brassica. This appeared difficult as the pupa moved violently each time that the ovipositor touched it and the parasite did not seem to be able to pierce the pupa.

Another female was observed flying around and both were captured and taken into the laboratory.

A larva of A. brassica which had spun up but had not yet pupated was placed in a vial with one of these parasites which immediately inserted her ovipositor in it twice, the second time keeping it in the larva for 30 seconds. One oviposited in a larva which had been taken from its cocoon in 25 seconds; also one oviposited in a newly formed pupa.

An active larva was placed in one of the vials and, as the parasite crawled over it, became so violent that the parasite seemed to become. frightened, leaving it immediately and not again approaching it.

A larva which had spun up but not yet pupated was next put with each parasite. After carefully examining the cocoon all over with her antennæ, the parasite in the first vial thrust her ovipositor into the larva and commenced a sort of pumping motion, working the ovipositor up and down in the larva. She kept this up for 37 seconds. At the end of that time she backed away slightly, bent her head under so as to bring her mouthparts to the puncture, and began to feed on the juices of the larva which seemed to flow quite freely from the puncture. In the meantime the tip of the ovipositor remained in the puncture. She fed in this position for 20 seconds. She then again began to work the ovipositor up and down in the same puncture. She continued this for 35 seconds and then fed for 5 minutes, this time with the ovipositor entirely withdrawn. She again started to work her ovipositor up and down in the same puncture and kept it up for 35 seconds, when she withdrew it and fed for 25 seconds, then examined the cocoon and left it.

In the other vial the parasite, after thoroughly examining the cocoon, started to feed on it as did the first. She thrust her ovipositor into the larva and worked it up and down for 3 minutes and 25 seconds, then she withdrew it and fed on the juices which came from the puncture for 1 minute and 10 seconds. She then selected a new place on the larva and, after inserting her ovipositor, worked it up and down for 20 seconds. She afterward deserted this place and returned to the first place, re-inserted her ovipositor in what appeared to be the old puncture and kept working it up and down for 1 minute and 55 seconds. After this she withdrew it and fed for 35 seconds, prodded the larva a couple of times and left it.

On the following day, October 31, one of these parasites oviposited in three spun-up larvæ and two newly-formed pupæ in succession, the

time required for oviposition being 50, 45, 40, 50, 40 seconds, respectively. She then started feeding on a newly formed pupa which was put in the vial. After inserting her ovipositor in the pupa she kept working it up and down for 1 minute and 5 seconds. She then withdrew it and fed for 40 seconds at the puncture, after which she inserted the ovipositor in the same puncture and worked it up and down for 40 seconds, when she again withdrew it and fed for 40 seconds on the juices which came from the puncture. Then she worked her ovipositor in the pupa for 20 seconds, fed for 25 seconds, worked for 5 seconds and fed for 10 seconds more. She then examined the pupa and left it.

A few hours later this same parasite oviposited in 5 pupæ in 1 minute, 10 seconds; 1 minute; 45 seconds; 40 seconds; 2 minutes, 5 seconds; respectively. The other parasite during the day parasitized two spun-up larvæ and 5 pupae without feeding on any, the time required being 1 minute; 50 seconds; 35 seconds; 1 minute, 35 seconds; 40 seconds; 5 minutes, 45 seconds; 2 minutes, 45 seconds.

On November 1 one oviposited in a pupa in 2 minutes and 5 seconds. A pupa was then left in the vial for a few hours and when again examined showed that the parasite had fed on it. She immediately parasitized a fresh pupa placed in the vial, taking 1 minute and 45 seconds to complete the oviposition.

A fresh pupa was put in and the parasite started feeding on it. After making a thorough examination she thrust her ovipositor into the pupa and kept working it up and down, as in previous instances, for 1 minute and 15 seconds, after which it was withdrawn and she fed at the puncture for 30 seconds, afterward again inserting the ovipositor in the same puncture and working it up and down for 45 seconds. Then she withdrew it and fed for 30 seconds; worked for 45 seconds, fed for 30 seconds, worked for 35 seconds, fed for 20 seconds, then she went to a new place on the pupa and inserted her ovipositor and kept working it up and down for 1 minute and 40 seconds, then she fed for 35 seconds, worked 45 seconds and fed for 30 seconds. She then examined the pupa and left it.

