354 EXPEKIMENT STATION RECORD, 



An account of the more important insect enemies and fungus diseases of the 

 tomato in Mexico with remedial measures therefor. 



Enemies of kapok {Philippine Agr. Rev. {English Ed.~i, 3 {1910), No. 2, 

 p. 93; Trop. Agr. and Mag. Ceylon Agr. Soc., 3') {1910), No. 6, p. 503). — The 

 beetle Batocera hector, though rare, is the most important insect enemy of 

 kapok in Java. Other pests mentioned as occasionally attacking the crop are 

 Earias faMa, Dysdercus cingulatus, and Helopeltis sp. The greatest injury is 

 caused by the feeding of bats upon the young fruit. 



Mango insects, W. V. Tower {Porto Rico Prog., 2 {1911), No. 1, pp. 85-92).— 

 A paper presented before the Porto Rican Horticultural Society, in which the 

 author briefly discusses the insects attacking the native mango that may 

 attack imported varieties as they become more extensively grown. 



The mango fruit fly is the most important pest, being especially fond of one 

 variety that is grown on the island and practically ruining all its fruit. It has 

 also been found at times infesting some of the choice imported varieties grown 

 at the federal experiment station. There are, however, a number of native 

 mangoes which seem to be immune to its attack. 



Insect enemies of Theobroma cacao on the island of St. Thomas, M. S. 

 Camara and A. Cannas Mendes {Rev. in Ztschr. Pflanzenkrank., 21 {1911), No. 

 5, p. 310). — The insects mentioned as attacking cacao are Arwocerus fascicu- 

 latus, Xyleborus perforans, Helopeltis sp., and Ephestia elutella. 



Preliminary notes on some insects affecting the coconut palm, F. "W. 

 Urich and P. L. Guppy {Bd. Agr. Trinidad Circ. 5, 1911, pp. 30, pis. 3).— The 

 insects briefly noted are the palm weevil {Rhynchophorus palmarum), the small 

 weevil borer {Metarfiasius hemipterus decoratus), the coconut Sphenophorus, 

 the bearded weevil {Rhina barhirostris), 5 species of CoccidiB, the coconut but- 

 terfly {Brassolis sophorw), the coconut Saturnia moth, and the rhinoceros 

 beetle {Strategus anachoreta). 



Insects destructive to books, W. R. Reinick {Amer. Jour. Pharm., 83 

 {1911), No. 11, pp. 503-515, figs. 2). — A second contribution on the subject 

 (E. S. R., 24, p. 752). 



The use of soap to retard the settling of certain arsenicals, J. R. Parker 

 {Montana Sta. Bui. 86, pp. 35-.'i5, fig. 1). — Laboratory tests made to determine 

 the effect of soap on the settling of arsenate of lead and arsenite of zinc are 

 here reported, of which the following is a summary : 



" The addition of common laundry soap, at the rate of 2 bars to 50 gal., to an 

 arsenate of lead mixture retards the settling of the arsenate of lead, only half 

 as much settling out of a soap mixtui'e in 15 minutes as settled out of a non- 

 soap mixture in the same length of time. The amount that settled out of the 

 soap mixture in 5 hours was the same as that which settled out of a nonsoap 

 mixture in 30 minutes. Above a certain quantity, the amount of soap used 

 appears to have little influence upon the amount of settling. Two bars to 50 

 gal. is about the least that can be used, and in practical work it would be safer 

 to use 3 bars to 50 gal. Whale-oil soap gave slightly better results than the 

 more expensive laundry soap. When mixed with soap there was little differ- 

 ence in the amount of settling in the 4 brands of arsenate of lead that were 

 tried. 



" The eft'ect of soap' upon the settling out of arsenite of zinc is even more 

 striking than the effect upon arsenate of lead, more arsenite of zinc settling out 

 of a nonsoap mixture in 15 minutes than out of a soap mixture in 15 hours. 



" By ordinary methods of applying arsenate of lead with a knapsack sprayer 

 it was found that the distribution of lead was not uniform and that a surpris- 

 ingly large amount (64.36 per cent) was left in the bottom of the spray can. 

 By very careful methods of mixing and application slightly better results were 



