36 



most manifestly, if not mainly, during- the spring of the year, while 

 the plants are quite young; and it is a common observation of farmers, 

 throughout Georgia at least, that the plants on low, wet soils are much 

 more seriously damaged than corn planted on uplands. The extent 

 and nature of the injury may vary, but the most usual symptom of the 

 work of the larvte is in the wilting and falling over of the central 

 leaves, or " bud," of the plant, and later becoming })rown and dry. 

 Plants showing this appearance when examined are almost invariably 

 found to have l)een bored into at the base of the stem in such a way 

 that the central and ^'ital part of the plant has been more or less cut 

 free from the tissue belo^^'. This wilting and dying of the central roll 

 of leaves of the corn plant hits doubtless suggested the term '^ bud 

 worm," by which name the larvie seem to be very g-enerally designated. 

 Other terms, as "bill bug" and "wire worm," are less frequentl}^ 

 used in speaking of this insect. The recognized English name, the 

 Southern corn root-worm, as used l^y entomologists. T have never 

 heard used by planters. 



Not all plants showing the wilted ••))ud'" have necessarily been 

 injured by the Southern corn root-worm, as in frequent cases wire- 

 worms have been found to be the cause of the trouble. Less usually 

 the white ant. probably Tennes flavipes^ has been found to have eaten 

 into the stem near the surface of the ground, chewing out relatively 

 large cavities. Injury from white ants has been most common in 

 fields planted to cotton the previous year, and the decaying stalks on 

 the ground ha\e in most cases been close to or in contact with the 

 infested corn plant. 



Prof. F. M. Webster was probably the tirst to indicate the injurious 

 character of these larvse on corn, in the Report of the Secretary of 

 Agriculture for 1887 (p. 148). Mr. Webster's observations were 

 made in Louisiana, and while from the article referred to it is not 

 apparent whether the larv* observed were actually l)red into the 

 adult condition or not, there can be no reasonal)le doubt from his 

 description of the larvte and their injury but tluit these were larva^ of 

 Diahrotica 1'2-punctata . 



There is good reason to believe, however, that this insect has been 

 injurious to corn, in Georgia at least, many years l)efore we tind any 

 reference to it in the literature of economic entomology. Several 

 different Georgia farmers, who are quite familiar with the larvue and 

 their work, affirm that they have known the "bud worm" ever since 

 they can remember, which in some instances could reasonably be 

 expected to extend back over a period of at least fifty years. 



The years 1889 and 18t>() witnessed a rather general outbreak of 

 this insect, and the injury to corn attracted attention over quite a 

 large area of country, including Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and most of 

 the Southern States. This outbreak was the occasion of a careful 



