed the diluted extract over three rows for about 20 feet, throw- ing more upon the three plants mentioned than elsewhere. Whilst the spray was fall- ing upon this thick foliage I closely watched its effect; to my surprise a large Helio- this appeared on a leaf, seeming to be bewildered and making rapid exertions to get off. On examination I found it had come from the interior of a full-grown boll on which it was feeding ; the orifice it had cut was on the upper side, and I suppose some of the fine spray passed through the orifice, and disturbing it-in its excavations, caused it to come forth. Soon after it appeared it crawled ona leaf which had been slightly wetted with the extract, and in two minutes from the time the extract was thrown on the plants this Heliothis fell to the ground, and after convulsions, rolling, crawl- ing, twisting, which lasted an hour and a quarter, it died. In four minutes about REPORT OF PROF. R. W. JONES. [23] ay half of the Aletiz had fallen to the ground and were in convulsions, the younger worms falling. first. At theend of one hour there were but four larvee of Aletia on the cotton that had been reached by the extract, and these were evidently much affected by it. Next morning I[ found only one Aletia larva alive on these plants. I took seven chrysalids of Aletia from these plants that received the spray, and slso at the same time took other chrysalids from a part of field not reached by the spray. Only one of the first lot of chrysalids showed signs of life afterward, and it died in the effort to extricate itself from the pupa-covering. The other lot of chrysalids treated similarly in a jar produced moths. 5. On Cabbage Worms. (a) Twenty-two worms, some Pionea rimosalis, some Pieris oleracea. Extract pyrethrum in methylalcohol. Strength of liquid: 1 part extract to 30 parts of water. Every worm killed in a few minutes. (b) Twenty worms as above, three green, the others Pionea rimosalis. Extract pyrethrum in common alcohol. Strength: 1 of extract to 30 of water. In four min- utes worms were all dead but four; three Pionea escaped, and one Pieris. The small worms were killed first in both experiments, as I found to be almost invariably the case with Aletia and Heliothis. . 6. September 21, on Boll Worms. Foliage so dense as to afford the best possible protection. Extract of pyrethrum in methylalcohol. Strength: 1to32o0f water. Three of these worms were three-fourths of their lengths in the bolls, the fourth was entirely concealed. I threw avery small quantity of the liquid on this cotton; for three or four minutes there was no move- ment of the worms, but presently they came forth suddenly from the bolls, began to crawl uneasily on the leaves and stems, soon fell to the ground, and in one hour and four minutes three were so nearly dead as to make it certain they would die; one crawled off, showing some signs of paralysis. Not haviug time to wait in order to - ascertain if it would die, I sprinkled a small quantity of the same liquid on it; then its crawling quickly ceased. All these were large larve. 7. September 28. Extract pyrethrum in methyl alcohol. Strength: 1 part extract to40of water. Sprayed liquid at 10.45 a. m. on a very large number of worms (Aletia), covering a considerablearea. Allthe small worms were killed in an hour. Nearly all the large larve fell to the ground, but many of these succeeded in crawling away, and some ascended the plants, while others of the same size died in convulsions. Many other experiments were made by me, but nothing was developed not included in those cited above. : I have the honor to be, very respectfully, &c., R. W. JONES, Special Agent, U. S. H. C., Oxford, Miss. APPENDIX IIE. REPORT OF J. P. STELLE. Srr: Ihave the honor to submit the following report of my experiments and obser- vations as a special agent of the United States Entomological Commission engaged in the work of investigating cotton insects under your direction : Having been. assigned to daty in the State of Texas, I first established my head- quarters at Calvert, in Robertson County, a point in the rich cotton-producing re- gions of the Brazos Valley, exactly on the line of 31° north latitude. It has usually been understood that the Cotton Worm makes its first appearance for the season in Texas in the most southern counties where cotton is grown, but for this year the rule does not seem to have held good, as it appeared in injurious numbers in Robertson County as early as at any other place in the State. Information of its early appear- ance in this section influenced me in making choice of my location, and it eventu- ally turned out a most fortunate choice, on account of being entirely above the line of the heavy rains which visited Texas in the course of the summer. While the counties along the Lower Brazos and Colorado were being drenched with rains daily, Robertson County was entirely exempt; in fact, scarcely a drop of rain fell in this re- gion between the 1st of July and the Ist of September, a circumstance greatly favor- ing my field-work, as will be readily seen. Both the Cotton Worm (Aletia xylina) and the Boll Worm (Heliothis armigera) appeared on the lowland farms along the Brazos, in what planters would term injurious numbers, about the 20th of July. The weather was quite warm at this time, and it continued warm throughout the season, the thermometer usually marking from 90° to 95° Fahrenheit at 2 0’clockin the afternoon. This, witha gentle breeze from the south, bringing up an atmosphere from the rain-belt, heavily charged with moisture, seemed to give every condition favorable for a thrifty growth and quick transformation of the insects. As a consequence brood succeeded brood with astonishing rapidity, the worms spreading quickly to the uplands, and doing their work so effectually that by the Ist-of September all the cotton fields where remedies had not been applied were completely stripped of their leaves, with a very large per centum of the bolls bored into. This cut short my operations at Calvert, and in order that I still might have more time for field-work, I changed my location to San Marcos, in Hays County, where the worms were then (September 1) just beginning to put in an inju- rious appearance. Here I remained till the 15th of October, prosecuting my labors under conditions reasonably favorable in every respect. Summing up the results of my investigations as secured in the lines laid down for the government of my work, I may begin with what planters in many parts of the South call COTTON BLIGHT. In some localities it is known as “ stalk-rust,” and in others as ‘‘ root-rot,” but cot- ton blight seems to be the name by which it is most generally called in Texas, and I think the same may be said for a majority of the other Cotton States. This trouble begins in the cotton field about with the earliest appearance of blooms, and usually on uplands, though one occasionally meets with it in bottom plantations. The first indication we have of its presence is a sudden wilting of the plants, which, up to this time, were to all appearances as healthy and vigorous as any in the field. In the morning the plants are looking all right; in the evening their leaves are seen to be wilting ; to-morrow evening they are blackened and dry. Usually the earliest attack is made upon only a few plants in a place, more commonly than otherwise upon asingle specimen. A week later, perhaps, and one of its nearest neighbors shows symptoms of -the blight, then another and another on till frost cuts short the growth of the crop, when, in many cases, it will be seen that all the plants of a spot several rods in extent have been ruinously blighted. The bolls that are at maturity when the plant dies will open and show no particular damage, but the young bolls will dry up and be lost. [25] [26] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. There are many theories with reference to the cause of cotton blight, some attributing» it to a fungoid growth, others to a peculiar poison in the soil, and still others to the work of insects. This last-named theory carried it to the attention of the Commission, and led me to make a careful study of the phenomenon. On taking up the plants, even at the first indication of wilting, I found all the rootlets completely dead and usually rotted, and the main or tap root dead, with the bark ready to slip off and the pith blackened. I found numbers of adjacent plants, showing no sign of blight above ground, that were more or less affected in the roots. In a majority of these cases many of the rootlets were already dead and decaying, while the disease had not yet reached the main root. In some instances half the main root was dead, while the other half, with its attached rootlets, was living and performing its natural func- tions. To some of these I carefully returned the soil without particular disturbance, not having unearthed the rootlets beyond an inch from the main root, and not having unearthed the side of the main root more than three or fourinches below the surface. In no such cases did the plants recover; they all died a few days later, and an imme- diate examination revealed the fact that in the space of time named the rot had ex- tended to the healthy side of the root and rootlets. I further found that the first attack was made on the very extremities of the rootlets farthest from the main root, and usually on those deep down in the ground. From these extremities it passed gradually to the mainroot. When it had reached and surrounded the latter the leaves of the plant invariably wilted, as already mentioned. I saw not a single in- stance of the recovery of a plant after the leaves had begun to wilt from the effect of this blight. A most thorough study of cotton blight, made from time to time throughout the season, has entirely convinced me that insects have nothing to do with it whatever. This, of course, if I am correct (and I think I am), places it outside the scope of the - United States Entomological Commission. I found no insects associated with it in any way that could be considered so much as even slightly suspicious. Nothing un- usual was ever found upon the plant above ground, and the insects found in the large quantities of earth that I examined, as taken from about the affected roots, were also found in equal numbers about the roots of healthy plants in portions of the fields where no blight had ever appeared. The microscoperevealed to me a fungoid growth upon the decaying roots and rootlets, but I was not able to make sure that this was otherwise than the result rather than the eause of the blight. I found the same fun- gus upon other decaying vegetation, while I could detect no trace of it on cotton roots in health, nor even in their earliest stages of blight. . I trust I shall be excused if I here venture a step beyond what I consider the prov- ince of the Commission to state that cotton blight, once started, appears in succeed- ing years upon the same spots; usually upon the highest and best drained lands of the field. I was often told that any other crop than cotton planted upon the same spots would be likewise blighted, but this I subsequently found to be a mistake. Rotation for a few years in other kinds of crops destroys it, so that when cotton comes back to the same field blight is not apt to appear for a year or so at least; and when it, does appear there is no certainty that it will appear in the old spots. This points to the fact that it is something peculiar to cotton, and to the further fact that, be the cause what it may, rotation of crops is the remedy. BOLL ROT. This is another phenomenon which has been greatly puzzling the cotton-planter and his friends up to the present time, and giving rise, as such things usually do, to any number of theories. It consists in the rotting of the interior of the boll after it has attained nearly or quite to full size. In some cases the entire contents, both lint and seed, become a fermented and putrid mass, bursting the boll and running out frothing over the exterior, presenting a most disgusting spectacle. In other cases the contents of but one or two divisions in the boll go into putrefaction, leaving the re- mainder to mature and open out an inferior grade of cotton; though this is the ex- ception rather than the rule. Usually when the rot takes hold of a boll all its con- tents are totally lost. The first indication of boll rot is a bruised or greasy-looking circular spot about one- fourth of an inch in diameter on the outer covering of the boll. As this spot grows in age it changes gradually from its original dull green to a dark brown color, after which, if the boll has not already burst, as a result of internal fermentation, it will, if opened, be found to contain only the disagreeably-looking mass already described. If found already burst, an examination will be apt to show its interior literally work- ing with small worms, the larve of insects that, attracted by the matter oozing from its ruptured seams, have made use of it as a nidus in which to hatch and rear their young. In times past these little worms, simply a result, and not at all connected with the cause, have been charged with the authorship of this boll rot mischief, but I had the REPORT OF J. P. STELLE. [27] good fortune to make a discovery which lets them out of the hands of the court with- out bail. I was amusing myself one evening trying to induce a colony of ants to re- plenish their larder with a well-grown Boll Worm (Heliothis armigera), but they didn’t seem to want him, so he made his way to the nearest cotton stalk and ascended. I kept quiet to see what he would do. Just as the sun was setting he reached a cotton boll bordering upon maturity, and fell to work at it after the usual manner of Boll Worms. Its shell proved too hard for his boring machinery at the point where first attacked, therefore he changed his location to the other side and tried it again. Same result; then he took himself to another part of the plant and set to work upon another boll. While this was going on I thought I would examine his first job to see if he had left any mark upon the surface, when lo! to my great surprise, I saw the identi- eal dull green or bruised spot always taken as an indication of coming boll rot; and on the opposite side of the boll where he had worked was another. There could be no mistake about it. I watched his operations till the gathering darkness concealed them from view, and until he had made eight similar bruises. Tearing my pocket- handkerchief into strips and tying them as marks at the base of the bruised bolls, I left him alone in his glory. Next day, towards evening, I found the bruises already assuming a brownish hue; in three days more they were dark brown. Onthe fifth day the bolls began to burst ; not one upon which I had seen the Boll Worm work that evening esevaped entire de- struction by the ‘ rot.” With the back of my pocket-knife I made similar bruises on other bolls to see whether or not the effect would be the same; but it was not—from my bruises the in- terior of the boll] sustained no injury whatever. Since, on two occasions, I have seen the Boll Worm making these same bruises, and have kept the bolls under mark till they rotted, which they did in every case; all of which convinces me that I have found the cause of boll rot, but how the mere nib- bling of a worm upon the surface of the boll brings it about is more than I shall at- tempt to explain. THE FLARE. The involucre or ‘‘ square” whick surrounds the base of the cotton-flower bud, or young boll, is found to have spread out, exposing to view a kind of neck or stem be- - low the bud or boll. This condition planters call the “Flare.” Upon close examina- tion of a specimen we discover that asmall hole has been bored into the bud or young boll, and that the castings of some insect are deposited upon the involucre just below it. Or,if we do not find these, we, upon still closer scrutiny, discover that the ‘‘neck” of the bud or boll exhibits a puncture or two so minute as to be scarcely visible to the naked eye. Ina short time this injured fruit separates from the plant and falls to the ground. The question as to the cause of Flare has been settled in case of the holes bored in the flower-bud or young boil; itis the work of young Boll Worms; but in the case of the minute punctures the author, so far as I know, has not yet been identified. In obedience to instructions I made diligent search for the culprit throughont the sea- son, but was unable to detect him directly at the work, though I often saw certain Hemipterous insects (as leaf hoppers) in such familiar juxtaposition to young cotton bolls or flower-buds as to strongly rouse the suspicion that they knew more about the cause of Flare than was knownto me. They are a class of insects so shy as not easily to be detected at mischief. I tried the experiment of confining some of them under gauze cloth with young squares, but secured no results. It is,in my opinion, highly probable that several speciesof Hemiptera may havea hand in producing the ‘ Flare.” OTHER FOOD PLANTS THAN COTTON. The woods and prairies adjacent to cotton-fields were often carefully searched in hopes of finding the larva of Aletia feeding upon some other plant than cotton, but to me no such “find” ever resulted. Repeated efforts to feed the worms in confinement upon such botanical relatives of the cotton as could be found native to Texas were also made. Many species of Mal- vacex were largely experimented upon in this direction, but, save in one instance, there was gained not so much as a single step towards success. That instance was in the case of Abutilon texensis, the worms having eaten part of one leaf. Beyond this they fed no more, though fresh and tender plants were placed at their disposal every day; they either “webbed up” or starved to death, depending upon their stage of growth when put into confinement. With reference to Aletia in the moth state I observed the case to be quite different. The moths seem to find their natural food upon almost every species of plant yielding nectar. Among the cultivated plants outside of cotton the Southern field pea (Doli- _chos) appears to rank as a great favorite. On several occasions, where patches of [28] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. — this pea were adjacent to the cotton-field, I noticed the moths flitting about it in great numbers at night, and in evening twilight they were to be seen passing in swarms, as it were, from the cotton to the peas. I also saw moths of the Boll Worm feeding in the pea patches with large representation. Unlike the larva of Aletia that of Heliothis (Boll Worm) appears to bean insect of wide range so far as relates to its natural food. While it feeds upon the bolls of cot- ton with evident relish, thus leading us to call it the Boll Worm, cottox bolls do not appear to be its first choice by any means. It evidently has a decided preference for green corn, upon which it multiplies with greater thrift than upon any other culti- vated crop. I think that, of all the Cotton States, the Boll Worm does most damage to cotton in Texas, growing, I suppose, out of the fact that Texas raises the most corn. In all my observations I found the rule to hold good that where fields of early corn were adjacent to cotton the cotton crop sustained greater damage from Boll Worm than where they were not. This, according to my reasoning, is because the early broods of Boll Worms are advantageously raised upon the early corn, which eventually becoming too dry and hard for their purpose forces the insects to emigrate to the cotton fields for a propagation in later broods. ANNOYANCES TO THE COTTON WORM. I find it a thing by no means rare for planters to become suddenly carried away with the idea that they have just discovered complete remedies for the Cotton Worm, and for large districts to become considerably electrified over the discovery, when, in truth, the new remedies are nothing more than temporary annoyances thrown in the way of the insect and its work, and consequently worth very little indeed, if any- thing. Among the latest of these may be listed an application to the plants of a solution of Common salt.—Soon after reaching Texas I heard that the planters in certain local- ities of the State were effectually saving their crops from worms by sprinkling the plants with “brine,” and it even got into the papers and took a general run all over the country, producing quite a commotion. Now, I had no faith whatever in salt as: an insecticide, still, as the thing met me at every hand, I concluded to put it to the test. My applications were made with salt in solution; No. 1 had two ounces of salt to the gallon of water, and No 2 three ounces of salt tothe gallon. These solutions were thoroughly sprinkled over plants upon which Cotton Worms were at work in large numbers. Two days after the applications had been madeI thought there were _ fewer worms on the plants sprinkled with No. 1 than before, while there was an un- doubted thinning out under the effect of No. 2. The leaves sprinkled with solution No. 2 were considerably scorched by the salt. No dead worms were found; indeed the salt had been to them nothing more than a temporary annoyance, causing them to move to the adjacent plants not salted—I saw them going in considerable numbers. And the protection was only for a very brief season; a few days later, when food be- came more scarce on the adjacent plants, those to which the applications had been made were restocked with worms and speedily stripped of their leaves. Salipeter.—This salt (nitrate of potassa) also got into the papers upon the authority of some planter as a never-failing remedy for the Cotton Worm. Tle applied it in so- lution made by dissolving an ounce of the salt to the gallon of water. I put it to careful test, following his direetions, and found it, like common salt (chloride of sodium), to be simply a temporary annoyance to the worms, and nothing more. Road dust.—A much traveled road ran east and west through one of the fields in which I was conducting my experiments. Early in the season the cotton on the south ~ side of this road was badly damaged by the Cotton Worm, while for 40 feet along the northern side it had not been much disturbed. Investigation for the cause of the exemption showed it to arise from dust blown over the plants from the road by a pre- vailing wind from the south. The discovery seemed of value as a suggestion of the idea that a dry season, with strong winds blowing dust over the plants, may make an unfavorable condition for the growth and multiplication of the Cotton Worm. It is this possibly that has given rise to the notion that a dry season is less favorable for worms than a wet one. Although dry in Central Texas this season, there were no strong winds, not enough to carry dust from a road save in cases where it had first been stirred up by some other cause, as a passing vehicle, for instance. But in the case just mentioned the dust proved only a temporary annoyance to the insects; later in the season the exempted cotton was entirely stripped by them. Open spaces.—It is noticeable that cotton plants growing immediately upon the border of open spaces, as along the sides of roads, or adjacent to crops of lower growth, &c., are exempt from an attack by the worms longer than those growing in other parts of the field. A careful study of the case has convinced me that thisisdue ~ to the extreme shyness of the moth, which prevents it from stopping and depositing its eggs in such exposed situations. Scare it up in the daytime and it at once darts off to a place of concealment in the thickest growth it can find; and if you watch it | ve REPORT OF J. P. STELLE. [29] flying of its own accord late of an evening or at night, you will invariably find it choosing its stopping places in obedience to the same rule; you rarely see it stop on any of these exposed plants of the border. Trees.—I have often been asked to explain why cotton plants growing in the imme- diate neighborhood of trees are longer exempt from destruction by worms than those growing where trees are not. Some investigators have attributed it to the work of birds, which, finding a convenient lodging place upon the trees, have devoured the insects; while others attribute it to shade. I know it is not due to birds devouring the worms, for I see the same thing around trees that birds never frequent; and I know shade is not the cause, for I find plants exempt all the same on the north sides of the trees where shade cannot come. It is, evidently, this same peculiar shyness of the moth which causes it to avoid exposed situations. If you watch it in its vol- untary flight, as I have done, you will see that it invariably gives all trees a wide berth. ‘This is, in all probability, due to its instinctive fear of birds that might be lodging upon the trees. ‘Shade.—This does, however, afford a temporary annoyance; not to the moths, for they being nocturnal in their habits do all their work under shade, but to the worms. In my search for a solution of this tree-problem, I stretched a tarpaulin upon stakes above a number of plants so astoshade them. There was a goodly stock of worms upon the plants at the time, but in a day or two afterwards they had all changed their quarters to other plants and sunshine. But tbey returned to their work in full force when a trimming out of the field had brought nice, fresh cotton leaves into better demand. NATURAL ENEMIES. Entomologists who write on the subject of cotton insects usually find a great deal to say with reference to the ‘‘natural enemies” of the Cotton Worm. These they point out as existing among the quadrupeds and birds, and among other species of in- sects. To the quadruped portion of the subject I have given no attention, but birds as Cotton Worm destroyers and some of the insects I have studied extensively and with great care. Birds.—Soon after I had located at Calvert reports were brought to me by several planters setting forth that immense numbers of small but strange birds had appeared on their plantations and were devouring the Cotton Worms. I found the ‘“‘strange bird” to be a small black, white and buif sparrow of the species known to science as Coturniculus lecontei. As we approached the cotton fields it flew up in considerable numbers from among the plants along the edges bordered by woodlands, where it had been feeding upon the worms, as the contents of its stomach, examined in several specimens shot, plainly demonstrated. I wasrather surprised to see it in numbers so large, owing to the fact that it has usually been regarded by naturalists as rather a scarce bird. Of course it was not a strange bird for Texas; it had now for the first time attracted the attention of these planters—that was all. The Texas bird that I found standing first in rank as a devourer of Cotton Worms was the common Mocking Bird (Mimus polyglottus); and next to this, perhaps, was the American Cuckoo (Coccygus americanus). I saw neither of these birds catching moths; the only bird I saw actively at that business to an extent worth naming was the Bee Martin, or King Bird, of Texas (Tyrannus verticalis). It was quite plenti- ful on the Brazos, and I often saw it in the cotton fields after sunset catching moths, and not unfrequently continuing at its work until twilight had considerably ad- vanced beyond the half-way line between daylight and darkness. Ants.—I made many experiments with ants for the purpose of gathering some idea of the extent to which they are the ‘‘natural enemies” of the Cotton Worm. Put chrysalides of Aletia at the openings of ant-hills of all the species I was able to find in the cotton field, including those of the common and conspicuous Pogonomyrmex barbatus, or “Agricultural Ant of Texas.” When first put down the ants usually tugged at the small extremities of the chrysalides for a few moments, after which they left them undisturbed. In not one of the species was there ever evinced the slightest disposition to break the shells. On one occasion I partially crushed several chrysalides until the juices appeared; these the ants of each species to which they were offered worked upon vigorously until they were either devoured upon the spot or dragged piecemeal into the habitation. One morning I placed a number of chrysalides of Aletia, still rolled up in the leaves, at the opening of a strong colony of P. barbatus. Returning in the evening to see what had happened I found the ants busily engaged cutting the then dried leaves in pieces for the sole purpose, evidently, of removing them from their clearing. It isa peculiarity of this ant to keep every thing cleared away from the entrance to its den for a space of 10 or 15 feet in diameter, not even sparing cotton plants or those of any other crop that the farmer may happen to put within the boundaries of its claim. - 30 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. ’ Sace Already several leaves had been wholly cleared away, but the chrysalides which they had contained were still lying upon the ground undisturbed, they being too heavy to remove entire, and the ants, for some reason best known to themselves, having de- clined to cut them in pieces. : On various occasions I offered eggs of Aletia to many different species of ants, but not in a single case could IJ induce them to cut one from the leaf, though if I broke the eggs loose for them they would seize upon and carry them off without hesita- tion. Some writers claim that ants ascend the cotton plants and devour the eggs of both Aletia and Heliothis. This, I am fully convinced, isan entire mistake, especially so far as relates to Texas ants. My eyes are very good, and I have kept them open looking after this thing throughout the season; were it common, as has often been claimed, I surely would have seen something of the kind, which I did not. As to the Aletia larvx, or Cotton Worms, my observations have convinced me that some species of ants will destroy them, especially young worms, if placed near the entrance to their hills. But the cases of this destruction that will fall under the eyes of an observer are far less common than one might suppose. In most instances the worm, so soon as touched by an ant, goes into a series of skips and bounds which carry it several inches, and perhaps feet, away. The sudden movement seems to frighten the ant, which rarely starts in pursuit. If a new contact happens to result from another passer, away goes the worm again as before, until it is finally out of danger and up a cotton stalk. Have never yet seen an ant attack a worm of any con- siderable size on a plant, though it is no uncommon thing to see ants walk directly over worms. The large ants seldom ascend the plants for any purpose; the small ones that go up seem to have been attracted either by the exudations from plant lice or by plant nectar. I have seen nothing to convince me that ants are of much value to the planter in their réle as ‘‘natural enemies” of the Cotton Worm. I do not question the assertion that they devour large numbers of worms, but if the whole truth was known it would be found, in my honest opinion, that nearly all such worms were either maimed in some way or fatally sick before the ants took them in hand. Iam sure that in Texas, at least, the good they all do is more than overbalanced by the evil wrought in the work of the “‘ Agricultural Ants” in making their. “clearings” in the cotton fields. Other insects.—My investigations with reference to other insect enemies of the Cot-. ton Worm were not so thorough as in the case of the ants, my instructions not de- manding it; but in the course of the season I saw on duty most of the insects referred to in Bulletin No. 3 of the United States Entomological Commission, and nothing additional, showing that the work of the Commission had already been quite thorough in this direction, for Texas at least. — The only thing that struck me as particularly new under this head, growing out of my investigations, was the idea that entirely too much importance is usually attached to the ‘‘natural enemies” of the Cotton Worm. So far as mere natural history is con- cerned this part of the subject is worthy of due consideration, of course, but I can- not regard it as being of any particular interest to the man who concerns himself only as a practical cotton planter. What cares he as to how many friendly birds or insects feed upon his insect enemies, provided there are not enough of them to save his crop? I am sure that enough have never yet appeared to save the cotton crop in a season favorable for the growth and multiplication of Cotton Worms; and I am also sure that enough to secure such an end never will appear. This being the case, what does ethe planter gain from them? -They leave him standing exactly where he would be found standing were they not in existence. It would cost him no more to poison the plants for the comparatively small addition of Cotton Worms that would claim his attention in case these ‘‘natural enemies” had not taken their share than it costs him as itis. The poisoning to be effectual must be thorough; nothing short of this will ever answer. ) But, possibly, some will argue that these ‘‘ natural enemies” may appear in force so large as to hold the Cotton Worms under check in such seasons as are not other- wise favorable to their development. If arguments of this character are presented they will be mere speculations unsupported by facts. Where are those ‘‘ natural ene- mies” in the seasons when worms do not injure the crop? One never sees them on such occasions—one never will. ; I contend, without fear of being wrong, that the appearance of these ‘‘ natural ene- mies” in the field is merely a result growing out of favorable conditions for their at- traction, or for their own multiplication, and that most prominent among these favor- able conditions is an abundant crop of Cotton Worms to supply them with food. It is all nice enough to regard them in the light of friends, which they are, in a certain sense; perhaps it would be better to reckon them as our guests who have dropped in from the ‘‘ hedges and highways” in compliance with our wishes, after the feast has been spread, but who would never have thought of responding to our bidding had we invited them to a festal board made up of empty tables. @ REPORT OF J. P. STELLE. [31] THE YEAST FERMENT REMEDY. Obedient to orders in ‘‘ Supplementary Instructions” I put this proposed remedy for the Cotton Worm to many careful tests, employing three grades of yeast, or ‘‘ ferment,” in my experiments. No. 1 was a duly prepared yeast obtained from a brewery; No. 2, the same, obtained from a bakery ; and No. 3, a preparation made by myself after Professor Willet’s plan as laid down on page 71 of Bulletin No. 3. The yeast was di- luted with water to various strengths, and sprinkled upon the plants and worms, both in the open field and under gauze-covered boxes. The boxes used were large dry goods boxes from which both top and bottom had been removed. They were placed over living plants in the field that had been liberally stocked with worms, and sprink- led with the preparations, after which a thin cotton gauze, as mosquito barring, was tacked over the top of each. . The closest possible attention was given to these experiments through an ample lapse of time for their perfect development. Nothing resulted to indicate that the remedy was of any value whatever. ad PYRETHRUM POWDER. The powder used by me in my experiments was the California preparation some- times seen upon the market as ‘‘ Buhach.” I began operations by inverting two glass tumblers upon several thicknesses of soft paper, and placing under No. 1 five grains of pyrethrum powder, dry, and under No. 2 the same quantity mixed with water to a thin paste. Next I placed under each tumbler two lively Aletia moths taken from my breeding-box. The un oths flew up and took positions immediately under the bot- toms of the inverted tumblers. One minute, all the moths were seen to be shaking or twitching their wings. Five minutes: all had failen to the paper. When I struck upon the tumblers with my hand they fluttered up, but immediately fell back again, having apparently lost the power of holding to the glass with their feet. Fifteen minutes: both moths in No. 1 were unable to fly up when I struck upon the tumbler, but lay upon their backs and moved _ their feet sluggishly, as if in the act of walking. No. 2 flew up the sides of the tum- bler and fell back as usual. Thirty minutes: No. 2 could rise no more; each of the four was lying upon its back, slowly moving its feet. In six hours all were dead, No. 1 dying about half an hour sooner than No. 2. This seems to prove that the dry powder is more prompt in its action than when moistened with water. At early twilight I closed my windows and turned loose in my room six lively Aletia moths, after having dusted upon the head and thorax of, each a very small quantity of dry pyrethrum powder. They flew up and settled about the ceiling and windows. Five minutes: each showed that peculiar twitching of the wings that had been seen early in the course of the preceding experiment. Fifteen minutes: three were down on the floor unable torise. Twenty-five minutes: all were down and helpless. I col- lected them in-an open wash-bowl; next morning all were dead. Sprinkled two rows of cotton running across a square acre, with pyrethrum powder in water at the rate of one-fourth of an ounce to the gallon; also, two rows with the same at the rate of half an ounce to the gallon. The plants were heavily stocked with worms in almost every stage of growth, it being late in the season when the broods were not marked with much regularity as to time. The weaker solution thinned out the worms somewhat, but did not give full satisfaction; the stronger solution entirely cleared the plants—next day not a living worm was to be found upon the rows sprinkled with the stronger solution, though there were plenty of dead ones to be seen, usually upon the ground. I made a dusting implement by fitting the pipe of a small hand-bellowsinto a small tin box, and perforating the top of the box with many minute holes. A dry powder placed in the box could be forced through the perforations by working the bellows with care, thus enabling one to spread it quite thinly and evenly over the leaves of plants. With this I dusted two worm-infested rows of cotton with dry pyrethrum powder unmixed with anything, at the rate of about one pound to the acre, throwing it as much as possible against the undersides of the leaves. This brought no satis- factory results, which was, I take it, on account of the extreme lightness of the pow- der preventing it from flying with force sufficient to stick to the leaves, and also en- abling a very large proportion of it to float off upon the air. I subsequently applied it in the same way mixed with dry London purple at the rate of one pound of the purple to four ounces of pyrethrum. This gave it weight and consequently a better sticking capacity. The result was very good—in from two to three days not a worm was to be seen on the plants. I conducted many experiments with pyrethrum looking to a fixing of its volatile prin- ciple, so that it might be applied in the open field and made more lasting in its effects. 32] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. ? - While not positive, I am strongly inclined to the opinion that I have hit upon some- thing that will prove all that is required in that direction. It consists in simply mixing the powder with a solution of starch prepared and cooked as for use in the laundry, though made considerably thinner. A common paste, or a mere mixture of raw flour and water will not answer; it must be ‘‘starch,” a cooked solution, which is almost entirely transparent. Several times, just before leaving Texas, I put this preparation to test with fine results, though time did not admit of my making the experiment as thorough as I could have wished. The experiments that I did make consisted in sprinkling cotton plants with the starch and pyrethrum mixture, and then stocking them with worms me = ui days afterwards. In each case the worms fed upon the starched leaves and died. I expect this to cross the views of many who hold that pyrethrum does not kill by going into the stomach; I shall not contend that it does. All I know about the mat- ter is that the worms fed upon my pyrethrum and starch-sprinkled plants and died . very soon afterwards. It is evident that the starch drying over the particles of py- rethrum had sealed them up, and protected them from the atmosphere. \ Each pat- ticle was inclosed in a minute capsule, as it were} and it does not appearimpossible that the worm, in its feeding, may have cut open one of these capsules and unwit- tingly liberated the death-dealing principle confined within, thus exposing itself to the effect without having eaten any of the contents. On reaching home I found some very large caterpillars (Sphinx catalpe) feeding upon my seedling Catalpa trees in the nursery bed, and wishing to see what pyreth- rum would do for these worms I deposited a mere speck of the powder upon the heads or bodies of some of them. In abott five minutes they had discovered that some- thing was wrong, and were beginning to flirt themselves about after the manner of such worms when a parasitic fly is troubling them. A green juice was forced from their mouths and thrown over their bodies, but all in vain—in a few hours they were dead. And the singular manner in which they disposed of their own ‘‘ mortal” re- mains interested me exceedingly—they never fell to the ground, but invariably hung their heads over the petiole of a leaf, let go with all their feet, and died, leaving their bodies thus strangely suspended, where they were to be seen for days afterwards. Wishing to further test my starch and pyrethrum mixture, I selected a young ca- talpa, growing some distance away from the main bed, and sprinkled the under sides of its leaves with the mixture, intending to stock it a few days later with worms. That night heavy rains fell; in fact it rained heavily and almost incessantly for sev- eral days, at the end of which time the worms were about all gone for the season. Of course it was but reasonable to suppose that the mixture was all washed from the young catalpa under experiment, and that, therefore, my test was ruined; it wasnow too late to begin it anew. , Finding three worms on some of the other plants I placed them upon the catalpa under mention and went about my business, giving the mat- ter no particular thought further. This was inthe morning ; in the evening I chanced to pass the same way, and, judge of my surprise, there hung the three worms from the leaf-stalks of the young tree, dead. On examination I found where each had eaten a small portion of a leaf. OTHER VEGETABLE POISONS. I went to Texas entertaining great hopes that Ishould find among the native plants of that State some substitute for pyrethrum, or, at least, something that would ap- proach towards it in value as an insecticide. Under this stimulus I put to practical test a large number of plants, some of them botanically related to pyrethrum and many otherwise. My course of procedure was to dry and pulverize the flowers and leaves, and apply the powder so obtained on the plan usually resorted to with pyreth- rum. I regret being forced to report that my efforts in this direction were wholly un- rewarded ; I found nothing that deserved to rank higher than a mere temporary an- noyance to Cotton Worms, driving them, to some extent, but not killing them. ARSENICAL POISONS—LONDON PURPLE. Tt has been published that London purple suspended in water at the rate of half a pound of the former to forty gallons of the latter, and sprinkled over the plants, would prove entirely effectual as a poison for destroying the Cotton Worm. In the hands of a professional scientist so small a proportion of poison might be made to act very well, but experience and observation in Texas has convinced me that it is too small for general use among planters, especially with the rude kind of machinery now com- monly employed for putting it upon the plants. Three-fourths of a pound to forty gallons is a proportion small enough for the poison. This will destroy the worms, and if well and evenly put on will never injure the plants—in fact, one pound to forty gallons will work no injury to the plants worth naming if kept well stirred up in the water, and thrown finely and evenly over the cotton. * REPORT OF J. P. STELLE. [33] I made some careful experiments with dry London purple, undiluted with anything, for the purpose of deciding whether or not it could be applied successfully and made effectual in this condition. The implement employed in the applications was the bel- lows-and-box arrangement already mentioned in connection with pyrethrum. With this I dusted double rows of cotton plants across a square acre, the worms upon them being in strong force: No. 1, under side of leaves at the rate of two pounds of purple to the acre; No. 2, same, at the rate of three pounds to the acre, and No. 3, thrown over the plants gen- erally at the rate of two pounds to the acre. All the young worms still on the under sides of the leaves of Nos. 1 and 2 were promptly cleared off, but some large ones re- mained for several days on the upper sides of the leaves, though they did not seem to be feeding. The leaves were more or less scorched by the poison, especially on the rows dusted at the rate of three pounds to the acre. But the rows dusted promis- cuously at the rate of two pounds to the acre showed the best results—the worms were * all cleared off, while very little damage was done to the foliage. Of course a good deal of the scorching may be charged to the rudeness of the im- plement with which the applications were made, it not distributing the powder with entire regularity. But even so imperfect a test settles it, in my mind, that there is really no need of diluting London purple with anything save air—a machine can be invented that would apply it in this condition as successfully asin any other. My idea of such a machine pictures something on the plan of the revolving “fan” or “blower” used by blacksmiths or foundrymen, with an attachment qualified to feed the dry purple in from a hopper only just so fast as needed. Ithink such a machine can be gotten up easily and with very little complication in either its construction or ~manner of working. With a view to testing whether or not the moths of Aletia are killed by the appli- eation of London purple to the plants, I affixed two large dry-goods boxes each over a small living cotton-plant, as in the yeast experiment. The plant in No. 1 was care- fully sprayed on the under sides of the leaves with London purple in water at the rate of three-fourths of a pound to forty gallons. Nothing was put upon the plantin No.2. Under each gauze-covered box, with the plants, were placed twelve lively Aletia moths, taken from my breeding box, where they had been two days without food. Next day found six moths dead in No.1 and two dead in No.2. And the next day found three dead in No. 1, and none dead in No.2. Replaced the dead moths with living specimens, after having sprayed both plants promiscuously with the same mix- ture as used at the beginning of the experiment. Next morning found four moths dead in No.1 and seveu in No. 2. At the time of the season when the Boll Worm was most actively at work, I made -an experiment looking to a decision as to whether or not sprinkling the plants with London purple had any bad effect upon that insect after it had ceased to feed upon the leaves. Selecting several heavily-fruited plants, I spread dry London purple care- fully over the bolls, applying it thinly with a camel’s-hairpencil. It protected every boll. While a large per centum of the bolls on all the neighboring plants were af- terwards bored into, not one to which I had applied the London purple was damaged in the least . I applied London purple to many eggs of Aletia, spreading it thinly over them, dry, with a camel’s-hair pencil. I think it destroyed every egg so treated. PARIS GREEN. My experiments with this article were limited to a few applications made with the poison suspended in water for the purpose of determining how small a quantity could be made effectual as a destroyer of the Cotton Worm. The poison was obtained of a dealer in Galveston, and was supposed to be as pure as any on the general market. It gave entire satisfaction, mixed in the proportion of one pound of Paris green to forty gallons of water, and thrown over the plants promiscuously with a force pump in finely divided jets; but less than one pound did not prove a decided success. This quantity entirely cleared off the worms, and did not seem to injure the plants in the least. I added neither starch nor flour, but to one application I added common salt in the proportion of two pounds to the forty gallonsof water. The salt gave a greater spevi- fic gravity to the water, thus, as I thought, aiding in the suspension of the Paris green. ARSENIC. The poison employed in these experiments was the common white arsenic (Acidum arseniosum), costing, landed in Texas, from 3 to 4 cents per pound by the barrel. The first three tests were made with the poison ina dry state, applied undiluted to the plants by means of the bellows dusting-implement already described. Each ex- periment covered two rows of cotton running across a square acre, and well stocked with worms in various stages of growth. 