76 
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY 
[Vol. 13 
became available in July, Mr. Worthley, who had been put in charge 
of the cleanup work, was also assigned the charge of the inspection 
force, and the force of trained men for this purpose was enormously 
increased. Instead of the half dozen inspectors of the year before we 
put upwards of a hundred men into this service. Nearly 100 inspectors 
were assigned to Massachusetts, a group of 20 or 30 to New York, and 
later in the season others to Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and 
elsewhere in the Mississippi Valley. As a result of that greatly 
enlarged inspection service our knowledge of the distribution of the 
corn borer has been very greatly increased. Its present known dis¬ 
tribution has been pointed out by Dr. Felt and that the insect has not 
been found west of New York or Pennsylvania. This was not a 
sudden spread of the insect from last year, though it has been very 
frequently so described, but was rather merely the determination of 
additional territory, some, and perhaps much, of which had been 
infested probably for ten years. That we have now determined the 
limits of the distribution of this insect is not at all likely, as is evidenced 
by the known distribution of the imported broom corn just described 
and the very fragmentary nature of the surveys, even where they have 
been most thoroughly conducted. 
I should like to discuss now for a moment the evidence indicating 
the economic importance of the insect as indicated by its abundance 
and the amount of damage it has occasioned to corn. Its damage to 
other crops is chiefly significant as indicating that such crops may be 
a means of disseminating the borer. 
Over much of the infested area in coastal Massachusetts and New 
Hampshire, the insect is very rare. I have here records submitted by 
Messrs. Worthley and Caffrey indicating the results of the scouting 
work in Massachusetts and other states. These records apply to the 
new .areas of infestation determined in 1919, practically all of them 
subsequent to July 1. In most of these towns or townships the actual 
findings of larvae were limited to from one to a very few and in most 
cases these after several days of intensive search. The number of 
larvae recorded is not always, however, indicative of the extent or 
amount of infestation because as a rule, after finding an infested field, 
the inspectors went on to other townships. The amount and extent 
of infestation is, however, indicated by the number of man days 
spent in a township, and the number of fields inspected before the 
borer was found, and also, to some extent, by the number of larvae 
found in such fields. On the other hand, the reporting of a large 
number of larvae in a township is also not indicative of very much. 
For example, in one township the record is given of over 40 larvae being 
found, but the statement is made that this town contains over 40 
