990 NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM 



report, 1899, p. 538) with a closely related species, Systena fron- 

 talis Foerst. on sugar beets. The attack of the latter was very 

 sudden, and investigation showed that the beetles existed in large 

 numbers on weeds growing near the beets and from them had in- 

 vaded the cultivated field. It is very probable that similar conditions 

 led to the attack on apple seedlings this year. It was found compara- 

 tively easy to control both species by spraying the infested plants with 

 pans green. The liability of such cultivated crops to sudden invasion 

 by large numbers of these pests emphasizes the necessity of constant 

 watchfulness in order to prevent their causing much injury. 



Elm leaf beetle (Galerucella luteola Mull.). This insect 

 was not so destructive in Albany and immediate vicinity as in preceding 

 years. This in part, at least, may be attributed to the systematic spraying * 

 which has been done for several years past in this locality. Albany was 

 much freer from evidences of beetle injury than Troy, and the elms of the 

 latter place were in a considerably better condition than those of Water- 

 vliet. A factor having considerable bearing on the relative injury is the 

 amount of spraying done. It is quite significant that the injury should be 

 the least where it is thfc rule to spray systematically all the trees on the 

 street, and greater where the spraying must be paid for by the private in- 

 dividual and consequently where only a portion of the trees are treated. 

 The difference between the condition ot the elms in Troy and Watervliet 

 must be attributed very largely to the relative amount of spraying done. 

 The American or white elm predominates in the latter city and this 

 species is as a rule eaten by the beetle only when the more attractive 

 European elms have been destroyed. Therefore, other things being 

 equal, it would naturally be expected that Watervliet would be relatively 

 free from the pest, and the reverse of this can hardly be considered as 

 due to any other cause than the lack of spraying. 



This pest has been definitely located at several imporumi i)uints during 

 the year. It was found to have been present in considerable numbers at 

 Hoosick Falls, Rensselaer co. It has also established itself pretty gen- 

 erally in the towns of Stillwater, Schuylerville, Salem and probably at 

 Greenwich. The presence of the insect at Salem indicates the possibility 

 of still farther progress north, but there are good reasons for thinking that 

 the insect will not be very injurious, excepting possibly in an unusual 

 season, north of Mcchanicsville. The occurrence of the pest at Oswego, 

 Hastings and Rochester, first brought to my notice tlirough Dr L. O. 

 Howard, is a much more serious matter. Prof. C. S. Sheldon states that 

 he has examples of this insect taken at Oswego in 1896, and Prof. M. H. 