5 63 CONG—AP 3 : [34] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. ~ No. 1, thrown against the under sides of the leaves at the rate of 2 pounds of ‘dry arsenic to the acre; No. 2,same quantity thrown promiscuously over the plants, the upper sides of the leaves getting the larger share, of course, and No. 3, applied in the same manner as No. 2, at the rate of 1 Sees to the acre. Nos. 1 and 2 destroyed all the worms, but burned the leaves of the plants badly. No. 3 showed only a partial clearing out of the worms, while the leaves of the plants were more or less scorched. A permanent solution was made by ee to 5 gallons of water 5 pounds of arsenic and 1 pound of sal soda, and boiling over a fire in a common iron pot until all the ar- senic was dissolved. This makes a solution of arsenic that will keep for any length of -time without the slightest precipitation. Of this solution 1 quart was put into 40 gallons of water, which was then sprinkled over the cotton-plants in the usual way. It destroyed the worms, which were in strong force when the application was made, leaving the plants uninjured to any ex- tent worth naming. Several similar tests were made, all with uniform success. Forty ‘ema were found amply sufficient to go over an acre of cotton of ordinary rowth. ‘ Here we have a remedy with which we can save our crop from the Cotton Worm at a cost of 14 cent per acre, rating the price of arsenic at 4 cents per pound and that of sal soda at 5 cents, which would be very high for the latter. This, it seems to me, is whittling the matter of cost down to a point decidedly fine. Of course, there must be added to the cost of the drugs the further cost of preparation and application. The cost of application can be no greater than that of applying any other liquid rem- edy ; indeed, it should not be so great as in the case of some of them, owing to the fact that the liquid is a perfect solution, and, therefore, will not require the agitation necessary to keep insoluble poisens in suspension. The cost of preparing the satu- — rated solution might be put down as a very small item against arsenic, but I think this is more than offset by the advantages of having»a perfect solution at the applica- tion; then, since the saturated solution will keep an indefinite length of time, it may be prepared at odd spells, when there is nothing else in particular to do. I am aware that a strong prejudice exists against the use of arsenic as an insecti- cide, the prejudice growing out of the mere fact, doubtless, that arsenic is well known by name as a deadly poison. Many persons who use London purple or Paris green upon their cotton without hesitation could not be induced to use ‘‘arsenic” under any consideration. They would tell us that to tamper with so virulent a poison as arsenic is extremely dangerous, while there is no particular danger attending the use of either of the other two articles named. Nothing could be morefoolish! I grant that it would not do to use a solution of arsenic for drinking purposes, nor for shortening one’s biscuit, neither would it do any better to so use the water holding in suspension an insect-destroying quantity of either London purple or Paris green. The three poisons are really one and the same thing after all, the agent in both London purple and Paris green, qualifying them to destroy Cotton Worms, being arsenic and nothing else. Remove the arsenic from them and they would be no more effectual as insecti- cides than powdered chalk or common road dust. They are all deadly poisons alike, taken into the stomach—keep them out of that organ, and there is no danger in any of them. The planter who uses arsenic as an insecticide, preparing it in advance as suggested, should have a good whisky or oil barrel for containing his solution until wanted. This might be painted some bright color to strongly distinguish it from all other barrels on the place, and it would be well to have the word ‘‘ arsenic” or ‘‘ poison” painted (not daubed) in large plain letters upon its side. With such precaution as this, and keeping the barrel well bunged and out of the way of small children and live stock, there could certainly be no attendant danger. The rule which I have given for preparing the second solution might not hold good in every instance on account of variation in the quality of arsenic, due, possibly, to adulteration. A good and safe way to set this thing right—one that every planter will understand—is tu make small tests in advance of the general application as fol- lows: With some small vessel, as a tablespoon, put together 160 measures of water and one measure of the saturated solution. This gives you the proportion of one quart of saturated solution to forty gallons of water. Sprinkle this thoroughly over an average hill of cotton, and wait a day or so for results. If no sign is left upon the plants the solution is not strong enough, and you must repeat the experiment with a little larger proportion of the saturated solution. If, on the other hand, the plants show the leaves considerably scorched and damaged, the solution is too strong, and you must repeat with a reduced proportion of the saturated solution, measuring with great care, however, so that you will be able to come exactly at the extent of addi- tion or reduction when you make your diluted solution on a larger scale. If, after your application, you find the leaves showing only an extremely slight mark of scorch—an occasional leaf curled a little at the edge, perhaps, and a small brownish REPORT OF J. P. STELLE. [35 | or ‘‘ piebald” spot here and there on some of their interiors—your solution is just right. These very slight scorches are what you want to see—while they will not damage your crop in the least, they will assure you that you are giving the worms a dose sufficiently strong to make a rapid and thorough finish of their work as cotton destroyers. With your solution at this strength you need have no fears of injuring your plants, put it on as you may; for, unlike a liquid merely holding a poison in suspension, every drop applied is the same in its effect. : Respectfully submitted, January 1, 1881. Prof. C. V. RILEY, : Chief U. S. Entomological Commission. J.P. STELLE. APPENDIX IV. REPORTS OF DR. E. H. ANDERSON. REPORT FOR 1880. CANTON, Miss., October 20, 1880. Sir: As your appointee, I have the honor to make the following report. After diligent search, commencing as early as the middle of June, I saw no sign of Aletia until the first week in August, and then in my locality, Kirkwood, Miss., found but one larva, that full grown and on the top of the plant. On the other hand, from the Ist of July, the visitation of the Boll Worm was made manifest, and from then until the present time it has continued its destructive operations, doing about the usual amount of damage, and probably shortening the crop 10 per cent. During my inves- tigation in July I found several worms upon the cotton leaf, one among which, while J had it in my hand on the leaf upon which I found it, commenced to web up, and while engaged in this would apparently stop to gather fiber from the under surface of the leaf with its mandibles, throwing its body from side to side as it spun its web, and would occasionally stop and eat a circular hole through the leaf, such as we fre- quently find early in the season, and might suppose to be the work of the Cotton Worm, but the circular form should distin guish it from the Cotton Worm, as Aletia always eats along a line. I found other ‘small worms also webbed up in terminal shoots, but the injury to cotton so slight as to be inappreciable. Finding that Ale- tia had not visited my locality by the 20th of August, and judging from the low tem- perature of the season that we would have them, the worms, in too small numbers for experimental purposes, I went to Canton, where I had heard of them, and where they are almost annual visitors, though this season coming too late to do much damage. They were first discovered, as I learned through corr respondence with the proprietor where they were found, on June 22, and he informs me that they have been annual visitors for years past. His place is elevated and undulating, having a red clay substratum, and consequently retains moisture well, and his system of culture is flat, in order to prevent washing. It is bounded on the north and northwest by woodland and has an orchard and grove on the south, elsewhere open and bare. The worms first made their appearance on one of the most elevated spots in the field, the first brood eating to a limited extent. Ata later period they were discovered at another point on a slight declination, and extended their area, and still later on the top of the ridge, widening their area, and finally were to be found all over the cotton, but too late to do actual damage. lLetit be borne in mind that this field, or rather this planta- tion, had been diligently worked and annually fertilized to some extent both with cotton seed and compost, and although the corn land received the fresh manure, the. system of rotation of crops gave the cotton the benefit of the previous year’s manuring, and by leaching all received a proportion of the benefit. Those who advocate the theory that the succulent and luxuriant condition of the plant such as is oftenest found in low and wet spots, and where an exuberance of nectar might be found, is more inviting to the moths, would find it difficult to explain why they were found on these elevated spots referred to and similar spots referred to by Mr. Trelease in his report of 1879. Those who favor the ant theory could not so well see or explain why the ants did not prevent the increase of the worm on these elevated ridges where there was nothing to prevent their building hills and pursuing their predatory habits. I admit that the worms are oftener found in wet spots than elsewhere, and I think for an obvious reason, but I cannot assent to the proposition that they first appear naturally in such spots. Early in the season, I think they would be found where the sun had freest access to the cotton, and where fertilizers had stimulated its growth, and this would more likely be upon elevations. Upon such cotton have I found the first worms the past two seasons. Thongh the question of hibernation is still unset- tled, Professor Riley’s investigations have rendered it almost certain that it appears much earlier in the season here than had been previously supposed, and as full-grown [37] 4 [38] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. worms and chrysalides have been found in this latitude—33° N.—as early as the 22d of June, the presumption is that diligent search would reveal them still earlier, and the conclusion is irresistible that they pass through our winter in some form, and are developed by the first hot weather, and from thence continue their transformations, ‘ accelerated or retarded by meteorological influences, to the end of the season. As I know from practical experiment that the temperature of the air near the earth is increased by stirring damp or wet soil (see p. 147, Patent Office Report, 1870), and also by the decomposition of fertilizable matter; and as the hatching of the egg is dependent upon a certain degree of heat and moisture, I can readily apprehend how in early hot weather the few eggs that may be placed upon the plant may be speedily hatched. In the cases cited, where the worms appeared upon elevations in June, I think it was due to the combined causes of artificial heat from decomposition of fer- tilizable matter and stirring damp soil. The difficulty in bridging the gap from March to the first appearance of the worm in cotton, referred to by Professor Riley in Bulletin No. 3, p. 28, may bs solved on the theory that the worm is hatched out under favorable circumstances during warm spellsin April and May, butin such small numbers as not to benoticeable. If we assume the fact that they are not hatched out until cotton has attained a certain growth, and that they will eat nothing but cotton, the question may be asked, On what does the larva of the cotton moth feed that has been found on peaches, watermelons, and other fruits in the North, where reliable entomologists say they are found? Later on in the season, the speedy evaporation of dew and rain in showery weather into vapor constitutes the true causes of ordinary solar hatching, and I believe the egg of Aletia to be as dependent upon atmospheric conditions and long terms of heat and dampness, such as recur only at irregular intervals in this lati- tude, for its spread over large areas as I believe the germ of yellow fever to be de- pendent for its production and dissemination upon similar causes. There are in special localities so many modifying agents as to make it impossible to apply general princi- ples to all alike. Ignoring this fact has led to discrepancies among observers and a diversity of theories to account for certain observed phenomena. Take, for-instance, the more frequent appearance of the worms in wet spots, and their development there in larger numbers. One, as Mr. Davis, of Texas, for instance, accounts’for it by sup- posing that the presence of the worm is due to the absence of the ants, their arch de- stroyers. Others attribute it to the luxuriant and succulent condition of the plant as furnishing preferable food for both moth and larve. Each one of these views is sustained by apparent facts, and yet all combined are not sufficient to account satis- factorily for a phenomenal circumstance which we often witness, and which has been strongly emphasized by Dr. Phares as a remarkable topographical feature. It is the unexpected appearance of the worm in wet spots or limited areas in such numbers as to destroy the cotton, stripping it of all its leaves and young bolls, eating up to a line and then disappearing, where, as he says, ants were on both sides of the line in like numbers and the plant in like condition. This striking feature has been noticed by myself on many occasions, yet only after the land had been disturbed by the plow while in a wet condition; and having tested by the thermometer the condition of the lower stratum of air after plowing, and having found the temperature increased thereby from 10° to 12° F., and by parity of reasoning knowing that it would be in- creased proportionately in damp soil; and observation through a series of years hav- ing convinced me that heat and dampness were the main factors in the hatching pro- cess (see p. 18, 19, 20, in Bulletin No. 3), I have arrived at the conclusion that artificial heat and dampness, thus produced, hatch out a larger number of eggs than all other causes combined, and the reason why it is not of annual occurrence in this latitude is that a high degree of temperature, alternating with showers and sunshine, must pre- vail, and this is only of periodical occurrence. Farther South this condition would characterize the seasons to a greater or less extent, particularly along the Gulf coast and inland up to a certain degree, or so far as, owing to geographical position, the ter- ritory was under the influence of the warm tropical winds loaded with the moisture | of the Gulf. In this more southerly belt, I have no doubt, natural causes operate to produce an annual crop of insects, as the temperature would enable them to pass through their transformations continuously. The advocates of the ant theory all likewise advise not to plow wet spots or wet land, for the reason, as they say, that by so doing the ants are disturbed and. de- stroyed; but, according to my observation, there will be at any time but few ants fre- quenting such spots, and especially early in the season or before midsummer and by midsummer. If the worms have been developed early they will spread over the ele- vated lands in despite of the ants, thongh there they most abound. Entomologists have established the fact that the ant is in quest of sweets, though almost omnivor- ous in itsappetite; and as the cotton plant isinfested with insects that secrete sweets, as well as nectar producing, and as the ants are always found there, whether there be any worms or not, the conclusion is irresistible that a worm diet is exceptional, and in the aggregate amounts to but little in the way of protection to the crop. I have watched the ants sipping nectar from the bracts of the May-pop flower as well as REPORTS OF DR. BE. H. ANDERSON. [39] others, but never saw them attack an insect. I have made it a special object to no- tice the habits of the different insects visiting the cotton flower, to satisfy myself as to its reputed nectar glands, and often observed bees especially visiting those at the base of the involucre. They invariably visited each gland, passing from flower to flower, and repeating the operation. The larger bees confined themselves to the outer glands, while the smaller invariably went within the flower and came out loaded witb pollen. Isaw the Boll Worm moth also visit the outer glands, but, though having often watched, have not seen the midrib gland visited, though have frequently found it filled with asweet. The nectar glands have been so fully and ably treated by Mr. Trelease, and the visits of the moth to them verified by Professor Riley, as to estab- lish the fact and reveal a new feature in the natural history of this interesting insect. In my investigation this season, I had the opportunity of seeing the jute growing in the midst of cotton. It had been planted in May,and when I saw it, late in Au- gust, had attained the height of 8 to 10 feet, and was luxuriant. The row, about200 feet long, was surrounded by cotton, the row of jute running parallel with the rows of cotton, and the worms were abundant on the cotton in the midst of the jute and touching their leaves. Its effect was nihil. Among the insects found eating cotton late in August was Saturnia io, the Corn Em- peror Moth. It appeared in asmall field of cotton near Canton, and would doubtless have stripped the cotton had it not been hand-picked and destroyed. It probably reached the cotton by migration, as a garden adjoined the field. Their conspicuous size made it an easy matter to find them, and hence their destruction could be easily effected by brushing them off and crushing. I have met with but one larva that I did not recognize as having been described by other observers, and that one I found preying upon Aletia larve in the act of pupa- tion, and found it so frequently as to induce me to think it quite destructive to this insect. This I sent to the Department for identification. The London purple was tried under my supervision in two ways, wet and dry. The dry powder was mixed with cotton-seed meal and flour in the proportion of one to thirty, and dusted over a small area, and in a short time the worms ceased to eat, sickened and died. The dry process, without proper sifters or dusters, would be im- practicable over large areas, and without proper distribution would prove injurious to the plant and could only be used to advantage while the dew is on or just before arain. Its effects, however, seem to be quite permanent as the worms continued to die for some time after the application, though showers continued to fall. The dry application would require greater precaution on the part of the operator, and may be considered less safe than the wet. The wet in the proportion of 1 pound to 40 gallons of water proved equally effective, and with a good fountain pump may be used without any risk. After the wet application the worms continued to die for several weeks, though several hard rains had fallen in the mean time, and while the leaves showed to a small extent the effect of the poison, the plant generally re- tained its freshness, while adjoining unsprinkled cotton was stripped bare. I think the result of these experiments will inspire confidence in the use of poisons in this locality and do away with much of the prejudice heretofore existing in regard to them, especially as the gentlemen, Smith-Vaniz Brothers, upon whose plantation they were made, are prominent inembers of the County Agricultural Club and intelligent and skilfal farmers. As to London purple as an insecticide, in the proportions above mentioned, there is no doubt of its entire efficacy, and as it is both cheap and perma- nent in its operation it must eventually come into general use. As my opportunities for experiments with poisons this season have been limited, I should have occasion for regret did I not know that abler and far more expert hands have been engaged in this work elsewhere. By direction of Professor Riley I have given more attention to experiments with pyrethrum extract and yeast. The only preparation I could obtain was the extract furnished me by Professor R. W. Jones, of Oxford, and prepared by himself, and at his suggestion I used it in the proportion of one to thirty of water. This I applied by sprinkling over the worms on the plants. In several minutes after the application the younger worms ceased to eat and fell to the ground; the older ones ceased like- wise to eat, and in three or four minutes commenced writhing, and in twenty minutes all were on the ground, and soon in a torpid conditition and apparently paralyzed. As this was done in the afternoon, I cannot say whether they revived or not, though I found none on the ground, and but few on the plants. My belief is that they died. My next experiment was upon a number of large caterpillars found upon a rue plant. These, though greatly larger than the Cotton Worm, seemed more sensitive to the effects of the pyrethrum, as they showed great irritation at once, and in a few moments commenced writhing, and in five minutes all were in a torpid state on the ground. There were twenty on the plant. On my return in two days I found four on the plant and one dead on the ground. My next experiment was upon young and old Cotton Worms, and, as in the first case, the young succumbed in a few moments, and the older ones in fifteen minutes, when [40] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. they ceased writhing and became torpid and apparently dead; subsequent examina- tion proved all to be dead. From repeated experiments I would give it as my opinion that the pyrethrum when directly applied to the larve would prove fatal to them, but the application would have to be repeated as often as the worms appeared, as its effects would be evanescent, whereas that of London purple is permanent, and would prove fatal to one eeneration at least. As the watery infusion or solution has been introduced and successfully tested by Professor Riley, and the plant may be cultivated by planters, and as a good fountain pump would enable the planter to spray his crop at small cost, this must become the popular remedy, ptt as no risk is incurred by the operator in its use. Yeast is entirely negative in its effects. In my observations I frequently saw clusters of Soldier Bug eggs on the cotton leaf glistening in the sunlight, and made more attractive by the rim of spines crowning their apex. I also met often with the Aphis Lion eggs, with their long pedestals capped by their fleecy cones, and also the eggs of the Lady Bird. The season just passed having been characterized by low temperature, and each spell of wet weather by a lower. thermometer, infusorial and insect life has been at a minimum; and, in fact, mosquitoes had not proved annoying until late in Septem- ber, during’ a hot, damp spell of weather. This late meteorological change likewise caused the worm to spread over larger areas, and gave me the opportunity of collect- ing large numbers of chrysalids of the fifth and sixth generations of Aletia, which I shall dispose of in glass jars and boxes, in and above the earth, so as to test fairly its hibernation, and in due time will report results. © I have the honor to be, with high respect, yours, Prof... V.- RILEY. .E. H. ANDERSON, M. D. REPORT FOR 1881. KIRKWOOD, MIss., January 2, 1882. Str: I have the honor herein to submit my report to you as head of the Entomo- logical Department, acting under your instructions and in accordance with commis- sion as received from Department. Owing to the advanced stage of the season when my work commenced, there was little else left for me to do except Watch the insect at the period of its departure from the cotton fields, and concentrate my attention upon its mode of hibernation, and to ascertain, if possible, whether and how it passes through the winter in this latitude. As so many observers, both experts and laymen, have made reports upon their un- successful efforts to find the moth of Aletia during the winter months, I adopted the plan of collecting chrysalids and eggs and subjecting them to different temperatures and watching their development, the results of which plan will be detailed in this report to its date, as has been from time to time substantially reported to you. October 3.—Visited cotton field where I saw larve of all sizes and eggs in abund- ance on top leaves principally, one to the leaf generally, occasionally two. The in- sect now in its fourth brood. Ants obsérved to be busy about colonies of Aphides and sucking nectar from gland of midrib of leaf. A large portion of cotton bare of leaves, other portions full” leaved, upon which worms of all sizes are now feeding and a second top growth, the result of recent showers, which will sustain next brood. Brought in a lot of chr ysalids and eggs to watch development. October 10.—Visited a field where I found that a large proportion of the chrysalids of the fourth brood had issued as moths. Eggs abundant, and larve of all sizes. Watched ants, but saw no new developments. Interested in seeing larva climbing its web, suddenly falling to the ground, as if accidentally, again ascending to the plant on a new web which must have been spun in its fall. Brought in chrysalids and eggs. Have put up box No. 1, containing 25 chrysalids; No. 2, glass jar, con- taining 23; No.3, glass jar, a number of eggs. October 11.—Two moths appeared i in No. 1 box; one in No. 2. October 12.—Five moths in No. 1; 2 in No. 2. On the 11th put up 13 chrysalids i in box No. 4, wire gauze top and hothatel one end glass, balance wood. . October 14.—Eleven moths in No. 1; six moths in No. 2. October 15.—One ichneumon fly, parasite, in box No. 1. Visited a field where I found the fifth brodd webbed up, principally in persimmon leaves; the field was bare of cotton leaves. In last two visits observed the larvez to be much darker, almost black, on casual inspection. No ants or other insects ob- served, doubtless owing to absence ef food. This was the field in which the worms appeared first in this locality in considerable numbers, and that was about the 15th of July. REPORTS OF DR. E. H. ANDERSON. [41] ‘Put up a number of chrysalids in wire-gauze box No.5, and also in glass jar No. 6. October 18.—One moth out in No.5 box. October 19.—Rain. Temperature, 56° F. ; - October 20.—T wo moths out in box No.4 (not Aletia); 2 out in No. 5; 7 out in No. 2, and 1 parasite. Temperature 52° F.,8 a.m. Put up 10 chrysalids in glass box No.7, top and sides glass, bottom wood. This intended as a vivarium for observing copulation and procreation. 6 p.m., temperature 60° F. All the above chrysalids were found in leaves of Convolvulus, cotton stalks bare. October 21.—One moth out in box No.7. Temperature, 50° F.,7a.m. Put five eggs on glass on box No. 1. Put up 61 chrysalids in wooden box with wire gauze top No. 8, soil on bottom, chrysalids laid loosely on top of soil. Temperature, 60° F. Rain. October 22.—Four moths out in No.5 and 4in No.7. Temperature, 66° F., 8 p.m. October 23.—Rain. October 24.—Temperature, 68° F.,8 a.m.; 1 moth out in No. 4; 5 moths out in No. 5; 6 moths out in No. 7; 8 moths out in No. 2. October 25.—Temperature, 48° F., 8 a.m. October 26.—Light frost; 7 moths out in No. 7. ‘ October 27.—One dead moth in box No. 4. Temperature, 60° F., a.m. Visited a field where the worms had stripped southern portion, leaving a strip in northern part in full foliage; this strip skirted east and west by forest. Found a few chrysalids, no larvz, eggs, or moths. These chrysalids were of the fifth brood. Rainy day. October 28.—Visited a field with a small area left unstripped. Found a few larve full grown, black color predominating, still feeding but languid in appearance. No fresh eggs found. Brought in a number of chrysalids, many of which have not com- pleted their transformation. An inspection indicates clearly that the case is formed from the larval integuments, the body forming its own sarcophagus. Rain. Temper- ature, 64° F. October 29.—Transferred 7 chrysalids from box No. lto No. 3. Placed 21 chrysalids, brought in on the 27th, in box No. 1. Fifteen moths out in No.5; 13 out in No. 1. Temperature, 64° F., 8 a.m. October 31.—Forty moths out in No. 5; 3 out in No. 6; 8 moths out in No.7. Tem- perature 58° F. Cloudy. Revisited a field visited on the 10th and found but little of the second growth of cotton left. Found a few larve large and small of the fifth brood, and also a number of fresh eggs on top leaves, as many as eight to the leaf, and, in one instance, twin eggs twice on the same leafnear together. These I have placed in a glass bottle, cutting the leaf into smal! sections, with the egg as deposited. Aphis and ants quite abundant. Only found ants among colonies of Aphides. Noticed that the leaves from which the lice had sucked all the juice of the parenchyma, and which were about to fail, were covered with lice. What becomes of the lice when they reach the ground ? November 1.—Visited two fields where there is yet considerable foliage; searched for larve and eggs of Heliothis armigera, but found none, and no indications of their pres- ence, though green and young bolls were abundant. Brought in afew eggs and chrys- alids of Aletia. ‘Temperature, 68° F. Clear. November 2.—Sixty moths out in No. 5. These were put up on the 15th, and have developed more rapidly than others. Moths in No. 7(vivarium) depositing eggs. Temperature 64° F., 8a.m.; weather clear. As the weather becomes cooler, have noticed the tendency of the moths to crowd together. November 3.—Visited afield of fresh land cotton where I found northeast corner not eaten by the worm, the rest of the field bare. The leaves nibbled here and there and fresh and full of chrysalids ; no fresh eggs. Found a few full-grown larve feeding. Searched diligently for Heliothis and examined a numberof young and grown bolls, but found no eggs or perforations in the bolls or any sign whatever. No lice or ants were observed on this cotton. Temperature 43° F.,7 a.m. Brought in a number of chrysalids and a lot of larve. In regard to Heliothis I may remark that, probably owing to drought, they havedone no damage to cotton, and my inability to find them is owing to the fact ofits desertion of cotton for other vegetation more succulent. I am at this date gathering green to- matoes and find a large proportion perforated by Heliothis and many ruined, so that in several bushels I lose a fifth or sixth, say about 20 per cent. My opinion is that we have here but four broodsof Heliothis annually, first in corn, second and third in cotton, and last in garden and other vegetation. November 4.—Temperature 34° F.,7 a¢ém. Onvisiting my garden, examined a cot- ton stalk in full foliage at the end of a tomato bed and found Aletia eggs on many of the top leaves and found two on outside of involucre. On one leaf found as many as eight eggs, two side by side in close proximity. Found also a young boll which had been perforated by a Boll Worm, but found no larva or egg on the stalk. Found two Heliothis armigera on tomato, one-half buried in the fruit; these I sent you. The frost has been a nipping one. Found moths in box No, 5 crowded together and many in a torpid condition that_ _ [42] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. subsequently revived. Sent you anumber of chrysalids and larve brought in on the | 3d instant. November 5.—Temperature 48° F., 7 a, m. Transferred 44 moths from box No. 5 to box No.7. Eggs now being deposited all over box (glass) No. 7. Made box No. 9 without bottom. Loosened the earth so as to bring it into the con- dition of an ordinary fresh land cotton bed; sunk the box 2 inches. This will give normal earth temperature ; nailed a board overa part of the top to protect from rain. in order to afford hibernating shelter for the moth; over the rest of the top tacked a piece of coarse cloth for protection and to secure moths, through which rain will percolate, and where I shall place sweets. All under rough cover constructed for the purpose. Placed in this box 90 chrysalids brought in on the 3d. This is done in 1mi- tation of nature. Put under same shelter box No. 10. This is a shallow box filled to within 2 inches of the top with loose soil, top arranged as last. This has a wooden bottom, but wood being a bad conductor would modify temperature. Put into this 140 chrysalids, which will be treated as last box. These boxes afford an excellent test for hiberna- tion of themoth. In cutting up tomatoes six Boll Worms (Heliothis) were met with, which were sent to you. Being found in the fruit, flagrante delicto, settles the ques- tion of its feeding upon other plants or fruit than cotton. Visited a cotton-field and found the green cotton uninjured, though on the day before the temperature was 32° F., but not of sufficient duration to produce ice and destroy vegetation. Brought in eggs, larve, and chrysalids. _ Ne signs of Heliothis. November 6.—Temperature 56° F. Rain. November 7.—Cloudy and misty; temperature 56° F.,9a.m. One dead moth in No. 7. Temperature, at 1 p.m.in the sun, varied from 74° to 84° F.; clear and cloudy alternately. j : : Ay na lipulee 8.—Sent you a box containing Heliothis chrysalids and larve (Aletia). ain p. m. . November 9.—Put in flower-pot 3 larve (Heliothis) in tomato, and one in cotton boll. Introduced 60 Aletia chrysalids into box No. 4, gathered on 3d instant. Put in box No. 11,60 chrysalids, gathered on same date, wooden box, glass top, to be kept in house. Put in gauze bag, wooden bottom, 76 chrysalids, gathered 27th ultimo. Temperature 56° F.,1 p.m.; rainy andraw. November 10.—Cloudy and foggy; temperature 62° F. November 11.—Cloudy and foggy ; temperature 66° F. Rainy day. Visited a field in which I found fresh chrysalids and larve. Foliage abundant. East side of field protected. : November 12.—Introduced 18 fresh chrysalids into box No. 1. Temperature 56° F., 7a. mM. November 14.—Temperature 40° F., 6 a.m.; clear; wind north. Eleven moths in No. 4; 12 dead moths in No. 5; 3 moths in No.1; 13 in No. 11; 13 dead moths in No.7. Visited a field of late cotton, where I found foliage fresh and partially nibbled by the worm. Found a few young bolls perforated, the first evidence of Heliothis in my search this fall in cotton; the field a small one, contiguous to a garden. Found afew Aletia chrysalids; no eggs or larve. Aphides clustered in colonies within the in- volucre chiefly, and dark in color. November 15.—Temperature 42° F., 6 a.m. Clear. Wind north. Visited a field where the foliage begins to show the effects of frost. Found a few chrysalids freshly folded; no larve or eggs. Found also a few young bolls eaten into, but whether by Heliothis or other insect am unable to say. The forms were not flared as usual. No other signs of Heliothis. Aphis and many other insects, especially Lady Birds, found well secreted. November 16.—Temperature 46° F.,8 a.m. Visited afresh field. Found it partially eaten by the Cotton Worm; leaves green and fresh. No larve or eggs to be found. Fresh chrysalids abundant and moths issuing therefrom. This is probably the sixth brood, and is certainly the last to appear in cotton. Brought in a number of chrys- alids. November 17.—Temperature 58° F.,8 a.m. Wind south. Introduced 25 fresh chrys- alids in box No.5. Removed 6 dead moths from same. Transferred 16 moths from No.5 to No.7. Introduced 25 fresh chrysalids into box No. 4. Placed these two boxes under shelter, with boxes Nos.9 and 10 o0n the ground. Placed bottles with eggs under same shelter, on the earth, inverted. Visited cotton-fieid and found 1 fresh egg. Nach 18.—Temperature 76° F., 1 a.m. Removed 5 dead moths from box No. 7; 5 from No. 11; 20 moths in No.11; 12 moths in No.1; 4 dead mothsin No.1. Vis- ited a field of late fresh land cotton. Found fresh eggs of Aletia, as many as 7 on a leaf. In my glass box No.7 the eggs are deposited indiscriminately upon glass, cotton leaves, stalks, and forms. November 19.—Temperatute 46° F., 12m. Wind northwest. Rain. November 20.—Temperature 30° F., 6 a.m, REPORTS OF DR. E. H. ANDERSON. [43] November 21.—Temperature 42° F.,6 a.m.; 4 mothsin No.1; 12 deadin No.1; few dead in No. 11; 11 moths in No.11; 7 dead in No.7. Visited a field of fresh land cotton, where the foliage was partially frost-bitten but much still fresh. Found one egg, recently deposited, and some chrysalids. Few insects noticeable. Placed 7 chrysalids in No.11. Sent you 3 boll worms (Heliothis), taken from tomato. November 22.—Temperature 42° F.,9 a.m. Rawandrain. No development. November 23.—Temperature 42° F.,9a.m. Raw andrain. Moths torpid. November 24.—Temperature 28° F., 8 a.m. Freezing and clear. November 25.—Temperature 20° F.,7 a.m. Freezing and clear. Visited a field. Found the plant in too unsatisfactory a state to make any examination, the effect of the severe freeze of previous night. November 26.—Temperature 30° F.,8 a.m. Wind north. November 28.—Temperature 40° F.,8 a.m. Wind north. Removed 20 dead moths from box No. 7. Introduced 40 chrysalids into same, brought in on 21st instant. Moth in a torpid condition. Put up 80 chrysalids in box No. 12, brought in on 2istinstant. Removed 4 dead moths from No. 6; 2 moths out in No. 8; 20 dead moths removed from No. 5; 19 dead from No. 4. Sprinkled dry earth one-fourth of an inch thick over chrysalids in these two boxes and replaced them on the earth. No development in boxes Nos. 9 and 10. On close examination at 1 p. m. found the moths supposed to be torpid all dead. Removed 36 from No. 4; 2 from No. 1; 12 from No. 11; 32 from gauze bag. Not a moth in any of my boxes living or dead. Temperature at 1 p. m. 64° F. Moths living and in motion on the 2ist, and supposed to be living for some days subsequently, as they did not change their natural position, were all killed doubtless by the freeze of the 25th instant. This would indicate that the moth cannot survive a temperature below 15° or 20° F. In regard to copulation, from my observation, it is carried on most actively at twi- light. When observing my vivarium by lamp-light I have witnessed no demonstra- tion in that line. As eggs, however, are abundantly laid on the glass, leaves, and stalks of cotton, and the wooden sides of my boxes, procreation must go on normally. November 29.—Brought in some chrysalids, found on Convolvulus leaves, where the vine ran on a cedar tree in a cotton-field. They appear to be sound. Put up in glass bottle No. 13. November 30.—Temperature 63° F.,8p.m. Windsouthwest. Rain. Visited a field where I found chrysalids, to all appearance unaffected by recent cold weather. Sent some of these to Professor Riley. December 1.—Temperature 44° F., 7 a. December 2.—Temperature 38° F., 7 a. December 3.—Temperature 56° F., 9 a. December 5.—Temperature 44° F., 7 a. December 6.—Temperature 44° F., 7 a. December 7.—Temperature 44° F., 7 a. December 8.—Temperature 42° F., 7 a. December 9.—Temperature 42° F., 7 a. Wind north. Clear. Boxes unchanged. Wind north. Clear. Boxes unchanged. Cloudy. Wind north. Clear. No change in boxes. Wind south. Partly clear. Wind southwest. Partly clear. Cloudy. Wind north. Cloudy... Wind north. December 10.—Temperature 42° F., 7 a.m. Clear. Wind north. December 11.—Temperature 44° F.,7 a.m. Cloudy and mist. Wind south. December 12.—Temperature, 55° F.,8a.m. Wind S. Cloudy. Boxes unchanged. December 13.—Temperature, 62° F., 8 . WindS. Misty. Thunder at night December 14.—Temperaiure, 60° F., 8 . Wind NW. Drizzling rain. 8 : PREEBEPEP EBs December 15.—Temperature, 30° F., Wind N. Clear. December 16.—Temperature, 30° F.,8 a. Wind N. Clear. December 17.—Temperature, 32° F.,8 a.m. Wind N. Clear. Transferred box No. 11 to my room, where a warm temperature is maintained. December 18.—Temperature, 449 F.,7 a.m. Infusorial life active about sunset. December 19.—Temperature, 54° F.,7a.m. Wind SE. Cloudy. Rain. December 20.—Temperature, 649 F.,.7 a.m. Wind S. Rain. December 21.—Temperature, 60° F.,7a.m. WindW. Drizzle. Examined my boxes closely ; chrysalids apparently sound. The temperature has not been high enough to effect transformation into moth. December 22.—Temperature, 38° F.,8 a.m. Wind N. Clear. December 23.—Temperature, 35° F.,7 a.m. Wind N. Cloudy. December 24.—Temperature, 37° F.,8 a.m. Wind N. Cloudy. Examined Mallow leaves and found Aphides living. December 25.—Temperature 44° F.,8 a.m. WindSW. Cloudy December 26.—Temperature, 50° F.,8a.m. Wind NW. Drizzle.- December 27.—Temperature, 44° F.,8 a.m. Wind W. Clear. December 28.—Temperature, 52° F.,8 a.m. Wind SW. Clear. December 29.—Temperature, 48° F.,8 a.m, Wind N. Clear, BEES a a a. a 44 REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. — ’ December 30.—Temperature, 40° F.,8 a.m. Wind W. Clear. One parasite, Pimpla conquisitor, in box No. 11. - December 31.—Temperature, 45° F.,8 a.m. Wind W. Clear. To summarize: Have placed in box No. 1, 54 chrysalids. Transferred 9 to No. 3 ion. Twenty-seven came out as moths and one parasite, leaving 17 chrysalids in that box, which on last night was upset by a wind and contents lost. In No. 2, glass jar, placed 23 chrysalids. Eight have issued as moths and one a_ parasite, leaving 14 chrysalids. In No. 3, glass. jar, a number ofeggs. ‘These have become darker, but otherwise ap- pear to be ‘unchanged. In box No. 4 placed 13 chrysalids on October 12. On November 9 introduced 60 chrysalids, making aggregate 73.. Introduced, November 17, 25 chrysalids, making sum total 98. Removed 19 dead moths November 28, leaving 79 chrysalids. Placed a number of moths in box No. 5 on October 15. Of this lot 60 moths were out by November 2. On November 17 introduced 25 chrysalids. On November 28 removed 20 dead moths, leaving a number of chrysalids. There was no development in the last 25 chrysalids placed in the box. : Put up a number of chrysalids in glass jar No. 6 October 15; 3 moths came out by 3ist; 4 dead moths removed on November 28. No further developments. Put up 101 chrysalids in No.7 glass box (vivarium), October 20. These developed into moths slowly up to November 3, when they commenced to die, and all were dead on the November 28, when I introduced 40 fresh chrysalids.. At this date, January 2, 1882, some of the eggs retain their green color, while with the larger number the color is slightly darker brown. From my observation, this as well as previous seasons, and from the difficulty of procuring nectar by the last brood of moths, and their conse- quent ill condition for hibernation, I conclude that Aletia is to be classed with that family of moths that do not hibernate as imago. . October 21, put up 61 chrysalids in box No.8. No development in this box until 2 dead moths were discovered init on November 28. It remainsin statu quo. November 5, arranged box No. 9 and placed in it 90 chrysalids. There has been in this box no development to this date, January 2, 1882. Same date, arranged -box No. 10 and placed in it 140 chrysalids; no development in this box to date. The three last boxes, Nos. 8,9, and 10, have been placed where they have been subjected to atmospheric conditions, and have been kept damper than those in the house, and consequently the transformation of the chrysalids has been retarded. On November 9 putin box No. 11, 60 chrysalids; on November 18 there were 20 living moths; on November 21, 10 dead and 11 living; on November 28 all moths dead ; 39 chrysalids left inbox; on November 30, 1 ichneumon, Pimpla conquisitor. OnN ovem- ber 28 put up in box No. 12, 80 chrysalids, brought in on November 21. No devel- opment to date; chrysalids ! looking fresh and sound. On November 29 put up in glass bottle No. 13, same date, a few chrysalids. No de- velopment; chrysalids looking sound. There has been an exceptional. absence of par- asites this season. I shall expect a larger proportion from the chrysalids on hand. By-a review of my report you will perceive that I have a large number of chrysalids subjected to various temperatures and conditions, such as to afford a good test for ascertaining whether and how Aletia hibernates or survives the winter in this lati- tude. I shall likewise, in due time, report to you upon the Malvaceous family of plants i in this locality, furnishing you with list of same, and list of those of the State, as far as lies in my power, and will prosecute search for Aletia larva in same. Hoping that my researches may prove of some interest to the Department, and de- siring a continuance of the work, I have the honor to be, Yours, truly, EK. H. ANDERSON, M. D. Prof. C. V. RILEy. REPORT FOR 1882. KIRKWOOD, MiIss., October 16, 1882. Srr: I have the honor, by virtue of my commission from the Department, to make to you the following report of my work, under your instructions, for the quarter end- ing September 30, 1882. Tt must to a creat extent appear to you a recapitulation, as I have from time to time forwarded you reports; but, by your request, embody the whole time in the re- port now submitted, with a voluntary supplementary report up to this date, October 16, 1882. In my visits of observation, from the 1st to the 8th of July, found cotton from 15 REPORTS OF DR. E. H. ANDERSON. [45 | inches to 3 feet in height and growing luxuriantly, the preceding month having been of high temperature and seasonable, and consequently favorable to the growth and cultivation of the plant. I found Aphis abundant in spots, but not generally so. Ants in usual numbers, and chiefly among colonies of Aphis. Found a few forms cast from shedding, but no evidence of either Aletia or Heliothis. On the 8th a chrysalis, wrapped up in a leaf, was found. Between this and 15th, Heliothis was found at work in the young forms and bolls, so few, however, as to require diligent search to find it. It was less observable on corn than usual up to this time. The grass worm, throughout the month, was abundant in grassy fields, both upon grass and young cotton and corn, destroying all in many instances, and not confined to bottom, but appearing on hillsides as well. No other development of interest until the 24th, when a full-grown Aletia larva was brought in from the field, which passed into ° chrysalis and emerged August 4. Through correspondence learned that larve three and four days old were discov- ered near Canton, same date; other larveseen here about same time. Heliothis also seen flying about. Noticed Aphis upon okra contiguous to cotton in same numbers as on cotton; also circular perforations, apparently the work of a cotton-leaf worm. Have looked carefully after plants of Malva family during spring and summer, but so far have seen no trace of Aletia. A notable fact has been the sudden disappearance of the Grass Worm after a heavy rain. I have often noticed that Aletia does not appear in considerable numbers dur- ing a spell of wet weather, whether stormy or not, and believe that such heavy rains as we have had recently, by lowering the temperature and washing them off, would retard their progress. The mean temperature has been 10° Fahr. less than that of June. Facts so far would seem to indicate that Aletia had struggled through in some form from its de- parture last fall until its advent this summer. Continued my visits to different fields of cotton to watch progress of both Aletia and Heliothis. Found very few, though every field has had its quota. Atmospheric conditions have not been favorable, or else the third brood would be easily discover- able, if not damaging. The mean temperature has been much lower than usual, ranging from 70° to 82° Fahr. Have had frequent showers throughout the month, suc- ceeded by cool spells, northwest and north winds prevailing, and hard rains on 23d, 24th, and 25th, lowering temperature. Heliothis has been at work, but to a less extent thanusual. Noticed its absence in early corn, and, in fact, could find no sign of it in the first planting, though the Grass Worm was much more abundant than usual. In the corn planted in May it (Helio- this) is now out in full force; in fact, in a small field of my own, planted in May and now in milk stage, it may be found in every ear, and has done considerable damage. On the 15th, while walking at dusk along a field of cow-peas, where I had gathered a crop of early corn, I noticed numbers of a small, gray moth in the grass and a like number of Heliothis about the peas. I have repeated my visits since, and from the numbers of moths and larve found there have come to the conclusion that it relishes that food as well as corn or cotton; and it has suggested to me that by planting an early crop of corn and a crop of peas in the corn, so timing the planting that the peas shall be in bloom about the time the corn hardens, and planting a later crop of corn and peas, so as to furnish food for the season, Heliothis would be kept out of the cot- ton. Suggestions as to corn have been made by others (see pages 312, 313, Report on. Cotton Insects, 1879), but inasmuch as the pea crop continues to bloom and make fruit so much longer than corn it would furnish food for the whole season. I a watch my crops of peas in reference to Heliothis, and will report to you the results. Received the pyrethrum the 22d, and made my preparations by adding 1 ounce pyrethrum to 10 of flour and 1 to 30 of hot water. I used hot water to make a decoc- tion, as recommended by Professor Hilgard, and to prevent fungus, as referred to by Mr. Schwarz, when made with cold water, thinking the heat would destroy the fun- gus germ. Will try it likewise with cold water. : Tried the dry preparation on grown and young Boll Worms onthe 24th. The pow- der was apparently slow in having any effect, though it seemed to stupefy the older worms, while putting the younger in a torpid condition. I allowed them to remain twenty-four hours, sprinkling the powder heavily upon them and the leaves, inclosed in a small bottle, when, on examination, I found the small ones dead and the larger active. The infusion soon put the larger ones to writhing, the smaller remaining torpid and quiet. In an hour the larger and intermediate size commenced crawling, when I reapplied the solution and they again became torpid after writhing a few moments, and died in thirty-six hours. On the 25th brought in a fresh supply of _ worms, and after adding 4 an ounce of pyrethrum to each preparation, applied the dry to a lot of Boll Worms of various sizes, all of which were soon under its influ- ence, writhing and becoming torpid, the smaller soon killed outright, the larger.and full grown succumbing in from two tothree hours, The result with the solution was -_ = 46] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. — ? similar but rather more speedy, as all were dead in a few hours. Placed some of the worms in a quinine bottle, recently emptied, and three young worms died in a few minutes. Tried a solution of quinine, 1 grain to 1 ounce of water, 2 minimsof elixir of vitriol. This seemed to worry, but did not kill. 26th. Applied the infusion, when they soon commenced writhing and then became torpid; ate nothing; but found three alive on the 28th, one very large, the other two middle size. Made another application of this infusion prepared on the 22d, which still appears to be strong, but shows plainly fungus. Made fresh solution with cold water, 1 to 30; applied that to 8 caterpillars, Heliothis, all sizes. Have also applied powder made on 22d, to alot, all sizes. The powder is keptin a box tightly stoppered. Have reviewed circular in reference to pyrethrum, issued by the Department last year. Will here mention that I planted the seed with care, as other annuals, but while they grcw luxuriantly but three of the pyrethrum seed germinated, and event- ually died out, owing perhaps to too much wet. If the Department will send mea paper of seed this fall or next spring, I will plant them on a bluff near my spring, | where it is rocky and dry, with a loamy, sandy soil, and where there is shade enough . protect from heat in summer. This will approximate to some extent its native abitat. 29th. On examining the three worms to which the solution was applied yesterday, found the two smaller dead, the larger one alive. Of the eight to which the fresh solu- tion was applied found the four smaller dead, the larger one living. Ofthe six to which the powder was applied, after temporary writhing, they became torpid, but found all alive. Have reapplied both powder and solution. All cease to eat after making any application. 30th. Found all to which the application was made yesterday dead except one large one. Applied solution to another lot after noon. 3lst. Found my caterpillars apparently unaffected by the application of yesterday. Have applied to them cold infusion made with cold water, 1 to 24. Brought in a fresh lot, to which I have applied fresh solution, and also powder prepared with fresh ashes, 1 to8. Am satisfied that Heliothis is tougher and less sensitive to applications than Aletia, and requires a stronger preparation. The ashes would recommend itself on account of cheapness, and can be manipulated better, and as an alkali would tend to check fungus. In regard to solution, would think hot waiter better than cold, but when immediately used it would make no difference, as the powder mixes as well with one as the other. The above experiments were made as a necessary preliminary to my field opera- tions, as I was unacquainted. with any results with pyrethrum upon the Boll Worm. From the number of Heliothis now in late corn, I infer considerable damage from them in the late cotton. Atmospheric conditions since the 20th of August have been far more favorable for insect life than previously, yet the temperature remains low for the season, about 76° F. mean temperature, range from 70° to 82° F. Aletia has made slow progress, but is observable now everywhere. | September 1. The worms to which the cold infusion was applied yesterday were found quiet morning, all dead afternoon. Those to which the powder was applied also died within thirty-six hours; applied same powder to another lot.