Title: Florida Entomologist
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098813/00191
 Material Information
Title: Florida Entomologist
Physical Description: Serial
Creator: Florida Entomological Society
Publisher: Florida Entomological Society
Place of Publication: Winter Haven, Fla.
Publication Date: 1959
Copyright Date: 1917
Subject: Florida Entomological Society
Entomology -- Periodicals
Insects -- Florida
Insects -- Florida -- Periodicals
Insects -- Periodicals
General Note: Eigenfactor: Florida Entomologist: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1653/024.092.0401
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098813
Volume ID: VID00191
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: Open Access

Full Text



Volume 42, No. 4 December, 1959

Murphy, Milledge, Jr.-Presidential Address..-----.......--....... 145
Muma, Martin H.-Hymenopterous Parasites of Chrysopi-
dae on Florida Citrus..--------.......--..-.. .....--.- .........-- ... .. .... --149
Harris, Emmett D., Jr., W. G. Genung, and C. E. Haines-
Cattle Grub Control with Bayer 21/199 in the
Everglades .-..--------.. ....-----.------... ----------..---. 155
Hetrick, L. A.-Ecology of the Pine Sawfly, Neodiprion
excitans (Rohwer) (Hymenoptera, Diprionidae) ......... 159
Harris, Emmett D., Jr.-Budworm Control Studies on
Sweet Corn in the Everglades --............--.............--- ..-- .... 163
Harrison, Dalton S., William G. Genung, and Emmett D.
Harris, Jr.-A Small Self-Propelled Sprayer for Agri-
cultural Research ....----......--- ...-..--......-----.....--...--. 169
LaBrecque, G. C., and H. G. Wilson-Laboratory Tests with
Sixty-five Compounds as Repellents Against House Flies 175
Minutes of the Forty-Second Annual Meeting of the Florida
Entomological Society .....----------..-------.......--...-----... 179
Florida Entomological Society-List of Members........ ......- 183
Attiah, Hassan H.-On the Discovery of Two Economic
Species of Eriophyid Mites on Mango and Citrus Trees
in Florida ----.....- .....------ ........... ----..... ...---- .....-- -----...... 189
News Items __.....--------........-------- ....-----------...... 190

Published by The Florida Entomological Society


OFFICERS FOR 1959-1960

President -..--...-...-......-......-................................... Andrew J. Rogers
Vice-President -......--..........-.....- ......................-.......-..Lewis Berner
Secretary --..........-.................. ........................ Lawrence A. Hetrick
Treasurer...-..............-.....----...... ..................... Robert E. Waites
SJohn E. Porter
Other Members of Executive Committee G. G. Rohwer
William P. Hunter

LEWIS BERNER-....--............-.--.....--- ..-.....----- ....Editor
NORMAN C. HAYSLIP ---_ -----......--..Associate Editor
ROBERT E. WAITES---- ----......Business Manager

THE FLORIDA ENTOMOLOGIST is issued quarterly-March, June, Septem-
ber, and December. Subscription price to non-members $5.00 per year in
advance; $1.25 per copy. Entered as second class matter at the post
office at Gainesville, Florida.
Manuscripts and other editorial matter should be sent to the Editor,
Biology Department, University of Florida, Gainesville. Subscriptions and
Orders for back numbers are handled by the Business Manager, Box 2425,
University Station, University of Florida, Gainesville. The Secretary can
be reached at the same address.
Authors are urged to consult a style manual when preparing manuscripts.
For form of literature citations,, see recent issues of THE FLORIDA EN-
TOMOLIGIST. Further, authors, are referred to "Suggestions for the prepara-
tion of papers submitted for publication in THE FLORIDA ENTOMOLOGIST."
FLA. ENT. 41(4): 193-194. 1958.
One zinc etching, not to exceed one-half page in size, or the equivalent
thereof, will be allowed free. The actual cost of all additional illustrations
must be borne by contributors. In general, the cost of a full page zinc
etching is $7.50. Reprints of articles may be secured by authors if they
are ordered before, or at the time proofs are received for correcting; 25
copies furnished free to authors.

Each additional
No. Pages 50 copies 100 copies 100 copies
1-4 -...................................... $ 5.25 $ 6.25 $ .98
5-8 ...........-............................ 8.75 10.75 2.10
9-16 ---.................................. ---13.00 17.10 3.00
17-20 ....-................................... 19.25 23.50 4.00
More than 20 pages,
per page ..--...-.................... .98 .88 .19
Additional for covers with title and author's name,
First 50 ......................$5.25 Additional, each-..........$ .02




I do not know when the idea of the presidential address began, nor do
I know any real reason for the president to address the membership of a
society at the end of his term of office. This time-honored custom is
apparently a necessary evil that we all have to bear. During the last few
months I have pondered many times the words of Past President Butcher
when he compared preparing the presidential address to the normal
course of events associated with the birth of a baby, the momentary
pleasure of conception (the honor of being elected president) which is
shortly followed by the realization that the thing must be delivered
within a few months. If you did not hear Dr. Butcher's address, I would
certainly recommend your finding the December, 1955, issue of THE
FLORIDA ENTOMOLOGIST and reading his wise and profound words. Cer-
tainly it is a must reading assignment if you are given the honor to
direct the activities of our society for a year. And I assure you his well
chosen words will bring much comfort during those wakeful hours of
near hysteria that are sure to come during the development period.
The other day I mentioned to my family my quest for a subject for a
presidential address and my older daughter, who is a teenager, asked,
and about ways to cut the national budget, and he remarked that one
good thing about a presidential address was that it could be one minute
or one hour, and the president made the decision. I want to assure you
that this address will be closer to the former than to the latter. And
when a member of the program committee remarked just 30 days ago
that so many papers had been received that he doubted if they would
have time for a presidential address, I decided to cut my remarks in half.
Not long ago I was talking with an entomologist friend about taxes
and about ways to cut the national budget, and he remarked that one
agency he knew could certainly have its budget cut because half of the
men working in it had no purpose. The thought of men or scientists having
a purpose has returned to my mind many times since that conversation.
Of course everyone has a purpose of some sort. Just being on hand from
8 to 5 waiting for the monthly pay check is a purpose, and this was prob-
ably the kind of purpose my friend was talking about. Such a purpose,
with the long coffee break, with many bull sessions, and little completed
work is catching and before long can seep throughout the best of organi-
zations. It reduces the output of work and always breeds unhappiness and
discontent. Usually the most discontented people are those that produce
the least. A busy man is a happy man. And for an organization to
develop and progress it must have a leader with a good purpose and with
an enthusiasm that can be passed on to his fellow workers. The proper
enthusiasm is catching and the young scientist is certainly fortunate who
is assigned to work with a leader who has a drive and a purpose and not
one who is resting on his laurels.

1 Presented at the Forty-second Annual Meeting, Florida Entomological
Society, Miami, September 10-12, 1959.
SEntomology Department, University of Florida, Gainesville.

146 The Florida Entomologist Vol. 42, No. 4

Just recently, Dr. J. Wayne Reitz, President of the University of Flor-
ida, wrote an article in which he estimated over two-thirds of the students
entering the University had little or no idea what they wanted to take or
what they wanted to do with their lives. I am sure Dr. Reitz was not taking
into consideration the co-eds when he made his summary, because most
co-eds know what they are trin to et from the University. This lack
of decision on he part of the student can be translated into a lack of pur-
pose. Many are going to college because it is the thing to do after finishing
high school. During my 11 years of teaching I have counseled many stu-
dents about courses, and it is discouraging to say that many take a college
course for 3 hours credit and not to learn something about the subject.
This same attitude is also found throughout the public high schools. "Take
something easy so I can get my 20 credits to graduate." "Give me band
and shop." Or, do as one high school senior I talked with this fall, was
doing by taking 3 credits of mechanical drawing in which he already had
one credit. No chemistry, physics, algebra, language; no, they are hard
and he must graduate. You see, the purpose is to get 20 credits to gradu-
ate, not to get an education to prepare himself for college or a more pur-
poseful and eventful life. It is certainly stimulating to an instructor to
have several foreign students in his classes because these young men are
here with a purpose and in addition to the credits, they want to know some-
thing about the subject. I do not want to give the impression that all
students lack a purpose or that at a university all students are in this
category. If you think back over your college courses, the good ones were
those in which the professor had a definite purpose, and with that purpose
he had enthusiasm in the subject that was catching to the student. The
field of study of a good course was not nearly as important as the interest
and attitude of the professor. He made the subject interesting, and you
learned something. But the professor who read old notes in a sing-song
manner, gave few tests, and turned his papers for grading and his labora-
tories over to the student assistant, lacked enthusiasm in what he was
doing, and his students responded accordingly. Such a professor is actually
worse than the 8 to 5 clock watcher because he is working with young
people who need stimulation, encouragement, and an increased desire to
do a good job. With the majority of our college students undecided as
to their careers, a professor could have no greater challenge than he has
today in teaching his chosen field.
We have many enthusiastic entomologists. Probably the most enthusi-
astic group are the collectors. When I was working for the State of
Georgia, I had the pleasure of knowing and working with Professor P. W.
Fattig of Emory University. P. W. Fattig was a collector. He spent
most of his professional life collecting insects in Georgia. His aim was to
collect every kind of insect living in Georgia, and his interest and enthusi-
asm never weakened. At one time he was interested in the genus Phyl-
lophaga and for 15 years he combed the state, collecting members of this
group. During this time he collected 70 species, including 17,967 speci-
mens from 113 localities. One spring Fattig's records indicated that a
given species of may beetle should be out in Toccoa, Georgia, a small moun-
tain town. Wanting some additional specimens, the next weekend found
Fattig in Toccoa. At 3 o'clock in the morning Fattig had climbed a light

Murphey: Presidential Address

pole and was collecting may beetles flying around a street light. The town
constable came by and called out, "What are you doing up there?" Fattig,
who was about 60 at the time, called back "I'm catching may beetles," and
kept on swinging his net. Fattig said, "You know, that policeman thought
I was crazy and tried to lock me up." Fattig published many articles on
insects of Georgia. Emory University published 10 bulletins of his work.
Fattig's enthusiasm was catching, and he must have stimulated many stu-
dents into the fields of entomology and the biological sciences. I have had
the pleasure of teaching two students who took entomology through con-
tact with this collector.
We have devoted purposeful men and women in all fields of entomology.
The taxonomist will spend hours and hours working in the field of his inter-
est. At times the economic entomologist wishes the taxonomist would
not be so enthusiastic in his desire to name new species and create new
genera because of the difficulty of keeping up. In research, commercial
work, and manufacturing, we find scores of men dedicated to our science.
The Florida Entomological Society has a purpose. It is written into our
constitution. Article 1, Section 2. reads: "The objectives of the Society
shall be: (1) to promote the study of entomology; (2) to encourage re-
search relative to insects and related arthropods in Florida; (3) to dis-
tribute widely knowledge pertaining to insects; and (4) to publish THE
FLORIDA ENTOMOLOGIST". The Society during the past two years has placed
much emphasis on the first objective. The "Entomology in Action" talk
prepared by Mr. Wright has stimulated much interest in Florida and other
states. The exhibit, which is on display for the first time at this meeting,
should encourage young people to take an interest in entomology. Our
publication THE FLORIDA ENTOMOLOGIST, under the direction of Dr. Berner,
is distributed throughout the world and continues to be an outstanding
entomological publication. Research in entomology and related arthropods
is certainly encouraged by THE FLORIDA ENTOMOLOGIST.
I believe we have a bright future in entomology in Florida. Our pro-
fession is respected and the number employed in entomology in Florida
continues to increase year by year. Student interest both in the under-
graduate and graduate programs of study continues to be high. The
teaching plant at the University is an exceptional one with ample space
for instruction and research. If you have not visited the new quarters
of the teaching department, do so the next time you are in Gainesville.
You will be amazed at our facilities. In the near future the 4-H Club
entomology program will interest many young people in our science and
should encourage increased enrollment in entomology at the college level.
The papers to be given at this meeting clearly indicate that entomology
in Florida is moving forward in rapid strides with many benefits to agri-
culture and mankind. The future of our science has never been brighter.
Reexamine your purpose and continue to strive towards its fulfillment.




