1917] ECONOMIC ZOOLOGY — ENTOMOLOGY. 159 



The peach tree borer: Life history, habits, injuries, and control measures, 

 J. L. King (Mo. Bui. Ohio Sta., 2 {1917), No. 1, pp. 23-28, figs. 2).— This brief 

 summarized account of the peach borer includes a diagram which graphically 

 illustrates its life cycle in Ohio, month by month. 



The lesser peach tree borer (Synanthedon pictipes), J. L. King (Ohio Sta. 

 Bui. 307 (1917), pp. 399-US, figs. 21). — Tiie lesser peach tree borer is a native 

 insect, first recorded from Pennsylvania in 18GS, which is quite generally dis- 

 tributed tbroughout the eastern half of the United States. The native food 

 plants consist of wild cherry, wild plum, knots of black-knot, and the June- 

 berry ; its cultivated food plants include the peach, plum, and cherry. It 

 prefers the peach and may be easily confused with the common peach tree 

 borer, though in the field it may be recognized through its habit of working, 

 as a rule, above the soil level on the trunks and branches of the tree. 



" Complete life history studies show that the winter is passed in all stages 

 of larval development except the first. The moths emerge in May, June, and 

 July. The egg-laying period corresponds closely to the time the adults are on 

 the wing. In Ohio, the early hatched larvaj from the spring brood may com- 

 plete their growth and give rise to a partial second generation, or summer 

 brood. The adults of the second generation are on the wing from July to 

 September. The larvae from this brood of moths pass the winter as very small 

 larvae." 



, Serious injury by this species seems to be locally distributed. In Ohio the 

 older peach-growing district of the Ottawa County peninsula and Catawba 

 Island is very generally infested. Control measures consist in avoiding all 

 mechanical injuries as scraping or barking during cultivation, improper 

 pruning, or careless thinning or harvesting of the fruit. Timely and system- 

 atic digging out of the larvae in the late fall and again in late May or early 

 June is recommended. Sprays and repellent washes have proved of little or 

 no value as a control. 



A bibliography of 53 titles is included. 



The head capsule and mouth parts of Diptera, A. Peterson (III. Biol. 

 Monogr., S (1916), No. 2, pp. 112, pis. 25).— This report of anatomical studies 

 is profusely illustrated by pen drawings. 



The response of the house fly to certain foods and their fermentation 

 products, C. H. Richakdson (Jour. Econ. Ent., 10 (1917), No. 1, pp. 102-109).— 

 The experiments here reported, which relate to solutions of known chemical 

 compounds found in certain foods or their fermentation products which are 

 eagerly sought by house flies, form a part of a larger project on the response 

 of the house fly to environmental factors undertaken by the New Jersey 

 Experiment Stations, accounts of which have been previously noted (E. S. R., 

 36, pp. 156, 460). The following conclusions are drawn from these experiments: 



" Glucose, fructose, maltose, lactose, sucrose, starch, and dextrin were not 

 very attractive to house flies. Lactose and dextrin caught the largest number 

 of flies, starch the least. Sucrose was consistently a poor bait. Four per cent 

 amylic alcohol gave better results than ethyl alcohol, or acetic acid in 4 or 10 

 per cent concentrations, and better than 10 per cent amylic alcohol. Four per 

 cent ethyl alcohol was better than 10 per cent, 10 per cent acetic acid gave 

 better results than 4 per cent. Succinic and lactic acids showed some attractive 

 qualities in two experiments. Maltose, lactose, sucrose, and dextrin in 4 per 

 cent solutions of amylic alcohol, ethyl alcohol, and acetic acid were more 

 frequently visited by house flies than the corresponding aqueous solutions. 

 Maltose and dextrin solutions were more effective than lactose or sucrose. 