- September 2. Found them quiet but alive this morning. In continuing my report for this month, will state that the weather in the early part of the month was very unfavorable for field work, owing to rains; and owing to meteorological and other causes, Heliothis could, only with difficulty, be found in cotton at all. I traversed field. after field of cotton in search of it, with a view to commence experiments, but could nowhere find them in any number that would warrant experiments for practical use. As an evidence of their scarcity I will men- ’ tion that I counted along two parallel rows, one hundred and five stalks of cotton, very luxuriant and in bottom land, full of forms azd bolls, and found but one small Bo!l Worm and two small bolls punctured. This furnishes an average of many exam- inations made with care. Itis acommon remark made by planters in my locality that ‘‘ there are no Boll Worms this year.” Had Inot examined corn would have come to the same conclusion. My observation this season would certainly lead me to the conclusion that corn is its preferred food, for nowhere have I examined corn in the milk stage without finding one or more in every ear. September 14. Examined a field of luxuriant cotton, rows running parallel with corn. Found no Boll Worms in cotton, but one in every ear of corn. They were full grown. On examining hard corn found no worm, but at the base of the stalk found the aperture where it had gone into chrysalis, and as there were no peas there, it will in the next brood, no doubt, be found in the cotton and will furnish a field for experiment. My conclusion is that this, the third, perhaps the fourth, brood is now in chrysalis, and will, laterin the season, be out in large numbers in cotton except where corn or peas are near by. I have used the pyrethrum mixed with flour one to ten, by dusting it on the silk and opening slightly and introducing a small quantity into Seep ~~ = LAS REPORTS OF DR. E. H. ANDERSON. [47] the apex of the ear, and on examining the following day have found the worm miss- ing. It drives it out, if it does not kill it. I have used it on pea vines in infusion 1 to 30 by spraying, but cannot as yet re- port accurate results, although it is certain that its use diminishes the visits of insects of various kinds that frequent them for nectar. Finding myself foiled in prosecuting experiments implicitly, according to instructions, | have endeavored to study its habits where I have found it, hoping to place at your disposal some simple and feasi- ble plan of preventing its ravages in cotton. Recent observation has strengthened my belief, as intimated in a former report, that they prefer peas to cotton; andit would seem very natural, if they do eat peas, that as after leaving corn they go into chrysa- lis at the foot of the stalk, when they emerge as moth they would commence upon the nectar of+the pea, right at hand, and there also incubate, as the pea furnishes food for its larvx. As the pea continues to bloom throughout the season, when visited by occasional showers, it would there fiad a continuous and inexhaustible supply. This plan would not only be within reach of ever farmer, but would add to his food supply and prove a blessing. I shall continue my visits daily to the field, and willcommence spraying, under instructions, as soon as the worm makes its appearance; and, judging from past experience, it will not be long before the larve will be out in full force. As the season has been so unpropitious I will here offer to continue experiments to the 15th October, without salary for that time. I will here remark that all the usual ~ insect visitors of cotton are less numerous than usual. The effect of Aletia is no- where visible, though a few may be found in any field. A later brood may strip the cotton, but will be too late to do anydamage. The season has been characterized by low temperature, but abundant moisture, proving that high continued temperature, as well as moisture, are essential to the propagation of these two Noctuids. The fact that there has been a succession of corn crops and abundant pea crops this sea- son and an absence of Boll Worms in cotton corroborates the belief that Heliothis prefers the former to the latter as food. Having failed to find Heliothis in cotton in sufficient numbers for experiment, on the 18th I transferred 12 small larve from corn to cotton. On the following day sprayed the stalk with an infusion of pyrethrum 1 to 30, cold. On the 20th found 6 of the number nibbling ; on the 22d and 23d but 2, and on the 25th but 1. Could see do damage done by them and no sign of them upon contiguous stalks. Examined the field of cotton referred to as having been visited on the 14th; there found on cotton adjoining corn eggs of Heliothis, both on leaves and outer calyx, and young worms. Will commence-operations there in a day or two. As there were no peas there the moth, as predicted, on emerging at the base of the corn stalk, sought the cotton. A search for them elsewhere in cotton has proved fruit- less. 27th, marked off plat 16 yards square and applied infusion, cold, 1 to 24, by spraying with force pump (Rumsey & Co., patentees, Seneca Falls, N. Y.). Iso direct the noz- zle as to apply it chiefly to the under surface of the leaves through a fine spraying nozzle. This piece of cotton was selected, as I there found a number of young Boll Worms, eggs, and also Aletia; October 2, sprayed a plat of cotton 10 yards square, upon whichI found a few Boll Worms and Aletia; the cotton was adjoining corn. Aletia larve, half grown, showed the effects of the poison almost immediately, and after writhing for a short time fell to the ground. Half grown Boll Worms seemed less sensible to the effects, but left the boll and ceased to eat. This infusion was 1 to 30, cold, and applied fresh. October 3, visited the field where I had previously used solution and dusted cotton with flour preparation and found uo sign of worm either where I bad placed the worms or upon adjoining stalks. As pyrethrum kills by contact, the infusion is greatly to be preferred, as, by means of aspraying pump, it can be made to reach every partof the plant. I would suggest the use of tanks, rather flat than otherwise, so. that the pump when on a wagon would be but little above the top of the cotton, and should be directed rather against the cotton than over it. The spray striking the plant laterally reaches the under surface of the leaves more readily. Looked diligently for Heliothis in cotton remote from corn, but could find none. October 4, visited a field where I found a few Aletia and here and there a Boll Worm. Applied to cotton the flour preparation, 1 to 10, which has been képt in a close box for several weeks, and find it as efficient as when first prepared. Aletia gave evidence of its effects at once, and ceased to eat, and after a few contortions spun a web and dropped to the ground. The Boll Worm is more quiet under its influence, a difference perhaps in constitution, but soon becomes torpid and ceases to eat. A close examination of a field of cotton which has both bottom and upland and is in vigorous growth, though of a russet aspect, partly from rust and partly from season, and which is an average specimen, shows less injury from both Heliothis and Aletia than for many years past, yet in many crops there is a loss of middle crop due mainly to shedding. October 7, sprayed a plot 20 feet square with an infosion, 1 to 24, cold. This had upon it a large number of well-grown Aletia larve, but some of all ages. This plat [48] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. adjoined cotton on one side eaten bare, on the other almost untouched. My object was to see whether I could stop their progress, moving as they were from west to east. Have long held the opinion, confirmed by observation, that it never leaves the stalk upon which the egg is deposited to eat again. I there saw them crossing a public road, leaving behind untouched cotton. October 10, examined cotton where I had previously dusted flour preparation and found that no progress had been made in injury to the leaves, though found a few young caterpillars; also, examined cotton upon which I had placed Boll Worms re- moved from corn, but found no damage. My belief is that when transferred from one plant to another they are either slow to eat or do not eat at all. Examined the field sprayed on the 7th and found some worms still there, but a comparison with ad- joining cotton showed that the pyrethrum had destroyed many. 14th, examined the plot sprayed on the 2d instant, and found that undisturbed by worms of any description, and found some dead worms upon the stalks. This plat had also a fresher appearance than any surrounding cotton and was free from worms, | while Aletia could be found all around it. I will remark that the result upon pea vines, where the infusion was applied, was exemption from worms, but at the same time must confess that I saw no damage else- where. Though finding many leaves perforated, I did not find Heliothis larva upon the leaves or pod, but occasionally found other caterpillars. To sum up, would say that, from my experiments and experience with pyrethrum, if sprayed over cotton or dusted on the apex of the ear of corn so as to reach the worms, in infusion or decoction, cold or hot, in the proportion of one pound to thirty gal- lons of water, er one pound to ten of flour or ashes, it would effectually protect cotton against either Heliothis or Aletia; but a stronger preparation, say one to twenty-four gallons or one pound to eight pounds, would be more efficient, especially for large Boll Worms. After being once touched with it, I think they cease to eat, sicken and die. I would prefer always the spraying to the dry powder, for the reason that it can be more generally diffused over the plants; and furthermore, because it disturbs the worm and would, in many cases dislodge it from the plant, and when once dis- lodged or disturbed they seem to wander distractedly. As before remarked, Heliothis has not visited here in its wonted numbers in cotton, - and unless it has sought other vegetation, adverse meteorological conditions have been in operation. I believe, however, successive crops of corn and peas, which have been a feature of farming this season, may account for its absence in cotton; and from this a hint may be taken, which, if put in practical operation, would insure the cotton crop against damage from Boll Worm. Either hand-picking or the use of pyrethrum with the first brood in corn would be a feasible operation with any planter. I would also say, unhesitatingly, that any farmer, by the use of pyrethrum or other poisons, can, by watching the advent of the first brood of worms, which almost in- variably occupies a small area,-stop its ravages by a timely application, and at a small outlay of either labor or money. : Respectfully submitted, E. H. ANDERSON, M. D. Prof. C. V. RILEY J ek 6 APPENDIX V. COTTON CATERPILLARS IN BRAZIL. By JOHN C. BRANNER. {Extracted from a manuscript report on cotton inthe Empire of Brazil—an account _ of investigations made by Mr. Branner and Mr. A. Koebele, during a trip made to Brazil in the spring of 1883, under direction of C. V. Riley. ] HISTORICAL. That there were caterpillars that destroyed the leaves of the cotton plant was known to the earliest settlers of Brazil. In the Roteiro do Brazil,* written between 1570 and 1587, Gabriel Soares de Souza, in speaking of the kinds of caterpillars in the province of Bahia, says: ‘‘Some of them destroy the young mandioca, cotton, and rice, and injure the sugar cane, and sometimes there are so many of them that the roads are full of them, and they leave the ground over which they have passed clear of grass and parched.” In 1794, Dr. Manuel Arruda da Camara, naturalist in the service of the King of Por- tugal, wrote, at Pernambuco, his treatise upon cotton.t In Chapter VII of this work he treats of the diseases peculiar to the cotton in Brazil, and of the insects affecting it. The following is what he wrote upon the caterpillar: ‘‘There are caterpillars proper to the cotton plant, which live upon its leaves, and which are so voracious, and appear in such numbers in certain years, that in a few days they eat up a whole cotton plantation, gnawing even the tender shoots so that the plants appear to have been swept by fire. These insects go through their whole metamorphosis within twenty days, a little more or less; that is, up to the last meta- morphosis, called by botanists the imago revelata. This plague does great damage to the young plants, for they eat them off almost even with the surface of the ground, be- cause they find the trunk still tender. They do not fail to injure the grown plant seriously also, especially when freshly flowered, for their fruit does not come to per- fection, and it is difficult for them: to take on new foliage. Sometimes, however, _ when, after having eaten for some days, a heavy rain falls on them that knocks them to the earth and kills them, the cotton plants put out lateral branches which produce an admirable quantity of fruit, and thus they serve the purpose of a pruning. The caterpillar does not generally come, save in the season of the early rains, commonly called the ‘first waters.’ For the same reason they are called ‘papillon printan- ier’ in Cayenne and San Domingo. If these first rains are followed by continuous sunshine or by a few light rains, these caterpillars appear in great abundance; but if the rains continue abundant and heavy, those that have appeared perish, and new broods are prevented. On account of the close winters it is now three years since they have been seen.” + * Revista do Instituto Historico do Brazil, 1851, p. 268. + Memoria sobre a Cultura dos Algodoeiros, por Manuel Arruda da Camara. {In these two accounts alone we have sufficient evidence of the existence of ‘‘ Cot- ton Worms” in Brazil since the first settlement of the country by the Portuguese. In the Department of Agriculture Report (1879) on Cotton Insects, pp. 74 and 358, a _ writer is quoted as saying that Cotton Worms were never observed in Sao Paulo prior to 1863, and that after cotton began to be extensively cultivated they appeared in such numbers as to cause the culture to be nearly abandoned in 1874. A glance at the statistics of exportation from the province of Sao Paulo shows that while cotton only began to be exported about 1864, the exports in 1873~4 were larger ‘than in any year beforeor since. The natural explanation therefore is that when the planters took no interest in cotton culture, caterpillars never troubled them, but in proportion as the culture grew, the ravages of these insects attracted increased atten- tion from them. [49] 63 CONG—AP——4 r lee ; tan af [50] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. Koster, whose Travels in Brazil cover the period from 1809 to 1815, in speaking of cotton culture in the northern provinces says:* ‘‘The profits which are obtained in — favorable years by the planters of cotton are enormous; but frequently disappoint- ments are experienced. Oftentimes a whole crop is totally lost, and, instead of large returns, the year proves entirely unproductive; or, after a fair promise, the grub, the caterpil lar, the rain, or the excessive drought, destroys all hope until the following sea- son. Referring to the cotton plants in the province of Minas Geraes, Auguste de Saint- Hilaire says:t ‘‘Ils ont un ennemi redoutable; c’est une chenille arpenteuse quien - mange les feuilles, et fait beaucoup de tort.” Ina foot-note he adds:} “J’ai conclue quelle était arpenteuse, de la description qu’on m’en a faite, car je ne lai point vue. Serait-ce le Noctua gossypii Fab.?” — Mr. Lyman says:§ ‘Along the coast the climate is unfavorable, and the ravages of insects are such as to make the cotton crop very uncertain.” Dr. Antonio Rego, in his Almanack do Povo para 1867, in speaking of the drawbacks to cotton raising in the province of Maranhao, says: || ‘‘ The development of cotton growing is subject to certain drawbacks, among which are * * * insects,suchas ~ the caterpillar, and others less injurious.” * * * Dr. Burlamaqui, the then secretary of the Sociedade Auxiliadora da Industria Na- cional at Rio de Janeiro, wrote a monograph upon the cotton plant in 1863, in which he says:{ ‘‘ The Noctua gossypii caterpillar of the cotton plant generally lives alone, but it often forms part of numerous swarms. Then, as if they had been convoked to give the planter a lesson, they march in close columns, enter the cotton field, and in less than twelve hours destroy the leaves and flowers and the tender capsules and young twigs. This destruction may be recognized at a great distance by the odor of the droppings. Assoon as one cotton field is destroyed they march to another, destroy that,andsoon. Fortunately, however, the number of caterpillars gradually decreases, for many of them passing into the chrysalid stage, bury themselves in the earth. These attacks do not occur every year, or at fixed periods.” Dr. Miguel Antonio da Silva has the following reference to caterpillars that injure the cotton plant: ** “The plantations are exposed * * * to the attacks of divers enemies. The most relentless of these are two species of noctuellas (noctua subterranea and noctua gossypii), the latter of which, in the larval state, often despoils the plants of their foliage, flowers, and fruit in the space of twenty-four hours!” These brief references constitute the literature of the subject of the Cotton,Worm - in Brazil; and it should be borne in mind, at the same time, that there is nothing to- indicate that Dr. Burlamaqui and Dr. Silva knew of the existence of such insects in that country. . Outside of the cotton-growing districts one never hears of them, even though he make the most careful inquiry, unless perchance he encounters a planter of cotton or a resident of the cotton-growing region. In 1871 the Novo Mundo published a short article upon the Cotton Worm in the United States. With reference to this subject in Brazil, the article says: tt ‘‘Up to the present it does not appear that the cotton plants in Brazil have suffered much from the insect proper tothem.” These remarks received the indorsement of the edi- tor of the Auxiliador da Industria Nacional, the leading authority on agricultural mat- ters in Brazil, to such an extent as to be copied in that journal f{ in 1878, together with the very poor illustration that accompanied the original article, a fact which would indicate that itis not generally known, even to-day, that the caterpillars do serious damage to the cotton plants. And such indeed is the case. Although diligent inquiry was made.at Pardé, Maranhao, and Pernambuco, no one was found who had any knowledge of an insect injurious to the cotton plant. In the last-mentioned city I hoped that the agricultural society would be able to furnish * Travels in Brazil, by Henry Koster, vol. 1i, p. 172; 2d ed. t Voyage dans les provinces de Rio de Janeiro et Minas Geraes, par Auguste de Saint-Hil- aire (1817-18), vol. ii, p. 108. : tThis note was made in 1817-18. §Cotton Culture, by J. B. Lyman, p. 154. || Almanack do Povo para 1867, por Dr. Antonio Rego, Maranhao. { Monographia do Algodoeiro, pelo Dr. F. L. C. Burlamaqui, Rio de Janeiro, 1863, p. 56. It should be remarked in regard to what both Dr. Burlamaqui and Dr. Miguel Antonio da Silva say in regard to Cotton Worms, that it is not clear that they refer to caterpillars as being found in Brazil, and the fact that their writings upon cotton . are largely compiled from writers upon cotton in other countries would strengthen | this doubt. But such cannot be said of any of the other writers quoted. ** Revista Agricola do Imperial Instituto Fluminense de Agricultura, No. 5, Sept., 1870, p. 12. Vide also foot-note on preceding page in regard to Dr. Burlamaqui’s remarks. tt O Novo Mundo, May 24, 1871, p. 123. tt Auxiliador da Industria Nacional, 1878, pp. 159-160. REPORT OF J. C. BRANNER. . [51] some definite information upon this subject, but none of the prominent members in the city knew of such insects. In Bahia alone, after having finished the field-work did I find one gentleman, Dr. Antonio de Lacerda, who had, at the req¢est of Prof. C. V. Riley, bred one of the moths from a caterpillar found upon a cotton plant in the suburbs of that city. . OBSERVATIONS. The time of the appearance of the caterpillars depends upon when the first rains of the winter season set in, and their abundance or scarcity depends upon the regularity or irregularity of the rains. They appear at the setting in of winter every year in greater or less numbers, but it is the universal testimony of cotton planters that the seasons in which winters set in early, and in which one, two, or three weeks of rain are followed by from a week to a month of sunshine,* are the ones in which the cat- erpillars do their greatest injury.t ; As has already been observed, the beginning of the rains is not perfectly regular, as it sometimes varies a month or two one way or the other. In the province of Per- nambuco, and through those provinces which border upon it, it is generally expected that the caterpillars will do their greatest injury during the months of April or May, for it is generally in these months that there is a temporary cessation of the regular winter rains. They appear, though, in small numbers much earlier, even in the month of January,{ and it is possible that in some localities and under circumstances favorable to them they may do great injury as early as that month. If, however, the rains of the early part of winter are regular, and there is no interval of dry weather, caterpillars will not appear in numbers sufficient to do any serious injury to the cot- ton crop. e The diention of this pest also depends upon the weather; that is, upon the length of the veranico, or short, dry season. To the difference in the length of the veranico is probably due the difference in the duration of the caterpillars as given by the answers to the circular. According to these answers the length of this short, dry season varies from one week to three months. It is the universal testimony of the planters that when the regular heavy rains of winter begin, the caterpillars disappear. If, however, the rains do not come on shortly after their appearance, the plants are completely defoliated, and even the tender twigs, the young bolls, and sometimes the tender bark of the plants, are de- voured, leaving the field as bare as if it had been burned. It is said that when they appear in large numbers, one can hear the sound of their gnawing the leaves, and their excrement emits a characteristic odor which may be distinguished at a consid- able distance. ; No observations that can be relied upon have been made in regard to the kinds of soil on which the caterpillars first appear, or which they prefer or avoid. Ihave been told by several persons that they are not so likely to appear in fields newly planted, and which have just been burned over, a fact which they attribute to the presence of the ashes on the soil. Some affirm also that they prefer high ground, others that they prefer lowlands; some say rich and some say poor ground. The only indication that they prefer plants growing upon good soil is the fact that the planters of Sao Paulo planted their cotton on poor or wornont lands, rather than ex- pose it to the ravages of the caterpillars on the best soil.$ During the stay at Bonito, in the province of Pernambuco, we first found the eggs and larve on the lower and more moist ground; later there seemed to be no appre- ciable difference in the numbers found on low or high ground. It is said that the younger plants are the ones that suffer most from the ravages of those insects, and when they appear shortly after the cotton has started from the ground, they eat the plants up entirely, and render replanting necessary, while the plants already grown, and above all the old tree-cotton plants, suffer comparatively much less. The injury done the young plants is so great in some parts of the country that, rather than run the risk of losing their whole planting, cotton growers do not plant at the beginning of, or before, the rainy season sets in, but wait until the end of the short, dry season, or till the time of danger is past. * This season is called veranico (diminutive of ver@o—summer) in the Portuguese, and corresponds to our Indian summer. +tSuch weather is favorable to the appearance of all hibernating insects in Brazil. When the rainy season sets in insects come out at once in large numbers. They are, therefore, most abundant in March, April, and May, and during those months they are often very annoying at night, flying into rooms, when attracted by lights, in great numbers. When we reached. Bonito, in the province of Pernambuco, in the early part of January, insects were comparatively very scarce, and when we left, toward the end of February, they were much more plentiful. {The first eggs and young caterpillar were found by Mr. Koebele at Bonito, in the province of Pernambuco, January 8, 1883. § This note was taken by Mr. W.T.Gepp in the province of Sao Paulo in 1876, from a prominent planter. ies [52] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. THE TWO SPECIES.* So far it has not been attempted to distinguish between the two species of larva that affect cotton-plants in Brazil. Asa rule, the people of the cotton region call them all “‘ cotton caterpillars,” and I saw but one person, a farmer, who, when the two larve were shown him, recognized the fact that they were different, and who as- sured me that the s was the “true cotton caterpillar,” as he called it. The bd species, he said, also devoured the cotton, but they never seemed to beso plentiful. How much credence is to be given to this statement, it is impossible to say, until further observation shall have been made. It is not to be expected that the planters would observe carefully the first appear- ance of the larvez, or that they should notice their presence at all until they become dangerous; and such isthe case. This also explains their assertions that the worms appear in Apriland May. Up to the 22d of February the planters about Bonito in- sisted that there were no caterpillars in the cotton-fields, although they had been found by us for more than a month. At Bonito, January 8, 1883, the eggs and young larve of b were first found, and the first moth came out January 23. The collecting in the field was continued from Janu- ary 8 till February 22, and the moths were bred as rapidly as possible. But it was not until the 6th of February that s came out, just two weeks after the appearance of the first b. Up to February 22, there were, in all, about 559t specimens of these moths bred. Of this number only 48 were s, all of which came out between February 6 and February 22. Aside from these that were bred indoors, either from larve one or two days © old, or from the eggs, there were ofily three s, and twenty-two b captured. Every ef- fort was made to capture both kinds of moths, but baiting and the use of lights to attract them were quite unavailing. A few b’s were taken along with large numbers of noctuids} that frequented the flowers of the Cleome heptaphylla that grew abun- dantly about our house. Out of the 25 thus captured, only three were s. The eggs from which the moths were reared were found on the inferior sides of the cotton leaves, while the larve were taking by beating the bushes, none of them be- ing rejected. The eggs and young larve when taken were placed in breeding cages together, and fed untilthey pupated, when the pupe were removed to other boxes. It was noticed that the s’s generally webbed up in the gauze covering of the breeding-boxes, while the b’s preferred the bottom of the boxes and the cotton leaves or bits of paper placed there for them. : The time passed in the pupa state appears to be the same with one as with the other species. Of the 143 observations in regard to the time from the day of pupat- ing till the issue of the perfect insect, 108 were made upon b, and 32 upon s. In the case of the latter, the insect remained in the pupa state as follows: Days in the pupa: Cases observed. BA Rae ee aa eae oe Sa cbewen dice scometiccsiess oe 14 BO eats wer ek abl ee ees ne Ae 8 PRE CRO os. ies oo oe es es ees SL Nose -teteneh aae eel oo 5 AS ope skeet led See RE a nels pase soe ae er 2 AAS Sop Soe JIA ae ToS Be Boe ene bed cha bese a ee 1 PGs Sez 2a BS eR eS ase Rs See ie ieee i 1 Sie toet ieeh eee ers ce beaiedee eet htt - aba eee err 1 In the case of b, the time passed in the-pupa state was as follows: Days in the pupa: Cases observed. 11 give sediee bios sy skaweew ech eee sma as Marengo ews Siecle a errr 44 DD pric i Sia ae dich elk a wet tee a See ten os to SS ame sie OE Sele ir 27 BD ee saieisab oes ic oe see oes Leew node ce demep cas Seen oe eee 24. DEE 9s io8 soetein cae ee ees oe See ne alee, aie aim Slaten epee 8 BS perro a te Riel Sat etebe Reap Re eis ther at na ire rr 9) 2 Sees ee eae ee, Sete Soe Ne cee ee eRe Series SeReea aT 1 Pee Se ee ee cows Ce bese ds eo ees cab hoe. Oe ee ae 1 We ea cle oe Se 3 oe ha ai ane eile mite eee elm wm a i nip slp et 1 * Of the insects here referred to, those marked b include a very variable species, which is Anomis derogata, while those marked s are the genuine Aletia xylina (Say). For further particulars see note (58). + Fifteen others were bred at Bahia, of which three were s. t Mr. Koebele, unaided, caught in the cyanide bottle more than a hundred moths on the Cleome flowers almost every night after February 8. One evening he caught 200, another 228, and another 439. Thesemoths were taken between 8 and 11 o’clock, after which hour but few were seen. On several other evenings he caught over 200 in the same manner. REPORT OF J. C. BRANNER. [53] In all cases where the insect remained in the pupa more than twelve days, the pupa had been kept in a close, glass-covered box, which was badly ventilated, or not ven- tilated at all. The weather was, during this time, for the most, rather cool for the time of year. The moths came out generally between 7 and 9.30 o’clock in the evening, though a few came out a little earlier, and quite a number, especially toward the last, issued as late as 2 o’clock in the morning. Broods.—Time did not permit extended observations in regard to the number of broods. From what is.known of the habit of the insect in the United States, and the time of its first appeurance in Brazil, say January 1, and the time when the plague is said to end, say June 15, the number of broods can readily be estimated. In case the suspension of rains at the beginning of winter lasts longer, of course the number of broods will be greater. As the climate of Brazil does not admit of winters suffi- ciently cold to kill the pup, the numbers that survive the rains and the accidents of hibernation must be very great. On the other hand, the comparatively uncultivated fields in which cotton is grown tend to favor the number of insect enemies of the cotton insects. On almost every cot- ton plant numbers of spiders, beetles and ants were found. Sometimes a dozen or more empty egg-shells were found upon a single plant, and the most careful search would not discover a single caterpillar, either large or small, while a few small, trans- parent spots in the leaves would show that the young larve had been there, and were probably devoured by some of their enemies. The plants are too high for do- mestic fowls to be of much service in devouring them, but the planters say they are eaten by all kinds of wild birds.* REMEDIES. j The preventive measures and remedies recommended by Burlamaqui are as fol- ows:t “These lary always spare the plantations that are full of bad grass, especially of certain kinds, like Parthenium hysterophurus for example. When they enter a plan- tation they attack the plarts in the middle of it first. They keep always on the shady side, for they fear the sun, the wind, and the rain. They prefer those plants that are near together, and care but little for those that are at proper distances from each other. They never destroy a cotton-field in which the plants are far enough apart and completely free from useless plants.” In some parts of the cotton region it is the custom to replant the cotton about the time the plague is at an end, and then, by the time they have disappeared, the young cotton will have begun growing. No direct remedy is known, and I was unable to hear of any ever having been tried. One gentleman, who was said to be an authority in regard to agricultural matters, said that he had been told that salt applied to the roots of the plants killed the in- sects. When asking for some suggestion upon the subject, the answer was frequently given bee nothing short of the ‘‘ intervention of God” could stop such a plague when once it began. LOSSES CAUSED BY CATERPILLARS. In the absence ot agricultural statistics it is difficult to find out the percentages of losses caused by Cotton Worms in Brazil, and whatever percentage is settled upon as the correct one it must necessarily be unsatisfactory. I was fortunate in obtaining notes made in the province of Sao Paulo in 1876 by Mr. William T. Gepp, of Rio de Janeiro. From a well-known planter at Itaicy in that province, who had grown cot- ton for a great many years, but who had abandoned it in 1873 on account of the dam- age caused by the caterpillars, Mr. Gepp obtained the following information, which I copy from his note-book: ‘*Caterpillars prefer good ground; worn lands not so subject, but the yield is only half crop.” The planters were then planting their cotton upon worn ground, pre- ferring the half crop to what the caterpillars would leave them upon better soil. * Birds of the parrot family, however, do great injury to cotton, especially when it is young and the bolls are tender. They often swarm into the fields and destroy the oes gnawing into the green bolls. This is the only part ot the plant disturbed y them. 1 Monographia, por Dr. Burlamaqui, pp. 56, 57. [54] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. _ The following, from the replies to the circular, shows the variety of opinions prevail- ing among planters in regard to the average annual losses caused by caterpillars : Numbers of answers : Estimated percentage Meagrise oft ’S | of loss annually. Peek ee ees 33} to 50. GR REPRE Ta 663 5 PR are Bs elt es ope > 334 Bes ees amake eee eee 50 Seco rece si Re eas 25 Giie5 2s Gace oe setae - 33 Src tases ete meee ates Sometimes total. ee ak weenie ee ee 25 cL SON SEAS TERE HA 334 1S aioe ck Se eee ees | 10 t This gives an average loss of 34§ per cent., or say 334. The opinions and estimates here given may safely be taken to represent also those of more than a hundred cotton-planters with whom I conversed upon this subject in the province of Pernambuco. ; Table showing the official value, in milreis, of the cotton exported from Brazil during the twenty-four years from 1851~52 to 1875~76, and the losses caused by caterpillars. Official ee Tannen p of exports Provinces. from —— 1851-52 to to 187s ae | 1875-"76. Mitlreis. Miireis. PErnmMABHGO c= Di, oo a se oneek 6 4 odes Sa ew aes ben seer wee aoe 142, 858, 211 | 71, 429, 105 PAPA B ON: Gm ism ee eos he ee ee ae SE ae aie RR ene eee mene oo ee 69, 051, 267 34, 525, 633 Maan DAO:. .oc uo ioca bru eee crak om cae eos ee wenon Boome ee SUebGte ee ae 72, 523, 990 36, 261, 995 PP aR VARA nes en ee Spe ae eae eel ea ana cites Seen eee 57, 322, 080 . 28, 661, 040 BAI LES 22 asa c cae ae canes wtowelee hac eu oee be wactesun sete dae aceon eR eree 42, 404, 566 *21, 202, 283 S20 Paulo: -<2-.- Joep aeaceussassaeecisdscenewceesceate seagas ee mesean eee -20, 715, 404 10, 357, 552 ER ie a 2 SR pee ee ee opal I ee. Cio l e e pe OM, ery RRA Npe Ree Tb ee 29, 396, 222 14, 698, 111 Rio G6r ANCIWO 2. =< cack emdocans ponael Jen ssaeaen se eset cas san ocuemeue eee 19, 311, 395 9, 655, 697 hie GrandGGdo Norte: cosa 02 -c- wes otek oe cesne seeks nelsceet alee osecsceeeees 10, 575, 432 5, 287, 716 Pere ips o2cet Se Foss Lee Ss tesue Yes Bee ek Sent aaa tale See eee eee 1, 747, 678 873, 839 Pappadiy Ve Soo ae ee POS ee eee Sew a iced Sa Se Sat coe one ee 2, 617, 479 1, 308, 739 oT oe te at ante SE eo ee eae SNe Baer ay Si phe RL Eg A agemennay ta fe ale ES Se 542, 961 271, 480 HigGrande 16 Sali. <2. cece lecse wees Sos edecesuteeawaee sonsaeneheeeaee ae 3, 164 1, 582 Total for the Ahm pir J... los. sacticanan queens eee oes acee en ven cee ee 469, 069, 549 234, 534, 774 es SSS SSS Reduead to dollars... 2. - >> 0044.2 2---.- ohne ees oto ee eee $249, 545,000 | $124, 772, 500 Note.—The par value ofthe Brazilian milreisis27 pence. But during the period covered by the table, the fluctuations were very great, owing largely to the war with Paraguay. The average rate of ex- change was 262 pence and the reductions are made at this average rate. This table represents the official value of the exports previously given. It is in- complete, on account of the exports not being given for every year from seme of the provinces. Neither is the cotton used for home ccnsumption included in the amount upon which the losses are calculated. If the losses are computed for the whole production including home consumption of cotton in the Empire for the 24 years, it gives 766,136,037 pounds as the total loss in cotton, or an average annual loss of 31,922,335 pounds. BOLL WORM. No Boll Worm was found in the provinces of Pernambuco and Bahia, and though careful inquiry was made among the planters for it, they agreed that no such insect was known in that part of the country. In the replies to the circulars which I sent out, a few Boll Worms are said to be found in the province of Maranhao, where they do but little injury to the cotton. Another correspondent from the same province says that he does not know of such a caterpillar. Taken together they may indicate that the Boll Worm does exist in that province, but that it rarely attacks the cot- ton. The answer from the province of Minas Geraes admits the presence of the Boll Worm, while those from the province of Pernambuco, with the exception of one, say that it is not known there. I have been able to find no reference to it in the writings upon cotton in Brazil. APPENDIX VI. REPORT OF JUDGE WILLIAM J. JONES. VIRGINIA POINT, TEX., October 5, 1880. Sir: At no time, from the commencement of active investigations and study of the origin, habits, and destructive tendencies of Aletia xylina, have so many obstacles pre- sented themselves to a full and exhaustive research into the most interesting facts growing out of the question, so very important to success of cotton growth in the South. During the season just passed, through the whole Jength and breadth of the land where cotton has been cultivated (except in a few favored localities), com- mencing early in July and not yet terminated, there has been a continuous fall of rain, unprecedented in the history of cultivation, destroying a very large portion of the crop, as yet undetermined and impossible of accurate estimate, till the remainder is secured and ginned and marketed. As faras my observation and memory date back, I have discovered in this year a more anomalous exhibit in the movement of this fugacious enemy of the cotton than before remarked in aperiod of forty years past. Upon a considerable number of plantations, which I was enabled to visit in despite of the frustrating conditions of the weather, I observed what I had never before witnessed, the obvious fact that in almost every field, where the fly had deposited its egos, were plainly to be seen sections of the crop upon which no worms had appeared, although only separated by a corn-patch or turn row, while the remainder of the field was entirely riddled by these truculent depredators. In looking for some latent cause for these special exemptions, I found in almost every instance that the unmolested spots were the early and well-cultivated portions of every field, clearly manifesting an evident instinct in the mother moth for the selection of those plants in the most succulent state and offering suitable sustenance for their larve. I found that the same views prevailed among the planters themselves as to my observations and the theory upon which they were based. To some of the questions embraced in your Circular No. 7 * very few planters were prepared to give any answer clear to themselves or satisfactory to you. To Nos.1 and 2 I failed to obtain any definite information. To the 3d a large number an- swered they had remarked no special difference. They were reminded that in 1867 and 1869, when the ground was frozen about the middle of March of each year, the fly had appeared early and the worms were very destructive. To the 4th the replies were uniform, that the worms appeared earlier and were more numerous and destruc- tive in wet than dry weather. To the 5th, they had observed them since 1864, in some years as early as the first week in May. To the 6th, the first moths seemed always to seek the rankest cotton, which was most generally to be found in the richest land. The answers to the 7th question were varied and unsatisfactory, though a majority inclined to favor the ground hibernation, because they had plowed up chrysalids resembling Aletia, and yet few had sufficient curiosity or had taken the trouble to hatch them out. But afew of the most intelligent and observant planters were very positive they had seen the moths alive in protected spots and after the coldest weather in winter, and had no doubt in regard to identification. Tothe 8th question, it was answered with one accord that the insecticides most generally observed. were the small ants, dispersed everywhere in the cotton fields, many varieties of birds, and some domestic fowls, where fields were convenient to habitations, assisted by spiders, wasps, yellow-jackets, and dirt-daubers, as known to plantation parlance. ong quadrupeds, none but wild animals were supposed to prey upon the worms, as hogs were fenced out and not allowed in the fields. To the 9th, opinions were about equally divided as to practical results, though a very general concurrence of views in favor of lights, if all planters would set them at or near the same time. Sa eee ee ee 293, 1874... 2 eS ee eee 174; ESS aren i Die Bs ENS POR MeO belt ey 183, | 18752... 20 ee eee TX Oe Acer eke a 2 age tanta oe 228, | 1876..-. 208 (2. Lae 94, 11S) a REI SR Pel aR) shes peay Bete aa 193, 1877 ./_ 2. eee 18d. 2- SB eetae eea ciao eh 21.8, | £876. a2 ee << oeres 1535 Rg le ee ee, ee o32,.| 1879...0..1.4). 2 Pye econ 2 2342 As to the temperature of the months of December, January, February, and Marth, Dr. F. Johnson says: “‘As to mean temperature of these same months, the variation is too little to have any influence on the question before you. Compare your notes on caterpillars, and see if you can find any mutual connection between temperature, rains, and worms. Ido not think there are any satisfactory bonds of connection.” Caterpillars in— 1867.—First appeared about 6th of June; destroyed crop last of July. 1868.—First appeared lst day of May; destroyed crop 10th of August. 1869.—First appeared 20th of June; destroyed crop 20th of August, partially. 1870.—First appeared 20th of June; destroyed crop 20th of August. 1¢71.—First appeared 15th of June: destroyed crop 20th of August. 1872.—First appeared 20th of June; 1873.—First appeared 10th of June; 1874.—First appeared 20th of June; 1875.—First appeared 20th of June; 1876.—First appeared 20th of June; 1877.—First appeared 20th of June; 1873.—First appeared 15th of June; 1879.—First appeared 20th of June; destroyed crop 20th of August. destroyed crop Ist of August. destroyed crop 20th of August. destroyed crop 20th of August. destroyed crop last of August. destroyed crop 20th of August. destroyed crop 25th of August. did not destroy crop. 4. This question is answered by the preceding answer so far as figures can, and from the statistics it appears that weather has no particular influence on them. You will observe that the months of April, May, June, and July of 1869 were among the wettest of the caterpillar years, yet the crop was only partially destroyed, and for the same months of the year 1876 we had nearly two-thirds less rain and the crop was destroyed as usual. As to their destruction by the ants, that will be more fully ex- plained later on. The plant during a dry spring is of very slow growth, and may not be able to furnish the necessary pabulum for the life and growth of the worm. This might be accounted one of the causes of a wet year favoring their development; there is more surface and food for them in a wet spring than in a dry one, 5. They have frequently been seen as early as the first days of the month of May, notably in the year 1868, when they appeared in great numbers in some localities, and did considerable damage to the cotton plant. Many planters were much alarmed at this early appearance, and thought themselves ruined again. The plant was, how- ever, yet young and recovered from the damage, and a pretty good crop was made. 6. In the low moist places when the cotton is greenish and more tender. 7. The insect undoubtedly passes the winter in the butterfly form, which is the fourth and last stage of their existence. They belong to the species Lepidoptera, and genus Papilio, and are the proceeds of the chrysalides from the caterpillars. They are about seven-eighths of an inch long, of a dark grayish color, not so pronounced on the under side of thejr wings, with acharacteristic dark circular spot on each wing. The last seen of the caterpillar in the autumnal season, when the crop of cotton is destroyed, is in the form of the chrysalis, for after they eat all of the cotton leaves they proceed to ‘“web up” on any leaf that will afford them protection. This chrysalis produces the butterfly, which immediately prepares for hibernation. -It is my opi*ion that they seek winter quarters before they mingle in concourse with the males, hence their eggs are not fertilized until after they come from their torpid state in the spring of the year. They may be seen inthe warm days of January, February, or March, near the eaves of ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR NO. 7. [$3] houses covered with shingles, or iu corners of fences made of rails with the bark on them. Just before sunset, after one of these warm days, they will come out and fly around, At this time they do not possess the same brilliant colors that they do in spring and summer when they are depositing their eggs, and one not perfectly acquainted with them might mistake them .for another species. They therefore pass the winter in the butterfly form, in a semi-torpid condition; yet, strange to remark, en passant, the first thing seen of them in the spring of the year is the worm itself. 8. First, birds (Aves) of various kinds and conditions feed more or less on them ; among others I will mention the mocking-bird (Orpheus polyglottus of Linneus). This bird feeds extensively on the Cotton Caterpillar (Aletia xylina) in the early months of its existence; but they are not gregarious, hence their work is little appreciated in this direction, they not being disposed to go in flocks or localize or concentrate their destructiveness. This present year (1879) the Cotton Worms have not developed as rapidly and as numerously as they have done usually heretofore, and among other causes retarding their progress has been pointed out as their great enemy the red-winged black-bird (Ageleus pheniceus). This bird has been seen in large flocks in the cotton-fields very early this year. These birds have been seen frequenting our fields and forests in great numbers late in the autumnal season, but have never been known here in the months of July aud August before. One planter told me that he saw one flock of at least forty thousand in the cotton-field! This number may have been considerably exaggerated, but there is no question that they have been in the cotton-fields during these early months, July and August, in very great quantities, such as have never been seen before. I have been informed that they feed upon the worms in three of their forms, the butter- fly. caterpillar, and chrysalis. These birds should be protected and permitted to build their nests undisturbed hy the hunter’s shot or idle boy’s hand. Many other solitary birds feed upon them, but their work is not appreciated. As to quadrupeds, there are none known, with perhaps the single exception of the raccoon (Procyon lotor). He has been seen feeding on them, and planters inform me that they have seen the tops of the stalks bent and broken, evidently the work of the eoon in search of the caterpillar. Insects. Ants (family /ormicide, order Hymenoptera) have always been looked upon as one of the most inveterate enemies of the Cotton Caterpillar, destructive to them in al! of their four different forms. They will detach the egg from the leaf and bear it off to their formicary ; attack and kill the worm either in its active eating state or when under the torpidity of the second or chrysalis state, and if it is possible for them to capture a butterfly it shares the same fate. It may be owing to their inability to procreate aud move about during wet weather that tlle worms are enabled to escape their depredations. Itis a well-known factthat the female ant is winged, hence itis plain to be seen that wet weather will considerably interfere with their proper func- tional office. The female ants are furnished at their exclusion with two pairs of wings, which after swarming in concourse with the males they almost immediately cast. The office of the perfect or winged female is to provide a constant supply of eggs for the maintainance of the population. Rainy weather can therefore keep the female ant ‘‘ cribbed, cabined, and confined” to her prison life; if she is permitted to venture forth it is possible for her to be lost in the storm. The suberabundant surface-water remaining after heavy rains will greatly impede the active operations of the ‘‘neu- ters,” or working ants, whose office it is to supply and protect the colony. The wasp (genus Vespa, order Hymenoptera) attacks the worm, and will carry them off to feed their young, and should they be so unfortunate as to drop one on the ground en route, the ants will be certain to pick it up. There is a small chinch-bug constantly found on the cotton-plant leaf, which un- doubtedly feeds on the ova or eggs of the butterflies. They are not numerous, how- ever, and are too small and insignificant to do any great amourt of damage or inter- fere materially with the rapid increase of the worms. 9. The only effort ever made in this parish to destroy the butterflies has been by fires at night. They are easily attracted by the ‘‘ glitter of a garish flame” at night, and great quantities can be destroyed in this mauner. It, however, requires concert of action on the part of a large number of planters, which has never been done. As to attracting them by sugar, &c., it is generally believed that the butierily does not take nourishment during its short life, or, if it does, the quantity is too small for them to be successfully poisoned. 10. They will be attracted only by the lights. 11. I do not know of any flowers that will attract them. They are not seen on any other plant than the cotton. 12. Nothing. 13. Nothing. 14. First, as to the plant: If the mixture is put on too highly concentrated it will kill leaves, blooms, and bolls. Second, as to man: When any portion of the cuticle is abraded and the mixture allowed to get on this particular place, it is apt to cause local [84] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. inflammation and inflammation of the neighboring lymphatic glands; no case, how- ever, to my knowledge. has ever been known to result seriously. Third, as to animals: I know nothing of any serious accident to them. 15. The best method yet tried is the application of the Paris green suspended in water, 1 pound to 40 gallons. The Paris green being the arsenite of copper, it is not soluble in water, and when the two are mixed the Paris green is only suspended; ' hence it is necessary to keep the mixture constantly agitated, otherwise some portions will be stronger than others, and will in that case be apt to injure the plant. The mode of applying it differs according to the means of the planter using the poi- son. Many persons make brooms of the Mayweed (Anthemis cotula), which are handy and very convenient; others use the common garden watering-pot with the perforated nozzle, which is expeditious, efficacious, and at the same time inexpensive. The best mode yet found is with tlhe fountain-pump; with this the work can be accomplished with neatness and dispatch without wetting the clothes of the one applying it. The poison must be applied just after the worms are hatched and begin to crawl, other- wise it will be too late. It requires careful looking to find the worms at this stage of their existence. Four or five days after the butterfly emerges from the chrysalides she begins to lay her eggs, on the under side of the leaf, and after about the same time the eggs begin to hatch; then look carefully under the leaf in the locality where you expected to find them, and almost to a certainty they are there. In order to better find them every planter should provide himself with a small magnifying glass, which will cost him only about twenty-five cents. This sammerI had in my office one leaf from the cotton plant, and on it there were ten worms and in it at least one thousand holes, yet on handing it to several persons they failed to see either caterpillars or holes until they were pointed out to them. By request I received the following letter from one of our largest planters: NATCHITOCHES, La., September 26, 1879. DEAR SiR: In 18761 experimented with arsenic to destroy caterpillars, with the fol- lowing result: I took one pound of 16 ounces of commercial arsenic, which cost about 25 cents per pound, dissolved it by boiling in 8 gallons of water: after it was dissolved replaced the quantity of water lost by evaporation; with this 8 gallons I went to work. Ist. Put 2 gallons of the solution in a pork-barrel of water, say 33 gal- lons, sprinkled two rows of cotton; result of this application was death to both cotton and worms. 2d. I then used 14 gallons to the barrel of water; same result to the worms, cotton badiy scalded. 3d. I then took one gallon of the solution and put itin a barrel of water; this time my solution seemed to be a little too strong, but dad no per- ceptible injury to the plant; the leaves retained their color except in places. A fourth application of three-quarters of a gallon of the solution to a barrel of water was tried and found of sufficient strength to kill the worms and not damage the plant. These experiments were made at the same time Paris green was applied to the balance of the cotton on the plantation, none, however, being used when the arsenic was ap- plied. The rows in which the last two applications were made (i. e., 1 gallon and % gallon to the barrel of water) the cotton lived and bloomed about three weeks, at which time the worms destroyed all of the cotton on the plantation. Respectfully, H. B. WALMSLEY. Dr. GEORGE E. GILLESPIE. The Paris green has been sold in this market for $1 per pound, but it can now be bought for from 25 to 35 cents per pound. It is calculated that three-quarters of a pound will poison an acre; however, if the application is made just before a rain, it will be necessary to repeatit. Most planters think that $1 per acre will cover all the necessary expenses. Respectfully, ‘ GEO. E. GILLESPIE, M. D. Cy eatitny, Chigf OLS. Re: JACKSON, Miss., September —, 1879. In answer to some of the questions of your circular No. 7: 4. Warm, wet, and cloudy weather favors the appearance and reproduction of the Cotton Caterpillar. 5. Never have known them to appear in the spring when June and July have been wet; the ist August is about the earliest period in this locality. 6. In cotton of the largest growth without regard to the situation. 7. Observation has led me to believe that the worm in none of its forms lives through aur winters in this locality, and also form an opinion in direct variance with science as taught in the schools. I have attempted to arrest their increase when only a few ‘ \ ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR NO. 7. [85] had made their appearance by destroying by hand, but without success ; for suddenly, without the possibility of such an increase by reproduction, they would appearin such numbers as to destroy every leaf in two or three days. Again, in another instance, when no worms were in this neighborhood, four days after a diligent and careful search, when no sign of them could be found, they suddenly appeared, and in three days not a cotton leaf could be found in my field except about one acre near the mid- dle of it, which was planted much later than the rest, not a leaf of which they touched, although some of the branches interlocked ; but some weeks afterwards, when this patch of cotton had arrived at the same stage of growth, it was also stripped of its leaves asthe other. In all my observation, the worm when it has exhausted the sup- ply of cotton leaf will eat nothing else, but crawls up on the weeds, bushes, and fences; and dies. 8. From this experience, connected with the facts of their irregular appearance, and that only under the same conditions of wet, warm, and cloudy weather, which is always unfavorable for a healthy growth of the cotton plant, and that the worm never ap- pears in the spring or early summer, at least not in such numbers as to be noticed; its power of quick reproduction ; its total absence from the cotton plant at that time when it could not escape detection; and the temperature of May and June always high enough for the development of the worm through all its forms, leads me to believe that the Cotton Caterpillar is the spontaneous production of diseased cotton plants. 