Carefully Executed

Delivered on Time



Complete Line of Insecticides, Fungicides and
Weed Killers
California Spray-Chemical Corp.
Located at Fairvilla on Route 441 North
P. O. Box 7067 ORLANDO Phone 3-0506



Chrysopidae, or green lacewings, are common to abundant in many
Florida citrus groves. Because of their large size and common occurrence,
citrus growers frequently observe chrysopids and make inquiries concern-
ing their importance as natural control agents. Little is known, however,
concerning the activities of these predators under Florida grove conditions.
A recent systematic survey has demonstrated that 3 genera and 10 species
may be found on citrus trees, but only 4 trash-bearing and 1 naked species
are common (Muma, 1959). Host specificity, as indicated by nutritional
limitations, has been studied for 1 species under laboratory conditions
(Muma, 1957). The present report gives the results of parasite hearings
accumulated from chrysopids over a 4-year period, from 1952 to 1956.

All of the parasites reported here emerged from cocoons that were col-
lected at random from leaves, fruit, limbs and trunks of citrus trees in
all of the major citrus producing areas. No predetermined number of
cocoons was collected per grove; 150 samples varied from 1 to 57 cocoons.
Each cocoon was isolated in a cotton-stoppered vial and retained at room
temperature until emergence occurred or until it became obvious that no
emergence would occur. Specimens were then preserved in 70 percent
ethyl alcohol pending identification.
Host identifications were based on characteristics of the larval palpi
and head capsule within each cocoon and correlated with adult identifica-
tions made by Dr. Willim E. Bickley and Dr. Ellis G. MacLeod of the Uni-
versity of Maryland. Parasite identifications were made by direct com-
parison with specimens identified by specialists of the United States
National Museum.
Although many adult chrysopids and eggs were collected under grove
conditions and confined in the laboratory for observation, no special effort
was directed toward the rearing and identification of parasites of these life
stages. On several occasions, however, mites of the family Erythraeidae
were noted clinging to adult lacewings, and several specimens of Telenonws
chrysopae Ashm. were reared from eggs. Similarly, no systematic investi-
gation was conducted on first and second instar larvae. Numerous grove-
collected larvae were reared to the adult stage in the laboratory, but no
parasites issued from the specimens.

Altogether 1,156 cocoons were collected between April 14, 1952, and
July 12, 1956. Table 1 shows the number and percentage of cocoons from
which adult chrysopids or parasites emerged or from which no emergence
was obtained. The percent parasitism calculated for the trash-bearing

1 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Series, No. 924.
2Entomologist, Citrus Experiment Station, Lake Alfred, Florida.


Seasons Collections






Emerged Parasitized

Trash-bearing species: 2 genera, 5 species.




Naked species, Chrysopa rufilabris Burm.
Spring 10 84
Summer 7 35
Fall -
Winter -




Muma: Parasites of Chrysopidae on Florida Citrus

species averaged 17.3 percent whereas that for Chrysopa rufilabris Burm.,
the only naked species reared in the study, averaged 12.8 percent. These
are low rates of parasitism when compared with published records of 48.4
percent for rufilabris on cotton (McGregor, 1914), 50.0 percent for rufil-
abris and C. plorabunda Fitch on peach (Putnam, 1937), 26.7 percent for
C. harrisii Fitch on Australian pine (Judd, 1949), and a range of 75.9
percent on walnut, 69.6 percent on cotton, 37.3 percent on orange, and 27.5
percent on apple for C. californica (Clancy, 1946). However, the percent
parasitism calculated in this study was based on total collected cocoons, a
method previously utilized only by Putnam (1937). It should also be noted
that a seasonal range of 10.3 to 22.0 percent parasitism has been calculated
for the trash-bearing species studied here. This variation in parasitism
was not associated with chrysopid abundance, as indicated by the number
of collections or the number of cocoons per collection, as was reported
from California by Clancy (1946). Furthermore, the percent of cocoons
failing to produce host insects or parasites had no relationship to percent
parasitism. The different results obtained in this study may have been due
to the smaller number of cocoons collected or possibly to environmental
differences between the two geographic localities. The percent parasitism
of the naked species, rufilabris, was relatively constant in the two seasons
when the species was common, but the percent failing to emerge increased
sharply in the summer, after which the species could not be obtained in
Consideration of parasitism on a specific level demonstrated a definite
relationship between the species of chrysopids and the parasites attacking
them, a phenomenon previously recorded by Clancy (1946). Table 2 pre-
sents data showing these relationships. Chrysopa cubana Hagen, the most
common trash-bearing chrysopid on citrus, was more heavily parasitized by
the primary parasites Isodromus iceryae Howard and Otacustes crassus
chrysopae Ashmead, C. sanchezi Navas by I. iceryae, C. bimaculata McClen-
don by I. iceryae, and Brachycyrtus pretiosus Cushman, and C. rufilabris
by O. c. chrysopae. The known heterogeneity of the series of cocoons that
could not be placed to species was indicated in the heterogeneity of primary
parasites. Secondary parasitism was remarkably low with the known hyper-
parasite, Chrysopophagus compressicornis Ashmead, attacking less than 5
percent of any host species, and the same was true for the suspected hy-
perparasite Horismenus sp.
Two cocoons of Nodita floridana Banks were collected during the study.
Both were parasitized, one by I. iceryae and one by Anastatus sp.
Among the solitary primary parasites, 0. c. chrysopae, the most com-
mon, was reared from 59 cocoons, B. pretiosus from 27, Anastatus sp. from
8, and Otacustes bicolor (Cushman) from 2. Of the two greagrious pri-
maries, I. iceryae emerged from 59 cocoons and Tetrastichus chrysopae
Crawford from 3. Because of the small number of cocoons infested, no
mode of emergence per cocoon could be calculated for chrysopae, but the
mode for iceryae was 4 specimens per cocoon. The most common known
hyperparasite was C. compressicornis which emerged from 19 cocoons;
Arachnophaga sp. emerged from only 1. The former, a gregarious species,
had a mode of emergence of 8 specimens per cocoon, the latter was solitary.
Horismenus sp., a suspected hyperparasite, emerged from 30 cocoons and


Percent parasitized by

Host species living

Chrysopa cubana

C. sanchezi

C. bimaculata

C. undetermined

C. rufilabris

emerged as

Adults sites

48 66.7

11 54.5





84 81.0






10.9 1

0.0 15.5





yrtus com- Horis- Anas-
preti- pressi- menus tatus Misc.
osus cornis sp. sp. spp.*

3.4 3.9 3.4 0.6 1.2

2.1 2.1 0.0 2.1 0.0 2.1

9.1 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2.6 10.3 5.2 13.2 1.1 2.2

0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

* Includes Tetrastichus chrysopae (Cwfd.), Otacustes bicolor (Cush.) Arachnophaga sp., and an undetermined parasite.
** Host larvae could not be determined owing to decomposition or fungus overgrowth.

Muma: Parasites of Chrysopidae on Florida Citrus

proved to be gregarious with a mode of 8 specimens per cocoon. One un-
determined species of wasp emerged from 2 cocoons.

Eleven species of parasites were reared from 1,156 chrysopid cocoons
collected in citrus groves from 1952 to 1956. Two genera and 6 species
of chrysopid hosts were represented in the collections, but only 4 trash-
bearing and 1 naked Chrysopa were common enough to study. A certain
degree of host specificity was exhibited by the 3 common primary parasites.
Hyperparasitism by 2 known and 1 suspected hyperparasites was low.
No relationship could be demonstrated between chrysopid numbers and
rates of parasitism. However, Chrysopidae are much more common in
citrus groves in the spring and summer, and sharp population decreases in
the fall and winter usually occur following an increase of an unknown mor-
tality within the cocoon. The existence of an undetermined natural control
factor is suspected.
Clancy, D. W. 1946. The insect parasites of Chrysopidae (Neuroptera).
Univ. Calif. Pubs. Ent. 7(13): 403-96.
Judd, W. W. 1949. Emergence of the lacewing, Chrysopa harrisii Fitch
(Neuroptera) and three hymenopterous parasites from the cocoon.
Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer. 42(4): 461-64.
McGregor, E. A. 1914. Some notes on parasitism of chrysopids in South
Carolina. Can. Ent. 46: 306-8.
Muma, M. H. 1957. Effects of larval nutrition on the life cycle, size, color-
ation and longevity of Chrysopa lateralis Guer. Fla. Ent. 40(1): 5-9.
'Muma, M. H. 1959. Chrysopidae associated with citrus in Florida. Fla.
Ent. 42(1): 21-29.
Putnam, Wm. L. 1937. Biological notes on the Chrysopidae. Can. Jour.
Res. Sec. D. 15: 29-37.


Factories and Offices: TAMPA and FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA







The Kilgore Seed Company, manufacturers and formulators of
Insecticides and Fungicides, offers a complete advisory service
to Florida Farmers through the facilities of its 14 Stores, Lab-
oratory and technically trained Field Staff.




Stores located at

I .




Harris, Genung, and Chapman (1959)' reported that a single applica-
tion of Bayer 21/199 (Co-ral) was superior to one of ronnel (Trolene)
when applied in May, June, July, or August to control the common cattle
grub, Hypoderma lineatum (DeVill.). When each chemical was applied
in September, ronnel was superior. They also stated that the number of
grubs observed in the backs of cattle is much lower than in other areas of
the United States, but the pest appears to be potentially of much greater
importance. Although the peak of population was during the winter, ani-
mals with grubs encysted in the back had been found in every month but
June and the common cattle grub could become a year round pest in the
Everglades. A single application of either chemical probably would not
be effective throughout the year if the cattle grub population were larger.
The primary purpose of this experiment was to compare 2 applications
of Bayer 21/199 (in June and September) with single applications in
June or September.
Applications were made by spraying a 0.5 percent wettable powder sus-
pension of Bayer 21/199 at 100 psi over the back until run-off occurred.
The nozzle was held about 1 foot from the animal's back. Application rates
were approximately 0.65 and 0.67 quarts per animal for sprays applied on
June 22 and September 12, 1958, respectively.
The numbers of cattle grubs encysted in the back of each animal were
determined September 12 and November 19, 1958, and January 28 and
March 25, 1959, by feeling for the resulting bumps under the hide. Among
the animals examined were 10 steers and 12 heifers that were treated
June 22, 10 steers and 8 heifers that were treated June 22 and September
12, and 11 steers and 12 heifers'that were treated September 12. All were
Brahman x Devon yearlings. In addition, 22 untreated steers and 19 un-
treated heifers of Brahman, Devon, Brahman and Brahman x Angus
breeding were examined on each date. No animal had grubs encysted in
the back on September 12. The average number of grubs per animal for
untreated steers was 7.3 November 19, 14.3 January 28, and 5.1 March
25. Among untreated heifers the values were 4.4, 13.5 and 5.2 on the re-
spective dates.

SFlorida Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Series, No. 930.
Assistant Entomologist, Associate Entomologist, Assistant Animal
Husbandman, respectively, Everglades Experiment Station, Belle Glade,
The authors are indebted to Mr. Edward King, Jr., Draftsman, and
Mr. Henry Ruffolo, Staff Assistant, for preparation of the graphs and to
Mr. C. E. Seller and Mr. A. B. Jimmerson, Field Assistants, for assistance
in conducting this experiment.
SHarris, Emmett D., Jr., William G. Genung, and Herbert L. Chapman,
Jr. 1959. Comparison of two systemic insecticides and dates of applica-
tion for cattle grub control in the Everglades. Journ. Econ. Ent. 52:

The Florida Entomologist














Sept. Nov. Jan.
12 19 28
Year 1958-1959
Fig. 1

June B Sept.


S June


Vol. 42, No. 4

Sept. Nov. Jan.
12 19 28
Year 1958-1959
Fig. 2



0 I 2 3 4 5 6

Grubs per Animal
Fig. 3

Fig. 1. The effect of treatment date on common cattle grub control with
Bayer 21/199 on Brahman x Devon heifers by observation dates.
Fig. 2. The effect of treatment date on common cattle grub control
with Bayer 21/199 on Brahman x Devon steers by observation dates.
Fig. 3.-Seasonal effect of treatment date on common cattle grub
control with Bayer 21/199 on Brahman x Devon cattle.

Sept. Treatment

Harris: Cattle Grub Control 157

When the average numbers of grubs per animal over the observation
period were compared for 9 steers and 9 heifers for untreated Brahman x
Angus crossbreeds, the steers had significantly more (8.7) than the heifers
(6.1). Also for the September treatment, heifers had significantly fewer
grubs than the steers. As steers and heifers were not divided proportion-
ately among the treatments, it seemed preferable to compare the treat-
ments within each sex.
The average number of grubs for each treatment on each observation
date is shown for heifers (Figure 1) and steers (Figure 2). On any one
observation date, there were no significant differences among the treat-
ments applied to heifers. On November 19, January 28, and March 25,
significantly more grubs per steer resulted from the September treatment
than from the other 2 treatment dates. When the observation dates were
averaged to get a seasonal value for the number of grubs per animal, both
the June treatment and the combination June and September treatments
were significantly more effective than the September treatment for each
sex (Figure 3). The difference between the June treatment and the com-
bination June and September treatment was not significant and probably
would not be economically important. The difference between the treat-
ments might be much larger if the cattle grub population had been larger.
Unless the population of cattle grubs becomes larger in the Everglades,
1 application of Bayer 21/199 during June seems to be sufficient.


