G9 



previous]}' |tut forward by me in the Eural Cnroliniau /or 1871 and 

 in a lecture delivered by myself before that time. In my j)aper I 

 expressly stated that "tlie region over Avhich, during live seasons I 

 have observed the cotton worm, embraces the central portion of the 

 cotton belt in the States of Georgia and Alabama,, and in particular 

 the counties of Mareiijo and Greene lying along the Tombigbee and 

 Black Warrior Elvers" (Proc. Am. Ass. Adv. .Sci., 14, 1874). My 

 theory did not at any time in my mind ai)ply to south Texas or the 

 edge of our territory washed by the Gulf of Mexico. A great deal 

 of misunderstanding of my statements is owing to a dill'crenec in 

 defining the cotton belt into climatic regions. When I speak of the 

 central cotton belt I mean from the Atlantic through Montgomery 

 to the Mississippi. I think still that where cotton is an annual that 

 the worm will not sustain itself permanentl}^, and in all my conclu- 

 sions I have been guided by the relation between the worm and its 

 food-plant, a relation not appreciated by Prof. Eiley in his second 

 and sixth Missouri reports and prior to the reading of my Associa- 

 tion paper. AVith regard to • the genus Prof. Eiley accepts my 

 definition of Aletia, which includes, however, a second species, Aletia 

 hostia, from Texas. Anomis exacta and A. erosa, inhabit our terri- 

 tory ; I identified the former for Prof. Eiley from specimens reared 

 in the Department of Agriculture. Fteraetholix hullula and perhaps 

 also Chyiolita iccta are allied Noctuidae from the Southern States. 

 And with reference to my original pa})er I can only assure Professor 

 Eiley that any additions made to it were not in consequence of 

 anything Professor Eiley may have said, as up to that time Professor 

 Eiley knew nothing from personal observation of the cotton worm, 

 I knew itfor 5 years, and my theory was opposed to his, what little 

 he had published with regard to it. In the body of my article as 

 originally read and printed I am quite clear as to that jiortion 

 of the South Vv'here my observations were made ; Dr. LeConte's 

 faunal map was then long published and familiar to me, in which 

 South Florida and Texas were considered as sub-tropical regions. 

 It is probable that the first introduction of the cotton worm was from 

 the French West Indian Islands at the close of the last century 

 At that time the continuous belt of cotton from the Atlantic to 

 Texas did not exist, and from the freedom from the worm which 

 cliaracterized both the early planting of cotton in the U. S., and 

 the occasional years of freedom fi'om it which afterwards occurred, 

 1 believe it is only com]iarat;vely recentlv, if yet at all, that it has 