9. All efforts to destroy and stop the progress of the worm when the condition for “its appearance and increase is favorable has proved futile su far as my experience extends in the cultivation of cotton for thirty years. Yours, very respectfully, EL... O.. DIAGN Prof. C. V. RILry. LARISSA, CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS, October 13, 1879. In answer to yonr 4th inquiry, viz: ‘‘Do wet or dry summers favor its multiplica- tion?” I would answer that about ten years ago the Rev. N. A. Davis, now of Jack- sonville, in this county, suggested to me the probability that the small red or brown ant, abundant in the South, was the natural enemy of the Cotton Worm, and especially effective during dry summers. After two summers’ observation, I was convinced of the truth of the reverend gentleman’s conclusions. His opinion and two years’ obser- vation induced me to write the following to one of our county papers: THE COTTON WORM (1871). ‘The danger from the Cotton Worm is now over and we may review the history of its depredations during the summer. Only a few farmers have suffered save in the anxiety which they have felt during the maturation of their crops. If you recollect, the worm was worse during the few weeks following the rainy season; and as the dry ‘geason since advanced, the worm gradually receded and the hopes of the farmer revived. The first generation of these troublesome insects appeared to have taken place in the wettest lands early in the spring, and it was about the second generation that menaced the crops. Wet weather favors the increase of the worm and dry weather soon destroys it. This observation has been made by many farmers long ago. A similar observation has long since been made in regard to the Cotton Louse. Early in the spring (when the cotton is in its first and second leaf ), if the weather is rainy, the louse soon covers the tender cotton plant and threatens to destroy it. But when the dry season supervenes the little insect disappears, and the plant soon recovers from the mischief. To what shall we attribute the disappearance of the insect in both cases? It is evidently due to that little predatory and almost omnipotent ant which retreats to its hole and gathers in large bunches in dry places during the rainy sea- sons; but whenever the drought sets in, it climbs the stalk of every plant in search of prey. it is carnivorous and deals death and destruction among insects in the crawl- ing stage of existence wherever it goes. When the Cotton Louse multiplies danger- ously on the tender plant, favored by a rainy season, the farmer loses all hope of hie crop, unless the dry weather comes and the little ant begins to milk the cows (the lice are called ‘ant cows’) by climbing up to tbem and striking them with their hands, and eating a fluid which is made to exude from them by the concussion. This proces soon destroysthem. Then, ata laterseason, especially if the ant is driven to its shel- ter by rains, the Cotton Worm, having increased to a dangerous extent, threatens the more mature plant. Again the same ant, when the sunshine permits, saves the cotton by climbing the stems and seizing the flouncing worm, cuts it into two on the ground, to which both have fallen in the struggle, and thus in a very short time it thinned out the worm, either destroying or holding it in abeyance. ‘‘The history of these two enemies of cotton-growers accords with the experience of observers. The dry weather, per se, does not save the cotton from louse or worm in [86] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. the former or Jatter season only as it permits the predatory ants to destroy them; nor does the wet weather favor the production of the insect only as it drives the ants to their holes. Were it not for the ant the cotton plant would never make the first limb, or, escaping this, could not mature a single boll on account of its second enemy, the worms. ‘‘Then iet us curse the little biting ant no more when we happen to get a shoe full, but remember that we are indebted to this diminutive creature for every thread of cotton that has gone into the commerce of the world.” Thus you see that about ten years ago the Rev. N. A. Davis informs me of his dis- covery of the destruction of the Cotton Worm by the ant; to which I have added the additional fact of the destruction of the Cotton Louse earlier in the season by the same ant. The observation of each succeeding year since that time has confirmed me in the opinion, and our last summer, the driest I ever saw, yielded no specimens of the worm or louse within my observation. Please obtain the technical name of inclosed ant. Yours, respectfully, F. L. YOAKUM. Prot. C. V. RILEY. PERRY COUNTY, ALABAMA, September 17, 1879. I beg leave to offer the following, in answer to your questions in regard to the hab- its of the Cotton Worm, and the best modes of destroying the same: 1. I can remember seeing cotton grown as far back as 1820 in Autauga Couns Ala- bama. Since 1822 I have been cultivating the plant in Perry County, on sandy land. 2. In 1837, about the middle of September, was the earliest I ever saw them. No damage of any consequence afterwards until 1866. 3. In my opinion, the worms are worse after a severe winter. I suppose it is be- cause they come out oftener during mild winters and are consumed by the birds. 4. Hot, dry weather seems to be the life of them. 5. The 20th June is the earliest I have noticed them, but doing no serious damage until 20th July. 6. They invariably make their appearance first in the low, black lands of West Perry County. 7. They hide themselves in old barns and rotten trees during the winter, coming out in the afternoon of warm days. 8. The appearance of the worm does not seem to attract any kinds of birds to our fields, but all domestic fowls devour them ravenously, as do also hogs and ants. ¥. There has been no method adopted for destroying the moth successfully. 10. They are attracted in largernumbers by decayed fruit of almost any kind than by anything I know of (during night). 13. Paris green seems to be the most reliable mode of destroying them, though some of my neighbors have used London purple with good effect. 14. It is dangerous to men, animals, and cotton when used with indiscretion. 15. I have used kerosene oil, one part to thirty parts water, effectually, and spirits of turpentine will do about as well. I believe pine sawdust sown lightly with the seed would be a preventive. Yours, &c., ; 0. .H:., PEREY; Prof. C. V. RILEY. WALTERBOROUGH, COLLETON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA, September 28, 1879. I mail you this day my report, as requested by you in circular No.7. This reportis not as full as one I made last year to the Department, but what I have said is founded on experience and close observation of the Cotton Worm for years. Trusting that it may be of some use in your department, I am, very respectfully, yours, &c., JAS MES W. GRACE. Coy. homy, CMe U. S.C. 1. Cannot state from any reliable authority, but cotton was grown soon after the settlement of the county, for domestic purposes. 2. As early as 1793 the worm swept over the State, but it is first recorded in this district in 1800 as prevailing generally. 3. The worm is most to be dreaded after a mild, warm winter. He will make his appearance sooner in the following season. 4. Wet summers by all means favor its multiplication. ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR NO. 7. [87] 5. First of June. 6. In wet, low spots where the plant grows luxuriant, the plant being succulent, soft, and pulpy. 7. I believe that it is a peculiar parasite of the cotton plant, and as such that the eryptic germ of the insect is to be found with the germ of the plant itself, and, like all parasites, only requires favorable circumstances to develop it; a soft, pulpy, and lux- uriant state of the plant, with cool and cloudy weather at the time of its natural ad- vent—that is to say, from early in June to middle of July—will cause it to develop vigorously and bud rapidly, so as to produce seasons; whereas dry June and hot weather, causing a hard, dry state of the leaves and mature condition of plants, fur- nishing but little and poor food, will result in a poor snd feeble brood, too inactive todo harm. This theory is borne out by the following facts: The Cotton Worm is found everywhere on the globe where cotton is planted, and only found on the cotton plant. The worm will starve if the cotton plant fails, though other vegetation abounds. When the plant is pushed on so as to grow and mature rapidly, the leaves being hard and dry in June, as was usual before the war, we hear nothing of the worm; but when cultivation is bad, the plant backward, and when June, the time of its natural development, comes, the worm finds the cotton (as since the war) green, sappy, and soft; then does it rejoice in wholesome food, increase rapidly, multiply, and make itself a scourge. I do not believe that the worm is migratory and returns to us from a warmer climate every year, for it can be found every year in small numbersif sought. I cannot admit this view, as I have seen it 300 miles from the coast at an elevation of 1,500 feet, in the northwestern corner of this State, in the month of June, and observed it there till the fields in August were totally destroyed. Howcould I believe that it got there by migration or was carried by currents of air? Nor can I believe that it hibernates around, as under old fences, on the south side of stumps, &c.; as, first, our winters are too severe to render such a supposition plausible; and, again, since the late war, no fences exist to give such shelter on the islands of our coast, where the worm most prevails, and the universal fires that pass every fall over woodland and clearings would effectually destroy any moths or chrysalids. Therefore it is clear to my mind that it is a peculiar parasite of the cotton plant, and the cryptic germ of the insect is te be found with the germ of the plant itself. Last year I made a very full report of this matter, and am sorry to learn that it was made no use of, and probably consigned to the paper-mill without being read. 8. Almost all birds, such as the mocking-bird and others, seem to be fond of the worm. 9. Paris green is the only thing that I have seen used, except fire-stands about the field. The latter is useless. Paris green is good, and the only thing I know of that will destroy them. 10. I should say“near fire-stands. « 11. I don’t know of any. 12. Nothing. 13. There has nothing been found better than the Paris green to destroy the worm. 14. [have not. With care there is no danger to man or beast. 15. Good cultivation. Push the plant early in the season. 16. The cost of keeping a good man and paying and feeding good hoe-hand, and this is the best means, and the cost is not very much. JAMESTOWN, ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA, September 16, 1879. In answer to your circular questions, the following is respectfully submitted: 3. The worm is most dreaded after mild winters. 4, Much rain in Juneand July seems to favor their development; but the character of the rains in those months in this section are short but frequent showers, with bright sunshine between showers. The writer has come to the conclusion from some observation that continued cloudy days are unfavorable to the development of the worm, and these reasous are given: Continued cloudy days are unfavorable to the hatching of the eggs; the sunshine seems to be nceded with its greater heat. In cloudy weather the flies or moths will be on the wing throughout all hours of the day, thereby giving the birds and mosquito-hawks better opportunities to catch them. In such weather the worms stay on the top side of the leaves throughout the day, and consequently are more readily seen and caught by their enemies; while in hot, fair weather the moth is concealed during the day, and does its work in the twilight and at night, when the birds and other enemies are at rest. The worms, too, of the first crops seem to work or eat only in early and late parts of the day, and probably at night; generally from 8 or 9 o’clock a. m. till 4 or 5 o’clock p. m. they will be found quiet on the under side of the leaves. It is the belief of the writer that continued [88] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. rains, with cloudy days, are unfavorable to the increase of the worm; cloudy days, even without rain, are unfavorable. 5. Have never seen the worm earlier than June. 6. Generally is seen first in moist, rich spots, where the cotton grows rapidly. 7. Have seen the moths at various times during the winter as ‘‘candle-flies.” Sup- pose that those worms that come to maturity when winter is approaching, by instinct — seek some place protected from cold, and, if not disturbed, might remain in chrysalis. till the proper amount of heat would develop them into the moths. Those that are badly or slightly protected from cold may either be frozen by cold weather or warmed into life by a few warm days, while those that are properly protected, which probably ae few, will pass through the winter, and be revived only by the hot sun of May or June. . 8. Almost all domestic fowls will eat the worm. Geese will eat them to some extent, while chickens, turkeys, and guinea-fowls will grow faton them. Almost all wild birds will eat them, and a large wasp, both black and red varieties, seems to be fond of the worm. In this section there are great numbers of a lace-winged fly, commonly called mosquito-hawks. These are of various sizes and colors, and are very expert in catch- ing the moth on the wing. I believe this mosquito-hawk is very influential in pre- venting the progress of the worm. While on this question I would like to state that it is my opinion that much good could be accomplished, and probably many fields might be saved, if birds that are insectivorous could be domiciled in the field. From what I have heard of the Eng- lish sparrow it occurs to me that this would be the bird for the purpose. If bird- houses are located in various parts of the field, the .birds would naturally hunt for insects near their homes, and the consequence, I think, would be that in all cotton fields well supplied with these birds the caterpillar would be kept down. *If the English sparrow can be domiciled, that is, will stick to its house and feed around, it could be mace of great benefit to the cotton region. The suggestion is offered for your consideration. ” Very respectfully, F. M. MCMEEKIN. C. venrbny. (Chief, Oe So FC. San ANTONIO, TEX., September 11, 1879. I shall not answer your questions as I find them in the Herald of this city, for I pre- sume there will be plenty of answers.for you. My object is tostate a fact bearing on the Cotton Worm. I planted cotton in the State of Nueva Leon, Mexico, five leagues below the city of Monterey, in 1867. Cotton had never been planted at the place, nor nearer than 200 miles to it, in this world’s history. I broughtethe seed from San Antonio, Tex., the ordinary Petit Gulf seed. The genuine Cotton Caterpillar ap- peared in the last days of May, and by the end of June ate up the crop. In the city of Monterey, at the same time, I planted in my garden (a large one) two patches of cotton—one the Texas seed, the other the black seed of the Sea Island genus, that is generally planted in Mexico. ‘he distance between the two patches was, say, 200 yards. I received a note from my partner at the hacienda below Monterey, about 10 o’clock in the morning, telling me that he had discovered the worm in the cotton field. JI at the moment passed into my garden and found the worm in both patches. Now, the question is, where did they come from? The egg or germ could not have been in the seed, as the butterfly cannot reach the seed to Jay her eggs, and the gin would have destroyed them. I assert that they could not have been blown there, or have remained deposited in the earth from the creation thereof; yet theycame. The weather was showery, hot, sultry, and between showers a hotsun. I have planted cot- ton all my life; have noticed the worm, and have always found them to come after such weather as I describe. When you walk between the rows after a shower, and a sort of hot steam vapor comes up, then leok out for the butterfly. I also planted cetton in the laguna, or Rio Nazas country, in the State of Durango, Mexico, in 1873~74- 75~76, where we plant the black seed but once in five or seven years; as a general thing the same Cotton Worm to which I have been accustomed in Texas came every year; but, as there is but little rain there, they seldom come before September, and too late to do much harm. Scientists say there is no original creation possible now; that all things of this world had their beginning when it was made; but I believe © that the atmosphere created the germ right there. When I was a boy there were ne Cotton Worms; now they never fail. These are points to which you are devoting your time, and so fraught are they with’the interests of our people that al] will wish to aid youas they can; and I write this to state a fact, but which I know will add to your difficulty. Respectfully, H. P. BEE. Prot. Ci Vi. BILE Onek 08. fa Ge ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR NO. 7. [89] San ANTONIO, TEX., September 29, 1879. You do not agree with my theory, but it will bother you to find out where the Cot- ton Worm came from, under the circumstances, as stated in my previous letter. There is no cotton growing wild in the part of Mexico where I resided, as there are heavy frosts there every winter; in the tropical region of the State of Vera Cruz, and to the south large crops of cotton are raised, but I never saw a wild cotton plant. The consul at Vera Cruz could, I have no doubt, give you an interesting account of the cotton plant in his section. I know that in the neighborhood of Paso del Macho, on the Vera Cruz Railroad, the cotton is bent down so as to stand the storms, and consequently the plant grows horizontally instead of perpendicular, and presents a curious appearance when ready to pick. Some years ago there were large fields of cotton in the State of Coahuila, in the | district of Monclova, but although admirably adapted to the production, the Cotton Worm from successive visitations entirely broke up the business, and now no cotton is planted in that State. I planted cotton for four years on the Rio Nazas, or laguna country, in the State of Durango. This is the Nile of America. The Nazas rises periodically (always once a year, sometimes oftener), and overflows a vast extent of country; a bold, clear mount- ain stream, 200 miles long, finally emerges from the mountains into an immense plain. The banks become lower as the river descends, until by many mouths it winds its way into the lake or laguna, a body of water 90 miles long and 35 wide, with no out- let—a great body of fresh water on an elevation of, say, 3,000 feet, in the midst of a great dry desert. The water of the lake is not utilized, as the soil on its banks is poor, no alluvial deposit or growth denoting original formation, but rather that the lake had been produced there by some convulsion of nature, as, if it were the original deposit of the waters of this great river, there would be swamps and sluices and timber denoting that fact, as the mouths of the Red River and other streams in Texas and Louisiana. The haciendas of the laguna begin where the River Nazas emerges from the mountains, and is utilized by dams and canals and ditches, by which the over- flow is restrained and the landJrrigated. ‘This irrigation is seldom used more than once a year, as the extraordinary character of the alluvium deposit of centuries re- tains moisture sufficient to produce crops for two years if necessary. (It seldom rains, and rain is not depended on at all for crops.) Cotton is planted once in seven years; is planted with a hoe. A hole is dug from 12 to 18 inches deep, to the moisture, the seed deposited, and that is the start, which is expensive, but there is no other way, as the moisture is too low down to be reached by a plow. The cultivation is as with us: Frosts kill the plants, the stalks are cleared off and burned, and in the early spring, with the budding of the peach tree, the cotton sprouts, and gives you a start of three or four weeks over seed just planted. The ‘‘Planta” gives the best yield the third year; gives less, but a good crop, the fourth and fifth; and then produces as in the first and second years. The seed planted is the black seed, like the Sea Island and Egyptian; staple long and fine. The green seed, or American cotton seed, yields the first year better than the black seed will on the third year, but as that seed will not rattoon or grow again from the roots, and the expense of planting isso great,it is not generally used. Cotton produces a bale to the acre; corn and wheat most extraordinary crops in these rich alluvials. Cotton is planted at Santa Rosalie, in the State of Chihuahua, but not to a great extent; the climate is almost toocold. This gives you all the information I have about the cotton region. With the exception of the Nazas and the Santa Rosalie, no cotton is grown in Mexico, except in the tropical regions of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, as the rest of Mexico is generally table-land, with an altitude of from 3,000 to 7,000 feet, and a temperature too low for delicate vegetation. There is a mountain in the center of this vast alluvial plain of the laguna. In caves in this mountain are to-day,the bodies of an extinct race of Indians, of whose existence in this plain there is no history extant. The bodies or mummies I have seen; they are wrapped in a species of cloth, or matting made from the maguez, painted, and all in good preservation; the skin has dried, the hair is perfect; all in wonderful preservation. No iron, gold, silver, or other metal has been found in the cave. Pottery ware, of the same shape as the pictures we see of the old Egyptians, arrow-heads, and spear-headsof flint. It reallyis remarkable, and induces the belief that some sudden overflow of the river submerged the plain and drowned all the peo- ple; they were evidently used to high water, as they buried their dead in the cavet of the high mountains. There are thousands of mummies in these caves. Excuse this long letter. Yours, respectfully, H. P. BEE. Prof. C. V. Ritmy, Chief U. S. F.C, [90] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. KIRKWOOD, Miss., Sepiember 5, 1879. 1. The cultivation of cotton, I am informed, was coeval with the settlement of the country. I settled here in 1845 and found cotton cultivated all over the county. 2. The Boll Worm has been an annual visitor since the first cotton was planted, destroying more or less, according to the character of the season. Though I had heard of the visitation of Aletia previously, I first observed it in 1858, though it did but little damage to crops that year. 3. It is more dreaded after a mild winter, but its visitations do not seem to be Ne: more by one than the other; that is, they are as often seen after one as the other. 4, Cannot say that a wet season favors its multiplication. They are never developed during hard rains or continued wet spells. Their propagation seems to depend upon showery weather creating atmospheric dampness, and a high mean temperature. Dry weather is unfavorable to their production or increase. 5. The last week in July is the earliest period. Have often found, what is here called the grass worm, as early as May, eating both grass and cotton. 6. Its first appearance, in my observation, is along hill-sides where moisture is retained, and hollow spots on upland, just where in plowing after a season the plow encounters the wettest soil; such spots as genera!ly produce the most luxuriant cotton. 7. About the middle of last November, and after several severe frosts, I found many chrysalides, of the last brood, on bare cotton stalks, living and lively. I placed these with others, previously brought in, in glass jars and boxes with earth and rubbish, exposed to outer air. Between the 15th and 20th of January, after a severe freeze of several days’ continuance in December and January, a number of living moths came forth, in a warm spell then prevailing, but soondied. Onthe6th of February the whole lot of chrysalides were then examined, when many were found to be dead and dried up, others again look plump, which were inadvertently thrown away, and from the cases of others several varieties of living ichnenmon flies were taken alive. One of them filling the case, and of normal size, was sent to Professor Riley and pronounced by him to be ‘‘ Pimpla conquisitor,” a parasite of Aletia. My impression now is that had they been left undisturbed the living moths would have issued forth this spring from a few. I do not think the moth can survive the winter, as in its natural state and in con- finement it is so short-lived in the summer, and my conclusion is that though it may be retarded in its transformations in our climate by cool weather, it was not designed by nature to hibernate in axy of its phases, but is the creature of a semi-tropica! cli- nate, where it is perennial and completes the cycle of its existence uninterruptedly. It has followed cotton, its favorite food, into our temperate climate, has become in- digenous, but has been subjected to abnormal changes, and only appears in large numbers during those periods when our climate assumes for a time a semi-tropical aspect. Many of the moths leave their cases late in the fall, and many eggs as well as chrys- alides are caught by the frost upon the cotton stalks and must necessarily fall to the ground with the detritus of the plant, and where there is much vegetable matter, as is the case in our fresh lands, and from the decomposition going on, would be well protected against frost. What goes with the moth, unless it dies, is a mystery, as I have rummaged everywhere without success, and in spite of rewards cttered can Lear of none from one season to the next. The general opinion is that they die out. As the egg of the Aphis, a much more insignificant insect, but one greatly affecting cotton, is known to survive the winter, by analogy I do not see why the egg of Aletia may not likewise survive. The one, Aphis, is deposited on the stalk, and the other, Aletia, on the leaf; both go to the ground. Aphis appears almost coetaneously wiih cotton under its appropriate law, and why may not dAletia appear later from its ovum under its appropriate law? — &. Starling and aspecies of gregarious blackbird; ichneumon flies, and also asmall, velvety-looking caterpillar, black, with two lateral yellow stripes. 9. Poisoned sweets near lights for the destruction of the moths were tried here many years ago, and with some success. It was soon abandoned on account of the time and trouble, as well as expense, and has never been repeated. A moth-lamp attracted attention a few years since about Canton, but that, too, has flickered ont. 10. Light would prove far more attractive than the sweet. 11. I know of no flower which attracts them. 12. Nothing. 15. As we usually, in fact invariably, see the worm before we see or hear of the moth, the aim would be to destroy the secoud brood, and this could be best done by putting out lights and sweetened poisons to attract the moths. I will here reiterate what has been submitted in previous correspondence, that the propagation of the worms in destructive numbers is the result of imprudent tillage, and that by plowing wet land we hasten their production by an artificial process which good husbandry would teach us to avoid. He who will run his plows only ~ ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR NO. 7. [91] when his lands are in good tilth and the work will prove advantageous to the plant cultivated, will never have his cotton injured by the invasion of the Cotton Worm. I deem it unnecessary to go into detail, as my theory and plans have been elaborated in previous correspondence. I have the honor to be, yours, respectfully, E. H. ANDERSON. Prof. C. V. Riuey, Chief U. S. £. C. [Dr. Anderson’s theory, referred to in the above report, and as set forth in an exten- sive correspondence, may be thus stated: In 1858, in the month of July, on visiting his cotton field early in the morning, he found his overseer running a number of plows on a hill-side adjoining bottom land, where the soil was wet. He ordered the plows to be stopped, believing that the work would fire the cotton and cause it to shed, and perhaps injure the land by baking the wet sod inthe hot sun. In ten days the worm was discovered in the cotton, and in twenty days there was not a leaf or young boll to be found upon it, and what especially surprised him was that the worms did not touch adjoining cotton or cross the plowed furrows. Since that time. he has often witnessed a similar occurrence, and others have had a like experience, so that he gradually came to consider that there was cause and effect. He made experiments which seemed to confirm that belief, and finally reached the conclusion that either the moth, unobserved, had deposited her eggs upon the stalks, or the eggs of the pre- vious season had fallen to the ground with the leaf of the plant and, being protected by the detritus, had survived the winter. To use his own language: ‘¢ Under ordinary circumstances, from the albuminous nature of the egg, it would be affected by heat and moisture naturally; that is, by solar action on rain and dew, creating vapor, which quickensit into life, by inducing fermentation and putrefaction, without which no egg could be hatched and no germ vivified. Under the influence of cold these chemical forces would be dormant, and the embryo or germ would re- main quiescent. The necessary atmospheric conditions do not recur annually for the speedy propagation of the Anomis, and hence we do not have them in destructive numbers except in propitious seasons. * * * It is a fact, patent to all practical farmers, that, if their land is plowed while wet or too wet for good tilth, the corn or the cotton, as the case may be, is injured thereby—fired, as it is termed: the corn turning yellow and being arrested in its growth, while the cotton sheds its leaves and droops. Whyisthis? I should say because the clod is exposed to rapid solar evapo- ration, and the hot steam damages the plants, through its respiratory organs, and im- .pedes the normal functions of all of its organs by disturbing the healthy equilibrium of the air. That an abnormal degree of heat is produced by this process is proved by the application of the thermometer, as I know by experiment ; and every farmer knows that the hottest and most oppressive work is plowing wet land under a hot sun.” It cannot need proof to show that when by plowing you disturb the capillarity of the earth while damp, abnormal heat is produced by the more rapid evaporation of the upheaved soil. This is as certainly true as that a shower, by restoring or re-establish- ing capillarity, will cool down the earth. ** Now, my theory is that the damp artificial heat produced by the process of plowing wet land is the most favorable of all conditions for hatching speedily the eggs of the insects, and especially when you add to this the extrication of ammoniacal gases, which under such circumstances must be more abundantly evolved. This I hold to be the solution of the mystery of speedy generation in the wetter portion of cotton fields.” The plan of prevention Dr. Anderson proposes on this theory is, never to run the plow in May or June south of his latitude, or in July or August farther north, when the land is wet and notin good condition for plowing. If there are frequent rains, he believes it matters little when or how the plowing isdone; ‘‘ for so long as the rain continues the necessary physical conditions cannot be produced—shower succeeding shower in rapid succession keeps the temperature of both air and earth cooled down and is inimical to the worm. When, however, showers at longer intervals occur, and the temperature is high, and the plowing produces rapid evaporation, and the plow- man,reeking with sweat, pants for a breath of pure, dry, fresh air, then the Anomis, nurtured into life by its genial surroundings, commences its revels, and in a short while the luxuriant cotton is converted into bare and blackened stalks.” “You must make cotton as you make hay; that is, whilethesun shines. The dili- ent farmer who keeps even with his work can always afford, without dctriment to is crop, to let his plows rest until he can do good work, but if plow you must, to kill grass, and the rain won’t stop, throw your furrows into the middle of your rows and not to your cotton, as by this process the danger of developing the worm is less, and no injury is done to your plant. Dr. Anderson, nevertheless, admits that ‘‘a few of the insects are annually hatched by a natural process; enough to perpetuate the species.” A similar theory to this one of Dr. Anderson's is held by a number of planters, founded, of course, on the ob. {92] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. served influence of soil and weather on the development of the worm; but in so far as any such theory implies the hibernation of the egg, or the spontaneous generation of the insect, or in so far as it departs from the reasoning on pages 81-83 of this Re- port, we believe it to be fallacious. ] [The following condensed summary of the habits of the worm is from that excel- lent observer, Dr. D. L. Phares, of Woodville, Miss. :] The caterpillar generally makes its first appearance at or about the same spot in a field year after year, partia‘ly or wholly denuding a few square rods or an acre or two. That is the first appearance generally noticed by planters. Close observers find a few earlier, and only a few leaves nibbled on only a stalk or two of cotton. In due time the moths from this first, or rather second, brood deposit their eggs in all parts of the field when the foliage is inright condition for feeding the young. In afew days more all parts of the field are stripped simultaneously, that is, so far as eaten at all. This when the destruction is early. When broods are smaller, the successive generations appear for three, five, and even seven months. ‘They are not Army Worms. They usually hatch and pass through all transforma- tions on the same plant on which the egg is deposited. If accidentally thrown off, they return to the plant when practicable. Sometimes violent storms of wind and Tain sweep nearly all off and wash them up in vast heaps against fences, &c., where they putrefy. Dry, hot sunshine seems to destroy them in all stages; and sometimes, under such conditions, they abandon the partially denuded plants and move in im- mense masses from the field; not so often, it seems to me, for other food, as to escape the intense heat. Undersuch conditions one rarely ever ascends another cotton plant. Their march is to death. Ifa road be in the way and dusty, and still worse sandy or gravelly, few succeed in passing the barrier. The exposed hot ground kills them, and sometimes we have seen them in the road-side ditches several inches deep, in- fecting the air with putrefactive stench. ‘‘ Another point: If the moth deposits no eggs in any part of a field, no caterpillars will attack that part. She knows evidently where the young can subsist and where not, and she deposits her eggs accordingly. If the plant is in condition to feed the moth, I suppose it is in condition to hatch and feed the young. Little or no differ- ence is perceptible by the common planter in the condition of the plant on two sides of a line that may divide an injured and uninjured field. A little distance from the line the difference is not perceptible. The plant is not so tender. Its chemical and mechanical condition both unfit it for the food of the caterpillar; therefore the moth deposits no eggs on it, nor will the caterpillars if placed on it eatit. This is specially and annually noticed on rolling or undulating lands, and sometimes on lands to the eye apparently level. This is my fortieth crop on the lands where I reside, and in no year has my whole crop been eaten off. The crops are often destroyed in Madison County and other points north as well as south of me before any dama, e is done here by the caterpillar. This depends on condition of plant.” Jin ol en Dg ow me ‘ Ol : Sar 7 hte yl i CAD ‘ pas, oe | LR pl WARE a 4 Paes J NOTES. “200.” Nore 1 (p. 1).—‘‘ALETIA ARGILLACEA. AusBahia. Vom Herrn Sommer abgelassen. Eine Noctua genuina und Heliophila lineata. Sie ist der A. Vitellina”® sehr ich, hat aber in nichts eine Gleichheit mit ihr und auf den Schwingen einen weissen Punct. Ibre Fiirbildung 399, 400, stellt ein mdnnliches Muster vor. “** Hiibn., Noc., 379. Vitellina.” This may be translated: ‘‘From Bahia. Leftby Mr.Sommer. A Noctua genuina and Heliophila lineata. It is very similar to A. Vitellina, but is in nothing identical with it, and has a white dot on the wings. Figs. 399 and 400 represent the male.” NOTE 2 (p. 1).—Without entering into any general discussion, which would be out of place here, as to whether Hitibne:’s names should be adopted or not—a question which has always divided entomologists—but following those who, taking the more conservative view, accept his species when his descriptions and figures leave no ques- tion as to what is intended, the above purported description, in connection with the figures, would have to be rejected even from this standpoint. In point of fact they leave every doubt as to the species intended, and give us no absolute certainty. The only descriptive part is that referring to the white dot, and this is conspicuously and well represented on the figure referred to; but it is this very character which makes it morally certain that some other species than xylina Say was intended; for while typical specimens of zylina invariably have the three white minute dots referred to on page 9 of this work, the conspicuous discal or reniform spot on primaries is almost invariably oval and dark, with two cinereous pupils, which are often dilated so as to represent a large cinereous spot, with a dark center and a dark border. Of the many lundreds, and we may say thousands, of specimens which we have examined, not one has had the distinct white spot described and figured by Hiibner. The figures in other respects bear out this conclusion ; for while in the different copies of the Zu- trage the coloring will vary according to the colorist, and according as the colors have changed with age—two facts which in themselves should be sufficient to discard names founded on mere figures—yet in the three copies which we have examined the figures represent a smaller, feebler-bodied species, lacking in the characteristic olivaceous hues, and much more roseate superiorly and more highly colored with yellow and roseate on the under side. The under surfaces of cylina are of tolerably uniform pale gray, with a faint ochreous tinge, and in no specimen of xylina do we find the sharp black line on the under side of the hind border of the secondaries characteristic of Hiibner’s figure. From these facts it will be seen that nothing can be absolutely settled from Hiibner’s description and figures, and so much has this been felt by previous authors that they have not been able to identify Hiibner’s argillacea. Thus Guenée, who had evidently better material to judge from than any previous, or for that matter sub- sequent, author whom we can call to mind, questioned whether his grandipuncta (=aylina) could be referred to argillacea, for the reason that this last is more yeliow, more distinctly marked, with the reniform concolorous, marked with a very distinct white dot, and quite distinct on the under surface. Even Mr. Grote, notwithstanding the assurance with which he identifies argillacea in the paper before the Association in the fall of 1874, expressed his uncertainty in his first published opinion on the subject earlier in the year. (Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences, vol. i, p. 170, 1874.) [95] [96] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. The figures on our Plate IV, 7a, were kindly copied for us by Mr. Edwin Sheppard, from the copy of the Zutriige in the library of the American Entomological Society. The coloring has been slightly lightened in the printing, but otherwise shows the figures very well as they appearin that copy. Inthe copy in Dr. Hagen’s possession,* as also in that which we have lately obtained for the Department of Agriculture, the figures are somewhat darker; but all are uniform in those particulars which we have just pointed out, and in which they differ from zylina. Hence, a careful and candid study of the subject, so far as Htibner’s work permits, leaves very grave doubt as to the identity of his argillacea, and though from the fact that we had accepted Grote’s determination in the first edition of this work (solely on his authority) we have tried to retain it rather than make a change in this second edition; yet an unbiased weigh- ing of the facts presented by the published data would alone have forced us to reject argillacea. Weare entirely of Dr. Hagen’s mind, as expressed in a letter written to as April 4, 1883, after full study of the facts, and before he was aware of our previ- ously published opinion to the same effect. He remarks: ‘“‘Compared with Say’s ex- cellent description, I believe it out of question not to accept Say’s name, which has priority.” : Forced thus from the published data to reject argillacea on the groundof uncer- tainty, we have endeavored to reach a definite conclusion from non-published, historical data, i.é., by an endeavor to ascertain whether types of Hiibner’s argillacea were still in existence. Dr. Hagen kindly informed us, in a letter dated April 12, 1883, that since argillacea was described from the collection of the late Mr. Sommer, of Altona near Hamburg, it might perhaps be possible to find the type specimen still in that collection, as Mr. Sommer had his collection specimens kept in very good order. The Sommer collection was supposed to have been purchased by the Museum of the city of Hamburg, but upon inquiry we were informed by Mr. C. Criiger, who was formerly connected with the Museum Godeffroy of Hamburg, that the collection had long since been purchased by Dr. Staudinger, of Blasewitz near Dresden. Hav- ing thus traced the Sommer collection, we directed Mr. A. Koebele to proceed, with specimens, to Germany, and ‘to visit Dresden and inquire into the facts. With the kind permission of Dr. Staudinger, Mr. Koebele was able to make an examination of the Sommer collection, but the results gave us no greater certainty ; for from the notes made it would appear that very few of the labels in the Sommer collection are written by Sommer. The collection is, also, in great disorder, and has been neglected vy Dr. Staudinger. Of the eight specimens of our szylina in the collection one is marked from Panama, another from Porto Rico; one is named ‘‘ Anomis grandipuncta Guen.,” another, unspread @ specimen ‘‘argillacea Hbn., and a third “ 4. grandis.” If there were any way of considering these labels authoritative the evidence might be considered in favor of our zylina being Hiibner’s argillacea, but from all the facts it is evident that the labeling. has been done by other hands, and there is other evidence to weaken the value of those labels. Thus the type of argillacea is distinctly stated by Hiibner to be male, so that the female above referred to could not be the type, which must also have been spread to have permitted the artist to fully figure the upper and under surfaces of all wings. Again in the Sommer collection there are eight specimens of a closely allied moth—the Anomis luridula Guenée, of which one is labeled “ luridata?” and a second ‘‘ modesta” and a third “‘exacta.” The species is quite unlike the exacta of Hiibner’s figures, so that we have here positive evidence of the worthlessness of the labels as historical indications of Hiibner’s types. NOTE 3 (p.5).—It may seem strange, but neverthelessthere is no published detailed . description of the earlier states of this insect that is at all full and accurate, or that- will permit the entomologist to discriminate between the species and some of its closer relations. Say’s original description of the imago is sufficiently full and satisfactory, *This copy, as Dr. Hagen informs us; is on ‘‘geschépftes Papier” with what is known as old coloring in good condition. NOTES. ) [97] and there are many general descriptions of theegg, larva, and pupa, several of which, especially where accompanied with accurate figures, will serve to identify the species on the part of those who have not previously become familiar with it. Butof the egg and the different larval stages, and even of the pupa, there are no such technical de- scriptions as will enable the entomologist to discriminate between these different states and those of some of the closer related species.: This is particularly true of the early larval stages. Dr. C. W. Capers is usually referred to as having given the earliest full descriptions of egg, larva, and pupa, and in order to indicate how very general those descriptions were and how thoroughly they are lacking in the characteristic structural details, we reproduce the descriptive portion of his otherwise excellent ar- ticle published in 1828. His description of the egg would apply more truly to that of Chrysopa, from which it was probably drawn. [From the Southern Agriculturist and Register of Rural Affairs, vol. i, for the year 1828, Charleston. Art. II.—On the Cotton Caterpillar, by Dr. C. W. Capers, of Saint Helena Island, pp. 203-209. Portion quoted, pp. 204-208. ] ‘¢ T have not been able to ascertain the exact period when the cotton caterpillar first made its appearance in this country; but the earliest intelligence of them which could be gathered from the best planters, of their destroying the cotton, was in the year 1800. The accounts given of insects of a prior date destroying the indigo and other plants, were undoubtedly of another species. In the year 1804,their numbers were so great, as to nearly destroy the cotton crops; but a storm, which arose on the 8th of September, proved so destructive to them, that they were not seen in any great num- bers, as far as I can learn, for many succeeding years; and, although in the course of ’ a few years they were to be found on many plantations, yet, the injury done by them \ was not very general or great in amount ;—and it was observed, that certain planta- tions, and even certain spots upon it, were the first to be visited by them. In the year 1825, they commenced very early, and were spreading rapidly, when they were again cutoff by the storm which took placeon the 14th ofSeptember. Immediately after the storm, I went into the cotton fields, and could see a small numbers of the caterpillars still remaining; but in the course of a few days, they totally disappeared, and it was confidently trusted by the planter, that the elements would once more relieve him from this devouring insect, and was, in this manner, consoled for the loss sustained. But this proved fallacious, and the following year the crops were more rapidly and effect- ually destroyed than in any which preceded it. The earliest notice taken of them was on the Ist of August, at a plantation upon this island, and soon afterwards they were found in various-parts of it, and information received, that they were in all direc- tions upon the sea-coast from North-Carolina to New-Orleans. “On the 23d of September, they had consumed nearly all the cotton leaves, all the upper pods, and some of the latter of a size almost ready to open. At this time they quitted the cotton plants, and the whole earth seemed to be a moving mass and com- pletely alive as these insects crawled along on its surface. A few of them remained upon the cotton stalks, but, in consequence of their want of food, they changed their color and became dull and languid, and finally perished. I have never been able to account, satisfactorily, for the sudden manner of these insects quitting the cotton plant. It was not for the purpose of webbing, for most of them were young; and when they web, it is always on the cotton stalk, or some neighboring plant, unless when it is forthe winter. Nor was it, in all instances, for the want of food; for, in most fields, there were certain spots which they had left untouched. The only rea- son which I could assign was, that having consumed the leaves from the cotton, they were directly exposed to the sun’s rays; which, from a meteorological journal I at that time kept, were observed to be very powerful. Whatever the true reason might be, such is the fact, that they appeared to leave the cotton simultaneously, and in the course of a few days, but a small number of these myriads were anywhere to be seen. We have, every year since, had them in particular places, but not in such numbers as to do much mischief. Their early appearance in the summer months, much depends upon the temperature of the preceding winter; and this must, of course, influence their numbers, which will be more fully explained when giving a description of the habits of the insect. “The Noctua Xylina is an inhabitant of the seacoast of our southern country. How it first came here, whether by flight, as some have supposed, or brought in the chrys- alis, a thing much more likely, Iam unable to determine. The changes which the different insects undergo through the successive stages of their brief existence, are familiar to most persons. Nothing can be more unlike than the worm crawling upon the earth or on the plant, and feeding upon its leaves and tender parts, and the moth or butterfly to which it has been converted, expanding its brilliant wings in the air, or passing from flower to flower. These changes form a complete circle, multiplying 63 CONG—AP 7 [98] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. each time in such wonderful progression, as would soon overwhelm everything by the increase were there not certain causes by which they are destroyed, and once more brought back within more reasonable limits. “‘ The moth will be noticed the first in the series. It is a small insect of a triangular — form, about 1 inch in length, and is easily distinguished from all others which bear any resemblance, by the peculiar dark spot upon its superior wings. . It seldom moves in the day-time unless disturbed, but at night its flight is rapid, and it is often attracted into houses where there are lights. How many days after leaving the pupa state, it is before the moth lays its eggs, or how many of them, I am unable to say. “ The egg is of a bluish green, and quite small. It is generally deposited upon the under side of the cotton leaf, and is about fourteen or fifteen days in hatching. It is confined to the leaf by means.of a small filament, attached by a glutinous substance. ‘* The caterpillar or larva, when hatched, is so extremely minute, as to be scarcely per- ceptible to the naked eye. Ina few days, however, it attains its full size, which is about 14 to 2 inches in length, and about the thickness of a crow quill. The color is not always the same—some being much darkerthanothers. All, however, are marked with black spots upon the back, and lines of the same color running the whole length from head to tail. The belly is of a light greenish yellow, and when about to web, it swells, loses the spots, and becomes of the same colour as the belly. As I before no- ticed, the sun appeared to have great effect in changing the color, or it was produced by the scantiness of the food, as it was only those of a light color who were able to remain upon the stalks after the leaves were consumed in the year 1825. It is well known, that the caterpillar avoids the sun, and it is principally in cloudy and damp weather, and during the night that they thrive best, and consume most food. At such times, when they are in large numbers, they can be heard at the distance of several yards whilst feeding and moving about on the cotton plant; and so offensive is the effluvia arising from them that thisis generally the first indication of their presence, and so peculiar is it, that whoever has noticed it once will rarely mistake it when he again approaches them. Their activity, also, is remarkable. Upon being touched they double themselves up, and spring to some distance. In feeding, they always commence with the upper leaves; afterwards they take the larger leaves, and finally, the blossoms and young pods, and in 1825 they were compelled to resort to older pods and the bark of the stalks. I have never seen them eat any food besides the cotton plant. In the year just mentioned, when they had completely denuded the cotton fields, excepting a few spots as before noticed, and were compelled to quit for the want of sustenance; they took their way through the corn-fields, pea, and potato patches; and although they webbed in each, and all of them, indiscriminately, yet the greater part perished on the earth for want of food. We may therefore con- clude, that these insects never devour anything but the cotton plant; and that the caterpillar which destroys thé corn, the potatoes, peas, and grass, are totally differ- ent, a8 any one may see, who takes the trouble of examining them. The latter re- sembles it more closely than any other, but it is of a much lighter color, and although nearly as large around, is not more than half the length. The rapidity with which these insects increase, and the short time it takes to consume a large field of cotton, is truly astonishing. They not only do material injury to the cotton plant, by de- stroying the young fruit, but by the destruction of the leaves, the plant itself is injured,ora new growth caused, which essentially injure the larger pods, causing some to open prematurely, and others,in consequence of a want of sap, to perish without ever expanding. eg : ‘* Added to this, they injure the ripe cotton, by the dirt and filth which they cause, . and by webbing in the cotton itself, as they frequently do, either stain it by being mashed in it, or when hatched, the shell of the pupa remains, and passes through the gin rollers along with the cotton. In about fifteen days they begin to swell, and rolling up a leaf by means of filaments which they attach to it, they completely en- velope themselves, and in this manner pass into the pupa. It is not a matter of any consequence what leaves they use, but in general they resort to the cotton leaf, or those growing in its neighborhood ; and it is not an uncommon thing to see several thus webbed on one leaf, or to see a twig where every leaf has one embedded. ““ The pupa is of a dark chocolate or chestnut color. When touched, if alive, it al- ways moves its joints. They remain in this state from fifteen to eighteen days, when the moth makes its appearance. This is during the summer; but when they web, for the last time in the fall, the larva retires to the woods or some convenient place, where, uniting several dried leaves, it attaches them to a limb by means of a filament, 2 or 3 feet in length, and retiring into its cell, passes into the pupa, which remains in this state until the ensuing spring. The exact period of their hatching, varies accord- ing to the temperature of the winter and spring months; and it is undoubtedly for this reason that they retire to the woods, which being of a more equal temperature, does not expose them so much to the cold, and they are also protected from the vio- lence of the winds. ; ae eee NOTES. [99] “ When these insects first appeared, various attempts were made to destroy them; but so rapid is their increase, that nothing done by the hand of man, has been able to diminish their numbers, so as to be in the least perceptible. Nor is it probable that anything will destroy them, excepting such causes as have already been related; viz. powerful storms,of wind and rain, and their own prodigious numbers destroying their food before the completion of the summer season. The Palma-Christi and Benné have both been said to keep them away from the cotton, and I have known them planted for that purpose about the cotton fields, but without producing any good effect; and I believe that the planters are now satisfied that they are useless.” DESCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLIER STATES OF ALETIA XYLINA (SAY). Eec.