THE FALL WEB WORM. by & 
most of which belong to the family Chalcidide, with the exception of 
three species of the Ichneumonid genus Hemiteles. So extensive has 
been this killing off of the primary parasites by the secondary, that 
were not the fates of the three classes, viz, the plant-feeder, the pri- 
mary and the secondary parasites so interwoven, the destruction of 
these beneficial insects might be considered a serious matter in dealing. 
with the plant-feeder. 
We have not taken time to determine these secondary parasites spe- 
cifically, but give a little table showing the number of species concerned,, 
mentioning them only by their genera: 
SECONDARY PARASITES. 
On Apanteles : 
. Hemiteles sp. 
. Hlasmus sp. 
. Hupelmus sp. 
. Panstenon sp. 
. Cirrospilus sp. 
. Pteromalus sp. 
. Pteromalus sp. 
On Meteorus hyphantrie. 
Hemiteles sp. (= 1 on Apanteles). 
2. Spilochalcis sp. 
3. Hemiteles utilis Nort. 
4 
NO OP GO We 
_ 
. Hupelmus sp. (= 3 on Apanteles) 
5. Hemiteles sp. 
6. Pteromalus sp. (= 6 on Apanteles). 
7. Pteromalus sp. (= 7 on Apanteles). 
On Limneria pallipes Prov.: 
1, Hupelmus sp. ‘= 3 on Apanteles). 
2. Tetrastichus sp. 
3. Pteromalus sp. (= 6 on Apanteles). 
4, Pteromalus sp. (= 7 on Apanteles). 
5. Hlasmus sp. (= 2 on Apanteles). 
The observations just recorded were made in the main during the 
summer of 1886, a season of exceptional abundance of the worms. We 
may add that, in accordance with our predictions in the first edition of 
this Bulletin, there was an immense decrease in the number of the worms | 
with the opening of the spring of 1887. So many had been taken off 
by the fungus disease and by parasites that the result was that except 
in a few streets the worms did not become abundant. Moreover, the 
parking commission sent out carts and men as soon as the webs had: 
begun to be easily seen, and so thoroughly were the nests destroyed 
that the second generation of worms attracted no attention whatsoever.. 
