-521- 
damage point until very late in the season and in many sections no 
control measures wore necessary. Very little dusting was necessary 
for "boll weevil control in the Delta district, where c ntral is nearly 
always necessary. The exception to the above conditions was in eastern 
and southern Texas, where a high survival was followed by an excessive- 
ly wet spring and summer, and the weevil damage was the most severe in 
many years. This lo-? weevil population over most of the Cotton Belt 
was followed by an early and widespread infestation of leaf worms, which 
defoliated the cotton early and further reduced the weevil population 
that entered hibernation in the fall. (U. C. L:ftin, Bureau of Ento- 
mology and Plant Quarantine, U. S.D.A. ) 
PINK BOLLWORM 
The most outstanding events in connection with gin-trash in- 
spection of the 1936 cotton crop were the finding of a new infesta- 
tion of the pink bollworm in the lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas 
and the continued absence of infestation in the regulated part of 
Florida. This is the second consecutive crop season in which no 
infestation was found in Florida. The new infestation in Texas is 
apparently very light and involves four counties — Cameron, Hidalgo, 
Starr, and Willacy. In the Plains counties of Texas, known as the 
Western Extension, infestation was found again this season. The last 
previous infestation in this area was in the 193^ crop, and in two 
of the counties involved no infestation had "been found since the 
1927 crop. For the past several years only sufficient inspection 
has "been done in the older regulated areas to confirm infestation 
each year, and this practice was again followed. The counties in- 
volved are Graham and Greenlee, in Arizona; Dona Ana, Chaves, and 
Eddy, in New Mexico; and El Paso, Hudspeth, Pecos, Reeves, Ward, 
Presidio, and Brewster, in Texas. In these areas it is not prac- 
ticable under existing conditions to attempt eradication and, there- 
fore, only control measures have "been enforced. In Brewster and 
Presidio Counties and the southwestern portion of Hudspeth County, 
Tex. , a considerable number of worms are present and a small amount 
of commercial damage is done, but in the remaining counties infes- 
tation has always been so light that no commercial damage has ever 
resulted. (R. E. McDonald, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, 
U. S. D. A.) 
COTTON LEAF WORM 
As in 1935. the cotton leaf worm appeared early and was widely 
distributed in 193&. Tn^ first recorded appearance of the leaf worms 
this year was in Calhoun county, Tex. , on May 5* Spreading northward 
and eastward, it was reported from College Station, Tex., on July 15; 
Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee, on July 15 to 17; State College, 
Miss., on July 27; Stoneville, Miss., on July 30; Florence, S. C.,on 
August 2; Tucson, Ariz., on August 12; and from Tifton, Ga., on August 
lU, Moths at lights- were reported from Michigan on August 22, ol'so 
from Connecticut on September 23, and from Maine on September 9* 
