Ill 



friiitfly miis^ratincr from one district to another by means of a con- 

 tinuous forest belt as prevail,, in some districts on Hawaii is not 

 to be ignored. It is well known to entomologists that much of 

 the Hawaiian or indigenous flora in the mountain regions on these 

 Islands produce fleshy fruits which are just as liable to infesta- 

 tion as those of the kamani, which flourish on the lower eleva- 

 tions. The fruit of the kamani has but little fleshy material in it. 

 yet we know it to be very badly infested in sections where the 

 fruitfly has become established. The same may be said of the 

 pulp of the coffee berry. The guava in a wild state, as is known 

 to exist at even very high altitudes, is the greatest menace we 

 have on all the islands in the Territory because of its well known 

 adaptability for the reproduction of fruitfly. Like Oahu, there 

 are districts on Hawaii and Maui where, because of the large 

 areas of wild guava, it would be next to impossible to either eradi- 

 cate or use any practical methods of culture were the pest once 

 established in that region. Kohala on Hawaii I believe has to 

 some extent the conditions I speak of and it will be the sheerest 

 luck if its committee succeeds in exterminating the fruitfly, not- 

 withstanding that it is said to be established as yet in only a 

 comparatively small area. Hamakua, Hilo and Kona have similar 

 conditions on the mountain slopes up to a fairly high elevation, 

 whilst Kau, I believe, is somewhat more fortunate in the above 

 respect. 



Preventive natural conditions are certainly almost ideal in the 

 districts of Kona and Kau, in so far as the introduction of the 

 fruitfly from other adjacent sections, as there, there are either 

 extensive aa flows or sand deserts which are practically, if not 

 altogether, bare of vegetation, and which, as barriers, should nat- 

 urally protect these districts. The infestation in Kau and Kona, 

 therefore, will almost altogether be made possible only by the 

 introduction of Hawaiian fruitfly by means of the various ports of 

 entry in these districts or by means of transportation (autos or 

 wagons) along the belt road leading from Kohala on the one 

 side or Hilo on the other. 



Respectfully submitted, 



W. M. GiFFARD, 



Director, Fruitfly Control, Board of Agriculture and Forestry, 

 Honolulu, T. H. 



FOURTH MONTHLY REPORT. 



Honolulu, March 4, 1912. 



To the President and Commissioners, Board of Agriculture and 

 Forestry, Honolulu, T. H . 



Honolulu Fruitfly Control. 

 Gentlemen : — I beg to submit you a report of the work of 



