310 
Saunders! in 1842 accompanying its original 
description is based on specimens received 
from India, and the only information now 
available in relation to these specimens is an 
extract quoted by Saunders from a letter from 
a certain Dr. Barn, superintendent of the 
Government Cotton Plantations at Broach 
(Baruch) in western India. This extract is 
short and significant and is here given in full: 
The inclosed is an insect which was very de- 
structive to the American cotton which was sown 
here (Broach), on light alluvial soil. The egg is 
deposited in the germen at the time of flowering, 
and the larva feeds upon the cotton seed until the 
pod is about to burst, a little previous to which 
time it has opened a round hole in the side of the 
pod for air, and at which to make an exit at its 
own convenience, dropping on the ground, which 
it penetrates about an inch, and winds a thin web 
in which it remains during the aurelia state. 
Curiously enough, the cotton on the black soil was 
not touched by it. The native cotton is sometimes 
affected by it. 
This letter was addressed to a certain Dr. 
Royle who forwarded the specimens with this 
quotation from Dr. Barn to Mr. W. W. 
Saunders. In relation to this quotation, Mr. 
Saunders makes this significant comment: 
It is interesting to remark that the cotton grown 
from American seed is attacked in preference to 
any other and that the cotton plant when grown 
upon black soil remains free from injury. The 
former fact could be accounted for by the Ameri- 
can cotton being of a different species to that 
usually grown in India and probably offers seeds 
which are more suitable to development of the 
larve. : 
The reason for the greater susceptibility of 
and damage to the American cotton is un- 
doubtedly that suggested by Mr. Saunders and 
is supported by many similar experiences with 
introduced plants or introduced plant pests. 
The hardy and rather unproductive cottons of 
India and other southern Asiatic countries 
probably long associated with this insect eyi- 
dently were then and are still fairly resistant 
to its attacks, and, on the other hand, the in- 
troduced American and Egyptian varieties are 
1 Saunders, W. W., Trans. Ent. Soc. London, Vol. 
IIL., pp. 284-85, 1843. 
SCIENCE 
[N. S. Vou. XLVIII. No. 1239 
less resistant and perhaps furnish exceptional 
breeding conditions and were, therefore, when 
introduced into India and elsewhere in south- 
ern Asia, much more seriously attacked. This 
condition at once brought into prominence 
an insect which previously had been for the 
most part overlooked. It is significant that 
Dr. Barn should note that “native cotton is 
sometimes affected by it,” indicating that it 
was a known but comparatively unimportant 
enemy of such cotton in India prior to 1842. 
Saunders, in his article, makes no sug- 
gestion that the insect is other than a native 
Indian species, or, as has been stated by some 
writers, that it was imported with the Amer- 
ican cotton. Responsibility for the theory of 
possible American at least African origin 
seems to rest with J. H. Durrant. This 
author, reviewing (1912)? the specimens of 
Gelechia gossypiella in the British Museum, 
summarizes the earlier Indian records with an 
evident strong mental bias toward an inferred 
American or Egyptian origin. An examina- 
tion of these records indicates that there is no 
real warrant for this bias. Of the Indian 
record of 1842, quoted above, from Saunders, 
he suggests the importation of the insect with 
American cotton simply because of the ex- 
cessive damage to this introduced variety in 
comparison with native cottons, ignoring the 
perfectly reasonable explanation of this con- 
dition advanced .by Saunders. The records 
for Cawnpore (1883) and Lahore (1893-94) 
report damage to “ cotton ” but this “ cotton ” 
is inferred by Durrant to be Egyptian because 
from other sources he learned that some Egyp- 
tian cotton was being experimentally grown at 
or near these places and, similarly, another 
record from Surat, about which no informa- 
tion was available, is assumed by Durrant to 
have a similar history. 
August Buseck (1917),3 following Durrant, 
without critical examination of the latter’s 
data, accepts his general conclusions, and ex- 
presses the belief from this “evidence,” and 
2 Durrant, J. H., Bul. Ent. Research, Vol. IIL, 
Pt. 2, pp. 203-06, Fig. 1, London, 1912. 
3 Buseck, August, Jowr. Agric. Research, U. S. D. 
A., Washington, Vol. IX., pp. 348-70, 6 pls., 1917. 
