1877.1 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
23 
4 ion may convince any clear-headed reasoner that 
occasional or even frequent close-fertilization is no 
argument against the advantage (or the ultimate 
need) of cross-fertilization. Cross-fertilization, we 
may well believe, is the best thing, but is risky. 
Cross-fertilization, tempered with self-fertilization 
—which is the commoner case—is practically the 
best on the whole under ordinary circumstances— 
is the compromise between the two risks, viz.: 
failure of vigorous and fertile posterity on the one 
hand, and failure of immediate offspring on the 
other. “ Get money, honestly if you can, but—get 
money,” was the advice of an unscrupulous parent. 
Get fertilized, cross-fertilized if you can, close-fer¬ 
tilized if you must—is Nature’s golden rule for 
flowers. 
“ Wire-Worms,” and their Work. 
With insects as well as plants, common names are 
used very loosely, and lead to confusion. Thus 
“ Cut-worm ” is a name given to the larvae of in¬ 
sects of widely different families, and the name 
“Wire-worm ” is applied to the larvae of insects, and 
to animals that are not proper insects. Not long 
ago a correspondent at Montreal, Canada, com¬ 
plained that “Wire-worms ” were doing great dam¬ 
age to his flower-beds, and asked what could be 
done to destroy them. Unlike many who ask such 
questions, he sent specimens that enabled us to 
know what he was talking about. His pest was 
not a worm proper, nor the larva of an insect, but 
one of the myriapods, or millipedes, as they are 
called, belonging to the genus lidus, of which there 
are several species, one of which is shown in the 
engraving. These have long, cylindrical, shining 
bodies, made up of a great number of horny, arch¬ 
ed divisions, the most of which bear two pairs of 
legs ; they have two short feelers at the head, are 
mostly of a blackish or dark brown color, and 
when disturbed, roll themselves up into a coil. 
Our species are from an inch to an inch and a half 
long, but there is one in South America, having a 
length of six or seven mches. As the books gener¬ 
ally say that the species of lulus feed upon decay¬ 
ing vegetable matter, and some state that they are 
‘ ‘ WIKE-WORM. ’ '—lulus. 
beneficial rather than injurious, we thought the 
correspondent referred to must be in error as to 
the cause of the damage, and asked for further 
particulars. He replied as follows : “I planted 
out last spring a good-sized bed of carnations; 
two-thirds of them where cut down in about a fort¬ 
night, and I could trace it to nothing else than these 
worms, with which I found the bed to be infested. 
I removed the balance to another part of the gar¬ 
den, and saved them. I then examined some of 
the lily bulbs in the next bed, and found some of 
the living bulbs partly eaten, with the worms in 
them. I have destroyed large quantities this au¬ 
tumn, by slicing apples and turnips, and laying 
them on the infested beds, the worms collecting 
under them in masses, which were removed and 
burned.”—Testimony so positive from an evident¬ 
ly intelligent and careful observer, induced us to 
look up the authorities at hand more carefully than 
before, to see if the destructive habits of the lulus 
had been noticed by any one else. Westwood, the 
eminent English entomologist, says that “ they feed 
on animal and vegetable substances in a state of 
decay.” Smee (Eng.) is “by no means certain as 
to the functions ” they perform, and quotes Bois- 
duval as saying that one lulus is “ a friend to the 
gardener.” Among American authors, a writer in 
the “ American Cyclopaedia,” and others, including 
Morse, the most recent of all, say that they live on 
decaying matter. Packard indefinitely says, “they 
live on vegetable substances, or eat dead earth¬ 
worms or snails.” After a long hunt we came up¬ 
on some light in the “ Practical Entomologist,” by 
the lamented Walsh, which, iike its successor, the 
“ American Entomologist,” was too good to last. 
Here, in Yol. 2, p. 34, (Dec., 1866,) we find a com¬ 
plaint of the destruction worked by an Zulus in the 
strawberry plants, and other plants, by eating their 
roots. Mr. Walsh says: “So far as is recorded in 
sucn authors, as are accessible to me, and so far as 
my own experience extends, all other species of the 
Zulus live on decaying vegetable matter, such as 
rotten wood.” Finding this to be a new species, 
Mr. W. goes on to describe it as Zulus multistriatus, 
which is the species here figured. It is 1.15 inch 
long, brown, with most of the joints marked with 
numerous minute striae or lines. What Is quite 
singular, Mr. Walsh suggests just the same means 
of destroying the “ worm,” as that hit upon by the 
Montreal correspondent, only instead of apples and 
turnips, he suggests carrots, potatoes, or parsnips, 
which, he thinks, might be laid under pieces of 
board. It is quite strange that recent writers 
should have overlooked the matter, and that Pack¬ 
ard, while he mentions the species, omits to give its 
most important character, in a practical view, and 
to state that it is really destructive. The fact that, 
while most of the Lady-birds are useful in destroy¬ 
ing other insects, one species is a most destructive 
vegetable feeder, finds a parallel case in the Zulus, 
and shows that it will not do to infer, because some 
species have habits in common, all of similar 
structure are like them in these respects. It must 
now be admitted, that at least one Zulus is to be re¬ 
garded as an enemy, and to avoid confusion, in¬ 
stead of calling it a wire-worm, or what is worse, 
“ the wire-worm,” let it be a Millipede. The very 
simple remedies above mentioned seem to be fairly 
successful. If any better ones are discovered, 
we hope that our friends will inform us of them. 
