The sugar-cane insects of Hawaii

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The sugar-cane insects of Hawaii
Physical Description:
Unknown
Creator:
Van Dine, D. L ( Delos Lewis ), 1878-
Publisher:
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology ( Washington, D.C )
Publication Date:

Record Information

Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 029690676
oclc - 11315609
System ID:
AA00018963:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

Rolm
MOW Vic






A, W" Nt "k A ;A




SIMAXA,


7 T



1'. 0-1 A
1'e A I
Awig



yy jA
11Z:."_ _41

4E
.4
jr h:xn
ASK
4
On w",ly J oil





A -its




-AX ILI
75%





4T_
so

A


jt -

At
I.
Al

All I p
R 14






















7' A.- Or A
4



rr, -A.
57'







m "I
_46
r qq-















tk



Novi 9
A
4, act


dy Pe,


Al





4


wi:
K;t t -





sty,





j%,
Wtoe
le t' A
4p, 4
i X

'WA








or


Icw-
A
lit

NL
IT
r TO


re It
T'N






Or-
40L
51



'N 04

$-w
it 1
4r


54, t

IX !!Twk*












MAP
OF THE
HAWAIIAN ISLANDS


4<


KAE


-I-









U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
BUREAU OF ENTOMOLOGY- BULLETIN No. 93.
L. 0. HOWARD, Entomologist and Chief of Bureau.





THE SUGAR-CANE INSECTS OF HAWAII.







BY

D. L. VAN DINE,
Special Field Agent.


ISSUED JUNE 15, 1911.


WASHINGTON:
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:
1911.





















B UREA U OF ENTOMOLOGY.

L. 0. HOWARD, Entomologist and Chief of Bureau.
C. L. MARLATT, Entomologist and Acting Chief in Absence of Chief.
R. S. CLIFTON, Executive Assistant.
W. F. TASTET, Chief Clerk.
F. H. CHITENDEN, in charge of truck crop and stored product insect. investigations.
A. D. HOPKINS, in charge of forest insect investigations.
W. D. HUNTER, in charge of southern field crop insect investigations.
F. M. WEBSTER, in charge of cereal and forage insect investigations.
A. L. QUAINTANCE, in charge of deciduous fruit insect investigations.
E. F. PHILLIPS, in charge of bee culture.
D. M. ROGERS, in charge of preventing spread of moths, field work.
ROLLA P. CURRIE, in charge of editorial work.
MABEL COLCORD, librarian.
SOUTHERN FIELD CROP INSECT INVESTIGATIONS.
WV. D. HUNTER, in charge.
W. D. PIERCE, J. D. MITCHELL, E. S. TUCKER, T. E. HOLLOWAY, G. D. SxITH, E. A.
MCGREGOR, HARRY PINKUS, W. A. THOMAS, THOMAS LUCAS, engaged in cotton-boll
u ec vil' investigations.
F. C. BISHOPP, W. V. KING, H. P. WOOD, G. N. WALCOrI', engagedin tick investigations.
A. C. MORGAN, G. A. RUNNER, S. E. CRUMB, engaged in tobacco insect investigations.
T. C. BARBER, C. E. HOOD, engaged in sugar cane and rice insect investigations.
F. C. PRATT, engaged in cactus insect investigations.
D. L. VAN DINE, WILMON NEWELL, R. A. COOLEY, A. F. ConmDI C. C. KRUMBHAAz,
collaborators.




















LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
BUREAU OF ENTOMOLOGY,
Washington, D. C., December 22, 1910.
SmI: I have the honor to transmit herewith for publication a manu-
script entitled "The Sugar-Cane Insects of Hawaii," by Mr. D. L.
Van Dine, recently a special agent of this Bureau, and for several
years entomologist of the Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station.
The manuscript includes a discussion of the present status of the
sugar industry of the Hawaiian Islands and treats of the principal
insect enemies to this important industry, which is rapidly assuming
large proportions in our Southern States owing to the increased
acreage which is being planted to cane. I would recommend its
publication as Bulletin No. 93 of the Bureau of Entomology.
Respectfully,
L. 0. HOWARD,
Chief of Bureau.
Hon. JAMES WILSON,
Secretary of Agriculture.















































































































Ai*/*

















PREFACE.


The acreage devoted to sugar-cane culture in the southern United
States has increased rapidly in recent years. Some of the cotton
lands, abandoned because of the depredations of the cotton boll
weevil, are being planted to cane.0 New lands are being planted to
the crop in the Rio Grande valley and in the reclaimed areas in the
lower Mississippi valley. It is stated that quite an area of land
in process of reclamation in the State of Florida will be planted to
sugar cane. It is desirable that the experience obtained through
investigations of insects injurious to sugar cane in the Hawaiian
Islands be placed at the disposal of the planters in our Southern
States in order that the sugar industry in those States may receive
practical benefit therefrom.
The Hawaiian planters are well provided with expert advice and
have at hand numerous reports dealing with the subject, which latter,
unfortunately, are not available for general distribution. This report
is written primarily, therefore, for the information of our mainland
planters.
Acknowledgment should be made of the courtesies extended to
the writer by the members of the entomological staff of the Hawaiian
Sugar Planters' -Association Experiment Station during his return
visit to the Hawaiian Islands in March and April, 1909.
D. L. VAN DINE.












































































































I... 7










ii-











C 0 N T E N TS.


