260 
COTTON 
eybees in this connection is recognized in 
some localities. Unfortunately Meade’s 
death prevented further continuation of 
the experiments. 
THE IN.SECT VISITORS OF COTTON. 
Manifestly, as is easily proved by ob¬ 
servation, cotton bloom yielding little or 
no nectar will receive fewer visits from 
bees than bloom in which nectar is abund¬ 
ant. But the pollen grains of cotton are 
very large and the supply is ample. If 
there were many colonies of bees in the 
vicinity, the pollen alone would probably 
attract sufficient visits to effect pollination. 
At Thompson’s Mills, northern Georgia, 
Allard carefully observed the insect visit¬ 
ors of cotton. One hundred and twenty 
insects entered the flowers. Of this num¬ 
ber 45 were- long-tongued bees belonging 
to the genus Melissodes, 45 were honey¬ 
bees, 6 were wasps (Elis plumipes ), 16 
were bumblebees, and 8 were small soli¬ 
tary bees. At the beginning of the experi¬ 
ments species of Melissodes (M. bimacu- 
lata ) were very common in the cotton 
fields, especially on heavy red clay soils. 
At first honeybees entered the flowers but 
later confined their visits solely to the 
outer involucral nectaries. They were es¬ 
pecially common near domestic colonies or 
bee-trees. Many bees (1500) were ob¬ 
served to inspect the flowers without en¬ 
tering them, which would indicate that 
they contained little nectar. It would ap¬ 
pear from these observations that there 
were not sufficient honeybees in the cotton 
fields to properly pollinate the flowers and 
that the presence of more colonies would 
have been beneficial. It is evident that in 
order to pollinate the vast area of cotton 
bloom numberless bees are necessary. Sev¬ 
eral colonies should be located on every 
acre. Certainly the experiment is well; 
worthy of trial. 
COTTON IN THE SOUTHWEST. 
There is evidence that cotton was grown 
in Arizona by the prehistoric cliff-dwellers 
before the discovery of America. The In¬ 
dians and early settlers likewise attempted 
the cultivation on a small scale of short 
staple cotton. About 1900 a variety of a 
long staple was introduced from Egypt 
where in the valley of the Nile it had been 
grown successfully for many years. At 
the Government Experiment Station at 
Sacaton a new variety, known as the Pima, 
was developed from the Egyptian plant. 
No other cotton in the world has a greater 
length (1% inches) or a greater degree of 
fineness. In 1911 about 400 acres of Pima 
cotton were planted in the Salt River Val¬ 
ley. This was the beginning of the growing 
of long staple cotton as a commercial crop 
in Arizona. The acreage gradually increas¬ 
ed until 1917, when the supply of long sta¬ 
ple cotton used in the manufacture of au¬ 
tomobile tires became wholly inadequate, 
and the price increased to one dollar per 
pound. One of the large American tire 
companies in the spring of 1918 bought 
several thousand acres of land in the Salt 
River Valley and seeded them with the 
American variety of Egyptian cotton. The 
alfalfa growers ploughed up their fields 
and raised cotton instead. In 1920 about 
110,000 acres of long staple cotton were 
growing in Maricopa County, and it was 
expected that the crop would be 100,000 
bales. The average yield is one-half a 
bale per acre, but on fertile soil one bale 
per acre is not unusual. 
The high price of cotton also greatly 
stimulated its production in southern Cali¬ 
fornia; Imperial Valley, Palo Verde Val¬ 
ley, and Kern County are recognized as 
cotton-growing centers. In Imperial Val¬ 
ley, Calif., and Lower California, it is es¬ 
timated that in 1920 there were 120,000 
acres of short staple and 33,000 acres of 
long staple cotton. The total acreage in 
California was about 200,000 acres. It 
was demonstrated that long staple cotton 
can be grown satisfactorily in this State 
where there is a season of 250 frostless 
days and high temperatures occur while 
the crop is maturing. But the recent de¬ 
cline in the price of cotton has checked its 
cultivation thruout the Southwest, and 
many acres in the Palo Verde Valley were 
not harvested in the fall of 1920. 
Cotton does not yield as much nectar 
per acre as alfalfa, and, in localities where 
it has largely supplanted alfalfa, beekeep¬ 
ers are not securing as large a surplus as 
formerly. In the vicinity of Chandler, Ariz.. 
90 per cent of the alfalfa has been ploughed 
up and the land planted with cotton. In 
the Buckeye Valley alfalfa has been large- 
