15 



antennfc are inserted in front of the face, close to the inner margin 

 of the eyes, which character alone would remove it from Siphonophora 

 and brhig it nearer to genera with rudimentary frontal tubercles, more 

 or less closely related to Aphis. 1 should, therefore, not be surprised 

 if future studies should disclose the fact that the species described by 

 Curtis is identical with S! phocory)it' {Aj>hls) aveuivYixh. Buckton was 

 apparently misled ])y the colored figure of a migrant on PI. J, on 

 which a number of spots on the abdomen are represented which have 

 not been mentioned in the description, which plainl}^ indicates that he 

 described, one and figured quite a diti'erent species found on grain at 

 the same time. At any rate, the first substantial description and illus- 

 tration of the present species must be credited to Buckton. 



As to the Slplionophm'a avense^ as described by Thomas, in which 

 he includes (/rdnaria^ ccrealis^ and lioi'del^ I will say that he is very 

 much mistaken. On page 52, and partly on page 53 of his report, 

 Thomas simply reproduces the description of the true Slphocoryne 

 {Ajf/u's) avcnct', as described by Fitch in his sixth report (p. 95, etc.), 

 which he considered, without a doubt, as being identical with a species 

 found by him on grain, whereas his description of the insect (p. 53) 

 tallies well with ki'iphonophora graiiaria as described by Buckton. 



Until quite recently I considered the species treated of 1)}^ Thomas 

 as being identical with\xl. avenm Fab., until a careful examination of 

 specimens found bj^ me on oats at Stettin, Prussia, July 26, 1898, con- 

 vinced me that the species found then was identical with the one 

 described by Buckton and agreeing also with the short description of 

 aven» Thomas (Eighth Report Nox. and Benef. Insects of 111., p. 

 53, 1879), though not with the species described by Fitch under the 

 name of ^1. avenx. 



Prior to that date and since then the same species had been received 

 by the Department from Concord, N, C. — Ma}^ 25, 1882, found infest- 

 ing the ears of wheat. During December, 1888, it was found on 

 wheat at Lafax^ette, Ind. In 1889 it was found on wheat at Washing- 

 ton, D. C, and during August of the same year at Lafayette, Ind., 

 on oats. In June, 1897, it was found on wheat and grass at Washing- 

 ton, D. C, and in May, 1898, on wild rye {Elymus vt/yintcus) growing 

 in Virginia near the shore of the Potomac. During the month of June, 

 1900, it was found at Milford, Del., on wheat and rye, and in various 

 localities in Kansas, where it sometimes proved to be very abundant 

 and destructive to wheat and oats, and on heads of wheat at Macomb, 

 111. ; it was also reported as doing much damage to wheat at North- 

 ville, N. Dak. During April and May of 1901 it was reported as 

 doing nmch damage to wheat from Adonia, Farmville, Shirley, and 

 Spring Garden, Va., while, lastly, it was found to be very numerous on 

 young volunteer wheat in the District of Columbia. 



