1836.] 



FARMERS' REGISTER 



563 



you will at once have noticed, and their anal^-sis 

 gives as follows: — 



Taa Soils. 



Water, 



Vej^etable matter, 

 Carbonate of" Iron, 

 Aiuinina, 

 Silex, 



Tea soils of Assam. 



Surface At 2^ feet 



soil. deep. 



2.45 2.00 



1. 00 0.30 



7.40 6.70 



3.50 5.43 



85.40 84.10 



Traces of pliosphate ] 

 and sufphate of' 

 lime, and foss. ' 



99.75 



25 



lOO.CO 



99.03 

 95 



100.00 



Tea soil 

 of China. 



3.00 

 1.00 

 9.<)0 

 9.10 

 76.00 



9D.00 



l.CO 



100.00 



There are two peculiarities in these soils, the 

 first, that they contain no carbonate of lime, and 

 only traces of phosphate and sulphate; and the 

 next, that their iron is almost wholly in the state of 

 carbonate of iron — a widely different compound 

 from the simple oxides. They would be called 

 poor yellow loams; and cotton, tobacco or sugar 

 cane, would probably starve upon tiiem ; but we 

 find that they suit the tea plant perfectly, it is a 

 striking coincidence, that we .=:hou!d find our tea 

 soils and those of (Jhina, so exactly alike. 



I fear to grow prolix, though 1 have much more 

 to say on the subject of soils; I shall therefore 

 break off, trusting that for the present, I have am- 

 ply shown the necessity of a carefid examination 

 of the soil ; and that the commercial public, who 

 can do so much for us in this way, will not neglect 

 their own interests in procuring specfmens of soils 

 for us ; for to go to work in ignorance of this great 

 element of success is ab.-olutely to blunder on in 

 the dark, where chemistry could lend us an unfail- 

 ing liijht. 



ON THE ORIGIN AND HAEITS OF THE CUT- 

 WORM. 



To tiie Editor of llie Farmers' Re;,'isler. 



Dear Sir : — In resuming so early, the subject of 

 •' Entomology," after the long discourse I lately 

 gave you, on the "Hessian Fly" — and, moreover, 

 laboring under the misfortune in thelbrmer, as well 

 as the present instance, of controverlmg, if not ca- 

 tholic opinions, at least such as are very confidently 

 asserted — 1 fear you will view me in the light of a 

 polemical heretic, delighting more to shake the liiith 

 of" others, than to esiabliah one for myself. 



But, to the point — my subject, at present, is the 

 far famed "Cut- Worm." 



In your present, November, No. of the "Far- 

 mers' Register," I this moment read an extract 

 from the " Cultivator," which, indeed, I had seen 

 in extenso, in this mestimable " periodical," in re- 

 gard to the origin of that destructive insecl. 



The writer commences his hj'pothelical remarks, 

 by which, he flatters himseifj lie has arrived at 

 the truth, by asking the (juestion, " to what spe- 

 cies, can they be attributed ?" He, then, satisfies 

 himself they are not propagated by the '-'Coleop- 

 terous tribe, (beetle,) because he has examined 

 several species of this tribe, and has invariably 



Ibund their larvae, of pale yellowish or light brown 

 color; whereas the fut worm, he adds, is nearly 

 black, and very different in its habits.''^ Upon 

 the.se vague grounds, and this course of reason- 

 ing, he concludes it is the '■^cicnda.''^ 



This entomologist, though deserving of much 

 credit, for his zeal in a brancii of scieiice in the 

 common estimation of minor importance, yet, in 

 reality, of much magnitude, has considerably er- 

 red in his mode of inquiry, as well as in his con- 

 clusions. 



The question is, to what order do they belong? 

 These may possibly Ibllow the genus, and finally, 

 the species. And Uicse questions can be answer- 

 ed, by means of experiment alone. 



His method seems thus; ^^ several species of 

 beetle liave their " larvae" of pale yellowish and 

 light brown color — whereas these are nearly 

 black." Therefore he concludes, the origin of 

 the '< cut worm" cannot be a " beetle." This ar- 

 gument maybe dismissed as a " ?ion-.se(/ui<ur," 

 and needs no further comment. But he adds, " it 

 is very different in its habits,'''' from the " coleop- 

 tera" order, inasmuch as the "cut-worm is period- 

 ical,^'' thereby meaning, as subsequently appears, 

 "not annual." 



If the •' cut worm" be periodical, its periods are 

 vjocfully short, as the mortifying experience of the 

 farmers of Maryland, at least, will attest. Annu- 

 ally in a greater or less degree, and ofen disas- 

 trously, for may successive years, do these grubs 

 lay waste our corn crops, in numbers manifestly 

 dependent on the jiecidiarity of the seasons, and 

 other such natural and general causes, favorable 

 to their propagation ; and not upon any law of 

 ^^ periodicity.^^ But in what does the " cut worm" 

 difli^r (as he alleges,) in its habits, from the cole- 

 opteras 1 It is the character of this order to nidify 

 in the ground', and to subsist in the " xi'onji" 

 state, upon the roots, and succulent parts of vege- 

 tables. Does not the "cOt worm" nidify and sub- 

 sist in the same manner! — Undeniably it does. 



Insects of this order, also continue in the nox- 

 ious " worm state," many as long as one, two, 

 three, and some genera, as long as four years : 

 ("Vid : Goldsmith's Animated Nature, vol. , title, 

 Beetle,^''') devouring the tender roots, stocks and 

 blades of whatever vegetables they meet with, 

 yet, havinir thoir preferences. In fact the ichole 

 habits of the " coleoptera" family characterize the 

 " cut-worm" with the most remarkable precision ; 

 and I will presently show " without argumenta- 

 tive assistance," that the gentleman's conclusions, 

 as well as his premisefi, are wholly erroneous. 



In a No, of the " Cultivator," also of the pre- 

 sent month, an anonymous writer, " A Water- 

 vliet Farmer," pronounces the origin of the "cut 

 worm" to be a "wci.^." His experiments are too 

 small to be relied on — at first made with one living 

 "cut worm," which as he tltought, produced a 

 " moth fly ;" but he admits " he had a great num- 

 ber of the moth fly in his windows:" these might 

 readily have caused hie "moth" chrysalis. Se- 

 condly, his "larviie" produced from his two other 

 "moths," were all, he says, found </e«d! when he 

 first discovered them ; and from his own narrative, 

 they v.'ere too microscopic, especially in their life- 

 less and necossardy contracted comlition, to be 

 identified with an}^ degree of certainty. 



These gentlemen, without doubt, honestly be- 

 lieve what they have published : the oiie that he 



