LETTERS TO MR. D. D. GIBB
Great Tortoiseshell Butterfly—The Forest Fly—Numerous other fly-pests
and fly-parasites—A few Moths.
The subjoined letters to Mr. Gibb are unique in that they deal with a
wider range of subjects than any of Miss Ormerod’s letters to other
British observers. She recognised and appreciated her correspondent’s
accuracy of observation, and gratefully acknowledged the assistance she
received through the numerous specimens he so promptly collected for her
when in need.
_To D. D. Gibb, Esq., Assembly Manor Farm, Lymington._[60]
TORRINGTON HOUSE, ST. ALBANS,
_June 26, 1894_.
DEAR SIR,—I am very much obliged to you for kindly sparing time
to let me have your careful observations received this morning,
together with the specimens of the Great Tortoiseshell
butterfly, _Vanessa polychloros_, infestation. I have been very
carefully noting, measuring and counting, so as to secure
details, and presently I think with your own observations these
will form a very serviceably interesting paper. That patch of
eggshells contained over three hundred eggs, as near as I could
count by taking numbers in length and breadth. Your two
caterpillars had been over hasty in their arrangements, and
changed to chrysalis on the journey, and consequently made not a
good business of it, but one of those you sent me previously,
having better surroundings had done its work thoroughly well,
and is a very beautiful specimen which I hope will develop. I
propose to have a good figure engraved of the butterfly,
chrysalis and caterpillar.
All your other notes I have also read with much interest,
especially those on turnip management, and your remarks about
“warble,” and in due time I shall be much obliged by being
allowed to use these in my next Annual Report.
[Illustration:
Caterpillar and chrysalis, natural size; branched spine from
caterpillar, magnified.
FIG. 13.—GREAT TORTOISE-SHELL BUTTERFLY, _VANESSA POLYCHLOROS_, L.
]
_July 27, 1894._
I am very much pleased to hear that you have hatched two of the
Large Tortoiseshell butterflies from your specimens. This is
very interesting as completing your previous observation, and I
am particularly glad of this note of date of development for I
am afraid that the only really good chrysalis which I secured
from your larvæ does not seem likely to develop. However, it
gave me an opportunity of seeing the beautiful colours and the
six bright mother-of-pearl-like spots on the back. Many thanks
for kindly offering me a specimen, but I should not like to take
it—for it is of special interest with you to illustrate this
rare attack, and also it is very difficult to ensure safety in
transmission. Many thanks all the same, and also for your
Hessian fly specimens received a short time ago, and for the
further notes now. I am sorry not to have acknowledged them and
the information in the letter accompanying them sooner, but I
had a deal of work, and some temporary difficulty from breaking
a blood-vessel in one eye. However I am thankful to say that is
all right again.
I have no doubt you are right about the weather making a most
important amount of difference in extent of injury both from
Hessian fly and Diamond-back attack. If it had been hot I am
afraid _Plutella cruciferarum_ (Diamond-back moth) would have
done a deal of mischief. The little Charlock weevil,
_Ceuthorhyncus contractus_ (see my seventeenth, 1890, report),
has been doing a great deal of mischief to young turnips at some
places on the east side of the country.
[Illustration:
In usual position, and also with wings expanded—magnified; also
natural size.
FIG. 14.—CHARLOCK WEEVIL, _CEUTHORHYNCUS CONTRACTUS_.
]
_July 30, 1894._
The _V. polychloros_ specimen came to hand little, if at all,
injured by its journey, and in beautiful order for figuring. I
am very glad to have it, for besides proving the caterpillars to
be of the “great tortoiseshell,” I had the opportunity of seeing
the row of long bristles or stout hairs about a third along the
lower part of the front edge (the costa) of the fore-wings. This
row of hairs is the structural difference between this “great
tortoiseshell,” and the “small tortoiseshell” (which is without
them), but otherwise the two species are so much alike that
there used to be doubts whether they were not merely varieties
until this point was noticed by a Dutch entomologist, Mr.
Snellen. I shall be glad to refer to this point, for it is
important and was observed after our chief manuals of
_Lepidoptera_ were published.