Location and climate of the Hawaiian Islands .....................
The sugar industry in Hawaii.....................................
Sugar-cane insects ...----.............................................---
The sugar-cane leafhopper (Perkinsiella saccharicida Kirk.).....-
D distribution ............................................
Appearance of the leafhopper in Hawaiian cane fields......
Description of the leafhopper........ ......................
Dispersion of the leafhopper ................ ------------..............---
Life history and habits ..................................
Symptoms of leafhopper injury............................
Character of injury to the cane............................
Extent of injury........................................
Factors responsible for the outbreak of 1903...............
The leafhopper and beekeeping..........................
Control of the leafhopper..................................
Direct measures....................................
Insecticides.........-.....................---------...
Collection by nets..............................


Cutting and burning in the infested centers...
Stripping the leaves....................
Burning of trash after harvesting..............
Indirect measures....-...........-........--....
Selection of varieties of cane for planting......
Cultural methods on the plantation...........
Diversification of crops...... .................
Control of the rind disease of sugar cane......
Natural enemies......................................


Species already present in the Hawaiian Islands-.................
Special introductions...........................................
Related species ................................ ..............
The Hawaiian sugar-cane borer ([Sphenophorus] Rhabdocnemis obscurus
B oisd.) ..............................................................
General characteristics............................................
Distribution...........--- ........................................
Occurrence in Hawaii .............................................
Life history and habits .............................................
Control measures .....................................................
Selection of varieties for planting................................
Irrigation .....................................................
Burning of trash......-- ......-----.. ..-.. -....................
Selection of noninfested seed cane...............................
Picking and baiting...........................................
Related species ................. ........ ............................
The Hawaiian sugar-cane leaf-roller (Omiodes accept Butl.)..............
Early history in the Hawaiian Islands.............................
Control measures..................................................
Parasites. -.--------------- -------- ------- ---- -
7


Page.
9
9
11
12
12
12
13
14
15
17
.18
19
20
20
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
23
25
26
26
28
28
29
34

35
35
36
36
37
39
39
39
39
39
39
40
41
41
41
41






Z5 THE SUGAR-CANE INSECTS OF HAWAII.

Sugar-cane insects-Continued. Page.
The sugar-cane mealy-bug (Pseudococcus calceolaria Mask.) ............... 43
Identity .......................................................... 43
Related species ................................................... 43
Food plants- ......................................................... 43
Life history and habits ............. ................................ 44
Control......................................................-------------------------------------------------.... 44
Selection of seed cane ....---------.....-----------------------------.... 44
Burning of the trash .......................................... 44
Natural enemies .................................................. 45
Miscellaneous insects affecting sugar cane in Hawaii --------............ 45
Rats injuring growing sugar cane in Hawaii ................................. 47
Index ---...-..-............................................................. 49



ILLUSTRATIONS.


PLATES.
Page.
PLATE I. Map of the Hawaiian Islands .............................. Frontispiece.
II. The sugar-cane leafhopper (Perkinsiella saccharicida). Fig. 1.-Egg
chambers in midrib of cane leaf, slightly enlarged. Fig. 2.-Eggs,
greatly enlarged. Fig. 3.-First-stage nymph. Fig. 4.-Second-
stage nymph. Fig. 5.-Third-stage nymph. Fig. 6.-Fourth-
stage nymph. Fig. 7.-Adult male ............................ 16
III. The Hawaiian sugar-cane leaf-roller (Omiodes accepta. Fig. 1.-
Adult moth. Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5.-Larvae and details. Fig. 6.-Pupa
and details. Fig. 7.-Apex of cremaster, showing the curled
spines by which the pupa is fastened to the cocoon. Fig. 8.-
Cluster of 4 eggs in groove on surface of leaf. Fig. 9.-Eggs more
highly enlarged. Fig. 10.-Leaf spun together for "retreat" or
hiding place of caterpillar; shows where caterpillar has eaten.
Fig. 11.-Leaf, showing spots where a very young caterpillar has
eaten, leaving one epidermis intact, instead of eating holes
through the leaf ............................................... 42
IV. The sugar-cane mealy bug (Pseudococcus calceolarix). Fig. 1.-
Adult mealy-bugs clustered about the base of young cane. Fig.
2.-Adult female, twice natural size. Fig. 3.-A single adult
female, with white mealy-like covering. Fig. 4.-Cocoons of male
m ealy-bug ..................................................... 44
TEXT FIGURES.

Fig. 1. The sugar-cane leafhopper (Per:insiella saccharicida): Adult female,
much enlarged; ovipositor, greatly enlarged----........-----.-------------- 17
2. An apiary near a sugar-cane field .................................... 21
3. Yellow Caledonia sugar cane, a variety which is replacing Lahaina and
Rose Bamboo in the Hawaiian Islands............................. ---------------------------24
4. The Hawaiian sugar-cane borer ([Sphenophorus] Rhabdocnemis obscurus):
Eggs, larvae, pupa, cocoon, adult................................... --------------------------------35
5. The Hawaiian sugar-cane borer: Work in sugar cane-----.........------------- 38













THE SUGAR-CANE INSECTS OF HAWAII.


