222 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
ENTOMOLOGY—KILLING WORMS with SALT, &c. 
Very often, a paragraph gets started, and goes the 
rounds, (as one has lately done) stating that an applica¬ 
tion of salt to plants, will keep them from being killed 
by worms; or that salt so used will actually kill the 
worms. How much injury is done by such recommen¬ 
dations, it is impossible to tell; but if any one having- 
plants exposed to the depredations of worms, should 
think to preserve them by following such prescriptions, 
he will be very likely to be disappointed. We are au¬ 
thorized to say this from experience, having often tried 
salt as a protection against worms, and never found it to 
answer. We have placed it around corn, cucumbers, 
cabbages, &c., in such quantity that the plants suffered 
from it, without its having the least apparent effect to 
check the worms. The “ cut-worms,” or those which do 
their work above-ground, cutting off the plant at its 
surface, crawl over the salt without noticing it, and the 
worms which work underground, feeding on the roots, 
“ pursue the even tenor of their way,” alike undisturbed. 
We once put five different species of "worms in a stone- 
jar with earth. The earth was kept moist and salted at 
various times—turning out the earth and counting the 
worms every two or three days, to see if the salt occa¬ 
sioned the death of any, or in any way affected them. 
Finding all “ alive and well” at each counting, we con¬ 
tinued to salt them till we had applied at the rate of over 
forty bushels to the acre, with no difference in the result. 
The occurrence of an accident broke off the experiment, 
which prevented us from ascertaining the precise quan¬ 
tity of salt which an acre would require to kill the worms 
that might be in the soil. But as before remarked, we 
have ascertained from several trials, that it will take less 
salt to kill vegetation, than it would to kill worms; so 
that in conducting an experiment the former consequence 
may be first expected. 
In articles written on the subject of insects, there is 
too frequently an indefiniteness, and in some cases an in¬ 
consistency, which renders them worse than useless, as 
they only promulgate error. Great mistakes are com¬ 
mitted from an ignorance of the habits of insects, par¬ 
ticularly of their transformations. All insects when they 
have acquired their full growth in the larva or worm 
state, pass intothe chrysalis or pupa, and thence into the 
perfect or fly-state. Those of the same species, placed 
under the same circumstances, hatch nearly at the same 
time, and of course finish their first period and are 
changed to the chrysalis all together. From the time 
they are hatched till shortly before they pass to the next 
stage, their voracity increases; but when they have at¬ 
tained their full growth and the time for transformation 
arrives, they suddenly cease feeding, and the ordinary 
observer sees them no more. 
Now we have known instances of farmers becoming 
greatly alarmed at the devastation committed by worms 
on their field crops; but not having examined with suffi¬ 
cient attention, they did not become aware of the preva¬ 
lence of the insect, till its size and the wide-spread de¬ 
struction it had occasioned, showed it to be nearly full- 
grown, and that its predatory labors were, of course, 
nearly ended. In this state of the case, the farmer, anx¬ 
ious to check the injury, sows his fields at once with salt, 
ashes, or lime. He sows all alike, however—he makes 
no experiment which teaches anything—he makes no 
division of the ground, marked by metes and bounds,— 
applying the supposed remedy to some lots, and not ap¬ 
plying it to others,—as should be done to understand the 
results. In a few days, the worms, in accordance with 
their natural organization and habits, stop eating; and 
descending into the earth (as is the habit of some tribes,) 
prepare for transformation. The farmer examines his 
crops—the mischief has been stopped, the worms are 
gone, and he exults in the faith that -'‘salt has done the 
work for 'em!” 
Another instance of error in entomology lately met 
our eye in the Boston Cultivator, and from that has been 
copied extensively intoother papers. The writer asserts 
that—“ the cut-worm would not be found in corn, were 
it not planted in sward or sod land. They are the pro¬ 
geny of a species of beetle or other insect, which could 
never propagate its kind without the aid of dung which 
is found in grass-fields that have been fed by horses or 
cattle, and in this they inclose their eggs, and sink them 
a given distance below the surface.” 
