28 
includes St. Louis, where he was then located, and even then com¬ 
batted the double-brood theory. In the first article on this insect, 
in his eighth report (1876) he says : “All the evidence, and the whole 
history of the insect as here set forth, point to its one-brooded 
character at least in ordinary seasons, and north of the 88th parellel. 
In the more Northern States, it is evident from the lateness of the 
season when the worms enter the ground, that those which issue as 
moths the same season cannot beget a second brood, since the 
ovaries are so immature at the time of issuing. There is in fact 
no actual evidence of its two-brooded nature. One of the arguments 
brought forward in support of the theory is, that it is difficult to 
conceive how an insect that produces but one brood annually can 
become at times so prodigiously multiplied. But it is only at long 
and irregular intervals that it does become so prodigiously multi¬ 
plied, and after such a wide-spread appearance of it in our culti¬ 
vated fields as that of 1875, it takes several years of undisturbed and 
unnoticed multiplication, culminating in unusually favorable condi¬ 
tions, before the decimation of its ranks that inevitably follows such 
undue increase is repaired, and this notwithstanding its great pro¬ 
lificacy. It is an interesting fact, also that most Lepidopterous in¬ 
sects rthat have a wide geographical range and the peculiarity of 
appearing suddenly and at irregular intervals in vast swarms, are 
known to be single-brooded, while most of our Cut-worms, its close 
allies, I have by experiment proved to he so. The second argument 
in support of the two-brooded nature of our Army-worm is, that ac¬ 
counts are often heard of the Army-worm appearing in the fall of 
the year, but in every instance where I have been able to obtain 
specimens for examination, they have proved to be the fall Army- 
worm." 
Moreover, this view was required by the theory he then held in 
reference to its method of hibernating. That “those moths which 
issue early in the season probably lay their eggs in the Fall, while 
those which issue later hibernate and lay their eggs in the Spring.’' 
In the second article on this insect in the same report, written 
after his discovery of the eggs, he remarks: “It is thus evident, 
that the conclusions arrived at in the body of this report as had 
not been settled by direct observation are essentially correct, as the 
above recorded facts bear on them. The only part needing correc¬ 
tion is on pp. 85-86, where the statement that the moth will not 
oviposit in confinement should be qualified by adding ‘when reared 
indoors from the larva,’ which was indeed implied.” 
It is evident therefore that up to this time (after April, 1876) he 
still held that it was single-brooded. 
In his ninth report (1877) he for the first time partially abandons 
his previous opinion on this point and adopts the same view I sug¬ 
gested in 1861, that while it is probably single-brooded in the more 
northern sections, it is double-brooded in the latitude of St. Louis. 
Prof. Comstock remarks in his report (1880), as Entomologist of 
the Agricultural Department, that “it has always been supposed 
that there is but one [generation] in the Northern States,” etc. 
This is erroneous unless by “Northern States,” he intends only 
the Eastern States. 
