<3 AUSTEALIAN SUGAK CANE BEETLES AND THEIR ALLIES. 



liim by Mr. A. M. Lea, Entomologist of the South Australian Museum, 

 14th May, 1914, except that Mr. Lea used the original ending, um, for 

 the species. Hence, in the later writings from this station the misnomer 

 continued to appear. On 21st December, 1920, I wrote to the South 

 Australian Museum for ]\Ir. Lea's further assistance in clearing the 

 matter up. In reply, 7th January, 1921, Mr. Lea supplied a copy of 

 the original description, leaving no doubt in my mind that our common 

 oTeyback beetle is Lepidoderma alboliirtum Waterhouse. 



HISTORY OF THE PEST. 



A review of the history of almost any pest is lioth interesting and 

 profitable ; furthermore, it lends perspective. Unfortunately, isolated 

 iis we are, it has been difficult to locate many of the earliest records of 

 ,grubs damaging sugar-cane. Try on (19), however, in his excellent 

 bulletin on the "Grub Pest of Sugar-Cane" throws considerable light 

 on the subject, especially for the northern districts of Queensland. His 

 earliest records are from the Mackay district, as follows: — 



"During 1872-4, at Branscombe Plantation, the cane growing just 

 ■outside the scrub land, and between it and the forest land, died oft', and 

 in ploughing out the stools the roots were found to have been gnawn 

 through, and cockchafer grubs were found under the stools — from five 

 to twenty in each case (W. E. Davidson). They also occurred then on 

 the Pioneer Plantation, of which Mr. Spiller was the proprietor. In 

 1874-5 some acres of cane at Miclere Plantation succumbed in a manner 

 similar to that which occurs when grubs are present (W. T. Paget), and 

 at Richmond Plantation, a field of seventy-five acres in extent was 

 wholly injured by them. In 1885 they were prevalent on the Cedars 

 Plantation, for at that time some forty or fifty acres of sugar-cane had, 

 in consequence of their ravages, to be ploughed out. and the land occupied 

 by it had to be replanted three or four times before they were ultimately 

 got rid of. They were also at that time met with on the alluvial forest 

 lands at Farleigh. That it was still a generally recognised sugar-cane 

 pest in the Mackay district in 1885 appears from the fact that H. Ling 

 Roth, in his article 'On the Animal Parasites of the Sugar-cane,' referred 

 to it as being 'one of the most destructive creatures' with which planters 

 had to deal, and as eft'ecting the destruction of 'whole fields of cane.' 

 At Dumbleton Plantation grubs w-ere very prevalent prior to 1887 

 (H. H. Lloyd), and at Inverness Plantation it had already proved 

 ■destructive, especially in dry seasons (J. ]\IcBryde). In 1888 we learn of 

 its occurrence at Cortweed, where it destroyed at that time a quarter of a 

 plantation of 150 acres (Z. W. Christensen) ; and again at Homebush, 

 during the same year, 400 acres of cane had to be ploughed out by 

 reason of its presence (R. G. Smith), and at Te Kowai at the same time 

 the crop was also very much affected, the roots of the sugar-cane covering 

 a good many acres being eaten by it (J. E. Davidson)." 



That the grubs continued their destructive work in the Mackay 

 ■district during the next two decades is evidenced by the numerous com- 

 ments on that subject appearing in the Sugar Journals as well as other 

 publications. Of special interest are the remarks of W. T. Paget (17, 

 18), that the grubs had made their presence felt at Mackay in 1893, and 

 in 1894 they were very serious. Again (29), in 1899, he remarked at 

 Ihe Agricultural Conference, at Mackay, even after destroying four 

 tons of beetles on their estate in 1894, the cane was ruined" the next 



