180 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



LOSSES CAUSED BY DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS. 



In the May number of The Cetitury, Vol. L., No. i, p. 89, 1895, 

 there is recorded an item of interest to economic entomologists that is 

 liable to be overlooked and lost, although it deserves a better fate. In 

 an article by Mr. William E. Smythe, on " The Conquest of Arid 

 America," there is given a carefully-compiled table of all of the expenditures 

 of " the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," in Utah, the figures 

 being furnished, at the author's request, by Mr. A. Milton Musser, 

 Church historian, and by him submitted to the inspection of the Presi- 

 dents and Bishops of the Church, prior to publication. The figures cover 

 a period of forty years, and the estimates are stated to be " as fair as they 

 can be given." The one to which the attention of entomologists is here 

 directed reads as follows : — 



"Loss sustained by crickets, locusts and grasshoppers, $2,500,000." 



It is interesting to compare this amount with other items. For in- 

 stance, the loss by fire during the same period was but $800,000 ; build- 

 ing of churches and schools, $4,000,000, or less than double the loss by 

 insect depredations ; the cost of local telegraph and railroad lines, 

 $3,000,000 ; cost of immigration and sustaining the poor, $8,000,000 ; 

 taxes, $8,000,000. 



As the estimates cover the first 40 years of the existence of the 

 settlement, the figures are of especial value to us, as this is the period 

 during which it is always the most difficult to obtain information. 



F. M. Webster, Wooster, Ohio. 



NOTE AS TO CRITICISMS OF A PAPER PUBLISHED BY MR. A. G. BUTLER, 



ON "the natural AFFINITIES OF THE LEPIDOPTERA REFERRED 



TO THE GENUS ACRONYCTA," IN THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE 



NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. 



Mr. Harrison G. Dyar says (p. 57), in his references to a paper by Mr, 

 A. G. Butler, on "The Natural Affinities of the Lepidoptera referred to 

 the Genus Acronyda" that he has " not seen any refutation of Mr. 

 Butler's arguments, etc.," and comes to the conclusion that " Mr. Butler's 

 position appears to have been ill-founded." If Mr. Dyar refers to The 

 Entomologists' Record, Vol. I., pp. 269-271; Vol. II., p. 82; Vol. II., 

 pp. 104-106; Vol. II., p. 150; British JSfoduce and Their Varieties., 

 Vol. IV., p. xxiii., he will find that Mr. Butler's paper has been very 

 severely criticised by various entomologists, quite sufficiently, I have no 

 doubt, to have deterred any one in touch with entomological work in 

 Europe from "adopting his conclusions." 



J. W. TuTT, Westcombe Hill, London, S. E. 