On referring to your letter accompanying the Hessian fly
puparia, “flax-seeds,” in which you notice some of them being
within the stalks, I remembered I had not precisely replied to
this part, so I do it now. I think this position, though not
characteristic, is not very uncommon, and is caused by a
weakness of the stem. I have from time to time found the stem
cracked longitudinally and the “flax-seed” partly slipped into
the cavity.
[Illustration:
Natural size and magnified.
]
[Illustration:
1, Anchor-process of larva of _Cecidomyia destructor_; 2, of
_Cecidomyia trilici_—magnified; “flax-seeds,” or puparia, in
different stages of development, natural size and magnified.
FIG 15.—HESSIAN FLY, _CECIDOMYIA DESTRUCTOR_.
]
_August 22, 1894._
I have to-day had a request from Dr. Ritzema Bos for some
specimens of Hessian fly puparia _in situ_ or otherwise. If you
could do it without inconvenience, could you oblige me with some
“flax-seeds” if you come on them at threshing time; and you will
be good enough to let me have also a few pieces of barley or
wheat stem just three or four inches long with the flax seed
still adhering.
I hope you are having good harvest weather, but indeed this is
the first really good bright summer’s day we have had for a long
time, and to my eye the wheat round here has a grey look instead
of the bright colour.
[Illustration:
FIG. 16.—YOUNG WHEAT, WITH HESSIAN FLY MAGGOT AT “_a_.”
(After Prof. Webster.)
]
[Illustration:
1, Straw bent over;
2, showing “flax-seeds.”
HESSIAN FLY ATTACK ON BARLEY.
]
[Illustration:
Nos. 1-6 and 11 and 12, Gout fly, grub, and pupa—natural size and
magnified; with infested stem; 7, 8, 9 and 10, parasitic ichneumon
flies, natural size and magnified.
FIG. 17.—GOUT FLY, RIBBON-FOOTED CORN FLY, _CHLOROPS TÆNIOPUS_,
MEIGEN.[61]
]
_August 28, 1894._
Your packet of infested straw came safely to hand this morning
and I am very much obliged to you for kindly taking all this
trouble. I have repacked the Hessian fly straws, winding a
thread over the place of deposit of the puparia on the barley
straw for fear they should get from under the sheathing leaf and
be lost. I am sure Dr. Ritzema Bos will be very grateful for the
help, and also for its coming so promptly.
Thank you also for the _Chlorops_ (Gout fly) specimens; they
were particularly acceptable just now, for, if all is well,
Professor Riley means to look in early next week before he
returns to the U.S.A., and I think he would like to see them.
_April 26, 1895._
If I am not troublesome I should be very greatly obliged if you
would tell me anything as to the methods commonly used for
keeping off attacks of the Forest fly, _Hippobosca equina_,
which is such a special pest in the New Forest to horses not
used to it. I mean the thick made fly of which I enclose a
figure (18), natural size and magnified, which deposits an
egg-like puparium or chrysalis case in the hair of the horses,
from which case the fly presently comes out. I believe you will
know exactly the infestation I refer to, and any information
which you may be good enough to give me, as to how to prevent it
coming at horses and settling on them, I know would be quite
sound and reliable. I am receiving so much application for
information about the habits, &c., &c., that I feel sure my best
plan will be to issue a leaflet as soon as possible with figure
included at the heading. I have, I think I may say, far more in
the way of description and nature of the fly than can be needed,
but it would help me very much indeed to have a recipe for any
application which was really known to answer in keeping the
attack off riding horses. I am sure you would allow me to add
this to my leaflet, acknowledged to you. I make no doubt
quantities of things, especially of the nature of soap or soft
soap (not caustic) or lard, and a little paraffin or sulphur,
would with careful attention keep the flies from congregating
permanently, but the thing in hand is to prevent them coming at
the horses and causing dismal downfalls! I have heard lately of
a plan of rubbing horses with paraffin—very efficacious, I
should expect, but not the thing to benefit the clothes of the
riders!
[Illustration:
1 and 2, natural size and magnified from life; 3, pupa removed from
puparium (after Réaumur); puparium, natural size and magnified,
before complete coloration.
