per 100 plants occurred in the Clinton-Gratiot-Saginaw-Shiawassee County 
group and an average of 13-6 "borers per 100 plants in the 3arry- Eaton- 
Ionia County group. Ten (or 25 percent) of the ^-'-0 fields surveyed in the 
former county group had populations of ever 100 borers per 100 plants, 
including one field that av i .• L 55^ boron c 100 plants. 
Corn "borer abundance in 193^ remained at the relatively low level of 
1935 i- n counties bordering the Li ' s in western New York, where the weather 
was very dry in the first half of July 193^> & n & in Centre County, Pa. 
Only 1 field of 110 surveyed in western H : '. k and 2 fi :rl ^0 surveyed 
in central Pennsylvania in 193' '~ iac i populations of more than 100 borers per 
100 plants. 
EASTERN STATES (V3 LiA.Il 8, ! MASSACHUSETTS, 
CONNECTICUT, ISLAND, ... fOR] ! TOLK COUIITY) , 
SY S D2LAWAPS, MARYLAND, AN1 VIRGINIA) 
Significant ii ;r isos in ■ r borer ared in 193^ in 
southwestern Vermont, centra] setts mecticut, Rhode 
Island west of Narraganseit Bay, an ' .'.-.": rs of the 
insect increased appreci r Ln the ver of central 
Massachusetts, as shown in v< f the 3 Ln-E • . l- [ampshire- 
Worcester County group ( ii Massa husetts), rage population 
rose from 20. 5 borers per 100 plant 1933 to 2l6i9 in 1 33 - Lneteen of 
the Ho fields surveyed in this county gi ■ ations over 100 
borers per 100 plants, and averaged ^37»5 borers per ICO s. In . ith 
County, N. J., where the avera v of bo; ?r per 10< plants increas 
from U3.U in 1935 to 93.7 in 1936, ;, + • T Lds irv yed had populations 
of over 100 '--:ccrc per 100 plants, including a maximum of 553 borers per 100 
plants in 1 field. The increases obscrv " :. ( lastern States were as 
follows: In the area includ Ad i .:-Senn I - it land Counties, Vt., 
from an average of 27 J4 to ' . borers per 100 plants; in New London-Tolland- 
Windham Counties, Conn., fv 1 - 58.9 to 10U„h borers per 100 
plants; and in Kent-Pro vidonce-Washingt on Counties, R. I., from an average of 
71.5 to I5U.2 borers per 100 plants. 
With the sxceptions of Essex a: ristol Cc ti s, Mass., where popu- 
lations of the borer remained practically una I, * r was a lever in- 
festation during the current than in the j eason, along the Atlantic 
coast from York County, Wu : ne, to and includ ii ; iristol- . q Drt Counties, 
R« I. In Middlesex Con; . Jonn., in SufJ ' 3 ty, on Long Island, and on 
the Eastern Shore of Maryland and Vir definite decreases also occurred 
in the abundance of the insect from 1935 to 193 • "he causes for all of 
these reductions are not Imown, but it ■ i-z certain that, in the surveyed 
portions of Maryland and Virginia, abnormally dry weather in May and i a;- in 
June, at the time of first-generation oviposition and larval establishment, 
was responsible for low survival of the borer. 
Borer populations, in 193b, in northwester r er t, in Hartford and 
New Haven Counties, Conn., and in the Atlantic-Burlington-Ocean County group 
in New Jersey remained practically unchanged. 
