438 
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY 
[Vol. 17 
phases of the inspection work of that state were treated, including the 
examination performed at San Francisco and other ports of entry for the 
purpose of intercepting injurious insects and plant diseases which may 
arrive in shipments, or in ships’ stores or passengers baggage, the in¬ 
spection and certification of nursery stock, inspection of incoming 
domestic material at the freight and express offices and the Post Office. 
THE FIGHT AGAINST THE GIPSY MOTH IN NEW JERSEY 
By Thomas J. Headlee, State Entomologist 
Abstract 
The eight hundred and fifty-five gipsy moth (Porthetria dispar Linn.) colonies in 
New Jersey in 1920-1921 were reduced to two hundred and sixteen in 1921-1922 and 
further reduced to ninety-eight in 1922-1923. Fifteen ereas of slight infestation un¬ 
connected with the main area were apparently completely exterminated by the 
completion of the work in 1921-1922. Five hundred square miles of the original area 
of infestation has been reduced to about two hundred and fifty square miles. With 
the completion of the year 1922-1923 approximately $778,335.31 have been spent of 
which approximately one-half had been furnished by the state and private sources 
and one-half by the United States Department of Agriculture. 
Infested shipments of nursery stock have been received from New England as 
follows:—In 1921-1922 twelve; in 1922-1923 fourteen; 1923-1924 (report to De¬ 
cember 12, 1923) two. Ultimate success in gipsy moth work in New Jersey means, 
not only the extermination of the present infestation but, the prevention of rein¬ 
festation from any source whatsoever and, consequently, New Jersey has a vital 
interest in the prevention of the spread of the gipsy moth from the great infested 
area in the New England states. 
At each of the three meetings of this society held previous to this 
one the writer has presented a statement of the warfare against the 
gipsy moth in New Jersey. Much of the detailed data which he pre¬ 
sented in these papers has been superseded by statements based upon 
more complete information. The revised statistics are found in the 
6th, 7th and 8th annual reports of the New Jersey State Department of 
Agriculture, which are listed as bulletins 29, 33 and 37 of that organ¬ 
ization. Still further information of a detailed character can be found 
in circulars 38, 56 and 67, issued by the same organization. It is only 
fair to say, however, that the general tenor of the data submitted by the 
writer has not been changed by the obtaining of more complete informa¬ 
tion and that the conclusions reached by him stand firm. 
If he were listening to a statement of this sort from another state he 
would want to know first the results obtained in this warfare and 
second what the warfare had cost. Because of the existence and avail¬ 
ability of this detailed data to which the writer has referred and be- 
