362 



1902, Eckart, C. F. — Report ou precautions to be observed 

 ^vitli regard to cane importations. Haw. Sugar Planters' 

 Assn., p. 8. 



A barrel of seed-cane imported from Demerara was found 

 to be badly infested with borers, and the empty channels of the 

 beetles were alive with our common ant {Pheidole mcrjace- 

 pliala). Upon opening the sticks, traces were found of both 

 larvae and pupae of the borers, which had been destroyed by 

 the ants, but only a single beetle was found, alive, in the con- 

 signment, having escaped because of its perfect cocoon, which 

 is difficult for the ants to enter.- 



1903. Perkins, R. C. L. — The leaf-hopper of sugar cane. 

 Bd. Comm. Agric. and Forestry, Bui. 1, 23. 



Pheidole megacephala was noted, as one of the species of 

 ants preying upon the young leaf-hoppers. 



1905. Perkins, R. C. L. — Entomological and other notes 

 on a trip to Australia. Proc. Haw. Ent. S(X'. I, 9. 



At Cairns Pheidole megacephala swarmed everywhere, and 

 no lady-bird or its larva could get at the scales on many badly 

 affected trees. 



1906. Wheeler, W. M. — On certain tropical ants intro- 

 duced into the United States. Ent. News, XVII, 24. 



Notes, the supplanting of Pheidole megacephala by the Ar- 

 gentine ant {Iridomyrmex humilis Mayr), in Madeira. The 

 author quotes from Prof. Heer's description of the former 

 species. 



1909. Swezey, O. H. — Notes on the budmoth of sugar 

 cane, etc. Haw\ Planters' Record, I, 133. 



The author states that P. megacephala is always almndant 

 in cane, often having its nests beneath the leaf sheaths. It 

 destroys not only the young bud worms but also other cane- 

 feeding caterpillars. 



1910. Wheeler, W. M.— Ants, p. 154-15.'>. 



The author quotes, from Professor Pleer's account of P. 

 megacephala, and states that this ant is very common in Ber- 

 muda and West Indies and will probably be found in Florida. 

 He says that there can be little doubt that wherever it eains a 



