-6o6- 
100 plants, respectively. The general level of population in the; county group 
of Chautauqua~Erie..Niagara was about the same in 1939 in.. 193 2, while in the 
combined counties of Jefferson and Oswego there was a decrease in 1939 from 
1938. ' , • v- ,T ; • • '' ■ : ' . 
, * ' * * ■ ...... 
Vermont, Hew Hampshire.- arid Maine ,*— In Vermont, Windham County in the. south 
eastern corner of the State, with 142,8 "borers per 100 plants, and Chittenden anc 
Grand* Isle Counties in the northwestern part, with 117*6 and 10.6,0 borers per IOC 
plants, respectively, were the only counties of the l4 surveyed in the State in 
1939 which aveiraged over 94 borers per 100 plants. In New Hampshire, Rockingham 
and Hillsboro Counties in the southeastern part of , the State had respective 
populations of l4s, 8 and 103*4 borers per 100 'plants, whereas each of the other 
7 counties surveyed in the State averaged less than 44 borers per 100 plants. 
Borer abundance in all of the 13 counties surveyed' in Maine in 1939 was relative-, 
ly light, averaging over § borers per 100 plants in only Yor£ and Lincoln 
Counties, in which 72, '9' and' 5°*6 borers per 100 plants, respectively, were found, 
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, .and Connecticut ,-.- .In Massachusetts in 1939 * 
the 7 counties of Middlesex, Barnstable, Essex, Norfolk, Bristol, Plymouth, and 
Hampden averaged S60.8, 774.8, 770«^» 585*0* 573*6, 391*0* and 367*0 borers per 
100 plants, respectively. Three of the remaining counties in the State had from 
101 to 300 borers per 100 plants, but Berkshire County was low, with only 4,8 
borers per 100 plants. Populations of the borer in all 4 counties of Rhode 
Island were- high in 1939* ranging from 504,4 borers per 100 plants in Washington 
to 859*6 in BristoL-Newport County. In Connecticut, Now London County, with 
807,2 borers per 100 plants, was followed by Windham, Hartford, New Haven, Middle 
sex, Tolland, Fairfield, and Litchfield Counties, with 523*0, 520.4, 503*2, 
425*4, 366 , 8 , 321.4, and 300,2 borers per 100 plants, respectively. The corn 
borer was significantly lower, in abundance in Hartford and New Haven Counties in 
1939 than in 1936. . 
New Jersey . --Gene rally reduced abundanco* of the corn borer in 1939 from 
1938 appeared in Burlington, Mercer, and Monmouth Counties, although individual 
cornfields that carried very high populations of the insect could be found in 
this section in 1939* No significant change occurred in the status of the borer 
ih Middlesex County and .in the county group of Camden and Gloucester between 1938 
and 1939* Populations averaging over 100 borers per 100 plants in 1939 were 
noted in Bergen, Burlington, Middlesex, and Essex-Union Counties of New Jersey, 
with 292,8, 220,8, 211.0, and l47.2 borers per 100 plants, respectively. In the 
remaining 15 counties of the State fewer than 100 borers per 100 plants were 
f ound, 
Delaware. Maryland, and Virginia .-- .Infos tation by the. corn b.orer in 1939 
was found in all 3 counties of Delaware, with relatively low populations of 11,4, 
11.2, and 4.0 borers per 100 plants in Sussex, Kent, and New Castle Counties, 
respectively, Sussex County in Delaware had approximately the same number of 
borers in 1939 an in 1938, In the combined counties of Wicomico and Worcester 
in Maryland the level of corn borer abundance changed little from 1938 to 1939* 
The 1939 survey showed 11,4, 4,8, and 1,2 borers per 100 plants in Worcester, 
Wicomico, and Somerset Counties, respectively. There, was a significant increase 
in corn borer abundance in 1939 over 1938 on the Eastern Shore of Virginia, where 
Northampton County in 1939 averaged 54,8 and Accomac.28,0 borers per 100 plants# 
