GRAPEVINE ROOT WORM 9 



insect in Ohio may not be duplicated in the Chautauqua grape 

 belt, and perhaps in other sections, of the State where this fruit 

 is largely grown. 



Present conditions in Ohio. The destructive work of this serious 

 pest has been known in Ohio for some years. It was first 

 brought to the attention of Professor Webster in 1893. The 

 similarity of conditions existing between the Ohio grape belt 

 and the Chautauqua region led the entomologist to believe that 

 valuable data could be secured by personally investigating the 

 present status of the insect in Ohio. This interesting section 

 was visited about the middle of September 1902, and much valu- 

 able information secured through the kindly cooperation of 

 Prof. P. J. Parrott, entomologist of the Ohio Agricultural Experi- 

 ment Station, Prof. A. F. Burgess, chief San Jose scale inspector, 

 and a number of prominent growers. The local knowledge of 

 conditions possessed by the two gentlemen named enabled us to 

 visit the sections of most importance with very little loss of 

 time. Some very precise and significant statements were 

 obtained in 1902 from Mr T. S. Clymonts of Cleveland O., who is 

 not only a grower but also a dealer and one who undoubtedly has 

 as good a general knowledge of local conditions as any one in 

 that section. He stated that in the Ohio belt, extending east 

 and west of Cleveland, from Painesville to Avon and reaching 

 back 5 miles from the lake, there had been a reduction in ship- 

 ments of fully two thirds during recent years. In 1894, 2000 

 carloads of grapes wel'e shipped from that section. This was 

 reduced in 1900 to 900 and in 1901 to 600. Mr Clymonts esti- 

 mated the output for 1902 at not over 500 carloads. 



He stated that this reduction is due to various causes, the 

 principal ones being the ravages of the grape root worm, the 

 destruction caused by rot, and the prevailing low prices. He 

 attributed fully one third of the entire reduction to the beetles^ 

 work and instanced a number of cases where vineyards of con- 

 siderable size had been killed by the operations of this pest. He 

 mentioned one vineyard of 60 acres, another of 25 acres, and 

 stated that innumerable small pieces had been destroyed by the 

 work of this insect, and added that the yield of one 60 acre 

 vineyard had been cut from 10-12 carloads to 35-40 tons by its 



