REPOKT OP THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 249 



Franklin, Hart (?), Henderson (?), Jefferson, Lawrence (?), McLean, 

 Mercer (ISGS), Ohio, Oldham, Trimble. 



Xegative reports from Casey, Clay, Leslie, Owsley, Pike, Eussell and 

 adjoining counties, Shelby, Wayne. 



Indiana. — The appearance of the Cicada was reported from all coun- 

 ties of the State, except the following : 



De Kalb (not heard from), Howard (negative report received), Mar- 

 shall (not heard from), Ohio (not heard from). Porter (negative report 

 received), Pulaski (not heard from), Starke (not heard from). 



Illinois. — Clark, Crawford, De Witt, Edgar, Edwards (?), Gallatin, Iro- 

 quois (186S), Kane (?), Pope, Vermillion, Wabash, White, Williamson 

 (perhaps Brood YII). 



Negative reports from Carroll, Douglas, Kendall, Lee. 



Micliigan, — Barry, Branch, Calhoun, Eaton, Genesee, Gratiot, Jack- 

 son, Kalamazoo, Lenawee, Livingston, Monroe, ^ Saint Clair, Saint 

 Joseph, Washtenaw, Wayne. 



Negative reports from Macomb, Manistee. 



Wisconsin. — Sauk. 



Negative reports from a number of other counties. 



The above enumeration of counties in which the appearance of the 

 Cicada was reported to us in 1885, gives but an imperfect picture of the 

 distribution of the two broods, and we have, therefore, endeavored to 

 indicate on a map (Map 1) the localities reported to us this year as 

 well as those previously ascertained, and to thus illustrate graphically 

 the extent of territory occupied by the two broods. The limited scale 

 of a map intended for an octavo volume prevents accurate and detailed 

 delineation of the limits of the territory known to be occupied by either 

 brood as also the real conditions within that area. There are many 

 counties in which the Cicada appeared only in the northern or eastern 

 half, or only in a few scattered localities, or even a single locality. All 

 these and other details, so interesting and important for a thorough un- 

 derstanding of the geographical and topograi^hical distribution of the 

 Cicada, could only be indicated on a much larger map. It must also be 

 remembered thaib our knowledge of the distribution of the various 

 broods, and more especially of the large ones which extend over many 

 States, is far from being complete. Many counties, especially in the 

 Southern States, have not been heard from at all, while the reports re- 

 ceived from a number of other counties are so vague or so ambiguous 

 as to be of little or no value. 



Points of Contact of the tico Broods. — A glance at the map shows 

 that the two broods are well separated from each other except at two 

 points, viz, in southern Illinois and northern Georgia. In the first- 

 mentioned State the localities along the Mississippi Eiver undoubt- 

 edly belong to Brood YII, while those along the Wabash Eiver belong 

 with equal certainty to Brood XXII; but considerable uncertainty ex- 

 ists regarding the localities along the lower course of the Ohio Eiver 

 and those between that river and the Mississippi. There is great 

 doubt whether the county of Williamson, in Illinois, belongs to the ter- 

 ritory of Brood YII or to that of Brood XXII. We received two reports 

 from that county, the one simply stating the appearance of the Cicada 

 this year, the second recording the Cicadas in the years 1868, 1881, and 

 1885. These three years can only refer to Brood XYIII (1868 and 1881) 

 and XXII (1868 and 1885), both broods having appeared simultaneously 

 in 1868. Thus, on the strength of this communication, we have referred 

 Williamson County, Illinois, to Brood XXII. 



Still more confusing and uncertain are the relations of the two broods 



