90 

 GENERAL NOTES. 



ERRONEOUS BELIEF THAT COMMON NATIVE INSECTS ARE INTRODUCED 

 FROM ABROAD IN SEED. 



Every month or two during the warm season we receive communi- 

 cations from farmers in various portions of the country, more ])articu- 

 larly in the more sparsely settled States where new crops are being 

 cultivated, concerning the probable introduction from abroad of many 

 common species of insects in seed furnished by the United States 

 Department of Agriculture and experiment stations. Such a commu- 

 nication was received from a correspondent in Texas who had never 

 seen the Coloj-ado potato beetle there before, although the insect has 

 been present in that State since about 1882, and probabh' earlier, with 

 the remark that it was supposed to have been introduced with seed 

 potatoes from Minnesota. May 27, 1902, auother correspondent at 

 (Tainesville, Cook County, Tex., wrote in regard to the striped cucum- 

 ber beetle, which he believed had been introduced with seed received 

 from this Department. In response to inquiry as to particulars, he 

 wrote, that although for twenty-five years he had had experience each 

 year with nearly all the vegetables named in circular No. 81 as food 

 plants of this beetle, he had never seen the insect l)efore, and thinks 

 it impossible for it to have been present on his plants without his 

 having noticed it. Neither had any of his neighbors taken notice of 

 this insect. It seems to have iirst appeared there in destructive num- 

 bers in 1902. 



CAPTURE AND POSSIBLE INTRODLTCTION (^F THE NUN MOTH IN AMERICA. 



On the occasion of a visit to Washington by Dr. W. J. Holland, a 

 well-known authority on Lepidoptera, he mentioned the fact that the 

 nun moth {Psilura monadm Linn.)" had been obtained from a collector 

 in the vicinity of Brookhni, N. Y. Mr. George Franck, an experi- 

 enced collector of that city, was referred to as authority, and in answer 

 to an inquiry for the particulars of the capture of this insect, he wrote 

 substantially as follows: In looking over a small collection of a local 

 collector during the summer of 1901, he found, among other material, 

 live individuals of this species, identified by comparison with European 

 specimens of which he possessed a number. The collector in question 

 had no comnmnication with others than Mr. Franck, from whom he 

 obtained material in exchange. He was questioned regarding this 

 species and its occurrence, and Mr. Franck was assured that the speci- 

 mens had been captured at light in Brooklyn. No other person who 

 had been consulted in regard to this species knew anything of its occur- 



«Also frequently mentioned in literature as Lipnrifi vumaclia, and recently placed 

 by Meyrick in the same genus as the gypsy moth, Ocneria. 