The Forty-Third Annual Meeting of The Florida Entomological Society
will be held in Jacksonville at the Robert Meyer Hotel on September 8-9,
1960. The program committee has been appointed and will begin planning
in the near future for an outstanding session.

Harris: Cattle Grub Control 157

When the average numbers of grubs per animal over the observation
period were compared for 9 steers and 9 heifers for untreated Brahman x
Angus crossbreeds, the steers had significantly more (8.7) than the heifers
(6.1). Also for the September treatment, heifers had significantly fewer
grubs than the steers. As steers and heifers were not divided proportion-
ately among the treatments, it seemed preferable to compare the treat-
ments within each sex.
The average number of grubs for each treatment on each observation
date is shown for heifers (Figure 1) and steers (Figure 2). On any one
observation date, there were no significant differences among the treat-
ments applied to heifers. On November 19, January 28, and March 25,
significantly more grubs per steer resulted from the September treatment
than from the other 2 treatment dates. When the observation dates were
averaged to get a seasonal value for the number of grubs per animal, both
the June treatment and the combination June and September treatments
were significantly more effective than the September treatment for each
sex (Figure 3). The difference between the June treatment and the com-
bination June and September treatment was not significant and probably
would not be economically important. The difference between the treat-
ments might be much larger if the cattle grub population had been larger.
Unless the population of cattle grubs becomes larger in the Everglades,
1 application of Bayer 21/199 during June seems to be sufficient.


The Forty-Third Annual Meeting of The Florida Entomological Society
will be held in Jacksonville at the Robert Meyer Hotel on September 8-9,
1960. The program committee has been appointed and will begin planning
in the near future for an outstanding session.

the 4 best ways to stop
a insect

S;. :

h - t. -

VC 2026-871



Rohwer (1921) described the sawfly, Neodiprion excitans, from a locality
in southeastern Texas on the basis of adults reared from cocoons sent to
him. Craighead (1950) briefly mentions the species as occurring on lob-
lolly and shortleaf pines from the Carolinas to Texas. Ross (1955) con-
firmed the validity of N. excitans and discussed its evolution. Life-history
notes on a single group of Neodiprion excitans larvae were recorded by
Hetrick (1956) but other references to the species are obscure.
In the autumn of 1957, Neodiprion excitans larvae caused noticeable
defoliation of loblolly pine trees (Pinus taeda L.) in north-central Florida
including parts of Alachua, Columbia, Gilchrist, Levy, and Suwannee
Counties. The usual, native, sawfly, natural enemies were observed to
be present in the infested areas visited in the autumn of 1957. Very few
biological data were obtained at this time as it was assumed that abundant
material would be available for study in these areas in the spring of 1958;
however, only a few groups of larvae were found during this period and
rearing work with them ended in failure.
Late in the summer of 1958, Neodiprion excitans was causing defolia-
tion of loblolly pine over approximately 300,000 acres of woodlands in Dixie
and Taylor Counties. It is questionable how many generations of the insect
occurred in 1958 in this area prior to the beginning of biological studies
in October. Also it is not known whether there was any noticeable build-up
and defoliation in these areas in 1957. It is interesting to note that this
same sawfly caused fairly extensive defoliation in southeastern Texas, the
type locality of the species, in the autumn of 1958 (Robert C. Thatcher,
U. S. Forest Service, personal correspondence).
Biological studies in the woods near Athena, Taylor County, Florida,
showed an emergence of adult sawflies early in October 1958. Eggs were
laid on the terminal needles-typically 1 egg per needle, inserted just
above the needle sheath. Ghent & Wallace (1958) predicted this oviposi-
tion pattern on the basis of studies with a closely related Canadian species,
even though they had never seen N. excitans. Occasionally more than 1
egg per needle was observed but this is believed to be due to more than 1
female using the same cluster of terminal needles for oviposition. Al-
though most of the eggs were laid in needles of loblolly pine, Pinus taeda
L., some were laid on longleaf pine, Pinus palustris Mill., and only a few

1College of Agriculture, University of Florida.
2 The author wishes to thank the Florida Forest Pest Committee for
making travel funds available. Mr. Walter Beers, Buckeye Cellulose Corpo-
ration, Mr. Vaughan McCowan, Florida Forest Service, and Dr. Alvah
Peterson, Florida State Plant Board, provided able assistance in the studies.
Dr. John T. Creighton, Head, Department of Entomology, University of
Florida, arranged the writer's teaching schedule to allow time for the

The Florida Entomologist

eggs were observed in needles of slash pine, Pinus elliotti Engelm. A
copious flow of resin from oviposition scars on needles of slash pine appar-
rently greatly reduced the number of eggs hatching on trees of this species.
Eggs required about 3 weeks to hatch during the warm autumnal days
and cool nights. Larval feeding and development of this generation was
retarded by seasonal conditions. A few larvae were still feeding on the
pine foliage early in January 1959. Transformation to the non-feeding
prepupal stage takes place on the trees before silken cocoons are spun.
Most cocoons are found in the litter or in the soil but others may be at-
tached to needles, bark, or nearby low-growing vegetation. Most of the
time spent in the cocoons is in the prepupal stage. Once transformation
to the pupal stage occurs, development to adults takes place within 2 to 3
weeks. A definite diapause occurs as prepupae within cocoons but the
duration of this diapause has not been determined.
The spring generation of N. excitans provided more information on the
life-history of the species. Adult emergence, mating, and oviposition took
place during the latter part of March 1959. On emergence, adult females
appear to have their full complement of developed eggs within their abdo-
mens. The eggs are a light green visible through the abdominal walls of
the females. McCowan counted eggs in the abdomens of randomly selected
females and found a range of from 5 to 135, with the average being 67 eggs
per female. Eggs were laid in the basal portion of established needles,
1 per needle, just above the needle sheath.
Eggs hatched in approximately 10 days. The first larval instar re-
quired 6 days. The second, third, and fourth larval instars each required
approximately 10 days of active feeding on pine foliage. Larvae trans-
formed to prepupae after 4 feeding instars. Differences in size of larvae
could be observed in all instars beyond the first; it is believed that the
smaller larvae will produce male adults and the larger larvae will produce
female adults.
The population of N. excitans declined in the infested areas during the
course of the studies. After the first generation in 1959, insufficient material
was present in the woods to justify a continuation of the studies. It is
definitely known that N. excitans is a multiple generation species. Judging
from the duration of the first generation in 1959 and information obtained
during the autumn of 1958, there may be as many as 4 or 5 generations
per year under Florida conditions. In past seasons, defoliation has not
been sufficient to attract attention until early autumn. This fact suggests
that the insect builds up a population during the spring and summer months
with a peak being reached in September and October. The possibility that
the undetermined diapause may have something to do with peak autumnal
populations should not be disregarded.
The decline of the outbreak in Taylor County afforded an opportunity
to study factors in the natural control of N. excitans. During the autumn
and winter months, shrews were active in the soil and litter under infested
trees; it is assumed that these mammals destroyed many sawfly cocoons.
At the time of spring emergence of adult sawflies, adults of the tree swal-
low, Iridoprocne bicolor (Viellot), were in flight over infested woodlands;
it is assumed that these birds were feeding on flying adult sawflies.


Vol. 42, No. 4

Hetrick: Ecology of the Pine Sawfly

Insect predators of N. excitans included a heavy population of the
wheel bug, Arilus cristatus (L.), and a pentatomid bug, Podisus fretus
Olsen. Other species of reduviid and pentatomid bugs were present but
in lesser numbers. Spiders exerted some influence as predators of the
adult sawflies.
Two species of parasites of the eggs of N. excitans were recovered.
These were Closterocerus cinctipennis Ashm. and Tetrastichus sp. (Hy-
menoptera, Eulophidae).
The following parasites emerged from cocoons of N. excitans. Spathi-
meigenia spinigera Tns. and Phorocera sp. (Diptera, Larvaevoridae);
Villa sinuosa (Weid.) (Diptera, Bombyliidae); Endasys subclavatus (Say),
Agrothereutes lophyri (Nort.), and Exenterus canadensis Provancher (Hy-
menoptera, Ichneumonidae); Perilampus hyalinatus (Say) (Hymenoptera,
Perilampidae); and Dibrachys cavatus (Walk.) (Hymenoptera, Petromali-
dae). Quite likely the last two species are secondary parasites.
Late in 1958, larvae of N. excitans were observed dying on trees where
they had been feeding. Examination of these larvae indicated the presence
of a polyhedral disease. Although great numbers of larvae were not ob-
served to be dead from this disease, it is possible that the disease killed
many in the first and second instars and contributed to the decline of the
An abundance of rainfall during the winter and spring months appeared
to have aided in natural control. The loblolly pine grows in many low
areas. Standing water on these sites could be expected to have two effects
on sawfly cocoons in the soil and litter. These are the direct effect of
drowning or smothering and the indirect effect of stimulating diseases of
prepupae within cocoons.
Low temperatures during the winter of 1958-1959 had little effect on
the sawfly population. Larvae still feeding on the trees in December and
early January experienced some nights with temperatures below freezing.
Feeding activity was resumed with the advent of favorable temperatures.
It was noted that defoliation of loblolly pine by N. excitans has not
resulted in the death of the 'attacked trees. Although many trees were
bare of foliage during the winter months, these trees were not attacked
by bark beetles. Trees defoliated in certain areas in the autumn of 1957,
and those in other areas defoliated in 1958 resumed normal foliage develop-
ment in the spring of the following years. Because of the various factors
in natural control of the insect, it appears unlikely that defoliation will
occur in the same area for more than a single season.


The sawfly, N. excitans, is mainly a defoliator of loblolly pine. Ovi-
position occurs on established pine needles with 1 egg per needle just above
the needle sheath. In the spring of 1959, eggs hatched in approximately
10 days. The 4 larval feeding instars require approximately 10 days each.
Most prepupae spin cocoons in the litter and soil but some are found on
pine needles, on bark, or on low growing vegetation. This is a multiple-
generation species but the number of generations per year has not been
determined. Important factors in natural control are insect parasites,
predators, polyhedral disease, and excessive rainfall.


162 The Florida Entomologist Vol. 42, No. 4

Craighead, F. C. 1950. Insect enemies of eastern forests. U. S. D. A.
Misc. Pub. 657. Wash. D. C.
Ghent, A. W., and D. R. Wallace. 1958. Oviposition behavior of the Swaine
jack-pine sawfly. For. Sci. 4(3): 264-272.
Hetrick, L. A. 1956. Life-history studies of five species of pine sawflies.
For. Sci. 2(3): 181-185.
Rohwer, S. A. 1921. Notes on sawflies with descriptions of new genera
and species. Proc. U. S. National Mus. 59: 83-109.
Ross, H. H. 1955. The taxonomy and evolution of the sawfly genus
Neodiprion. For. Sci. 1(3): 196-209.



One quart of 25 percent DDT emulsifiable concentrate (0.5 pound actual
toxicant) and 2.5 pounds of 40 percent toxaphene wettable powder (1.0
pound actual toxicant) per 100 gallons of spray were recommended for the
control of budworms on sweet corn in Florida (Anonymous, 1956; Kelsheim-
er et al., 1950). In recent years it became apparent that these treatments
were not controlling budworms effectively. Many Everglades sweet corn
growers either increased the dosages or used heptachlor, toxaphene, or DDT
in combination with parathion. It seemed necessary to re-evaluate the rec-
ommended chemicals and compare them with other insecticides in com-
mon use.
Data reported by Hayslip and Genung (1950), Kelsheimer et al. (1950),
and Wene (1954) indicated that parathion effectively controlled budworms
on corn. Wilson (1949) reported that 1 quart of 25 percent DDT emulsifi-
able concentrate was superior to 1 pound of 15 percent parathion wettable
powder in 100 gallons of spray. Hayslip and Genung (1950) reported that
DDT emulsion was superior to toxaphene emulsion or wettable powder sus-
pension. Wene (1954) reported that parathion and DDT at 0.25 and 1
pound per acre, respectively, were slightly more effective than toxaphene
at 1 pound for the control of budworms on sweet corn. He reported effec-
tive control with heptachlor, toxaphene, and parathion. Kelsheimer (1951)
reported that heptachlor gave excellent budworm control. At present,
DDT is recommended at 2 pounds of 50 percent wettable powder and toxa-
phene at 4 pounds of 40 percent wettable powder per 100 gallons (Brogdon
and Marvel, 1959).
In each experiment plots were 2 rows wide, 50 feet long and separated
by single unsprayed buffer rows. Sixty-Pak sweet corn was planted in
rows that were 36 inches apart. Treatments were applied with a custom-
made self-propelled small plot sprayer with an outrigger boom equipped
to spray 2 rows (Harrison et al. 1958). Sprays were applied weekly. Ini-
tial spray applications were made with 2 overhead nozzles to each row.
Nozzles were added to drops between the rows to give complete coverage
as the corn grew taller. Sprays were applied at the rate of 25 gallons per
acre per nozzle or 50, 100, and 150 gallons per acre, respectively, with 2,
4, and 6 nozzles per row.


