GRASSHOPPERS AND OTHER INJURIOUS INSECTS OF 1911 AND 1912. 11 



meet so serious and widespread a pest. In this connection I may say that at 

 times I was forced to take one or more of the men from the field work and 

 place them also at answering- these personal calls. We have visited during 

 the past summer (1911) one hundred sixty-one localities and have in this way 

 given advice to apjiroximately one thousand farmers. Thus we have been able 

 to spread a real knowledge of methods of fighting the grasshopper, together 

 with some realization of the pi'oblem as a whole throughout a large part of 

 western and southern Minnesota. 



In general we may say that we found the farmers very much interested 

 and willing to consider the methods of treatment which we were presenting. 

 There is, however, a noticeable tendency among the farmers, while admitting 

 the serious damage resulting from the grasshoppers, to put off until some 

 future date the actual work against these insects. During the early part of 

 the season many exaggerated reports were published in various newspapers 

 concerning the wholesale destruction of grasshoppers by abnormally cold 

 weather in late Spi'ing and assuring the interested farmers that for "this 

 season" there could be no danger of grasshoppers becoming abundant. It is 

 needless now to call attention to the true conditions resulting during the sum- 

 mer, but it is interesting to note that one of the most seriously affected areas 

 within the whole state — where the grasshoppers were noted in most abun- 

 dance and the damage to ci'ops was most apparent — was but fifteen miles 

 from the office of one of these papers which had reported the pest as having 

 been exterminated by late frost and snow. The effect of these false prophets 

 was far more serious than might be thought, since farmers deluded by such 

 reports bearing some tinge of authenticity from the fact of publication, neg- 

 lected to take any action against the pest even in localites where the older 

 methods of attack, such as the "hopperdozer" were well known. 



A peculiar attitude of mind was discovei'ed in some cases regarding the 

 expense for labor and materials used in fighting the grasshoppers. It was 

 urged by some, and notably by land owners of some means rather than by 

 the poorer class of farmers who in losing relatively little had lost all, that the 

 State should pay for the work and for materials used in freeing the fields of 

 the farmer from this i^est. Since the money available for such ends must come 

 through added taxes a very little consideration usually served to change this 

 attitude. Another peculiarity was noted in the fact that certain farmers 

 after asking for advice would refuse to act upon this advice after your agents 

 had made long trips to reach them. A still worse attitude was encountered in 

 a few cases where mere curiousity had prompted the party to send in a call 

 for a visit from the agent though there vv'ere relatively few grasshoppers. The 

 usual justification offered was that "since the State paid the expenses" they 

 felt entitled to the visit although they did not desire and could not utilize any 

 advice which might be given. The loss of time and incurring of considerable 

 expense uselessly was entirely overlooked." 



About seventy-nine Orthopteious species were collected and 

 named during 1911, which must not be regarded as representing 

 our entire Orthopterous fauna. Of these species, only a compara- 

 tively few were strikingly injurious; namely, the Two-striped 

 Locust, Melanoplus birittatus; the Lesser Migratory Locust, M. 

 atlanis, the Red-legged Locust, M. femur-ruhrum, and the Differen- 

 tial Locust, M. cliff erentialis, to which harmful species we may pos- 

 sibly add the Short-winged Locust, Stenobothrus cui-tipennis, and, 

 to a lesser extent, the Clear-winged Locust, Camnula pellucida, and 

 the Carolina Locust, Dissosteira Carolina. 



