13 



The first section of -the above table shows a comparison of the pro- 

 duction in ten counties in Texas in 1899, when the weevil had scarcely 

 reached them, and in 1902, when it had multiplied to such an extent 

 as to be found in great numbers in practically all cotton fields. These 

 wo years were selected for comparison for the reason that the}^ were 

 practicallv identical in amount and distribution of rainfall and in 

 other essential crop conditions. The second part of the table gives a 

 comparison of the production during- the same 3"ears in ten other lead- 

 ing counties situated so far north that the weevil had not aft'ected them 

 in either of the two years used for comparison. It will be noticed 

 that while in the counties of the first series there had been a decrease 

 in production of 53 per cent, in the counties of the second series there 

 had been an increase of 11 per cent. There seems to be no reason why 

 the cotton production of the counties of the first series' would not have 

 increased at about the same rate as was the case in those of the second 

 series had it not been for the damage caused by the weevil. This makes 

 it fair, it is believed, to conclude that the approximate damage caused 

 b}^ the insect was the sum of the decrease in one case and the increase 

 in the other, or about 64 per C3nt. 



There are two sources of possible error in these figures. One is in 

 the likelihood of a change in acreage between 1899 and 1902 that may 

 not have affected the two regions alike, and the other is in the proba- 

 bility that the two seasons were not exactly similar. In relation to the 

 first point it must be stated that increases in acreage are generally the 

 result of conditions of the markets that would affect the whole State 

 alike, and that if there Avere an}^ increase in these years it would 

 probably have been verj^ much alike in either case. As to the possi- 

 bility of an appreciable difference in the seasons, it must be stated 

 that the two regions are comparativel}^ close' together, and that a care- 

 ful examination of the records shows that they were remarkably alike 

 in all important respects. Nevertheless, it is the tendenc3"of planters, 

 as soon as the weevil becomes a serious menace, to devote more of their 

 land to other crops. Accurate figures on this point are not obtainable, 

 but on the whole an allowance of a reduction of this kind that would 

 account for 10 per cent decrease in production would be ample. It 

 therefore seems to the writer that a figure in the neighborhood of 50 

 per cent represents a verj'^ fair approximate estimate of the loss. 



Upon the foregoing basis, assuming that there is a loss of about 50 

 per cent in newly invaded regions, but with an offset due to improved 

 methods in older regions, it seems very conservative to state that, 

 during the season of 1901:, the weevil caused a reduction of at least 

 450,000 bales, representirg a value, including that of the seed, of 

 about $22,000,000. 



216 