An experiment was conducted to compare toxaphene, DDT, heptachlor,
parathion, and phosphamidon and to determine if combinations of parathion

1 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Series, No. 932.
2 The author wishes to thank Mr. A. B. Jimmerson, Field Assistant, for
assistance in conducting the experiment, Mr. Edward King, Jr., Draftsman,
for preparing the figures, and Mr. Henry Ruffolo for the photography.
SAssistant Entomologist, Everglades Experiment Station.

The Florida Entomologist

or phosphamidon with the other materials were more effective than the
respective insecticides when applied alone.
All of the insecticides were applied in emulsions. Parathion and phos-
phamidon were applied at the dosage of 0.25 pound of actual toxicant per
100 gallons of spray, using an emulsifiable concentrate that contained 4
pounds of actual toxicant per gallon. DDT and heptachlor emulsifiable
concentrates that contained 2 pounds of actual toxicant per gallon were
used to make emulsions that contained 0.5 pound of actual toxicant per
100 gallons. The toxaphene emulsifiable concentrate contained 6 pounds
of actual toxicant per gallon and was used in sprays that contained 1
pound of actual toxicant per 100 gallons. Each treatment was replicated
4 times in a randomized complete block design.
Sprays were applied at 150 psi using 8002 Spraying Systems Teejet
nozzles with the sprayer driven at approximately 2.4 mph. The first spray
application was made October 21 to corn that had been planted October 7,
1958. The first 2 sprays were applied with 2 nozzles over each row. A
nozzle was added to each side of the row for the next 2 applications. The
last 2 sprays were applied with a second nozzle added to each side of the
An examination for budworm damage was made on all of the plants in
each plot on the fourth day following each of the 6 weekly applications.
Those plants showing evidence of recent budworm feeding in the whorl,
or at the top of the plant, were considered damaged. On October 10 and
11, 100 larvae were collected from unsprayed buffer rows and all were
identified as the fall armyworm, Laphygma frugiperda (J. E. Smith).

80 i7
0 Untreated Heptachlor Toxaphene DDT
O 100
CS Oct.28 Nov.11 Nov.25
N 80 Uj .4 ov.18 Dec.2
a 40

10 Parathion Heptochlor+ Parothion Toxaphene+Parathion DDT+ Parathion

Phosphamidon HeptochlortPhosphmidon Toxophene+Phosphomidon DDT+ Phosphamidon

Fig. 1. Control of budworms on sweet corn on 6 dates with phosphates,
chlorinated hydrocarbons, and combinations of phosphates and chlorinated

The results for each observation date are shown in Figure 1. Treat-
ments were compared by the Student-Newman-Keula test (Federer, 1955).


Vol. 42, No. 4

Harris: Budworm Control Studies on Corn

After the first spray, treatments were not significantly different from each
other but each resulted in significantly fewer budworms than the untreated
check. After the second application, parathion and the parathion-toxa-
phene combination resulted in significantly fewer budworms than toxa-
phene or phosphamidon. For each of the four remaining observation dates,
parathion and combinations of parathion gave significantly better budworm
control than DDT, toxaphene, phosphamidon, and phosphamidon combined
with toxaphene or DDT. The heptachlor-parathion combination was su-
perior to heptachlor following each of the last 3 sprays. Following the
fifth spray, the heptachlor-parathion combination was significantly better
than parathion. This was the only instance in which a parathion combina-
tion gave significantly better budworm control than parathion alone.
When the examinations following each of the 6 sprays were averaged,
there were no significant differences among the treatments that contained
parathion (Figure 2). Parathion, alone or in combination, gave signifi-
cantly better control than all other treatments except the heptachlor-phos-
phamidon combination. Only the toxaphene-parathion and the heptachlor-
parathion combinations were significantly better than the heptachlor-
phosphamidon combination.

Toxophene + Parathion
SHeptachlor + Parathion
DDT + Parathion
S He tachlor + Phosphamidon
Toxaphene + Phosphamidon
DDT + Phosphomidon
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent Damaged Plants
Fig. 2. Control of budworms on sweet corn with phosphates, chlor-
inated hydrocarbons, and combinations of phosphates and chlorinated hydro-
carbons. Averages of 6 dates. Treatments that are bordered by the same
vertical line are not significantly different; others are significantly different.

This experiment strongly indicated that toxaphene and DDT would not
efficiently control budworms at the rates recommended at that time when
applied on a weekly schedule. Parathion compared excellently with the
other insecticides. Its short residual effectiveness is probably of little
importance in the corn whorl where untreated leaf surface is soon exposed
because of rapid growth.


The Florida Entomologist

So----- TToxophene
- --o DD T



0.5 0 5 20 05 0 5 20 05 0 5 20

February 24, 1959 March 3, 1959 Average
a, ~ b----.
u -,
5 "

0 \ \ \_______.
OL ----- \ \ L--~L0

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
February 24, 1959 March 3, 1959 Average
Actual Toxicant per 100 Gallons

Fig. 3. Control of budworms on sweet corn with 4 dosages of
toxaphene and DDT.


The preceding experiment indicated that toxaphene and DDT were in-
efficient for the control of budworms at the recommended dosages. This
experiment was designed to determine the approximate dosage at which
'each chemical would control budworms on sweet corn. Each material was
applied at a dosage of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 pounds of actual toxicant per
100 gallons of emulsion to corn that was planted on January 26, 1959. The
toxaphene and DDT emulsifiable concentrates contained 6 and 2 pounds of
actual toxicant per gallon, respectively. Each treatment was replicated
8 times in a randomized complete block design.
Four sprays were applied at weekly intervals beginning February 4,
1959, using Spraying Systems Teejet D2-25 nozzles at 250 psi. The sprayer
was driven at approximately 2.4 mph.
Two overhead nozzles per row were used in the first 3 applications. In
the fourth application, one nozzle was added to each side of the row.
Of 61 caterpillars collected from untreated buffer rows March 3, 1959,
59 were fall armyworms and one was a corn earworm, Heliothis zea (Bod-
die). The remaining larva was a southern armyworm, Prodenia eridania
Examinations were made February 24 and March 3, six days after the
third and fourth spray applications, by counting the number of budworm
damaged plants among 25 plants in each row of the 2-row plots. The re-
sults are summarized in Figure 3.
On February 24, when 25 percent of the plants in untreated check plots
were infested, the 2 lower rates of toxaphene gave significantly poorer
budworm control than the other treatments. On March 3 and when the
2 examinations were averaged, the lower rate of DDT and the 2 lower


Vol. 42, No. 4

Harris: Budworm Control Studies on Corn

rates of toxaphene gave significantly poorer results than other rates of
either material. Thirty-three percent of the plants in untreated check
plots were damaged March 3. For each material there was a significant
linear regression of percent budworm damaged plants on dosage. The
shapes of the curves indicate that a dosage of either insecticide exceeding
1.5 pounds per 100 gallons would probably be unprofitable.

Anonymous. 1956. Commercial vegetable pest control guide. Fla. Agr.
Ext. Cire. 152: 1-42.
Brogdon, J. E., and M. E. Marvel. 1959. Commercial vegetable insect and
disease control guide. Fla. Agr. Ext. Circ. 193: 1-42.
Federer, Walter T. 1955. Experimental design. 544 pp. The MacMillan
Company, New York, N. Y.
Harrison, D. S., W. G. Genung, and E. D. Harris, Jr. 1958. Improve-
ment and development of spraying and dusting equipment for agri-
cultural use. Fla. Agr. Expt. Sta. Ann. Rept. for 1958: 264.
Hayslip, N. C., and W. G. Genung. 1950. Insect pests and their control.
Fla. Agr. Expt. Sta. Ann. Rept. for 1950: 183-188.
Kelsheimer, E. G. 1951. Control of the lepidopterous larvae attacking
green corn. Fla. Agr. Expt. Sta. Ann. Rept. for 1951: 211-212.
Kelsheimer, E. G., N. C. Hayalip, and J. W. Wilson. 1950. Control of
budworms, earworms and other insects attacking sweet corn and
green corn in Florida. Fla. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull. 466: 1-38.
Wene, George P. 1954. Control of the corn budworm. Proc. Rio Grande
Valley Hort. Institute 8: 45-48.
Wilson, J. W. 1949. Control of the lepidopterous larvae attacking green
corn. Fla. Agr. Expt. Sta. Ann. Rept. for 1949: 174.



Don't put up with mite killers that have slow initial kill or that require
frequent applications. Switch to KELTHANE, the longer-lasting miticide.
KELTHANE is not a phosphate-is safe to use. No extraordinary pre-
cautions are necessary when used as directed.
KELTHANE quickly kills most of the troublesome mite species, including
"resistant" strains. KELTHANE is excellent for an immediate mite
clean-up. Its long-lasting action prevents the development of mite
populations by migrants or newly hatched colonies. Long-lasting resid-
ual activity also means fewer applications per season... more dollars
saved. KELTHANE will help you harvest more perfect-finish fruit.
It is compatible with
most citrus pesticides Chemicals for Agriculture
and harmless to bene-
ficial insects. See your ROHM HAAS
dealer today for COM PANY

KELTHANE is a trademark, Reg. U. S. Pat. Off. and in principal
foreign countries.




The precision, accuracy, and number of experiments conducted for
chemical control of insects or diseases of agricultural crops depend largely
upon the type of application equipment available. The equipment used for
pest and disease control by commercial growers is too large and cumber-
some for use in the small field plots required in replicated insect or disease
control experiments. Such equipment lacks the maneuverability to nego-
tiate sharp turns in passing from one test plot to another in a replicated
trial and the spray tank is so large that the use of small quantities of ma-
terial is inaccurate. Hand equipment, such as the flit gun, knapsack spray-
er, or compressed air sprayer, is grossly unreliable in attempting to apply
a constant gallonage among several experimental treatments. It fails to
duplicate or approximate the performance of equipment used by the com-
mercial grower, and requires a tremendous expenditure in time and labor.
The time and labor involved in using hand equipment is especially important
in an area like the Everglades where it may be necessary to apply insecti-
cides as often as every 48 hours for the control of insect pests on some veg-
etable crops.
The economic entomologist needs an insecticide sprayer that is a com-
promise between the large cumbersome sprayers used commercially and
the hand equipment used by the home gardener.
The need for highly mobile self-propelled small plot sprayers has been
recognized for years by research workers. The garden tractor has been
used extensively by vegetable growers with small acreages and frequently
has been used by the research worker with desirable results. Disadvan-
tages are that the operator must walk along behind the machine, consid-
erable physical effort is required to make the sharp turns required to pass
from one randomized small field plot to another, and it is inappropriate
for use on tall growing crops such as corn. Chada (1956) developed a
small plot sprayer with detachable spray tank so that several tanks could
be used to facilitate changing from one spray mixture to another. The
machine was not self-propelled and was not suitable for use on tall growing
crops. Douglas, et al. (1957) reported on a machine described as "simulat-
ing commercial spraying in small experimental plots." The most striking
disadvantage of that sprayer was the necessity for the sprayer to be hauled
on a truck while the boom is carried on foot, requiring three men, one each
to carry the boom, to operate the spray pump, and to drive the truck.
Large alleyways between plots were required for the truck to travel along.
Another disadvantage is that the tank was too large (50 gallons) for ac-
curacy in using small quantities of spray material and was not removable
so materials could be changed without draining the tank.

1 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Series, No. 889.
2 Assistant Agricultural Engineer, Associate Entomologist and Assist-
ant Entomologist, Everglades Experiment Station, University of Florida,
Belle Glade, respectively.

