280 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST 



LOUISIANA RECORDS OF THE BINDWEED PROMINENT. 

 (SCHIZURA IPOMEyE DDY.) 



BY E. S. TUCKER, STATE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 



BATON ROUGE, LA. 



Three specimens of a prominent caterpillar were collected on 

 rose leaves, at the home of theVriter in Baton Rouge, La., October 

 4, 1913. On being confined with the sprigs of the plant on which 

 they fed for a while, one soon pupated in an oval cocoon cohered 

 with fragments of dried leaves. Another only succeeded in spinning 

 c similar cocoon, as it died inside of the latter without pupating. 

 The third failed entirely. Not until after a moth was found to have 

 emerged from the first cocoon, on January 28, 1914, the adult 

 then being somewhat rubbed but alive, could the species be posi- 

 tively identified. A critical study of the specimen led to the con- 

 clusion that it represented the bindweed prominent, Schizura 

 ipomecB Ddy. The larvae had agreed as closely with figures of same 

 stage of Schizura unicor7iis S. & A. as with that of the determined 

 name, according to Packard's monograph. 



Again at the same place on September 25, 1914, similar larvae 

 of medium size were taken while feeding on the rcse leaves. These 

 examples agreed more closely with Packard's figures of the bind- 

 weed prominent than with the unicorn prominent. They pupated 

 about 10 days later, each in the same kind of cocoon as mentioned 

 in the preceding case. 



Slight attacks by what appeared to be the same species of 

 caterpillar on pecan foliage came to the writer's attention while 

 inspecting nursery stock at Ferriday, Concordia Parish, La., on 

 September 16 of the latter year. Then under date of the 29th of 

 the same month, a correspondent at Newroads, Pionte Coupee 

 Parish, La., sent like specimens, complaining that the caterpillars 

 were eating the foliage of his young pecan trees. He added, how- 

 ever, that only a few of his trees which had been set out during 

 the preceding winter were attacked so far, and the insect seemed 

 to prefer the les,s vigorous growth. In asking information about 

 it, he desired to know if means of control would be necessary, and 

 if so, what treatment would be advisable. For reply, the opinion 

 was given that unless the insect became very numerous it could 



August, 1917 



