ENTOMOLOGIST AND BOTANIST. 



329 



resembles the Ariny-woriti in appearance, but 

 lias man>- habits in common. 



Let tlu! two no( be conroiiiiilod, however. 'J'lie 

 true Army-worm never upjioars in the fall ollhc 

 year, but always about the time when whc^at is 

 getting beyond (lie milk stale; and it generally 

 disapiicars, in the latitude of St. Louis, I)y (he 

 first of June. It confines its (FiK.ai?) 



attacks entirely to the grasses 

 and cereals, whereas the 

 si)ecies under consideralion 

 is a inucli more general focdci'. 

 devouring with equal relish 

 most succulent plants, sucli 

 as wheat, oats, corn, barley, 

 grasses, purslane, turnips, 

 and, as Mr. J. M. .Tordan ol 

 SI. Ijouis informs us, cv('n 

 spruees. Moreover, wIkmi 

 (■riti(;ally e,\amined, the two 

 worms sliow many character- 

 istic, dillercnces, as will bc^ 

 seciibycomparingKigure-207, ■j'"iiyV'ito'wandi'.i,.k. 

 wiiicii represents the true Army-worm, with 

 Figure "Jt)f>, which represents at fi the Fall Arriiy- 

 worin natural size, at /> its head inagnilted, at c 

 a miigiiilicd dorsal view of one of the joints, and 

 at (I a magniticd side view of same.* 



Willi us the Fall Army-worm has done more 

 injury to eorn than to anything else. It notoiily 

 greedily devours the leaves and stem, but bores 

 large holes through the ears, burrowing in 

 them in all direetions. On late corn it is fre- 

 riuently found in the same ear with the Corn- 

 worm, f(//«.v Cotton I5oll-worm {lldintJns armi- 

 ijera). Indeed, it is as often confounded willi 

 this last iiisc(!t as with the true Army-worm, 

 and in leality more nearly resembles it. 'JMio 

 iioll-woriTi is, however, rougher, gencrallv 

 paler, striped diflTercntly (see Figs. l.W and l.'il 

 of Vol. I), and always re.adily distinguished by 

 having a larger gamboge-yellow or reddish head, 

 whirh invariably lacks the distinct white invert- 

 ed Y-shaped mark, and the darker shadings of 

 the head of the Fall Army-worm. The same 

 r(inedi(^s which we have suggested for the true 

 Army-worm apply here, anil our crowded col- 

 uiiiiis forbid their repetition. 



We shall be glad to receive data from our 

 Missouri coirespondcnts relative to the amount 

 of damage done by this worm in their own 

 section ; or to get any other information vegard- 

 iiig it. 



I>. S.— Since the above was in tyiic, and just 



•Xli!)«i' who dcsii-i! tci know moio of tin 



can rililto Vol. I, Ni.. 2, oltoiip :!7-s-)liiJ 



inolojj'iciil ReportofMiasoiiri.wheri; they will lliul a ooiuiiktu 



as our forms are being made up, we have (Sept. 

 20th) bred the parent moth of the Fall Army- 

 worm; and, as wi" aiitici])ated, it proves to bo 

 the very same uiidescribcd species oi I'rodcni.a 

 whicli we bred from Mr. Daggy's worms. We 

 shall dosci'ibe it in our ne.xt issue under Ihe 

 nuni! ;ippropiialc specific name of (iHtumiiiilU. 



Oil llic (iioiiii ilurytmiiidcs of the llviiiciioiiti-roiis 

 i'.niiilv dliali-iilidic : 



wim UK.MAUKS |»N 'I UK TilKOUY OF STKCIKS, AND A 



lIKSIltlCTlON UK ANTlIiASTKU, A NKW ANU VlCltV 



ANOMALOUS ItKNUS OF Cll A LCI l> 111 .F. . 



[Cnntinitcd from juiijf :tfll.] 



ms!. -I 



OENl'S ISOSOMA. 



To IIh> j;rnus, as Hiiiitcil aliovc, iiiiisl he rofi-iTcil Ihf nolo- 

 ii..iis .loiiit-wonu Fly, whir-.h I have clnnly a-serrhiiiwil lo 

 111' Ihp vevilahlf aiiUioi- of'ha uMa upon lln- stcnn ot wheat, 

 barley and rye, a (i.uui-e of wtiieli Kails will he lonud ahove 

 (Fi}j :i, a). From Hariis ami KM eh down to (jilovir and 

 I'ae.kai-d, all authors iiavo liilherto referred Mils ins<'e,t U> the 

 Reiniii Eurijtomn, Ironi whiidi, however, it differs essentially 

 Ifitennld with any jirojiriely he referred to that f,'<"»"». wc 

 shonid Ihi'u have a CiLse of the same >,'entis including holh 

 liarasitie, ami plant-feedinp! spr'cies; and! do not lielii'Ve Ihal 

 any suoli violalion of the i;reat law of the cnitv oi- iiAr.rrs 

 can he met wllii anywhi're in nature As long a^o as 18117, 1 

 piihlishoil in the Canada Farmer for that year (pp. 2i;7-S) a 

 ,-hort article, acknowleildins my error (as ^iven to the win'ld 

 i II I he Prailical Kiilomoloyist 1, pp. 1(1-1-2 and :i7-:is) in dispntiiift 

 111.- eouidusions at which Harris ami t'itch hadnniny years 

 hi fore arrived, namely, that the .loinl-worm Kly is the 

 re.il aulhor of Ihe .Joint-worm jjalls. In this same article 

 will atso he h.und the following passage, in regard to the 

 generic deti-rmination of this insect: "The .loint-worm Fly 

 diflers gonerically from all Ihe numerous species of Mic 

 Eurijloma group, which I have ascirtained to he parasitic on 

 olher insecis, and cannot, 1 think, he refi-rred with any 

 propriety to the gi'niis Kitri/loma, although it umlonhteilly 

 hilongs to the Euryloma group." Certainly, if preceding 

 authors had refi-ri-ed this species In its proper genius, l-shouhl 

 not have heen so unwilling to helievu in its being a true 

 vegetahh-leeih'r. As soon sis I becanu! personally acquainted 

 wilh it, the mystery wa.s solveil at once 



There is another i|Uestion, relative to the scientinc nomen- 

 elaliue of this insect, which I have recently discu.ssed at 

 some length in Ihe colnnuisof thi' Amkuican Kntosioi.oi;ist, 

 in an article on the ./oint-worm. (Vid. 1, No. 8.) .loint- 

 worm Flies, us it appears, have beeil bred from precisely 

 similar galls growing respcotivcly upon wheat, rye and 



