396 
From answers to many inquiries sent to hop-growers of this State we learn that it 
was tried the past season in many cases, and generally with success, though several 
reports came in of its failure. Such failures must be ascribed to the fact that it was 
not, in those cases, properly made or properly used. Under the right cenditions it 
is a perfect success. 
We are prompted here to mention the fact that a prominent hey nrm in Washing- 
ton State is issuing a circular to the effect that an extract of quassia chips is the 
only remedy for this pest, and denouncing kerosene emulsion as of no value against 
the Hop Louse. This is both unjust and untrue, as repeated experiments have proven. 
The writer reports success against flea-beetles on radishes from the 
use of a tobacco wash prepared by boiling 1 pound of waste stems in 2 
gallons of water. The success of this treatment is ascribed largely to 
the fertilizing qualities of the tobacco. 
The Mouth-parts of Copris carolina.“—The importance of this little 
paper by Prof. Smith is derived from the fact that he here names the 
parts of the compound mandible of this Scarabaeid in which these scler- 
ites are particularly well differentiated. and homclogizes these parts 
with those of the maxille. This is, curiously enough, an important bit 
of work which seems not to have been done before. Comstock, in his 
“Introduction to Entomology,” called attention to the want which 
Prof. Smith’s paper has thus promptly filled. The sclerite which homol- 
ogizes with the cardo of the maxilla he names sub-basalis; that which 
is the homologue of the stipes he calls the basalis. The homologue of 
the galea he names the terebra, while the maxillar /acinia is homologized 
with the mandibular prostheca of Kirby and Spence, the latter being 
the only part which had previously received a name. Two other scle- 
rites which he calls the molar and conjunctivus he does not attempt to 
homologize. For the rest, the paper describes briefly the remaining 
mouth-parts, showing a remarkable development of the epipharynx, 
indicating that in other Scarabaeids this organ is more or less paired. 
Prof. Smith is of opinion that further studies of this sclerite will dis- 
close species in which it is completely divided. 
This paper again suggests strongly to us the necessity for a uni- 
form nomenclature of the insect exoskeleton. The thoracic nomen- 
clature of MacLeay is a well-grounded philosophical system and should 
be generally adopted. We need, however, an extension of the princi- 
ples used in this system to other parts of the body, and particularly to 
the mouth-parts. Having once satisfied ourselves of the homologic 
relationship of the sclerites of the maxilla, labium, and mandible, uni- 
formity in the nomenclature of these parts becomes almost a necessity. 
The objection urged against such a nomenclature will be naturally the 
repetition of the qualifying term, but the advantage to be gained by a 
clear and thorough understanding at once conveyed by such a term will 
*The Mouth Parts of Copris carolina, with notes on the homologies of the man- 
dibles. By John B. Smith. Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc., XIx, pp. 83-87, Plates m1 and I. 
BAS os, \- Doe 
