





The acidity of the canes, a marked feature in the attack, the com- 
mittee believes to be “ produced (1) by the borers’ interference with 
. . * the circulation of the sap, and (2) by the a of the excre- 
es : mentitious and other deposits in the burrows.” But w 


le says y « Mr. Bovell writes me 
forans in Wm on oe ee 
4 h be - he has observed diseased can 
a trace of either moth or beetle, and I have noticed the latter (but not 
the epa in a few instances, but they are not at all common." 











: ds. Is THE PRESENCE OF THE SHOT-BORER DEPENDENT ON PREVIOUS 
m ATTACKS OF OTHER INSECTS? 
| This ox joe been held by several observers, and is supported by 
portant evidence, but is re coed by the Trinidad Committee (26), at 
~ sih far : as that island i ’ Rue 
ie nt JU re ‘ 
examined by nio Divo [m attacked by A nay one or both | 
* which are certainly the direct cause of the E [One proved 
to be Chilo saccharalis, the other Xyleborus pe ns.] 
In s ge report (13), he says, after deseri hs Y attacks of C. 
E. * Finally; if the cane is pretty well grown, the action of the air that 
has entered sours it ; it then becomes attractive to several kinds of small 
beetles, but especially to a little brown cylindrical species of the family - 
Scol, inaa, they o J ten burrow through the acidified cane in imme 
ommonly supposed to be the cause of is disease. 
thought $ so, when the first specimens of cane were sent 
ie for examination; these were = oun Cases and full of f 




cas 
‘holes made by tis i pese larvæ p neum exit. 
"As the cane is already spoiled, 
ut 
H. H. Smith reports (135, * The ‘specimens 

