. 83 



THE MALODOROUS GARABID, NOMIUS PYGM.KUS DEJ., IN OREGON. 



From time to time we have had occasion to mention this offensive 

 little gronnd beetle and its occurrence in various portions of this 

 country, from the Pacific coast to Michigan. August 20, 1904, 

 Messrs. Woodard, Clarke & Co. called attention to an invasion 

 in Portland, Oreg., where the insect was the occasion of unpleas- 

 ant comment on the part of those who were so unfortunate as to 

 be obliged to work in the vicinity of the bugs. Considerable ex- 

 pense was incurred in the payment of plumbers' bills for efforts to 

 locate dead rats which failed to materialize, and employees of the 

 firm feared typhoid fever, and were loath to remain at their post of 

 duty. Our correspondents stated that there was no evidence that 

 these beetles were dependent on extraneous influence or disturbance 

 as a cause for their emitting the odor. They watched very care- 

 fully around a drain pipe on the lower roof, and the beetles seemed to 

 emit the odor at all times. It was believed that their presence in 

 numbers might be accounted for by dense forest fires which might 

 have driven them from the woods and surrounding fields, the air 

 being at times thick with smoke. This beetle is discussed more in 

 detail in Bulletin No. 9, n. s., of this Bureau, pages 49-53. 



REPORTED OCCURRENCE OF THE ASPARAGUS BEETLE IN CALIFORNIA. 



During December, 1904. we received word from Mr. R. E. Smith, 

 plant pathologist at the University of California Agricultural Ex- 

 periment Station at Berkele^y, Cal., reporting that the common 

 asparagus beetle {Crioceris asparagi Linn.) now occurs quite com- 

 monly in that State iiT certain localities, and that it is becoming a 

 serious pest. It was, he writes, observed incidentally in connection 

 with asparagus rust, and growers were satisfied that they had seen 

 the insect only within recent years, and that it seemed to have come 

 at about the same time as the rust, which has been prevalent since 

 1901 or 1902. It is not as yet generally distributed over the State. 

 No specimens of the species appear to have been seen by an ento- 

 mologist, hence some doubt attaches to this report. 



THE SCIENTIFIC NAj\tE OF THE PLUIM GOUGER A CORRECTION. 



There has been so much confusion in regard to the scientific name of 

 the plum gouger, particularly since the appearance of our note on 

 this subject in Vol. II of Insect Life (pp. 258, 259), that it seems 

 desirable to bring the matter up again. As long ago as 1876 Le 

 Conte wrote, in his Ehynchophora of North America (p. 194) that 

 Anthotwmu8 /^rw^t/ct'cZa Walsh., which was originally described in the 



