REPORT OF THE STATE ENTOMOLOGIST IQI2 47 
1888 Lintner, J. A. N. Y. State Mus. Bul. 6, p. 11 
1890 Webster, F. M. U.S. Dep’t Agric., Div. Ent., Bul. 22, p. 46-47 
1893 Mally, F. W. U.S. Dep’t Agric., Div. Ent., Bul. 29, p. 30 
1893 Smith, J. B. U.S. Nat. Mus. No. 44, p. 168 
1895 Weed, H. E. Miss. Agric. Exp’t Sta. Bul. 36, p. 152-53 
1896 Smith, J. B. Econ. Ent., p. 297-08 
1897 Quaintance, A. L. Fla. Agric. Exp’t Sta. Bul. 40, p. 507-12 
1898 Lugger, Otto. Minn. Agric. Exp’t Sta. Bul. 61, p. 218 
1899 Gillette, C. P. Country Gentleman, 64 :833 
1900 Forbes, S. A. Ins. Ill, 21st Rep’t, p. 149-50 

1900 —— Agric. Exp’t Sta. Bul. €o0, p. 497-08 
tooo, Chittenden, EF. H. U.S. Dep't Agric., Div. Ent., Bul. 22, n.-s., 
p. 56, 58 
1900 ————_——. U. S. Dep't Agric., Div. Ent., Bul. 23, n. s., p. 78-85 
1901 ———__—— U.. S.. Dep’t Agric., Div. Ent., Bul. 27, n. s., p. 73-74 
1g01 ————_——_ U.. S.. Dep’t Agric., Div. Ent., Bul. 29, n. s., p. 13-45 
loon Marat, ©: kL. U.S: Dept Agric, Farmers Bul. 132, p. 34 
1901 Felt, E. P. N. Y. State Mus. Bul. 36, p. 9908 
1902 Sanderson, E. D. Ins. Inj. to Staple Crops, p. 84-89 
1902 Beutenmueller, William. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 16:421-22 
1903 Chittenden, F. H. U.S. Dep't Agric., Div. Ent., Bul. 40, n. s., p. 113 
1903 ———_——— Year Book, U. S. Dep’t Agric., p. 729 
1903 Holland, W. J. Moth Book, p. 174-75 
1905 Forbes, S. A. Ins. Ill., 23d Rep’t, p. 81-83 
1007 5imith, kk. LT. UW. S. Dep't Agric:,; Bur. Ent:, Bul. 67, p. 102-3 
1912 Pierce, W. D., & Holloway, T. E. Econom. Entomol. Jour., 5:427, 
428 
1912 Wilson, James. U. S. Dep’t Agric., Cir. 40, Revised, p. 1-4 
t912 Sanderson, E. D. Insect Pests, Farm, Garden & Orchard, p. 118-20 
1912 —————— & Jackson, C. F. Elementary Entomology, p. 212 
ELM LEAF BEETLE 
Galerucella luteola Mull. 
The season of 1911 was marked by exceptionally severe and 
widespread devastation by the elm leaf beetle. The damage was 
so serious that elm-shaded communities were most easily recognized 
in midsummer by the brown, dead foliage. The same condition 
prevailed in many roadside groups of trees. Numerous elms, un- 
able to produce a second crop of leaves, had no opportunity to 
recuperate before the rigors of winter still further reduced their 
vitality. Some died while many others put forth a feeble leafage 
in 1912 only to have that nearly destroyed by midsummer. These 
trees are now in an extremely weakened condition and many may 
succumb during the winter. The tall elms with few branches and 
deficient foliage are the first to show the effects of elm leaf beetle 
attack. Moreover, they were not so easily protected by spraying 
