PuaTE I. 
FE; 
TL. 
ry. 
WIT. 
VIII. 
IX. 
ILLUSTRATIONS. 
PLATES. 
Work of the pear thrips (Euthrips pyri Daniel). Fig. 1.—Imperial 
prune, showing buds and blossoms injured by feeding of adult 
thrips. Fig.2.—Unfolding leaves of Hemskirk apricot injured 
by young thrips. Fig. 3.—Madeline pear, showing cup-shaped 
deformities of the larger and rolling of the smaller leaves, the injury 
Remi a MOUR THTIMR ES oe eS ik Soo sco Ja enoe She ee 
Work of the pear thrips. Fig. 1.—Black Tartarian cherry blossoms 
killed by adult thrips and leaves injured by young thrips. Fig. 
2.—Bartlett pear, showing all except very late blossoms dead from 
thrips and leaves injured by feeding of young thrips...........-.-- 
Stages and work of spring canker-worm (Paleacrita vernata Peck). 
Fig. 1.—Egg mass on bark scale. Fig. 2.—The larve or canker- 
worms. Fig. 3.—Pupe. Fig. 4.—Female moths. Fig. 5.—Male 
moth. Fig. 6.—Work of canker-worms on apple leaves when small. 
Fig. 7.—Later work of the larve, only the midribs of leaves being 
Trees defoliated by spring canker-worms and effects of treatments. 
Fig. 1.—Defoliated trees in Lupton orchard. Fig. 2.—The same 
trees a year later. Fig. 3.—Defoliated trees in the Purcell orchard. 
Fig. 4.—An adjacent row of trees protected by applications of 
Sr MAUR See ieee Sob oe eis cto a Peco ween bed, e 
. Work of the trumpet leaf-miner of the apple (Tischeria malifoliella): 
ary eipmes eas lS feel... 2c 2k we en ee ee cone os 
. The lesser peach borer (Synanthedon pictipes). Fig. 1.—Male and 
female moths. Fig. 2.—Cocoons as exposed by removing bark 
from trunk of peach tree. Fig. 3.—Trunk of 10-year-old peach 
tree badly infested with the larvee..............22.--2-..-0-05ee 
Work of the lesser apple worm (Enarmonia prunivora). Fig. 1.— 
Apples showing surface injury by lesser apple worm. Fig. 2.— 
Portions of apples showing, in lower figures, injury at calyx and 
stem ends; in upper figures, injury to flesh under blotch mines. - 
Vines injured by grape root-worm compared with uninjured vines. 
Fig. 1.—Six-year planted vines making but a weak growth, because 
of injury to roots by grape root-worm. Fig. 2.—Two-year planted 
vines not yet attacked by grape root-worm...............-...--- 
Vines injured by grape root-worm compared with uninjured vines. 
Fig. 1.—Young vines almost ruined by feeding of grape root-worm 
upon their roots. Fig. 2.—A normally thrifty vineyard at North 
East, Pa., uninfested by grape root-worm......................... 
. Work of the peach-tree barkbeetle (Phlwotribus liminaris). Fig. 1.— 
Gum exuding through burrows made in bark of peach tree. 
Fig. 2.—Exit holes in bark of peach tree........................ 
Vil 
Page. 
18 
20 
34 
54 
64 
64 
