The Bulletin. 



39 



beans, peanuts, peas, alfalfa, rye, cane, potatoes (kind not specified), 

 and cotton. But the cotton fanner who reads this account should bear 

 in mind that this Fall Army-worm is not the same as the cotton cater- 

 pillar which stripped cotton throughout the Sate in 1911. 



Fig. 13. — Fall Army-worm, a, adult moth ; b, wing, showing vari- 

 ation in markings ; c, larva or "Fall Army-worm" ; d, part of 

 body of worm, from side ; e, pupa. 



il is twice natural size ; others one-fourth larger than natural size. 



(After Chittenden, Bur. Ent., U. S. Dept. Agr.) 



While the injury and complaint regarding Fall Army-worm was espe- 

 cially severe in 1912, it is interesting to know that the insect is really 

 common with us every year, though only occasionally do the caterpillars 

 appear in such destructive hordes. Thus, in 1906 we have undoubted 

 evidence that the insect was abundant, though no complaint of it reached 

 us. In that year Mr. C. S. Brimley of Kaleigh, an insect collector, was 

 collecting moths by attracting them to trees on which a sugar mixture 

 had been smeared. He noted that the adult moths of this Fall Army- 

 woi-m were very abundant, counting "about 600 of these moths on five 

 sugared trees on August 23, and they were present in same numbers the 

 next two nights. The same five trees were visited by about 300 moths 

 on the night of October 3." Mr. Brimley records the occurrence of the 

 moths at Raleigh from late July to early ISTovember.^ These observa- 

 tions and notes were made and published by Mr. Brimley over three 

 years before the outbreak of 1912. I present this data here as proof to 

 our farmers that the severe outbreak of 1912 was not by a "new insect," 

 but by one which is present every year, and similar outbreaks may occur 

 any year when conditions are suited to the insect. Yet the moths are 

 free fliers and may wander or migrate for some distance before laying 

 eggs, so that a brood of worms in one locality may yield moths which 

 wili produce another brood of worms in some other locality. Study of 

 the distribution of complaints received in 1912, in connection with the 

 dates, might indicate this, but we will not take the space. 



^Entomological News. Jan., 1900. p. .^5. 