Killing the “Cabbage 'Worm.” —The cater¬ 
pillar of the European Cabbage Butterfly, Piei-is 
rapes, is without much regard to accuracy generally 
called the “ Cabbage Worm.” Though it is but lit¬ 
tle troublesome now in the localities where it first 
appeared, there arc still many places where it has 
proved very destructive the past season, even ruin¬ 
ing whole crops, and it is likely to continue to be a 
source of loss to cultivators in various parts of the 
country. Fortunately the natural enemies of the 
insect, especially insect parasites, increase with 
great rapidity, so much so that in places where a 
few years ago it seemed as if cabbage culture must 
be abandoned, the number of the “worms” at 
present is not sufficient to cause any serious loss. 
But cabbage growers cannot afford to feed suc¬ 
cessive broods of the caterpillar, until they in turn 
feed foes that will increase and in time destroy 
them, but prefer to kill them at once. We have 
published the various remedies that have been pro¬ 
posed, but we have not seen any that strikes us as 
so feasible as that proposed by the “Toronto 
Globe.” It is simply hot water, applied by means 
of an ordinary watering pot. Those who have not 
tried it, are not aware that plants will bear with 
impunity water so hot, that one would suppose 
that it would kill them at once. By starting with 
water -boiling hot, or nearly so, it becomes some¬ 
what cooled by the time the cabbages are reached, 
it is cooled still more in passing through the air in 
applying it, and the cabbage leaves are so thick 
that they do not become suddenly heated, so that 
by the time the water touches the plant, it is hot 
enough to kill the caterpillars, and not sufficiently 
so to hurt the plant. It is of course, like other ap¬ 
plications, most effective on the young “ worms.” 
One great difficulty in fighting insects of any kind, 
is due to the fact that they are not taken in time, 
but left until they have taken full possession.; 
Cultivators of cabbages, cauliflowers, and the like, 
should note this for trial next season. 
A New Canker-Worm Guard. —All the attempts 
to combat the destructive Canker-worm, depend 
upon the fact that the female perfect insect 
or moth is wingless, and after she comes out 
of the earth can only ascend the tree to lay eggs 
for her mischievous brood by climbing up the 
trunk. Surrounding the trunk with some obstacle 
that the insect can not pass would seem to be a 
simple matter, but there have been numerous in¬ 
ventions to accomplish it, many of which will 
answer if properly attended to, but none will be 
perfect safeguards if left to themselves. Most of 
the inventions provide some adhesive material, like 
tar or printer’s ink, or some liquid like oil, over 
which the insect can not pass. These, if not looked 
to, will become bridged over by dust, or by the 
dead insects, and as soon as a passage way is found 
the mischief is done. Mr. John Bryan, of Conn., 
has invented a guard to which none of the above 
objections will apply. It consists of a 6tout band 
of vulcanized rubber, about an inch wide; along 
the center of this are closely stuck ordinary pins, 
in a close row, and project about an inch. When 
this strip is tacked around a tree it presents a collar 
of pin points outward. According to the inventor, 
it is impossible for the female moth to crawl over 
this. The pins are inserted by machinery and the 
affair is not expensive. This new invention is called 
the “ Elm City Tree Protector.” 
THE MpflMm 
J5F" For other Household Ztems see “ Basket ” pages. 
Home Topics. 
BT FAITH ROCHESTER. 
Pass It Along. 
To hoard up treasures, or to waste them uselessly 
—both are sins against society. Everything should 
be put to some use. Yet, let us not forget that 
there is use in beauty, nor demand that things 
which minister only to the finer tastes, shall need¬ 
lessly be made to serve the grosser appetites. I 
say “ needlessly,” for I think no thoughtful mem¬ 
ber of the great human family, will love to lavish 
much upon his or her “finer tastes,” when sur¬ 
rounded by neighbors who are suffering for the 
most common necessaries of life. There is neither 
beauty nor utility in packing away, merely for 
preservation, articles that could give pleasure or 
comfort to human beings, though no longer servic- 
able to ourselves, simply because they are ours. It 
shows ill-judged economy^ or pure selfishness. 
I think we might all afford more generosity in our 
daily lives. We might trust ourselves—or rather 
we might trust the great Giver—and share more 
freely with those who have need, without worrying 
about our own to-morrow and its supplies. Yftiat 
would happen, do you suppose, if all the members 
of all the churches should suddenly come a great 
deal nearer than ever before to obeying that most 
trying test put to the young man of great posses¬ 
sions, who desired to be a follower of Jesus?— 
“ Sell all that thou hast and give to the poor ; then 
come and follow me.” A good deal of common 
sense would have to go along with the attempt to 
obey such a command. 
But only think of all the chests and closets full 
of out-grown or old-fashioned, but strong and warm 
garments, to be found in many houses at whose 
doors the wolf never howls, and where winter’s 
frosts cause no alarm. Then think of the suffering 
poor, whom we “have always with us.” A great 
deal of thoughtless wickedness is practiced in cut¬ 
ting up for carpet rags or for linings, garments 
which might do a great deal of service somewhere, 
in their present shape. I never thought of this 
until a friend took me to task, many years ago, for 
cutting up a good sack for some trivial purpose, 
because I did not care to wear it. “ Only think of 
all the stitches in that sack ! ” she said. “ When a 
garment has been cut out and made, it ought, if 
possible, to be worn out in that shape.” I thought 
so too, when I came to look at the subject. For 
this reason, good garments should be made with 
simplicity, so that they may never look “old-fash¬ 
ioned,” in an offensive sense. 
In some families it is customary to pass baby- 
clothes from one to another, as different mammas 
have need of them, and this practice tends to the 
increase of sisterly love and sympathy. The world 
