[30] REPORT 4, UNITED STATES ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. 
Already several leaves had been wholly cleared away, but the chrysalides which they 
had contained were still lying upon the ground undisturbed, they being too heavy to 
remove entire, and the ants, for some reason best known to themselves, having de- 
clined to cut them in pieces. • 
On various occasions I offered eggs of Aletia to many different species of ants, but 
not in a single case could I induce them to cut one from the leaf, though if I broke 
the eggs loose for them they would seize upon and carry them off without hesita- 
tion. Some writers claim that ants ascend the cotton plants and devour the eggs of 
both Aletia and Heliothis. This, I am fully convinced, is an entire mistake, especially 
so far as relates to Texas ants. My eyes are very good, and I have kept them open 
looking after this thing throughout the season ; were it common, as has often been 
claimed, I surely would have seen something of the kind, which I did not. 
As to the Aletia larvae, or Cotton Worms, my observations have convinced me that 
some species of ants will destroy them, especially young worms, if placed near the 
entrance to their hills. But the cases of this destruction that will fall under the eyes 
of an observer are far less common than one might suppose. In most instances the 
worm, so soon as touched by an ant, goes into a series of skips and bounds which 
carry it several inches, and perhaps feet, away. The sudden movement seems to 
frighten the ant, which rarely starts in pursuit. If a hew contact happens to result 
from another j>asser, away goes the worm again *as before, until it is finally out of 
danger and up a cotton stalk. Have never yet seen an ant attack a worm of any con- 
siderable size on a plant, though it is no uncommon thing to see ants walk directly 
over worms. The large ants seldom ascend the plants for any purpose ; the small ones 
that go up seem to have been attracted either by the exudations from plant lice or 
by plant nectar. 
I have seen nothing to convince me that ants are of much value to the planter in 
their rdle as " natural enemies " of the Cotton Worm. I do not question the assertion 
that they devour large numbers of worms, but if the whole truth was known it would 
be found, in my honest opinion, that nearly all such worms were either maimed in 
some way or fatally sick before the ants took them in hand. I am sure that in Texas, 
at least, the good they all do is more than overbalanced by the evil wrought in the 
work of the "Agricultural Ants" in making their "clearings" in the cotton fields. 
Other insects. — My investigations with reference to other insect enemies of the Cot- 
ton Worm were not so thorough as in the case of the ants, my instructions not de- 
manding it; but in the course of the season I saw on duty most of the insects referred 
to in Bulletin No. 3 of the United States Entomological Commission, and nothing 
additional, showing that the Avork of the Commission had already been quite thorough 
in this direction, for Texas at least. 
The only thing that struck me as particularly new under this head, growing out of 
my investigations, was the idea that entirely too much importance is usually attached 
to the "natural enemies" of the Cotton Worm. So far as mere natural history is con- 
cerned this part of the subject is worthy of due consideration, of course, but I can- 
not regard it as being of any particular interest to the man who concerns himself only 
as a practical cotton planter. What cares he as to how many friendly birds or insects 
feed upon his insect enemies, provided there are not enough of them to save his crop ? 
I am sure that enough have never yet appeared to save the cotton crop in a season 
favorable for the growth and multiplication of Cotton Worms; and I am also sure 
that enough to secure such an end never will appear. This being the case, what does 
the planter gain from them? They leave him standing exactly where he wculd be 
found standing were they not in existence. It would cost him no more to poison the 
plants for the comparatively small addition of Cotton Worms that would claim hM 
attention in case these "natural enemies" had not taken their share than it coots 
him as it is. The poisoning to be effectual must be thorough ; nothing short of this 
Avill ever answer. 
But, possibly, some will argue that these " natural enemies" may appear in force 
ho large as to hold the Cotton Worms under check in such seasons as are not other- 
wise fitvorable to their development. If arguments of this character are presented 
they will be mere speculations unsupported by facts. Where are those "natural ene- 
mies" in the- seasons when worms do not injure the crop ? One never sees them on 
such occasions — one never will. 
I contend, without fear of being wrong, that the appearance of these " natural ono- 
mies" in the field is merely a result growing out of favorable conditions for their at- 
traction, or for their own multiplication, and that most prominent among these favor- 
able conditions is an abimdant crop of Cotton Worms to supply them with food. It 
is all nice enough to regard them in the light of friends, which they are, in a certain 
sense ; perhaps it would be better to reckon thom as our guests who have dropped in 
from the "hedges and highways" in compliance with our wishes, after the feast has been 
spread, but who would never have thought of responding to our bidding had we invited 
them to a festal board made up of empty tables. 