—Diameter 0.6™™, plano-convex, circular. Around its center are grouped three series of elongate either pentagonal or hexagonal cells, the middle series largest, this central area or micropile subpentagonal; radiating ribs quite sharp and somewhat wavy, from 35 to 40 in number, and about half of them more or less shortened ; cross ribs 12 to 14 in number. Color, at first a delicate bluish- or sea-green, becoming a more dingy yellowish-green when near the hatching period. Empty shell white, glistening and transparent. LarRvA. First Stage.—Length when just from egg 1.4™™; quite slender. Head im- maculate, much larger than joint 1. Legs very long, except first two pairs of prolegs, which are rudimentary and scarcely perceptible. Color almost white, with a faint Fak of green. Head pale yellow, ocelli black. Piliferous warts blackish (see ee 2, p. 6), each giving rise to a slender dusky hair. Second Sitage.—Length just after molt 3.6™™, similar to previous stage, except that the warts of the body become more distinct, and that the characteristic black spots of the head appear, 11 each side, each furnished with a stiff blackish hair. The rudi- mentary legs are also somewhat longer. Third Sitage.—Length 6™™. In this stage the final markings, or those of the full- grown larva, begin to show, though there is much variation in color. The most strongly-marked individuals have a broad, deep black, mediodersal stripe, bordered each side by a fine, clear white line; the sides and venter are whitish or yellowish- white, the sides often slightly dusky and with a faint indication of the white sub- stigmatal line; stigmata very small and dusky. Head orange; piliferous spots with a white or P leepiah annulus. Fourth Stage. —Length 9™™, Colors bright and lines more distinctly contrasting. In the dark specimens, a narrow black line borders the white subdorsal, the sides are more dusky, and the pale supra-stigmatal line more distinct. Fifth Stage.—Length about 16™™.. Coloration similar to that of the previous stage. Siath or last larval Stage.—Length when full grown 38 to 40™™, Slender, tapering somewhat toward both ends. Head small, round, free. Legs of normal number, but the first pair of prolegs atrophied. Head more or less orange or ochre-yellow, marked with 30 regularly arranged black spots; antenna 3-jointed, the first joint large, coni- cal, fleshy; second joint shortest, often not visible, being withdrawn into the first; third joint slender, about as long as the first, slightly thickest toward apex; its tip obliauely truncated, bearing a small subjoint, a short slender, fleshy tubercle, and a long bristle and a shorter hair at its outer extremity. Ocelli 6, clear, colorless: mandibles strong, pale yellowish or greenish; tip blackish, with rather dull teeth. Color of body variable. Black stripes and markings of the dark specimens are deep velvety black. Normal color green, with longitudinal lines of a white or yellowish color, as follows: A fine medio-dorsal, a rather broader sub-dorsal, and coincident with this last and about the same width, a supra-stigmatal, and, finally, asub-stigmatal, the distance between the last two being about twice that between the previoustwo. In the pale specimens the medio-dorsal white line is almost alwaysrelieved by two black lines, or rather by a black border on either side, but the whole dorsum is more or less dusky, and in the darkest specimensit may be, including the cervical shield, quite black, asalsointerspaces between the lateral lines. The supra-stigmatal line in the darkest [100] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. specimens broadens at the sutures, producing thereby a row of more or less distinct — yellowish, slightly swollen spots in. the region of the stigmata. All warts surrounded by a white annulus, those on dorsum sometinies obsolete. Stigmata brownish with white annulus. Anal plate yellowish with a transverse row of four larger black spots, and four smaller ones at posterior margin. All legs yellowish. Pupa.—Average length, 18™™. General color dark brown ; posterior, flexile portion of abdominal joints 4-6 dark yellow ; head, thorax and wing-sheaths very finely and closely granulate; abdomen also finely granulate, the granulations concave in the center; flexile borders very finely punctate. Head rather small, well set off from the thorax. Wing-cases broad, reaching to posterior margin of the fourth abdominal joint. Cremaster dark brown or blackish, ample, parallel, rounded at tip, slightly bent ventrally where there is at base an anal concavity ; rugose, with strong carina dorsally, extending to base of terminal joint; hooklets yellowish-brown, eight in number, two dorsal and two lateral short, and four terminal which are longer, the middle pair longest. Nore 4 (p. 6).—In alcoholic specimens the first pair often appear as mere tubercles without clasping hooks, but these really exist, though withdrawn from sight. The legs are perfect, therefore, and simply atrophied. In this respect the larva of Aletia sylina (Say) differs from that of Anomis texana Riley, which occurs in South Texas, for in this last species the claspers are wanting and the legs really obsolete and re- placed by mere tubercles. Otherwise the resemblance between the two larvez is such as to cause them to be easily confounded. ' Note 5 (p. 7).—The larva of Plusia dyaus Grote is not uncommon in spring and early summer on cotton. Being a semi-looper and bearing in color and mode of pupation a general resemblance to the Aletia larva, it is often mistaken therefor by planters. It is invariably pale green, without dark shades, and may have helped to ~ the popular belief in the first worms being green. But while we have invariably found dark individuals among the earliest and throughout the summer generations, we were struck during a trip made October, 1879, through Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia, by their great preponderance, the intensity of the black (often obliterating, the white annuli and subdorsal stripes), and the early stage of growth (often after the first molt and very generally after the second) in which it appeared. In the spring and early summer the black is more-often confined to the fifth and sixth stages. Norte 6 (p. 7).—The young larva of Spilosoma acrea makes somewhat similar but larger blotches. NOTE 7 (p. 8).—Mr. Schwarz succeeded in feeding one from the hatching period tillit transformed to chrysalis on a species of Morning-glory (Ipomea commutata Roem. & Sch.), but the chrysalis was imperfect, and finally perished. We find that quite a number of persons believe that the worm feeds on Abutilon and Pokeweed (Phyto- lacca), but the belief rests solely on the fact that these plants are often defoliated when the Cotton Worm is stripping the cotton fields. In the case of Phytolacea it is an entirely different worm (the Geometrid Philereme albosignata Packard) which does the work, and the same is doubtless true of the Abutilon. Mr. Phillip Winfree, of Mulberry Creek, La. (De Bow’s Ind. Res. of 8. &-S. W., 1852, p. 173), remarks that it feeds in the West Indies on a plant called the salve bush, resembling somewhat the common Mullein. There is great liability to error, however, in observations of this kind, on account of the great resemblance in the earlier larval stages of several closely allied species. This subject of possible food-plants of Aletia xylina is more fully considered in Note 15 of this same report. ? Note 8 (p. 9).—The male genitalia in this species are remarkable for having two extensile organs, usually retracted and showing as dense tufts of hair, but capable of | extension to thrice the length of the rest of the armature; also for two attenuated “ double-jointed spines which lie when at rest in a sheath on one side of the penis, & oe > = NOTES. _ [101] with the points extending beyond it, but which in action bend back at right angles therefrom. (See also Note 23.) NoTE 9 (p. 10).— See the article, Nectar: what it is and some of its uses, by William Trelease, published in the Report upon Cotton Insects, Department of Agriculture, 1879, pp. 319-343. In this article the author discusses especially the extra-flora] nectar glands of the cotton plant and theirrelation to Aletia. He concludes that the glands of the cotton plant seem to have been produced to secure the protection of the leaves and flowers of the plant from leaf and petal eating insects, like ants, but at the same time, since the introduction of the Cotton Worm, the glands have become inju- rious to the plant by attracting the moths at night, which alternately sip nectar and oviposit upon the leaves. The tendency now would naturally be to remove the glands by natural selection, but this is opposed by the methodical selection of man, who in his desire to produce a good staple and a vigorous growth pays no attention to the power for secreting nectar, and as this function does not cause any drain on the energy of the plant, it stands no chance of being removed. Nore 10 (p. 12).— Referring to the extreme rapidity with which the broods follow one another in midsummer, we made use of the following paragraph in our address before the Atlanta Cotton Convention, November 4, 1881 (see Bibliographical list): " ‘The first worms appear much earlier than was formerly supposed, viz., from the middle of April till the middle of May, in the southern portion of the cotton belt, The fact that these early worms generally attract no attention, and that the species seldom acquires disastrous force till the third generation, has given rise to the erro- neous notion of later first appearance. There are also many more generations than has been supposed, seven or more being produced toward the Gulf, the last enduring till frost cuts it off. When I tell you that in addition to this rapid succession of broods the moth is one of the most prolific with which I am acquainted, capable, in fact, under favorable circumstances, of laying six or seven hundred eggs, you will no longer wonder at its destructive capacity. The progeny ofa single female may, in less than two months, under the influence of midsummer temperature, reach twenty billions, while you all know that half a dozen worms to a plant are sufficient to jeopardize the crop. Why, were it not for the various natural checks upon the increase of the species in geometrical ratio, successful cotton-culture, with all our im- proved methods for destroying the pest, would be utterly impossible. Remove the barriers and the flood comes. The occasional impotence of the natural checks, through one cause or another, very quickly gives the Cotton Worm the mastery in the struggle for existence, and precipitates it upon us in multitudes almost as if by magic.” NoTE 11 (p. 12).—This is well illustrated by a fact communicated by Dr. D. L. Phares, of Woodville, Miss., viz., that the worm usually begins its work of destruc- tion in Madison County from three to six weeks earlier than in Wilkinson; the former on latitude 33°, and the latter resting on 31°. At Madison station, in the southern part of Madison County, the thermometer marked the extreme low temperature of —4° F. during the winter of 1878-79, while at Woodville, only about two degrees farther south, the lowest temperature noted was 14° F., or a difference of 18°. — NoTE 12 (p. 12).—In this connection we quote the following note on hibernation from the American Naturalist for April, 1883. It is a brief abstract of a paper read by us before the American Association for the Advancement of Science at the Montreal meeting in 1882: | ‘““THE HIBERNATION OF ALETIA XYLINA, SAY, IN THE UNITED STATES A SETTLED FACT.—I have already shown in previous remarks before the association that there were various theories held by competent men—both entomologists and planters—as to the hibernation of this Aletia (the common Cotton-Worm of the South) ; some be- lieving that it hibernated in the chrysalis state, some that it survived in the moth state, while still others contended that it did not hibernate at all in the United States. Ihave always contended that the moth survived within the limits of the United { {102] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. States, and in this paper the fact of its hibernation, principally under the shelter of rank wire-grass, is established from observations and experiments made during the © winter and spring of 1881-2. The moth has been taken at Archer, Fla., during every winter month until the early part of March, when it began to ditdaeeee but not until eggs were found deposited. The first brood of worms was found of all sizes during the latter part of the same month on rattoon cotton, while chrysalides and fresh moths were obtained during the early part of April. ‘The fact thus established has this important bearing: ‘‘ Whereas upon the theory of annual invasion from some exotic country fhere was no incentive to winter or spring work looking to the destruction of the moths, there is now every incentive to such action as will destroy it either by attracting it during mild winter weather by sweets, or by burning the grass under which it shelters. It should also be a warning to cotton-growers to abandon the slovenly method of cul- tivation which leaves the old cotton-stalks standing either until the next crop is planted or long after that event; for many planters have the habtt of planting the seed in a furrow between the old rows of stalks. The most careful recent researches all tend to confirm the belief that Gossypium is the only plant upon which the worm can feed in the South; so that in the light of the facts presented there is all the greater incentive to that mode of culture which will prevent the growth of rattoon cotton, since it is questionable whether the moth will survive long enough to perpet- uate itself upon newly sown cotton except for the intervention of the rattoon cotton.” NOTE 18 (p. 13).—These observations have been made more particularly upon the Army Worm (Leucania unipuncta) and the Rocky Mountain Locust (Caloptenus spretus), and bear, of course, upon the successive hatching within-the limits of hibernating regions rather than upon the northward spread of the insects outside of these limits. (See Eighth Missouri Entomological Report, p. 47, and First Report United States Entomological Commission, p. 232.) _ Nore 14 (p. 13).—Dr. Phares is the only writer who has, so far as we can learn, re- corded as many as six generations from July 6, 1869, till frost.—Rural Carolinian, i, p. 695. Nore 15 (p. 15).—In reference to this subject, we quote the following on the pos- sible food-plants, published by us in the American Naturalist for April, 1882, pp. 327- 328: ‘‘One of the most interesting characteristics of the Cotton Worm is that it is so strictly confined to cotton as its food-plant. All attempts hitherto made to dis- cover additional food-plants have proved futile, nor have we been able to ever make it feed successfully on other plants allied to Gossypium.* We have, however, long felt that there must be some other wild plant or plants upon which the species can exist, and this belief has been all the stronger since it was demonstrated two years ago from observations made by Dr. P. R. Hoy that the larva may occur in Wisconsin, and, consequently, out of the range of the cotton belt.t We have given special directions to those in any way connected with the Cotton Worm investigation to search for such additional food-plants, but so far no additional food-plant has been discovered. Last November we received from Dr. J.C. Neal, of Archer, Fla., specimens of a plant with eggs and newly-hatched larve which he believed to be those of Aletia, but which belong to an allied species—the Anomis erosa Guen. The plant proved to be one of the Malvacezx (Urena lobata Linn.), which is reported as quite common in that part of Florida and further south, being a tall, branching, and straggling weed with annual stems and perennial root, from which new shoots arise in January. It blooms from February to December, and is a valuable fiber plant, the bark of both stem and root being very strong, and used very generally for whip and cording pur- poses. The leaves have three very conspicuous saccharine glands on the principal veins toward the leaf-stem, and the plant, Dr. Neal reports, is much less sensitive to -— —_——— * The only partial success in this line is that already referred to in Note 7 t See Report on Cotton Insects, Department of Agriculture, 1879, p. 89. - wer 4 SF jad es a eee NOTES. [103] cold or frost than Gossypium. We find that the plant has been received by Dr. Vasey, botanist of the Department of Agriculture, from several parties in Florida, with inquiries as to the value of the fiber. Urena lobata was, until very recently, not known to occur in*the United States. It is common on dry hill pastures almost everywhere in the West Indies and southward to Guiana and Brazil, and is also re- ported from Western Africa, East Indies, China, and some of the Pacific islands. It seems to thrive very well in Florida, and is likely to spread to other adjacent States. ‘*The Anomis erosa, the eggs and young larve of which were not uncommon on the leaves of the Urena, may be distinguished from Aletia by the paler, more translucent ~ character of both egg and larva, and by the first pair of prolegs being quite obsolete, in which character it resembles the Anomis exacta [texana] that affects cotton in Texas. . Aletia larvz that had been fed on cotton, when placed upon the Urena, refused to feed upon it, and finally perished. ‘“We recently took occasion to carefully examine the Malvaceous plants in the herbarium of the Department of Agriculture with some quite interesting results; al- though a herbarium is naturally the least favorable place one can choose for an ento- mological investigation of this character, as plants that are least injured by insects are most apt to be collected, and the mode of preserving the plants still further reduces the chances of finding traces of Aletia, because only one side of the leaf is available for examination. How small this chance is may be illustrated by the fact that on the specimens of Gossypium in the herbarium no Aletia eggs or egg-shells eould be discovered, and that only one specimen showed any trace of being injured . by any insect whatever. Nevertheless a number of eggs or fragments of such—some of them from their structure very closely related to Aletia—were found on the follow- ing plants: Malvastrum spicatum, from Florida and Nicaragua; Urena ribesia (Which is considered a form of U. lobata), from Southern Florida; Pavonia typhaleoides, from Cuba; Sida glomerata, from Cuba. ‘**One object of this examination was to discover, if possible, the particular Malva- eeous plant upon which Aletia feeds in the States north of the cotton. belt, but this proved to be an almost complete failure, because the herbarium contained only six specimens of such plants from the more northern States, not counting sixteen speci- mens cultivated in the agricultural grounds at Washington. However, on aspecimen of Sida spinosa, from York County, Pennsylvania, an egg was found which has every appearance of that of Aletia. ‘“We would earnestly call upoh entomologists who may read these pages to aid us in obtaining evidence of the food-plant of the insect in the more northern States by an examination of the plants indicated by an asterisk in the following list, as it is upon such that the insect will probably be found at some future time, but only late in the season: \ LOCALITIES FOR MALVACEOUS PLANTS FROM GRAY’S FLORA. Althea officinalis L.—Salt marshes coast of New England and New York. (Nat. from Eu.) Malva rotundifolia L.—Waysides and cultivated grounds, common. (Nat. from Eu.) sylvestris L.—Waysides. (Adv. from Eu.) moschata L.—Has escaped from gardens to waysides. (Adv. from Eu.) alcea L.—Has escaped from gardens in Chester County, Pennsylvania. (Adv. from Eu.) Callirrhoé triangulata Gray.—Dry prairies, Wisconsin, Illinois and southward. alcwoides Gray.—Barren oak lands, Southern Kentucky and Tennessee. Napea dioica L.—Limestone valleys, Pennsylvania and southward to the valley of Virginia, west to Ohio and Illinois, rare. * Malvasirum angustum Gray.—Rock Island in the Mississippi, Illinois. ° coccineum Gray.—Abounds on the plains from Iowa and Minnesota west- ward. [104] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. *Sida napea Cav.—Rocky river banks, Pennsylvania, York County, Kanawha County, Virginia. (Cultivated in old gardens.) elliottit T. & G.—Sandy soil, Southern Virginia and southward. spinosa L.—Waste places, common southward. Abutilon avicenne Gertu.—Waste places, escaped from gardens. (Adv. from India.) Modiola multifida Mench.—Low grounds, Virginia and southward. Kosteletzkya virginica Presl.—Marshes on the coast, New York to hitcss: and south- ward. Hibiscus moscheutos L.—Brackish marshes along the coast, sometimes extending up rivers far beyond the influence of salt wayer (as above ‘Harrisburg, Penna.), also Onondaga Lake, New York, and westward, usually within the influence of salt springs. grandiflorus Michx.—Illinois and southward. militaris Cav.—River banks, Pennnsylvania to Illinois and southward. trionum L.—Escaped from gardens or grounds. (Adv. from Eu.) syriacus L..—Escaped from gardens or grounds. (Adv. from Eu.) * Nore 16 (p. 17).—We append a description of the larva of Aspila virescens: Smooth, soft, translucent, with the normal complement of 16 legs. Color either green orlilaceous. Finely speckled, with pale yellowish spots (appearing under the lens as fleshy elevations), arranged in a somewhat longitudinal manner, and forming along the stigmatal region a tolerably well marked band; the stigmata, which are in the upper portion of this band, being black, with a carneous center and white annu- lation. Piliferous spots in normal position, very small, dark, with a paler annula- tion, the hairs fine and translucent. The two posterior joints somewhat squarely cat off, Head, thoracic legs, and cervical shield polished and slightly more yellow than body. Full grown in July; imago issuing in August of same year. Note 17 (p. 18).—Both in 1878 and 1879 Mr. Schwarz traveled throughout the south- ern portion of the cotton belt and visited the Bahamas, one of his special instructions being to learn, if possible, something definite as to the winter quarters of the moth. The gist of his results is given in a report published in Appendix I in the Report upon Cotton Insects, Department of Agriculture, 1879, pp. 347-349, while he also furnished Professor Comstock (ibid., pp. 349, 350) with a fair summary of the conclusions that we had'then come to both from his observations, our own, and those of others in the investigation then being pursued. Norte 18 (p. 18).—The Platyhypena scabra (Fabr.) of Grote’s List. Its larva is grass- green in color, with a medio-dorsal and sub-dorsal lines of a darker green, the latter bordered below by a whitish line. It is cylindrical and with but three pairs of abdominal prolegs. It feeds on clover, and also on Robinia. The chrysalis is formed © in some sheltered situation and surrounded with white silken threads; is dark and slender like that of Aletia, but the tip is armed with two strong, slightly diverging spines. In Missouri this chrysalis may be found under bark during winter, and it doubtless hibernates in both chrysalis andimago statein the South. (See chapter XV.) Note 19 (p. i9).—Our notes show that larve of this species (Phoberia atomaris Hib.) were found at Saint Louis, Mo., May 13, 1873, on oak and under chips. Most of these had entered the ground by the 29th and had transformed to pupe June 18. Larve of the same species were also found at Fortress Monroe, Va., July 19, 1882, near the base of a live-oak. NOTE 20 (p. 20).—It was our privilege to follow the reading of this paper with some remarks expressing our general.appreciation of it, but urging at the same time some qualifications of the theory, and the belief that the insect hibernated in the more southern portion of the belt. These remarks seem to have had some weight, for in the printed copy of the paper in the Proceedings of the Association a qualifying ‘ NOTES. . [105] clause (not in the paper as read or as printed at the time in the New York Tribune) is added, admitting the possibility of hibernation in Florida and southern Texas. Mr. Grote based his views on an experience had in what is known as the central cotton belt of Georgia and Alabama. The exact northern or southern limits of this belt are not stated, but it includes most of the canebrake region of the latter State, and extends south of what, in a broader way, we have defined as the southern or hiber- nating portion of the whole cotton belt. The arguments against the theory of annual immigration are therefore based on experience gained, in great part, in the same lati- tude and. regions referred to by Mr. Grote. In 1878, Mr. Grote was connected with the Department of Agriculture, and in the work allotted to him we directed him to pay particular attention to this question of hibernation, and it is due him to state that his investigations in southern Georgia, according to his report submitted, led him to admit the possibility of the moths hibernating there, though as late as January, 1879, he was reported as having confirmed ‘‘ his theory” that ‘‘the fly comes from the West Indies with the south winds every year.” (Popular Science Monthly, vol. xiv, p. 406.) NOTE 21 (p. 20).—A rough division of the cotton belt into a northern and southern portion was made in the Introduction to the first edition of this work, and we repro- duce it here as a means of defining what we mean by the southern portion of the belt: Some similar classification of the cotton belt will also greatly aid in the treatment of this Cotton Worm question, and as a temporary classification, to be elaborated in future, I have divided said belt into, first, the southern or permanent portion, where the first worms annually appear and the moths in all probability hibernate; second, the northern or temporary portion, in which the insect does not hiberfate, but into which it spreads, either by gradual dispersion or by more sudden migration, from the perma- nent portion. The dividing line between these two portions must needs be difficult _ to define, because there is an uncertain region that may, according to season or cir- cumstance, belong to either, and also because of the limited observations that have yet been made. Taking the early appearance of the worms as a basis, the southern portion may be thus roughly defined: Beginning with Texas, it includes the region south of the Galveston, Harrisburg and San Antonio Railroad, excluding perhaps the extreme western portion, but extending somewhat farther north along the river bot- toms. In Louisiana and Mississippi it includes the valley of the Mississippi River and its tributaries, with uncertain northern limits. In Alabama it is represented by the limestone cotton belt south of Montgomery, though probably extending farther north to the east of that point. In Georgia it does not extend north of Albany on the west, but doubtless includes the sea islands along the coast, as also those of South Carolina, though at the present time cotton cultivation is limited to Saint Catharine’s Island. In Florida it includes all parts where cotton is grown. NOTE 22 (p. 37).—This claim of Professor Stelle’s is later referred to in Chapter XIV, and more fully discussed in Note 57, to which the reader is referred. NOTE 23 (p. 56).—These organs in Leucarctia acrea were figured and again described in Papilio, vol. iii, pp. 41, 42 (Febr., 1883), by Mr. R. H. Stretch, of California, and his query as to whether they had been noticed at the East brought forth notes from A. R. Grote, of New York, and C. M. Weed, of Lansing, Mich. (Papilio, iii, p. 84, Apr., 1883). The latter stated that he had found similar organs in the male of Pyrrharctia isabella. NOTE 24 (p. 85).—Our remarks on this subject were as follows: ‘‘The worm in my estimation is worse in wet weather than in dry, not so much be- cause such weather is more favorable to its development, as because it prevents the numerous enemies from so effectually performing their accustomed task. The ubiqui- tous ant, ever ready to pounce upon the young worm when it is helpless, as at the time of hatching or of molting, and the many flying wasps, ichneumons and other in- sects that constantly search the leaves for this soit prey, are hindered in their pre- daceous work; while the worm, relieved of these watchful checks to its increase, de- velops apace. Tt is on the same grounds that I would explain the fact so generally noted, that the worm first appears. in particular paris of a field. Such spots are gen- erally the low and moist spots where the cotton grows most luxuriantly, and where ants least abound. They represent the spots of least molestation to the young woim.” * * * (Abstract of an address before the Mobile Cotton Exchange, and published in Mobile Register, July 9, 1879, and Colorado (Tex.) Citizen, of July 17, 1879.) [106] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. - Nore 25'\(p. 87).—An interesting instance of the appetite of swine for Cotton Worms is told by a writer in the Shelby (Ala.) Guide. Two pigs, nearly dead with cholera, were turned into a field of cotton to graze. The field was overrun with worms, and ~ the pigs fed exclusively upon them, recovering from their cholera and growing fat on the diet. Their presence induced another ‘‘ gang” of pigs to enter the field, and it was surprising to see.with what activity and persistence they hunted the worms. The half-starved dogs of the poor freedmen and also their cats are also reported to feed upon the worms. NOTE 26 (p.88).—In the Report upon Cotton Insects, Department of Agriculture, 1879, a tolerably complete list of Southern birds is given (pp. 159-162), those nesting in the South being especially designated. This list was compiled by Mr. Robert Ridg- way, of the Smithsonian Institution. NoTE 27 (p. 89).—It is a question as to how far the English Sparrow will.be able to hold its own in the extreme southern portions of the country. We find, upon corre- spondence with the members of the American Ornithologists’ Union, and especially with members on the special committee on migrations, that very little seems to-be known to ornithologists as to the exact distribution of this bird in the South and West. From other sources and from our own correspondents it has obviously ex- tended all over the South and is now even found on the Pacific coast. But itis also equally obvious that in the hotter portions of the country it is confined to towns and villages, and has not become in any way an important factor in the suppression of the Cotton Worm. ® NOTE 28 (p. &9).—Having turned these spiders over to Dr. George Marx, with a re- ‘quest that he make a brief report upon them, he has kindly submitted the following notes with the accompanying figures: The following list of spiders which are found inhabiting the cotton plant and feed- ing on the larva of the cotton moth Aletia, certainly does not comprise the full num- ber of those spiders which, by aenhen? insects noxious to agriculture, deserve par- ticular mention and description. But although the number of the present list is small and insufficient, the mentioning of these few beneficial spiders seems to me justified by tne fact that itis the first attempt to draw the large and interesting order of Aranez out of an undeserved and superstitious interdict into a more friendly relation to us. The spiders which have been observed to devour the larve of Aletia belong to six different families, and were the observations more complete would probably comprise all the families of the order. EPEIROIDZ. LEpeira stellata H. (Pl. LXIII, Fig. 1). Tetragnatha extensa W. (Pl. LXIV, Fig. 1, ¢ and Q). Tetragnatha laboriosa H. Argiope fasciata (H.) (Pl. LXIII, Fig. 2). THERIDIOIDZ. Theridula spherula (H.) (Pl. LXIII, Fig. 3). Theridula quadripunctata Keyserling. Tinyphia communis H. (Pl. LXIII, Fig. 4). Euryopis funebris(H.). Teutana triangulosa (Keyserling). Mimeius interfector H. THOMISOIDE. Misumena americana Keyserling. Misumena georgiana Keyserling. Xysticus quadrilineatus Keyserling. DRASSOIDZ. Cheiracanthium piscatorium (H.). ATTOIDZA. Attus fasciolatus H. . Atius parvus H. Attus cardinalis H. OXYOPOIDE. Oxyopes viridans H. (Pl. LXIV, Fig. 2). The mode of capturing their victims differs with the different families, but obser- vations in this connection are very limited, though it may be stated, with consider- able certainty, that the members of the Thomisoid, Drassoid and Attoid families sim- ply jump suddenly upon the larve, killing them instantly by biting them to death; but the way in which the smallest and most frail of all the spiders enumerated here, the Theridula spherula, captures her prey, shows so much intelligence and skill that it deserves a more full description. EE NOTES. ' [107] Too small in body to follow the habits of the other spiders with the slightest chances ef success, nature has gifted this little heroine with a highly developed intellect by which she is enabled to come victorious out of the so uneven fight, for the larva is often twenty to thirty fold larger and heavier. Let us look upon a larva, about half an inch long, feeding, unsuspecting the ap- proaching danger, on the succulent leaf of the cotton plant. Suddenly we see a small black dot not much larger than the head of a pin lowering itself from a leaf above to ¢hat on which our larva feeds. This little dot is the Theridula, and, alighting on the leaf, she runs busily backward and forward about the sluggish larva, always avoid- ing to touch and disturb the larva, often climbing on a thread from one side to the other side, thus surrounding the victim with a nearly invisible system of threads, tire- less, adding strength to it, testing here, with all her force, the durability of one cord, . adding there another loop to a weak point. After an hour or more she has finished her work, and suddenly disappears to the underside of the leaf above. Now the larva becomes restless, it throws its head angrily about, its whole body jerks wildly, it endeavors to walk away, but in vain; it is held by invisible powers; nay, it is lifted up from the leaf and gradually and noiselessly is hoisted to the underside of the leaf above. It is wonderfulwhat strength and what amount of mechanical ingenuity are here displayed. [Of the mechanism of this hoisting an often twenty times heavier weight by the spider we know little, as the threads are very thin and the spider always at the underside of a narrow projection, a crevice of a fence rail or stone, or the under- side of a leaf, and being very shy, immediately interrupts her work at the slightest disturbance. According to my notes it took a Theridula one hundred minutes to lift a larva, spe half an inch in length, 64 inches to the underside of the plate of my work- ing table. ] Having her prey, which has become exhausted and motionless by its fruitless en- deavors to free itself, securely fastened to a projecting vein of the leaf, our little hero- ine now throws out by her hind feet a mass of threads which she fastens over the larva atthe sametime. Slowly and at long intervals does the larva move in its ties while the little spider runs busily about it, fastening it with more ropes to the leaf; this takes another hour, and now she cautiously approaches the larva, and after repeated trials she has selected the right spot, generally at the second or third segment, into which she introduces her poisonous fangs. Hours afterward we can see the victress motion- less in the same position, sipping the sweet juice from the body of her victim. The following facts concerning one of the commoner spiders (Oxyopes viridans) were published by Mr. Hubbard in the American Entomologist, vol. iii, p. 250: August 28, 1880.—In the field to-day I observed a spider, Oxyopes viridans, eating a Tachinid (?)fly. These large green spiders are quitecommon. I am inclined to think they do not attack the caterpillar. I watched one resting upon the same leaf witha worm, to which the spider paid no attention. During the entire morning the spider remained upon thesame leaf, while the caterpillar wandered to the next leaf, and fed in plain sight of the spider unmolested. Another specimen of the same spider ran over a leaf, on the underside of which a caterpillar was feeding. The caterpillar jerked and shook the leaf, but the spider paid no attention to it. September 3.—This morning I could not find a caterpillar in the ‘‘Simpson cotton,” excepting one just hatched. I saw the green Oxyopes feeding upon a bee, Anthophora or Megachile, or some bee of medium size. (I did not succeed in securing it.) There are many burrows of a Cicindela larva (probably C. punctulaia, which is abundant in the cotton fields). They (the larve) capture ants chiefly. Note 29 (p. 102).—TRICHOGRAMMA PRETIOSA Riley (Can, Ent., vol. xi, p. 161.)— Length about 0.3™™, yellow, the eyes red, the wings hyaline. Head wider than the thorax; antennz 5 jointed, joints 3 and 4 in the 9 forming an ovate mass, and together shorter than joint 2; joint 5 large, thickened, and very obliquely truncate; in the ¢ joints 3, 4, and 5 form a more or less distinct elongate club, beset with long bristles, Hairs of the wings arranged in about fifteen lines. Abdomen not so wide as the thorax, but as long as the head and thorax together; in the 9 the sides subparallel and the apical joint suddenly narrowed to a point. . Differs from Trichogramma niinuta Riley (Third Rep. Ins. Mo., p. 158, fig. 72, 9) in its smaller size and uniform pale yellow color, and also in the form of the third and fourth joints of the antenne. Nore 29a (p. 104).—This species, although so much resembling the Trichogramma egg parasite, belongs to the family Proctotrupide, subfamily Mymarine. We have erected for it, provisionally, the MS. genus Metamymar, and have given it the specific name of aleurodis. [108] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. NoTE 30 (p.104).—APANTELES ALETIZ Riley.—Length 2™™, $9. Black; palpi white; labrum, mandibles, and basal joint of antennz piceo-testaceous, the flagellum sometimes piceous. Legs light red, the posterior tibiz whitish on the basal half; tips of posterior tibix, the posterior cox and tarsi, black or blackish ; the posterior femora sometimes dusky. Abdomen testaceous beneath, except along the median line and on the apical third; the edges of the first joint testaceous. Wings hyaline, the tegulx, veins, and stigma white. Mesoscutum closely punctured, opaque; scutellum sparsely punctured ; metathorax obliquely truncate, its posterior face with a median subtrapezoidal or pentagonal area. Abdomen narrow, basal joint as long as one- half of the remainder, rugose,its posterior border excavated in the middle, remain- ing joints not sculptured and not highly polished. Ovipositor not exserted. Radial vein arising slightly beyond middle of stigma and forming a curve with the basal vein of the areolet. This Species resembles A. hyalinus Cress., described from Cuba, but differs in the coloration of the legs and in the ovipositor not being thickened at the tip. Larva.—4"™ in length. A smooth, memberless grub, narrowing towards the head: and thickest near the posterior end; the head nearly as large as the first joint, the sutures between the joints rather indistinct. The mouth-parts minute, similar to those of other hymenopterous parasites. The sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth joints behind the head provided with a pair of prominent lateral tubercles ; pairs of slighter tubercles on the fifth and tenth joints. Color white, or tinged with green or yellow. —[ Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, iv, p. 306; Sep., author’s ed., pp. 3 and 11. NOTE 31 (p. 105).— The only specimen of the Chalcid bred from Apanieles aletie is mounted in balsam, and by accidental pressure has separated into pieces. From the fragments of the antenne and from the wings it is quite evident that it is the male of some species of Hupelmus. NOTE 32 (p. 105).— The following revised description by Mr. Howard of Comstock’s Euplectrus is from Bulletin 5, Bureau of Entomology, United States Department of Agriculture : , EUPLECTRUS COMSTOCKII Howard. Male.—Length, 1.98™™; wing expanse, 4.3™™; greatest width of fore wing 0.8™™. Face triangular, narrowing sharply below eyes, smooth and glistening, with:a very few punctures; antennal scape slender, not widened. Pronotum very rugose, except at posterior border; mesoscutum somewhat transversely rugose, with a strongly-marked median longitudinal carina; mesoscu- tellum smooth; metathoracic carina very pronounced and dividing posteriorly ; me- tatibial spine nearly as long as first two tarsal joints. Abdomen broadening from base’ and subtruncate at tip. General color shining black with long stiff whitish hairs scattered over thorax; labrum honey-yellow; antennal scape light honey-yel- low, flagellum gradually darker, club quite dark at tip; all legs honey-yellow ; abdo- men with a dorsal yellow spot entirely bounded with black and of an irregular pyra- midal shape, the base of the pyramid towards tip of abdomen; venter yellow-brown along median line. ‘ ; Female.—Slightly larger; abdomen more nearly ovate. NOTE 33 (p. 106).—We give here a description of this secondary parasite, drawn up by Mr. Howard: ELACHISTUS EUPLECTRI Howard (new species). Female.—Length of body 1.8™™. Expanse of wings, 3.0™™. Greatest width of fore wing 0.53™™. Parapsidal sutures almost continuous with scapular sutures; mesoscutellum with a slight notch at its anterior border and a clean median furrow. Occiput and petiole finely but densely punctured; face and mesoscutum finely shagreened; mesoscutellum smooth, with two longitudinal furrows of deeply impressed dots. Abdomen oval acuminate, with the large first joint smooth and shining, slightly shagreened at its posterior border; the succeeding joints all slightly shagreened, and each with a transverse row of white hairs. Stigmal vein very short and globular; post marginal twice the length of stigmal. Color, dark metallic green; scape of antennez and all legs white or faintly yellowish; wing veins dark brown. ; Male.—Slightly smaller than 9; abdomen ovate; parapsidal sutures not continuous with scapular, but meeting so as to give the mesoscutum a pointed appearance. Color: head and thorax with a strong coppery- luster, bluish beneath ; abdomen bright me- tallic blue, not shagreened; antennal scape white, metallic blue at tip. In other NOTES. [109] respects similar to 9. Described from 1 ¢.5 9 specimens, bred from Luplectrus comstockii at Selma, Ala. yo # This species seems to belong to Thomson’s third section of the genus Hlachistus. NOTE 34 (p. 107).— Except in lacking the two bristles at the apex of the third seg- - ment of the abdomen which are prominent in sarracenie (type), and in other species, the specimen differs in no respect from those found to infest the Rocky Mountain Locust and Caloptenus differentialis (Locust Plague, &c., pp. 135,136; and First Ann. Rep. U.S. Ent. Comm., p. 324). Although in the works here cited sarraceni@ is con- sidered a variety of the common European 8S. carnaria it seems best to maintain it as a distinct species in accordance with the characters given by Mr. R. H. Meade, who, in his “‘ Monograph upon the British species of Sarcophaga or Flesh-fly ” (Ent. Mo. Mag., vol. xii, p. 216 ff., Febr.-May, 1876), separates the species into two principal divisions, according as the tip of the abdomen is red or is black or gray. Ina note ‘published in Baron Osten Sacken’s Catalogue of the described Diptera of N. A., 2d ed., p. 257, Mr. Meade says: ‘‘ There is no specimen in your collection, however, ex- actly like the true S. carnaria so common in Europe. There are some striking points of differencé between the Sarcophage of America and Europe generally, the chief of which is that in the former species with one or both anal segments red or yellow pre- dominate, while among the latter, those with the anal segments black or gray are more numerous than those with the red.” The following additional specific characters may be added: Thorax with four bris- tles behind the suture in the two dorsal rows, the two anterior bristles.small, the two posterior strong; in front of the suture are two small bristles alternating with two of slightly larger size. There are no minute spines on the second longitudinal vein similar to those on the fourth. The posterior tibiz of the ¢ are loosely bearded on the inner side with long soft hairs. The second abdominal joint is not armed with strong central spines, and the spines at the apex of the third joint are short and weak. NOTE 35 (p. 109).—TACHINA ALETIZ Riley (Can. Ent., vol. xi, p. 162).—Length | 8mm, Black; head golden, facial depression silvery, space between the eyes and the frontal stripe about equal to the breadth of the stripe, bristles of the head black, the pubescence behind and beneath the eyes white; antenna blackish, palpi testaceous. Eyes at a moderate distance apart, thinly pubescent; front moderately prominent; third joint of the antennez three or four times the length of the second joint. Thorax and the second and following abdominal joints more or less ashy, the thorax with four or five longitudinal black stripes. Wings subhyaline. Legs black, with a piceous tinge; tarsal cushions yellowish. Scutellum and the sides of the first, sec- ond, and third abdominal joints sometimes tinged with reddish-brown. No strong bristles on the first and second abdominal joints above. Note 36 (p. 109). TacHINA FRATERNA Comstock (Annual Report of Commissioner of Agriculture, 1879, p.303).—Color: General effect nearly black; head, face, and facial depression silvery white, inclining slightly to golden on occiput; antenne, first and third joints black, second joint testaceous; palpi testaceous; pubescence behind the head blackish ; thorax, second and following abdominal joints ashy ; thorax with two plain longitudinal black stripes and two indistinct ; first abdominal joint black above, ashy beneath; femora piceous; tibia and tarsi nearly black. Eyes finely pubescent. In other respects resembling T. aletie Riley. Described from two specimens. NOTE 37 (p. 110).—The Tachinid larva differs from that of Sarcophaga in the follow- ing characters: It is of a paler whitish color, the skin being softer or less chitinized; the body is less narrowed anteriorly ; the prothoracic spiracles are less apparent; a pair of spiracles are present on the posterior border of the fourth joint behind the head, which are not discoverable in Sarcophaga; the joints are not conspicuously wrinkled transversely and there are no lateral prominences, the anterior portion of each joint beifg prominent and roughened with minute points; the spiracular cavity at the end of the body is more shallow, the spiracles being exposed upon the obliquely truncated area, and there areno anal prolegs. The Tachinid puparium may be readily [110] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. distinguished from that of Sarcophaga by the obsolescence (or in some species entire absence) of the prothoracic spiracles so prominent in Sarcophaga, and the absence of a cavity for the anal spiracles, both ends of the body being quite uniformly rounded. — Barthélemy has described the larva of Senometopia atropivora (Ann. Se. Nat., 4° sér., vii, p. 115), while Laboulbéne has described both larva and pupa of Tachina villica (Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr., 1861, p. 231, pl. 7); but as these descriptions are not readily acces- sible to the American reader, I reproduce from the Trans. Ac. Se. St. Louis, vol. iii, p. 238-239 my description of the larva and pupa of Sarcophaga sarracenie, and add for comparison that of Belvoisia bifasciata (Fab.), one of our largest and most beautiful species, parasitic on Citheronia regalis and various species of Dryocampa. ; SARCOPHAGA SARRACENIA. Larva.—0.30-0.85 inch long. Body composed of but 12 visible joints exclusive of the head; microscopically and transversely shagreened ; transversely wrinkled, the hind wrinkle on each joint more particularly prominent laterally. Head extremely small, or one-fourth as large as joint 1, showing.a division into two maxillary lobes at the tip and a larger labial lobe beneath, with a smal} bunch of setous fibres issuing from it; the black retractile jaws, of the ordinary form, issuing between these lobes, and the antennz showing in two small rufous projections above the maxillary lobes, sparsely armed anteriorly with minute conical, sharp- pointed spines decurved inv front, directed backward beneath. Prothoracie spiracle pale rufous, retractile, sponge-like, studded with numerous lobules, divided atthe end into a variable number of branches (6 being usually apparent, never more than 8), which in their turn ramify into lobules. Analstigmatic cavity quite deep; the fleshy prominences on the carina surrounding it, sub-obsolete; the stigmata but slightly © excavated below, the border brown, inclosing three brown openings, the lower ends of which reach to a circular clear space in the corneous and pale rufous peritreme. Anal — prolegs quite small, with the longitudinal anal slit between, and a corneous plate in front of them. Puparium.—0.25-0.50 inch long; neither smooth nor highly polished, and varying from yellowish-brown to deep brown-black in color. Insections more or less distinctly traceable. Head and prothoracic joint retracted ; the prothoracic spiracles protrud- ing and forming two small ears about as long as joint 2; the mass of lobules hardened and rufous. Joints 2 and 3 constricted and flattened; 4 suddenly bulging. End of body squarely docked by spiracular cavity, the rim of which forms quite a ridge. BELVOISIA BIFASCIATA. Larva.—Length 15™™, White, the skin'soft; body cylin- drical, tapering on the anterior joints towards the head, the apex obliquely truncated. Head small, furnished with two stout black hooks, situated under two crescentic ele- vations at a moderate distance apart; when viewed from in front the head obscurely bilobed, near the center of each lobe two chitinous points, one situated above the other. No prothoracic spiracles apparent, a distinct circular spiracle on the posterior border of the fourth joint behind the head, and situated slightly above the median line. The anterior border of each joint slightly prominent and, except on the dorsal side of the apical joints, roughened with minute points, the posterior border of the apical joints similarly roughened. Joints 4-11 with a distinct transverse median depression on the ventral side, the depression deepest on the intermediate joints, the portion behind this depression on the joint 11 forming a prominent transverse tubercle beneath the trunca- tion, upon which the anal spiracles are situated. Anal spiracles black, each with the slit-like openings, and a circular spot in a clear space beneath them. In Westwood’s Introduction, vol. ii, fig. 131, is copied from Bouché, a figure of the larva of Tachina concinnata of similar form to that of Belvoisia; but the pecaliar “ pro- thoracic spiracle” figured in connection is not apparent in the larva before me. In the normal form of the Tachinid puparium the anterior pair of spiracular cpenings are even with the general surface of the puparium, so as to, be discoverable with difficulty. The true spiracles are internal, and may be found opposite these perforations on the membrane which lines the puparium after the fly has escaped. The prparium is red- dish- brown, the anal spiracles and the anus black; the joint of the body not.distinet; ‘ NOTES. ? [111] the anal spiracles distinctly upon the surface of the subtruncated posterior end, not situated in a cavity as in Sarcophaga; just beneath these spiracles is a slight transverse elevation. The pupariam of Belvoisia bifasciata differs somewhat from the ordinary form. Itis black, roughened, increases in width posteriorly, has the anal spiracles drawn far for- ward upon the back, and each represented by three swollen tubercles, and the space between them and the tip of the puparium is very irregular and has a conspicuous transverse depression. NOTE 38 (p. 111).—Cryptus conquisitor, Say (Bost. Jour., i, 232), of which, as Walsh (Canadian Entomologist, ii, 12) pointed out, Cryptus pleurivinctus, Say (1. ¢., 235), is a synonym. By some oversight pleurivinctus stands as & synonym under wanton: - Cress. ., instead of conquisitor, in Mr. Cresson’s List of the North American Pimplaria (Trans. Am. Ent. Soc., iii, 170). Note 39 (p. 114).