292 IOWA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE 



Forbes (1884) gave a general account of Emphytus macu- 

 latus, adapted from previous accounts by Eiley and others. 

 Here doubt is expressed concerning a second generation, since, 

 aside from Riley, none had been seen by other observers. 



In the same year Forbes (111. Hort. Soc. Rep.) treated briefly 

 a strawberry slug under the name of Emphytus maculatus. In 

 breeding this insect only one generation was found. The eggs 

 were deposited beneath the epidermis of the leaf. Probably 

 the insect concerned was Empria fragariae, which places its eggs 

 in the leaf tissue. 



F. M. Webster (1888), recorded the abundance of larva? sup- 

 posed to be Emphytus maculatus at Richmond, Indiana, in Octo- 

 ber, 1887. This appeared to indicate a second generation. 



F. W. Mally (1889) was the first to point out clearly the 

 presence of a second species of strawberry slug, differing in 

 several respects from that discussed by Riley. Specimens sent 

 by Mally to E. T. Cresson were determined as probably 

 Monostegia ignota Norton. That the species reared by Mally 

 is really Empria fragariae will be shown later on. 



The main points established by Mally 's work are these: (1) 

 that two species of slugs are found on strawberry foliage in 

 Iowa, (2) that these are easily distinguished in the larval stage 

 and (3) that the eggs of the second species (Empria fragariae) 

 are placed in the leaves, not in the stems. Later (1890) Mally 

 showed that only one generation of this insect occurred in cen- 

 tral Iowa. 



F. M. Webster (1894) secured larva? from strawberry plants 

 at La Porte, Indiana, July 5, 1893. These entered the soil in 

 an insectary cage, remained there all winter, and adults emerged 

 the next March. Adults deposited eggs in stems of strawberry 

 plants and specimens were determined by Dr. L. 0. Howard, 

 as Harpiphorus maculatus. 



Dyar (1896), described seven larval stages of Harpiphorus 

 maculatus and recorded rearing adults of that species from 

 larva? with immaculate heads, apparently contradicting Mally 's 

 observations. From these descriptions, however, it seems prob- 

 able that Dyar had only the one species, maculata, and may not 

 have seen specimens of the insect considered by Mally as 

 Monostegia ignota. 



