94 REPO&T 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. 
quently, however, the young larvae in the act of molting. I never no- 
ticed them dragging, or trying to drag, dead worms into their nests. 
At Selma, Ala., I never saw the ants destroying an egg of Aletia. 1 
witnessed it at Columbus, Tex., bat cannot tell at present whether this, 
egg had not been previously injured by some other enemy. When I 
returned from Texas I had a very high opinion as to the efficacy of these 
two species of ants, but since my stay at Selma, where I paid particu- 
lar attention to the subject, I have modified my opinion. Out of about 
ten cases where the ants are seen destroying worms it is quite certain, 
in my opinion, that in nine of them the victim was previously severely 
injured by some other enemy. In spite of this fact, however, there can 
be no doubt in my mind that the ants, on account of their enormous 
numbers, are to be considered as the most important enemies of the 
Cotton Worm." 
The reports of other agents in much the same strain seem to prove 
quite conclusively that the work of ants has been to some extent over- 
rated ; still their numbers must always make them important enemies 
of the worm. The great difference of opinion amongst observers upon 
this point is to a certain extent, without doubt, due to the difference in 
location, as in some localities the ants may be more active than in others, 
or different species may be concerned. It is, moreover, a question 
wherein preconceived ideas will have great weight in considering evi- 
dence. Take, for instance, the case of an observer who sees, upon one 
or several occasions, an ant in the act of devouring an egg of Aletia. 
He will be pardoned, perhaps, for considering this conclusive evidence 
of the good done by the emmets; but when we remember that many 
eggs are pierced and sucked by species of Triphleps and allied plant- 
bugs, and that in all of these broken eggs more or less of the contents- 
is left, it becomes possible that the ants may in such case act simply as< 
scavengers after the feast of the Triphleps. One thing seems quite con- 
clusive, viz., that they are useful chiefly against the newly-hatched or 
newly-molted or disabled worms. 
The leaf-cutting ant of Texas (Oecodoma fervens) should also be men- 
tioned here, for when it invades a cotton field it makes a clean sweep 
of every worm and pupa; but it also ruins the plant, taking off leaves, 
blossoms, bolls, and tender stalks. 
Certain of the true wasps- 
(Vespa Carolina Drury, V. 
germanica X.), some Paper- 
wasps (Polistcs bcUicosa 
Cress., P. rubifjinosa St. F.), 
and some Digger-wasps 
{Sphcx ccerulea De Geer, S. 
pennsylvanica Linn., and an 
FlG. 11.— Polistes rubigino8a: a, wasp, b, spring nest. undetermined Species) OC- 
casionally carry off a worm. Of other larger Hymenoptera, Monedula 
Carolina, Fabr., Eli* \-notata, Fabr., E. plumipcs, Drury, Pclopceus ccerulcu.^ 