—The name Cryptus extrematis Cress. should yield to C. sami¢e Pack., because two species (one of which is nunciws) were combined under it in the original description. Note 40 (p. 115).— We gave the following sae of the larva and pupa of Chalcis ovata in the first edition of this report: The larva is a slender legless maggot, 7™™ in length. The body tapers at each end, particularly behind, and has a conspicuous lateral ridge. The head is similar to that of the Pimpla larva described farther on, but the mandibles are nearly concealed, be- ing covered by the other mouth parts. The first three joints of the body are separated by deeper constrictions than the succeeding joints, and the lateral tubercles on joints 4-10 have a smaller but distinct tubercle behindthem.. The spiracles in the alcoholic specimen are indistinct, owing to their agreeing with the skin in color; but their position is apparent upon the anterior border of the second, third, fourth, and several of the posterior joints. Length 7™™. The pupa is short and robust; paleat first but becoming brown, the head and thorax anteriorly darker. It has two prominent tubercles between the eyes just above the insertion of the antennz, and above each of these a slight ridge extending as high as the lower ocellus, which is situated on a slight prominence within the fork of an impressed line on the vertex. Only five distinct joints in the antennz between the scape. In addition to Desmia maculalis, and the two species of Apatura mentioned in the text, we have bred this parasite from Thyridopteryx ephemereformis (Haw.), Cacecia rosaceawa (Harr.), Gelechia galle solidaginis, Riley, and Botis alnialis Riley MS. (See Bulletin 5, United States Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, p. 8.) The species is very variable in size, and we have specimens as small as 3™™ in length - while others measure as much as 6™™, Note 41 (p. 115).—This species ( Tetrastichus esurus, Riley) was treated in the first edition under the generic name Cirrospilus, and in the original description (Canadian Entomologist, xi, 162), it was also placed in that genus, but only provisionally, and we there called attention to its close relationship with Tetrastichus. Since receiving more abundant and better material, and after a closer study, we have decided that it should be placed in the latter genus. We reproduce the original description : Length 1.5™™, Dull black; knees, tibie, and tarsi yellowish; the posterior tibiz~ sometimes dusky.. Eyes with scattered short bristles. Antenne of the $ 9-jointed, with the joints of the flagellum subequal and beset with bristles, the ninth joint small. Antenne of the 9 8-jointed, the fourth and fifth shorter than the second ond third, the three apical joints forming aclub. Thorax above microscopically punctate; © parapsides distinct and elevated; scutellum with a longitudinal impressed line on each side. Wings hyaline, pubescent, but the cilia short; base of ulna uneven ; radius not developed. Abdomen short and sessile; ovate.—(C€an. Ent., xi, p. 162.) Nove 42 (p.115). Hexaplasta zigzag.—We reproduce the original description of this species: Average length 1.6™=. Body uniformly polished black. Legs, palpi and antenns reddish in the female; coxz, femora, and antennz toward tip infuscate in the male. Peduncled joints of antennz with a few minute spines around the crown, and longi- [112] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. tudinally striate. Base of thorax and of abdomen with pale pubescent hairs. Wings hyaline, sparsely beset with minute spines which increase radially and form a fringe around the posterior half; the veins of front wings forming a sprawling W, with par- tial cross veins proceeding from the lower angles, the basal cross vein longest; the longitudinal veins with a few prominent spines. Abdomen, 9, showing but 4 joints, the terminal three short and hardly distinguishable ventrally.—(Am. £nt., iii, p. 52.) In almost every larger group of organisms there are doubtful forms which it is dif- ficult to classify, and between the three families: of Chalcididx, Proctotrupids and Cynipidsz, of small hymenopterous insects, it is difficult, if not impossible, to give definitions which permit the ready placing of some of the more osculant forms. Nor can habit be any more safely relied on; for while the first two families are essentially parasitic and the last gall-making; yet, according to present definitions, species of the first are exceptionally gall-making, and species of the last, as in the present case, exceptionally parasitic. NoTE 43 (p. 117).—The following is Mr. Hubbard’s communication, together with our editorial note as it originally appeared : Phora aletie not a true parasite.—In examining my breeding jars and boxes, I inva- riably find a species of Phora present in them, whenever they contain any dead animal matter. This is, so far as I can make out, the Phora aletie which Prof. Comstock considers one of the parasites of Aletia. Mr. Trelease gives his experience with this fly exactly as I should myself, from my own observations. He does not consider it a true parasite, but yields the point to Prof. Comstock. Evidence is daily accumu- lating in my notes of the purely scavenger habits of the Phora. To-day I watched them pass through the meshes of fine muslin gauze, covering my breeding jars, in which moths have died, or pupx been killed by dampness and mold. They (the flies) Hae about moldy food and excrement of larve, but do not deposit eggs unless they nd dead moths, larve, or pupx, and moisture. The flies are very persistent in push- ing through crevices, and I watched with interest the gravid 2 9 try to squeeze through the gauze. Sooner or later, after many trials, a 9 finds a mesh that is loose, and gets through. I see that they have often widened the meshes and pass and re- pass through.—(H. G. Hubbard, Centreville, Leon Co., Florida, Aug. 6.) [This Phora was obtained by us on several occasions from Aletia chrysalids, in 1879, and quite commonly by Mr. Schwarz, but we never considered it truly parasitic, and doubt whether it ever is strictly so.—ED. ]—(American Entomologist, vol. iui, p. 228. ) Norte 44 (p. 129).—In advocating the destruction of the moth by lights and fires one circumstance has been generally overlooked, which, if proven to be correct, is almost fatal to the theory of the usefulness of this remedy. We refer to the experience of lepidopterists that the vast majority of the moths attracted by light are males. Our attention was called too late to this fact to verify it in the case of Aletia by actual ex- - amination in the field, as the moths we found attracted by the lights had not been preserved, but upon examining a number of Lachnosternas which had thus been col- lected we found them to be all males with one exception. It is evident thatif only the males are attracted the effect of the remedy is reduced to almost nothing. NOTE 45 (p. 138).—So long as such cases of poisoning are liable to occur, it will be well to widely publish the means of counteracting the poison. The antidote most highly recommended and found in practice to be effectual is hydrated sesquioxide or peroxide of iron, which may be purchased at any drug store. A few spoonfuls taken soon after a case of poisoning will counteract any evil effects. Another very simple antidote is to drink the water (or even to apply it externally) in which old, rusty nails, or other rusty iron have been washed, or in which the rust scraped from old iron ‘ has been stirred up. . Nore 46 (p. 140).—It is the uniform experience that the non-fertilized blossoms are destroyed by wet application of poisons during the earlier hours of the forenoon or even by a rain-shower at that time. This seems to be correct, though it is difficult to arrive at a definite conclusion, as a great many blossoms are daily lost in conse- quence of overproduction. So far as the experiments go, the wet application dur- ing clear, hot weather in the forenoon seems to be more liable to injure the plant than in the afternoon or during cloudy weather. Nore 47 (p.143).—An easy way of testing the purity of Paris green is to put about NOTES. [113] “ 100 grains in an ordinary wine-glass and add thereto an ounce of liquid ammonia. In proportion as there is little or no sediment the green may be considered pure. Nore 48 (p. 145).—This mixture consisted of 6 pounds of the green to one barrel of flour, in addition to about 20 pounds of adhesive materials; in round numbers, therefore, of 1 pound of green to 35 pounds diluents, this proportion being generally used near Selma, Ala. Note 49 (p. 162).—The following note on the use of kerosene on cotton is frem Dr. Barnard’s report of experiments made at Selma (Ala.), in the summer of 1883. (Bull. 3, Entomological Division, United States Department of Agriculture, p. 47): Concerning the use 9f kerosene upon cotton, the following should be stated: About 10 gallons were applied, half undiluted and half in emulsion variously diluted. The undiluted petroleum destroyed about 10 per cent. of the foilage sprayed by it. The undiluted milk-kerosene emulsion ruined only about 2 per cent., and this diluted injures less and less according to the attenuation, but all treated was injured to at least a slight extent. The sprays were hardly satisfactory, as the tubing would not permit the high pressure necessary for a very fine mist, and the indications are that with the finest spray the strong kerosene and its slightly diluted preparations may possibly yet become used, in proper hands with great caution, upon the crop, but additional experimental tests are needed. Note 50 (p. 165).—Mr. Willemot calls his plant Pyréthre du caucase (Pyrethrum willemoti Duchartre), but it is more than probable that this is only a synonym of Pyrethrum roseum. We have drawn liberally from Willemot’s paper on the subject, a translation of which may be found in the Report of the Commissioner of Patents for the year 1861, Agriculture, pp. 223-231. . NOTE 51 (p. 167).—A very good illustration of the growth of the productive industry in this country is afforded by the fact that Mr. George Laird, superintendent of the Buhach plantation, produced about 40 tons of blossoms in 1884, and.employed some 250 Chinamen during 13 days in gathering the crop. It has generally been supposed that Pyrethrum is innocuous to acimals, but in thie connection we quote some remarks from an address whi«:. we uelivered before the Georgia State Agricultural Society, February 12, 1884 - Pyrethrum is supposed to have no effect on the highe: animals, but that is a mistake, as my own recent experience is that the fumes in a close room have a toxic influence, intensifying sleep and inducing stupor; while the experience of Prof. A. Graham Bell, with the powder copiously: rubbed on to a dog, showed thatthe animal was made sick and was affected in the locomotive organs very much as insects are. The wonderful influence of this powder on insects has led me to believe that it might prove useful as a disinfectant against fevers and various contagious diseases by destroying the microzoa and other micro-organisms, or germs which are believed to produce such dis- eases. It should be tried for that purpose. It is remarkable that these two plants of all the many known species of the genus, should alone possess the insecticide prop- erty. NOTE 52 (p. 174).—It is evident that Pyrethrum can be produced as cheap] y in Cali- fornia, with the Chinese labor, as in any other part of the country; yet the reduction in price has not been as great with the increase of production as we have been led to hope. We cannot find in any case that it has been offered for less than 50 cents per pound, when the purity is guaranteed, though a New York firm informs us that they will be able to sell as low as 30 cents in large quantities. NOTE 53 (p. 179).—Indirectly, also, such enemies of Aletia are killed.as feed on the poisoned worms, and in recently poisoned fields dead birds and larger ground beetles ' have been reported found, the destruction of which must doubtless be attributed to the poison. The number of such cases is, perhaps, larger than can be actually proven. NOTE 54 (p. 184).—In order to illustrate how positively this and other plants, here enumerated, were recommended to the Commission, we give herewith, without further zomment, the following letter from a correspondent in Mississippi: Some years since, when a caterpillar was stripping the oaks in front of my yard, I observed that some which had ascended an Ailanthus tree (frequently called ‘‘the 63 CONG—AP 8 [114] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. tree of Heaven”) fell from it paralyzed, and soon died. So, when the caterpillars at- tempted to cross my fence, I placed in their way, at short intervals, branches of Ail-. anthus leaves, and killed immense numbers of them, effectually protecting my yard and garden. I have to suggest the expediency ef trying this native poison, so abund- ant and easily accessible, on the cotton-worm. I have found the common larkspur an effective poison on insects. Would it not answer as well for the Cotton Worm? “Norte 55 (p. 184).-—The universal belief that these two species of dog fennel are never attacked by any insect is without any foundation. We found a small Longicorn borer (larva of Mecas inornata) boring in the stem; an unnamed species of Baris bores — in the root, while the flower-heads are badly infested by several species of Brachy- tarsus. NOTE 56 (p. 288).—The results of these experiments were published in Balletin 3, Division of Entomology, United States Department of Agriculture. The machine had been perfected to a large extent without accurate field test of its practical work- ing, and in order to learn whether any improvements could be made in its several parts, or what faults 1t possessed as a working machine, as soon as news came that the worms were at work around Selma, Dr. Barnard was sent down with instructions to make the proper experiments. His report, which follows, would seem to show that considerable modification in the details, especially of attachment, is necessary. Future experiments may lead to the abandonment of the attempt to spray cotton from the ground up, on account of the irregularity of the rows in the average cotton-field, and the adoption of lateral or oblique spraying from nozzles that do not drag entirely on the ground, but hang some inches above it. While the crookedness in the rows in ordinary cotton fields is an obstacle to the use of any complicated machinery, yet it is a mistake to suppose that cotton is planted so irregularly in all parts of the South. While it holds particularly true in the easily washed and hilly country, character- istic of the larger parts of the cotton-growing sections of the Carolinas, Georgia, and Alabama, it is by no means to the same extent true in the richer cotton-producing sec- tions of the South, as in the larger part of Mississippi and Texas, and the canebrake - portions of Alabama. Hence the machine in question, as illustrated in the report, will prove more satisfactory in these sections, the elastic fork giving sufficient play to accommodate the nozzles to whatever slight irregularities in width are found in well- planted fields. The Cotton Worm machine described in the annual report for 188182, and now subjected to field tests, is shown to be suited only for cotton so planted that the rows are spaced apart very equally, since it lacks adaptability to the usual great differences of interspaces between the rows. Unfortunately, nothing very closely approaching ideal straightness of rows or equality of width between them can be detected in the South, even in such fields as are said to be “ planted perfectly true.” In the more evenly disposed cotton, stiff fork apparatus, made light and shorier, to supply only four rows at each drive, and hung loosely upon hooks instead of eyes, without the ratchet lever elevator, and capable of being easily slid by hand to the left or right, as infringement on row crooks from time to time required, proved susceptible of use with due watchfulness; but the eight-row machine was too heavy to be thus shifted by hand, and being stiff-backed with rigid descending pipes, no eight consecutive rows could be found regular enough to be callipered for much distance by this device. The inflexibility also prevented conformability of the apparatus to inequalities of the ground, an elevation straining hard on one descending pipe, lifting the others from the ground, &c., and the light, flexile, jointed nozzle-arms, being borne upon severely by the stiff pipe system, soon became impaired, whereas they had formerly and have since worked, well on the yielding stem-pipes of the adjustable machines which were tested at the time of the Atlanta exposition, as well as in these last experiments. For under-spraying, this old-fashioned, stiff, cross-pipe system is shown to be wrong, as originally foreseen, unless some power can be brought to bear to enforce a system of greater straightness and equality in planting cotton. A considerable amount of the irregularity in rows has been attributed to the ‘‘ constitutional perversity and crookedness of the nigger,” appearing from the bad execution of his instructions. But even if this could be corrected it is not the matter of vital importance, for the planter himself, as well as the field-hand, is guided by a natural principle which will always control and stand against any contrary theoretical or mechanical rule. Ac- cording to “the strength of the ground,” the size of plant it will produce, will the rows run wider or narrower in any particular ‘‘cut” or part of a “cut.” This _ _ NOTES. [115] accounts for, the diverging and meandering rows, for the many ‘‘ cuts” of a planta- tion differing among each other in their row-widths as observed everywhere. As to conveyances for underspraying apparatuses, it was found not desirable to use a wagon or cart of ordinary width (5 feet) in cotton only 3 feet wide or less, be- cause of the great injury done to the plants by the wheels. Most of the cotton in the Carolinas, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi comes within these dimen- sions ; hence a shorter special axle for the cart or wagon wheels should generally be employed in any conveyance for the apparatus. But where severely threatened by worms the ordinary wagon or cart will do less damage than the pest in any kind of cotton; and it is on this account that wagons are already used to a considerable ex- tent, for transporting poison and broadcast spraying devices in all kinds of fields. Mr. A. T. Jones, near Selma, uses four mules on his heavy spraying machine. But ordinarily the common plantation cart will be found the most suitable vehicle. This or the lumber wagon will straddle rows 4 feet apart or over without injury to the plants except in turning, and that is surprisingly small, being least with the cart. With shafts placed in the usual position the mule must travel on a row to have the two wheels straddle it properly, and this is not practical. I obviated the objection by a pair of rough shafts set to one side, one shaft coming from the center of the cart and the other standing outside of the wheel; thus the mule is held nearly in front of one wheel and midway between a pair of rows. In practice it is shown that the slight side-draft caused by this arrangement amounts to almost nothing. And it should be remembered that it is common in the North to use side shafts on sleighs, buggies, &c. The apparatus is easily pulled by one mule, which should travel pref- erably in front of the right wheel. The personal labor required is such that the pumper may also drive and keep an eye on the machine behind. Itis most convenient when the stirrer, pump, and barrel are placed near the left side of the cart, with the lever or pump-handle stand- ing crosswise. The operator then only looks to the right and the left, instead of hav- ing to look backward. The mule, accustomed tv working in cotton, follows between the rows as a rule without being guided, and the pumper is free to turn him at the ends. In this manner one man can use the apparatus alone without working any harder than he should. Still, it is generally preferable to have a boy attendant to as- sist at times, and where a larger pump with a very wide system of pipes to supply a large number of rows is engaged it will be well to have two men, to take turns at pumping in cases where a pump motor is not provided. With such labor, the adjust- able under-spraying machines which I have devised and shall notice below were oper- ated, the best hand being a mulatto who worked for 50 cents a day, which is a com- mon price for cotton-field hands. Thus the labor cost is small, and one or two men *. with a machine can do much more and better spraying than a large gang does by ordinary methods. The rapidity depends altogether on the width of the pipe-system, or number and width of rows supplied, or the sizeof the cotton, of the nozzle-discharges and of the pump, on the velocity or prtssure applied, and on the speed of the mule. It may vary with any one of these details. I had only one pump, this very small, and could not try the effects of different sizes. There was not much diversity in the cotton and it was below medium size. At Selma, I labored under difficulties from bad workman- ship, from lack of available mechanics for constructing the devices, on which account there were bad joints in the apparatuses, which tab some, and which would loosen and at times come apart when high pressure was applied, thus causing stoppages in the work. Under the circumstances the question of time and scope could not be very satisfactorily tested; but as to the very fine small sprays for small cotton the following conclusions result from this experience : Taking nearly average sized cotton, and the parts of the apparatus of medium capacity, an acre and a half was poisoned in one-half an hour, 24 feet wide being poisoned at a single drive, and the rows were quite short. Twice this rapidity can be attained. The quantity of liquid and poison used also depends on the vaszious conditions stated as determining the rapidity. The amount of liquid to the acre, as near as could be estimated under the circumstances, ranged from 10 to 40 gallons, according to the size of the spray-discharge and°of the cotton. The quantity of poison isin direct proportion thereto, being one-eighth to one-half a pound of London purple, or one-fourth to four-fourths of a pound of Paris green to the acre. The stirrer-pump device is a most perfect thing for the purpose and gave the greatest satisfaction. . This contrivance is described and illustrated in the annual report for 188182 (Pl. IX, pp. 159-161). The pump has heavy metallic valves, and its piston-head has no soft packing, so there is nothing about it that can get out of order. Yarn packing is used in the stuffing-box at its top. Being double acting it ' throws a strong and constant stream. Only one trunnion-eye need be moved, and a a single iron wedge, instead of two, is sufficient for setting it. The wedge has on its head a catch whereby it is easily pried out, and an eye by which it is chained fast [116] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. to prevent losing it. In place of the wooden stirrer bar formerly employed I have made an iron one having a spring at the middle to clamp snugly in the eye at the bottom of the pump. This will not weaken with age or break. The cord or chain for pulling out the bar is not essential, as by having the end bung-hole of 2 inches diameter a pair of tongs or pinchers can be inserted to take hold of the end of the stirrer and extract it. The main hose or pipe has a screw union, by which it is easily separable from the pump. The descending pipes between the rows should have flexion and torsion in their joints or segmentsorhangings. The ground beneath the cotton-rowsis highly ridged, and the mid-furrow between each pair of rows is deep. The ground thus formed operates upon the lower parts of each descending pipe or its appurtenances, when suitably shaped, so as automatically to guide the pipe and its nozzles between the rows, and to follow any crooks therein even when the conveyance is not driven in conformity with such irregularities. This automatical adjusting is allewed to a large extent, even when the top of the descending pipe is firmly or non-adjustably attached, provided that the descending pipe be flexile in some part of its course. This was shown in the earlier flexile forked machines which were tested for this Department near the Atlanta exposition. For the object in question the descending pipe may be flexile throughout, but it is more commonly preferable to construct this pipe of stiff segments having one or two flexile joints, or very short hose segments; one at its top, and another at about two-thirds or one-half of the way downward therefrom. It is also generally best to make these flexile segments or joints of three-ply or two- ply hose, and only of such length as to allow them to bend like knee-joints, and to suffer a semi-rotation or semi-torsion. This construction prevents the trailing-fork or other end part from getting turned upside down, or from remaining in wrong attitude after dragging among or over the plants in turning, and it always tends to spring or throw the nozzles back to such positions that they deliver a properly-directed spray into the plants. Where torsion without bending is desired in these flexile places a rod extending through the interior may be employed somewhat as described for cross- pipes and nozzle-arms in the special report of the United States Entomological Com- mission that has been prepared. The arrangements and constructions referred to have been carefully tested this season to corroborate the results of previous experience. The principle involved is simple and practical in its operation, having been tested at ~ Atlanta, and again this year at Selma, Ala. The flexile nozzle-arms of the Y-shaped trailing forks, which were originally de- signed with the flexile stems worked satisfactorily thus attached; but when these fork- arms were tested on a stiffly hung pipe, the spring-rod inside soon proved too weak. The strong pendant J-forks-with curved or sloping side-arms made stiff proximally, and having 3-ply hose for their distal half or two-thirds, stood severe usage by all ° methods, since they were made of stronger tubing and had much stouter spring-rods within. The spring-rod in each arm had its distal end soldered in a short piece of tube abutting against the stem of the nozzle. Forks of whatever construction will be guided more by the ridges if the arms extend in a somewhat upward direction be- fore becoming horizontal at the ends beneath the plants, as the median part of the - fork can then sink into the mid furrow and be guided by its sides. Probably nothing better than the pendant Y2forks and J-forks can be devised for spraying upward through the center of the plant. An additional pair of short arms or of nozzles may be used with advantage to discharge from near the median line in divergent direc- — tion upward through the tops of the plants. The simplest plan is to join these or the simple eddy chambers directly to the stem-pipe or its extension, lowdown. Such - nozzles may be attached side by side, or in what I call a tandem gang. Thisisa series of short tubes coupled end to end, each bearing an eddy-chamber discharge. These may be rotated on their axes and so are adjustable to different angles. 17 .0se who prefer to underspray the top of the plant and care less for its base will find the tandem arrangement by itself the best device for that purpose for throwing from the ground, though the forks answer as well when elevated, and may also be used be- neath the base., The eddy-chamber nozzles seem the best sprayers available for applying the poi- son. These nozzles have been tested this season with the discharge-hole of various sizes, from one-sixty-fourth to one-eighth of an inch diameter. The smaller ori- fices give the finest sprays conceivable. Indeed, with high pressure, the spray van- ishes into vapor and steam which does not fall, but rises to seek the clouds. From this the damp particles of poison powder must separate and fall. But with ordinary pressure too fine a spray is not attained. With the fine strainer on the suction end of the pump, clogging materials in the water are prevented from entering the pipe system or the nozzles. Additional smaller gauze strainers were attached to the ends of the metal tubes in one set of pipes. ‘They keep out dirt, &c., when the pipes are separated, but may not prove of impor- - tance. The proper method is to have a completely closed system, with folding joints that never need to be separated, so the whole can be folded into a small compact pack- NOTES. [117] 8 age for transportation by railortothe field. Such asystem has given great satisfaction by its convenience, as well as by allowing no obstacles to enter the nozzles. In spite of the most perfect precautions clogging will occur at the outset or before high press- ure is attained, chiefly from the scales of iron separating from the interior of the pipe as loosened by rusting and jarring. With the finest nozzles (one sixty-fourth inch discharge) these seem to cause no more difficulty than with a standard beveled one-sixteenth inch discharge. The nozzle faces may.be removed to let out any ob- stacles which with low pressure are apt to clog the outlet and stop the internal rota- tion. But a high pressure should always be used, and when this is once up the outlet may be pricked with a pin, and it will discharge with an almost explosive force, instantly starting an inconceivably rapid internal rotation, which, while sustained with due pressure, will by its centrifugal action prevent any particle from again finding the center of rotation from which the discharge takes place. This is espe- cially true of the smallest nozzles, having an outlet just large enough to admit the insertion of a pin. As previously set forth, the inner edge of the outlet should gen- erally be square or sharp. In the eddy chamber a great hydraulic pressure is gen- erated, so great that by thumb pressure the discharge cannot be stopped. The power therein accumulated under high pressure is sufficient to cut through and disintegrate any obstructing particles or fragments, except those of the hardest kind, which are so heavy as to fly off from the center by their weight and momentum when the ve- locity of rotation is once up or quickly starts. The top adjustments of the descending pipes are very important. These tops may be variously hung, combined, or constructed. ~A knowledge of the irregulari- ties of ordinary cotton fields, such as appear chiefly in crooks of the rows and in va- riations of width between them, prevents the idea of a stiff, unadjustable attachment of the tops of the pipes, which must travel between and more or less against the rows. Conformity to all inequalities of the ground, its numerous ups and downs, its. dead furrows, ditches, stones, and stumps, should likewise be attained. It must also be evident that a large, stiff apparatus is difficult to haulabout, as it cannot be taken entire through gates except with much labor. Of course it is possible to disjoint the parts beforehand, and then screw them together tight afterwards when the field is reached. This, however, is hardly practicable. In fact the separating and joining of stiff metal joints by field hands is a failure. Plumber’s tools are nécessary for this purpose. The field laborer of the South screws up the joint too tight, too loose, or in such form as to spoil the screw-threads. Again, the joints become rusted together and a vise must be engaged. The stiff system also requires that very heavy pipe be used, asthe leverage on long pipe arms enables them to suffer great strain, to become broken off easily at the end where the thread for the joint is cut, whereas with flexile joints no leverage power, but only éensile’strain can be brought to bear. In the latter case very light tubing can be employed with economy in material, cost, labor, and salvage of cotton. Moreover, only by such light flexile apparatus can any considerable number of rows be treated at once from beneath. These facts have been substantiated by tests of stiff and of flexile apparatus this season more fully than they were by the Atlanta tests, in which one light machine undersprayed eighteen rows of cotton, astrip 20 yards wide, at a single drive. The tests this year have beeu not only of stiff connections, but also of the constructions whereby adjust- ability of the descending pipes is effected automatically and byhand. These have already been noticed above or in the previous reports in so far as they pertain to the stem or body of the pipe or its distal appendages ; hence, next in order may be con- sidered more specifically and in natural sequence the construction and arrangements of the tops of these pipes as planned and tested by me: I. The stiff hanging tubes have been tried, as already set forth, in firm union with a stiff back-pipe or cross-pipe such as appears in many of the patented sprayers, as Johnson’s, Daughtrey’s, &c., while sufficient objections to this arrangement for un- derspraying have already been presented. It is the first construction which natu- rally suggests itself to any plumber or other mechanic, but presents no special adap- tation for the purpose, as has been shown this season and previously. II. The extremest opposite construction to the foregoing is attained by having radiating flexile tubes from the main to the descending pipes, instead of a straight and stiif cross-pipe. By this arrangement the hanging pipes are swung apart or nearer together independently, and set on a cross-bar or on diverging bars, at spaces. to suit rows having different courses or widths. By way of variation the tubes may radiate only for a part of the distance, and for a space run close beside each other along a supporting bar before reaching the de- scending parts. The parts upon the support are preferably of metal, and slide readily in peculiarly locked hooks, as simple, easily separable attachments,-specially devised for this purpose. Where the descending parts have flexibility to some extent they may drag in the cottonin turning, asstated above. Itisshown that they thus do no noteworthy harm to the plants; also that they themselves do not suffer injury. This flexile construction is simple, and_generally preferable in combination with the [118] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. flexile connectives between their tops. But should any prefer that the hanging parts be elevated above the plants in turning, this is easily done. For such purpose, _and to shorten the leverage in lifting, the descending part should preferably have a flexile joint just below midway, to bend. like a knee when the lift is made. The up- per half of the descending pipe isrigidly continuous with the stiff parallel part, form- ing therewith a bent angle, while the proximal end of the parallel part is turned backward as a hollow tubular crank, having its handle-end communicating with one of the radiating or slack hose pipes, which allow the stiff parts to be shifted laterally. By swinging the backward crank-shaped part of the pipe overto a forward position, into a catch, the hanging parts of the pipe are swung upward above the plants and sustained there. This season two, three, and four of these crank-ended pipes were tried, combined with the same bar. When the horizontal part of such a pipe is short or not too heavy it will be shifted laterally automatically by the trailing part by the method already noticed; but where the pipe is too heavy or rough to slide easily the hand of the pumper must occasionally be used upon the proximal or crank end to shove the pipe into such position as will suitably adjust the nozzles to the rows. In the divergent arrangements thus indicated the shifting or lateral adjustability is permitted by opening or shutting the angles between the diverging tubes, and this is, in its operation, in some sense, analogous to taking out and letting out slack in the connecting parts between the nozzles. Bya surplus amount of inflection or slack, by joint or other flexibility, in a tube or tubes connecting the tops of any two neighbor- ing pipes, whether right, left, or mesial, in a system, the two can be separated, ap- proximated, or independently adjusted to the extent desired. By this method the stiff pieces sliding on the bar and supporting the pipe-tops can be short, light, and ar- ranged somewhat end to end, joined in tandem order, with intermediate flexile crooks that may be extended or shortened as operated by the automatic action of the trailing branch. These tandem gangs of light, sliding segments for supporting or supplying the tops of the pipes, have stood .a satisfactory test in the cotton this season. Such parts may also be arranged on bars having a slope backward or downward, ' . as on the A,-frames, or other kinds of frames, or they can be setin a somewhat zigzag manner on a cross-bar. This use of a slope gives certain advantages, and character- izes some varieties of apparatus closely related to that just noticed. In these, the _pulling of the downward pipe, by its gravitation or friction, causes its top piece, which has an inclination to slide on the slope, to travel in a diagonal direction along on the support and across the rows; but working in opposition thereto is a pull-line or cord having one end on a winder near the hand of the pumper. Letting out the line allows the pipe to travel farther along the slope, and winding it up draws the pipe in the opposite direction. Thus;any pipe at a distance can be easily. shifted and set at a point to suit by letting out or drawing the line. This principle I have exe- cuted in three ways: In the first, the supply tube supports the hung-pipe and shdes in eyes situated diagonally with reference to the hung-pipe. In the second, the pipe- top is supplied by a flexile piece of hose, and is supported by a Jong slide-rod on one or two of its sides, and inserted through loose eyes placed diagonally from the course of traction, as in theforegoing case. In the third instance, the top is similarly sup- plied by a hose, butis hung by a peculiar locked hook, eye, or loop which glides loosely on a stiffly-set diagonal bar. The simple wooden A-frame answers, and a series of small sioping metal bars of gas-pipe were arranged on a wooden cross-bar. This de- vice worked well. Many kinds of winders would apply, but a simple plan is to wind the small rope or cord around a pair of large eye-screws placed 3 inches apart. The set line can be attached at any point along the sliding parts. Behind the proximal end of the range, through which any pipe-tep is to be allowed to slide, the line may pass through a large screw-eye and thence to an extension of the pipe-top above the axis on which it is hung. Then the pipe may be drawn to this place, and by an extra pull its top will be brought.down to the eye and the lower parts of the pipe will be tilted upward above the plants for turning, when this feature is desired. * * ™* The leading conclusions from the experiments upon the special points in my in- structions may be extracted from the above and briefly summarized as follows: At Selma, I operated the machine taken from the Department and tested the points in question, so far as circumstances permitted. The distinctive feature of the machine, its stiff supporting pipes, unfitted it for the work to be accomplished. As fields could not be found having rows practically of the same regular width as the spaces at which the downward pipes were held stiff by their supporting pipe, that permitted no independent lateral adjustment of the tops of the hanging pipes with reference to each other or to the rows having different or varying widths, this vital impediment at the outset frustrated its use and the obtainment of results dependent thereon. The tests showed that with a pipe-system, without lateral adjustability at the top, very few rows, usually not more than four, can be treated at once. In this small form the whole pipe systema can occasionally be moved laterally by hand as the row irregularities require it. The forks were operated dragging upon the ground, and also set at different NOTES. [119] heights. The ratchet for vertical adjustment subserved this purpose satisfactorily. Where it is desired to spray the base and interior of the plants from beneath, the nozzle arms must necessarily be carried near or on the ground, and with medium to small cotton this method also sprays the top sufficiently well, but if the growth be heavy and dense it proves better to set the forks higher for more thoroughly poison- ing the tops. * The stirrer pump worked admirably; but a larger pump of the same kind was necessary to treat a greater number of rows, to ascertain how large a number it is possible or advisable to spray at a time. While the large pump was being con- structed and shipped the time limited by my orders expired. Four rows may be set as the number it is most practical to treat at.a time with the kind of machine in question. The springs of the fork-arms should be larger and have a longer bend than in the samples taken, since the unyielding attachment of the stem-pipes to the stiff sup- porting pipe above throws en the springs much greater strain than occurs in the machines having descending parts hung to operate independently of each other. Until my time had expired worms were not abundant enough to study the effects on them of the coarser and finer sprays applied, but the coarser spray was more in- jurioug to the foliage with poisons, and still more so with petroleum. The standard form of eddy-chamber nozzle was used with discharges of different sizes. The smallest discharge holes, of ¢; to yy of an inch diameter, with very high pressure, gave the most satisfactory results. ' The ‘actual cost, and the actual area covered by a given amount of liquid,” vary greatly with the width between the rows, the sizes of the sprays and of the plants, © with the number of nozzles, with the amount of pressure applied and the volume capacity of the pump, the velocity at which the machine is drawn, &c. On account of the.complexity of the question, and especially because of leakage from imperfect pipe-joints and for want of other and larger apparatus, the question could not be solved with any exactness. NOTE 57 (p. 326).—The text of this editorial has been given on p. 37, where it is also shown that Mr. Stelle’s claim is unwarranted. We have thought it of sufficient historical interest to show upon what the claim was based, and the following passages, copied verbatim from a report made by him while employed by the commission, in accordance with instructions to prepare an account of the past history of the insect, is of interest in this connection. The full report is not published, because it is little more than a compilation from the Department report for 1879—often word for word: “In June of 1872, the National Agricultural Congress was organized at Saint Louis, Mo., and Prof. C. V. Riley, who was present and took part in the organization, de- livered before the body a lecture on economic entomology. Allusion to the cotton worm was made in the course of the lecture, which lead General William H. Jackson, of Nashville, Tenn., and Dr. J. O. Wharton, of Ferry, Miss., to ask for the suggestion ofaremedy. In response, Professor Riley gave it as his opinion that Paris green, so effectual as- a remedy against the Colorado potato beetle, would, in all probability, prove equally effectual as a remedy against the cotton worm. This, so far as I have been able to learn, (and I have worked the matter up with great care), was the first hint ever thrown to the public in that direction; and there is no risk in asserting that the day in which the hint was thrown out marked the beginning of one of the most important periods in the history of the cotton worm up to the present time: the period of successfully combating it with poisons; in a word, the period of first effect- ually combating it in any way to an entire saving of the crop. ‘Later in the same season, (lst August), the writer of this paper, who had not then heard of Professor Riley’s suggestion, recommended, as agricultural editor of the Mobile Register, the use of Paris green as a cotton worm destroyer, and Capt. Isaac Donavan, of Mobile County, Alabama, immediately applied it, in obedience to the recommendation, wath great success. This is the earliest application of Paris green to the cotton plant that I have been able to trace to date.’’ ‘“‘In May of the next year (1873), the National Agricultural Congress Seared at Indianapolis, Ind., where Professor Riley again addressed the meeting, referring at length to Paris green as an insecticide, and unhesitatingly recommending it as a remedy against the cotton worm. His ‘address was widely published {hrough the papers, especially in the South, and thereupon hundreds of planters went at once to applying the poison, meeting with good success in every case where the directions given by Professor Riley were faithfully followed.” With regard to the sgcond paragraph which we have just quoted truth requires us to state that the August (1872) article in the Mobile Register (see p. 37) did not appear in the -agricultural department of that paper but in the regular editorial [120] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. columns, so that there is nothing to show that it was written by Mr. Stelle beyond his subsequent statement. Moreover, the article in question does not contain a “‘recom- mendation” of the use of Paris green, but simply a statement that it was being exper- imented with at that time. No other similar article was published at that time in the agricultural columns, or in any other part of the Mobile Register. Norte 58 (p. 350). ANOMIS TEXANA, n. sp.—Average expanse 35™™, Posterior bor- ders of primaries not quite so angulated as in erosa, but intermediate between this species and xylina. General color of primaries fulvous-gray, ranging from pale fulv- ous-gray to deep vinous-brown. The ordinary lines are quite well marked, though variable in intensity, and of a darker brown, faintly relieved by pale cinereous. In the commonest specimens there is a dusky patch in the basal region, and the basal line runs in three distinct undulations somewhat obliquely across the basal third of wing. The median line runs from about the middle, or a little outside the middle, of the inner border, either almost straight or outwardly obliquing, and then with a sud- den inward notch till it reaches the median vein; it then runs along vein 2 to a little beyond the reniform spot, and thence in a spreading, W-shaped line to costa, which it reaches about the outer third by a more or less decided inward curve. The posterior line begins at the anal angle and runs to vein 2, so as to make a more or less distinct continuation of the median line, and then forks in an irregular, undulating manner to the costa, running parallel with the posterior border. The orbicular consists of an extremely minute white speck upon a slightly deeper shade; the reniform is large and well defined, and either much darker than the brown color or pure white with a faint line of a darker color near the inner border. Head and thorax partake of the general color of primaries, as also palpi and antenna above. Secondaries and abdo- men above rather dullashy-brown. Under surfaces of primaries dull grayish, slightly nacreous, with the borders pale buff. Along the costa this pale region is suffused with lilaceous, and along the posterior border it is limited by the transverse posterior line, and has a dark brown shade running from the apex to the angle in the middle of posterior border. The median line, in its costal portion, is generally marked by a somewhat S-shaped dark line, well relieved posteriorly by the buff color. Under surfaces of secondaries pulverulent-lilaceous, with pale buff shade on the inner third, and with a discal spot and two well-marked transverse, slightly undulate, lines on the outer third and parallel with the posterior border. Described from5 ¢’s, 6 Q’s. Of course it is impossible to decide, from Hiibner’s description, just what Anomis exacta is, but a careful study of his figures shows it to be a smaller species and much more ferruginous, with a paler reniform, and the lines somewhat differently arranged ; also with the primaries iess angular. . NoTE 59 (p. 353). DRASTERIA ERECHTEA. . Egg.—Nearly globular in form, slightly flattened at point of attachment. Apex with roundish facets; sides rather coarsely longitudinally ribbed. The alternate ribs rather shorter than the others, as in the egg of Aletia. General color grayish-green, with irregular grayish-brown markings; the facetted apex always grayish-brown. Pupa.—About 18™™ (three-fourths of an inch) in length. Head, thorax and appen- dages dark brown, abdomen light brown; the incisures between the joints deep, and of a yellowish-brown color. Whole surface of the body somewhat pruinose. Tip of the body bluntly rounded and furnished with eight slender and moderately long hooklets. Norte 60 (p. 358).—This description is as follows: ‘The insect I will call Phalaena zea (corn-moth) until it is more correctly classified. It is of a pale yellow or shining ash color—length of body and wings one and one- eighth of an inch, the wings expand two inches horizontal, the upper wings covering the lower; below the center and near the border of the upper wings, are two dark spots; there are some two or three indistinct ones on each upper wing, end of the NOTES. [121] wing whitish, a wavy dark band near the border. Thorax slightly convex, downy; abdomen color of wings, downy; proboscis folded spirally underneath, double, half inch long; eyes large, clear, yellowish-green. Legs six, antenne fusiform, palpi very hairy, flies only late in the evening and at night, lies concealed in the day in jams of the fence, around stumps and in the grass and weeds, flies rapid and low.” NorTE 61 (p. 358).—Heliothis umbrosus. Grote’s description is as follows: “Anterior wings yellowish-gray crossed by several indistinct irregular darker shaded lines. Discal spot blackish beyond which is a row of minute black dots one on each nervule running parallel with the outer margin of the wing and connected with each other by a faint waved line the curvatures turned inward toward the base of the wing; fringes dark. Posterior wings yellowish-white without markings except a broad blackish band runnitg parallel with the outer margin and which is partly interrupted near the centre by a space of a similar color to the rest of the wing; fringes white. Under surface of the wings pale showing the black discal spot on the anterior wings plainly, outside of which is a blackish transverse band and a small blackish streak near the upper margin. Under surface of posterior wings immaculate except a faint blackish shade near the outer margin. Head, thorax and tegulae yellowish-gray, darker than the anterior wings. Body grayish, clothed at the sides with whitish hairs, and darkening towards the tip. Exp. 14 inches.”—[Proc. Ent. Soe. Phila., vol. 1 (1861-1863), p. 219. NOTE 62 (p. [64]).—We reproduce almost verbatim the remarks on Mr. Edes’ mate- rial, as given in the American Entomologist, vol. iii, pp. 128-129: [Mr. Edes kindly accompanied his communication with specimens, upon which we will add a few remarks. The worm that takes the place of our Aletia is, both by the colored drawing and the specimens sent, easily distinguished from Aletia. The four moths are in poor condition and show some variation. The species is one of the smallest of the genus Anomis, and between illita Gn. and Htibner’s figure of exacta, of which Professor Grote kindly had a copy made for us. In the larva the front pair of abdominal prolegs is perfectly obsolete and the sécond pair of nearly the same size as the others. The piliferous spots are reddish without pale annulation. The chrysalis has the cremaster less swollen at tip, but otherwise, except in smaller size, is undis- tinguishable. The egg is so similar to that of Aletia that it is doubtful whether there are any con- stant distinguishing characters; the ribs in the single specimen examined are some- what fewer in number and consequently more marked. That this is the ‘‘Cotton Worm” of Bahia is interesting from the fact that Aletia was described by Hiibner from that place. If, as we cannot well doubt, Mr. Grote has correctly determined Hiibner’s figure of Aletia to represent Say’s Noctua xylina, it will also yet be found there. There is a possibility, however, that the figure has mis- led, and the description of Hiibner is certainly of no value as a guide. The cotton bolls contained the following insects, which all appear to have fed upon the seeds: (1) asmall Tineid, badly rubbed but distinct from the species so abundantly found in the United States under similar conditions, and which is figured by Profes- sor Glover as possibly 7. granella, but is, as Mr. Chambers informs us, a new species of Laverna. It is, however, a different species. (2) Several specimens of Hypothe- nemus eruditus Westw. (hispidulus Lec.), which has also been found in diseased cotton bolls in the United States and on the Bahama Islands, and which also bores in the twigs of the dead plants. (3) Two specimens of a Paratenetus, differing from the allied North American P. punctatus, which is found is diseased cotton bolls in the United States, by its very strongly dentate thorax. (4) One specimen of a Crypto- phagid beetle, apparently undescribed and not occurring in the United States. (5) Four specimens of Areocerus fasciculatus, a cosmopolitan beetle found in articles of commerce and frequently observed in diseased cotton bolls in the Southern States. The large bug is the Cotton Stainer (Dysdercus suturellus H.-S.), also found in the United States and greatly injurious to cotton on the Bahamas. ] NOTE 63 (p. [65]).