60 THE PERIODICAL CICADA. 
With all the reports of stings by the Cicada which have been made 
it is not to be questioned that some of them have a basis in fact. As 
suggested by Dr. Smith, and afterwards fully elaborated by Dr. Walsh 1 , 
many of these reports are undoubtedly cases of wroug determination, 
and the stinging had probably no direct connection with the Cicada. 
There are, for example, several large digger wasps which provision 
their larval galleries with adult Cicadas for the maintenance of their 
young. One of the commonest of the digger wasps is the species 
Megastizus speciosus, described later on under the heading of the 
enemies of the Cicada (p. 1)9). As first suggested by Dr. Smith, and 
afterwards more fully shown by Dr. Walsh, it is not unlikely that this 
or some allied wasp, Hying with its rather heavy burden, might strike 
against or alight on some human being, and upon being brushed off 
would retaliate by stinging the offender and then flying away, leaving 
the Cicada behind. In the absence of the wasp the Cicada would very 
naturally be accused of the offense. The usual prey of this wasp, 
which appears rather too late in the season to account for all the cases 
of stinging reported, is the later-appearing annual Cicadas. 
The rare cases of stinging by the Cicada, that have any basis in fact, 
may be accounted for, as already suggested, by a thrust either of the 
ovipositor or the sucking beak. 
From the structure of the ovipositor, as already described, it will at 
once be perceived that there is* nothing impossible in a wound being 
made by this instrument. The objections to this suggestion are that 
the ovipositor when not in use in placing eggs in twigs is concealed in 
a sheath in the insect's abdomen, and also that the piercing of a twig or 
other substance by the ovipositor is a slow and laborious process, and, 
therefore, would not account for the quick sting usually described. In 
no case has an egg been found in the flesh, and in fact it is improbable 
that an insect should be allowed to rest long enough on the flesh to 
accomplish the insertion of an egg. Furthermore, tests were made and 
reported by Dr. Walsh 2 and later by Professor Riley, showing the 
absurdity of the theory that the stinging in question is done by the aid 
of this instrument, the female not being able to puncture the soft, yield- 
ing flesh at all. In one test reported by Professor Riley, Mr. William 
Muir, of St. Louis, removed a female from a tree while she was in the 
act of ovipositing, and placed her on his finger. Although she instinc- 
tively endeavored to continue her work, she was not able to make the 
least impression on the soft, yielding flesh. A second experiment was 
made by Mr. Peter A. Brown, of Philadelphia, who himself made sev- 
eral punctures upon his hand with the ovipositor without exj)eriencing 
any more serious results than would have followed pricking with a pin 
or other sharp instrument. In a third experiment Dr. Hartman, of 
Pennsylvania, introduced some moisture from the ovipositor into an 
open wound and it caused no inflammation whatever. 
American Entomologist, I, pp. 7, 8, September, 1868. 
Loc. cit. 
