35)7 



The East Indian Sugar-cane Borer. 



In a recent number of Insect Lifk (Vol. iv, pp. 95-103) I iiiul a most interestiiijij 

 review by Mr. Howard of what is known about the Suj:!;ar-cane Borer, Diatraa 

 suvcharalis, with a valuable foot-note describing the results of your examination of 

 moths reared from Maize and Sugar Cane. 



The question of the specific identity of the borers which attack Sugar Cane, So>-- 

 ghinn ruhjare, and Maize is a very important one, especially in India, where they do a 

 great deal of damage to all three crops, and where therefore it is specially desirable 

 to settle definitely to what extent the refuse of a crop of Sorghum (for instance) is 

 liable to be detrimental to a crop of Sugar Cane or Maize growiug in the neighbor- 

 hood. 



We have reared a number of moths from Sugar Cane in Calcutta, ami though they 

 difier from each other a good deal in size and coloration I am strongly inclined to 

 look upon them as representing merely the varieties likely to be found in one species. 

 We have also reared moths from Maize and I think there can be no doubt as to their 

 identity with the moths we have reared from Sugar Cane. In the case of the Sorghum 

 rulf/are borer we have not yet been successful in rearing the moth, owing to the 

 numerous Chalcidid parasites (described by Mr. Peter Cameron as Cofesia Jtai'ipes n. 

 sp.) with which the caterpillars that were sent to this Museum were afflicted. 



I am sendiug you a moth reared from Sugar Cane in Calcutta inclosed in this let- 

 ter, and should be very much obliged if you would be so kind as to compare it with 

 your collection and let me know what you thiuk of its identity. I have picked it 

 out as one that represents an average amongst the moths we have reared. 



It may interest you to hear that owing to the fact that it is much easier to get 

 sugar-cane stalks than either maize stalks or sorghum stalks in Calcutta, we have 

 used Sugar Cane for rearing the borers sent to the Museum, both from Maize and 

 Sorghum. Maize borers were reared in Sugar Cane from the time they were com- 

 paratively small caterpillars until they emerged as moths, and a sorghum borer (the 

 only one of my set that escaped the Chalcidid) was reared in Sugar Cane from the 

 time it was a half-grown caterpillar until it became chrysalid, when it was accident- 

 ally damaged in transferring it to fresh Sugar Cane, and thus prevented iiom 

 emerging as a moth. I have not been able to notice that the caterpillars were any 

 the worse for their change of diet, and this, I think, itself is a very strong indication 

 that the same species attacks the thri'e plants indiscriminately. 



It would strengthen the evidence, however, if it should prove that the American 

 species is identical with the Indian one. — [E. C. Cotes, Calcutta, India, Feljruary 

 19, 1892. 



Rkfly. — Your sugar-cane borer is not the same as ours. It is a Chilo and not a 

 Diatnea and comes near C. phjadellus Winck., which bores in Rice in our Southern 

 States, but ditl'ers in the very clear-cut terminal dark line between the black spots 

 and fringe. The specimen is badly rubbed, aud its exact specific position can not 

 be determined with certainty. It is possible it may be identical with Chilo infiisca- 

 telht.i Snell., which infests Sugar Cane in Java. Better specimens are greatly de- 

 sired for further study and also specimens of the larva. 



Without doubt you are perfectly right in assuming that the borers in Sugar Cane, 

 Sorghum, and Maize are all the same, and it is interesting to know that at lea.st 

 one other Crambid agrees with D. saccharalis in this particular. — [March 28, 1892.] 



Florida Wax Scale on LeConte Pear. 



I cut the inclosed twigs and leaves from a LeConte Pear tree. Kindly Inform me 

 as to what kind of disease the tree has and what treatment is required for it. — [Her- 

 bert J. Pratt, Florida, May 30, 1892. 



Reply. — ' * * The Bark-louse, which you found upon your LeConle pears, is 

 the so-called Florida Wax Scale {Ceroplastes floridensis) . This insect has never be- 

 771— Ko. 11 4 



