16 
The damage detailed above was found only in the worse infested dis- 
tricts visited. In other localities the injury was much less, or none at 
all. Even in the infested districts some fields were found which had 
practically escaped injury. The estimated damage of 18.2 per cent 
applied more especially to a region approximately included by an 
imaginary line running from Paris, Texas, to Tyler, to Palestine, to 
Temple, to Greenville, to Paris. Other cotton-producing counties in 
Texas were much less affected, and for the entire State it will be safe 
to place the maximum limit of Boll Worm injury at 10 per cent, with 
probabilities that it is still less. 
Along the Red River and Mississippi valleys, and, in general, in the 
bottom lands along the smaller rivers and creeks, the injury is great- 
est. In the greater portion of Louisiana and Mississippi the damage 
is certainly not over 2 to 3 per cent. In Arkansas the damage along 
the rivers and in a belt across the State from Little Bock to Fort 
Smith was more serious, and for a considerable portion of the State 
ranged from 10 to 15 per cent. This is due in part to the greater 
acreage of corn in proportion to that of cotton. The reason for this 
lies in the fact that a greater number of individual ears are produced, 
and hence the probability of a greater number of worms reaching ma- 
turity. The relation existing between the acreage in corn and the 
acreage in cotton is no objection to the trap-corn method, to be subse- 
quently discussed, but rather makes it all the more advisable to use it 
at the proper time. In Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, and the 
Carolinas the ravages are insignificant, and usually do not excite 
general attention. If the acreage and production of these States be 
included to ascertain the per cent of loss to the entire cotton crop 
from Boll Worm depredations, it is evident that the percentage will be 
reduced to a small figure. 
Those who have never spent a season among cotton-planters may 
consider this discussion of damage peculiar or even unnecessary. The 
fact is that the average observer, whether planter or newspaper re- 
porter, seldom comes to his conclusions upon a basis of what is found 
upon the plant, or after having considered natural causes of loss. He 
judges mostly by what he sees lying upon the ground, and to this, as 
has been shown, several causes contribute. Upon this basis (see Table 
IV) a damage of 39.2 per cent could be reported. Such reports are en- 
tirely misleading and erroneous, and have no foundation in fact. It is 
even more difficult to give an estimate of the damage to corn by Boll 
Worms. From Table I it is found that in May, 2.6 per cent of the 
young corn plants had been attacked. The plants were not ruined 
nor even checked in their growth, and ultimately produced sound ears 
of corn. The conditions presented in Table III are quite disgusting 
when viewing the ravaged tassels, but in the end the ear of corn is 
produced. Romantic discussions of these facts have been entirely mis- 
leading, and for corn it is safe to assert that no real damage is occa- 
