- 338 - 
in souther stern Oklahoma and eastern Texas. Early in, the season reevils were 
abundant in Louisiana, Mississippi, and southern Arkansas end. caused more 
damage throughout the season in that region than elsewhere, "but here also 
dry weather late in June and in July helped greatly, in preventing weevil 
damage. Throughout this region cotton was more generally dusted than ever 
before, and more airplane dusters were in use than during any previous year. 
The entire northern third of the cotton-growing area was comparatively fre<= 
of weevils throughout the season. In 1933. seven boll weevils developed in 
and emerged from Hibiscus syriacus in the field. This constitutes the first 
record of attack of any plant other than cotton and Thurberia, (R. T .7. Harned, 
Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, U. S. D. A.) 
PI IK BOLL WORM 
For the past several years the distribution and abundance of the pink 
bollwonn has been largely determined by gin-trash inspection. By this means 
infestations have been located in Florida, G-eorgia, Texas, Hew Mexico, and 
Arizona. Infestation-has existed for a number. of years in Texas, in 21 Paso, 
Hudspeth, Presidio, Brewster, Pecos, Reeves, and -Ward Counties, and is still 
present. Infestation was found in the 1933 crop in Bailey, Lamb, Cochran, 
Hockley, Yoakum, Terry, Gaines, and Dawson Counties, but of these counties 
only Terry was found infested in 1934. Specimens were found in Midland County 
also in 1934. With the exception of Brewster, Presidio, and part of Hudspeth 
County, the infestation has been so light as to cause no commercial damage. 
Only enough inspection is made each year to determine the continued presence 
of the insect, therefore it is impossible to give an accurate idea of the 
abundance. In most of the areas only a few specimens are found, and tiiere 
has been very little change in populations for the past several years. In 
Brewster and Presidio. Counties the infestation had built up until in 1931 the 
damage amounted to about 14 percent of the cotton cro;o for these two counties. 
In one section of Presidio County the damage ran well over 20 percent, with 
some few fields being practically a complete loss. For the ->ast three 
seasons s-oecial control measures have been carried on, so that at the end of 
the 1934 season, even though a large number of worms were present, they 
developed late in the season and caused very little, if any, loss. For 
several years infestation has existed in Ne? Mexico in Chaves, Dona Ana, Eddy, 
Luna, and Otero Counties. In 1933 additional infestation was found in Lea 
and Roosevelt Counties, but none was found in these two counties in 1934. 
In Arizona infestations previously occurred in Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal 
Counties. The last specimens found in Maricopa and Pinal Counties were from 
the 1931 crop, and in Pi na County none ha?, been found since 1927. Specimens 
were taken in Graham County in the 1934 crop* A small amount of cotton is 
grown in Greenlee County, ginned in Graham County. It is therefore possible 
that some of the specimens found this season originated in Greenlee County. 
The first specimens to be taken in Florida were found in Alachua and Columbia 
Counties in the 1932 crop, but none have since been found in those counties. 
During the 1933 season one specimen was found in Madison County and one during 
the 1934 season. Specimens were found in the 1934 crop in Hamilton, Jackson, 
Levy, and Suwannee Counties. Infestation was discovered on wild cotton grow- 
ing along the coast and on keys or islands in southern Florida in 1932. The 
