85 
continued destructive outbreak of the chinch bug known in the history 
of that insect. Their present activity is illustrated by the fact that in a 
single field in Southern Illinois dead chinch bugs imbedded in this mold 
were found by an assistant so numerous as to suggest a recent flurry of 
snow.” 
Lugger, Otto. —Fungi which Kill Insects. (Bull. 4 Agric. Exper. Sta¬ 
tion Univ. Minn., pp. 37-41.) 
In Minnesota in 1888, after a wet, cold, and very backward spring, 
chinch bugs were found in large numbers dead in their winter quarters, 
except in the more favorable situations. Later, better weather brought 
them out in great numbers, but during the course of an experiment made 
to prevent their escaping from infested fields, a fungus disease appeared 
among those shut in and spread very rapidly toadjoining fields of timothy 
iand other grasses, destroying immense numbers of them, the fungous 
growth usually fastening them to blades and stems of grass and leaves of 
clover. Warm and very dry weather stopped the increase and spread of 
the disease. 
Eighteen lots of chinch bugs were sent to different places in Southern 
Minnesota, where the chinch bug was injurious, with instructions to throw 
the diseased insects out in infested fields, “and, as it seems, with remark¬ 
ably good results, as the disease has killed off the bugs to such an extent 
that careful search in a majority of places failed to produce a single liv¬ 
ing specimen, whilst traces of the disease were found everywhere. The 
disease spread so rapidly that even corn fields growing near wheat crowded 
with chinch bugs were entirely protected, and no bugs had entered them 
in all the places visited by myself. But I am by no means satisfied that 
the disease was really introduced in this manner. Is it not possible that 
the disease was there already, unknown to any one, and that I simply re¬ 
introduced its germs? The reason for this belief is based upon the fact 
that too large an area was infested by the disease,—too large to be account¬ 
ed for by the short time in which the atmospheric conditions were—ap¬ 
parently—in its favor.” 
1889. 
Snow, F. H.—The Chinch Bug. Blissus leucopterus, Say. (6th Biennial 
Rep. Kan. State Board Agric., 1887-88, pp. 205-208; Proc. 18th Annual 
Meeting Kan. State Board Agric., pp. 78-81.) 
Describes sudden and almost complete disappearance of hordes of chinch 
bugs during dry weather of April and May, 1888. Wheat and oats so 
badly damaged that owners were beginning to plow them under, but grain 
revived and bountiful crops were reaped where almost total loss had been 
threatened. This destruction undoubtedly caused by epidemic contagious 
disease. Refers to Dr. Shimer’s account of epidemic among chinch bugs in 
Illinois in 1886, quoting from Shimer's article published in the Proceedings 
of the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Science (1867, v. 19, pp. 75-80). 
Author says, “In America the most important additions to our knowledge 
of bacterial insect diseases have been made at the Illinois State Labora¬ 
tory of Natural History. Here Prof. Forbes and his assistants have given 
especial attention to the maladies of the chinch bug. Three of these 
maladies have been satisfactorily distinguished, two of which are strictly 
fungoid in their nature, while the third is of bacterial origin and similar iii 
character to the flacherie of the silkworm.” Thinks it undoubtedly one of 
these fungoid diseases which attracted Dr. Shimer’s attention in 1886. 
Compares entomophthorous affection of chinch bug with that of house fly. 
Quotes from Lugger’s account of chinch-bug disease in Minnesota (see 
ibove), and describes Lugger's experiments for its spread. Epidemic may 
have reached Southern Minnesota in natural way, and repetition of 
.experiments is consequently desirable. Concludes by expressing opinion 
that “in the warfare of man against his insect foes a most valuable ally 
will.be found in the bacterial and fungoid diseases which may be arti¬ 
ficially introduced when nature fails to come to our aid.” 
