INTRODUCTION. 
This Bulletin*contains matter referring to the season of 1886, addi- 
tional to that already published. 
Mr. Ashmead’s report on insects affecting garden crops in Florida is 
necessarily very incomplete, as it represents only four months’ field ob- 
servations, and as the subject is one of no inconsiderable magnitude. 
Mr. Ashmead’s work was stopped September Ist on account of the re- 
duction in the appropriations. 
Mr. Webster’s report on Buffalo Gnats is in the main the results of 
work in March and April, 1886. It contains many interesting details 
in addition to the more important observations which are quoted in 
our own article on the subject in the annual report. It is also due to 
Mr. Webster to say that the investigations since made, and especially 
those by himself the present year, have added materially to our exacé 
knowledge on the subject. 
In reference to Mr. Wier’s article on the curculio-proof nature of the 
native plums and his explanation thereof we wish to be understood as 
in no way indorsing either the statements or conclusions of the paper. 
Mr. Wier is an old friend and correspondent and has written much of 
late upon this question. He claimed to have abundant personal evi- 
dence of the wild plums being proof against Conotrachelus nenuphar 
by virtue of the eggs failing to hatch therein. This was an important 
matter, bearing directly on economic entomology, and, as we have often 
been asked for our opinion as to the immunity of these wild plums, we 
engaged Mr. Wier to prepare a statement of his evidence. His two 
main claims are (1) that these wild plum trees are unfruitful, except 
where the flowers receive the pollen from other varieties; (2) that the 
female Curculio prefers their fruit for purposes of oviposition, but that 
the egg fails to hatch therein or the larva perishes after hatching. The 
_ first point belongs to economic botany, or rather pomology, and while 
we consider that itis disproved alike by historical and botanical evi- 
dence and general experience we leave it with the horticulturist to deal 
with more fully. With regard to the second point we confess that the 
reading of Mr. Wier’s essay has brought no sense of his theory being 
well sustained or of its general truthfulness. Yet, for the reasons 
stated, we have decided to publish the paper. very much as received, 
omittirg only such portions as dealt with well known and trite entomo- 
logical facts, as also a dissertation on grafting, and entering our dis- 
rh 