FIG. 18.—FOREST FLY, _HIPPOBOSCA EQUINA_.
]
_Wednesday night, May 1, 1895._
I am exceedingly obliged to you for your most helpful letter and
the live specimen, which I learnt a great deal from, before we
re-captured it, and stopped its activity with some benzine. It
slipped out of my fingers somehow, out of your careful packing,
and kept flying at my light woollen shawl, varied by taking a
promenade (which I was very conscious of) on the top of my head.
It struck me as suggestive that it selected me (not my sister or
our housekeeper) for this purpose, because I never use any kind
of pomatum. I like my hair as smooth as can be, so the creature
did not establish itself, but judging by feeling, it had much
pleasure in its survey. I noticed the set of the wings, and
perhaps I can get a figure.
When the flies are more plentiful, so that it would not give you
too much trouble to secure some, I certainly should like two or
three very much, but please do not let me intrude too much on
your good nature and time. I will write again presently to say
how I am getting on with the leaflet, but I did not like to
delay thanking you heartily longer than I could.
[Illustration:
Fly, with wings expanded; also viewed sideways. Larva and pupa, after
De Geer.
FIG. 19.—GREAT OX GADFLY, _TABANUS BOVINUS_, LINN.
]
_May 10, 1895._
I am very greatly obliged to you for all the information in your
letter, and also for the four live and hearty flies. These have
been very valuable to me, and I cannot help thinking I have
discovered a point not previously observed in the structure of
the feet which may prove of importance practically. However it
may have been known, so I have written to-day to our great
English authority, Mr. Meade, to ask him what he thinks about it
and will write you again. I fancy that your specimen’s being so
fresh allowed me to make out the point. Still I may be wrong.
P.S.—I was told yesterday that a worse trouble in the forest
than the Forest fly is the “Great Gadfly” the _Tabanus bovinus_.
Do you think this is so? This fly is such a very large creature
indeed, see figure (19) of it with wings laid at rest and
expanded. I should have expected to hear of it before now.
[Illustration:
Magnified (after Railliet).
(_a_) CLEG, OR SMALL RAIN BREEZE FLY.
(_b_) AUTUMNAL BREEZE FLY.
(_c_) SMALL BLINDING BREEZE FLY.
FIG. 20.—BREEZE FLIES: (_a_) _HÆMATOPOTA PLUVIALIS._ (_b_) _TABANUS
AUTUMNALIS._ (_c_) _CHRYSOPS CÆCUTIENS._
]
_May 20, 1895._
I received the first copies of my Forest Fly leaflet late on
Saturday and now enclose you a few with great pleasure. Please
tell me if more would be acceptable, as you know how gladly I
would send them, and you have helped me most importantly. I have
only had a moderate impression struck in order that I might be
able to alter or add as seemed desirable.
I thought a deal of what I could manage, as the flies came at me
and I could watch them, but I did not see my way at all to
making a more useful figure than that by Dr. Taschenberg, which
tells little. Mine is after the figure by Professor Westwood
drawn for the plates of “Insecta Britannica—Diptera,” and these
are regular standard reference plates.
_July 1, 1895._
We have really captured some of the _Hippobosca equina_ in North
Wales. The account will be in next number of the “Veterinary
Record.” I have identified them with quite absolute certainty,
but I suppose I must not forestall the “Veterinary Record,” as
it sent me the flies.
[Illustration:
Red maggot attack on a stem of barley; and a saddle, magnified.
FIG. 21.—SADDLE FLY, ? _CECIDOMYIA (DIPLOSIS) EQUESTRIS_.
]
_July 11 or 12, 1895._
I am very much obliged for your further consignment of the
_Tabanidæ_ (Horse gadflies), and especially for the liberal
supply of the Great gadfly (fig. 19). What a very grand fellow
he is, and how very painful the attack must be. I have to-day
written to Mr. R. H. Meade about this great variety of Gadflies
which you are letting me have, and offering to send him
duplicates.
