﻿92 
  REPORT 
  UNITED 
  STATES 
  ENTOMOLOGICAL 
  COMMISSION. 
  

   CAPACITY 
  FOR 
  INJURY. 
  

  

  It 
  seems 
  strange, 
  indeed, 
  that 
  Leucania 
  uniijuncta^ 
  widespread 
  as 
  it 
  

   is, 
  should 
  be 
  destructive 
  only 
  in 
  the 
  more 
  northern 
  of 
  the 
  United 
  Statesj 
  

   yet 
  such 
  seems 
  to 
  be 
  the 
  case, 
  so 
  far 
  as 
  we 
  have 
  any 
  facts 
  to 
  warrant 
  

   conclusions. 
  Here, 
  however, 
  the 
  capacity 
  for 
  injury 
  is 
  very 
  great. 
  

   Hardly 
  a 
  year 
  passes 
  by 
  without 
  its 
  appearance 
  in 
  some 
  part 
  of 
  this 
  

   area, 
  and 
  a 
  resulting 
  damage 
  to 
  crops 
  of 
  hundreds 
  of 
  thousands 
  of 
  dol- 
  

   lars. 
  Its 
  high 
  rank 
  as 
  an 
  injurious 
  insect 
  is 
  so 
  well 
  known 
  that, 
  in 
  the 
  

   absence 
  of 
  definite 
  statistics 
  as 
  to 
  losses, 
  it 
  seems 
  hardly 
  worth 
  dwell- 
  

   ing 
  upon. 
  In 
  fact 
  the 
  only 
  case 
  in 
  which 
  statistics 
  have 
  been 
  attempted 
  

   is 
  the 
  estimate 
  of 
  damage 
  to 
  western 
  Massachusetts 
  in 
  1861, 
  where 
  

   it 
  was 
  placed 
  at 
  half 
  a 
  million 
  of 
  dollars, 
  and, 
  as 
  there 
  were 
  twenty 
  

   States 
  damaged 
  to 
  a 
  greater 
  or 
  less 
  extent 
  this 
  same 
  year, 
  the 
  total 
  

   loss 
  for 
  1861 
  could 
  not 
  be 
  far 
  from 
  $10,000,000. 
  

  

  The 
  injury 
  to 
  crops 
  in 
  1861 
  was, 
  however, 
  as 
  we 
  shall 
  soon 
  show, 
  more 
  

   widespread 
  than 
  in 
  any 
  preceding 
  or 
  succeeding 
  year; 
  yet 
  even 
  in 
  

   years 
  of 
  local 
  appearance 
  the 
  injury 
  is 
  sometimes 
  very 
  great. 
  Last 
  

   year 
  (1881), 
  for 
  instance, 
  the 
  amount 
  of 
  damage 
  done 
  to 
  a 
  single 
  crop 
  

   (oats) 
  in 
  Illinois 
  and 
  Indiana 
  was 
  not 
  far 
  from 
  three-quarters 
  of 
  a 
  mill- 
  

   ion 
  dollars. 
  The 
  magnitude 
  of 
  the 
  interests 
  involved 
  causes 
  even 
  aslight 
  

   percentage 
  of 
  loss 
  to 
  represent 
  a 
  very 
  large 
  sum. 
  This 
  is 
  readily 
  shown 
  

   by 
  the 
  fact 
  that 
  in 
  1880 
  the 
  value 
  of 
  those 
  crops 
  subject 
  to 
  the 
  ravages 
  

   of 
  Leucania 
  amounted 
  to 
  over 
  one 
  billion 
  seven 
  hundred 
  millions. 
  

  

  PiST 
  HISTORY. 
  

  

  In 
  1854 
  Charles 
  L. 
  Flint 
  compiled, 
  for 
  the 
  report 
  of 
  the 
  Secretary 
  of 
  

   the 
  State 
  Board 
  of 
  Agriculture 
  of 
  Massachusetts, 
  "an 
  account 
  of 
  the 
  

   meteorology 
  of 
  the 
  New 
  England 
  States 
  with 
  reference 
  to 
  the 
  years 
  of 
  

   drought 
  from 
  1623 
  on 
  to 
  the 
  date 
  of 
  writing." 
  In 
  this 
  account 
  appear 
  

   incidentally 
  the 
  following 
  notices 
  of 
  worms, 
  which 
  may 
  possibly 
  refer 
  to 
  

   Leucania: 
  

  

  1632. 
  "The 
  worms 
  made 
  extensive 
  ravages 
  on 
  the 
  corn/' 
  

  

  1616 
  and 
  1649 
  "were 
  caterpillar 
  years." 
  

  

  1666. 
  "The 
  Indian 
  corn 
  eaten 
  by 
  the 
  worms." 
  

  

  1743. 
  "Millions 
  of 
  devouring 
  worms 
  in 
  armies, 
  threatening 
  to 
  cut 
  off 
  

   every 
  green 
  thing." 
  \ 
  

  

  1762. 
  "At 
  last, 
  when 
  the 
  corn 
  was 
  planted, 
  millions 
  of 
  worms 
  appeared 
  

   to 
  eat 
  it 
  up." 
  

  

  1770. 
  "A 
  very 
  uncommon 
  sort 
  of 
  a 
  worm, 
  called 
  the 
  Canker 
  Worm, 
  

   ate 
  the 
  corn 
  and 
  grass 
  all 
  as 
  they 
  went 
  above 
  ground, 
  which 
  cut 
  short 
  

   the 
  crops 
  in 
  many 
  places." 
  

  

  Of 
  these 
  entries 
  that 
  of 
  1743 
  is 
  the 
  only 
  one 
  which 
  has 
  been 
  quoted 
  

   as 
  a 
  genuine 
  Army 
  Worm 
  reference; 
  it 
  is 
  indeed 
  always 
  mentioned 
  as 
  

   the 
  first 
  Army 
  Worm 
  year. 
  But 
  we 
  must 
  not 
  overlook 
  the 
  fact 
  that 
  while 
  

   the 
  entries 
  of 
  1032 
  and 
  1666 
  may 
  refer 
  to 
  Ileliothis 
  armigera^ 
  those 
  of 
  

  

  