—A large Sphingid larva, probably of Macrosila rustica. Norte 64 (p. [66]).—The worms sent by Sefior Enriquez were the genuine Aletia, as shown on p. 41. Ane ” yet Be aa Trgnt ey | tant fehtr' ABE SS x gett lh 27 x rats eye ‘uh ir bo See Ramee ta kt) ie ape irate i aes tiie ati 4 Cnt pe TE ay Fe ae en pear ee ie ee i ‘ ‘ . J INDEX. A-frame machines, 293-298. A-framed rotary blower, 230. Abdomen of moth of A. zylina, external anatomy of, 50-51, 56-58. Absence of parasitic checks to A. zylina dis- cussed, 20. Abutilon avicenne, food-plant of Anomis erosa, 249. localities for, [104]. - not fed on by larva of A. zylina, [108]. texensis, not a food-plant of Aletia zylina, 27). I Semorata vs. Heliothis armigera, 376, [19]. Satled ln cornutus vs. Aletia, 97. Acker- und Gartenbau-Zeitung, literature in, 329. acrea, Leucarctia, blotches made by larva of, [100]. brush-sacs of moth ef, 56, [105]. acuminata, Magnolia, 66. Adhesive substances for application of dry poi- sons, 141. Adhesives, killing insects by, 311-315, 321. Aigialitis vocifera vs. Aletia, 88. Aisculus, ae with, [20], [21]. va, 66. glabra, 66, 184. Affleck (Thos.), cited, 24. : literature by, 323, 324, 326, 329, 330, 332. Affieck’s Southern Rural Almanac, etc., for 1851, literature in, 330. Ageleus pheniceus vs. Aletia, 88. Agitator pump, 276, 282, 283. Agricultural ant of Texas, vernacular name of Pogonomyrmex barbatus, (29}. subdivisions of cotton belt, 65, 67-80. ‘ : States, 65-66. Agrotis, brush-sac of moth of, 56. Ailanthus, experiments with, (20), [21], {113]-[114]. _ glandulosa, 184. tree, 184. Air-pumps in poisoning, blast of, 249-251. compression by, 258-261. Humphreyville’s, 251. ’ Rumsey’s, 251. Alabama, history of 4. zylina in, 24-33. Boll-worm in, 28. Geological Survey, Report of Progress for 1875, literature in, 335. Planter, literature by, 330. albicinctus, Anisoscelis. (See Anisoscelis albicinctus-) alcea, Malva, localities for, [103]. Alcohol, effect of, on larve of A. xylina, 187. in baits, 317. Aletia, anatomy of, 45-57. popular name of 4. zylina, 1. argillacea, tood-plants of larva of, [ook loss of type-specimen of, [96]. original description of, (ae, supposed to be A. azylina, 1. synonym of A. zylina, 2. uncertainty of identification of, (95]-[96]. xylina, absence of, from Bahamas, 21. account of, by Dr. C. W. Capers, [97]-[99]. anatomy of male genitalia of, [100]- 101}. a emiens to, [28]. annual extinction of,at the north, 21. a of, toward lights, [13], [14]. | Aletia zylina, characters of, 5-9. chronological accountof, (See His- toyy of A. xylina.) chrysalis of. (See Chrysalis of A. aylina,) classificatory position of, 2. cocoon of. (See Cocoon of A. axylina.) copulation of, observations on, [13]. descriptions of earlier states of, [96]-[100]. destroyed by a Tachinid fly, [16]. Heliothis armigera, (18). destruction of, by dragon flies, [6]. Trichogramma 3 pretiosa, {7}. destructive generations of, 14. destructiveness of, 2. distinguished from Heliothis armi- gera, 374. eaten by cats, dogs, and swine, 106} Heliothis armigera, 364, 368, 369. effect of arsenic on, [34]. London purple on, [33]. ‘ ' Paris green on, [33]. _ pyrethrum on, ie [23], [31]. on imagos of, larva. of, [14]. vegetable preparations on, 21 egg of. (See Egg of A. zylina.) . enemies of. (See Enemies of A. zylind.) exotic origin of, discussed, 20. first appearance oi, circumstances of, [105]. in Florida, |6]. flight of, 15. food-habits of imago of, [14]. food-plants of, [27]. of imago of, [20]. geographical distribution of, 39-44. habits of, 5-8, 10, 11, 15, [37], [97]. hatching of eggs of, 6. hibernation of, 15-22, [101]-[102], [104 ]-[105). conditions affect- ing, 22. localities of, 22. ; summary ofevidence on, 22. history of. (See History of A.xylina.) imagoof. (See Moth of A. zylina.) influence of English sparrow on, | 106]. weather on, 83-86. wet weather on, {105}. winds on, 85-86. insects mistaken for, 345. introduction of, from foreign coun- tries discussed, 20. eC ani recurrence of, [122]. @ labe re of, in Sommer collection, [96]. larva of. (See Larva of A. 2ylina.) migrations of, 15. [123] [124] Aletia zylina, natural enemies of, [28], [30]. history of, 5- northern food- plants ee by € number of broods of, 1245, [101], [102]. number of eggs laid on one leaf by, objects mistaken for eggs of, 6. occurrence of, in Bahamas, 42. Barbuda, 42. Brazil, 43-44, Guadaloupe, 42. Manzanillo, 39-40. Martinique, 42. Mazatlan, 39. Merida, 41. Mexico, ee Montreal, 39 Porto Rico, 42. Santo Domingo, 42. Sao Panlo, 39. South Carolina,34-— 35 0. Trinidad, 42. Venezuela, 42-43. Vera Cruz, 40-41. Wisconsin [102]. oviposition of. (See Oviposition of A. xylina.) parasites of, 377, [19], [20]. periodical occurrence of, 41, [122]. discussed, 20. eeooe care of, theory of, 25, periods of and of, [10]-[13]. popular names of, 41. position of pupa of, [8], [13]. posture of imago of, [13]. pupation of, 8, [20]. ravages of, connection of floods with, 40. in Bahamas, 42. Cuba, 42. Florida, [6]. Manzanillo, 40. Mazatlan, 29. infiuence of rains on, 43. weather’ on, P remedies for, [99], [102]. - histo of, 34-38, 41, [119]-[120 ]. seasons of, ISO ce are [12], [19], in Texas, [25]. spiders feeding on, [106]-[107]. statistics of losses caused by, 2-4. succession of broods of, |7]-[12]. synonymy of, 2. hae from generation to generation of, 11-12 unimportance of, in Florida, [6]. unknown in parts of Florida, [5]. variations in broods of, [5]. of larve of, [8], [12]. aletie, Phora. (See Phora aletie.) Tachina. (See Tachina aletie.) Aleurodes sp. mistaken for eggs of A. zylina, 6. On Metamymar, n. g., D. sp., mentioned, 107 Fire (H. R.), literature by, 330. Allen’s bucket-form pump, 273. plug-slot nozzle, 202. owdering bellows, 241. region, 65, 67-68, 69. soils, 64, 66. alnialis, Botis, parasited by Chalcis ovata, [111]. Althea agers localities for, [103]. amara, Carya, 66. Ambrosia artemisicefolia, 184. experiments with, [20], [21]. . trifida, 184. American Agriculturist, literature in, 330. Cotton Planter, literature in, 323, 332, 344, 358, 359, 382, 383, 384, [121]. Cuckoo, vernacular name of Ooccygus americanus, [29]. Alluvia INDEX. American Cyclopedia, literature in, 330. Entomologist, literature in, 325, 328, 330, 331, 323, 335-338, 340— 344,352, 359-363, 382, 384, [107], (111]- (112), [121]. a Botanist, literature Farm and Home Gyeleseue literature in, 330. Heiser literature i in, 330, 342. Naturalist, literature in, 330, 332, 334, 338, 339, 341. americana, Misumena, vs. Aletia, [106]. Amor’s can-syringe, 274. watering-pot pump, 273-274. Anasa armigera vs. Aletia, 98. Anatomy of Aletia, 45-57. brush-sacs of moths, 56. larva of Aletia xylina, 45-48. digestive canal, 47. dorsal vessel, 47. ganglia, 47. legs, 45. malpighian vessels, 47. prolegs, 46. salivary glands, 47. stigmata, 46-47. stomach, 47. testis, 57. moth of Aletia xylina, 48-58. aorta, 55. ‘ brush-sac, 56. colleterial glands, 57-58. copulatory pouch, 58. coxae, 49-50. digestive canal, 58-55. female organs, 57-58. food-reservoir, 54-55. ganglia, 55. intestine, 55. legs, 51. male genitalia, [100]-[101). organs, 56-57. malpighian vessels, 55. nervous system, 55. esophagus, 54. ovaries, 57. penis, 57. pharynx, 53-54. pore-canals, 52. proboscis, 52-53. salivary glands, 54. scales, 51-52. sebaceous glands, 57-58. spines, 51, 53. spiracles, 51. stomach, 55. testis, 57. trochantines, 49, 50. tympanum, 50. vagina, 58. vasa deferentia, 57. scent-organs of moths, 56. Anderson (Dr. E. H. ), acknowledgment of assist- ance from, XX, XXX, cited, 16. literature by, 326, 330, 334. on Heliothis armigera eat- - ing Aletia xylina, 369. the influence of jute, 122. report of, for 1880, [87]. Andromeda, 67. angustum, Malvastrum, localities for, [103]. Anise in baits, 317. moldy oe albicinctus, synonym of Leptoglossus Us. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, Aiterature in, 383, [110]. des Sciences Naturelles, literature in, [110]. Annoyances to the cotton worm, [28]. Annual extinction of A. xylina at the north, 21. meek Cryptus, erroneous synonymy of, 111 ‘gnats principalis vs. Aletia, 89. Anomis, A. xylina, referred to, ip argillacea, A letia aylina labeled as, in Som- mer collection, [96]. bipunctina, synonym of A. zylina, 2, 325. INDEX. Anomis erosa, aceount of, 345. description of egg of, 346, 348. description of larva of, 348. 4 moth of, 347. pupa of, 349. egg of, compared with egg of Aletia wylina, [103]. feeds on Urena lobata, [102)]. food-plant of, 346, 349, 350. larva of, compared with larva of Aletia xylina, [103]. larva of, compared with larva of Anomis texana, [103]. larvee of, habits of, 346. mistaken for Aletia xylina, 345. seasons of, 346. exacta, Anomis luridula labeled as, in Som- mer collection, [96]. geographical distribution of, 350. mistaken for Aletia xylina, 345. grandipuncta, Aletia xylina labeled as, in Sommer collection, [96]. synonym of A. zylina, 2. grandis, Aletia xylina labeled as, in Som- mer collection, [96]. luridata?, Aletia xylina labeled as, in Sommer collection, [96]. luridula, labeling of, in Sommer collec- tion, [96] modesta, A. luridula labeled as, in Som- mer collection, [96]. sp., cotton worm of Bahia, [121]. carter tion of different states of, 121]. texana, account of, 350. description of imago of, [120]. larva of, 350. pupa of, 350. larva of, compared with larva of A. erosa, [103]. zylina long considered name of cotton worm, 325. synonym of Aletia xylina, 2. anonyma, Tachina. (See Tachina enonyma, 377.) ‘** Another Cotton Planter,” literature by, 330. Ant-lions destroying Aletia, 100. Antherea polyphemus parasited by Oryptus nun- cius, 114. Antheum graveolens aprotection against A letia, 123. Anthophora (2) eaten by Oxyopes viridans, [107]. Antidote for arsenical poisoning, [112]. Ants, destruction of, by rains, 85. Heliothis armigera by, [19]. effect of pyrethrum on, [15]. influence of wet weather on, [105]. not natural enemies of Aletia xylina, [29], [30]. vs. Aletia, 89. vs. Heliothis armigera, 376. Aorta of moth of A. zylina, anatomy of, 55. Apanteles aletie, description of imago of, [108]. larva of, [108]. Hupelmus sp. parasitic on, [108]. imago of, compared with imago of A. hyalinus, [108]. vs. Aletia, 101, 104, 105, 106. hyalinus, imago of,compared with imago of A. aletie, [108]. Apatura herse parasited by Chalcis ovata, 114, |111]. : aoe parasited by Chaleis ovata, 114, 111 Aphelogenia furcata vs. Aletia, 95. Aphides mistaken for eggs of A. zylina, 6. Apiomerus crassipes vs. Aletia, 97. Apple blossoms fed on by moth of A. zylina, 10. pomace fed on by moth of A. zylina, 11. Apples fed on by moth of A. zylina, 11. Apricots fed on by moth of A. zylina, 11. Aquaject pump, 270. Aquapult pump, 269-270. Aquarius pump, 270. Arachnida vs. Aletia, 89. mene fasciculatus feeding on cotton bolls, Lis arboreum, Oxydendrum, 66. archippus, Danais. ~ (See Danais archippus.) argillacea, Aletia. (See Aletia argillacea.) Argiope fasciata vs. Aletia, 89, [106]. [125] Arkansas, history of A. xylina in, 24, 26-29, 31-33. armigera, Heliothis. (See Heliothis armigera.) Army Worm contained in tamily Noctuidae, 2. erroneous name of A. zylina, 1. Arseniate of soda, 147. Arsenic, Arseniate of soda, 147. commercial, 147. experiments with, [15], [20], [83]-[35]. Fowler’s solution, 148. Johnson’s Dead Shot, 148. remedy for A. zylina, 36. Texas Cotton Worm Destroyer, 148. value of, as an insecticide, 147. Arsenical compounds, 138. difficulty in determining minimum quantities, 139. safety in their use, 138. poisoning, antidote for, [112]. poisons, comparing the different modes of application, 142. devices for mixing with dilu- ents, 141. dry application, 140. experiments with, [32]. wet application, 142. Ash, 68. Asilus flies vs. Aletia, 99. ‘fly, larve of, 99. sericeus vs. Aletia, 99. Aspila virescens, account of, 351. chryxalis of, confounded with that of Aletia xylina, 17. description of larva of, 17, [104]. moth of, 17, 352. pupa of, 352. food-plants of larva of, 352. found in West indies, 351, geographical distribution of, 351. larva of, feeds on Solanum sieg- linge, 17. mistaken for Aletia xylina, 345. placed in genus Heliothis, 351. Atkinson (——), literature by, 337, 383. Atlanta Constitution, literature in, 328, 329, 330, 339, 341. atomaris, Phoberia. (See Phoberia atomaris.) Atomizers, blast, 243, 249. Airopa belladonna, 148. atropivora, Senometopia, reference to description of larva of, [110]. Attoidaw vs. Aletia, [106]. Aitus cardinalis vs. Aletia, [106]. fasciatus vs. Aletia, 89. Sasciolatus vs. Aletia, aaa parvus vs. Aletia, [106 Austin (J. D.), experiments by, 333. Australia, cotton enemies in, 39. australis, Pinus, 66, 67. avicenne, Abutiton, localities for, [104]. Azalea, 66. : Bahamas, absence of A. xylina from, 21. history of A. zylina in, 42. ravages of A. zylina in, 42. Bahia, cultivation of cotton in, 438-44. history of A. xzylina in, 43-44. insects injuring cotton in, 43. Bail’s experiments on fungus infection, 188. Bailey (J. ¥.), acknowledgment of assistance from, Xk, SOKOET: literature by, 330, 331. Bait-traps, Binkley’s, 321. Garrett’s, 317, 320. Heard’s, 317. net form of, 318. Pugh’s, 320. Stith’s, 319. Baits, adhesive, remedy for A. zylina, 36. alcohol in, 317. anise in, 317. canned peaches as, 319. cobalt in, 320. essential oil in, 317. honey in, 320. molasses in, 317. poisonous, remedy for A. xylina, 36. vinegar in, 317, 320. wax in, 320. Ball’s pump, 276. [126] Baptisia tinctoria, 184. Barbee (W.J.), literature by, 331. Barbuda, occurrence of A. zylina in, 42. Baris sp., injuring Dog Fennel, [114]. Barn Swallow v9 vs. Aletia, 88. Barnard (Dr. W. S8.), acknowledgment of agsist- ance from, xx, XxxXxi, XXXVii. on application of kerosene to cotton, [113]. effect of ox-eye daisy ex- tract, 181. food-habits of Heliothis ar- migera, 361. Heliothis armigera eating Datura stramonium, 362. machinery for spraying cotton, [114]-[119]. Report by, 191-321. Barnes (William), quoted, B56. Barrens, 65, 78. Barrett’s deflector nozzle, 209. Barrow-pumps in poisoning, 279. Barrow’s divided rose nozzle, 195. Barry’s rose combination, 196. Barthélemy (——), literature by, [110]. Basswood, 66. Bats vs. Aletia, 87. vs. Heliothis armigera, 375, [19]. Beach (A. E.), literature by, 331. Bean, food-plant of Heliothis armigera, 355, [17]. Beating- off the insects, 310. Bee (H. P.), cited, 15. Bee Martin, vernacular name of Tyrannus caro- ss 376. vernacular name of Tyrannus verti- calis, [29]. vs, Aletia, 88. vs. Heliothis armigera, [19]. Beech, 66, 73, 74. Bell (A. ee ), on effect of pyrethrum on dogs, [113]. Bellows, hydraulic, 262. ; improvements in, 235. in poisoning, 235-251, 257, 262. pneumatic compression by; 257. Belvoisia bifasciata, description of larva of, [110]. puparium of, {111}. ; parasitic on larva of OCithe- ronia regalis, ; 10]. larvee of Dryo- campa, [110}. Benzine, killing insects by, 311. Bethune (C.J.58.), literature by, 331. Bibliography of Aletia xylina, 322. Hekothis armigera, 382. bifasciata, Belvoisia. (See Belvoisia bifasciata.) bimaculatus, Calocoris. latus.) Binkley’s nozzles, 210, 285, 286. spraying machine, 285. bipunctina, Anomis. (See Anomis bipunctina. ) Birds, influence of rain on, 85. of Tae States, reference to list of, 106 remedy for A. zylina, 35. vs. Aletia, 87, 88, [29]. vs. Heliothie’ armiger@, 375. Black belt, 74. calcareous prairies, 68. cretaceous prairies, 65. gum, 76. oak, 66, 67, 72, 76, 78, 79. prairie region, 67, 69, 73-74. walnut, 66, 186. Black-jack oak, 66, 70, 72, 76-79. pe tee blossoms fed on by meth ef A. zylina, Blast atomizers, 243-249. common, 245. compound, 249, feeding of, 243-249, improved, 246-249. nozzles, 244-247. spray conductors, 244. sprayer, Peck’s, 249, Wallace’s, 249. (See Oalocoris bimacu- | INDEX. Blast spraying, 243-249. suction vs. blast pressure, 243-244. - Blotches made by larva of Spilosoma eres acrea, [100]. Blowers, air-pump, 249-251. generator, 251-252. Steinmann’s, 251. of fluids, rotary, 232-235. ‘ah Darnell's, 233-234. new style, 232-233. Pen’s = —_ poison, 226-252. ‘ generative, 251-252. oscillating, 236-243. reciprocating, 249-251. rotary, 226-235. powder, rotary, 227-232. reciprocating pistoned, 249-251. rotary force-blast, 235, 257. Bluebird, vernacular name of Sialia sialis, 376. vs. Aletia, 88. vs. Heliothis armigera, [19]. Blue-jack oak, 67. jay vs. Aletia, 88. mar] lands, 65, 73, 74-75. Bluff formation, 73. region, 65, "72. Blunt’s “Lotus” pumps, 279. Boddie (J. W.), literature by, 358, 382, [121]. on identity of Boll ‘Worm and Corn Worm, 359. parasites of Heliothis armi gera, 377. Bois d’are, 74 Boisduval (J. “BeAcw: ), literature by, 382. Boll rot, cause of, 367, 368, [27]. supposed to be caused by Heliothis armi- gera, 367, 368. : symptoms of, 367, [26]. Worm. (See Heliothis armigera.) vernacular name of Hetiaiiie armi- gera, 355, 358. Bonasa umbellus vs. Aletia, 88. Bond (W. J.), literature by, 382. Boneset, 184. ‘Boss Nozzle (The),”’ 203. Boston Journal of Natural History, litemutaree in, {111}. Botis alnialis parasited by Chaleis ovata, [111]. Bottom oak, 74. Boyle (J. F.), literature by, 331. Brachinus sp. vs. Aletia, 95. Brachytarsus sp. injuring ee Fennel, [114]. Brandt (L.), literature by, 331 Branner (J. C.), assistance from, Xx, Sir cited, 43." Brazil, history of A. aylina in, 48-44, occurrence of A. zylina in, 43-44. Breed (D.), literature by, 331. Breitenbach (W.), cited, 53. Brewster (Sir David), Edinburgh Cyclopedia, literature in, 331. Brine, efiect of, on Aletia xylina, |28.] British Guiana, history of A. zylina in; 43. bd at in ae 226. Brown (H.C.), quoted, 356. Brown iron ore, 74. loam lands, 68, 70, 72, 78, 76. region, 65, 15-17. Browne (D.J.), literature by, 382. Brush-like poison throwers, 222-226. advantages of, 225. improvements of, 223, 224. sac of moth of Pee 56. A. zylina, anatomy of, 56. sacs, anatomy of, in Lepidoptera, 56. of Leucarctia acrea, [105]. of Pyrrharctia isabella, [105]. substances, 222, 223. Brushing off insects, 310-314. Bucket pumps, extinguisher form, 273. Korth’s, 272. Lewis’s, Lees syringe-can, 270. or ceeaple’ forms, 279-274. water-pot form, 273. Buckeye, 66, 184. —_" INDEX. Buckeye, vernacular name of Aesculus, [20]. Buckshot clay, 68. Bud Worm, vernacular name of Heliothie armi- gera, 358. Bugs, effect of pyrethrum on, [15]. Buhach, 166, 169, 170. plantation, production of pyrethrum at, 113 [113]. Bulletin of Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences, literature in, 334, 383. Bumelia, 67. Burgess, E., acknowledgments to, xx, xxxiv. cited, 48, 56. Burial kills the chrysalis of A. ylina, 17-18. Burmeister (H.), criticized, 52. Burnett (W. I.), literature by, 324, 331. Burning cotton stalks, remedy for A. zylina, 36. nests of web-worms, remedy for A. zylina, 36. Butman’s eae, 276. Cabbage Plusia contained in family Noctwide, 2. worms, efiect of pyrethrum on, (22), [23]. vegetable preparations on, (21]. Oacoecia rosaceana parasited by Gnatoie ovata, [111]. Calahan’s poisoning carts, 266. Calcareous soils, 67, 71, 73, 75. Oallida decora vs. Aletia, 95, 96. Oallirrhoé triangulata, localities for, [103]. Oallosamia promethea parasited by Oryptus nun- cius, 114. Oalocoris bimaculatus, description of imago of, 365. injury to cotton bolls by, 365. rapidus, description of imago of, 366. injury to cotten bolls by, 365, 366 Caloptenus differentialis parasited by Sareephaga Sarracenia, 7109] ; spretus parasited by Sarcophaga sarre- cenice, [109}. Calosoma sayi vs. Aletia, 95. Canadian Entomologist, literature in, 331, 333, 335, 339, 344, 352, 353, 354, 377, [109], [111]. Cane, 73, 74. hills, 65, 72, 73. Canebrake, 74. Cannabis, food-plant of Heliothis armigera, 363. sativa a protection against. Aletia, 123. Capers (Dr. C. W.), pecount of A. zylina by, |97]- [99]. cited, 23, 24. pane of A. rylina by, [98]. literature by, 322, 331. reference to, 1. Capsicum, 187. annuum, food-plant of Heliothis armi- gera, 362. Carabidez feeding on Aletia, 95. Carbolic acid, 163. remedy for A. xylina, 36. Carboniferous formation, 69, 79. sandstone, 65. Cardinal Grosbeak vs. Aletia, 88. cardinalis, Attus, vs. Aletia, [106]. Cardinalis virginianus vs. Aletia, 88. carnaria, Sarcophaga, (See Sarcophagacarnaria.) Carolina Farmer, literature in 326, 331, 337. Carpocapsa pomonella parasited by Pimpla anmul- upes, 113. Cart powder blower, 238. Carts in poisoning, 265-268. Oarya amara, 65. glabra, 67. poreina, 66. tomentosa, 66, 67. Oassia occidentalis, 186. catalpe, Sphinz. (See Sphina catalpa.) Catching insects, machines for, 310-314. traps for, 314-321. “Caterpillar,” name of A. zylina, 1. catesbei, Quercus, 67. Cats vs. Aletia, [106]. Ceballos, M., letter Cedar glades, 75, 76. Central America, decrease of cotton culture in, 21. prairies, 68. Centrifugal nozzles, 211-221. ‘om, 41. [127] Centrifugal nozzles, eddy-chambered, 211-219. as nose-pieces, 218. cone-form of, 216. construction of, 213. convex and concave, 217. discharge directions of, 217-218. for blasts, 244-247. . in blast atomizers, 216. involute form of, 216. operation of, 212. A valuation of, 212. whistle jets as, 215, 216. . fistular, 220, 221. : Clark’s, 220. Clifford’s, 220. .Gelow’s, 220, 221. Gray’s, 221, Hosford’s, 221. Hotz’, 220. Hoyer’s, 220. Johnson’s, 220, 221. McGaffey’s, 221. with cross-plug, 221. with rotary segment, 220. rose sprayers, 192-193. slot-sprayers, 197-199. spray-wheels, 221. throwers of poison, 221-226. brush-like, 222-226. kinds of, 222. ; Wisewell’s, 225-226. Cerasus carolinensis blossoms fed on by moth of A. aylina, 10. feod-plant of Phobderia atom- arvs, 354. Chaleidide, difficulty of defining family, [112]. food habits of, [112]... Ohaleis ovata, description of larva of, [111}. pupa of, [111]. insects parasited by, [111]. vs. Aletia, 102, 114, 115, 118. Champion pump, 280. Characters of Aletia xylina, 5-9. Heliothis armigera, 364. Charleston Mercury, literature in, 342. Ohauliegnathus americanus vs. Aletia, 96. pennsylvanicus vs. Aletia, 96. Oheiracanthium piscatorium vs. Aletia, [106]. ‘*Chenille,”’ name of A. xvylina, 1. Ohenopodium anthelminticum, 186. Chert, 63, 65, 66, 76, 77-78, 79. Chestnut, 79. oak, 66, 76. Cheves (A. J.), quoted, 356. Chew (F.S.),acknowledgment of assistance of, Oe Chicasaw plum blossoms fed on by moth of A. ayling, 10. Che Bee: vernacular name of Cicer arietinum, 63. Chickens vg. Aletia, 88. vs. Heliothis armigera, 375. China berries, infusions of, remedy for 4. zylina,36. tree, 185. a protection against Aletia, 123. experiments with, [21]. Chinese quince blossoms fed on by moth of A. aylina, 10. - Chinguapin, 79. Chipley’s pump, 278. Chisholm (Dr. ——), cited, 34, 43. literature: by, 322, 331, 338. Chloral hydrate as a preservative, 45. Chloride of lime, remedy for A. zylina, 41. Ohloridea rhezic, synonym of Aspila virescens, 361. Chloroform in traps, 320. Chordeiles sp. vs. Aletia, 88. Chronological account of A.zylina. (See History of A. xzylina. ) Chrysalis of A. zylina, description of, 374. and figure of, 8-9. destruction of, 128. formation of, 8. ‘ killed by burial, 17-18. named Salomilla, 41. other species confounded with, 16-17. [128] Chrysalis of pe he oom re of existence of, 9. phygm rugiperda confounded me that rae A.azylina, 17. Chrysanthemum leucanthemum, 180. Chrysopa, eggs of, mistaken for eggs of A. zylina,6. Chunnenugga Ridge, 65. ge arietinum, food-plant of Heliothis armigera, 36 Cicindela larve feeding on ants, eu: punctulata vs. Aletia. 9. sperata vs. Aletia, 95. splendida tigured, 95. Cicindelidzw feeding on Aletia, 95. vs. Heliothis armigera, 376. cinerea, Quercus, 67. Cirrospilus esurus, synonym of Tetrastichus esurus, 11 vs. Aletia, 102. Cistern pumps in poisoning, 278-279. Citheronia regalis larva parasited by Belvoisia bifasciata, [110]. Clarke’s spray-pipe, 220. Classification of A. xylina, 1, 2. Clay, 63, 64, 68, 69, 72 ‘D, 74, 15, 77. slate, 80. Claypole (E. W.), literature by, 382. on food habits of Heliothis armi- gera, 360. Clean cultivation, remedy for A. zylina, 35. Clifford’s spray-pipe, 220. Oliftonia ligustrina, 67. Climate of Cotton States, 59-62. Clover, food-plant of Drasteria erechtea, 352. imago of Heliothis armigera, 372. Platyhypena scabra, 354, 104}. Coal-measures, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79. Coast plains, 67- prairies, 68-69. Cobalt in baits, 320. Coccinella 7-punctata parasited by Phora, 117. Coccinellide, eggs of, mistaken for eges of A. zylina, 6. vs. Aletia, 96. vs. Heliothis armigera, 376. coccineum, Malvastrum, localities for, [103]. Coccygus americanus vs. Aletia, 88, [29]. Cocklebur, 184 Cocoon of A. zylina, formation of, 8. Coffee Weed, 186. food-plant of imago of, Heliothis ar- migera, 372. Cold killing insects, 311. Coleoptera “feeding on Aletia, 95. eee glands of moth of A. sylina, anatomy of, 57-58 Colliding-jet nozzles, 194. Collops quadri maculatus vs. Aletia, 97. Collurio ludovicianus vs. Aletia, 88. Colman’s Rural World, literature i in, 339, 352. Colorado Citizen, literature i in, 331, 341, [105]. Potato-beetle ame by Mantis, 100. Colors of larva of A. zylina,7 Columbus (Ga.) Inquirer, literature 3 in, 331. communis, Linyphia, vs. Aletia, {106}. commutata, Ipomeea, food- plant ‘of larva of ve sylina (109). Compression-squirters, pneumatic, 252-261. ws a8, 257. Danghtrey’s, 258-261. generative, 253-257. oscillating, 257. reciprocatin g, 258-261. rotary, 257. Worswick Co.’s, 258. solid, 261-283. bellows as, 262. oscillating, 262. reciprocating, 283. rotary, 261, 262. Comstock (J. H.), description of Tachina fraterna by [109]. 262- INDEX. Consens (J. H.), literature by, 328, 330, 331, 354, — comstockii, Euplectrus. (See Huplectrus comstockit). concinnata, Tachina, figure of lacra of, compared, [110]. Condition of soil and plants connected with the appearance of the first worms, 81-83. Conditions affecting hibernation of A. zylina, 22. Conduits for blast Sprays, 248-249. blasts, 244. of poisoning machines, 244, 248-249, 283. Connerly (D. C. B.), literature by, 332. conquisitor, Cryptus. (See Cryptus conquisitor.) Pimpla, a parasite of the pupa of Ale- tia xylina, 16. Constancy of occurrence of larva of A. zylina, 21. Conveyances for machinery in cotton field, [115]. ear apace a food-plants of Heliothis armigera, 3 Copidosoma truncatellum eaten by Heliothis ar- migera, 369. parasitic on Plusia bras- sice, 369. - Copper sulphate, experiments with, [20]. Copris, effect of pyrethrum on, [15]. ae ges pouch of moth of A. azylina, anatomy oO Coquillett (D. W.), literature by, 354. Corchorus capsularis a pe against Ale- tia, 1 cordata, Magnolia, 66. Corn, food- plant of Heliothis. armigora, 355, 357, 359, [1 Laphygma frugiperda, 353. Worm contained in family Noctuide, 2. vernacular name of Heliothie armi- gera, 358. Cornus, 66. Corrosive sublimate, experiments with, 20]. “Cotton,” literature by, 332. Cotton, cultivation of, in Bahia, 43-44, [121]-[122]. Florida, [5]. Manzanillo, 40. Martinique, 42. Mazatlan, 39. Merida, 41. Sao Paulo, 44. Vera Cruz, 40. food-plant of Heliothis armigera, 355, 356, 357, 359, [17], (28). imago of Heliothis armi- gerd, 372. Lavhygma frugiperda, 353. Macrosila rustica, {121}. injured by ‘red spider,”’ [5]. insects injuring, in Bahia, 43. Pernambuco, 44, Venezuela, 42-43. pereulactey in planting, [114]- [115]. Army Worm, name of A. zylina, 1. Belt, 59-80. division of, [105]. blight, cause of, [26]. symptoms of, [25]. bolls, insects feeding on, [121]. Caterpillar, name of A. zylina, 1. culture and the insects affecting the plant -_ at Bahia, Brazil, 43-44. decrease of, in Central America and West Indies, pi enemies in other countries, 39. leaf essence for attracting the sooth. 134. Moth called Aletia argillacea, 1 plant, Poisoning the glands of, 133. planting, history of, in Florida, [6]. seed oil, 163. States, agricultural subdivisions of, 65-66. climate of, 59-62. general features of the, 59-67. geological sketch of, 62-63. limits of, 59. rainfall of, 59-61. soils of, 64-65. temperature of, 61-62. topography of, 63-64. winds of, 59. (See Aletia xylina.) investigation, circular No. 7, xxviii. Worm. INDEX. Cotton worm investigation, history of, xxiii. preliminary circular, Xxiii. supplementary in- struction toagents, XXXi. ~ machinery, 191-231. Cottonwood, food-plant of Drasteria erechtea, 352. Ooturniculus lecontei, natural enemy of Aletic rylina, [29]. Counter pump, 279. Cow-pea, vernacular name of Dolichos sp., 363. Vigna sp., 363. Coxe of moth of A. xylina, anatomy of, 49, 50. Cragin (I°. W.), cited, 43. Crandal’s puinp, 273. Crane (——-), on ravages of Heliothis armigera, 362. remedies for Heliothis armigera, 379. Oremastogaster clara vs. Aletia, 90. lineolata vs. Aletia, 90. Cresson (E. T.), error of, [111]. Cresylic soap solution, remedy for A. aylina, 36. Cretaceous formations, 63, 64, 69, 74-75. soils, 67, 74. Crickets, damage to cotton by, in Florida [7]. cristutus, Prionotus. (See Prionotus cristatus.) Cross Timbers, 74. Croton capitaiwm, 186. glandulcsum, 186. monanthogynum, 186. texanum, 186. Crowley’s Ridge, 68. Criiger (C.), on sale of Sommer collection, [96]. Crushing insects, 310. Helm’s machine for, 311. machinery for, 311. Cryptephagid feeding on cotton bolls, [121]. Cryptus annulicornis, erroneous synonymy of, 111). conquisitor, synonymy of, [111]. exirematis, synonym of C0. samie. nuncius, synonymy of, [111]. vs. Aletia, 102, 118, 114. pleurivinctus, synonym of C. conguisitor, sammie ‘distinguished from C. nuncius, 114 synonymy of, [111]. Crystalline rocks, 62. slates, 63. Cuba, ravages of A. zylina in, 42. Cuban pine, 67, 70. Cuckoo ¢s. Aletia, 88. ©€ucumber tree, 66. Cucumis melo, food-plant of Heliothis armigera, 363. Cucurbita pepo, food-plant of Heliothis armigera, 363 verrucosa, food-plant of Heliothis armi- gera, 367. Cucurbitacee,food-plants of Heliothis armigera,363. Cuero (Tex.) Bulletin, literature in, 331. Caltivator powder blower, 238-239. Cupidonia cupido vs. Aletia, 88. Cut-worms, contained in family Noctwide, 2. enemies to cotton in Greece, 39. occurrence of, in Florida, [6], [7]. Cyanospiza ciris vs. Aletia, 88. cyanea vs. Aletia, 88. Oyanurus cristatus vs. Aletia, 88. Oynipide, difficulty of defining family, [112]. food habits of, [112]. Cypress, 66. ? swamps, 66, 68. Cyrtonewra stabulans vs. Aletia, 101, 108. D. (J. R.), literature by, 332. Dactylopius sp. mistaken for eggs of A. xylina, 6. Dana (W. B.), literature by, 332. Danais a Ee, imago of, artificial hibernation of, 20 brush-sac of imago of, 56. Darwin, F., cited, 53. Datura stramonium, 184. experiments with, (20), [21]. tood-plant of Heliothis armi- gera, 362. Daughtrey’s colliding-jet nozzles, 194. cotton-sprayer, 258-261, xxvi. underspraying theory, 258-261. 63 CONG—AP 9 [129] Davis’ sifting machine, 305. Dawson's plug-rose nozzle, 193. Dead Shot, Johnson’s, 148. remedy for A. aylina, 38. Deadly nightshade, 184. Deakins’ excelsior pump, 271. hydronette pump, 264. De Bow's Commercial Review, literature in, 334. Industrial Resources of the Southern and WesternStates, literature in, 332, 334, 337, 344. Review, literature in, 323, 332, 337, 343, 344, 383. Decrease of cotton culture in Central America and West Indies, 21. Deflector nozzles, 206-211. Barrett's, 209. Binkley’'s, 210. Douglas’, Hollings’, 208. for blasts, 229. Havyden’s, Killam’s, Lewis’, 209. Nickerson’s, 208. Polansky’s, 211. Ruhmann’s, 210. Schier’s, 210, 211. Depressaria gossypiella, East India cotton boll- worm, 324. Sa a to cotton in India, 39. gossypioides, erroneous name, 324. synonym of A. zylina, 2. Derby, E. H., on remedy for A. zylina, 38. en maculalis parasited by Chalcis ovata, 114, ita: Destruction of the chrysalides of A. xylina, 128. eggs of A. xylina, 128 moth of A. xylina, 129. moths as remedies for Hevio- s this armigera, 379. Destructive generations of A. xylina, 14. Destructiveness of A. xylina, 1, 2. Dickerman (C. W.), literature by, 332. Didictyum zigzag. (See Hexaplasta zigzag.) Caer nalts, Caloptenus. (See Caloptenus differen- tialis.) Digestive canal of days of A. xylina, anatomy of, 47. moth of A. zylina, anatomy of, 53-55. will, a protection against Aletia, 123. Diluents of arsenical poisons, 140. Diogmites discolor vs. Aletia, 99. dioica, Napea, localities for; [103]. Diptera destroying Aletia, 99. Dislodging of insects, 310. ie ee of pore-canals of mouth of A. zylina, 51, 52. Dix’s pump, 272. Dizonias sp. vs. Aletia, 99. Dock Weed, 186. Dodge (C. R.), literature by, 326, 332. (J. R.), literature by, 327. (L. A.), literature by, 332. Dog Fennel, 184. ‘insects injuring, [114]. Dogs vs. Aletia, [106]. Dogwood, 68, 78. Dolichonyx oryzivorus vs. Aletia, 88. Dolichos ied on by moth of A avylina, 10. food-plant of Helivihis armigera, 363. imago of Aletia xylina, [27]. Eeliothis armigera, Donavan (J.), use of Paris green for Aletia by, [119] Dorsal vessel of larva of A. xylina, anatomy of, 47. Doryinyrmes flavus vs. Aletia, 90, 92, 93. msanus vs. Aletia. 90. Donuble-acting barrel pumps, 279-283. Doubleday (E.), literature by, 324, 332. Douglas’ aquapult pump, 269-270. aquarius pump, 270. deflector nozzle, 208. fire-extinuguisher pump, 273. Dragon flies vs. Aletia, 100, [6]. Drags for removing insects, 310. . frictional, dislodging insects, 310. Drassoidz vs. Aletia, [106]. Drasteria erechtea, account of, 352. 130] Drasteria erechtea, description of egg of, [120]. larva of, 353. pupa of, [120]- 121). food-plants of, 352. tad a oy distribution of, habits of moth of, 352. mistaken for Aletia xylina, 345. oviposition of, 353. seasons of, 352. variations of, 352. Drift soils, 64, 65, 70, 71, 72, 78, 74. oe connection of, with ravages of A. zylina, , 30. Dry application of arsenical poisons, 141. weather, influence of, on A. vylina, 84-86. Dryness killing insects, 311, 314. Dryocampa larvez parasited by Belvoisia bifasci- ata, [110]. Du Bose (J. W.), letter by, 85-86. literature by, 333. Dudley’s light trap, 316. Duke’s light trap, 316. Duponchel (P. A.J.), literature by, 382. Dutch Guiana, history of A. zylina in, 43. dyaus, Plusia, description of larva of, [100]. Dyer’s Mignonette, vernacular name of Reseda tuteola, 363. Dysdercus suturellus, an ally of, an enemy to cot- ton in Australia, 39. feeding on cotton bolls, [121]. rav@ves of, [6]. Ear Worm, vernacular name of Heliothis armi- gera, 358. _ Early occurrence of larva of A. xylina, 21. are as a remedy for Heliothis armigera, 3 Eddy-chambered centrifugal nozzles, 211-219. + Edes (R. A.), letter from, 43-44. remarks on specimens sent by, [121]. Edinburgh Cyclopedia, literature in, 331. Edwards (B.), literature by, 322, 333. Egg of A.xylina, compared with egg of Anomis erosa, {103}. description of, 374, [98], [99]. described and figured, 5, 6.. where laid, 5. ; Anomis erosa, compared with egg of Aletia sylina, [103]. Eggs of A. zylina, destruction of, 128. hatching of, 6. killed by frost, 6. objects mistaken for, 6. Chrysopa mistaken for eggs of A. xylina, 6. Coccinellide mistaken for eggs of A. aylina, 6. Egypt, cotton enemies in, 39. Elachistus euplectri, n. sp., description of imago of, [108]-[109]. parasitic on Huplectrus com- stockii, 106, [109!. Elder,vernacular name of Sambucus canadensis,’ 21). phireage’s sifting machine, 309. Electric light, attraction of moth of A.aylina by, 131. Elis plumipes vs. Aletia, 94. quadri-notata vs. Alctia, 94. elliottii, Sida, localities for, [104]. Elm, 68 Empusa musce, 189. Emulsion of kerosene. (See Kerosene emulsion.) Enemies of A. rylina, influence of, 14, [106], [107]. | rains on, 85. wet weather on, {105]. killed by poisons, [113]. English sparrow, introduced at Macon, Ga., 89. range of, in United States, [106]. vs. Aletia, $8, [106]. Enriquez (R. de Z.), letter from, 14. literature by, 342, 343. remarks on communication of, [121], [122] Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, literature in, 109]. nina stellata vs. Aletia, 89, [106]. Epeiroide vs. Aletia, [106]. INDEX. ephemereformis, Thyridopteryx, parasited by Ohat- cis ovata, {111}. Braz apicalis vs. Aletia, 99. erechtea, Drasteria. (See Drasteria erechtea.) erosa, Anomis. (See Anomis erosa.) Bees Hypothenemus. (See Hypothenemus eru- itus. Erythrina herbacea, food-plant of Heliothis armi- gera, 363. esurus, Oirrospilus, synonym of Tetrastichus esu- rus, {111]. Tetrastichus. (See Tetrastichus esurus.) Euparia castanea inquilinous with Solenopsis, 93. Hupatorium perfoliatum, 184. Eupelmus sp. parasitic on Apanteles aletice, [108]. Euphorbia marginata, 186. euplectri, Elachistus. (See Zlachistus euplectri.) Euplectrus comstockii, description of imago of, }108]. parasited by Elachistus eu- plectri, {109}. vs. Aletia, 101, 105, 106, 107. platyhypene, parasite of Platyhypena scabra, 354. Euplexia, brush-sac of moth of, 56. Euryopis funebris vs. Aletia, 89, [106]. Euschistus fissilis vs. Aletia, 97. punctipes, food habits of, 366. injury to cotton bolls by, 366. vs. Aletia, 98. tristigmus vs. Aletia, 98. Eutaw Whig and Observer, literature in, 332. Evagoras viridis vs. Aletia, 98. Evyenden’s barrel pump, 277. Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), literature in, 333. Hyadonee on hibernation of A. zylina, summary of, 22 Ewing’s insect sweeper, 312. exacta, Anomis. (See Anomis exacta.) Excelsior pump, 271. Exemption of cotton from attack, causes of, [13?. Exotic origin of A. xylina discussed, 20. Explanation to plates, 385. ; exprimans, Heliothis. (See Heliothis exprimans.) Extension pipes to hydronettes, 264. 260. extensa, Tetragnatha, vs. Aletia, {106}. External anatomy of larva of A. zylina, 45-47. moth of A. aylina, 48-53. abdomen, 50-51, 56-58. head, 48. mesothorax, 49, metathorax, 49-50. organs of reproduction, 56-— 58. prothorax, 48-49. terminal body segments, 56-58. thorax, 48-50. Extract of Ox-eye Daisy, 181. Pyrethrum, 174. Extracts of various plants, 181. extrematis, Cryptus, synonym of C. samie, {111}. Fall Army Worm, vernacular name of Laphygma Srugiperda, 353. plowing, remedy for A. xylina, 36. Heliothis armigera, 378. Fallou (M. J.), literature by, 382. on Heliothis armigera eating Cicer arietinum, 363. Farmers’ Advocate, literature in, 339. and Planters’ Encyclopedia of Rural Affairs, literature in, 336. Home Journal, literature in, 333. Register (Va.), literature in, 335. Review, literature in. 333, 340. | fasciata, Argiope, vs. Aletia, [106]. femerata, Acanthocephala. ‘fasciculatus, Arcocerus, feeding on cotton bolls, {121}. ! fasciolatus, Attus, vs. Aletia, [106]. | Feeding of larva of A. xylina, 7-8. moth of A. xylina, process of, 53-54. Female organs of moth of A. zylina, anatomy of, 57-58. (See Acanthocephala JSemorata.) Fennel in baits, 317. Ferguson (J. M.), literature by, 325, 333. Figs fed on by moth of A. xrylina, 11. Field and Ferest, literature in, 331. INDEX. Field bean, food-plant of Heliothis armigera, 362. Fire extinguisher bucket pump, 273. gas-generating, 253-254. pump form of, 265. syringe, 265. Fires, attraction of moths by, [112]. for attracting the moth of A. zylina, 129. remedy for A. xylina, 35, 37. First appearance of A. ora circumstances of, 105] larvaof A. zylina, condition of soil and plant connected with, 81-83. Fistular centrifugal ceongenl 220, 221. Fitch (A.), literature by, 322 Flags, white, remedy for A. aylina, ao. Flappers, beating by, 311. Flare, cause of, [27]. symptoms of, [27]. flava, Zsculus, 66. Flea beetle, effect of pyrethrum on, [22]. Fletcher (J. ), literature by, 333. Flight of moth of A. zylina, 10, 15. Flint, 76, 78. Floods, connection of, with ravages of A. zylina, 40. Florida, history of A. zylina in, 24-33. Dispatch, literature in, 333. floridanum, Illicium, 67. Flour for mixing wito arsenical poisons, 140. Food habits of Cicindela larva, [107]. Oxyopes viridans, [107]. Theridulo. spherula, [106]-[107]. of larva of A. zylina, 8. moth of A. zylina, 10-11. plants, northern, of A. zylina, 15. of larva of A. zylina, (102]- [104]. ' Leucania unipuncta, 19. Platyhypena scabra, [104]. reservoir of moth of A. zylina, anatomy of, Force-blast rotary blowers, 235. pumps, 261-283. double-acting, 264-265. Forcing the cotton, remedy for A. zylina, 35. Fordtran’s light trap, 316. Forest growth. regions of, 66-67. Fork adjustments, 289-297. bed deflectors, 229. Forked blast spray, 933. sprays, 229 Forks for powder Gaisits, 237-238. Forsley (C. G.). literature by, 333. Foss’ divided rose nozzle, 195. Foster’s plug-rose nozzle, 193. Fountain pumps, 262-249. Fowler's slot-nozzle, 201-202. solution, 148. Fowls feeding on larve of A. zylina, 30. Fox’s strainer rose and divided rose nozzle, 195. French (G. H.), literature by, 353, 382, 383. on Heliothis armigera eating Capsicum annuum, 362. Heliothis armigera eatin Hibiseus grandiflora, 363. pupation of Heliothis armi- gera, 370. remedies for Heliothis armi- gera, 378, 379. quoted, 357. Freyer (C. F.), literature by, 383. Friction drags, dislodging worms, 310. Fringe-drags against insects, 310. Frost, effect of. on chrysalides of a zylina, 16. eggs of A. azyling killed by, 6 res, Laphygma. (See Laphygma Srugi- perda Fruits fed on by moth of A. zylina, 11. Fugate (R. N.), literature by, 333. Faulier (A. S.), literature by, 333, 383. Sullonica, Ophideres, puncturing of fruit by, 11. Fumigation machine, Perl’s, 234. Sunebris, Euryopis, vs. Aletia, [106]. Fungus infection of insects, 188 Funnel for poison, 288. Galerita atripes vs. Aletia, 95. galle- . aylina, 369. oviposition of Asilus, 99. parasitism of Aletia xylina by Trichogramma pretiosa, 377. Heliothis armig- era by Tachina aletic,, 377. Heliothis armi- gera by Tricho- gramma preti- osa, 377. preparing kerosene emulsions, Hubbard (H. G.), 157. report of, [5]. Huckleberry, 66. Hudson River formation, 75. Hiibner (J.), description of A. argillacea by, [95). literature by, 336, 357, 383. Hull’s can-cylindered syringe, 274. Humphreys (J. T:), cited, 18. Humpbhreyville’s air pump, 251. Hurd’s rotary powder blower, 231-232. sifting machine, 304. hyalinus, Ayanteles. (See Apanteles hyalinus.) Hydraulic bellows, 262. Hydronette pumps, 262-269. Hydropult pump, 271. Hyla spp. vs. Aletia, 89. Hymenoptera, effect of pyrethrum vn, [15]. vs. Aletia, 89. Hypena scabralis, moth of, confounded with that of Aletia xylina, 18-19. Platyhypena scabra a synonym of, [104]. Hypothenemus eruditus feeding on cotton bolls and twigs [121]. synonymy of, [121]. hispidulus,synonym of H. eruditus [121] Ichneumons, influence of wet weather on, [105}. Icterus baltimore vs. Heliothis armigera, 376. spp. vs. Aletia, 88. spurius vs. Heliothis armigera, 376. [134] Identity of Boll Worm and Gorn Worm, 359. Ilex, 66, 67. Micium floridanum, 67. Illinois, State Entomologist, Reports, literature m, 362, 363, 378, 382. er Journal of Agriculture, literature in, Immigration of moth of A. aylina, 21, Index pump, 279. India, cotton enemies in, 39. Indian Heliotrope, 186. Indigo bird vs. Aletia, 88. Weed, 184. Influence of English sparrow on Aletia, [106. | rains on ravages of A. zylina, 43. weather on A. xylina, 83-86. ravages of A. zylina, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 34, 35, 44. wet weather on A. xylina, 85-86, [105]. enemies of A. zylina, [105]. winds on A. aylina, 85-86. Ingredients for mixing with arsenical poisons, 140. Injurious insects. rise and fall in abundance of, 26. Injury by the worms compared with injury by overdoses of poison, 139. inornata, Mecas, injuring Dog Fennel, [114]. Insect crushers, 310, 311. destroyers, manipulative, 310. sweepers, 310-314, Insecticides, classification of, 137. mineral, 137. vegetable, 164. Insectivores killing insects, 311. Insectologie Agricole, literattre in, 363. interfector, Mimetus, vs. Aletia, [106]. Internal anatomy of head of larva of A. zylina, 47- larva of A. zylina, 47-48. moth of A. xylina, 53-58. Intestine of moth of A. zylina, anatomy of, 55. Introduction of A. zylina from foreign countries discussed, 20. other countries annually, theory of, 19-21. “Investigator,” literature by, 331, 336. . Ipomea commutata, food-plant of Heliothis armi- gera, 363. larva of A. zy- lina, [100]. Tridacee, food-plants of Heliothis armigera, 363. Iridomyrmex maccooki vs. Aletia, 90. Iron Weed, 186. Iske’s slot nozzle, 201-202. J. (W.), literature by, 336. ‘Jackson (J. W.), quoted, 357. Jackson (W. H.), mentioned, 36. on ORES for Aletia, [119]. 184. vernacular name of Datura stra- monium, 362, [20]. Jarring off insects, 310. ; Jerusalem Weed, 186. : Jimpson weed, vernacular name monium, 362. ; Johnson (—), patentee of remedy for A. rylina, 38. Johnson (C. W.), literature by, 336. Johnson (L. C.), acknowledgments to, xx, xxxi. literature by, 371. on cannibalism of Heliothis armi- gera, 368. destruction of Heliothis armi- gera by poultry, 375. Heliothis armigera eating Ale- tia xylina, 368. Heliothis armigera eating Cu- cumis melo, 363. Heliothis armigera eating Cu- curbita verrucosa, 363. Heliothis armigera eating He- biseus esculentus, 3638. parasitism of Heliothis armi- gera by Tachina aletic, 377. pyrethrum as a remedy for Heliothis armigera, 381. quoted, 355, 357, [17]. Johnson’s aquapult, 269-270. cotton-spraying machine, 284. Jamestown weed, of Datura stra- INDEX. | Johnson’s Dead Shot, 148. plug-rose nozzle, 193, 284. plug-slot nozzle, 202, 284. spray-pipe, 220, 221. Jones (W.J.), acknowledgments to, xx, xxx. Jones (R. W.), acknowledgments to, xx, xxx. experiment with pyrethrum ex- tract, 175. experiments carried on by, 173. literature by, 336. on destruction of Heliothis armi- gera by ants, 376. duration of larva stage of Heli- othis armigera, 369. Heliothis armigera eating Ale- tia xylina, 368, 369. natural enemies of Heliothis armigera, 376, parasitism of Aletia xylina by Tachina aletic, 377. parasitism of Heliothis armi- gera by Tachina aletie, 377. pyrethrum as a remedy for Heliothis armigera, 381. quoted, 355. report of, Ha J ra a W.., jr.), acknowledgment of assistance of, [17]. Jones (William), literature by, 322, 323, 325, 336. Jones (W.J.), literature by, 336. on duration of larva stage of He- liothis armigera, 369. early planting, 120. Jones’ cotton sprayer, 285. Juglans nigra, 186. Jumping of larva of A. zylina, 7. Juniperus thyoides, 67. Jute as a protection against Aletia, 122. remedy for A. zylina, 38. “*K.,” literature by, 336. Kaltenbach (J. H.), on Heliothis armigera eating Reseda luteola, 363. Kansas Farmer, literature in, 333. Kellicott (D.S.), literature by, 336. Kelton (E. G.), letter from, 39. Kerosene, application of, to cotton, [113]. as an insecticide, 155. efforts to apply it in dilution, 155. emulsion, discovery of, 156, 157. mode of preparing, 157. emulsions, effects on cotton plant, 159, 161 the worms, 159, 161. formula for, 158. killing insects by, 311, 312, 314, 315, 316, 321. mixed with milk, 156. wood ashes, 156. vapor of, 156. Killam’s deflector nozzle, 209. Killdeer Plover vs. Aletia, 88. an aa (J..W.), acknowledgment of assistance of, [17]. ; King (P.), literature by, 383. on remedies for Heliothis armigera, 380. King bird, vernacular name of Tyrannus a cat sis, 375. wverticalis, [29]. vs. Aletia. 88. vs. Heliothis arnvigera, [19]. Knapsack bucket-pumps, extinguisher form, 273. syringe-can form, 270. water-pot form, 273. powder blower, 239. pumps, 270-274. sprinklers, 301. Gray’s, Ruggle’s, 302. Townsend's, 302. Koebele (A.), acknowledgments to, xx, xxxiii. mentioned, 43. on condition of Sommer collection, [96]. Korth’s bucket pump, 272. Kosteletzkya virginica, localities for, [104]. Krancher (O.), cited, 46. Kiinckel (J.), cited, 11. INDEX. © [135] laboriosa, Tetragnatha, vs. Aletia, [106]. Larva of Anomis erosa compared with larva of Labidus harrisiz vs. Aletia, 90. Anomis texana, |103). melsheimeri vs. Aletia, 91. texana compared with larva of Laboulbéne (A.), literature by, [110]. Aletia xylina, [100). Lace-wings vs. Aletia, 100. compared with larya of Lady birds, effect of pyrethrum on, [22]. Anomis erosa, [103]. eggs of, mistaken for those of A. Aspila virescens, description of, [164]. axylina, 6. Platyhypena scabra, description of, vernacular name of Coccinellide, 376. * (104). vs. Aletia, 96. | Larve, effect of pyrethrum on, [15]. ; vs. Heliothis armigera, f29). Late first appearance of larva of A.zylina dis- La France (E.), on remedy for A. zylina, 38. cussed, 20. Laird (George), production of pyrethrum by, Laurel oak, 76. (113). | Laverna sp. feeding on cotton bolls, (121). Lamps used in cotton fields, 130, 131. | Leaf-cutting Ants vs. Aletia, 94. Lampyrid2 vs. Aletia, 96. _ Le Blane’s light trap, 316. Lane's watering-pot pump, 273-274. | Lee (D.), quoted, 356. Landois (H.), cited, 57. | Legree (J. D.), literature by, 336. Ss Landon (M. D.), literature by, 336. | Lequminose, food-plants of Heliothis armigera, Landreth & Sons (D.), on Heliothis armigera eat- | 362. ing Lima beans, 362. | Length of life of moth of A. zylina discussed, 20. Lantern traps, remedy for A. zylina, 36. _ Lepidoptera, destroying Aletia, 101. Laphria sp. vs. Aletia, 99. Heterocera belong to, 2. Laphygma frugiperda, account of, 353. _ Leptoglossus phyllopus, food-habits of, 366. chrysalis of, confounded | injury to cotton bolls by, with that of Aleta | 366. zylina, 17. | Leucania unipuneta, absence of, from Florida, [6]. food-plants of, 353. account of, 350. larva of, habits of, 353. called Northern Army larve destroying Aletia, | Worm, 19. 101. food-plants of larva of, 19. mistaken for Aletia zylina, sroeeaniioa distribution of, 345. Bl. larva of, habits of, 351. mistaken for Aletia zxylina, 345. moth of, confounded with Larkspur, use of, to kill Aletia, [114). that of Aletia rylina, 19. Larva of A. zylina, anatomy of, 45-48. moth of, described and fig- parasited by Euplectrus digestive canal of, ured, 19. 47 / / comstockii, 107. ravages of, 353. vernacular name of, 353. number of broods of, 351. dorsal vessel of, 47. oviposition of, 351. ganglia of, 47. seasons of, [102]. legs of, 45. vernacular name of, 350. malpighian ves- | Leucanthemum vulgare, 180. sels of, 47. Leuearctia acrea, brush-sacs of moth of, 56, [105]. prolegs of, 46. Levy’s sifting machine, 305. salivary glandsof, | Lewis’ bucket pump, 271. 47. deflector nozz=le, 209. stigmata of, 46-47. light trap, 315. stomach of, 47. testis of, 57. | Libellula trimaculata figured, 101. colors of, 7, [100]. | Libellulide vs. Aletia, 100. compared with larva of An- | Lift-pumps, 299. syringe, 271. omis erosa, {163}. Light-traps for insects, 314. compared with larva of An- | Binkley’s, 321. omis texana, [100]. Cranston’s, 316. condition of soil and plant | Dudley’s, 316. connected with first appear- ) Duke’s, 316. ance of, 81-83. ! Garrett’s, 320. constancy of occurrence of, 21. Fordtran’s, 316. description of, 374, |98]-[100]. Le Blanc’s, 316. and fignre of, 6-7. Lewis’, 315. early occurrence of, 21. McQueen’s, 315. external anatomy of, 45-47. net form of, 318. feeding of, 7-8. Pitman’s, 316. food of, 8. Pugh’s, 320. plants of, {102]-[104]. Rigel’s, 315. fowls feeding on, 30. simple form of, 315. histology of stomach of, 48. ’ Stephens’, 316. internal anatomy of, 47, 48. Stith’s, 319. head of, | Lighted torches, remedy for A. zylina, 35. : ; 47. Lights as remedies for Heliothis armigera, 379. jumping of. 7. attraction of moths by, [112]. killed by snow-storm, 23. for attracting the moth of A. rylina, 129. late first appearance of, dis- | Lignitic clay, 72. cussed, 20. | ligustrina, Cliftonia, 67. markings of, how produced, 46. | Lima beans, food-plant of Heliothis armigera, 362. migrations of, 8. | Lime hills, 65, 69, 71. number of molts of, 7. | Limestone, 63, 65, 66, 69, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78. odor of, 8. Linden, 66. ~ term of existence of, 7. | Lintner (J. A.), literature by, 331, 337. terrestrial and meteorological | Linyphia communis vs. Aletia, 89, ,106]. influences affecting, 81-86. | Liriodendron, 66. 5 time of first appearance of, | Literature of A. rylina, history cof, 322. 12, 13. | Little (George), device of, for mixing dry pol- Larva of Anomis erosa compared with larva of | sons, 141. Aletia zylina, {103}. | Live-oak, 67, 69, 71. [136] Livingston (J. 8.), quoted, [6]. Lizard, Green, vs. Aletia, 89. Ground, vs. Aletia, 89. Llano estacado, 65, 68, 69. Loams, 63. 64, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78. Loblolly pine, 67. Localities for malvaceous plants, [103]-[104]. ot hibernation of A. xylina, 22. Locust, 73. Loess formation, 73. Loggerhead vs. Aletia, 88. London Purple, 149. advantages of, 151. dry application of, 151. experience with, in Texas and Alabama, 150. experiments with, [15], [32], [33]. manufacture and analysis, 149. reasons of failure in efficacy, 150. remedy for A. xylina, 38. value ef, as an insecticide, 150. wet application, 152. Long’s removable slot nozzle, 203. Long-leaf pine, 65, 66, 67, 69-72, 74. 76, 78, 79, 80. region, 65, 67, 69-71. Long-staple cotton leastinjured by Aletia xylina [6]. luxuriance of, in Florida, [6]. Loring (—), literature bv, 337, 383. Losses caused by A. aylina, statistics of, 2-4. of cotton crop in 1881, 33-34. Louisiana, history of A. zylina, in, 23-33. | Low corn vs. high corn as a remedy for Heliothis armigera, 378. Lower prairie region, 65, 68-69. Silurian formation, 75, 77. Tertiary formation, 64, 72. Lozandrus crendius vs. Aletia, 95. lucens vs. Aletia, 95. Lucas (H.), literature by, 383. Lucerne, vernacular name of Medicago sativa, 363. Lupton (Dr. J.), theory by, for destroying the moth, 134. Luthy & Marx’s insect powder. 163. Iygeus sp., injury to coiton bolls by, 366. Lyman (J. B.), literature by, 332, 337, 383. Lynch’s plug-rose nozzle, 193. M.., literature by, 337. M. (A. S.). literature by, 336. McCook (H. C.), literature by, 337. McDonald's bueket-form pump, 273. McG.., literature by, 337. McGafiey’s spray-pipe, 221. McIntyre (E. L.). letter from, 44. McKinnen (D.), literature by, 322, 337. McMMeekin (F. M.), quoted, [5]. McQueen’s light trap, 315. Machinery, conveyances for, in cotton-field, [135]. insecticide, 191-321. remedy for A. zylina, 38. Machines for catching insects, 310-321. poisoning, 191-309. powdering, 224-225, 227-232, 236.242, 302-309. ’ set as traps, 314-321. spraying, 191-297. construction, of, [114]-[119]. experiments with, [114]-[119]. sprinkling, 297-502. Macon Telegraph and Messenger, literature in, 337. macrophylla; Magnolia, 66. Macrosila rustica feeding on cotton, [121]. maculalis, Desmia, parasited by Chalcis ovata, {111}. Maggots, occurrence of, in rotting bolls, [19]. Magnolia, 73. acuminata, 66. cordata, 66. glauca, 67. macrophylla, 66. Male insects attracted by fires and lights, [112]. organs of moth of A.aytina, anatomy of, 56-57, [100]-[101]. Mallory’s pump, 272. slot nozzle 201=202. Malpighian vessels of ripe A. xylina, anatomy of “47. moth of A. zylina, anatomy of, 55. | | { } ! j Malva alcea, localities for, [108]. moschata, localities for, [103]. rotundifolia, af apa of Anomis erosa , 5 localities for, [103]. sylvestris, localities for, [103]. Malvacee, tood-plants of Heliothis armigera, 363. Malvaceous plants in herbarium of U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, exam- ination of, [103]. localities for, [103]-[104}]. Malvastrum angustum, localities for, [103]. coccineum, localities for, en ‘ spicatum, eggs found on, Host Mandrake, 187. Manipulative insect destroyers, 310. Mann (B. P.), acknowledgment to, xxi. literature by, 331. Manning (V.), literature by, 335. Mantis carolina vs. Aletia, 99. Manzanillo, cultivation of cotton in, 40. ravages of A. rylina in, 39-40. Maple, 68. Marion (Ala.) Commonwealth, literature in, 387. Markings of larva of A. zylina, how produced, 46. Merl, 65. 