170 The Florida Entomologist Vol. 42, No. 4


1-John Bean Royalette 7 GPM Pump $ 200.00
2-AC Front Wheels w/tires & tubes 72.50
2-AC Rear Wheels w/tires & tubes 72.50
1-Studebaker Champion Rear End (complete) 50.00
1-Drive Shaft 8.00
2-Universal Joints 6.00
2-Rebuilt Transmissions (Studebaker) 110.00
1-Steering gear assembly 15.00
1-Gear Shift Selector Box 3.00
2-Master Cylinders 16.00
2-No. 50B12 Browning Sprockets 4.40
2-No. 449-A-60 Diamond Sprockets 12.96
1-Clutch Assembly 48.64
2-NP16 Bearings 15.00
2-10 Gal. S.S. Tanks 29.90
1-Seat 39.00
Steel & Miscellaneous parts 21.19
1-Wisconsin Motor Model AEN, 8.2 h.p. 141.00

Total Parts $ 865.09
Labor 250.00

Total $1,115.09


Gear of No. 1 Gear of No. 2 Feet Miles
Transmission Transmission Per Min. Per Hour

1 1 154 1.75
1 2 200 2.38
1 3 400 4.55
2 1 200 2.38
2 2 400 4.55
2 3 665 7.55
3 1 400 4.55
3 2 665 7.55
3 3 1090 12.40

RPM Engine = 2800.

Harrison: Small Sprayer for Agricultural Research 171

During the spring of 1954 an experimental sprayer for applying fungi-
cides to small field plots was designed and constructed at the Everglades
Experiment Station (Cox et al., 1955). After this machine had been in use
about 3 years, enough data had been collected on needed modifications to
construct a small plot sprayer for use in entomological research.
It was felt that a small plot sprayer for use in insect control experi-
ments at the Everglades Experiment Station should possess the following
characteristics: (1) on a smaller scale, it should duplicate the type sprayer
used in commercial vegetable production, capable of spraying pressures up
to 400 psi; (2) it should possess a short turning radius so as to travel from
one small plot to another using an alleyway 20 ft. wide or less; (3) it
should be easy to change from one material to another without having
to drain a large quantity of material from a spray tank; (4) it should be
possible to determine accurately the quantity of material used; (5) it
should be adaptable for use on tall crops as well as low growing ones;
(6) it should be possible to reproduce accurately the gallonage applied
from one material to another; (7) it should be durable without frequent
need for repair or adjustment; (8) it should be self-propelled and (9) it
could be operated by one man.

During the summer of 1957 a small field sprayer was designed and
constructed at the Everglades Experiment Station. The sprayer is a 1-
row type with an outrigger boom for spraying 2 rows of tall crops such
as sweet corn (Fig. 1). The overall length of the machine is 7.5 feet while
the overall width is 4.0 feet. Wheel tread width is 36 inches and the verti-
cal ground clearance is 30 inches.
The frame of the sprayer is made from 2-inch, square steel tubing
except for the rear wheel standards which are made from 3-inch, square
steel tubing. The front end is made from a No. 518978 Allis-Chalmers
front-end-assembly of a tractor. Front tires are 4.00-15 (implement) and
the rear tires are 4.00-15 ground grip. All rims are split and extended
two inches to provide greater flotation. The rear wheel assembly is a
No. 518979 Allis-Chalmers. The front end steering assembly is an auto
type, complete with selector box and steering wheel (Fig. 2).
The machine is powered by a Wisconsin air-cooled engine Model AEN
(8.2 h.p.). The PTO of the engine is attached directly to an automotive
clutch by a flexible coupling (Fig. 3). The drive to the rear end is through
two Studebaker transmissions, connected in tandem, through U-joints
(Fig. 4). This arrangement permits speed of 1.75, 2.38, 4.55, 7.55, and
12.40 m.p.h. at full throttle (Table 2). The governor is adjusted so that
full throttle is at 2800 rpm engine speed.
A separate master cylinder is installed with each brake pedal to provide
individual tractor type braking for each rear wheel. Two Number 449-A-60
Diamond Sprockets (Fig. 5) mounted on the rear wheels are chain driven
by number 50B12 Browning sprockets mounted on rear wheel drums of the
rear end assembly.
A jack shaft is mounted immediately in front of the main clutch furnish-
ing a V-belt drive to the pump (Fig. 3). The pump is a John Bean Royal-
ette 7 GPM. A separate clutch is installed so that the nozzles may be

The Florida, Entomologist

Fig. 1. Rear end assembly showing chain drive to wheels.

.* -, " "^.^*^te A^^irC^. P;-, ' .*"

Fig. 2. Side view of sprayer.


Vol. 42, No. 4


Upper left:
Upper right:
Lower left:
Lower right:

Front view of sprayer showing outrigger boom for spraying two rows of sweet corn.
Front end of sprayer showing steering mechanism.
Side view showing engine mounting and transmission assembly.
Transmission assembly and power transmission to rear end.

The Florida Entomologist

calibrated while the machine is stationary. An outrigger boom mounted
on the right side of the machine is adjustable from 30" to 60" in height
(Fig. 1). This boom has three drops capable of spraying two rows of corn
with one trip. When the outrigger boom is not needed, it may be removed
and a vegetable boom mounted underneath the frame of the sprayer.
One stainless steel tank (10 gal. capacity milk cans) is mounted on
each side of the machine for spray materials. In addition, a washer tank
for cleaning the line is mounted on the left side near the spray tank. Jet
agitation is used to keep the materials in suspension.


The self-propelled small plot sprayer designed by the authors has been
utilized for two seasons in insect control studies (Harrison and Harris,
1958). By using the proper procedure 1 man can treat a given number
of plots in much less time than with 4 men using hand equipment. Al-
though only 1 man is necessary to perform the spray operation, an extra
man is desired for handling the cans and mixing materials.
This machine is small and maneuverable for use on small plots and it
can apply the insecticide sprays in a manner comparable to a large com-
mercial sprayer. To change from one spray formulation to another, one
merely has to exchange 10-gallon milk 'cans, flush the pump and boom
with clean water and the new material. Insecticide materials are formu-
lated before going to the field and several cans of water are taken to the
field to ease and speed the spraying operation. The amount of material
applied is determined by measuring the amount of liquid in the spray tank
before and after spraying. The output per nozzle in gallons or milliliters
per minute is used to determine the speed at which the sprayer should
'travel to apply a given gallonage at a given pressure. Usually, the gal-
lonage applied varies within 1 or 2 percent of that planned.
In summary, this machine has satisfied all the requirements that the
authors desired of a small plot sprayer for use in insect control research.

Chada, Harvey L. 1956. A sprayer for applying insecticides to small
plots. USDA ARS-33-34: 1-4.
Cox, R S., D. S. Harrison, and C. S. Yager. 1955. A versatile spray rig
for small field plots. P1. Dis. Rep. 39(1): 48-50.
Douglass, J. R., H. C. Hollcok, and W. N. Oliver. 1957. A power sprayer
for small experimental plots. USDA ARS-33-36: 1-2.
Harrison, D. S., and E. D. Harris, Jr. 1958. Comparison of insecticide
sprays and granules for corn budworm control. Fla. Hort. Soc. Proc.
1958, pp. 34-36.


Vol. 42, No. 4






The rapid development of resistance to insecticides in house flies (Musca
domestic L.) indicates a growing need for other approaches toward their
suppression. Food-handling establishments and military installations could
well benefit from a repellent. A residual treatment to the approaches to
buildings, as well as to areas where refuse is kept would prevent flies from
congregating in these locations, and thereby reduce the sources from which
they normally migrate into the buildings. Areas around poultry houses
and dairy barns could also be sprayed with a repellent until proper dis-
posal of breeding materials could be arranged. In these circumstances
a good repellent would not obviate the need for insecticides, but would re-
duce the frequency of applications and thus retard the development of
At Orlando, Fla., 65 chemicals were tested in the laboratory as vapor
or contact repellents against house flies. Some of the compounds were
received from commercial laboratories where they had been developed spe-
cifically as fly repellents, and others were selected because of their re-
pellency to other species.
A semicircle of heavy white cardboard 31/ inches in radius was sprayed
with a 2 percent solution of the repellent in acetone to give a deposit of
200 milligrams per square foot. Twenty-four hours later the card was
rolled into the shape of a funnel, stapled, and placed in the top of a stand-
ari drinking glass to form an inverted cone trap. The treated side of the
card formed the interior of the funnel. Prior to its insertion 10 grams of
Edamin (a casein hydrolysate) moistened with 10 milliliters of water was
placed in the bottom of the trap as an attractant, and a screen barrier was
placed above the solution to prevent contact of flies with the attractant.
A duplicate trap containing an untreated funnel was utilized as the
The traps were exposed for 30 minutes at opposite ends of a cage, 7 x 10
x 10 inches, containing 100 flies of mixed sexes. The number of females
in the untreated trap divided by the number in the repellent trap gave the
repellency ratio. Only female flies were counted, as Edamin is much more
attractive to females than males. If less than five were captured in the
untreated trap, the test was discarded. Duplicate tests were run with each
repellent, with 2 sets of funnels and 2 cages of flies. The treated funnels
were then stored for aging. Tests were run at 1 and 2 days of aging, after
which, if the ratio of repellency remained greater than 2.0, they were tested
after 7, 14, 30, 60 and 90 days, until the ratio dropped below 2.0.
The results with 28 compounds that were effective for 2 or more days
are given in Table 1. The most promising compounds were di-n-octylamine,
n-propyl n-octyl sulfoxide, and 3-chloropropyl n-octyl sulfoxide, which were
effective more than 90 days. Allyl n-octyl sulfoxide and N-amyl-2,3-nor-
camphanedicarboximide were effective for 30 days and N- (n-pentyl) succina-
mide, N-n-heptylphthalimide, and N-sec-pentylphthalimide for 14 days.

1 Entomology Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S.D.A.


Repellency ratio at indicated days of aging
Repellent -
Repellent 1 2 7 14 30 60 90

Di-n-octylamine 15.3 16.0 2.9 12.0 9.3 6.1 8.7
n-Propyl n-octyl sulfoxide 21.0 9.3 11.0 3.4 5.8 3.3 3.0
3-Chloropropyl n-octyl sulfoxide 4.6 6.5 2.4 3.6 2.9 9.3 4.7
Allyl n-octyl sulfoxide 3.4 7.7 8.7 4.6 2.4 1.4 -
N-Amyl-2,3-norcamphanedicarboximide 2.5 2.4 4.9 4.0 3.0 1.2 -
N- (n-Pentyl) succinimide 8.7 10.7 2.9 2.4 <1.0 -
N-n-Heptylphthalimide 1.2 3.3 2.7 3.2 1.8 -
N-sec-Pentylphthalimide 2.9 4.1 2.0 2.4 <1.0 -
2-[p-2- (2-Methylbutyl) aniline]ethanol 1.2 4.3 2.5 1.9 -
2-[p-2-(2-Methylbutyl)phenoxy]ethanol 3.0 3.5 3.0 1.8 -
N-Ethylphthalimide 3.6 3.3 4.0 1.1 -
N-Isopentyl-n-butyranilide 2.8 2.3 2.0 1.4 -
tert-Butylsulfinyl dimethyl dithiocarbamate 1.9 3.2 2.5 2.0 -
N,N-Di-n-butyl methyl sulfinamide 7.8 8.3 6.2 1.2 -
Isobutoxyethyl n-octyl sulfoxide 2.8 2.5 2.4 <1.0 -
N-Pentyl-1,2-cyclohexanedicarboximide 2.1 4.0 <1.0 -
N-Pentylphthalimide 4.4 2.3 1.7 -
N-Butylphthalimide 1.1 3.3 1.0 -
Fencholic acid 10.0 3.1 1.0 -
N-Isobutylphthalimide 2.2 2.6 1.5 -
N-Isopropylphthalimide 3.3 4.8 1.4 -
Malonic acid 2.4 3.0 1.3 -
2-Hydroxypropyl n-octyl sulfide 3.1 3.8 1.7 -
tert-Dodecyl 2-hydroxyethoxyethoxyethyl sulfoxide 2.4 3.8 1.4 -
2- (1-Aminocyclohexyl) cyclohexanone <1.0 2.8 1.0 -
Methallyl n-octyl sulfoxide 5.3 4.2 1.2 -
N-Propylphthalimide 3.0 3.3 <1.0 -
Pyrethrum extract + piperonyl butoxide (1:10) 7.7 10.5 1.0 -

LaBrecque: Repellents Against House Flies

The following materials were not effective for more than 1 day:

Acetate of 2-methyl-l-phenyleth-
Acetate of 1-nonanol
Ammonium para-methyldithiocar-
Benzhydryl thiocyanate
alpha- [2- (2-butoxyethoxy) ethoxy] -
toluene (piperonyl butoxide)
2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)ethyl chloro-
n-Butoxyethyl n-octyl sulfoxide
Butoxypolypropylene glycol
Diacetate of 4-octene-4,5-diol
Dibutyl diglycolate
n-Dibutyl succinate
Diethyl gamma-acetyl-gamma-

Ethyl acetyloximinoacetoacetate
Ethyl hippurate
Ethyl nipecotate
Ethyl salicylate
2-Hydroxyethyl n-octyl sulfide
2-Hydroxyethyl n-octyl sulfoxide
Isopentyl p-aminobenzoate
Isopentyl salicylate
N- (n-Octyl) phthalimide
n-Octylsulfinylpropyl propionate
Oil of sweet marjoram
Pyrethrum extract (20% pyrethrins)


Glass-trap tests were made with 65 chemicals to determine their effec-
tiveness as vapor or contact repellents against house flies (Musca do-
mestica L.). The most promising compounds were di-n-octylamine, n-
propyl n-octyl sulfoxide, and 3-chloropropyl n-octyl sulfoxide, which were
effective for more than 90 days.


