208 
treatment, and no experiments have been made from which any guaranty of suc- 
cess following it could be given. It might, however, be worth a trial, and I should 
_ be glad to have you report the results of any experiments you might make in this 
direction. The tent, to prevent the escape of the fumes of this substance, which is 
very volatile, should be thoroughly oiled or painted and the connection with the 
ground should be made as tight as possible by means of earth or boards. It seems 
that the difficulty arises from allowing the shocks to remain so long in the field 
after harvesting, but I am not at all sure that the infestation does not sometimes 
take place, that is, that the eggs are deposited in the heads before the wheat is 
cut. This is more apt to be the case if the wheat is allowed to become very ripe 
before harvesting. Would it not be advisable to adopt the plan of the Western 
farmer before the advent of the self-binder and head the wheat, threshing imme- 
diately, so that it can be stored in bins, where it will be comparatively exempt from 
the attacks of the moth and where treatment with remedies is more easy and satis- 
factory ? 
If, however, as appears from your letter, you have just threshed your wheat, it 
ought to be possible to destroy the insects and prevent further injury. This can be 
done if the grain is stored in comparatively tight bins. The treatment consists in 
the use of bisulphide of carbon, which should be added near the top of the pile of 
grain at the rate of one and a half pounds of bisulphide to each ten bushels of grain. 
A ball of tow attached toa stick may receive the charge of bisulphide, like a sponge, 
and be plunged into the top of the grain. When necessary the stick may be with- 
drawn and a fresh charge inserted. The actionof the bisulphide in a comparatively 
tight bin lasts ordinarily about six weeks, after which a fresh charge is required. 
The substance does not injure the wheat in the least, provided it is not used too 
freely nor for too long a period.—[September 17, 1891]. 
Treatment of the Boll Worm. 
T wrote you some months ago in regard to best methods of combating ravages of 
the Boll Worm and you were kind enough to reply. Now I seek additional informa- 
tion, as I see abundant evidences that we will lose our cotton again by them. 
(1) What poison is best, Paris green or London purple? 
(2) For small farmers, what method of application is most efficient? 
(3) If by spraying, what apparatus is most satisfactory; the same, if dusting the 
poison on is advised ? 
(4) If spraying is advised, what is the proper strength of poisoned water? How 
much poison to gallon? 
(5) What is the chemical name of Paris green and London purple, and if either 
can be made soluble in water and still retain its poisonous properties? * * * 
—[H. L. Tate, Smith County, Tex. 
RepLy.—The fourth report of the United States Entomological Commission con- 
tains in its first part, treating of the Cotton Worm, an elaborate chapter on the 
application of arsenical poisons to the cotton plant, and upon referring to that por- 
tion of the report (pp. 186-153) you will find full particulars regarding the points 
you ask me in your last letter. We have pointed out that a timely application of 
Paris green or London purple not only protects the plants from the Cotton Worm, 
but is at the same time the best remedy that can be recommended for the destruc- 
tion of the young Boll Worms before these enter the bolls. The report was pub- 
lished in 1885, and since that time no new discoveries have been made regarding the 
mode of application of these poisons. 
(1) London purple can not be said to be better than Paris green, but is a good 
substitute and much less expensive (see 4th Report, pp. 148 and 151). 
(2) This depends entirely upon circumstances. Water is often not handy, and 
small planters are liable not to have any spraying apparatus on hand. For these 
