April, '11] REVIEWS 293 



addition to oiir knowledge of this pest and it is to be hoped that here we have only 

 one of a series of local studies which should be made in representative sections of the 

 country, not only of the codling moth, but also of other insect pests. 



The One Spray Method in the Control of the Codling Moth and 

 the Plum Curculio by A. L. Quaintance, E. L. Jenne, E. W. Scott 

 and R. W. Braucher. U. S. Dep't Agric, Bur. Ent., Bui. 80, Prt. 7, 

 1910, p. 111-146. 



The results given in this paper are exceedingly interesting, since they are the out- 

 come of experiments conducted under the same general plan in widely separated 

 sections of the country. Comparisons were made between one thorough application, 

 under high pressure, of a bordeaux mixture poisoned with arsenate of lead, subse- 

 quent treatments being restricted to the application of fungicides, and demonstration 

 spraying which consisted of five poison applications, all except the first being mist 

 sprays. These two in turn were compared with unsprayed or check trees. The 

 arrangement of the plots and location of the trees from which data were taken was not 

 ideal, though the results do not appear do have been materially affected. The sum- 

 mary shows that so far as the control of the codling moth was concerned, there was 

 not very much difference between one spraying and the demonstration treatment 

 where approximately two thirds or more of the fruit on unsprayed trees were sound, 

 the variation being only from 4 to over 5 per cent in favor of repeated spraying. 

 On the other hand, there was considerable advantage in several applications of poison 

 where only about half of the fruit on unsprayed trees was free from codling moth 

 injury, the difference in their favor being approximately 10 per cent in one case and 

 in the other instance only about 1 per cent. Being unacquainted with the reasons 

 for this marked discrepancy in the latter instance and the authors throwing no light 

 thereupon, we can only hazard the suggestion that the uneven character of the land 

 as shown on Plate 10, figure 2, may have been a factor in reducing the efficiency of 

 the treatment. There were in all sprayed plots, as was to be expected, substantial 

 benefits resulting from the treatment. Such repeated applications are of compara- 

 tively little value in controlling plum curculio, as shown by the fact that in two plots 

 sprayed but once there was a larger percentage of fruit free from injury by this insect, 

 while the remaining two plots, receiving the demonstration treatment, were only 

 slightly less affected than those sprayed but once. There was material, and in the 

 case of one plot, a very great difference in favor of poisoned applications as compared 

 wich no treatment at all. The authors' results with the single spray against the 

 codling moth agree in a general way with those secured by the reviewer. Obviously, 

 there cannot be a material saving with one application of poison in sections where 

 several treatments are necessary for the control of other insects or fungous diseases. 

 It is a fact that certain of our fruit-growing sections, at least, are moderately free 

 from insects which cannot be kept in check by thorough annual sprayings at the 

 time when such treatment would be most effective in controlling the codling moth, 

 and where there is little likelihood of serious trouble from fungous infection. These 

 considerations justify an exhaustive study of the possibility of controlling insects 

 and fungous diseases on fruit trees with one timely and thorough spraying. 



Apple and Pear Membracids by H. E. Hodgkiss. N. Y. Agric. 

 Exp't Sta. Techn. Bui. 17, 1910, p. 81-112. 



This publication is a marked addition to our knowledge of four rather common 

 species, one of which at least has been very frequently mentioned in economic litera- 



