ar +t, fee « 
ef ay me en - : ~ 
ot thd, ; 
REPORT OF THE ENTOMOLOGIST. val 
WET WEATHER AND THE CHINCH BUG, 
The great preponderance of evidence favors the idea, now Gonsid- 
ered well established, that wet weather is inimical to this insect 
Dozens, we may almost say hundreds, of instanees ate on reeord in 
which the Chinch Bugs, after successfully hibetnating in great num- 
bers, have been rendered harmless by a wet spring, and in which, 
having laid their eggs and appeared again as the spring brood with 
‘eathy increased forces, a spell of rainy weather im eatly summer 
as caused them to vanish. Hence it follows that dry seasons favor 
the increase of the pest, and careful observation convinced Riley and 
others that after a season of moderate abundance (presumably, there- 
fore, not a wet season) the oceurrence of the bugs in destructive num- 
bers the next season depends almost entirely upon the wetness or 
dryness of the ensuing spring, . 
The exact method in which wet weather accomplishes the destruc- 
tion of the msect is a somewhat disputed point, That it is not 
actual submergence was pointed out by Professor Riley m his Second 
Missouri Report, and still further proven by an observation made by 
Hon. William McAdams and reported by Professor Forbes in his 
first report as Entomologist of Hlinois, and which is sufficiently in- 
teresting to quote: “In his vicinity, im Jersey County [Tll.], they 
[the Chinch-bugs] were extremely abundant im the grain early im the 
spring, but were all apparently swept out of the country by @ long 
and violent storm. Some days afterwards, when the water had sub- 
sided, he noticed in pulling over the drift-wood in the river bottoms 
immense numbers of Chinch-bugs among the rubbish, most of them 
still alive and crawling about.” . 
Professor Forbes also concludes that simple exposure to moisture 
hardly has the effect attributed to rain, from experiments which. he 
-tnade as follows: ‘A number of hills infested by the bugs were suc- 
cessfully transplanted to boxes and variously treated with water for 
ten days. Some selected examples were thoroughly drenched every 
day, both ground and stalks; in other boxes only the ground was 
watered; in still others the corn was sprinkled every day, but the 
ground protected, and the remainder were left with only sufficient 
attention to keep the corn alive. Dwring the time for which these 
experiments were continued no appreciable effect whatever was pro- 
duced upon the bugs infesting the stalks. Those where the corn 
was watered were washed down wpon the ground each time, but 
soon dried off and climbed up the stallk. Atv the end of this time 
the bugs under observation all commenced to disappear indiscrim- 
inately, without reference to the mode in which the corn had been 
treated, and the experiment was thus abruptly closed. Enough was 
learned, however, to show that a succession of heavy daily showers 
for more than a week would have no appreciable effect wpoon these 
insects in that stage. The weather was warm and pleasant, and the 
condition under which the experiments were carried on made it im- 
possible to saturate the air.” — 
So general a conclusion, if seems to us, is: hardly warrantable from 
the conditions under which the experiments were made, If “the 
weather was warm and pleasant, and the condition under which the 
experiments were carried on made it impossible to saturate the air,” 
the effect could hardly help but differ from that of a heavy shower 
in 4 corn-field,, particularly from that of “a succession of heavy daily 