Many thanks also for first, and as yet only, note of presence of
Hessian fly this season. About these curious markings on the
side of the straw—are they not very like those of the maggots,
“red maggots,” of the _Diplosis equestris_, the _Cecidomyia_ or
Great midge, mentioned in my thirteenth Report, at p. 30? I
think you have this report, and if you chanced to have leisure
to compare some specimens with my sketch, you would see what you
thought. The workings do not seem to me as regular, but yet
there is a strong resemblance.
I am working up the Gadflies as well as time allows, and through
courtesy of Mr. Janson have had a loan of a volume published in
1842 of a serial called “Isis” so as to be able to study the
very special paper in it by Zeller, which is the authority on
some of the important points, and which cannot now be bought by
itself. I thought this was a kind help, for the whole book is
very costly.
_July 31, 1895._
I have a promise from Professor Mik, who is a special authority
on flies, that when he returns to Vienna he will let me have
such duplicates of the _Tabanidæ_ as he has, which will be a
great help. I have had an artist down from London who has made
most beautiful drawings for engraving of the fly’s foot (plates
XXIII. XXIV.), but I greatly want some dissections made of it,
and I have only this morning heard where I could get this minute
work done. Would you mind the trouble of once again letting me
have two or three Forest flies? I should be very much obliged,
for though I keep the specimens most carefully that you let me
have, some quite fresh would answer much better for dissection.
It is very curious that until Mr. Goodall (a highly accomplished
veterinary surgeon) noticed the long bristle attached to the _H.
equina_ foot, no one except that wonderful observer De Geer
appears to have noticed it, or what is perhaps still more
astonishing, repeated De Geer’s observation and figure.
[Illustration:
PLATE XXIII.
Horace Knight ad nat del West. Newman lith. Foot of Forest Fly
(Hippobosca equina, _Linn._) _Side view greatly magnified_
]
[Illustration:
PLATE XXIV.
Horace Knight ad nat. del. West, Newman lith. Foot of Forest Fly
(Hippobosca equina, _Linn._) _Seen from above greatly magnified._
]
_August 13, 1895._
I am much obliged by your letter of the 8th inst. with
observations of the effect of temperature and weather on
presence of Forest fly, and now again this morning, and very
much, for the supply of Forest flies, which were alive I should
say by the grumbling in the corn-stem, until I chloroformed
them.
Your “black ants” appear to me to be _Formica fuliginosa_, of
which it is stated in Frederick Smith’s British Museum Catalogue
of British Fossorial Hymenoptera [burrowing four-winged
insects], p. 11, that “this species is at once recognised by its
jet-black colour; its usual habitat is the vicinity of a
decaying tree or old post.” I only twice met with this kind in
my father’s woods, each time, curiously enough, one of my
brothers who had a great fondness for ornithology saw the
Hoopoe. As this rare bird is stated to have a fondness for this
special kind of ant I conjectured its presence was caused by the
_fuliginosa_ being present. Their workings were wonderfully
destructive in the felled stump which they chose for
headquarters. I certainly think you need no advice from me on
the head of dealing with them, but it just occurred to me that,
if they come in a definite line still, and you could not run
them up to their starting point, it might answer to put a couple
of half-decayed stumps across their line of march. Might they
not adopt the suggested new settlement?
I am getting on with the Forest fly and lately I have been
studying the claws. I have only just discovered that along the
lower part of the large-curved claw is a saw-toothed edge, and
to this the slanting grooves which I had previously noticed run
down one furrow to each notch so as to give an enormous power of
holding and tearing. I think the thumb claw is also to some
degree furnished both with saw- and file-like markings (fig.
22).
P.S. I can only see the saw and file mark with a good side
light, when the claw is examined in natural state, not in
balsam.
[Illustration:
Much magnified.
FIG. 22.—FOOT OF FOREST FLY, _HIPPOBOSCA EQUINA_, SHOWING DOUBLE
CLAWS, CENTRAL PROCESS, AND LONG PRICKLY BRISTLE; ALSO PORTION OF
SIDE OF CLAW OF _HIPPOBOSCA MACULATA_, SHOWING PARALLEL GROOVES AND
SAW-EDGE.
]
[Illustration:
1, Leg and base of wing; 2, base of wing; 3, abortive wing; 5, female
fly, with base of wings—all much magnified; 4, puparium, much
magnified, and line showing natural length.
