392 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



Sultry, showery weather produces them. If we have a wet July and August we are 

 sure to have them. [H. A. Sfollenwerck, Perry. 



Wet and cloudy weather are favorable to their multiplication ; dry and hot weather 

 has the opposite effect. [H. C. Brown, Wilcox. 



Wet weather seems to be favorable to the breeding of ^orins. [George W. Thagard, 

 Crenshaw. 



My observation is, the kind of weather makes no difference. [James M. Harrington, 

 Monroe. 



Damp and cloudy weather favorable; hot and dry weather unfavorable. [Knox, 

 Minge, and Evans, Hale. 



It is the generally entertained opinion that wet weather is most favorable for their 

 production, but I am of the opinion that weather hag but little to do with it. Onr 

 summers are all wet enough in my judgment for them. They flourish best in hot 

 weather. I have seen them multiply rapidly when there was not rain for more than 

 fonr weeks, notably in 1873, in July, when there was no rain from the 16th of Juue 

 until the 19th of July. [R. W. Russell, Lowndes. 



The prevalent idea among practical farmers is that a wet May and June is favorable 

 to the development of the worms. My own experience is that from lr>47 to 1860 we had 

 both wet and dry seasons, and yet no worms. I do not believe the hygrometric condition 

 of seasons produces them ; yet, I do believe that a wet season favors their rapid pro- 

 duction or increase. [R. S. Williams, Montgomery. 



Warm, cloudy, and sho-very weather seems to best suit the work of the worm ; it 

 seems to ho more vigorous, and destroy the cotton sooner during such weather. [J.N. 

 Gilmore, Sumter. 



Don't think weather ex<rts any influence on their propagation, &c., or on their ap- 

 pearance, &c., from year to year. [John D. Johnston, Sumter. 



ARKANSAS. 



The weather the preceding year and the year the worms are plentiful have a marked 

 influence on their destructiveness. A mild, dry fall and winter followed by a damp, 

 hot season is always favorable to moths and worms. [E. T. Dale, Miller. 



Dry summers tend to an increase, at least from the 15th of July. In cold, wet sum- 

 mers there there are very few, comparatively. [T. S. Edwards, Pope. 



FLORIDA. 



Tho years that the insect has been most destructive, tho seasons have not been, ex- 

 cessive either for wet or dry. [F. M. Meekin, Aluchua. 

 Most warm weather. [R. Gamble, Leon. 



GEORGIA. 



I have seen the worm in both dry and wet seasons, and the only difference noticed 

 was that in wet seasons the growth of the cotton was more luxuriant, and the worms 

 had more to feed upon. [William Jones, Clarke. 



We are of the opinion that the weather has but little influence npoii the migration 

 of the parent of the caterpillar. [S. P. Odom, Dooly. 



I do not recollect that the weather had any effect upon them ; the cotton was very 

 tall, and a good seasonable year for crops, I think. [E. M. Thompson, Jackson. 



Cloudy weather is the time for the worm ; they cannot etaud the hot sun. [W. A. 

 Harris, Worth. 



Warm weather, moderately dry, with heavy dews, and nights very warm, is favor- 

 able to the worm. When cool nights set iu the worm webs up and 'disappears. [M. 

 Kemp, Marion. 



Weather that favors a late growth of the cotton-plant is favorable to an increase of 

 the worm. [A. J. Cheves, Mucon. 



Wet summers have proven to be favorable. [D. P. Luke, Berrien. 



In dry hot weather the increase is slow. [Timothy Fussell, Coffee. 



" % LOUISIANA. 



Worms do not do much damage during very hot dry weather. They remain on tho 

 underside of the leaf, especially so when young, and eating only in the morning and 

 evening. Damp stormy weather is necessary for the full development of their destruc- 

 tive powers. [H. B. Shaw, Concordia. 



We have no printed or written records, that I am aware of, accessible to our people, 

 and I cannot say what the seasons were iu former times, before and during the preva- 

 lence of the army worm. Our people are not learned, or scientific, as a rule, outside 

 of professional walks of life, and the only article I ever recollect to have read on the 

 army worm, written by one of our people, was written by a Dr. Gorham, and pub- 

 lished in Do Bow's Review, New Orleans, after 1841. This is no doubt among my 

 father's books, in his library here, but I have no access to it at present. I mention 

 this in order that you may cause the article to be looked up and referred to. Dr. Gor- 



