(160 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE. =~ 
are in use they may be utilized to especial advantage in the capture of thousands | 
of moths. I see no feasible plan of attacking the larvee after they are established — 
in the turf. 
Natural enemies.—I have already mentioned the fact that the pupe, possibly the , 
full-grown larvee, are extensively preyed upon by the striped squirrel (Spermophi- 
lus 13-lineatus). Unfortunately this sprightly tittle rodent has a taste for other — 
food, which has gained for it a very unsavory reputation as a farm adjunct. Doubt- 
less where corn is cultivated the injury to that crop will overbalance the good they 
may do in meadows; but Lam inclined to think that for land kept constantly in 
grass their value is far greater than usually supposed. I know they feed upon 
the seed of grass and clover and doubtless also to some extent on the leaves and 
stems, but they also feed on noxious weeds and insects. : 
- During several years’ close observation of them on a lawn I have failed to find 
any indication of serious damage to the turf. and could they be kept in bounds I 
should feel like recommending that for permanent lawns they be allowed a home. 
for the sake of the insects they devour. “They seemed to select the cocoons of the 
turf-worms infallibly, pouncing upon a certain spot, digging for an instant, and 
then sitting upright to devour the dainty morsel. 
Other mention of the species and related forms.—Iin his first annual report as State 
entomologist of New York, pp. 149, 150, Prof. J. A. Lintner gives the result of a breed- 
ing of one larva of Crambus exsiceatus in connection with a deta:led account of 
the Crambus vulgivagellus, and there expresses the suspicion that the insect is - 
double-brooded. | 
In the fourteenth annual report of the State entomologist of [ilinois, pp. 12-17, 
Prof.S. A. Forbes describes under the name of Crambus zeellus, Fernald, an insect 
which in many respects resembles the species here discussed. In some respects, 
however, there is considerable difference, and I have not attempted to determine 
the relationship between them. This species described by Professor Forbes is men- 
tioned and a letter relating thereto is published in Bulletin No. 12, p. 33, Division of 
Entomology, United States Department of Agriculture. (- 
I can not overlook the possibility that there may be more than one species in- 
cluded in the records here presented, and indeed for the reports from over the State 
there is every probability that two or more forms are included under the general 
name of sod-worms, web-worms, etc. 
The occurrence of Crambus vulgivagellus, for instance, in company with easic- 
catus would account for several apparent discrepancies in reports concerning the 
time of pupation of the Web-worm. It has been my effort to record the facts as 
observed and reported, and the distinction of the different species, if such be included, 
must be worked out in the future. There can be no question, however, that the 
great body of the swarm appearing here the present season belongs to one species. 
‘THE WHEAT-HEAD ARMY-WORM. 
(Leucania aibilinea, Guen.) 
An insect which can without doubt be referred to this species caused very con- 
siderable damage in some of the southeastern counties of the State. Unfortunately 
I was not aware of the damage till too late to secure specimens for determination. 
Descriptions of the larva and its work, however, are so characteristic that I feel 
confident it was this species. I subjoin extracts from the Jowa crop report for July 
10, 1887, which will show the distribution and damage so far as reported. 
It will be noticed that the area included extends from the Mississippi River to a 
little west of the middle of the State and comnprises only the two southern rows of 
<counties, with the exception of Adair, which corners to the northwest upon the 
last infested county in the second row. Estimates given for two of the counties 
place the loss at 75,000 bushels (equal to about $150,000) in one (Jefferson) and at 
$30,000 in the other (Wayne). It is possible that these estimates are too high, but. 
if we cut them down one-half and swppose the other eleven counties reported to 
have suffered in like ratio it would make a total loss of over half a million dollars 
for the thirteen counties. Doubtful counties out of this area may have suffered 
more or less, but not so conspicuously as to attract attention. The moths were 
noted at Ames during the summer, but not in unusual abundance. 
Extracts from Iowa crop report. 
ADAIR CounTy.—There is some new insect eating off timothy heads. 
APPANOOSE COUNTY.—Timothy heads eaten off by worms. There will not be 
any seed in Franklin Township. Within the Jast fifteen days a worm looking like 
an overgrown measuring worm made its appearance on timothy heads and com- 
