THE TROPICAL AGRlOULTURlSt. |JtTLt 1, 1902. 
next day. There were representatives of r early every 
family of insects : — Moths {Lcjndojitcm) ; Cadclis- 
flies {Ti ivhoptern) ; Beotlos (Cohvjitcra) ; Earwigs 
(Forficiiluria ; Flios (Diptcrti) ; Parasitic Wasps 
(^Ilijtiiaiopfira); Termites (Neuroj'tera) ; Bugs {Hein- 
tjitcra), both acquatic and terrestrial, including 
many species of Copsidac, a group to whicli the 
Helopeltis insect belongs, but not a single example 
of Helopeltis propor. I had not been sanguine of 
complete success, but the failure to capture even a 
single specimen of the euoniy was a surpiisc and a 
disappointment. ■ It seems evident that the Helo- 
peltis insect is not responsive to attraction by light, 
though another trial must be made at a time when 
the pest is in full activity. 
I am reserving experiments with a different kind 
of trap, something on the plan of the hopper-dozers 
used in America, for trial when the pest is in full 
activity. 1 have hopes that by the use of such an 
apparatus the insects may be captured much more 
effectually and economically than by hand. 
As mentioned above, at the time of my visit the 
pest had been declining in activity for some weeks. 
The bushes bore evidence of an earlier severe attack 
on the mature leaves ; but yoinig flush was begin- 
ning to come up freely, with only occasional signs of 
recent injury. An exhaustive examination of many 
bushes was made to ascertain whether eggs were 
still being deposited, and in wh^t positions. For 
this purpose marked bushes were cut across, as in 
light pruning, and tiie ^jruuings brought to the 
bungalow and examined — shoot by shoot, leaf by 
leaf, and bud by bud— in such a manner that not a 
single egg could escape detection. The result proved 
that very few eggs wore being deposited at the time, 
and that a large proportion of those eggs have been 
deposited in such a position that thoy could have 
been untouolied by plucking to the initial leaf. 
Some of the bushes examined had been so badly 
attacked (previously) that the shoots were small and 
brush-like, but others had a sufficient amount of 
new growth to form a possible nidus for the eggs. 
The larger number of the eggs found were empty. 
In the following figures only such eggs are reck- 
oned as were judged (by their positions) to have 
been deposited within the previous month. The 
average works out at 7 '66 groups (the eggs are laid 
in groups of two or thrccl per bush examined. Of 
these, 4'2 per cent, were alwvc the initial leaf, while 
the remaining 'tH per cent, were in such situations 
that close plucking would not have touched them, 
licsides the normal position in the succulent shoots, 
eggs were found emlMHkled at the base of the un- 
opened axillary loaf bud, and in the thickened base 
of the midrib of the leaf itself. The flower buds 
were carefully examined, but no eggs found in them. 
The paucity of recently deposited eggs was the 
more remarkable when it was found that the insects 
that were l>fing captured at the same time, by the 
"pooehie podians,'' contained in their bodies a large 
numlK.T of fully-formed eggs than I had previously 
found in insects examined during the period of great- 
er activity. The day's catch of one of these podians 
was critically (examined. It contained twenty-one 
female Helopeltis insects and twenty-six males. 
Dissection of the males showi^d egus ranging in 
nunil>er from seven to twenty, and giving an average 
of \'l--J.'t per insect. My previous record had been 
eight eggs per insect. 
Ten gravid females were confined in glass vessels 
and supplied with fresh tea shoots. Thoy fed freely, 
but died on the second day. Examinations of the- 
Bho<-its showed that only one insect had deposited a 
binglc group of eggs during the period of captivity, 
I can only surmise, from these facts, that thiS 
period of inactivity is marked by the retention of the 
eggs in the bodies of the female insects, to be depos- 
ited at some future time when conditions may be 
more favourable for breeding. How long they may 
be retained in this manner will be a subject for 
further investigation. 
To test the vitality of eggs in prunings left on the 
ground, young shoots containing recently deposited 
eggs were placed in a cardboard box and allowed to 
dry up. None of these eggs hatched out. On 
another occasion, some eggs in which the embryo 
was more fully developed, produced larvse after the 
shoot had become dry. I am of opinion, however, 
that little danger need be apprehended from the 
hatching of eggs from pruned branches. Such larvae 
would find no young s^hoots upon which to feed, and 
would die of starvation. 
The practical immunity of the indigenous varie- 
ties of tea remains established. A few cases of 
partial attaok have been reported, but in all such 
cases it appears that it has been "shuck" trees, or 
patches of trees on poor soil, that have been affected. 
This might be expected, for an indigenious plant, 
growing under unfavourable conditions, would lose 
its characteristic free growth and free flow of 
sap, which is believed to account for its immunity. 
At the same time it is quite conceivable that the 
pest may gradually adapt itself to the , conditions 
found in indigenous tea, if allowed the opportunity. 
Helopeltis insects, confined with shoots of indigenous 
tea only, will feed freely on them, but such unnatu- 
ral conditions do not afford any sure guide to the 
probable conduct of the insects in the field. (When 
speaking of " Indigenous Tea," I refer both to the 
Indian varieties and to Singlo-indigenous, i.e., the 
direct progeny of Indian plants grown in Ceylon.) 
Although Helopeltis does not usually attack re- 
cently pruned tea, I have records of the return of 
the pest, in force, after the third tipping. 
Search was made for other host-plants of the pest. 
I was informed that a certain shrub (afterwards 
found to be Musscenda frondosa) , growing amongst 
the tea, was sometimes punctured, but I did not see 
any such punctured plants myself. Examination of 
the jungle, on the edge of affected fields, failed to 
produce any reliable signs of the pest. Some spotted 
leaves of Dalhergia championii were observed, 
but these spots preved to be due to a fungous disease. 
I have since received leaves of a species of Dillenia 
(native name " Decapura ") that have undoubtedly 
been punctured by some sucking insect, and the 
symptoms are very much those of Helopeltis attack. 
No eggs of the insects were, however, found in the 
siiecimons. 
Helopeltis is extending its range in Ceyloni It 
formerly confined its ravages (as regards the tea 
plant) to estates situated in the low-country, e.g., 
Kelani Valley, Kalutara, Udagama, Morawak Korale. 
1 have recently investigated an undoubted case in 
the neighbourhood of Nawalapitiya, at an elevation 
of about 2,000 feet, and I hear of other affected 
estates in the same district. The pest promises to 
be as virulent here as at lower elevations. The same 
conditions were observed here as obtained in the 
Kclani Valley at the same season, viz., a marked 
paucity of egg-laying, with an exceptionally large 
number of eggs in the bodies of the female insects. 
Nine females were dissected, resulting in an average 
of i;{-22 eggs per insect. There was no difficulty in 
finding recent signs of attack, and insects could be 
captured in considerable nmnbcrs, but I was inform- 
ed that the pest had been oa the decline siuce th9 
comiueucemeut of March, 
