APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIECULAR. 431 



I think local topographical features have bat little to do with the worm. [E. M. 

 Thompson, Jackson. 



They do, as low swamp lands and fresh or newly-cleared lands are the most subject 

 to them. [M. Kemp, Marion. 



I think not. [D. P. Luke, Eerrien. 



Only so far as they promote the growth of the cotton. [A. J. Cheves, Macon. 



I think not. [William Jones, Clark. 



We are of the opinion that it does not. [S. P. Odom, Dooly. 



LOUISIANA. 



Think not. This plantation is entirely isolated. It has one mile of woods on one 

 side, two miles on the other "and on the back, with a lake three-fourths of a mile wide 

 along the entire front, but we are eaten up by the worms about as soon as our neigh- 

 bors. [H. B. Shaw, Concordia. 



I write only of my own parish, where the lands in cultivation are almost altogether 

 uplands. We have very few plantations on the river or alluvial lands, so far as to 

 amount to a very small percentage of the aggregate. On river and bayou lands, which 

 are alluvial to the west and south of us, the army worm appears usually earlier than 

 with us and increases more rapidly, and is there'fore more destructive. The reasons 

 for this are due perhaps to the rankness and succulence of the cotton-plant on allu- 

 vial lands in comparison with its growth on our poorer and drier lands. [Douglas M. 

 Hamilton, West Feliciana. 



Where the lands are low and moist and the plant luxuriant the extent of ravage is 

 the greatest. [John A. Maryman, East Feliciana. 



They appear earlier and are more destructive on rich creek bottoms and alluvial 

 lands. [Dr. I. U. Ball, West Feliciana. 



MISSISSIPPI. 



I think the first brood introduced into a field would destroy the cotton upon which 

 it was bred, until it went into chrysalis, without regard to any topographical features, 

 and the second and third brood, &c., would widen the area unchecked by any local 

 features, except a ditch or stream of water, which would check the progress of the 

 worm. The worm sometimes eats the cotton along a line and does not pass the fur- 

 row, because it finds there enough to eat before going into chrysalis. [Dr. E. H. An- 

 derson, Madison. 



They do. We often see fields in part of which all the foliage, young bolls, even 

 half-grown bolls, and the bark of older ones are completely consumed, when in other 

 parts of the same field the plants remain intact, even though continuous in the same 

 rows with that destroyed. The caterpillars refuse to pass a certain line. On one side 

 of this line the plants are completely denuded ; on the other, untouched. They may 

 cross this line, but will eat no cotton-leaf beyond it. If placed on the plant, they 

 speedily abandon it, and will starve rather than eat it. Yet one sees little or no differ- 

 ence in the cotton on the two sides of this line. [D. L. Phares, Wilkinson. 



Never heard of local topographical features having influence to extend the worm's 

 ravages. [John C. Russell, Madison. 



Very little. [C. Welch, Coviugton. 



In reply to topographical features, you will notice how strongly Dr. Phares alludes 

 to the insect eating up a line or along a line and leaving other plants untouched bor- 

 dered by forests. The first is due, I think, to the fact of their finding enough to eat 

 where they are quartered, and their indisposition to migrate unless impelled by hun- 

 ger. The second, to the fact that the plant is not subject to the rays of the sun until 

 the dew has passed off. This feature I have always noticed on the east side of a field. 

 [E. H. Anderson, Madison. 



Deep, rich, black laud favors their production. Our county is partly sandy and 

 hilly; the worms seldom trouble it. The eastern portion is black, open, prairie-ham- 

 inock and some bottom, where they give us fits. [Kenneth Clark, Chickasaw. 



To a certain extent low, moist lands first, where cotton is slow in starting to grow 

 off. Hills or table lands are the last attacked. [ J. W. Bnrch, JeffereoTi. 



In flats and depressions their numbers are greatest and the damage most alarming. 

 [George F. Webb, Amite. 



NORTH CAROLINA. 



No ; but, unlike the worm further south, it seldom attacks the rankest growth of 

 cotton in the bottoms, but prefers to feed on the smaller sized cotton on the ridges. 

 [J. Evans, Cumberland. 



SOUTH CAROLINA. 



Think not. [James W. Grace, Colle ton. 



This year they have eaten up the leaves of the cotton in the low, black, moist places, 

 and stopped as soon as the gray, sandy land was reached. [Paul S. Felder, Orange- 

 burgh. 



Not to any perceivable extent. [James C. Brown, Barnwell. 