During the day 6 pupa had been placed in the vial with the other parasite and she was observed to oviposit in all of them but feed on none. This parasite died during the next 3 or 4 days, which were quite cold, and the other parasite showed little activity. However, on the morning of November 6 it was noticed that she had fed on a pupa which had been left in the vial over night. A spun-up larva was placed in the vial and she oviposited in it in 1 minute and 25 seconds. When she withdrew her ovipositor she placed her mouth parts to the puncture and fed a few seconds. This seemed to stimulate a desire to feed, for she immediately attacked the larva in a new spot and, after insert

ing the ovipositor, she kept working it up and down for 40 seconds, and then she fed at this puncture for 1 minute and 30 seconds, when she left the larva. After feeding on this larva she parasitized 4 pupæ.

On the following day she fed on another spun-up larva, working the ovipositor up and down in the larva for 2 minutes, fed for 1 minute and 15 seconds; worked for 1 minute and 35 seconds; fed for 1 minute and 10 seconds; worked for 35 seconds; fed for 3 minutes and 30 seconds; and then left it.

On November 8 a pupa that had been left over night in the vial with the parasite had been fed on. After parasitizing two pupæ she fed on the third one that was put in the vial. She worked her ovipositor up and down in the pupa for 2 minutes and 45 seconds, then fed for 1 minute and 40 seconds and then left it. This parasite was destroyed by a mouse on the following night.

On November 8 four more females of this species were taken in the field and brought into the insectary. Three of them were very small and appeared weak and after trying for 9 or 10 minutes to oviposit in a pupa, they usually left it. They only lived for a day or two in the insectary. The fourth one was nearer normal size and during the five days she lived she parasitized 9 and fed on 2 pupae.

The last pupa that this parasite parasitized was on November 13 and after puncturing the pupa with her ovipositor she kept it in the pupa for over 14 minutes before she oviposited. On this date she appeared quite sluggish, as if about ready to die, and on the following morning was found dead.

IMAGINATION AND FACTS

Imagination is of great service to the scientific man. The formulation of important hypotheses has depended in large measure on the judicious exercise of this faculty. We present below a reprint of a leaflet forwarded through the courtesy of a collaborator and showing the results of allowing imagination free reign-cerebration unembarrassed by facts. The scientific attitude toward spontaneous generation, if suspected in the slightest degree by the writer, is cheerfully ignored. The fundamental biological law, like produces like, is suspended. Nature is depicted as creating an organism destined to perish without providing for the perpetuity of the species. The succession of stages observed in so many insects is disregarded. friend sees no advantage in food stored in the seed.

COW PEA WEEVILS

These germinate inside the pea itself, they do not, as many think, come from an egg laid on the outside of the seed by some insect.

The cause of this weevil is the pea getting hot, from hot weather, sufficient to make the weevils hatch.

When the weevil emerges from the pea his life is ended and he dies in a few hours; should the peas remain hot, weevils will continue to hatch out until the peas are riddled.

These weevils do not go to anything else, nor lay any eggs from which any other insect hatch.

Some seed men are afraid to put peas into their houses that show weevils for fear these weevils will ruin everything in their houses, which is absurd.

Peas are not hurt for planting purposes by being weevil bored, even when riddled by holes they will germinate as it is the eye of the pea, like the eye of the potato which gives out the sprout.

Some large planters in the South hunt for weevil bored peas which can be bought at a little reduction, knowing they are just as good for planting as sound peas and have more seed to the bushel, when bought by weight.

The above is only a fair sample of what might be termed "commercialized science" as expounded by ignorant or irresponsible parties. presumably more interested in immediate profit than in developing a substantial business. Fortunately, such literature is commendably rare in this country. The more reputable dealers, we are happy to state, are coming into closer relation with scientific men and are, as a rule, most desirious of learning the latest developments. This latter is as it should be, since material progress is impossible without a thorough understanding of the fundamentals involved.

