112 



THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OF 



however, rougher, generally paler, striped differently (see Figs. 42 and 

 43, c,), and always readily distinguished by having a larger gamboge- 

 yellow or reddish head, which invariably lacks the distinct white in- 

 verted Y-shaped mark, and the darker shadings of the head of the 

 Fall Army-worm. 



Now, until the present year nothing was absolutely known of the 

 natural history of this worm, and though I knew that it was not the 

 true Army-worm, and suspected, from comparing it with the descrip- 

 tion of certain corn-feeding worms received in 1868 from Mr. E. 

 Daggy, of Tuscola, Illinois, that it would produce a certain moth 

 which I bred from Mr. Daggy's worms — yet 1 could not feel positive 

 without breeding the Fall Army-worm to the perfect state. This I 

 very luckily did, and I am therefore able to give its complete history. 



In the fall of 1868 I received a few specimens from Mr. T. R. 

 Allen, of Allenton, with an account of their injuring newly sown 

 wheat on oat stubble, and on page SSof my first Report it was briefly- 

 described by the name of Wheat Cut-worm. The popular term of 

 "Fall Army-worm" is, however, altogether more indicative than that 

 of "Wheat Cut-worm," since the species does not confine its attacks 

 to wheat, and not only very closely resembles the Army-worm in 

 appearance but has many habits in common. 



HOW IT DIFFERS FROM THE TRUE ARMY-WORM. 



The two insects need never be confounded, however. The true 

 Army-worm never appears in the fall of the year, but always about 

 the time when wheat is getting [ Fi s- 45 -] 



jbeyond the milk state ; and it 

 [generally disappears, in the lat- 

 itude of St. Louis, by the first 

 of June. It confines its attacks 

 entirely to the grasses and ce- 

 reals, whereas the species under 

 consideration is a much more 

 general feeder, devouring with 

 equal relish most succulent 

 plants, such as wheat, oats, 

 corn, barley, grasses, purslane, 

 turnips, and, as Mr. J. M. Jor- 

 dan of St. Louis informs me, even spruces. Moreover, when critically 

 examined, the two worms show many characteristic differences, as 

 will be seen by comparing Figure 44, which represents the true 

 Army-worm, with Figure 45, which represents at a the Fall Army- 

 worm natural size, at b its head magnified, at c a magnified dorsal 

 view of one of the joints, and at d a magnified side view of same. 

 Our Fall Army-worm moth is a most variable one — so variable, 



