367 



The Plums and Cherries, about six hundred and fifty trees, aud the 

 Hausel Raspberry were sprayed May 10 with Loudon puri)k' aud water 

 iu the proportiou of G ouuces of the former to 50 gallous of the latter — 

 a l!^ixoii pump aud nozzle being used for this jiurpose. Concerning this 

 application, Mr. Bowers writes, under date of May 14, as follows : 



The bugs were less Saturday uight (May 11). Last uight I fouud ouly from three 

 to eight per tree ; yesterday I found some dead under weeds and grass. I shall spray 

 about Friday or Saturday. We have had very heavy raius, and I think the poison is 

 all washed off. 



It is impossible from the above to determine whether the decrease of 

 the beetles is owing to the spraying or other cause, such as the rain. 

 Later communications from Mr. Bowers show thi?t on account of con- 

 tinual rains during May he did not spray again. The trees were not 

 damaged further, and the beetles became rapidly less numerous, al- 

 though dead ones were not found. It is probable that the poisoned 

 beetles were able to conceal themselves before the poison took effect. 



NOTES ON PRONUBA AND YUCCA POLLINATION.* 

 By C. V. Riley. 



Partly because of more pressing duties, partly because of a desire to 

 make some special experiments, but chiefly in the hope that (after the 

 fruiting season of the dehiscent Yuccas was over, and Mr, Hulst had 

 been able to make more careful observations) he would himself grace- 

 fully amend his opinions to accor<l with the facts, I have deferred an- 

 swering till now the remarks by JMr. Hulst on pp. 23(3-L'38 of Vol. II, 

 Eut. Amer. The matter is too important to drop, and I have too much 

 regard for my critic personally, and hope for his future entomologically, 

 not to do what little I can to check an unfortuimte tendency to hasty 

 work and conclusion, noticeable iu this as in some other of his late 

 writings. 



Mr. Hulst "confesses the corn" in reference to my first complaiut, 

 and is iucliued to blame the report for his misrepresentations — an in- 

 clination which would have more of my sympathy were he not editor 

 of the paper. 



It is, however, far more important, from the scientific side, that he 

 confess to the justness of my second indictment, aud it is to this end 

 that 1 return to the subject. 



* In explanation of the controversial nature of this communication, it becomes 

 necessary to refer to a dispute on this subject between the Rev. G. D. Hulst aud my- 

 self in the columns of Entomologica Americana during the summer of 1887. The 

 communication is a reply to Mr. Hulst's last pnblication on the subject, and is pre- 

 sented iwrbatim ef literatim as written on my way to Europe in August of that year, 

 and as mailed to him from Euglaud. Mr. Hulst is editor of tlie aforesaid journal, 

 and exercised his editorial prerogative in declining to publish the communication. 

 I have, therefore, concluded to present the paper to the Society, since it discusses 

 matters of considerable scientitic interest. 



