50 



further into the grouud, and not a live one was found to date after careful search, 

 while in other places, where the emulsion was not used, they are still continuing their 

 work in a lively manner. I have watched the experiment of destroying these grubs 

 with a great deal of interest, for on its success or failure depended the preservation 

 or destruction of the grass on the large lawn in front of the House of Representa' 

 tives, and I have now much pleasure iu stating that the experiment has been a great 

 success. 



Very truly, yours, 



Wm. J. COGAN, 



Foreman. 

 Prof. C. V. Riley. 



EXTRACTS FROM CORRESPONDENCE. 

 A New Tomato Enemy in Georgia. 



A year ago the accompanying Leaf-hopper was first noticed to be damaging young 

 tomato plants. * * * i inclose you a few jilants showing the nature of the dam- 

 age, a single insect ruining a plant. — [A. Oemler, M. D., Wilmington Island, Ga., 

 April 29, 1887. 



Reply. — The Leaf-hopper which you send is one which has not before been re- 

 corded as doing any such damage. It is Say's Stictocephalafestina. Canyon give us 

 further details as to the numbers and the damage done, and their method of work, 

 and also as to whether they appear to confine themselves to tomato plants? I can 

 suggest nothing in the way of a remedy, except the kerosene emulsion spray. — [April 

 -30, 1887.] 



Second letter. — I inclose to you the young tomato plants to demonstrate the man- 

 ner of working of the Leaf-hopper better than I could describe It. A single insect 

 will ring the stem, when the lower stem may dwindle. The number is not great at 

 present, still the damage is considerable on young plants, because it is not readily 

 noticeable. It has not been seen on other plants. If you have overlooked the injury 

 to the plants you may still observe it unless they have been thrown away. The outer 

 bark does not seem to be eaten away, but a ring seems to have been sucked, injuring 

 the stability, or I may say, continuity of the stem. A remedy seems inapplicable. — 

 [May 7, 1887. J 



Reply. — # » # j [j^ve already noticed the peculiar ringing of the stem 

 which you mention. This will be, as you say, a very difficult insect to fight, and I 

 am at a loss at this distance to suggest a remedy. Perhaps on the ground you may 

 be able to find one, in which case I hope you will not fail to forward an account. — 

 [May 9, 1887.] 



Precursors of Brood V of the Periodical Cicada, 1871-1888. 



On June 6 I heard the note of the Cicada septendicem at Port Byron Junction, 4 miles 

 east of Moline. I have heard the note every day since in Moline. They are here in 

 such small numbers that they have not attracted general attention. Upon reference 

 to yonr report of 1885 I conclude they are precursors of Brood V. — [Jerome McNeill, 

 Moline, 111. June 13, 1887. 



Reply. — # # * j ^^j^ glad to receive your information concerning the note of 

 the Cicada. I agree with yoii that these individuals must be precursors of Brood V, 

 as there are no recorded broods for this year. Can you not obtain a few specimens ? — 

 [June 16, 1887.] 



