Report of the State Entomologist 301 



of the established broods, and which can not properly be called a 

 " Brood.'* 



The " Galway Cicadse," a Newspaper Story. 



A.fter many efforts made to ascertain the name of the "farmer in 

 Galway," who had unearthed the cicada mass, a letter was received 

 from the enterprising reporter who had communicated (in his own 

 hand-writing, as was subsequently learned) the item to the Albany 

 Evening Journal, expressing his regret that he was unable, after 

 diligent inquiry, to trace the report to its source, and that " the first 

 intimation that he had of the nest of locusts was what appeared in 

 the Journal !" 



This blots out the Galway appearance, and with it, forerunners of 

 the Hudson river brood three y^ars in advance of time. 



An Undecided duestion. 

 I have no opinion of my own, or even suggestion, to offer, as to the 

 reference that should be made of the Tivoli cicadse — whether to any 

 of the unrecorded broods, or to one hitherto unrecognized. The 

 possibilities have apparently been covered in the careful consideration 

 and examination of records by Dr. Kiley, and in the views advanced 

 by Mr. Frederick Clarkson, in the portion of a letter given below. 

 Future observations, or the discovery of overlooked records, may 

 possibly enable us to reach a definite conclusion. 



Is there a New York Thirteen-year Brood ? 



I thank you very kindly for your letter of June 30th, and return to 

 you herewith the correspondence which you have permitted me the 

 pleasure of reading. I shall be most happy to furnish you with any 

 facts that may reach me with regard to this extraordinary visitation. 



If the definition as given by Dr, Riley is strictly correct as to what 

 constitutes a brood, then I think the conclusion which he has 

 reached is a possible solution of this year's visitation, but in the 

 absence of more essential data, it occurs to me that the captures 

 made this year may be a thirteen-year brood, which may have occurred 

 simultaneously with the extraordinary seventeen-year brood of 1877, 

 and possibly formed a part, if not the whole, of the very limited num- 

 ber seen at Westchester by Mr. Angus in 1864. If it is satisfactorily 

 established that the puparia discovered on Staten Island by Mr. Davis 

 in 1881 was of the red-eyed Cicada, it would demonstrate the fact 

 that in that year it was the seventeen-year brood, but does this 

 admission, in view of present findings, exclude the conjecture 

 that the thirteen and seventeen-year broods may have appeared 

 together in 1864. Does it not rather look, in view of the fact that we 

 have rather accurate knowledge of all the large broods, that these 

 limited numbers may represent broods in the decadence, and becom- 

 ing more and more exhausted at each periodical appearance ? How- 

 ever, these are merely suggestions to doctors learned in the lore of 

 the Cicadse. 



39 