FIG. 23.—DEER FOREST FLY (FEMALE), _LIPOPTERA CERVI_, VON SIEBOLD AND
LOEW.
]
_June 20, 18096._
I was very glad to have your note of first capture of
_Hippobosca_ (Forest fly) on May 6th. I wonder whether on your
Red-Deer (or Roe Deer, if you have them) you find the Deer
Forest fly, the _Lipoptena cervi_. I am having a deal of
communication about it as having been observed as a very
noticeable infestation on Deer in one locality in the North of
Scotland. I believe it is troublesome to people moving in the
parts it frequents, but the odd thing about it is, that whilst
the females are considered (or conjectured, for it is not quite
certain) to be always wingless, yet the male flies are developed
with wings and drop them, something like ants, on settling on a
host animal. It would be very interesting if you found any of
these; they come very near the so-called “Sheep tick” in their
nature, only neither male nor female of the “Sheep Forest flies”
is ever winged. It is also very curious that from some
unaccountable confusion the generic name has gone wrong; it
seems obvious it should be _Lipoptera_, “without wings,” but—it
is supposed by some error in printing—_Lipoptena_, which has no
meaning connected with the fly, has got substituted. I think it
would be well presently to try to get this put right.
[Illustration:
With wings thrown off; also still retaining wings; and wing—all
much magnified. Line shows natural length.
FIG. 24.—DEER FOREST FLY (MALE), _LIPOPTENA CERVI_, VON SIEBOLD AND
LOEW.
]
[Illustration:
Fly, magnified, with line showing natural length; puparium, magnified
(showing incrustation), also natural size.
FIG. 25.—SHEEP SPIDER FLY, “KED,” OR “KADE,” _MELOPHAGUS OVINUS_,
LINN.
]
_August 29, 1895._
I am writing a few lines to mention that Mr. Meade has verified
my identification of the New Forest _Tabanidæ_ for me as being
all correct, with one exception. He thinks the _glaucopus_ is
more like _cognatus_, but Brauer of Vienna says the latter is
only probably a variety of the former, so this is no great
matter. Mr. Meade is not only an eminently skilled dipterist
himself, but he also possesses a collection of the _Tabanidæ_
(our British kinds) named for him by Dr. Brauer, the great
continental authority. So now we stand on a very firm footing
(thanks to the trouble which you and Mr. Moens were good enough
to take in supplying me with fresh specimens) as to the species
of these bloodsucking pests which you have in the Forest. Would
you tell Mr. Moens about this when you see him, with my
compliments and thanks? I think you meet sometimes. I am longing
to hear something of the military experiences.
[Illustration:
1 and 2, young and full-grown larvæ; 3 and 4, larvæ magnified; 5,
female beetle flying; 6, male beetle, slightly magnified.
FIG. 26.—BEET CARRION BEETLE, _SILPHA OPACA_, LINN.
]
_October 8, 1895._
I am very much obliged to you for your letter received this
morning, and (as you kindly allow me) I will just say what I
should particularly like, but please believe me I should be very
sorry to be really troublesome. First, about the Hessian fly
straw. If you came on some that had been infested this would
answer excellently. I have got some “flax-seeds” and I could
slip some in. But really the “elbowed” straw (bent over) into an
angle (fig. 16) is what I want to show. I have excellent Gout
specimens. One thing I should particularly like is a little bit
of Mangold-leaf (say two or three inches square) showing Mangold
maggot blister. I could dry this in blotting paper (like my pea-
bean- and clover-leaf injuries from _Sitones_) and with a good
supply of Mangold fly and pupæ which I have got, I think this
would be very nice. I have good grubs of Carrion Beet beetle,
which would be difficult to get, and I think plenty of the
beetle (or at hand), but, for the mangold, if I could get them,
I should very much like some of the Spotted or Black millepedes
which were such pests earlier in the year. I am afraid though it
is too late now. The only other thing which I am very much
wishing for is a good specimen of apple twig, injured by
American blight. A bit from six to nine inches long, which I
could split down, would suit me very nicely.
