4 THE PERIODICAL CICADA IN 1911. 



somewhat by the size of the dots, the small dots indicating scattering 

 or occasional colonies and the large dots abundant and general 

 occurrence of the insect. 



This brood was given very careful study by the writer in 1898, and 

 several thousand replies were received in response to circulars dis- 

 tributed throughout the region where this brood was supposed to 

 occur, and also covering a much wider surrounding region. Local 

 investigations were undertaken at this time by the official entomolo- 

 gists of the several States, notably Forbes (Illinois), Garman (Ken- 

 tucky), and Stedman (Missouri). These State reports confirmed 

 and supplemented the records obtained by this bureau, and are the 

 basis of the records given below and of the map. 



Nearly all the reports for 1908 indicated the occurrence of the 

 msect in enormous numbers. Unfortunately, however, there was 

 some doubt as to the correct reference of some of the localities in 

 Illinois and Indiana, and perhaps northern Missouri, where there was 

 an overlapping of this brood (XXIII of the 1.3-year race) with 

 Brood VI of the 17-year race. In the case of the records, how- 

 ever, assigned to the 13-year Brood XXIII in the States men- 

 tioned, wherever there was a question as to the accuracy of the 

 reference to the proper brood a query follows the county in the list 

 of States and counties given below. It is very desirable, therefore, 

 in obtaining records of this year to note particularly the occurrence 

 of the insect in northern Missouri, southern Illinois, and Indiana, to 

 clear up any doubt which may be attached to the records from these 

 districts. 



In the list of counties given below those followed by a star (*) 

 indicate counties in which the cicada occurred in one or more dense 

 swarms, in most instances many reports being received from the same 

 county. In the unstarred counties the cicada was observed in few 

 or scattering numbers, or at least was not abundant. The counties in 

 italics duplicate old records. The counties lacking confirmation by 

 the records of 1898 are inclosed in parentheses and included with the 

 others. 



The State and count}^ records follow: 



Alabama. — Etowah. 



Arkansas. — Arkansas * Ashley, Calhoun, Carroll, Chicot* Clark,* Columbia, Craig- 

 head,* Crawford, Crittenden,* Cross* Desha* (Franklin), Fulton, Garland, Hot 

 Spring, Howard, (Izard), (Jackson), Jefferson* Lafayette,* Lee,* Lincoln, Logan, 

 Lonoke,* Marion, Mississippi,* Monroe,* IS ewtou, Phillips,* Fike, Poinsett,* Prairie,* 

 Pulaski, Randolph, St. Francis,* Saline,* (Searcy), Sebastian, Sharp, Union, Van 

 Buren, Washington, Woodruff.* 



Georgia. — (Cobb), (Coweta), (Dekalb), (Gwinnett), (Meriwether), (Newton).' 



Illinois. — Alexander,* Crawford,* Edgar, Edwards,* Gallatin, Hardin,* Jackson,* 

 Jasper,* Jefferson, Johnson, Lawrence,* Macoupin, Madison,* Marion,* Perry,* Pike, 

 Pulaski,* Ra7idolph, Richland, St. Clair, Scott, Union,* Wabash,* Washington, Wayne,* 

 White, Williamson.* 



' None of these localities, all of which were queried, was confirmed in 1898, and the record of this hrood 

 in Georgia is undoubtedly erroneous. 