.,'' .l- + '' ...... '. .'. . .


First Step toward Improved Pesticides
:W 4

From the Hercules Research Center and Agricultural ....
Chemicals Laboratories come an ever increasing number l o B': "2 'l
of products that contribute to more productive farming
and increased comfort for leisure hours. Here are the
established members of the Hercules family: Toxaphene
agricultural insecticide; Thanite for oil base and aerosol 0.
insecticides; Delnav* phosphate pesticide; meta Delphene .o
insect repellent.
Today in the laboratories, research continues on the
products that will join them in the future. But before they
become available you can be sure that thousands of ('jt ht
compounds have been carefully screened and extensive .
tests conducted in the field because only the best is good les i
enough to meet the standards of Hercules research.
That's why you can look to Hercules for leadership in
the development of insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides.
ictAgricultural Chemicals Division, Naval Stores Department :
o 900 Market Street, ilington 99, Delaware But be .the


The meeting convened at the McAllister Hotel, Miami, Florida on the
morning of September 10, 1959, with President William P. Hunter pre-
siding. The two-day program was composed of the Presidential Address, 5
invitational papers, and 32 submitted papers. One invitational paper, not
on the printed program, was an illustrated talk on Russian agriculture and
entomology by Dr. Theodore Dobrovsky, Food and Agricultural Organiza-
tion, Rome, Italy. Dr. Dobrovsky is a former member of the Staff of
Florida Agricultural Experiment Station and member of the Society.
On Wednesday evening, September 9, The Subtropical Branch of the
Florida Entomological Society held a regularly scheduled meeting in the
McAllister Hotel. This meeting was attended by many members of the
parent Society.
The first business session was held at noon on September 10. President
Hunter appointed Audit and Resolutions Committees. Since the minutes
of the 41st Annual Meeting had been published in the FLORIDA ENTOMOLO-
GIST Volume 41, No. 4 (December 1958), it was moved, seconded and voted
that the minutes stand approved as printed. No other business was pre-
sented and the session adjourned at 12:10 p.m.
The second business session was convened at 4:25 p.m., September 10,
with President Hunter presiding. Dr. Robert E. Waites presented the
Report of the Treasurer-Business Manager which was followed by the Re-
port of the Audit Committee.

AIUGUST 31, 1959

D ues -------- -----.... --...... --. --.... .......
Subscriptions ...............------------
Reprints and Plates ...................--
Advertising -..........------ ----- --

Cash on hand 9/12/58

...............-..-..-....- ..... .. .. $ 193.00
---- ------------............- 405.00
---- 310.50
................ -- ... .. 1115.43

................ ............... 2183.17


Bastain Bros. for convention badges .......................-------------------- $ 7.13
Postmaster, Gainesville, postage and box rent .---...--..................-----. 36.40
Nelson The Florist, for banquet flowers ....--.........--------........ ........... 36.05
Frisco Printing Co., for banquet tickets ..................-.--------......------ 4.12
Young Pest Control Lab. for long-playing tapes .. ---.....................--.. 11.33
Pepper Printing Co. -.... --..-.. ....--..----.. -----. ......---.......... ---. 2479.12
Parker Office Supply --.........----- ..............- -...-----...... 12.52
Lewis Berner for postage and expenses .......--.................... ..- ........ 10.00
L. A. Hetrick, postage and lettering honorary certificates ...-..-..... 21.00
Bank service charge .........-- ............. ...-------- ... .......... ...------ 2.10

Cash on hand 8/31/59 ...............-..----............---..... -----...--...... 1587.33

Respectfully submitted,
R. E. Waites
Treasurer-Business Manager

The Florida Entomologist

Vol. 42, No. 4

The Treasurer's Report and the books of the Society have been examined
for the year ending August 31, 1959, by the Auditing Committee and found
to be in order. We recommend to the Society that the above-printed re-
port be accepted.
We would also like to compliment the Treasurer-Business Manager for
the neat and orderly manner in which we found the account books.
Respectfully submitted,
G. W. Dekle
Martin H. Muma, Chairman

It was moved, seconded, and voted that the Report of the Treasurer-
Business Manager and the Report of the Audit Committee be accepted.
President Hunter called the attention of the members present to the new
State Board of Health restrictions on the use of highly toxic pesticides in
residential areas.
Additional Reports presented at this time were as follows.

Information is being collected from the FLORIDA ENTOMOLOGIST and
from the files of the Secretary, reports of meetings, records of proceed-
ings, and other documents of historical value. Members who may have
recollections of early happenings in the Society or who know of other un-
published data are requested to send such material to any member of this
committee. From the assembled material the committee will prepare an
article of suitable scope and form to be included in Dr. E. C. Nance's three
volume history of Florida. A copy of the article, or a modification of it,
likewise will be submitted for publication to the Editor of the FLORIDA
L A. Hetrick
Andrew J. Rogers
A. N. Tissot, Chairman

The committee reports with sorrow the passing of James Zetek, member
of the Florida Entomological Society from 1912 until his death, and of
C. B. Wisecup who was a member from 1936 until 1946 when he was trans-
ferred to another state. Though stationed far from Florida, on Barro
Colorado Island in the Canal Zone, Mr. Zetek was intensely interested in
the Florida Entomological Society and he was one of its most loyal and
faithful members. While living in Florida, Mr. Wisecup was an active
and enthusiastic member of the Society and he served it well as Treasurer-
Business Manager during the last three years of his residence in the State.
The committee will secure or prepare obituaries on these gentlemen for
publication in the FLORIDA ENTOMOLOGIST so that their memories may re-
main as an inspiration to future generations of members.
Herbert Spencer
W. B. Tappan
A. N. Tissot, Chairman

There was no further business and the session adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
An enjoyable social hour preceded the annual banquet on the evening
of September 10. Dr. E. G. Kelsheimer served as toastmaster and made
introductions. There were no speeches. Music was provided by a local
string trio and an electronic organ.
SThe final business session was convened by President Hunter on Sep-
tember 11 at 3:10 p.m. President Hunter thanked the officers, members of


Minutes of the Forty-Second Annual Meeting 181

the Local Arrangement Committee, members of the Program Committee,
and many others who contributed to the success of the meeting.
President Hunter informed the members that Certificates of Honorary
Membership had been delivered to K. E. Bragdon, A. C. Brown, W. V. King,
G. B. Merrill, and W. W. Others. Although these men had been elected
to Honorary status at previous Society meetings, Certificates of Honorary
Membership had not been delivered to them until this year. Dr. W. V. King
was the only Honorary Member who attended the 42nd Annual Meeting.
Dr. King was accorded public recognition during the meeting.
Calls were made for old business and new business. Since there were
no items to be considered at this time, The Report of the Resolutions Com-
mittee was requested.

1. Whereas the invitational speakers contributed significantly to the suc-
cess of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Florida Entomological Society,
be it resolved that the Society express its appreciation to these
2. Whereas the Editor of the FLORIDA ENTOMOLOGIST has through untiring
effort maintained a high standard of the Society's publication, be it
resolved the Society extend to Dr. Lewis Berner a vote of thanks
and confidence for his excellent editorship.
3. Whereas death has taken from our midst James Zetek and C. B. Wise-
cup, loyal and faithful members of the Florida Entomological So-
ciety, and Whereas the Society has suffered a great loss in their
passing, Therefore be it resolved: That the members of the Society
publicly acclaim the many contributions that Mr. Zetek and Mr.
Wisecup have made in the field of entomology and that we sorrow-
fully acknowledge our lose in their deaths, and Be it further resolved:
That the Secretary be instructed to write letters of condolence to the
families of the deceased and express to them our heart-felt sympathy.
4. Be it further resolved:
A. That the Society express its special appreciation to the Local Ar-
rangements Committee and Program Committee for arranging and
conducting this excellent meeting;
B. That the Society does hereby express its sincere thanks to the mem-
bers of industry for a most enjoyable social hour;
C. That the Society does hereby express its sincere thanks to the man-
agement and staff of the McAllister Hotel for their part in the suc-
cess of the 42nd Annual Meeting.
I. H. Gilbert
Norman C. Hayslip
Milledge Murphey, Chairman
President Hunter asked for the Report of the Nominating Committee.

President ...-... -------------------- ---- Andrew J. Rogers
Vice President --......-.--.----------.-------- Lewis Berner
Treasurer-Business Manager..---..... ...-.. R. E. Waites (continuing)
Secretary--.........---- --....... ..----------- .......-- .. L. A. Hetrick
Executive Committee ....----.. ..-..-....... G. G. Rohwer
Executive Committee ----------------------- John E. Porter (continuing)
Editor.............-- ---- --...........-- ..-----Lewis Berner (continuing)
Associate Editor.---............-.......-.......--- Norman C. Hayslip (continuing)
Respectfully submitted,
A. A. Whipp
H. A. Denmark
J. W. Wilson, Chairman

The Florida, Entomologist

There were no additional nominations from the floor. It was moved,
seconded, and voted that the Secretary be instructed to cast a ballot to
elect the slate of officers presented by the Nominating Committee.
The newly elected President, Dr. Andrew J. Rogers, was escorted to
the platform and President Hunter conveyed the Society's gavel to him.
Dr. Rogers thanked the members of the Society for the confidence and
trust placed in him.
James Heidt expressed the pleasure of the members of the Subtropical
Branch for having the meeting in Miami.
Currently, the Society has 289 members. During the year 36 members
were dropped from the Society and the following 37 new members became

W. C. Adlerz
W. L. Bidlingmayer
A. A. Chadwick
D. W. Clancy
F. P. Clements
W. R. Comegys
H. S. Creamer
E. E. Crooks
E. H. Doty
R. F. DuChanois
H. M. Faircloth
A. R. Gary, Jr.
J. T. Hayward

I. W. Hughes
R. H. Jackson
D. B. Lieux
R. G. Manee
H. R. Mangus
V. F. McCowan
R. A. Newkirk
J. W. Patton
G. G. Rohwer
T. W. Sistrunk
G. W. Smith
G. F. Spencer

R. W. Swanson
T. R. Taylor
Lisa von Borowsky
D. L. von Windeguth
B. G. Watson
D. R. Wilson
W. P. Wilson
W. J. Woodman
R. E. Woodruff
R. B. Workman
T. Roy Young, Jr.
P. M. Zipperer

Sessions of the Executive Committee were held on the evening of Sep-
tember 9 and during the lunch hour on September 10.
President Rogers adjourned the meeting at 3:55 p.m. September 11,

Vol. 42, No. 4



t Honorary Members Past Presidents
Adlerz, Warren C., P. O. Box 321, Leesburg, Florida
Alden, J. C., Woolfolk Chemical Co., Ltd., Fort Valley, Georgia
Alexander, Donald H., P. O. Box 34-971, Coral Gables, Florida
Anderson, Chris W., Newell Hall, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
Anthony, D. W., Animal Disease Station, Agric. Res. Center, Belts-
ville, Maryland
Applewhite, C. D., P. O. Box 8464, Jackson, Mississippi
Arey, Philip S., P. 0. Box 123, Montverde, Florida
Arnaud, Paul H., Jr., 1220 N. Street, Sacramento 14, California
Ascher, Larry, 404 N.W. 2nd Ave., Miami, Florida
Assonamon, S., 3432 S. Dale Mabry, Tampa 9, Florida
Aycock, James F., 2324 Garfield St., Hollywood, Florida
Ayres, Ed L., 101 Cortez Road W., Bradenton, Florida

