61 
recorded in previous pages, it would seem that injury is about equally 
divided between the first and second generations. This, however, is a 
matter that it would be difficult to decide, as it is impossible to sepa- 
rate the two broods. 
Reports of injury during 1900 were almost continuous and were 
accompanied by specimens, as a rule at or near maturity, from May 
12 to the first week of September. 
The duration of the egg stage was noted in a moderately cool room, 
average temperature of 60°-68°, and ascertained to be three weeks. In 
midsummer this stage is, of course, much shorter. The larval stage 
probably lasts between three and four weeks, according to tempera- 
ture, and the period of aestivation, as previously stated, may extend 
over seven months. The pupal stage was observed to be between ten 
and twenty-one days, and ma} 7 be much longer when winter is passed 
as pupa. 
NATURAL ENEMIES. 
As with the army worm, and to a lesser extent with the 1899 out- 
break of the fall army worm, much was expected, by those who had 
the variegated cutworm under observation, from parasitic and other 
natural enemies which often attack and destroy insects having the 
habit of periodically traveling in armies. With the fall army worm 
it has been shown that the natural enemies were somewhat of a disap- 
pointment, and the same was to a certain extent true in the case of 
the variegated cutworm in its occurrence in British Columbia, as 
elsewhere. Locally, however, natural enemies were of some service, 
and possibly more beneficial than observations go to show. It seems 
probable that in many cases destructive elements were at work that 
escaped notice. 
Two of our correspondents previously mentioned, Messrs. Willis 
and Mayse, of Oregon, have written of the efficacy of chickens as 
destroyers of this cutworm. In one case chickens were turned into a 
garden, and the} 7 partly cleared the plants of the worms. Mr. Mayse 
stated that hogs and some birds were very fond of this cutworm, and 
were quite destructive to it. 
From the latter correspondent also we received from Dora, Oreg. , 
parasitized specimens, the parasites from which issued late in August, 
and proved to be, according to Mr. Coquillett's determination, the 
Tachina fly (Phorocera sawidersii Will.). 
From the same correspondent we received July 21 a Peridroma 
saucia larva upon which a larva of a Therevid was preying. 
The Tachina fly (Archytas emails Fab.) issued June 25 from a pupa 
of this cutworm obtained from Eureka, 111. The following day it was 
reared from Leacania unipuncta received from McPherson, Kans., 
where the variegated cutworm was also present during the year. 1 
^his species is also parasitic on Clisiocampa calif ornica Stretch. 
