260 [November, 



Note o?i the destructive hahits of ilyelophilus piniijerda. — On Pitch Hill 

 (above Ewhi\rst, Surrey), Mr. H. J. Turner and I, on September 24th, 1910, 

 noticed, with some surprise, the ground eaiijeted with twigs of Scotch fir. So 

 abundant were they that on several square yards selected at random we counted 

 from 40 to SO svich twigs, each being the whole growth of the present year and 

 some 3 or 4 inches long, and with its attached leaves covering some 6 to 10 

 square inches of surface. They were remarkably evenly distributed, no doubt 

 due to their falling by accident from the tops of well gTOwn trees, of various 

 sizes, but most perhaps 12 inches in diameter and in no case with the foliage 

 witliin reach. A short examination showed that they had all been bored by 

 some beetle and no doubt broken off by the wind. The beetles probably came 

 from a large area close by, which had been burnt, about a twelvemonth ago 

 (we were told), from which most of the dead timber had been removed, but on 

 several still standing trees we found the characteristic biirrow of M. piniperda, 

 and the abimdant holes from wlaich the young brood had emerged, probably 

 comparatively recently, and then committed the havoc we noticed. That it was 

 recent folloAved from the fact that the fallen shoots and their leaves were quite 

 mature and the buds for next year's shoots fully developed. The burrows into 

 the shoots were quite at their bases, really rather into the jDrevious year's 

 gTowth, as evidenced by two or three of the present year's shoots liaving fallen 

 together, the weak place being below their point of origin. The fractiu'e was 

 apparently usually near the hole of entry, the beetle burrowing do^vnwards, 

 and very little of the burrow was present in tlie fallen shoot and very rarely 

 the hole of entry higher up. In some instances, however, the fallen piece 

 included the whole or greater part of the previous year's growth, and in these 

 cases the hole of entry was at the top, close to the base of the present year's 

 shoots, and the burrow went dov/n the whole length of last year's growth. The 

 pith of th(^ present year's shoot was in fact only interfered witli close to its 

 base (place of entry) and the greater part of the bm-row remained on the tree 

 in the majority of cases. We did not devote any long time to the search, but 

 we failed to find a beetle, either in the fallen twigs or in the few trees in which 

 they had been reared, which we examined. Beetles proliably existed on the 

 trees, in the scene of their depredations, but these regions were quite out of 

 our reach. 



The area of naischief was i-ound the margin of tlie burnt area, a very large 

 one, and extended for a width of 50 yards into the imburnt area, with tlie 

 severity noted above, and for another 50 yards graditally diminishing in 

 severity, though twigs were noticed on the ground half a mile off. 



As to the damage done to the affected trees, it must be noted that the 

 twigs seen were of course those blown off by the last wind of sufficient strength, 

 and tliat most likely they were, notwithstanding their abundance, but a fraction 

 of those damaged, probably in some cases all on the tree. It is most likely tliat 

 the damage to the trees will be sufficient to make them succumb, next spring, 

 to the ovipositing attacks of these beetles. 



As I noted many years ago in the case of Scolytus destructor in ehns, we 

 shoidd have an instance illustrating that the beetles only oviposit in dead or 



