356 



From answers to many inquiries sent to hop-growers of this State we learn that it 

 was tried the past season in many cases, and generally with success, though several 

 reports came in of its failure. Such failures must be ascribed to the fact that it was 

 not, in those cases, properly made or properly used. Under the right crnditions it 

 is a perfect success. 



We are prompted here to mention the fact that a prominent ho^^ nrm in Washing- 

 ton State is issuing a circular to the effect that an extract of quassia chijis is the 

 only remedy for this pest, and denouncing kerosene emulsion as of no vahie against 

 the Hop Louse. This is both unjust and untrue, as repeated experiments have proven. 



The writer reports success against flea-beetles on radishes from the 

 use of a tobacco wash prepared by boiling 1 pound of waste stems in 2 

 gallons of water. The success of this treatment is ascribed largely to 

 the fertilizing qualities of the tobacco. 



The Mouth-parts of Copris Carolina.'— The importance of this little 

 paper by Prof. Smith is derived from the fact that he here names the 

 parts of the compound mandible of this Scarabaeid in which these scler- 

 ites are particularly well diflerentiated, and homologizes these parts 

 with those of the maxillse. This is, curiously enough, an important bit 

 of work which seems not to have been done before. Oomstock, in his 

 "Introduction to Entomology," called attention to the want which 

 Prof. Smith's paper has thus promptly filled. The sclerite which homol- 

 ogizes with the cardo of the maxilla he names suh-basalis ; that which 

 is the homologue of the stipes he calls the basalis. The homologue of 

 the galea he names the terehra, while the maxillar lacinia is homologized 

 with the mandibular prostheca of Kirby and Spence, the latter being 

 the only part which had previously received a name. Two other scle- 

 rites which he calls the molar and conjmiGtivus he does not attempt to 

 homologize. For the rest, the paper describes briefly the remaining 

 mouth-parts, showing a remarkable development of the epipharynx, 

 indicating that in other Scarabaeids this organ is more or less paired. 

 Prof. Smith is of opinion that further studies of this sclerite will dis- 

 close species in which it is completely divided. 



This paper again suggests strongly to us the necessity for a uni- 

 form nomenclature of the insect exoskeleton. The thoracic nomen- 

 clature of MacLeay is a well-grounded i)hilosophical system and should 

 be generally adopted. We need, however, an extension of the princi- 

 ples used in this system to other parts of the body, and ]>articularly to 

 the mouth-parts. Having once satisfied ourselves of the homologic 

 relationship of the sclerites of the maxilla, labium, and mandible, uni- 

 formity in the nomenclature of these parts becomes almost a necessity. 

 The objection urged against such a nomenclature will be naturally the 

 repetition of the qualifying term, but the advantage to be gained by a 

 clear and thorough understanding at once conveyed by such a term will 



*The Mouth Parts of Copris Carolina, with notes on the homologies of the nlan- 

 dibles. Ey John B. Smith. Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc, xix, pp. 83-87, Plates ii and ill. 



