[30] KEPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. 



Already several leaves had been wholly cleared away, but the chrysalides which they 

 had contained were still lying upon the ground undisturbed, they being too heavy to 

 remove entire, and the ants, for some reason best known to themselves, having de- 

 clined to cut them in pieces. 



On various occasions I offered eggs of Aletia to many different sipecies of ants, but 

 not in a single case could I induce them to cut one from the leaf, though if I broke 

 the eggs loose for them they would seize upon and carry them off without hesita- 

 tion. Some writers claim that ants ascend the cotton plants and devour the eggs of 

 both Aletia and Heliothis. This, I am fully convinced, is an entire mistake, especially 

 so far as relates to Texas ants. My eyes are very good, and I have kept them open 

 looking after this thing throughout the season ; were it common, as has often been 

 claimed, I surely would have seen something of the kind, which I did not. 



As to the Aletia larvae, or Cotton "Worms, my observations have convinced me that 

 some species of ants will destroy them, especially young worms, if placed near the 

 entrance to their hills. But the cases of this destruction that will fall under the eyes < 

 of an observer are far less common than one might suppose. In most instances the 

 worm, so soon as touched by an ant, goes into a series of skips and bounds which 

 carry it several inches, and perhaps feet, away. The sudden movement seems to 

 frighten the ant, which rarely starts in pursuit. If a new contact happens to result 

 from another passer, away goes the worm again as before, until it is finally out of 

 danger and up a cotton stalk. Have never yet seen an ant attack a worm of any con- 

 siderable size on a plant, though it is no uncommon thing to see ants walk directly 

 over worms. The large ants seldom ascend the plants for any purpose ; the small ones 

 that go up seem to have been attracted either by the exudations from plant lice or 

 by plant nectar. 



I have seen nothing to convince me that ants are of much value to the planter in 

 their rdle as ''natural enemies " of the Cotton Worm. I do not question the assertion 

 that they devour large numbers of worms, but if the whole truth was known it would 

 be found, in my honest opinion, that nearly all such worms were eifcher maimed in 

 some way or fatally sicli before the ants took fchem in hand. I am sure that in Texas, 

 at least, the good they all do is more than overbalanced by the evil wrought in the 

 work of the '' Agricultural Ants" in making their "clearings" in the cotton fields. 



Other insects. — My investigations with reference to other insect enemies of the Cot- 

 ton Worm were not so thorough as in the case of the ants, my instructions not de- 

 manding it ; but in the course of the season I saw on duty most of the insects referred 

 to in Bulletin No. 3 of the United States Entomological Commission, and nothing 

 additional, showing that the ivork of the Commission had already been quite thorough 

 in this direction, for Texas at least. 



The only thing that struck me as particularly new under this head, growing out of 

 my investigations, was the idea that entirely too much importance is usually attached 

 to the ^'natural enemies" of the Cotton Worm. So far as mere natural history is con- 

 cerned this part of the subject is worthy of due consideration, of course, but I can- 

 not regard it as being of any particular interest to the man who concerns himself only 

 as a j)ractical cotton planter. What cares he as to how many friendly birds or insects 

 feed upon his insect enemies, provided there are not enough of them to save his crop ? 

 I am sure that enough have never yet appeared to save the cotton crop in a season 

 favorable for the growth and multiplication of Cotton Worms; and I am also sure 

 that enough to secure such an end never will appear. This being the case, what does 

 «the planter gain from them? They leave him standing exactly where he would be 

 found standing were they not in existence. ,It would cost him no more to poison the 

 plants for the comparatively small addition of Cotton Worms that would claim his 

 attention in case these "natural enemies" had not taken their share than it costs 

 him as it is. The poisoning to be effectual must be thorough ; nothing short of this 

 will ever answer. 



But, possibly, some will argue that these "natural enemies" may appear in force 

 so large as to hold the Cotton Worms under check in such seasons as are not other- 

 wise favorable to their development. If arguments of this character are presented 

 they will be mere speculations unsupported by facts. Where are those "natural ene- 

 mies " in the seasons when worms do not injure the crop ? One never sees them on 

 such occasions — one never will. 



I contend, without fear of being wrong, that the appearance of these " natural ene- 

 mies" in the field is merely a result growing out of favorable conditions for their at- 

 traction, or for their own multiplication, and that most prominent among these favor- 

 able conditions is an abundant crop of Cotton Worms to supply them with food. It 

 is all nice enough to regard them in the light of friends, which they are, in a certain 

 sense ; perhaps it would be better to reckon them as our guests who have dropped in 

 from the " hedges and highways" in compliance with our wishes, after the feast liasteen 

 spread, but who would never have thought of responding to our bidding had we invited 

 them to a festal board made up of empty tables. 