67. Marsh lands, 68. region, 65. Marrubium vulgare, 185. | Martinique, cu]tivation of cotton in, 42. direction of winds in, 42. occurrence of A. xylina in, 42. Marx (Dr. George), drawings by, xxi. report on spiders of cotton plant ,[106]-[107]. Matthews (J..C.), on improvement of cotton seed, ») ~ May’s pump, 263. Mazatlan, cultivation of estton in, 39. ravages of A. cylina in, 39. Meade (R. H.), literature by, [109]. Mealy-bug mistaken for egg of Aletia xylina, 6. Mecas inornata injuring Dog Fennel [114]. Mechanical destruction of msects, 310. means of killing the worms, 135. Medicago sativa, food-plant of Helothis armigera, 36 Megachile (?) eaten by Oxyopes viridans, [107]. Meigen (J. W.), literature by, 383. Melanolestes picipes vs. Aletia, 97. Melcher’s barrel pump, 274. nozzles, 275. peripheral divided rose, 196. plug-rose nozzle, 193. side-slot nozzle. 205. Meleagris gallopavo vs. Aletia, 88. Melia azedarach, 185. a protection against Aletia, 123. Melon, vernacular name of Cucumis melo, 363. Melons fed on by moth of A. xylina, 11. Mentha viridis, 186. Merida, cultivation of cotton in, 41. direction of winds in, 41.- . occurrence of A. vylina in, 41. Merocoris distinctus vs. Aletia, 98. Mesquite, 67,77. 3 Mesothorax of moth of A.zylina, external anat- omy of, 48-49. Mesumena georgiana vs. Aletia. 89. Metamorphic rocks, 62, 63, 79-80. Metamymar aleurodis, n. g., u. sp., maentioned [107] Metenodius femoratus vs. Aletia, 97, 98. Metathorax of moth of A.awylina, external anat- omy of, 49-50. Meteorological influences affecting the larva of A. ayling, 83-86. | Methyl alcohol for preparing Pyrethrnm extract, 175. Meyer (G. H.), cited, 57. Mica schists, 79. slates, 80. Migration theory, 323, 324, 327. Migrations of A. zylina, 15. insects, causes of, 15. larva of A. vylina, 8. Migratory fligbts of moth of A. xylina, 21. habits of moth of A. rylina discussed, 20. militaris, Hibiscus, localities for, [104]. INDEX. Mimetus interfector vs. Aletia, [106]. Mimus polyglottus vs. Aletia xylina, 88, [29]. Heliothis armigera, 375. Mineral insecticides, 136. principles to be followed in use of, 1387 Minimum quantities of arsenical poisons, 139. Paris green, 144. Minot (C. S.), acknowledgments to, xx, xxxiv. cited, 48, 50. minuta, Trichogramma, compared with T. preti- osa, [107]. Mississippi, history of A. xylina in, 24-34. Miswmena americana vs. Aletia, [106]. georgiana vs. Aletia, [106]. Mitchell (A. C.), observations by, 356. Mitchell (T. W.), on remedy for A. zylina, 36. mitis, Pinus, 66, 67. Mixer of poison, 288. Mobile Cotton Exchange, extracts from address before, [105]. Mobile Register, literature in, 326, 328, 329, 337, 339, 342, 343, [105], [119]-[120]. Mobile Weekly Register, literature in, 342, 343. Mock Orange, 185. blossoms fed on by moth of A. azylina, 10. vernacular name of Prunus carolt- niana, [20]. Mockernut hickory, 67, 78. Mocking bird, vernacular name of Mimus poly- glottus, 375, [29]. vs. Aletia, 88. Modiola multifida, localities for, [104]. Moffat (J. A.), literature by, 383. Moffett’s jawed slot nozzle, 203. Mohr (C.), cited, 66. Molasses, catching insects in, 315, 321. experiments with, [20]. in baits, 317. Molts of larva of A. xylina, number of, 7. Monarda punctata, 185. : Monedula carolina vs. Aletia, 94. Monomorium carbonarium vs. Aletia, 90. Montgomery (Ala.) Advertiser, literature in, 337. Monthly Reports of U. 8. Department of Agri- culture cited, 28-30, 33-34. Montreal, occurrence of A. zylina in, 39. Morrill (A.), letter from, 39-40. literature by, 337. Morrison (H. K.), cited, 56. - literature by, 337. Morse (G. W.), literature by, 325, 338. moschata, Malva, localities for, [103]. moscheutus, Hibiscus, localities tor, (104]. Moth of A. zylina, anatomy of, 48-58. aorta of, 55. brush-sac of, 56. colleterial glands of, 57-58. copulatory pouch of, 58. cox of, 49, 50, digestive canal of, 53-55. female organs of, 57-58. food-reservoir of, 54-55. ganglia of, 55. intestine of, 55. legs of, 51. male organs of, 56-57. malpighian vessels of, 55. nervous system of, 55. cesophagus of, 54, ovaries of, 57. penis of, 57. pharynx of, 53-54. pore-canals of, 52. proboscis of, 52-53. salivary glands of, 54. seales of, 51-32. sebaceous glands of, 57-58. spines of, 51, 53. spiracles of, 51. stomach of, 55. testis of, 57. trochantines of, 49, 50. tympanum of, 50. vagina of, 58. vasa deferentia of, 57. artificial hibernation of, 20. [137] Moth of A. aylina, attracted and destroyed by , lights, 129. by fires and lights, 112). a sweets, 131. description of, 375, [98]. and figure of, 9. destruction of, 129. distribution of pore-canals of, 51, 52. external anatomy of, 48-53. abdomen of, 50-51, 56-58. head of, 48. mesothorax of, 49. metathorax of, 49-50. organs of reproduction of, 56- 58 prothorax of, 48-49. terminal body segments of, 56-58, thorax of, 48-50. flight of, 10. food of, 10-11. fruits fed on by, 11. habits of, 10. hibernation of, 18-22. ar eeenguis for, where occur- ring, 18 immigration of, 21. internal anatomy of, 53-58. length of life ot, discussed, 20. migratory flights of, 21. Bee of, discussed, 0 named ‘‘ Paloma,’’ 41. other species confounded with, 18-19. posture of, 10-11. power of flight of, discussed, 20. process of feeding of, 53-54. prolificacy of, 10. puncturing of fruit by, 11. sexual differences of, 9. sudden appearance of, dis- cussed, 20. winter occurrence of, 21. trap, remedy for A. xylina, 36. Motheral (W.), literature by, 338. Mountain oak, 66. Miiller (F.), cited, 56. muhlenbergii, Quercus, 66. Mullein, 185. , Muiien (S. B.), literature by, 338. multifida, Modiola, localities for, [104]. Murtteldt (M. E.), on Heliothis armigera eating Phaseolus vulgaris, 362. Myrmeleonide destroying Aletia, 100. Names, popular, of A. vylina, 1. . scientific, of A. xylina, 1. Napea dioica, localities for, [103]. napea, Sida, localities for, [104]. Nashville tormation, 75. Natchez Democrat and Courier, literature in, 338. National Academy of Science, paper read by C. V. Riley before, 16. National Agricultural Congress, addresses before, [119]-|120]. Natural history of A. wylina, 5-22. Naturalists’ Leisure Hour, literature in, 341. Navasota (Tex.) Tablet, literature in, 332. Neal (Dr. J. C.), acknowledgments to, xx. cited, 35. experiments of, with kerosene emulsions, 160. on Urena lobata as food-plant of Anomis erosa, [102]. Nectar giands of cotton plant,dysteleology of, [101]. teleology of, [101]. Nervous system of moth of A. zylina, anatomy of, 55. Net-catching of insects, 311. trap, 318. Neuroptera destroying Aletia, 100. New (W. W.), literature by, 338. New Harmony Disseminator, literature in, 322,341. New Orleans Commercial Times, literature in, 329, 333. [138] New Orleans Democrat, literature in, 329, 340. Picayune, literature in, 338. New York Tribune, literature in, 339. Extra No. 21, literature in, 327, 334. Weekly Sun, literature i in, 333, 383. Nezara pennsylvanica, food-habits of, 366. injury to cotton bolls by, 366. vs. Aletia, 98. Nickerson’s deflector nozzle, 208, Nicotiana tabacum, 184. Night-hawks vs. Aletia, 88. nigra, Quercus, 66. Noctua xylina, first naming of, 1. former name of Aletia aylina, 325. synonym of A. zylina, 2. Noctuid larva an enemy to cotton in Egypt, 39. Noctuide, important insects contained in family, 2. puncturing of fruit by moths of, 11. Nomenclature of A. zylina, 1. Nonpareil vs. Aletia, 88. North American Entomologist, literature in, 335. Carolina, history of A. xylina in, 25-29, 33. Northern Army Worm, vernacular name of Leu- canta unipuncta, 19, 350. Notes, [93]-[122]. Nozzle adjustments, 289-29 pipes, adjustment ue [114)-[119]. Nozzles, Binkley’ s, 285-286. blast- deflecting, 229. centrifagal, 211-221. eddy-chambered, 212-219. working of, [116]-[117]. fistular, 220, 221: Clarke's, 220. Clifford’s, 220. Gielow’s, 220; 221. Gray’s, 221. Hosford’s, 221. Hotz’, 220. Hoyer’s, 220. Johnson’s, 220, 221. McGaffey’s, 221. with cross-plug, 221. with rotary Serres 220. classification of, 191-221. colliding jet, 194. Daughtrey’ s, 194, 260. Prouty’s, 194. Weber’s ’194, 260. defiector, 206-211. Barrett’s, 209. Binkley’s, 210. Douglas’, 208. Hayden’s, 209. Holling’s, 208. Killam’s, 209. Lewis’, 209. Nickerson’s, 208. Polansky’s, 211. Ruhmann’s, 210. Schier’s, 210, 211. divided rose-heads, 195. Barrow’s, 195. clutch-headed, 195. Foss’, 195. Fox’s, 195. for blasts, 244-247. centrifugal, reverberatory ,244-247. powéder-blasts, 237-238. spraying, 191-221. gas jet, 194. hose-pipe spray, 220, 221. in automatic sprinkler, 297-298. jawed-slot, 203. “Phe Boss nozzle,”’ 208 Moftett’s, 203. Perkin’s, 203. Pinter’s, 203. Raymond’s, 203. Ruhmann’s, 203. Smith’s, 203. Stanton’s, 203. Williams’, 203. Johnson’s, 284. many-punctured, 191-196. cleaning of, 192. INDEX. Nozzles, many-punctured, clogging of, 192. construction of, 191-193. Daughtrey’s, 260. Weber's, 260. Melcher’s, 275. 4 per ipheral roses, divided, 196. Melcher’s, 196. Ruhmann’s, 196. Yeager’s, 196. plug roses, 193-194. Dawson’s, 193. Foster’s, 193. J ohnson’s, 193. Lynch’s, 193. Melcher’s, 193. slot, 202. Allen’s, 202. Johnson’s, 202. The ‘‘ Niagara,’’ 202. _Pinter’s, 202. Polansky’s, 276. preferre kinds, 191. removable deflector, 207. slots of, 203. Long’s, 203. Merigot, 203. Vestal’s, 203. reverberatory, reatomizing, 247. rose combinations, 196. Barry’s, 196. Prentice’s, 196. headed, 191-196. Ruhmann’s, 275-276. Schier’s, 276. slotted kinds of, 196-205. Fowler’s, 201-202. Iske’s, 201-202. ; Mallory’s, 201-202. simple ones, 201-202. spray-pipe, 219. T-roses, improvements in, 194. . Warner’ s, 194 * Yeager’ s, 194. to hydronettes, 264, 265, 268. Vogelsang’s, 279. whistle Jet, 215, 216. W olfram’s, 287. Yeager’s, 277-278. Number of broods of A. Beat [101], [102]. nuneius, Cryptus, synonymy of, [111 Oak, 65- ‘68, 71-76, 78, 80. uplands region, 65, 69, 70-71, 72-73, 74. | Oceurrence of A. aylina i in "Bahamas, 42. Barbuda, 42. Brazil, 43-44. Guadaloupe, 42. Manzanillo, 39-40. Martinique, 42. Mazatlan, 39. Merida, 41. Montreal, 39. Porto Rico, 42. Santo Domingo, 42. Sao Paulo, 39. South Carolina, 34-35. Trinidad, 42. Venezuela, 42-43. Vera Cruz, 40-41. Ochsenheimer (F.), literature by, 357. Odor of larva of A. 2ylina, 8. @balus pugnax vs. Aletia, 97. CEcodoma ferens Vs. Aletia, 94. (Emler Aes ), on Heliothis armigera eating Phy- salis, 3 Gee of moth of A. zylina, anatomy of, 54. officinalis, Althea, localities for, [103]. Oil, essential, in baits, ali: 'of creosote, 162. tar, 162. Oils as insecticides, 155. Okra, food-plant of Heliothis armigera, {17}. vernacular name of Hibiscus esculentus, 363. oleracea, Pieris. (See Pieris oleracea. ) Oligosoma laterale vs. Aletia, 89. Open spaces, effect of, on Aletia xylina, [28]. Ophideres fullonica, puncturing of fruit by, 11. Ophiusa, A. xylina placed by T. W. Harris near, 1. aylina, synonym of A. xylina, 2. INDEX. ~ Opossum vs. Aletia, 8 Sess genenred - moth of Ophideres fullo- Nie Organs of reproduction of moth of A. xylina, ex- ternal anatomy of, 56-38. Orioles, vernacular name of Icterws, 376. vs. Aletia, 88. Orthoptera destroying Aletia, 99. Ortyx virginianus vs. “Aletia, 88. vs. Heliothis armigera, 376. Osage orange, 74. Oscillating blowers of poison, 235-249, 257. powder, 236-243. Allen’s, 241. compound to cart, 238. hand use of, 2389- 241. Hendley’s, 242. horseback form of, 239, 2 knapsack form of, Ree nts to cultivator, 238- 239. with forks, 241. ‘W oodason’s, 242. compression- squirters, pneumatic, 257. squirters, solid compression, 262. Osmoderma sp. parasited by Phora, 117. Osten Sacken (C. R.), literature by, [109]. Our Home Journal and Rural Southland, litera- ture in, 338. ; Ovaries of moth of A. zylina, anatomy of, 57. ovata, Chalcis. (See Chalcis ovata.) Oviposition of A. xylina, [8], [12], (171, [20]. time of, Owlet Moths. (Sce Noctuide.) Ox-eve Daisy powder, experiments with, 180. Oxydendrum arboreum, 66. pe dee viridans, food-habits of, [107]. vs. Aletia, 89, [106]. Oxyopoide vs. Aletia, [106]. Pacific Rural Press, literature in, 378, 383. Packard (A. S., jr.), literature by, 338, 383, 384. quoted, 352. Paint, killing insects by, 315, 316. Paleozoie formations, 62, 63, 64, 70-71. rocks, 63. Paloma, name of moth of A. avylina, 41. af glycerium, artificial hibernation of adult, Papilio, literature in, 352, 353, [105]. Parasited chrysalides, endurance of frost by, 16. Parasites of A. ene. 101. Parasitic checks to A. xylina, absence of, dis- cussed, 20 Paratenetus punctatus feeding on cotton bolls, sp. feeding on cotton bolis, [121]. Paris green, 143. combinations, patents on, 146. experiments with, [83]. first mention of, for cotton worm, 326. for Aletia, history of use of, (119]- (120]. its history as an insecticide, 143. minimum quantities of, 144. modes of ol agian 148. not applied to long-staple cotton, [6]. proportions of mixture of, {113]. remedy for A. xylina, 36-38. test of purity of, [113]. Partridge vs. Aletia, 88. parvus, “Attus, vs. Aletia, [106]. Paspalum leve fed on by ‘moth of A. ee 10. Patent mixtures of Paris green, 146 Patton (W.H.), acknowledgments to, XX, XXxi. Pavonia typhaleoides, eggs found on, [103]. Pea, food-plant of Heliothis armigera, 355, [17]. pe of Heliothis armigera, 7 Peach blossoms fed on by moth of A. xylina, 10. Peaches fed on by moth of A. xylina, 11. Pears fed on by moth of A. xylina, 11. Pebbles, 63, 64, 70-71, 72, 74. Peck’s blast sprayer, 249. Pelopeus ceruleus vs. Aletia, 94. [139] Pelopeus pennsylvanicus vs. Aletia, 95. Pendulum pump, 279 Penis of moth of A. zylina, anatomy of, 57. Pennyroyal, 185. experiments with, [20], [21]. Pergande (‘Th.), acknowledgments to, xxi. on food habits of Heliothis armt- gera, 362. Periodical] occurrence of A. xylina, 41. discussed, 20. insects discussed, 20. recurrence of A. xylina, theory of, 25, 26. Peripheral divided rose nozzles, 196. Perkin’s jawed-slot nozzle, 203. Pernambuco, history of A. wylina in, 44. insects injuring cotton in, 44. Persimmons fed on by moth of d. aylina, 11. Phalena zea, original descri pee of, [121]. synonym of Heliothis armigera, 358. Phanzus, effect of pyrethrum on, [15]. Phares (Dr. D. L.), cited, 15, 23-24. literature by, 325, 338. on late planting, 121. | Pharynx of moth of A. xylina, anatomy of, 53-54. Phaseolus vulgaris, food-plant of Heliothis armi- gera, 362. Philadelphus inodorus (?), 186. Philips (M. W.). literature by, 338. Phillip’ s Southern Farmer, literature in, 335. Phoberia atomaris, account of, 354. food-plant ‘of moth of, 354. mistaken for Aletia xylina, 345. moth ot, confounded with that of Aletia xylina, 19. pupation of [104]. Phora aletia, eaten by Chauliognathus larve, 96. food habits of, [112]. not a true parasite, (112). . parasited by Hexaplasta zigzag, 116. vs. Aletia, 102, 108, 116, 117, 118, 119. incrassata, 116. phyllopus, Leptoglossus. (See Leptoglossus phyllo- pus.) : Physalis, food-plant of Heliothis armigera, 362. viscosa, food-plant of Aspila virescens, 352 Phymata erosa vs. Aletia, 97. Phytolacca decandra, 187. experiments with [20], [21]. not fed on by Aletia zylina, [100]. | Picking off insects, 310. Pieris oleracea, effect of pyrethrum on, [23]. Pignut hickory, 67. Pimpla annulipes vs. Aletia, 102, 113. conquisitor, 115. a parasite of the chrysalis of A. aylina, 16. vs. Aletia, 102, 111, 112, 113. Pimplarie of North America, reference to list of, 111}. Pine, 73, 78. prairies, 68. Pinter’s barrel pump, 278. jawed-slot nozzle, 208. plug-slot nozzle, 202. Pinus aistratia 66, 67. glabra, 67 mitis, 66, 67. teda, 66, 67. Pionea rimosalis, effect of pyrethrum on, [23]. Pipe adjustments, 289-297. pilpecnerts of spraying machinery, [116]- 119 extension to bhydronettes, 264, 265. fork modifications, 290-292. Pipes, cheapness of, 292-293. conformability of, 292-293. flexile, superior, 296-297. for blast sprays, 244, 248, 249. lightness of, 292-293. of poisoning machines, 283. pendant, 292. substances for, 293. piscatoriwm, Cheiracanthium, vs. Aletia, [106]. | Pisum sativum, tood-plant of Heliothis armigera, 362. Pitman’s light trap, 316. [140] Plant, condition of, connected with first appear- ance of larva of A. aylina, 82-83. lice mistaken for eggs of Aletia xylina, 6 Plateaus, 78. Platyhypena scabra, account of, 354. description of larva of, 354, 104 ]. pupa of, [104]. food-plants of, 354, [104 ik geographical distribution of, 354. habits of, 354. hibernation of, [104]. mistaken for Aletia zylina, 345. parasite of, 354. pupation of, [104]. synonym of Hypena scabralis, 04}. platyhypence, Euplectrus. (See Euplectrus platy- hypene.) See Cryptus, synonym of C. conquisitor, 1 Plug-rose nozzles, 193-194. Dawson's, 193. Foster's, 193. Johnsons, 193. Lynch’s, 193. Melcher’s, 193. Plumacher (EH. H.), letter from, 42-43. Plums fed on by moth of A. xy lina, ae Plusia brassice, Gouleenin truncatellum para- sitic on, 369. eaten by Heliothis ar miger a, 369. . feeding on tomato, 369. dyaus, description of larva of, [100]. Pnenmatic-compression squirters, 253-261. Daughtrey’s 258-261. generative,. 253-257. oscillating, 257. reciprocating, 258-261. rotary, 257. W eindel’s, 258. Worswick Co.’s, 258. Podagrion sp. parasitic on Mantis eggs, 100. Podisus cynicus vs. Aletia, 97. punctipes vs. Aletia, 97. spinosus vs. Aletia, 97, 98. vs. Heliothis armigera, 376. Podophyllum peltatum, 187. Pogonomyrmesx barbatus, habits of, [29]. not natural enemies of Aletia xylina, {29}. Poison-drags, 310. fluids, blowing of, 243-249. funnel, 288. liquids, blowers for, 226-252. conduits for, 283-299. nozzles for, 191-221. pumps for, 261-283. throwers for, 221-226. mixer, 288. mixtures, straining of, 192, 288. powders, blowers for, 226-252. throwers for, 221-226. sifters for, 302-309. spraying, 191-302. strainer, 288. Poisoned fruit for destroying the moth, 182. liquids, mode of using, 132. sweets, experiments with, [20]. for destroying the noth, 131. as remedies for A. aylina, 36. Heliothis armi- gera, 379, 380. Poisoning, arsenical, antidote for, [112]. as a remedy for Heliothis ar migera, 381. bellows for, 235-251. blowers in, 996-252. cotton seed, remedy for A. xylina, 36. elevators in, 299, 300. machinery, 191-321. construction of, [114]-[119]. experiments with, [114]- [119]. machines, A-framed, 293-298. air-pumps in, 249-251, 258-261. bellows,for, 235-249, 257-262. blowers for, 226-262. INDEX. Poisoning machines, conduits for, 283. pumbek ees ‘for, 283. frames for, 283 generators in, 251-257. gravitational, 297-309: improvements in, 288-298. nozzles for, 191-221. pipes of, 283. pumps for, 261-283. report on, 191-321. sifting, 302-309. bag form of, 304. Davis’, 305. Eldredge’ s, 309. Goodheart’ s, 304. hand-sieve form of, 303- 304. Hurd’s, 304. Levy’s, 305. Robinson’s, 305. Smith’s, 308. Taylor’s, 306. ‘ Willie’s, 307. Young’s, 307. spraying: A-framed, 293-298. bellows for, 235-249, 257-262. Binkley’s, 285. blowers for, 226-262. conduits for, 286. conveyances for, 283. . Daughtrey’s, 258-261. generators in, 251-257. Goodin’s, 286. ° improvements in, 288-298. Johnson’s, 284. Jones’, 285. nozzles for, 191. Dumas for, 249-251, 258-261, 3. ES under spraying, 237-238, 241, 244, 258-261, 264-265, 268, 288-298. Wolfram’s, 286. sprinkling: Gray’s eee can, 302. horseback style of, 301. knapsack style of, 301. Ramsey’s uorseback, 301. Robinson’s, 299. Ruggles’ knapsack, 302. Schanck’s wheeled, 298. Taylor’s, 298. Townsend’s knapsack, 302. tripod form of, 297-302. water-pot style of, 300, 302. Willie’s horseback, 300. nozzles for, 191. oscillating blowers in, 235-251. pumps for, 261-283. rotary blowers in, 226-235. brushes in, 222-226. throwers in, 221-226. sifters in, 225. the glands of the cotton plant, 133. larve of A. aylina, 136. moths of A. xylina,131. . experiments on, [15 whisps and brooms in, 226. Poisons, effect of, on non- fertilized blossoms, [112]. enemies of A. xylina killed by, [113]. experiments with, [14]. quantity required, [115]. Pokeweed, 187. not fed on by larva of A. xylina, [100]. vernacular name of Phytolacca, [20]. Polansky’s barrel pump, 276. deflector nozzle, 211, 276. Polistes bellicosa vs. Aletia, ’94, 195, rubiginosa Vs. Aletia, 94. Polygonum hydropiper, 185. Pontotoc Ridge, 65. Poplar, 66, 74. Popular names of A. xylina, 1. Science Monthly, literature in, 344, [105]. porcina, Carya, 66. Pore-canals of moth of A. xylina, anatomy of, 52. distribution of, 5I 52. INDEX. Port Hudson group, 69. Portage of fgg apparatus, 283. Porter (G. R.), literature by, 322, 338. Porto Rico, occurrence of A. zylina in, 42. Post oak, 66, 67, 70, 72, 73, 76-79. soil, 73, 74 Posture of moth of A. zylina, 10. Potassium cyanide, experiments with, [20]. Poultry remedy for A. zylina, 34. vs. Heliothis armigera, 375. Powder-blasts, feeders for, 227-228, 236-237. nozzles for, 229, 237-238. feeders to blasts, 227-228, 236-237. Power of flight of moth of A. zylina discussed, 20. Practical Entomologist, literature in, 344. Prairie Chicken vs. Aletia, 88. Farmer, literature in, 370, 379, 382, 384. quoted, 357. Annual, literature in, 359. lands, 68, 69, 74, 77, 78. regions, 65, 67. Predaceous insects vs. Aletia, 89. Prentice’s rose combinatioh, 196. = of external skeleton for examination, Preston & Robeira, patentees of remedy for Aszaylina, 38. eo sehy Trichogramma. (See Trichogramma pre- tiosa. Prickly Ash, 185. prinus, Quercus, 66. Priononyx thome vs. Aletia, 95. Prionotus cristatus vs. Aletia, 97. Heliothis armigera, 376. — of moth of A. aylina, anatomy of, 11, Proceedings of A, A. A. S., literature in, 327, 334, 340. Boston Society of Natural History, literature in, 324, 331. Entomological Club of A. A. A. S., literature in, 331. Entomological Society of London, literature in, 330, 882. Entomological Society of Philadel- phia, literature in, 325, 334, 358, 383, [121]. ; National Agricultural Congress, literature in, 339. Proctacanthus milberti vs. Aletia, 99. Proctotrupide, difficulty of defining family, [112]. food-habits of, [112]. Prodenia autumnalis, synonym of Laphygma Frugiperda, 353. Sulvosa, variety of Laphygma frugi- perda, 353. lineatella parasited by Euplectrus com- stockii, 107. obscura, variety of Laphygma frugi- P perda, 353. Prolegs of larva of A. xylina, anatomy of, 46. and of Anomis texa- na compared, [100] Prolificacy of moth of A. xylina, 10. Promachus sp. vs. Aletia, 99. Prothorax of moth of A. wylina, external anatomy of, 48-49. Prout (C. F.), literature by, 326, 330. Prouty’s aquapult, 269-270. colliding-jet nozzle, 194. Proxys punctulatus vs. Aletia, 97. Prunus caroliniana, experiments with, -[20}, [21]. Psyche, literature in, 337, 343. Pterostichus sayi vs. Aletia, 95. Pumpkin, vernacular name of Cucurbita pepo, 363. Pumps, 262-283. air, 249-251. appurtenances to, 283. aquaject, Rumsey’s, 270. aquapult, Douglas’, 269-270. Johnson’s, 269-270. Prouty’s, 269-270. aquarius, Douglas’, 270. barrel and tank, 274-283. appurtenances to, 283. Ball’s, 276. barrow kinds of, 279. best acting, 279, 282/283. [141] Pumps, barrel and tank— Blunt’s, 279. Batman’s, 276. Champion Co.’s, 280. Chipley’s, 278, cistern style of, 278-279. counter style of, 279. discharging above, 278-283. below, 274-278. double-acting, 279-283. Evenden’s, 277. Helmecke’s. 277. index style of, 279. Melchevr’s, 274. pena style of, 279. Pinter’s, 278. Polansky’s, 276. Ramsden’s, 281. reduction cylindered, 281-282. Ruhmann’s, 275. satisfactory style of, 282-283. Schier’s, 276. single-acting, 274-279. truck-kinds of, 279. Vogelsang’s, 275. W eith’s 278. well style of, 278-279. windmill style of, 279. Yeager’s, 277. * bilge, 300. bucket and knapsack, 271-274. Allen’s, 273. ; Amor’s, 274. Crandal’s, 273. Dix’s, 272. Douglas’ extinguisher, 273. extinguisher form of, 273. - Holland’s, 273. Hull’s, 274. Kaiser’s, 272. Korth’s, 272. Lane’s, 274. Lewis’, 271. Mallory’s, 272. McDonald’s, 273. Staunton’s extinguisher, 273. Stoner’s, 272. syringe form of, 270. water-pot form of, 273. Wisner’s, 274. excelsior, Deakin’s, 271. fire-extinguishing, 265, 273. for buckets, 271-274. elevating, 299, 300. knapsack cans, 264-265, 271-274. hydronette and fountain, 262-269. Deakin’s, 264. . improved form of, 264-265. kinds not in trade,268-269. Rumsey’s, 264, Servant’s, 263. use of, 265-268. W hitman’s, 263. hydropult, Vose’s, 271. oscillating, 262. reciprocating, 262-283. rotary, 261-262. suction, 299. ar ioe. Paratenetus, feeding on cotton bolls, 121}. punctipes, Euschistus. (See Euschistus punctipes.) punctulata, Cicindela, food-habits of, [107]. Puncturing of fruit by moths, 11. Pupa of A. xylina, description of, 374, [98], [100]. Platyhypena scabra, description of, [104]. Pupation of A. xylina, 8. Phoberia atomaris, [104]. Platyhypena scabra, [104]. Pyréthre du Caucase. Pyrethrum, 164. active principles in, 169. advantages and disadvantages of, as an in- secticide, 168. alcoholic extract of, 174. by distillation, 175. repercolation, 176. application of, as dry powder, 170. applied in fumes, 174. (See Pyrethrum willemoti.) [142] Pyrethum— : applied in water solution, 177. as a disinfectant, [113]. remedy for A. zylina, 38. Heliothis armigera, 381. cineraricefoliwm, 164, 165,166, 180. cultivation of, at Washington, 166. in California, 166. the United States, 166. distribution of seed of, 180. effect of, upon various insects, 179. Aletia, 169. man, [113}. quadrupeds, Bat experiments with, [14], [21]-[23]. extent of production of, in California, [113]. history of, 164. mode of cultivation of, 165. powder, amount required for the worms, 174. experiments with, [31]. minimum quantities of, 171, 172. mixed with flour, 172. price of, 174. preparation of the plants for use, 167. price of, [113]. roseum, 164, 165, 166, 180. synonymy ef, [113]. : tea or decoction of, 178. willemoti, probable synonym of P. rosewm, [113]. Pyrrharctia isabella, brush-sacs of moth of, [105]. quadrilineatus, Xysticus, vs. Aletia, {106]. quadripunctata, Theridula, vs. Aletia, [106]. Quail, vernacular name of Ortyx virginianus, 376. vs. Aletia, 88. Quantity of poisons required, [115]. Quatrtzites, 79, 80. : Quartzose soils, 66. Quassia, decoctions of, remedy for A. xylina, 36. tea, 187. Quercus catesbei, 67. cinerea, 67. muhlenbergrt, 66. nigra, 66. prinus, 66. stellata, 66. tinctoria, 66. ““R.’’, literature by, 339. Raccoon vs. Aletia, 87. Rag Weed, 184. vernacular name of Ambrosia, [20]. Rain, connection of, with ravages of ‘A. xylina, 29, 30. Crow vs. Aletia, 88. Rainfall of Cotton States, 59-61. Rains, destruction of ants by, 85. influence of, on A. xylina, 43, 83-85. Ramsden’s pump, 281. Ramsey’s horseback sprinkler, 301. Raphigaster hilaris vs. Aletia, 97. Rapidity of working of spraying machinery, [115]. rapidus, Calocoris. (See Calocoris rapidus.) Ravages of A.xylina in Cuba, 42. Raymond’s jawed-slot nozzle, 203. Read (J. E.), literature by, 339. Reciprocating blowers, pistoned, 249-251. compression squirters, pneumatic, 258-261. pumps, 262-283. squirters, solid pressure,:262-283. Red bug (see Dysdercus suturellus). cedar, 75, 76. clay, 69, 71, 75. lead as an insecticide, 154. lime lands, 65, 69, 71. loam lands, 69, 70, 71, 72, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80. region, 65, 69, 75-77. oak, 68, 72, 76, 77, 78, 79. pepper, vernacular name of Capsicum an- nuum, 362. ; sandstones, 75. shales, 75. spider, injury to cotton by, [5]. Reduction cylindrical pumps, 281-282. Redwing Blackbird vs. Aletia, 88. Reed (E. B.), literature by, 333. Reese (W. P.), literature by, 339. regalis, Citheronia, larva parasited by Belvoisia bifasciata, [110]. INDEX. Regions of forest growth, 66-67. Remedies, ehapter on, 128. for A. xylina, 41. history of, 34-38, inquines for, [119]. mares P.), on, [119]- Repipta taurus vs. Aletia, 97. Reseda tuteola, food-plant of Heliothis armigera, - 363. Resedacew, food-plants of Heliothis armigera, 363. — Reverberatory nozzles, 247. rhexice, Chloridea. (See Chloridea rhexie.) ribesia, Urena, eggs found on, [103]. Rice bird vs. Aletia, 88. Ridgway (R.), list of birds of Southern States by, reference to, [166]. Rigel’s vent trap, 315. Riley (C. V.), Seaton of Tachina aletie by, : 109]. extracts from addresses by, { 1051, [113], {119]-[120]. literature by, 325, 326, 328, 329, 331, 337-343, 384, [101]-[104], [109]. on ate of pyrethrum on man, 113}. Heliothis armigera eating Phy- salis, 362. eating Pisum sativum, 362. identity of Boll Worm and Corn Worm, 359. parasitism of Heliothis armigera by Tachina anonyma, 377. remedies for A. xylina, 36, 37. vse ee armigera, 378 use of Paris green for Aletia, [119]-[120]. paper read before National Acad- emy of Science, 16. quoted, 352, 360. rimosalis, Pionea. (See Pionea rimosalis.) Rise and fall in abundance of injurious insects, 26. River-swamp formation, 65. Roaches, effect of pyrethrum on, [15]. Road dust as a diluent of pyrethrum powder, 173. an insecticide, 154. effect of, on Aletia xylina, [28]. substitute for diluents, 140. Roane (James), acknowledgments to, xx, xxxi. on experience with London purple in Alabama, 150. preparing vegetable extracts, 183. Roberts (J.), quoted, [6]. Roberts (T. J.), observations by, [7]. Robertson (W. H.), quoted, | 6]. ; Rebinia, food-plant of Platyhypena scabra, [104]. Robinson’s sitting machine, 305. sprinkling machine, 299. Rocky Mountain Locust. (See Caloptenus spretus.) Root-rot, synonym of cotton blight, [25]. rosaceana, Cacecia, parasited by Chalcis ovata, [111]. -Rose Mallow, vernacular name of Hibiscus grand- tflora, 363. nozzle combinations, 196. Barry’s, 196. Prentice’s, 196. nozzles, 191-196. divided, 195. Barrow’s, 195, clutch-headed, 195. Foss’, 195. Fox’s, 195. peripheral, divided, 196. Melcher’s, 196. Ruhmann’s, 196. Yeager’s, 196. T-shaped, 194. improvements in, 194. Warner’s, 194. Yeager’s, 194. roseum, Pyrethrum. (See Pyrethrum roseumn.) Rotary blowers, force blast, 235, 257. of fluids, 232-235. Darnell’s, 233-234. new style, 232-233. Perl’s fumigating, 234. : 1 - : INDEX. Rotary blowers of poison, 226-235. powder, 227-232. A-framed, 230. Hurd’s, 231-232. velocity in, 231. pneumatic compression squirters, 257. pumps, 261-262. solid compression squirters, 261-262. throwers of poison, 221-226. Rotation of crops asa remedy for A. xylina, 35. Heliothis armi- gera, 377. Rotten limestone, 69, 73, 74. rotundifolia, Malva, localities for, [103]. Royall (William B.), patent on Paris green mixt- ure, 146. Ruggle’s knapsack sprinkler, 302. Rulmann’'s barrel pump, 275. deflector nozzle, 210. jawed-slot nozzle, 203. nozzles, 196, 203, 210, 275, 276. peripheral divided rose, 196. Rumex sp., 186. Rumsey’s air pump, 251. aquajet, 270. hydronette pump, 264. Rural Alabamian, literature in, 339, 342. Carolinian, literature in, 325, 330, 332, 334, 338, 339, 342. New- Yorker, literature in, 344. Sun (Nashville, Tenn.), literature in, 338. World, literature in, 339. Rust, damage to cotton by, in Florida, [7]. rustica, Macrosila, feeding on cotton, [121]. Saccharomyces cerevisic, 189. Salivary glands oflarvaofA.zylina, anatomy of, 47. moth of A. xylina, anatomy of, 54. Salomilla, name of chrysalis of A. zylina, 41. Salt as an insecticide, 153. effect of, on Aletia xylina, [28]. Saltpeter as an insecticide, 153. effect of, on Aletiaxylina, [28]. Sambucus canadensis, experiments with, [21]. Samia cecropia parasited by Cryptus nuncius, 114. samic, Cryptus, synonymy of, [111]. Sanderson (E.), literature by, 384. on identity of Boll Worm and Corn Worm, 359. remedies for Heliothis armigera, 380. : Sands, 63-74, 76, 77, 79, 80. Sandstone, 63, 77, 78-79. Sandy prairie region, 65, 79. Santo Domingo, occurrence of A. rylina in, 42. Sao Paulo, cultivation of cotton in, 44. history of A. xytina in, 44. occurrence of A. xylina in, 39. Sarcophaga nee specific distinctness of, characters of species of, [109]. larva of, compared with larva of Tachinid, [109.] puparium of, compared with pupa- rium of Tachinid, [109]-[111.] sarracenie, description of larva of, [110]. puparium of, [110]. parasitic on Caloptenus differentialis, [109]. parasitic on Caloptenus spretus, [109]. ‘specific characters of, [109 distinctness of, 109]. a vs. Aletia, et 107. sarracenice, Sarcophaga. (See Sarcophoga sarra- cenve. ) Sassafras, 186, Officinale, 186. Saunders (William), literature by, 353. made of applying kerosene, on Ox-eye Daisy as an insecti- cide, 180. - Savannah Republican, literature in, 342. Savannas, 65, 67, 68, 69. | [143] Say (Thomas), A. xylina first described by, 1. literature by, 322,331,341, |111]. scabra, Platyhypena. (See Platyhypena scabra.) scabralis, Hypena, moth of, confounded with that of Aletia xylina, 18-19. Seales of moth of A. zylina, anatomy of, 51-52. Scarlet oak, 76. Scent-organs,.anatomy of, in Lepidoptera, 56. Schanck’s sprinkling machine, 298. Schier’s barrel pump, 276 deflector nozzle, slot nozzle, 205. Schneider (R.), cited, 52. Schwarz (FE. A.), acknowledgments to, xx, xxxi. cited, 18. experiments carried on by, 134, 144, 153, 154, 155, 158, 162, 172, 176, eke. on road dust, 125. with decoctions,125. literature by, 341, [104]. on Heliothis armigera eating Aletia xylina, 369. on Heliothis armigera eating Datura stramonium, 362. on Heliothis armigera eating Ipomeea commutata, 363. on remedies for Heliothis armi- gera, 379. travels of, in 1878 and 1879, [106]. Science News, literature in, 328, 339. Record, literature in, 331. Scientific American, literature in, 328, 334, 339, 340, ale 210, 211, 276. names of A. zylina, 1. Scolopendride, effect of pyrethrum on, [15]. Scorching the leaves by arsenical poisons, 139, Scraping off insects, 310. Scymnus spp. vs. Aletia, 96. Seabrook (W.B.), cited, 34-35. literature by, 331, 341, 342. Seabrook (W. E.), literature by, 322, 323. Seasons, effect of latitude on, 13, [102]. of A. xylina, [87], [101]. Caloptemus spretus, [102]. Heliothis armigera, [37]. Leucania unipuncta, [102]. Sebaceous glands of moth of A. zylina, anatomy of, 51-58. Selenophorus lesus vs. Aletia, 95. Selma (Ala.) Times, literature in, 329, 339-343. Senometopia atfopivora, reference to description of larva of, [110]. : Sericoderus flavidus vs. Aletia, 97. Servant’s fountain pump, 263. Sexual differences of moth of A. xylina, 9. Shade, effect of, on Aletia xylina, [29]. ravages of Aletia xylina [12]. Shales, 79. Shedding of cotton caused by Heliothis armigera, 365. Shelby Guide, literature in, [106]. Shellbark hickory, 76. Shell prairies, 65, 69, 71. Short-leaf pine, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 74, 76-80. region, 67, 74. staple cotton most injured by Aletia xylina, 6]. Shrike, Lae vs. Aletia, 88. Sialia sialis vs. Heliothis armigera, 376. vs. Aletia, 88. Sida elliottii, localities for, [104]. glomerata, eggs found on, [103]. napeeda, localities for, [104]. spinosa, egg found on, [103). localities for, [104]. sieglinge, Solanwm, food-plant of Aspila virescens, 17 Sieves for hand use, 303-304. in poisoning, 302-309. Sifters, disadvantages of, 225. of poison, 302-309. Sifting-bags, 304. Siliceous soils, 65, 67, 68, 75, 76, 77-79. Siltv soils, 68, 69, 73. Silurian formation, 62, 75, 77. Sinea diadema vs. Aletia, 97. [144] Skid in poisoning machinery, 288. Skunk vs. Aletia, 87. Slot nozzles, 196-205. Fowler's, 201-202. Iske’s, 201-202. Mallory’s, 201-202. Melcher's, 205. Schier’s, 205. simple ones, 201. jawed, 208. ‘*The Boss nozzle,’’ 2038. Moffetts, 203. Perkins'’s, 203. Pinter’s, 203. Raymond’s, 2038. Rubhmann’s, 203. Smith’s, 203. Stanton’s, 203. William’s, 203. plug-slots in, 202. Allen’s, 202. Johnson’s, 202. ““The Niagara,’” 202. Pinter’s, 202. removable slots of Long, Vestal, Merigot, 203. Smartweed, 185. Smith (E. A.), acknowledgments to, xx, xxxi, XXXiv. experiment with pyrethrum ex- tract, 174. Smith (J. B.), revision of the Heliothine, quoted, 351 Smith’s jawed-slot nozzle, 203. sifting machine, 308. ) Smith-Vaniz (G. W.), on duration of larva stage of Heliothis arnugera, 369. seasons of Heliothis ar- migera, 373. Snails mistaken for eggs of A. xylina, 6. Snow-drop tree, 66. storm, larvae of A. zylina killed by, 23. Soap-suds, catching insects in, 315. in traps, 321. Soil, condition of, connected with first appearance of larva of A. xylina, 81-82. — ; Soils of Cotton States, 64-65. Solanacee, tood-plants of Heliothis armigera, 362. Solanum carolinense, 186. cornutum, 186. : steglinge, food-plant of Aspila virescens, i7 Soldier-heetles vs. Aletia, 96. ‘ bug, pia enemy of Heliothis armigera, [19]. Solenopsis geminata vs. Aletia, 90. azylont vs. Aletia, 90, 92, 93. Solid compression squirters, 261-2&3. bellows form of, 262. oscillating, 262. pump forms of, 262-283. reciprocating, 262-283. rotary form of, 261-262. Solidago, Aletia zylina imagos on flowers of, [20}. food-plant of Platyhypena scabra, 354. Sommer collection, condition of, [96]. worthlessness of labels in, [96]. Sorsby (B. A.), on identity of Boll Worm and Corn Worm, 359. remedies for Heliothis armi- gera, 380. Sour gum, 76. wood, 66. South Carolina, history of A. wylina in, 23-29, 31- 33 occurrence of A. zylina in, 34-35. SoutLern Agriculturist, literature in, 322, 330, 331, 336, 341. Cultivator, literature in, 323, 325, 334, 336, 338, 342, 343, 344, 378. Farm and Home, literature in, 326, 336, 337. , Farmers’ Monthly, literature in, 333, 342, 343. Herald (Liberty, Miss.), literature in, 333. Planter, literature in, 338, 382. spretus, Caloptenus. | Staple’s pump, 263. INDEX. Southern siete Almanac for 1851, literature in, Ruralist, literature in, 330. Sparrows vs. Aletia, 88. Spalding (Thomas), cited, 23. ; literature by, 322, 336, 342. Spanish oak, 72, 76, 79. Spearmint, 186. : spherula, Theridula, food-kabits of, [106]-[107]. vs. Aletia, ice). : Sphex cerulea vs. Aletia, 94. pennsylvanica vs. Aletia, 94 Sphing catalpe, effect of pyrethrum on, [32]. convoluuli parasited by Phora, 117. spicatum, Malvastrum, eggs found on, [103]. Spiders, effect of pyrcthrum on, [15]. not affecied by pyrethrum, 179. ; of cotton plant, report on, [106]-|107]. vs. Aletia, 89. mired. vs. Heliothis armigera, 376, [19]. Spilosoma acrea, leaves blotched by larva of, [100]. Spined Soldier-bug, vernacular name of Podisus Spinosus, 376. Spines of moth of A. zylina, anatomy of, 51, 53. spinosa, Sida, egg found on, [103]. ; localities for, [104]. spinosus, Podisus. (See Podisus spinosus.) Spiracles of moth of A. zylina, anatomy of, 51. Tachivid puparium, anatomy of, [110]. Spizella spp. vs. Aletia, 88. Sponge, benzined, in trays, 311. chloroformed, in traps, 320. Spray-blasts, 243-249. forks, 229. nozzles, 191-221. pipes, 219. pumps. (See Pumps.) - wheels, 221. Spraying machinery, construction of, [114]-[119]. Beas with, ([114]- 119]. rate of working of, [115]. poison, 191-302. Sprays, forked, 229. ; (See Caloptenus spretus.) Spruce pine, 67. Squash, food-plant of Heliothis armigera, 363. Squirters, pneumatic compression, 253-261. i Daughtrey’s, 258-261. e generative, 253-257. oscillating, 257. reciprocating, 258-261. rotary, 257. Worswick Co.’s, 258. solid compression, 261-283. bellows form of, 262. oscillating, 262. pump form of, 262-283. reciprocating, 262-283. rotary form of, 261-262. Stalk-rust, synonym of cotton blight, [25]. Stanton’s fire extinguisher pump, 273. jawed-slot nozzle, 203. Statistical report quoted, 355, 356. ’ Statistics of losses caused by A. aylina, 2-4. Staudinger (O.), purchaser of Sommer collec- tion, [96]. Steinman’s generator vaporizer, 251. stellata, Hpevra, vs. Aletia, [106]. Quercus, 66. Stelle (J. P.), claims of, [105]. experiments carried out by, 153. literature by, 329, 333, 342, 343. on cause of ‘‘ Boll rot,” 367, 368. effect of shade on Aletia, 124. remedies for Heliothis armigera, 381. A. xylina, 37, [119]- 120]. road dust, 125. use of Paris green for Aletia [119]-[120]. report of, [25]. work on the investigation, xxxi. Stenopoda cinerea vs. Aletia, 97. Stephen’s light trap, 316, INDEX. Stifling of insects, 310-314. Stigmata of larva of A. zylina, anatomy of, 46-47. Stiretrus jimbriatus vs. Aletia, 98. Stirrer pump, construction of, [115]-[116]. Stomach of larva of A. zylina, anatomy of, 47. histology of, 48. moth of A. zylina, anatomy of, 55. Stoner’s bucket pump, 272. Stowe (Mrs. H. B.), cited, 25-26. Strainer of poison, 288. rose-nozzle, Fox’s, 195. Strainers, use of, [116]-[117]. Straining poison mixtures, 192. eros) (R. H.),on brush-sacs of Leucarctia aerea, 105). eeepc, vernacular name of Phaseolus vulga- ris, 362. Strychnine, experiments with, [20]. Subcarbeniferous formation, 75, 76, 77, 79. Sudden appearance of moth of A. zylina dis- cussed, 20. Sullivan, Miss L., drawings by, acknowledged, xx. Sulphur as an insecticide, 154. remedy for A. zylina, 34. emary of evidence on hibernation of A. zylina, Summer squash, vernacular name of Cucurbita verrucosa, 363. suturellus, Dysdercus. (See Dysdercus suturellus.) Swallows, natural enemies of Heliothis armigera, {19]. Swamp chestnut oak, 68, 73. Sweep-plow, remedy for A. zylina, 36. Sweeping destroyers of insects, 310. Ewing’s, 314. Helm’s, 312. Iskes’, 314. Wood-Smith’s, 311. Sweet-gum, 68, 71, 74, 76. ; leaf Buinelia, 67. Swine feeding on A. zylina, [106]. Swinton (A. H.), cited, 50. sylvestris, Malva, localities for, [103]. pr lee lege AO A. zylina, 2. iacus, Hibiscus, localities for, [104]. yringe, can-cylindered, 274. extingnisher, 265. z Johnson's, 270. epee, Lewis’, 271. Table lands, 65, 66, 69, 72-73, 78. _ Tachina, a parasite of Aletia xylina, [19], [20]. Heliothis armigera, |19}. . aletie, description of imago of, [109]. parasite of Aletia xylina, 377. Helhothis armigera,377. vs. Aletia, 101, 109. 5 ae parasite of Heliothis armigera, aaa figure of larva of, compared, 110}. Jlavicauda figured, 109. flies vs. Aletia, 109. Sraterna, description of imago of, [109]. vs. Aletia, 101, 109. sp., parasitic on Mantis, 100. villica, reference to description of larva and pupa of, [110]. : Tachinid fly eaten by Oxyopes viridans, [107]. parasitic on Aletia rylina, [16]. ¥ Heliothis armigera, [16]. larva compared with larva of Sarcoph- aga, [109]. description of, [109]. puparium compared with puparium of Sarcophaga, |109}-[111]. description of, [109]-[111]. a in normal form of, 110}. : teda, Pinus, 66, 67. Tanacetum vulgare, 186. Tansy, 186. Tar-catching of insects, 311-314, 315, 321. Tassel Worm, vernacular name of Heliothis armi- gera, 558. Taylor (F. G. H.), literature by, 343. Taylor’s sifting machine, 306. sprinkling machine, 298. Telephoridz vs. Aletia, 96. [145] Temperature of Cotton States, 61-62. Tennessee, history of A. sylina in, 25, 29, 33. Term of existence of chrysalis of A. zylina, 9. larva of A. xylina, 7. Terminal body segments of moth of A. zylina, ex- ternal anatomy of,'56-58. Terrestrial and meteorological influences affect- ing the worm, 81-86. Termites, effect of pyrethrum on, [15]. Tertiary formations, 63, 64, 71. Testes of larva of A. zylina, anatomy of, 57. moth of A. zylina, anatomy of, 57. Tetracha carolina vs. Aletia, 95. virginica vs. Aletia, 95. Tetragnatha extensa vs. Aletia, 89, [106]. R laboriosa vs. Aletia, [106]. Tetrastichus esurus, description of imago of, [111]. synonymy of, (ip vs. Aletia, 115. Teutana triangulosa vs. Aletia, [106]. texannd, Anomis. (See Anomis texana.) Texas Cotton Worm destroyer, remedy for A. aylina, 38, 148. history of A. xylina in, 24-34. Texas Journal of Commerce, literature in, 343. Thaxter (R.), literature by, 343. Theories on hibernation of A. zylina, 16. Theory of annual introduction of Aletia zxyling from other countries, 19-21. Eeriodicys recurrence of A. zylina, 25, Theridioide vs. Aletia, [106]. Theridula quadripunctata vs. Aletia, [106]. spherula, food-habits of, [106]-[107]. vs. Aletia, 89, [106]. Thomisoida vs. Aletia, [106]. cay ar of moth of A. zylina, external anatomy of, Throwers, centrifugal, 221, 226. Thrush vs. Aletia, 88. Thyanta custator vs. Aletia, 98. thyoides, Juniperus, 67. Thyridopteryz ephemereformis parasited oe ste C18 o : parasited by Pium- on conquisitor, Ti-ti, 67. : Tiger-beetle vs. Heliothis armigera, [19]. Tiger-beetles feeding on Aletia, 95. vernacular name of Cicindelide, 376. Time from generation to generation of A. zylina, 11-12. of oviposition of A. zylina, 10. when first worms of A. zylina appear, 12-13. tinetoria, Quercus, 66. Tinea granella, synonymy of, [121]. Ps parasited by Phora, 117. Tineid feeding on cotton bolls, [121]. Tobacco, 184. food-plant of Heliothis armigera, 362. Tomato, food-plant of Heliothis armigera, 355, 361. 17 Plusia brassiere, 369. Fruit Worm, vernacular name of Heliothis armigera, 358. tomentosa, Carya, 66, 67. Toombs (Robert), cited, 42. Topography of the Cotton States, 63-64. Topping cotton, remedy for A. zylina, 35. Heliothis armigera,377. Townsend’s knapsack sprinkler, 302. Transactions of Academy of Science, Saint Louis, literature in, 341, [108], [110]. Agricultural Society State New York, literature in, 341. American Entomological Society, literature in, 351, [111]. Transformations of Heliothis armigera, 364. Trap lanterns as remedies for A. zylina, 36. Heliothis armigera, 379. Traps, baited, Binkley’s, 321. Garrett's, 317, 320. * Heard’s, 317. net form of, 318. elie 320. Stith’s, 319. . [146] Traps, baited, catching moths by, 314-321. with baits, 317-321. with lights, 314. illuminated, Binkley’s, 321. Cranston’s, 316. Dudley’s, 316. Duke's, 316. Fordtran’s, 316. Garrett's, 320. Le Blano’s, 316. Lewis's, 315. McQueen’s, 315. net form of, 318. Pitman’s, 316. Pugh’s, 320. Rigel’s, 315. simple form of, 315. Stephen’s, 316. Stith’s, 319. with light and bait, 317. ‘Tray-catching of insects, 310, 314. . Treat (Mary), on Heliothis armigera eating Gladi- \ olus, 363. Heliothis armigera eating Pisum sativum, 362. quoted, 359. Tree Frogs vs. Aletia, 89. of Paradise, vernacular name of Ailanthus, 20]. Trees, Creat of, on Aletia xylina, [29]. Trelease (William), experiments by, quoted, 163. literature by, 329, 331, 343, [101]. on destruction of Heliothis ar- migera by ants, 376. Heliothis armigera eating Ale- tia xylina, 368. ~ Heliothis armigera eating Pi- . sum sativum, 362. parasitism of Heliothis armi- gera by Tachina aletie, 377. Trenton formation, 75. Triassic formation, 75, 77. triangulata, Oallirrhoé, localities for, [103]. triangulosa, Teutana, vs. Aletia, [106]. Trichogramma egg-parasite, vernacular name of richogramma pretiosa, 377. arene compared with 7. pretiosa, 107]. pretiosa,description of imago of, destruction of Aletia eylina parasite of Aletia xylina, 377, (16]. parasite of Heliothis armi- gera, 377, [16]. ‘ vs. Aletia, 101, 102, 103. Trinidad, occurrence of A. zylina in, 42. trionum, Hibiscus, localities for [104]. Triphleps insidiosus vs. Aletia, 97, 98. spp. vs. eggs of Aletia, 94. Tripod automatic sprinkler, 297-298. Trochantines of moth of A. zylina, anatomy of, 49, 50. aera Tropical Agriculturist, literature in, 338. Trowbridge (S. J.), letter from, 40-41. literature by, 342, 343. Truck pumps in poisoning, 279. Tulip tree, 73. Turkey oak, 67. Turkeys, remedy for A. rylina, 34, 35. * vs. Aletia, 88. vs. Heliothis armigera, 375. furner (J. A.), literature by, 325, 330, 343. Cotton Planter’s Manual, litera- ture in, 332, 382. Tylér's pump, 263. Tympanum of moth of A. zylina, anatomy of, 50. typhaleoides, Pavonia, eggs found on, [103]. Tyrannus carolinensis vs. Aletia, &8. vs. Heliothis armigera, 375. verticalis vs. Aletia xylina, [29]. umbrosus, Heliothis. (See Heliothis umbrosus.) unipuncta, Leucania. (See Leucania unipuncta.) Underspraying, improvements in adjustments for, ‘h Cid} 119]. theory, Daughtrey’s, 258-261. INDEX. _ ae . United States Commissioner of Agriculture, An. Sih ; nual Reports, literature in, i 334, 386, 387, 339,302, 382, 383,[109]. Circular by, 37-38. Commissioner of Patents, Annual — Reports, Agriculture, literature 7 in, 333, 359, 363, 380, 382, 388, [113). Department of Agriculture, ress of Hon. George B. Loring, etc., literature in, 329, 341. Annual Reports, literature in, Bureau of Entomology, Bulletin — 5, literature in, [108]. oe circular of inquiry about Paris green, 326. . Division of Entomolo 3, literature in, {113]-[119]. examination of malvaceous plants in herbarium of, [103]. Monthly Reports, literature in, 332-335, 338, 383. Report upon Cotton Insects, lit- erature in, 335-337, 341, 343, 344, 362, 363, 382, [101]. : Bulletin | Special Report No. 8, literature in, 332. Entomological Commission, First matte Report, literature in, Bulletin No. 3, literature in, 332. 4 Circular No. 11, literature in, 337, 343. notice of, 337, 343. . Geological and Geographical Sur. vey of the Territories, reports, literature in, 384. : history of A. aylina in, 23-34. Upland oaks, 67, 69, 71, 79, 80. Upper pine region, 67. prairie region, 65, 73-75. Upton (W. S.), literature by, 343. Ure (Andrew), cited, 43. literature by, 322, 331, 343. Urena lobata account of, [102]-| 102); pa food-plant of larva of Anomis erosa, 346, [102]. ribesia, eggs found on, [103]. Urticacee, food-plants of Heliothis armigera, 363. Vaccinium, 67. Vagina of moth of A. zylina, anatomy of, 58. tome deferentia of moth of A. zylina, anatomy of, : insecticides, 164, 181. experimenting with, 182. list of plants experimented with, 184. modes of effect of, 183. j poisons, experiments with, [32]. preparations, effect of, on insects, [21]- 23 Vegetable preparation of, [20]. Venezuela, direction of winds in, 43. history of A. vylina in, 43. insects injuring cotton in, 42-43. occurrence of A. zylina in, 42-43. cultivation of cotton in, 40. direction of winds in, 41. occurrence of A. zylina in, 40-41. Verbascum thapsus, 185. iy Verbena aubletia fed on by moth of A. zylina, 10. Vernonia noveboracensis, 186. ° Verschlussband, anterior lip of stigma, 46. Verschlussbiigel, posterior lip of stigma, 46. Vertebrate enemies of Aletia, 87. Vespa carolina vs. Aletia, 94. germanica vs. Aletia, 94. Vestal’s removable-slot nozzle, 203. Vicksburg Herald, literature in, 339. ves food-plant of Heliothis armigera, 363. ; villica, Tachina, reference to description of larva and pupa of, ,110]. Vinegar, experiments with, [20]. in baits, 317, 320. virescens, Aspila. (See Aspila virescens.) Virginia, history of A. zylina in, 29. virginica, Kosteletzkya, localities for, [104]. viridans, Oxyopes. (See Oxyopes viridans.) Vera Cruz, INDEX. Vogelsang’s barrel pump, 275. nozzles, 275. Vose’s hydropult, 271. yam in poisonin g, 265-268. Wailes (B. C. L.), cited, 34, 35. literature by 824, 343. Waldo (J. C.), literature by, 343. Wallace's blast sprayer, 249. Walnut, 75. Walsh (B. D.), literature by, 325, 343, 344; 384, [111]. Washington World, literature in, 339. Wasps, effect of pyrethrum on, [15]. influence of wet weather on, [105]. vs. Aletia, 89, 94, Water oak, 68, 71, 73. Watering-pot pumps, 273. pots, 300, 302. Wax, in baits, 320. Weather, influence of, on A. zylina, 83-86. . Heliothis armigera, [19]. ravages of A. zylina, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 34-35, 44. Weber's colliding-jet nozzle, 194. Weed (C. M.), on brush-sacs of moths, [105]. Weindel’'s air pump, 258. Weir (J. J.), literature by, 382. : on es of Heliothis armigera, Weith’s pump, 278. Well pumps in poisoning, 278-279. Wells (—), literature by, 344. West Indies, decrease of cotton culture in, 21. Westwood (J. O.), literature by, [110]. Wet application of arsenical poisons, 142. effect of, on blossoms, [112]. weather, influenceof, on A.zylina, 83-85,[105]. BAN as arta of A. gylina, 67a 1 Wetherby (A. G.), literature by, Wharton (J. O.), mentioned, 36. on remedies for Aletia, [119]. Wheel bug, ee cule name of Prionotus cristatus, 76 vs. Heliothis armigera, [19]. Whisps in poisoning, 226. Whistle-jet nozzles, 215, 216, 245. White-bordered Euphorbia, 186. cedar, 67.. oak, 66, 71, 76-79. rags, remedy for A. xylina, 35, 135. Whitman’s fountain pump, 263. Wild cherry, 76. turkey vs. Aletia. 88. Willemot (C.), literature by, [113]. willemoti, Pyrethrum, probably synonym of P. roseum, [113]. Willet (J. E.), acknowledgments to, xx, xxxi. cited, 17, 44. literature by, 344. on cannibalism of Heliothis armi- gera, 368. food-habits of A. xylina, [100]. Heliothis armt- gera, 362. i) (1471 Williams (W.H.), literature by, 344. Williams’ jawed-slot nozzle, 203. Willie’s horseback sprinkler, 300. sifting machine, 307. Willow oak, 08, 71, 73. Wilter (D.), on Heliothis armigera eating gera nium, 363. Windmill om sin poisoning, 279. Winfree, ( iterature by, 323, 344. on larvaof A. xylina eating ‘‘salve- . bush,” [100]. Winds, direction of, in Manzanillo, 40. ‘Martinique, 42. Mazatlan, 39. Merida, 41. Venezuela, 43. Vera Cruz, 41. influence of, on A. zylina, 85-86. of Cotton States, 59. Winter occurrence of moth of A. zylina, 2L Wisconsin, occurrence of A. xylina in, [102]. Wisewell’s brushing poisoner, 225-226. Wisner’s can-cylindered syringe, 274. Witting (G.), literature by, 344. Wolfram's nozzles, 287. spraying machine, 286. Wood ashes as diluent of arsenical poisons, substitute for flour, 140, 178. Wood-Smith insect sweeper, 313. Woodason’s bellows, 242. Worms, mechanical means of killing, 185. Worswick Co.’s compression devices, 258, Xanthium strumarium, 184. zylina, Aletia. (See Aletia zylina.) Anomis. (See Anomis gylina.) Noctuw. (See Noctua zylina.) Ophiusa (3), synonym of Aletia zylina, 3. Xysticus al onl vs. Aletia, 89, [166]. Yeager’s barrel pump, 277. peripheral divided rose, 196. Yeast, experiments with, [16]. ferment, as an itnoata arith, (2) 21], (31) experiments with, 5 fungus, cepeaens on, spoiled fae para- sites, 87. Yellow fever, prevalence of, 31. loam lands, 70, 76, 77, 78. region, 72. oak, 76. pine, 78, 79. 2 Youmans (E. L.), literature by, 344. Young’s sifting machine, 307. Zanthoxylum carolinianum, 185. Zayas Enriques (R. de), letter from, 41. literature by, 842, 848. zea, Phalena. (See Phalena zea.) Zeus bilobus vs. Aletia, 97. ‘* Zenos,”’ literature by, 344. zigzag, Hexaplasta, description of imago of, [111]- [ 5 Zimmerman (J. H.), literature by, 344, 384. on identity of Boll Werm and Corn Worm, 359. 149. L a5 Ya ‘till 5a pdr hh ae 3 Dela as . ’ vase ee * . i. el) a Sy a car as ae a