Ballentine, C. C., P. 0. Box 3751, Orlando, Florida
Baranowski, R. W., Route 1, Box 560, Homestead, Florida
Barnett, Joe P., P. O. Box 5285, Tampa, Florida
Bartnett, R. E., 112 Zoratoa Ave., St. Augustine, Florida
Baumhover, A. H., 300 Fairview Ave., Sebring, Florida
Beames, G. H., 211 Robinson Ave., Orlando, Florida
Beidler, E. J., P. O. Box 696, Vero Beach, Florida
Bellamy, R. E., 2311 B Street, Bakersfield, California
Bennett, Charles A., P. O. Box 1486, Key West, Florida
Berner, Lewis, Flint Hall, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
Bidlingmayer, W. L., P. O. Box 308, Vero Beach, Florida
Blanton, F. S., McCarty Hall, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
Bluff, John C., 6234 S.W. 57th Drive, South Miami, Florida
Bradley, G. H., U.S.P.H.S., 1054 H.E.W. Bldg., S., Washington 25, D. C.
f*Bragdon, K. E., Route 4, Box 505 B, Orlando, Florida
Branan, Arthur, Jr., P. O. Box 1006, Winter Haven, Florida
Brian, C. E., Florida Agric. Supply Co., Jacksonville, Florida
Brill, Philip G., 1150 N.W. 125th St., Miami 50, Florida
Brogdon, James E., Bldg. "OG", Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
t*Brown, A. C., Bldg. "AS", Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
Brown, Rue L., 607 S. 11th St., Ft. Peirce, Florida
Bruber, S. C., Experiment Station, Santiago de Las Vegas, Cuba
*Bruce, W. G., Plant Pest Control Branch, U.S.D.A., A.R.S., Washing-
ton 25, D. C.
Burden, George S., 600 S. Summerlin St., Orlando, Florida
Burns, T. C., P. O. Box 355, Palmetto, Florida
Bussart, J. E., 815 Gamon Road, Wheaton, Illinois
*Butcher, F. Gray, Univ. of Miami, P. O. Box 1051, South Miami, Florida
*Byers, C. F., Flint Hall, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Florida

Cabrera, Jesus Agr. A., Calle 2A, Ote 402, C.D., Delicias, Chih., Mexico
Cantrall, I. J., 1315 Las Vegas, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Chadwick, A. A., Hercules Powder Co., Rhodes-Haverty Blvd., Atlanta 3,
Chellman, C. W., 1127 W. Central Ave., Orlando, Florida
Christie, James R., 521 Ventura Ave., Orlando, Florida
Chubb, Henry S., Route 4, Box 464 A., Orlando, Florida
Clancy, D. W., 536 Ave. A, N.E., Winter Haven, Florida
Clark, H. R., 2204 Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida
Clark, Philip, 714 Warwick Place, Orlando, Florida
Clements, F. Peter, 1507 S. Andrews Ave., Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Clements, William B., P. O. Box 65, Leesburg, Florida
Cleveland, Tom, c/o Dept. Ent., McCarty Hall, U. of F., Gainesville, Flor-

The Florida Entomologist

Collier, B. L., 801 W. Fairbanks Ave., Winter Park, Florida
Coleman, K., Speed Sprayer Co., Orlando, Florida
Comegys, W. R., 615 Sheridan Boulevard, Orlando, Florida
Conn, L. M., P. O. Box 343, Pensacola, Florida
Creamer, H. S., 30200 S.W. 172nd Court, Homestead, Florida
Creighton, John T., McCarty Hall, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
Crooks, E. E., 3617 Knollwood, Tampa, Florida
Crossman, R. A., Jr., P. O. Box 43 D, Winter Haven, Florida

Decker, J. W., Fort Clinch State Park, Fernandina Beach, Florida
Dekle, G. W., State Plant Board, Seagle Bldg., Gainesville, Florida
DeLeon, Donald, Route 2, Erwin, Tennessee
Denmark, H. A., State Plant Board, Seagle Bldg., Gainesville, Florida
Denmark, J. C., 1530 Ave. C N.E., Winter Haven, Florida
Diem, J. J., P. O. Box 324, Palmetto, Florida
Dixon, R. Earl, 5928 Lake Ridge Road, Jacksonville, Florida
Dobrovsky, T. M., Agricultural Plant Protection, F.A.O., Rome, Italy
Doty, E. H., P. O. Box 3627, Daytona Beach, Florida
Dowling, C. F., Jr., 11545 S.W. 107th Court, Miami 56, Florida
Driggers, J. E., P. O. Box 428, Lake City, Florida
DuChanois, R. F., 4275 Genoa Ave., Jacksonville, Florida

Elbel, R. E., Dept. of Zoology, Univ. of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma

Fairchild, G. B., Gorgas Mem. Lab., Box 42, Balboa Heights, Canal Zone
Faircloth, H. M., P. O. Box 1124, Fort Myers, Florida
Field, H. M., 910 Clearview, Lakeland, Florida
Fisher, Miss F. E., Citrus Expt. Station, Lake Alfred, Florida
Friedman, H. J., 1906 N. Armenia Ave., Tampa 7, Florida
Frierson, Paul E., State Plant Board, Seagle Bldg., Gainesville, Florida

Gahan, J. B., P. O. Box 3391, Orlando, Florida
Gary, Abner R., Jr., P. O. Box 528, Marianna, Florida
Gehweiler, W. J., 355 Connecticut Ave., Southern Pines, North Carolina
Genung, William G., Everglades Expt. Station, Belle Glade, Florida
Gibson, Kenneth E., P. O. Box 1100, Twin Falls, Idaho
Giggans, R. P., Brewster, Florida
*Gilbert, I. H., 2111 Gerda Terrace, Orlando, Florida
Gordon, R. J., 3717 Navy Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida
Gouck, Harry C., 250 Benmore Drive, Winter Park, Florida
Graham, A. J., 440 Putnam St., Orlando, Florida
Grandi, Guido, Via Filipio Re. N. 6, Bologna, Italy
Gresham, Wm. B., 3408 E. Broadway, Tampa 5, Florida
*Griffiths, J. T., Route 1, Box 655, Winter Haven, Florida
Gross, Joseph, 107 N. Armenia Ave., Tampa, Florida
Guion, Michael J., U. S. Quarantine Station, San Juan, Puerto Rico
Gurney, A. B., Div. of Insects, U. S. National Museum, Washington 25,
D. C.

Hale, R. H., Route 1, Palmetto, Florida
Haley, J. C., P. O. Box 568, Lake Alfred, Florida
Harden, F. W., P. O. Box 868, Ft. Pierce, Florida
Harris, Emmett D., Everglades Expt. Station, Belle Glade, Florida
Haynie, John D., Building "OG", Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
Hayslip, Norman C., P. O. Box 507, Ft. Pierce, Florida
Hayward, John T., 2218 Ave "B" S.W., Winter Haven, Florida
Heidt, James E., 965 N.E. 138th St., North Miami, Florida
Henderson, Robert B., 127 Peachtree St., N.E., Atlanta, Georgia
Hetrick, L. A., McCarty Hall, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
Hibbs, W. A., P. O. Box 1209, Sarasota, Florida
Hill, Charles C., 13025 N.W. 21st Ave., Miami, Florida
Hill, Sam O., Plant Industry Station, Beltsville, Maryland
Holden, K. R., 1815 Colton Drive, Orlando, Florida

Vol. 42, No. 4


List of Members

Holland, Frank L., Florida Inst. Agric. Research, Winter Haven, Florida
Holtsberg, Harold, 132 N. 12th Street, Ft. Pierce, Florida
*Hubbell, T. H., Museum of Zoology, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Huber, P. E., 1216 E. Colonial Dr., Orlando, Florida
Hudson, R. W., 224 E. Government Street, Pensacola, Florida
Hughes, I. W., 117 S.W. 12th Street, Gainesville, Florida
Hunt, Burton P., Zoology Dept., Univ. of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida
Hunt, Paul J., 1719 Cordova Ave., Holly Hill, Florida
*Hunter, William P., 1102 W. Reynolds St., Plant City, Florida
Hussey, R. F., Flint Hall, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
Hyman, Julius, 311 Pala Avenue, Piedmont 11, California

Jackson, R. H., 4315 W. Buffalo Ave., Tampa, Florida
James, M. C., 3408 E. Broadway, Tampa 5, Florida
Johnson, Roger B., P. O. Box 289, Lake Alfred, Florida
Jones, Calvin M., Dept. of Entomology, Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln 3,
Jones, Frank M., 2000 Riverview Ave., Wilmington, Delaware
Jones, Hal, State Plant Board, Seagle Bldg., Gainesville, Florida
Josey, T. S., 8824 Atter Lane, Jacksonville, Florida

Kaplan, Henry, 4530 S.W. 5th St., Miami, Florida
*Kelsheimer, E. G., Gulf Coast Experiment Station, Bradenton, Florida
Kemp, W. H., 1303 Broad St., Jacksonville, Florida
Kerr, S. H., Newell Hall, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
Kimball, C. P., 7340 Point of Rocks Road, Sarasota, Florida
Kime, C. D., P. O. Box 232, Ft. Pierce, Florida
Kime, C. D., Jr., Route 1, Box 325, Winter Haven, Florida
King, J. R., Indian River Citrus Lab., Ft. Pierce, Florida
f*King, W. V., 1336 Seabreeze Ave., Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Kirkland, R. 0., 919 Pinedale Drive, Plant City, Florida
Kleinhans, R. B., North Plainfield High School, North Plainfield, N. J.
Kolkana, Bernard, 3039 Grand Central Ave., Tampa, Florida
Krausche, K. K., P. 0. Box 789, Tallahassee, Florida
Kreysa, Jaroslav, Jr., Apartado 576, San Salvador, El Salvador
Kuitert, L. C., Newell Hall, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Florida

Lanier, James A., 208 Cherokee Ave., Thibodaux, Louisiana
Laudani, Hamilton, 10716 Kinloch Rd., Hillandale, Silver Spring, Maryland
Lewis, R. L., 147 E. Church St., Orlando, Florida
Lieux, D. B., 11000 S.W. 87th Ave., Miami 56, Florida
Lindo, Orlando J., La Calle NE No. 805, Managua, Nicaragua
Littig, Kent, 439 Ansley St., Decatur, Georgia
Long, Wallace T., 2701 Citrus Ave., Ft. Pierce, Florida

Mabry, Paul H., Kilgore Seed Co., Plant City, Florida
Manee, Robert G., 1715 N.W. 6th Street, Gainesville, Florida
Mangus, Harold R., 6305 S.W. 58th Ave., South Miami 43, Florida
Martin, R. A., 755 Royal Palm St., Orlando, Florida
Mathews, E. L., Plymouth, Florida
Maughn, Douglas, P. O. Box 7067, Orlando, Florida
Maxwell, J. W., Hercules Powder Co., 134 Peachtree St., Atlanta 3, Geor-
Maxwell, Lewis, 506 Hollywood Ave., Tampa 4, Florida
*Mayeux, H. S., 5636 Floral Bluff Road, Jacksonville, Florida
Mayfield, Jim, P. 0. Box 7067, Orlando, Florida
McCowan, Vaughan, Florida Forest Service, P. O. Box 1200, Tallahassee,
McCurdy, W. W., P. O. Box 357, Pahokee, Florida
McGhee, S. F., Jr., 1216 E. Colonial Drive, Orlando, Florida
McGuinness, J. J., 74 South Street, St. Augustine, Florida
McIntyre, A. E. C., 190 N.W. 20th Street, Homestead, Florida
Mead, Frank W., Dept. of Entomology, N. C. State College, Raleigh, N. C.


