ON THE KEPLANTING OF WOODLANDS. 223 



but unless failures are known, anyone may unwittingly eoinmit 

 i\w. saruc mistake. Hence I consiikir that (me's failures, if plainly 

 and truLlifully told — especially when they have adopted means 

 highly recommended by others — may be more useful than should 

 tliey have simply to concur with these authijrs. 



Q. 1. Some autliors have recorded tliat tlieir experi(>nce of the 

 beetle's ra^ ages are entirely conlined to ground recently 

 cleared of a coniferous crop, and believe such are propa- 

 gated in the wasting l)ranches on the ground. Do you not 

 concur in these statements ? — A. No, not entirely ; seeing 

 1 have known plants destroyed by this insect on ground 

 which had formerly been cleared at various periods from 

 six montlis up to twenty years, and also on ground isolated 

 from where any coniferous crop had grown by at least 

 150 yards, and this though the branches of the last crop 

 had been all carefully gathered up and burned. 

 Q. 2. Then to what do you ascribe their propagation if not to 

 the wasting branches left lying on the ground ? — A. I 

 ascribe their pr()])agation to tlie fact that, though after 

 each periodical thinning the brandies were carefully 

 gatliered and burned, yet, should trees die and be left 

 standing in plantations for any length of time, or should 

 coarse valueless pieces of timber be left lying on the 

 ground, old gate or other large posts be allowed to 

 waste near a plantation, and in stocks made by such 

 thinnings, — this insect would increase to a larger extent 

 than it otherwise would do were dead trees immediately 

 cut down, and those and all other wasting pieces of 

 timber cleared off the ground, and the stocks covered 

 witli G inches of soil. 

 Q. 3. Tlien to your mind, at least, it is (|uite evident that 

 wasting branches, if of a less diameter than 6 inches, are 

 not what many believe to be the only nursery i'or this 

 forestal enemy ? — A. However phenomenal it may appear, 

 to my mind it is perfectly clear. 

 Q. 4. Tliose autliors must have had some reason for forming 

 this opinion ere they would state such a thing ? — A. They 

 may have taken the larva of some other insect for this 

 one, and consequently arrived at this conclusion, though 

 I cannot hold it as a sound one ; ov it may have been 

 the case that one author made the mistake in judgment, 

 and others having believed it, continued the spread of 

 this belief. 

 Q. 5. What (ih'ect would the covering of the stocks with soil 

 have upon the propagation of the insect? — A. I have often 

 seen stocks incidentally covered with soil or turf hy 

 dragging, or by way of clearing out drains ; and when I 



