\ol. XXVltl) ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. 395 



few caterpillars at any time through the remainder of the 

 season. These individuals, however, persisted in appearing on 

 the plants until late in September. 



An additional parasite, but the only one obtained of its 

 kind, afforded special interest, a Tachinid fly, which emerged 

 on June 9. This specimen was determined as a female of 

 Phorocera (Buphorocera) claripciinis Macq., by Mr. W. R. 

 Walton, through the courtesy of Dr. L. O. Howard. 



Only casual attention was given to the elegant looper in the 

 subsequent seasons, owing to the lack of opportunities for car- 

 rying on regular observations. On May 12, 1915, Mr. Thos. 

 H. Jones, Federal entomologist, reported that he found larvae 

 quite commonly attacking the foliage of a hedge of the same 

 kind of privet. A brood which was considered to be the sec- 

 ond one of the season attracted the notice of the writer on 

 July 14. These caterpillars showed a preference for the lower 

 shaded regions of the foliage. The third outbreak was ob- 

 served on August 19, and the looper then appeared to be 

 scarcely more than half-grown at the most. Several large 

 branches of the tall bushes were practically defoliated at the 

 time. Full grown larvae were seen traveling away from the 

 privet hedge on September 7 and 8, being evidently in search 

 of other places for pupation. Scattered individuals, however, 

 still remained on the plants. Fresh pupae also appeared hang- 

 ing to the branches. 



A complaint of injury made during the year of 1913 led to 

 the suspicion that the trouble in the case had been due to rav- 

 ages by the elegant looper. The inquirer wrote from Ope- 

 lousas, St. Landry Parish, under date of October 30, stating 

 that the leaves of his hedges had been eaten by "small white 

 insects." Some of the plants had died and the ones yet sur- 

 viving had only a few leaves left on them. He desired to 

 know a way to preserve the growth. 



His mention of the pest in such terms as cited was thought 

 to refer to the common whitefly (Dialeurodes citri R. & H.) in 

 mistake for the real devastator. Otherwise, his remarks clear- 

 ly implied that some pest capable of defoliating the plants had 



