92 



extensive damage before public attention is drawn to its ravages or 

 even to its identification. In Mr. Henderson's article he states that 

 by correspondence with rose growers in six different states, and from 

 personal observations, he had been forced to the conclusion that, in a 

 large majority of cases where cultivation of roses during the winter 

 proved unprofitable, the trouble was traceable alone to the ravages of 

 this rose beetle. Owing to the small size and inconspicuous appear- 

 ance of the beetle, and its habit of shunning the daylight and con- 

 cealing itself under the leaves, as well as to the subterranean habits of 

 its larva, its presence is not apt to be noticed by any except the most 

 observing, or by persons who have had experience with it. The 

 account in question includes, besides mention of injury by this 

 species at Madison and elsewhere in Xew Jersey in the vicinity of 

 New York City, a letter from Dr. Riley giving in condensed form what 

 was known at that time concerning the insect's history, classification, 

 distribution, and biology. 



This article was followed by a more extensive one by Dr. Riley in 

 the same publication for October (pp. 310. 311). republished from the 

 Scientific American of August 30. 1S79 (p. 129), these last two accounts 

 including the illustration used in the present article. All of this 

 matter was brought together in Dr. Riley's report as Entomologist for 

 the Department of Agriculture for 1S7S (Nov.. 1879. pp. 255-257), 

 technical descriptions of the immature stages being added. Injury at 

 that time was most noticeable to roses and camellias. In the Report 

 of this Department for the following year (pp. 250. 251) Professor 

 Comstock furnished a few notes on the destructive occurrence of this 

 insect at San Diego, Gal., in 1879. adding some unrecorded food plants 

 and makiug mention of a wire worm found preying upon the larva? . 



An interval of four years elapsed before injury by this species was 

 again noticed, at least so far as published records go. In November. 

 1883. we received complaint from Worcester. Mass.. of injury to 

 Azalea and Cissus (Report Dept. Agric. 1881. p. 111). 



In December. 1881. injury was complained of to Dr. Lintner by 

 extensive rose growers at Poughkeepsie (2d Report State Entom. N. 

 Y.. 1885. pp. 112-111). Dr. Lintner states that this species was first 

 brought to his notice in 1871 because of injury to camellias and other 

 foliage in conservatories at Albany. N. Y. The same writer had an 

 article in the Country Gentleman of February 3. 1887. based upon 

 injuries of this rose beetle at Bucksport. Me. 



In 1889 Mr. Coquillett reported this, species to be injurious in Los 

 Angeles County, Gal., where it was mistaken for the plum curculio. 

 It was very destructive at that time to the foliage of oak. camellias. 

 palms ( Washingtoniajllifera), Oanna indica,&Tid several other plants. 



The following year a short account of this species and its occurrence 

 in California was given in the Annual Report of the State Board of 



