neighborhood of Monclova, opposite to, and not far from Laredo, Tex. Dr. Riley 

 published this information in his annual report for that year, but did not mention, 

 and probably had no thought of, a quarantine to prevent the entry of this new pest 

 into the United States. In fact at that time, quarantine consciousness seemed not 

 to have developed in the United States outside of California. 



This insect made its entry into Texas at Maramoros, near the mouth of the 

 Rio Grande and, when reported, had already advanced along the Gulf and north- 

 ward,, By the end of the decade it had reached San Antonio, and covered a fan- 

 shaped area southward to the Gulf. Here again, from our present outlook, it 

 seems extraordinary that there was no immediate discussion of the possibility of 

 eradication under state and federal action, which certainly now would be the first 

 thought. Instead, a letter was sent by the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture to 

 the Governor of Texas, urging importance of a state quarantine to prevent the 

 spread of the weevil in Texas and the enforcement of remedial work. No action 

 followed. 



During this decade the division was given special funds to aid in boll weevil 

 control, and little more could be done than to determine the spread of the insect, 

 work out its biology, and make a preliminary study of means of control. The 

 first Federal appropriation ($250,000) with respect to this insect was in 1903--of 

 which, however, only $20,000 was assigned to the Division of Entomology--the 

 Bureau of Plant Industry, having a program already worked out, received the 

 bulk of the fund. 



1945 - Loftin, U. C. Living with the boll weevil for fifty years. Smithsonian Rpt. for 

 1945:273-292, 10 pi. 



A review of the history of the boll weevil, its impact on the economy of the 

 South, and cultural and chemical control methods developed for its control. 

 Recent progress in developing many new materials for insect control has stimu- 

 lated renewed research for a better insecticide then calcium arsenate for the 

 boll weevil. DDT is not the answer for the boll weevil, but if further experimen- 

 tation confirms the preliminary results, some of the new synthetic insecticides, 

 such as benzene hexachloride, may be the beginning of a new era in boll weevil 

 control. 



1950 - Feujves, P. Einige probleme der angewandten entomologie in Venezuela. Mitt. 

 Schwiez ent. Ges. 23 (2):135-154. Berne. 



Cotton heavily infested by A. grandis which was recorded on it in Venezuela 

 in 1949 for the first time in South America. 



1952 - Gaines, R. C. The boll weevil. U. S. D. A. Ybk 1952:501-504. 



A brief review of the history of the boll weevil and various control proce- 

 dures used during the past 60 years. 



1953 - Berry, P. A., and L. Abrego. Insects and diseases affecting some crops in 



El Salvador. FAO Plant Prot. B. 1( 10): 151- 153. Rome. 



Most serious pest of cotton in El Salvador is A. grandis , which was shown to 

 feed and breed throughout the year. No alternative foodplants are known. 



1957 - Robertson, O. T. Occurrence of the boll weevil in the Big Bend of Texas. 

 J. Econ. Ent. 50(1):102. 



The boll weevil was seldom found prior to 1953 in the Big Bend area of 

 Texas. The nearest infestation where it caused damage was at Delicias, Chihuahua, 

 Mex., about 100 miles away. It is seldom a pest in the High Plains or west of the 

 Pecos River in Texas, and has never caused commercial damage west of the Big 

 Bend in the United States. An outbreak observed in 1953-55 is significant since it 

 occurred more than 200 miles west of cotton producing areas in Texas where 

 damage usually occurs. 



I960 - Miner, Floyd D. Cotton insects inNicaragua. J. Econ. Ent. 53(2):291-296. 



The cotton insect problem in Nicaragua is in many respects similar to that in 

 the United States. The most serious pests are the boll weevil and Sacadodes 



172 



^ 



