92 



extensive damao-e before public attention is drawn to its ravages or 

 even to its identification. In Mr. Henderson's article he states that 

 by correspondence with rose growers in six diti'erent states, and from 

 personal observations, he had been forced to the conclusion that, in a 

 large majority of cases where cultivation of roses during the winter 

 proved unprofitable, the trouble was traceable alone to the ravages of 

 this rose beetle. Owing to the small size and inconspicuous appear- 

 ance of the beetle, and its hal)it of shunning the davlight and con- 

 cealing itself under the leaves, as well as to the subterranean habits of 

 its larva, its presence is not apt to l)e noticed by any except the most 

 observing, or Ijy persons who have had experience with it. The 

 account in question includes, besides mention of injur}^ by this 

 species at Madison and elsewhere in New Jersey in the vicinity of 

 New York City, a letter from Dr. Riley giving in condensed form what 

 was known at that time concerning the insect's history, classification, 

 distribution, and l)iology. 



This article was followed by a more extensive one by Dr. Rile}' in 

 the same pul>lication for Octo])er (pp. 310, 311), republished from the 

 Scientific American of August 30, 1879 (p. 129), these last two accounts 

 including the illustration used in the present article. All of this 

 matter was l)rought together in Dr. Rile3'\s report as Entomologist for 

 the Department^ of Agriculture for 1878 (Nov., 1879, pp. 256-257), 

 technical descriptions of the immature stages being added. Injury at 

 that time was most noticealjle to roses and camellias. In the Report 

 of this Department for the following j^ear (pp. 250, 251) Professor 

 Comstock furnished a few notes on the destructive occurrence of this 

 insect at San Diego, Cal., in 1879, adding some unrecorded food plants 

 and making mention of a wireworm found preying upon the larviB. 



An interval of four years elapsed before injury by this species was 

 again noticed, at least so far as published records go. In November, 

 1883, we received complaint from Worcester, Mass., of injur}' to 

 Azalea and Cissus (Report Dept. Agric. 188-1, p. 414). 



In December, 1881-, injury was complained of to Dr. Lintner b}' 

 extensive rose growers at Poughkeepsie (2d Report State Entom. N. 

 Y., 1885, pp. 142-144). Dr. Lintner states that this species was first 

 brought to his notice in 1874 because of injur}^ to camellias and other 

 foliage in conservatories at Albany, N. Y. The same writer had an 

 article in the Country Gentleman of February 3, 1887, based upon 

 injuries of this rose beetle at Bucksport, Me. * 



In 1889 Mr. Coquillett reported this species to be injurious in Los 

 Angeles County, Cal. , where it was mistaken for the plum curculio. 

 It was very destructive at that time to the foliage of oak, camellias, 

 palms ( WaHhingtoniaJilifera), Cmina ind'tca., and several other plants. 



The following year a short account of this species and its occurrence 

 in California was given in the Annual Report of the State Board of 



