De 



1958 



Decker: Economic Entomology 



107 



choicer fruits, the nectarine and the apricot. 

 The strawberry and the grape vine are in- 

 fested by a host of insects, some of them known 

 for many years back to science, others (ie- 

 scribed and illustrated for the first time by the 

 editors of this paper in various publications; 

 while there are still others the natural history 

 of which has never yet been published to the 

 world, and which will be figured and described 

 by the editors in the progress of this work. 

 What with the Bark-louse in the North, the 

 Apple-root Plant-louse in the South and the 

 Apple-worm everywhere, the apple crop in 

 North America is gradually becoming almost 

 as uncertain and precarious as the plum crop 

 (Walsh & Riley 1868a:l). 



To show that the testimony of an ento- 

 mologist was not biased and that the con- 

 ditions described above were more or less 

 general, we may note a comment made by 

 the eminent journalist Horace Greele\' 

 (1870:301): 



If I were to estimate the average loss per an- 

 num of the farmers of this country from insects 

 at $100,000,000, I should doubtless be far be- 

 low the mark. The loss of fruit alone by the 

 devastations of insects, within a radius of 

 fifty miles from this city, must amount in value 

 to millions. . . . We must fight our paltr\- ad- 

 versaries more efficiently, or allow them to 

 drive us wholly from the field. 



The first white settlers in Illinois ob- 

 served that the native fruits — plums, 

 grapes, haws, and berries — were subject 

 to attack by a variety of insects. More 

 than three-fourths of the species recog- 

 nized as fruit pests today were recognized 

 and mentioned in agricultural or horti- 

 cultural reports and farm journals prior 

 to 1870. The plum curculio, for exam- 

 ple, was to be found in every plum thicket 

 and, when improved varieties of plums 

 were introduced, the curculio took to 

 them like ducks to water. In discussing 

 plum culture at a fruit growers' meeting 

 in 1852, a Mr. Brewster reported that 

 for 4 years the curculio had destroyed his 

 plum crop. Then followed a general dis- 

 cussion of proposed control measures, 

 such as jarring, banding, paving, and 

 using lime, soap suds, and chamber lye. 

 The following year a similar report pro- 

 voked a repetition of the members' favor- 

 ite control measures, but by then two gen- 

 tlemen had the answer: Just fence the 

 plum orchard and turn in chickens 

 (J. A. Kennicott 1855:296, 314-5). 



The idea of using chickens for control 

 of curculio paralleled a suggestion made 



by a Mr. Harkness at a horticultural 

 meeting in 1853: 



Some twelve years since, a neighbor of his en- 

 closed a wild plum thicket, as a yard for 

 swine; trees bore full crops every year; never 

 troubled by curculio, whilst other thickets 

 about had fruit nearly all destroyed by them. 

 Four years since the hogs were turned out, and 

 the ground appropriated to other uses; the 

 first year after, the fruit was mostly destroyed 

 by curculio (J. A. Kennicott 1855:314). 



Gradually- certain members of the cur- 

 culio tribe developed a liking for related 

 stone fruits and even apples. In his first 

 and onlv report as State Entomologist, 

 Walsh (1868/^:64) noted: 



Although the Curculio now infests the culti- 

 vated species of Plum (Primus domrstica, Lin- 

 naeus,) to fully as great an extent as our com- 

 mon wild species (Prutius amrrlcana,) yet it 

 is only at a comparatively recent date that it 

 attacked our cultivated Plums, and since that 

 epoch it has been growing every year worse 

 and worse, and making onslaughts upon other 

 fruits, such as the Peach, the Cherry, and even 

 the Apple. 



For 20 to 30 years the use of Hull's 

 curculio catcher or similar devices to jar 

 curculios out of infested trees, so that the 

 insects could be destroyed, and the use of 

 hogs and chickens confined to the or- 

 chards to consume infested fruits as they 

 fell were the two principal, and perhaps 

 the only meritorious, control measures. 

 One should note, however, that farm 

 journals carried glowing advertisements 

 for numerous concoctions, which were 

 almost worthless or which did more harm 

 than good. 



The successful use of insecticides for 

 the control of the plum curculio on peach 

 and other stone fruits did not materialize 

 until lead arsenate came into the picture 

 in the late 1890's, because the more solu- 

 ble arsenic compounds — white arsenic, 

 Paris green, and London purple — then 

 available oroved too phytotoxic for use on 

 such delicate foliage as that of peach, 

 plum, and cherry. With the aid of im- 

 proved insecticide formulations, spray 

 schedules, and equipment developed 

 through years of continued research, Illi- 

 nois orchardists were able to hold their 

 own with the curculio until a crisis de- 

 veloped during World War II. Then as 

 labor and other overhead costs increased 

 and lead arsenate became less effective, 



