34 
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY 
277. Comstock, J. H.—Continued. 
Popular names, 11; scientific classification; characterization of tlie 
order of Lepidoptera, 11; families of moths, 11; characterization 
of the Noctukhe, 12; tribes of Noctuidse, 12; injurious insects of 
the tribe Nocture, 12; generic and specific name of cotton-moth, 
12; history of the synonymy of the cotton-motli; Say ; s letter to 
Dr. Capers, 12; Say’s description of Xoctua xylina, 12; Harris’s 
letter to Doubleday, 13; Doubleday’s reply, 13; Llarris’s letter 
to Affleck, 13; Mr. Waile’s determination, 13; Mr. Grote’s adop¬ 
tion of the genus Anomis, 14; Mr. Grote’s adoption of Hubner’s 
name Alelia argillacea, 14; Hiihner’s description, 14; scientific 
synonymy of Aletia argillacea, 15. 
Chapter II: 
Past history of the cotton-worm. 16 
Scarcity of material, 16; sources of information. 16; is the cotton- 
worm indigenous? 16; early history of cotton in the United 
States, 17; the identity of the South American chenille of the 
last century with the cotton-worm of today, 18; Fabricius’s 
Noctua gossypii, 18; Dr. Chisholm's description of the chenille 
of Guiana, 18; the cotton-worm in Guiana in the early part of 
the 18th century, 19; the cotton-worm in the Bahamas in the 
18th century, 19; the appointment of a committee by the gen¬ 
eral assembly of the Bahamas to investigate the injuries to cot¬ 
ton, and their report, 19; emigration of French planters from 
the West Indies to Georgia, in 1801, on account of the chenille, 
19; first recorded appearance of the worm in the United States, 
19; the worm in 1804, 20; from 1804 to 1825. 20; 1825, 20; 1826, 
21; 1829,21; 1830,21; 1831,21; 1832,21; 1833,21; 1834,21; 1835, 
21; 1836,21; 1837,21; 1838,21; 1839,21; 1840,21; 1841,22; 1842’ 
22; 1843,22; 1844,22; 1845,23; 1846,23; 1847,26; 1848,27; 1849, 
27; 1850,27; 1851,27; 1852,27; 1853,27; 1854,27; 1855,27; 1856, 
27; 1857,27; 1858,27; 1859,27; 1860,27; 1861,27; 1862,27; 1863, 
28; 1864,28; 1865,28; 1866,28; 1867,29; 1868,30; 1869, 31; 1870, 
31; 1871,32; 1872,33; 1873,34; 1874,40; 1875,42; 1876,43; 1877, 
44; 1878,45; view of destructive years, 23; review of the litera¬ 
ture up to 1847, 26; first proposal of the migration theory, 26; 
Dr. Gorham's paper, 26; prevalence of parasites, 26; history of 
the use of Paris green as a remedy, 38; the Department of Agri¬ 
culture circular of 1873,39; Mr. Grote’s paper on migration, 41; 
Mr. Glover’s views, 42; beginning of the cotton-insect investi¬ 
gation, 45; table of appearances of the worm and the amount 
of damage done from 1804 to 1878, by counties, 47. 
Statistics of losses. 63 
Difficulties in estimating, 63; years of losses, 63; general estimates 
of loss, 66; ratio of loss between early and late crops, 66; esti¬ 
mates of loss by States, 67; Alabama, 67; Georgia, 68; Missis¬ 
sippi, 68; Louisiana, 68; Texas, 69; Florida, 69; North Carolina, 
69; South Carolina, 69; Tennessee, 69; Arkansas, 69; summary, 
69; table of average losses, 70. 
The Cotton-worm in other countries. 71 
Confined to the Western Hemisphere, 71; insects affecting the crop 
in the Eastern Hemisphere, 71; extent of injuries in West Indies, 
71; in Mexico, 72; in British Guiana, 72; in Dutch Guiana, 73; 
in Brazil, 74. 
