THE CHINCH BUG. 31 
It is proper to remark at this point that we have been speaking only of the rain- 
fall over the whole area designated and the general appearance of the chinch hng 
over the same area. 
That these insects have appeared even in injurious numbers in limited localities in 
intermediate years, or times different from those indicated as possible chinch -bug 
years, is certainly true. But, if the theory advanced is correct when applied to the 
area designated as a whole, it will probably prove true when applied to more limited 
localities. That is to say, if the meteorological record of a given locality within this 
area for a long series of years is examined, it will probably reveal the fact that there 
is a similar periodicity in the rainfall, though possibly not septennary. If this is 
fouud to be true, then the farmers of that locality will have a guide by which to ro- 
tate their crops and to take precautionary measures. 
It therefore becomes important for each section to keep a record at least of the rain- 
fall, for this will be of advantage, not only in counteracting the chinch bugs, but 
numerous other species, and if a periodicity is ascertained will enable the farmers to 
adapt their crops as far as possible to the wet or dry seasons. 
In the October (1880) number of the American Entomologist (Vol. 
Ill) Dr. Thomas published practically the same article as that above 
quoted and stated that the bugs would probably appear over the region 
indicated in 1881. He advised, in consequence, the sowing of large 
areas of oats iu 1881. Prof. Riley, in his Annual Report for 1881-'82 (p. 
87), mentioned this prediction and advice, and showed that the predic- 
tion was fulfilled in part, at least, by the occurrence of the bugs in de- 
structive numbers in several Western States. With regard to the adop- 
tion of Dr. Thomas' advice, however, he pointed out the rather curious 
fact that Dr. Thomas' own State (Illinois) was the only one of the large 
oat-producing States in which the acreage of this crop was not increased, 
but was somewhat diminished. Dr. Thomas in the letter of transmit- 
tal to his report for 1881 announced the fulfillment of his prediction 
and predicted immunity for 1882. Professor Riley (loo. cit.) showed that 
in spite of frequent rains in the spring of 1882, and in spite of the fact 
that 1881 was a Chinch Bug year, the bugs appeared in great numbers 
in parts of Illinois, Kansas, and Missouri in April and May, but that 
by June the reports were less alarming. The year as a whole was not 
marked by any extensive damage. 
Upon Dr. Thomas' theory the year 1888 should not be a Chinch Bug 
year, and, while not desiring to encroach upon his prerogative as a 
seer, we are inclined to hold the same opinion concerning this season at 
least. 
Curiously enough, an anonymous writer (J. C. H. S., of Sedgwick 
County, Kans.) in the Prairie Farmer for June 10, 1882, commenting 
upon and criticising Dr. Thomas' theory, himself predicts that 1887 
would be a year of drought and consequently a Chinch Bug year — a much 
more daring prediction than Dr. Thomas cared to make, and which has 
yet been perfectly fulfilled. According to this writer's somewhat arbi- 
trary system, 1894 will again bring a severe drought. 
We introduce here, as bearing upon the rain-fall influence in the in- 
teresting North Carolina locality, the following table of temperature and 