I may mention that I am preparing an exhibit for the Bath and
West of England Agricultural Society Show next May, but I am
collecting beforehand to be sure. This afternoon I have arranged
a nice case to show Bean and Pea seed and Leaf weevil injuries.
[See Appendix C for list of cases and contents.]
_October 22, 1895._
I am greatly obliged to you for the very acceptable parcel of
specimens, which arrived in excellent order this morning. Indeed
I feel very much indebted to you, for I know the trouble it
takes to collect and pack in this careful way. The Hessian fly
wheat was particularly acceptable as I had just two or three old
straws, but this to freshen them up (with the insect and
figures) makes a beautiful exhibit. The mangold leaves are also
a great help; and nothing could be more characteristic than the
American blight. I have not fully examined the contents of the
bottles, but I see some nice _Julus guttatus_ (Snake millepedes)
and also a few of the long, thin, yellow, electrical centipedes,
which I shall hope will keep their colour nicely in spirits.
Indeed it is a very welcome contribution.
I have been ill with rather a bad quinsy, followed by something
going wrong with my mouth and tongue, but I have nearly
recovered now, and as I was directed to keep indoors, I have
been getting on with the cases.
Besides the more customary crop and other attacks, I thought
such things as liver-flukes (in spirit) and a good number of the
little “water snails,” _Limnæa truncatula_, (such tiny shells!),
which is their host in the early stage, with figures of the
intermediate conditions, would be of useful interest; also a
couple of bottles with contents of sparrows’ crops, showing the
great amount of corn they eat, as well as a number of locusts in
the condition in which they are imported in lucerne from Buenos
Aires.
[Illustration:
1, Julus londinensis; 3, Julus guttatus (pulchellus, Leach); 4, Julus
terrestris; 5, horn; 7, Polydesmus complanatus—all magnified; and
2 and 6, natural size.
FIG. 27—CENTIPEDES AND A MILLEPEDE.
]
[Illustration:
Infested apple spray, natural size; wingless viviparous female and
young clothed with cottony fibres above; and small egg-bearing
female beneath the spray; pupa with little cottony growth—all
magnified.
FIG. 28.—AMERICAN BLIGHT, WOOLLY APHIS, _SCHIZONEURA LANIGERA_, HAUSM.
]
_November 26, 1895._
This sort of brickdust-like deposit is, I think, eggs. I had a
quantity of it sent me about six weeks ago by a fruit salesman
and auctioneer who had got 10,000 apple trees infested. It
agrees in measurement and colour, &c., with the general
description given by Mr. Frazer Crawford (of Adelaide) of the
eggs of the Red spider, _Bryobia ? speciosa_, (fig. 52) found
on apple in South Australia, but I do not think we can be
quite certain of its nature until the contents hatch. About
ten days ago I thought that I found fungi developing in the
patches, so I sent a good supply to Professor M. C. Potter
(Botanical Professor of Durham College of Science), for I was
sure whatever he would say would be trustworthy. He wrote me
that there was fungus amongst the red spheres. He did not
believe that they were fungoid; but thought, like me, that
they were eggs. Certainly you are right in considering them
not American blight, although on one of the twigs you have
sent me there is a swelled cankered piece that looks very
much, to general observation, like that attack. I wish I could
give you a plain straightforward answer, but the above is the
best I can tell you at present. Mr. Nixon, whose name you will
remember in my yearly reports connected with Red spider, says
that he knows this “red deposit” well and does not think it
does harm, but I should think it would be but prudent to have
some soft soap mixture or antipest at hand, against hot
sunshine in late winter days.
Many thanks for your good wishes, which I heartily reciprocate,
to you and to your young people. I cannot say I have been well.
However, I am much better, but we are anxious, for my only
remaining brother (who is nearly eighty) had a stroke of palsy
last year, and on Sunday he had a second, but he is not
suffering, which is a great comfort.
[Illustration:
Moth; caterpillars hanging by their threads, slightly larger than
life; rolled oak-leaf.
FIG. 29.—OAK-LEAF ROLLER MOTH, _TORTRIX VIRIDANA_.
