4 
36 INSECTS INJURIOUS TO FOREST AND SHADE TREES. . 
“The males have begun to die, and are found in numbers under the trees; the 
females are yet busy with their peculiar office. The length of wood perforated on 
each branch varied from one to two anda half feet averaging probably eighteen 
inches; these seemed to be the work of one insect on each twig, showing a wonderful 
fecundity. 
“The recurrence of three ‘locust-years’ is well remembered in this locality—1834) 
1851 and 1868. There has been no variation from the usual time, establishing the 
regularity of their periodical appearance.” 
As regards the time and mode of hatching, Mr. 8. 8. Rathvon, of Lancaster, Pa., con- 
tributes to the same journal some new and yaluable facts, which we quute: ‘‘ With 
reference to the eggs and young of the seventeen-year cicada, your correspondent from 
Haverford College, Philadelphia, is not the only one who has failed to produce the 
young by keeping branches containing eggs in their studios. I so failed in 1834 and 
1851, and indeed I have never heard that any one has succeeded in that way, who has 
keptthem forany great lengthoftime. Inthe brood of 1868, the first cicadas appeared 
here in a body, on the evening of the second day of June. The first pair in coitu, I ob- 
served on the 21st, and the first female depositing on the 26th of the same month. 
The first young were excluded on the 5th of August. All these dates are some ten 
days later than corresponding observations made by myseJf and others in former years, 
On the 15th of July I cut off some apple, pear, and chestnut twigs containing eggs. 
and stuck the ends into a bottle containing water, and set it ina broad, shallow dish 
also filled with water, the whole remaining out of doors exposed to the weather, what- 
ever it might be. The young continued to drop out on the water in the dish for a full 
week, after the date above mentioned. Icould breed no cicadas from branches that were 
dead and on which the leaves were withered, nor from those that from any cause had 
fallen to the ground, and this was also the case with Mr. Vincent Bernard, of Kennet 
Square, Chester County, Pa. After the precise time was known, fresh branches were 
obtained, and then the young cicadas were seen coming forth in great numbers, by halfa 
dozen observers in this county. As the fruitful eggs were at least a third larger than 
they were when first deposited, I infer that they require the moisture contained in living 
wood to preserve their vitality. When the proper time arrives and the proper con- 
ditions are preserved, they are easily bred, and indeed I have seen them evolve on 
the palm of my hand. The eyes of the young cicadas are seen through the egg-skin 
before it is broken.” 
Mr. Riley, in an interesting account of this cicada in his First Annual Report on 
Noxious, beneficial, and Other Insects of Missouri for 1869, has shown that in the 
Southern States thirteen-year broods of this insect are found. He remarks: ‘It was 
my good fortune to observe that besides the seventeen-year broods, the appearance of 
one of which was recorded as long ago as 1633, there are also thirteen-year broods, 
and that, though both sometimes occur in the same States, yet, in general terms, the 
seventeen-year broods may be said to belong to the Northern and the thirteen-year 
broods to the Southern States, the dividing line being about latitude 38°, though in 
some places the seventeen-year brood extends below this line, while in Illinois the 
thirteen-year brood runs up considerably beyond it. It was also exceedingly grati- 
fying to find, four months after I had published this fact, that the same discovery 
had been made years before by Dr. Smith, though it had never been given to the 
world.” 
Mr. Riley predicts that in Southern New England a brood will appear in 1877 and 
1855. Probably the Plymouth brood, which appeared in 1872, will not appear again 
for seventeen years, namely, in 1889, the two broods noticed by Riley appearing west 
of this town. As regards its appearance in Plymouth, Mass., Harris states that it 
appeared there in 1633. The next date given is 1804, ‘‘ but, if the exact period of 
seventeen years had been observed, they should have returned in 1803.” 
Mr. B. M. Watson informs me, from his personal observation, that it also appeared 
in 1838, 1855, and 1872. In Sandwich it appeared in 1787, 1804, and 1821. In Fall 
River it appeared in 1831, in Hadley in 1818, in Bristol County in 1784, so that, as re- 