The Florida Entomologist

Mercer, Jack B., 8824 Arterlin, Jacksonville, Florida
Merkel, E. P., Route 1, Box 12 A, Lake City, Florida
t*Merrill, George B., 203 N.W. 15th Street, Gainesville, Florida
Mills, Albert S., 2305 N.W. 87th Street, Miami, Florida
Mills, Thomas W., P. O. Box 1171, Daytona Beach, Florida
Mockford, Edward, 3916 Millersville Dr., Indianapolis, Indiana
Morales, M. Evaristo, Dept. of Agric., Pecurio, San Jose, Costa Rica
Morse, Roger A., Dept. of Entomology, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N. Y.
Moses, P. J., P. O. Box 542, Lake City, Florida
Mueller, Milton G., 2952 S.W. 38th Court, Miami, Florida
*Mulrennan, John A., P. O. Box 210, Jacksonville 1, Florida
Mulrennan, John A., Jr., 2167 Larchmont Road, Jacksonville, Florida
Muma, Martin H., P. 0. Box 324, Lake Alfred, Florida
*Murphey, Milledge, Jr., McCarty Hall, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Flor-

Newkirk, Richard A., P. O. Box 233, Winter Haven, Florida
Nichols, Tom, 211 E. Robinson Ave., Orlando, Florida
Nicholson, Joseph, American Cyanamid Co., Brewster, Florida
Norman, Paul A., 1108 Coletta Drive, Orlando, Florida
Norris, Dale M., Jr., Dept. of Ent., Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis-
Nowell, John, 2807 Sunglow, Orlando, Florida

O'Neil, John B., American Cyanamid Co., Brewster, Florida
Osario, J. M., Calle 273, No. 14006, Wasay, Habana, Cuba

Patton, Mrs. Constance G., 705 Cherry, College Station, Texas
Patton, John W., P. O. Box 656, Lake Alfred, Florida
Perkins, B. C., Speed Sprayer-Co., Orlando, Florida
Phillips, A. M., Pecan Laboratory, Monticello, Florida
Pierce, Taft A., 1960 N.W. 27th Ave., Miami, Florida
Porter, John E., 7521 S.W. 53rd Ave., Miami 43, Florida
Pospichal, A. T., Route 1, Box 63, Seffner, Florida
Poucher, Charles, State Plant Board, Lake Alfred, Florida
Pratt, R. M., Presbyterian University, St. Petersburg, Florida
Provost, M. W., P. O. Box 308, Vero Beach, Florida

Racine, F. R., 6230 Eastwood Lane, Jacksonville, Florida
Reed, R. R., P. O. Box 2721, Tampa, Florida
Reichart, C. V., Providence College, Providence 8, Rhode Island
Rhoades, W. C., P. O. Box 470, Quincy, Florida
Richards, R. F., 1402 Cumbie Ave., Orlando, Florida
Riherd, Paul T., P. O. Box 851, Mercedes, Texas
Ringdahl, James D., 1212 Lake Ave., Lake Worth, Florida
Robertson, R. L., Exten. Ent., Univ. of Georgia, Athens, Georgia
Robinson, Frank, Newell Hall, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
Rogers, A. J., P. O. Box 2011, Vero Beach, Florida
Rohwer, G. G., P. O. Box 1443, Winter Haven, Florida
Ross, Don, 3715 Main Highway, Coconut Grove, Florida
Russell, Jack C., 530 Lakeview, Orlando, Florida

Sapp, D. R., 20 N.W. 16th Ave., Gainesville, Florida
Scaramuzza, L. C., Central Mercedes, Matanzas Province, Cuba
Seiler, C. E., 208 N.W. Ave. I, Belle Glade, Florida
Selhime, Allen G., 612 W. Concord Ave., Orlando, Florida
Sharman, R. S., Animal Dis. Erad. Div., U.S.D.A., A.R.S., Washington
25, D. C.
Shepard, C. E., 209 Boulevard, Apt. 7, Gainesville, Florida
Simaton, W. A., Citrus Experiment Station, Lake Alfred, Florida
Sistrunk, T. W., P. O. Box 6595, West Palm Beach, Florida
Skipper, Clinton E., P. O. Box 755, Avon Park, Florida

Vol. 42, Nao. 4


List of Members

Sloan, G. D., P. O. Box 1021, Tampa 1, Florida
Smith, Carroll N., P. O. Box 3391, Orlando, Florida
Smith, Charles L., 2803 Riddle Drive, Winter Park, Florida
Smith, Gordon W., 807 South 12th Street, Dade City, Florida
Smith, R. J., American Cyanamid Co., Powder Spring, Georgia
Snyder, Albert E., Jr., 8625 S.W. 127th St., Miami, Florida
Sossamon, S. A., 3432 S. Dale Mabry, Tampa 9, Florida
Spencer, George F., 5224 N.E. 2nd Terrace, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
*Spencer, Herbert, 2120 Camden Road, Orlando, Florida
Spencer, Neal R., P. O. Box 131, Gainesville, Florida
Stahl, Walter B., 1714 62nd Street, Brooklyn 4, N. Y.
Stearns, C. R., P. O. Box 1134, Lake Alfred, Florida
Steuben, E. B., P. O. Box 575, S.L.I. Station, Lafayette, Louisiana
Stripling, Earl L., Calif. Spray Chem. Corp., Goldsboro, N. C.
Sutton, C. L., P. O. Box 7067, Orlando, Florida
Swank, George R., 4702 Garrard Ave., Savannah, Georgia
Swanson, Robert W., 825 Majorca, Coral Gables, Florida

Tappan, Wm. B., P. O. Box 470, Quincy, Florida
Taylor, Doyle J., 314 Mission Hill Drive, Tampa 4, Florida
Taylor, T. R., 426 West Main St., Peoria, Illinois
Thames, Walter H., Jr., Dept. of Plant Path., Texas A & M, College
Station, Texas
Thew, Thomas B., 451 16th Ave., East Moline, Illinois
*Thompson, W. L., Citrus Experiment Station, Lake Alfred, Florida
Thullberry, H. A., P. O. Box 95, Lake Wales, Florida
Thullberry, J. D., 3813 Lynwood Ave., Tampa, Florida
*Tissot, A. N., Newell Hall, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
Tomasello, R. P., P. O. Box 6156, West Palm Beach, Florida
True, H. H., 438 N.E. 8th Ave., Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

*Van Horn, E. C., 4517 Peachtree Circle, East, Jacksonville 7, Florida
Vocelle, Charles, 550 Seybold Building, Miami, Florida
Von Borowsky, Miss Lisa, Route 2, Box 252, Brooksville, Florida
Von Windeguth, Donald L., P. O. Box 944, Winter Haven, Florida
Voorhees, R., P. O. Box 3751, Orlando, Florida

Wagner, Wm. E., 1955 37th Ave., Vero Beach, Florida
Waites, R. E., Newell Hall, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
Walker, B. J., 3210 Clay Street, Orlando, Florida
Walker, T. J., McCarty Hall, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
*Wallace, H. K., Flint Hall, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
Walley, G. Stuart, Div. of Ent., Dept. of Agric., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Warner, W. W., 3327 Riviera Drive, Key West, Florida
Warnhoff, E. H., 114 Ave. N.E., Winter Haven, Florida
Watson, Brandt G., Route 2, Box 871, Naples, Florida
Weems, H. V., Jr., State Plant Board, Seagle Bldg., Gainesville, Florida
Westfall, M. J., Flint Hall, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
Wheatley, J. R., 214 Betty Joe Lane, Memphis, Tennessee
Whipp, A. A., P. 0. Box 7067, Orlando, Florida
Whitcomb, W. H., Dept. of Ent., Univ. of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas
Whitmore, T. E., 2820 21st St., W., Bradenton, Florida
Wilson, Dwight R., P. O. Box 6026, West Palm Beach, Florida
*Wilson, John W., Central Florida Experiment Station, Sanford, Florida
Wilson, W. P., P. O. Box 392, Winter Haven, Florida
Witherington, C. G., P. O. Box 308, Vero Beach, Florida
Witman, Mark A., Stuart, Florida
*Wolfenbarger, D. O., Route 1, Box 560, Homestead, Florida
Wood, J. R., 404 Calumet Building, Miami, Florida
Woodman, W. J., P. O. Box 129, Orlando, Florida
Woodruff, R. E., State Plant Board, Seagle Bldg., Gainesville, Florida
Woofter, H. D., 1179 N. Druid Hills Circle, Decatur, Georgia
Workman, Ralph B., Potato Investigations Lab., Hastings, Florida


188 The Florida Entomologist Vol. 42, No. 4

Wright, J. D., 1109 Pine Hills Road, Orlando, Florida
Wright, M. L., P. O. Box 1413, Winter Haven, Florida

Yasumatsu, Keizo, Univ. of Kuyshu, Fukuoka, Japan
Young, Frank N., Dept. of Zoology, Indiana Univ., Bloomington, Indiana
Young, H. C., U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Florala, Alabama
Young, T. Roy, Jr., 2001 W. Platt St., Tampa 6, Florida
t*Yothers, W. W., 457 Boone Street, Orlando, Florida

Zeigler, L. W., McCarty Hall, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
Zimmerman, W. E., P. 0. Box 129, Orlando, Florida
Zipperer, P. M., 4434 N.W. 13th Street, Gainesville, Florida


Director, Acarology Investigations, Ministry of Agriculture,
Dokki, Egypt, U. A. R.

On August 25, 1959, during my visit to the Sub-tropical Experimental
Station, University of Florida, Homestead, it was noticed that one mango
tree of the grove did not seem to be attaining its normal size. The terminal
buds were dark brown, the terminal leaves of some branches were defoli-
ated, and some of the new leaves were deformed. Buds were examined
under a dissecting microscope and the eriophyid mite, Aceria mangiferae
Sayed, was found beneath the scales.
On August 26, 1959, the mite was also found in the buds of a tree of the
U. S. Department of Agriculture Plant Introduction Garden at Miami.
The tree was normal in size, but some of the terminal buds were dark brown
and had lateral buds growing around them.
Aceria mangiferae was considered in Egypt to cause severe malforma-
tion in the vegetative and the floral growth. These symptoms have spread
widely during the last few years and diseased, young trees failed to attain
normal size and growth. Experiments were carried on to control the mite;
Systox, 50 per cent at the rate of 75 cc/100 liters water at 15 or 21 day
intervals during the period of vegetative and floral growth resulted in good
control of the mite, but symptoms did not stop. It was suspected that the
symptoms were due to a virus which might be transmitted by the mite.
Experiments are now being carried on in Egypt in that connection.
On August 27, 1959, in a small garden at South Miami, deformations
of the leaves, especially on the new twigs, of some orange trees were no-
ticed. Buds were examined and the citrus bud mite, Aceria sheldoni
(Ewing) was found inside. The trees were also infested by the rust mite
Phyllocoptruta oleivorus (Ashmead).
Preparations of the two mites, Aceria mangiferae Sayed, and Aceria
sheldoni (Ewing) were deposited at the U. S. National Museum.


Attiah, H. H. 1955. A new eriophyid mite on mango from Egypt. Bull.
Soc. Ent. Egypte. 39: 379-383.
Hassan, A. S. 1944. Notes on Eriophyes mangiferae S. N. Bull. Soc.
Fouad ler Ent. Egypte. 28: 179-180.
Sayed, M. T. 1946. Aceria mangiferae nov. spec. Bull. Soc. Fouad' ler
Ent. Egypte. 30: 7-10.
Keifer, H. H. 1952. The eriophyid mites of California. Bull. Calif. Insect
Survey, 2(1): 33, pls. 9-28.


Dr. John T. Creighton announces the recent addition to the Graduate
Faculty of the Department of Entomology, University of Florida, of Lewis
Berner, Roland F. Hussey, and Minter J. Westfall, all members of C-6,
Biological Sciences, staff.

The present composition of the Graduate Faculty of this Department is:

Blanton, Franklin S. (Ph.D., Cornell University)
Berner, Lewis (Ph.D., University of Florida)
Christie, Jesse Roy (Ph.D., George Washington University)
Creighton, John Thomas (Ph.D., Ohio State University)
Hetrick, Lawrence Andrew (Ph.D., Ohio State University)
Hussey, Roland F. (Sc.D., Harvard University)
Kuitert, Louis Cornelius (Ph.D., University of Kansas)
Muma, Martin Hammone (Ph.D., University of Maryland)
Murphey, Milledge (Ph.D., Oklahoma A. & M. College)
Perry, Vernon G. (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin)
Smith, William Ward (Ph.D., Tulane University)
Simanton, William Aldrich (Ph.D., Iowa State College)
Tissot, Archie Newton (Ph.D., Ohio State University)
Walker, Thomas J. (Ph.D., Ohio State University)
Westfall, Minter J., Jr. (Ph.D., Cornell University)
Wilson, John Wallace (Sc.D., Harvard University).

I wish to take this means to publicly express my personal appreciation
to every member of the Society who contributed to the highly successful
42nd Annual Meeting in Miami. I particularly want to thank the other
officers and the members of the committees who carried out their tasks so
Retiring President.

Mr. William P. Hunter has moved from the Gainesville Branch of Kil-
gore Seed Company and is now associated with their General Offices and
Laboratory in Plant City, Florida.

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs