1)0 

 GENERAL NOTES. 



ERRONEOUS BELIEF THAT COMMON NATIVE INSECTS ARE INTRODUCED 

 JTIOM ABROAD IN SEED. 



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

 cations from farmers in various portions of the country, more particu- 

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

 cultivated, concerning the prohablo introduction from al)road of many 

 conunon 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 Colorado potato beetle there before, although the insect has 

 been present in that State since about 1SS2, and probably earlier, with 

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

 potatoes from Minnesota. May 27, 1!H)2, another correspondent at 

 Gainesville, 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 

 wrotfe, that although for twentj^-five years he had had experience each 

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

 plants of this beetle, he had never seen the insect before, and thinks 

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

 having noticed it. Neither had any of his neigh))ors taken notice of 

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

 bers in 1902. 



CAPTUKP: and possible introduction of TIIF nun moth IN AMERICA. 



On the occasion of a visit to Washington l)y Dr. W. J. Holland, a 

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

 nun moth {PslI tira inonacha Linn.)" had been obtained from a collector 

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

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

 to an incjuiry for th(> 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 ({uestion 

 had no communication 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 Liparis monacha, and recently placed 

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