ENTOMOLOGICAL CONFERENCES IN PORTO RICO

During the past two years a great impetus has been given to work along the lines of economic entomology in Porto Rico. The establishment of the Experiment Station by the Porto Rico Sugar Producers Association at Rio Piedras was followed by the organization of an Insular Board of Commissioners of Agriculture and somewhat later the College of Agriculture was established at Mayaguez where the U. S. Agricultural Experiment Station has been in progress for a number of years. These institutions employ seven trained entomologists while work along the line of insect control is carried on by Guánica Centrale and the Fajardo Sugar Company. It seemed wise for these men to confer regarding their various lines of work and, after discussing the matter, a meeting was called at Rio Piedras May 25th, 1912, by Mr. D. L. Van Dine, Chairman of the Conference. The various lines of investigation were outlined, methods of work discussed and lists of entomological literature exchanged. Mr. C. W. Hooker was chosen Chairman in charge of program and meeting for the second conference to be held at the Agricultural Experiment Station in Mayaguez some time in November, 1912.

The second meeting of the Entomologists of Porto Rico was held at the U. S. Agricultural Experiment Station at Mayaguez, P. R., Nov. 26, 1912. The meeting was called to order by C. W. Hooker at 9.45 a. m. and the following papers read and discussed:

1. D. L. VAN DINE: Entomologist of Sugar, Expt. Station, Rio Piedras: May-Beetles of Porto Rico.

There are at least six species of May-beetles in Porto Rico where we expected only three or four at the most. Determination is difficult and only possible with a long series of alcoholic or properly dissected and mounted specimens, hence it will be a long time before we can distinguish the different species or their larvæ with any certainty.

2. W. V. TOWER: Entomologist, Board of Agriculture, San Juan: Quarantine Work: (read by Mr. Crossman).

A history of the Plant Quarantine legislation enacted and that proposed to exclude the Mediterranean fruit-fly which would ruin the insular citrus business. Careful watch is necessary to exclude injurious insects and diseases.

The meeting adjourned at 11.30 a. m. for lunch and reassembled at 1.30 p. m.

3. T. H. JONES: Assistant Entomologist, Sugar Experiment Station, Rio Piedras: The Sugar-cane Aphis and its Natural Enemies.

The sugar-cane aphis (Sipha graminis Klt.) feeds only on the under surfaces of the older leaves which are bent at an angle of 45 degrees or more from a vertical position, possibly because they are better protected from rain and sun. They are attacked by four native ladybirds-Cycloneda sanguinea L., Megilla innotata Vauls., Scymnus loewii Muls., and Scymnus resecollis Muls?,-a Syrphid fly, a Chrysopid or Lacewing fly and a fungus.

4. R. C. McCONNIE: Fajardo Sugar Co., Fajardo: A fungus parasite (Aspergillus sp.) of the Sugar-cane Mealy-bug.

This fungus is apparently scattered all over the island and is doing good work in damp localities; hence should be very effective in irrigated fields. Mr. Garrett mentions it as doing good work in Louisiana cane fields.

5. C. T. MURPHY: Guanica Centrale, Ensenda: Sugar-cane Insects Work at Guanica. A systematic fight against the sugar-cane insects has been carried on at Guanica for some years. The best results have been attained by hand picking grubs and adult caculos, and plowing up the stools for hogs to root and poultry or birds to scratch. The adults are most abundant during May and June, sometimes again in August. The average number of grubs per stool has been reduced from thirty to forty in 1909 to eleven or twelve in 1912. Fifty quarts per night were sometimes taken. Burning the trash while fresh and selecting seed is necessary to combat the other cane insects.

6. S. S. CROSSMAN: Asst. Ent. Board of Agriculture, San Juan: La Changa:

A sketch of the literature on the Changa, its habits and progress of work against it.

7. R. I. SMITH: Entomologist, College of Agriculture, Mayaguez: Entomology at the College of Agriculture:

A sketch of the proposed work in entomology at the College of Agriculture.