Here are several errors which may be productive of 
greater or less injury. In the first place, it is too much 
to say that “the cut-worm would not be found in corn if 
it were not planted on sod ground.” It may, to be sure, 
be somewhat uncertain what species of insect is here al¬ 
luded to under the name of “ cut-worm,” but the term is 
usually applied to those worms which eat off the young 
stems of plants, generally at the surface of the ground, 
though sometimes a slight depth below the surface. They 
are known by entomologists under the name of Agro- 
TiDiDiE, or Field Moths. The group includes several 
species—we cannot say how many are known in this 
country—we have been acquainted with five or six; but 
none of them are beetles,” as this writer supposes— 
the}' are all moths, or “ millers.” We ascertained this 
more than twenty years ago, by taking some of the larva 
as they were about to pass into the chrysalis state and con¬ 
fining them till their transformation was completed. Dr. 
Harris has well described these insects. He says:—“ Most 
of these moths come forth in July and August and soon 
afterwards lay their eggs in the ground, in plowed fields, 
gardens, and meadows.” 
The assertion of the writer in the Boston Cultivator, 
that “ the insect could never propagate its kind without 
the aid of dung in grass-fields which have been fed by 
horses or cattle,” must have been made without a proper 
knowledge of the subject, and the same remark will ap¬ 
ply to his history of the insect. The worm, he says, 
“ is the progeny of a species of beetle, or other insect!” 
This statement, in one or the other of its parts, is undoubt¬ 
edly correct! But from what follows in regard to the 
eggs being deposited in “ dung,” the writer had evident¬ 
ly taken the dung-ball beetle, ( scarabaus relictus?) as the 
parent of the “cut-worm!” Many persons may have 
seen numbers of cut-worms on meadows where cattle and 
horses were never pastured, and where none of their 
“ dung” could be found. The insect is found mostly on 
sod grounds, but the eggs are laid, as stated by Dr. Har¬ 
ris, in the above quotation, “in plowed fields, gardens, 
and meadows,” and the larva are of course found more 
or less in all these situations. 
FOWLS IN YARDS. 
Hens kept in small yards, often acquire the habit of 
plucking out each other’s feathers. Some particular in¬ 
dividuals, generally the cocks, are made the subjects to 
be despoiled of their plumage for the amusement or sat¬ 
isfaction of the rest. The habit sometimes becomes so 
inveterate that it is almost impossible to check it, and 
the plucking is continued till the victims are stripped 
almost naked—till in some cases even their crops anil en¬ 
trails are torn out. We could never fully understand the 
cause of this unnatural appetite, though from its being 
seldom seen in fowls which have their liberty, it seems 
reasonable that it is induced by confinement. But whether 
it results from mere fretfulness, or from a want of some 
kinds of food which they are able to procure when al¬ 
lowed to run at large, is uncertain. When fowls areal- 
lowed to select their food, as they do when unconfined, 
it consists of a great variety. Besides all kinds of grain, 
they eat largely of grass or green vegetables, as well as 
animal substances. The animal food is generally sup¬ 
plied by insects—worms, beetles, grasshoppers, &c. As 
condiments, they eat flinty gravel and lime; frequently 
taking liberal draughts of water. They dust themselves 
in clean, fine sand if they can get it; but ashes, if not too 
strong, may perhaps be better. It is obvious that their 
food when they are kept in a confined state, should con¬ 
form as nearly as possible to what they would prefer if 
allowed to choose for themselves. A patch of clean 
grass should, if practicable, be allowed in their enclosure, 
and as a substitute for insects, butchers’ offals might be 
given them. If they have not sufficient grass, they should 
be fed twice a day with lettuce, cabbage, or tender plan- 
ain leaves, of all which they are fond. We have noticed 
that they appear to prefer lucerne to almost any other 
