84 C. B. WILLIAMS. 



In 1912 several specimens found on Para grass (Panicum barbinode) were sent 

 from Grenada to the Board of Agriculture of Trinidad, and Mr. Urich reported 

 (in litt.) that they were the same species as that recorded by Uhler, which however 

 was not T. pictipennis (a Mexican species), but one closely related to the Trinidad 

 species Tomaspis saccharina, Distant (then known as T. varia, Fabr.). Mr. Urich, 

 however, believed that the Grenada specimens were distinct from the Trinidad 

 species. 



At the beginning of December 1916, Sir Francis Watts, Imperial Commissioner 

 of Agriculture for the West Indies, arrived in Trinidad and reported that frog- 

 hoppers were severely injuring canes in one district of the island. As a result of this 

 report I visited the island at the first opportunity and arrived there on the 12th 

 December 1916. 



Froghoppers of one species were found to be widely distributed over the island 

 on grass, in cane-fields and by the road-side, and also on sugar-cane. The localities 

 where they were found are indicated by crosses on the accompanying map. The 

 north-east half of the island was not visited, but it is probable that they are there 

 also. The wide distribution leaves little doubt that the species has been long estab- 

 lished in the island and is not a recent introduction. 



The localities where damage was reported were Plantation Mount Home, about 

 two miles north-west of Grenville (the chief town on the East Coast of the island), 

 and Plantation Nainganfoix, almost in the middle of the island. At both these 

 localities the fields were said to appear " as if fire had passed through the fields." 



I was able to visit only the first of these two — Mount Home. Three fields were 

 attacked here, but that most severely damaged had already been burnt and cut 

 down before my arrival. The second was still standing and was suffering from 

 what would be called in Trinidad, a severe attack. The third field was only slightly 

 damaged and on it was found a much smaller number of froghoppers. 



Field No. 1 had been for about ten years previous alternately in canes and pasture, 

 before that a pasture. Fields 2 and 3 had been in pasture for at least 8 years and 

 were only put under cane in January of this year (1916). 



The main features of this attack were quite similar to those found in Trinidad. 

 The leaves of the cane were turning brown from the top downward, and in some 

 only the top few leaves were still green. The adult froghoppers were very numerous 

 in the axils of the leaves, and the nymphs in their froth were particularly common 

 round the main stems of the cane about 2-3 inches below the surface of the ground. 



Part of Field 2 had been heavily limed round the stools and then earthed up to 

 the height of four or five inches. There seemed to be distinctly fewer nymphs 

 on the canes so treated. 



The most striking difference from the conditions found in Trinidad was in the 

 situation and soil condition of the fields. In Trinidad it is usually the low-lying 

 heavy clay soils in which the damage by froghoppers is most severe. In Grenada 

 many fields of cane in similar conditions round the coast were examined and in 

 some of these froghoppers were foimd — never however causing the slightest visible 

 damage. 



