STATE AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY. 35] 



PEAR. TRUNK, 



But I now come to present a fact which I think will be more 

 satisfactory to the reader as to the place and circumstances in 

 which this insect passes the winter, than anything which has yet 

 been given to the public. In April, 1856, I received from L. B. 

 Laiigworthy of Rochester, a portion of the limb of a pear tree, 

 four and a half inches long and less than half an inch thick, upon 

 which were about thirty short curved or crescent-shaped incisions 

 in the bark, similar to those made by the curculio upon fruit. 

 They were all cut lengthwise of the bark, about 0.15 in length, 

 and upon their convex side the outer layer of the bark was ele- 

 vated in a little blister-like spot extending the whole length of the 

 crescent and about half as broad as long. On raising this, so as 

 to expose the cavity beneath, several little worms, commonly six 

 in number, were found therein, torpid and lying in a row side by 

 side with their tails toward the crescent and their moutlis in con- 

 tact with the soft green pulp or parenchyma forming the middle 

 layer of the bark, ready to eat their way onwards as soon as the 

 warmth of spring awakened them again to activity. These worms 

 were rather long and narrow, 0.05 in length, broadest across their 

 middle, tapering to a point at one end, the opposite or head end 

 being rounded. They were without feet, transparent and pale 

 yellowish, resembling little specks of gum or turpentine. The}' 

 had evidently come from eggs which had been dropped in the 

 curved incision. A few of these incisions had no elevation of tlie 

 bark, ahjng their side, in which instances the weevil had doubtless 

 been disturbed and abandoned her work before it was completed, 

 or the eggs which she deposited in the incision had been dis- 

 covered and devoured by some predaceous insect. 



Altliough until these worms have been reared we cannot be 

 certain what they are, there is the strongest presumptive evidence 

 tliat they are the progeny of the plum weevil. Fifty years ago*, 

 one (jf the best authorities in our country upon a topic of this 

 kind. Rev. F. V. Melsheimer of Pennsylvania, stated that the 

 larva of this insect lived under the bark of the i)each tree. But 

 from that day to this, no one of the many who have undertaken 

 to investigate this insect, have given any conlirmatlon of this state- 

 ment. Yet in the light of wliat is reported above, we cannot but 

 **egard it as true. We are informed by Kollar, that the plum 