]
_July 3, 1896._
I thank you very much for taking the trouble to send me this
good supply of _Tabanidæ_, and still more especially for the
Forest flies. I thought these were all dead, but whilst I was
opening the bit of straw in which you pack them so cleverly,
they began to tear out headlong—luckily I thought of catching
the whole affair together in my closed hand, and then, pouring
some chloroform in between my fingers, I got them all safe.
I am very much interested about this poor young woman’s death
from poisoning by a fly or insect attack.[62] I wish it had been
possible to secure the pest, it would be so really useful to
make out whether the evil was from the nature of the bite or
sting, or whether from ill health or other cause the sufferer
was unusually susceptible.
[Illustration:
(_a_) Male; and wingless females. (_b_) Male; and wingless
female; caterpillar.
FIG. 30.—LOOPER CATERPILLARS, (_a_) WINTER MOTH, _CHEIMATOBIA
BRUMATA_, LINN.; (_b_) MOTTLED UMBER MOTH, _HYBERNIA DEFOLIARIA_,
LINN.
]
_December 14, 1896._
I am troubling you with a few lines to ask whether you would
kindly tell me if the caterpillars which did so very much harm
to the oak leafage in your neighbourhood in May, were mostly
“loopers”—or the dull, dirty green, or leaden-coloured larvæ of
the _Tortrix viridana_ (Oak-leaf roller): you just noted the
very great amount of attack to me, in your letter of the 12th of
May. I conjecture they would be loopers (? Winter or Mottled
Umber moth), for you note that “the moths appeared unusually
early, and as soon as the bud began to open, the little
caterpillars were upon them,” and I think you would be referring
to the early appearance last autumn of the Winter moth. But a
note from you would be very valuable. I am wanting to make a
really good paper on “Leafage Caterpillars”—people seem not to
understand that though the remedies we know of can be used at a
paying rate on orchard trees that we can get at, yet, for a mile
of avenue “ancestral timber!” or for woods with their trees
touching, and no passage for machines, the expense of treatment
could not be met.
_August 5, 1897._
I am greatly obliged to you for your very interesting and
valuable observations, and for the accompanying specimens of
corn attacks. What a collection to find in one field! I do not
remember having had wheat attacked by _Chlorops_ before, though
it is subject to the attack, and it is years since I have had
the Sawfly attack. In one stem the grub had spun itself a
beautiful case just within the lowest part of the stem, and
being kept steady in the transparent covering, it gave me an
excellent opportunity of examining it.
I am very glad also of your definite observation of presence of
Diamond-back moth. I should not much wonder if we saw more of it
next year, for I have just had a very few specimens sent from
widely distant localities.
[Illustration:
1, 2, Corn sawfly, magnified, and line showing natural length; 3,
infested stem; 4, 5, maggot, natural size and magnified; 6, parasite
fly, _Pachymerus calcitrator_, magnified, and 7, line showing
natural size.
FIG. 31.—CORN SAWFLY, _CEPHUS PYGMÆUS_, CURTIS.
]
_August 7, 1899._
I am very much obliged to you for your letter of the 3rd with
notes of Hessian fly (fig. 15),and Corn sawfly presence. I have
examined the specimens, and it seems to me that those of the
Hessian fly attack close to the root are of the same nature as
some I have had before. I think your notes would be interesting
for my next Annual Report. I was very much pleased to notice
some time back, that in an official U.S.A. report, attention was
markedly drawn to the great importance of destroying puparia of
Hessian fly as a means of keeping attacks in check. My name was
given as having upheld the plan in England. I am truly glad that
the States people have taken this improved view of preventive
measures.
The weather has been quite distressingly hot here, with often a
glare of sunshine on this exposed south-west slope that was very
painful, and with the heat quantities of the Cabbage white
butterflies came out. I got my gardener to syringe the
brassicaceous plants with “antipest” as an experiment, and I
certainly think that afterwards there was not nearly as large a
proportion of the butterflies on the cabbage as in the adjacent
flower garden.
Believe me,
Yours very truly,
ELEANOR A. ORMEROD.
D. D. Gibb, Esq., Barton, Marlborough.
------------------------------------------------------------------------