73 



bark. Mr. Schwarz is of the opinion that this disease was responsible 

 for the sudden disappearance of the beetles. 



Mr. S. J. Wood, of Washington, Kappahannock County, Ya., stated 

 that the dying of pine and spruce timber in that and surrounding 

 counties was very extensive a few years since, and quite generally 

 recognized throughout the pine forest land of the State. 



Mr. Samuel K. Behrend, an employee of the Xavy Department, spent 

 considerable time in travel through the Southern States of this region 

 while the infestation was at its height, and noticed the dying oft" of mil- 

 lions of pine trees in Virginia, injury being particularly noticeable in 

 Buckingham County. The same conditions prevailed in Xorth Carolina. 



The primary cause of the mortality among the pine trees is enshrouded 

 in as much mystery as in the 

 case of the chestnuts. Whether due 

 primarily to insects or not, certain 

 it is that the so-called "destructive 

 pine bark-beetle v (Dendroctonus fron- 

 talis) did great damage to the pine 

 and spruce forests of this part of 

 the South. 



A great many dead pine trees in 



° * x ilG.43. — nenarortonvsfrnntaht,: a. dorsal vi»»w 



this Vicinity Were Stripped Of their of beetle; 6, lateral view-enlarged About 6 

 bark, and the galleries Of this Spe- times: c - *rtenii*-greatty enlarged (origi- 



cies, together with the dead beetles, 



were found in all. A noticeable feature of the insect work on pine was 

 the almost entire absence of the galleries of other common scolytids, 

 such as Tomicus ccelatus. In one spruce, however, T. oncograph us was 

 as abundant and apparently as injurious as Dendroctonus. 



It will be unnecessary to dwell at length upon the subject of the devas- 

 tation of pine and spruce forests, since, as previously stated, injuries 

 were reported too late for investigation, and the principal ascertained 

 facts in the matter have already been given to the public by Mr. Hep 

 kins in the columns of Insect Life and elsewhere. 1 



The accompanying illustration ot this species (fig. 43) will enable its 

 recognition. It resembles the species of its genus in color, ranging 

 from reddish to dark brown, but it may be readily distinguished from 

 the other species by its much smaller size, which is one-eighth of an 

 inch or slightly longer. An enlarged antenna (o), which is of a form 

 characteristic of frontalis, will further facilitate its identification. 



The following is the credited distribution of the species: •• Carolina" 

 (Zimmermann); "Lake Superior to Georgia" (Le Conte ; "California, 

 Arizona, Maryland" (Dietz). To this must be added the District of 

 Columbia, Virginia, and West Virginia. 



'Since the above was in type Mr. Hopkins has informed the writer that he now 



lias in A1SS. a lull report on thi^ topic which will soon be given to the pnhlic. 