LOCATION AND CLIMATE OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.

The mid-Pacific Territory of Hawaii (see Plate I) is situated 2,100
miles to the southwest from San Francisco, the California coast
being the nearest continental area. The islands are separated by
channels varying from 20 to 58 miles in width. The 8 inhabit-
able islands, Hawaii, Maui, Oahu, Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, Kahoolawe,
and Niihau, lie between 18 54' and 22 15' north latitude; that is,
the northern limit of the islands is just within the Tropics. The
climate of the entire group is, however, only subtropical, due largely
to the prevailing northeasterly trade winds, the cool ocean currents
from the north, and the relatively low humidity. The temperature
varies according to the altitude and the location of the land as
regards the higher mountains. The formation of the islands is of
recent volcanic nature, with the exception of the low-lying coastal
plains, which are of coral origin.
The annual maximum temperature ranges from 88 to 90 F.,
while the annual minimum temperature recorded ranges from 52 to
58 F. A temperature of 29 F. has been recorded at an altitude of
6,685 feet, and freezing temperatures are of frequent occurrence at
these high altitudes. The rainfall varies in amount with the locality.
Places within a few miles of each other are known to differ more than
100 inches in average annual rainfall. The sides of the islands
exposed to the northeast trade winds have abundant rains, while the
opposite sides have little and some localities hardly any.
The soils of the islands are exceedingly fertile and when properly
cultivated yield abundant crops:
THE SUGAR INDUSTRY IN HAWAII.

The production of sugar is the leading industry in the Hawaiian
Islands. Sugar cane is grown on four of the islands. The island of
Hawaii has the largest acreage devoted to cane, Oahu, Maui, and
Kauai coming next in importance in the order named. There are
more than 200,000 acres planted to cane in the islands. In 1908
521,000 tons of raw sugar were produced, having a value of more
than $40,000,000. The average yield of sugar per acre is 4- tons.
83327-Bull. 93-11-2 9





10 THE SUGAR-CANE INSECTS OF HAWAII.

The plant crop is taken off 20 to 22 months from the time of plant-
ing, and the first ratoon or stubble is harvested 18 to 20 months
later. The second ratoon usually goes 18 months again before
it is ground. Sometimes a "short ratoon" crop is made, in which
case the cane runs about 14 months. The time given for growth
depends on the maturity of the cane, which in turn is governed by
the location and altitude of the land. To some extent also the time
of harvest is governed by the labor supply, factory conveniences for
taking off and grinding the crop, and the need of land for planting.
The sugar industry in Hawaii was placed on a basis to insure its
becoming the leading industry by the reciprocity treaty of 1876
between the United States and the Hawaiian Government, the latter
at that time being an independent monarchy. The effect of this
treaty in removing the duty on raw sugar exported to the United
States was to increase American influence in the islands and to
strengthen the commercial relations between the two countries. A
second great factor in the development of the sugar industry, was the
annexation of the islands as a Territory of the United States by an
act of Congress passed July 7, 1898, by mutual agreement between
the two countries, Hawaii at that time having overthrown the mon-
archy and become a republic. Annexation insured a free and pro-
tected market to the sugar output of the islands and gave confidence
for the investment of capital. This is of prime importance, as the
production of sugar in the islands is on a corporation basis and any
disturbance in the market is felt at once by every plantation in the
Territory.
Fundamental factors that have attended the development of the
sugar industry are the equable climate of the islands, the natural
productiveness of the soil, the resources of water for irrigation pur-
poses, and the immunity from the more serious depredations by
insects and diseases that retard the development of agricultural
resources in less fortunate parts of the world. Further, there is to
be found in Hawaii a class of progressive business men who have
developed immense irrigation schemes, made use of the most modern
agricultural and factory machinery, inaugurated advanced methods
of cultivation, fertilization, and irrigation, and united their interests
in a cooperative association.
This organization, the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association, has,
since April, 1895, maintained a private experiment station, where
important researches have been made and valuable results obtained.
The work has applied to varieties and seedlings, propagation, culti-
vation, irrigation, the use of fertilizers, and the manufacture of
sugar. These investigations, together with the perfection of factory
methods and field machinery, have brought the sugar industry of
the islands to the high standard it holds among the sugar-producing
countries of the world.





THE SUGAR-CANE LEAFHOPPER.


SUGAR-CANE INSECTS.

The advent of a serious pest into the Hawaiian sugar-cane fields,
the sugar-cane leafhopper (Perkinsiella saccharicida Kirk.), between
1900 and 1902 and the widespread injury of this insect throughout
the sugar-cane districts in 1903 led to the establishment of an ento-
mological division in the Sugar Planters' Experiment Station in
September, 1904. In this division detailed studies have been made
of the species of insects occurring in the Hawaiian cane fields, the
investigations relating particularly to the leafhopper and its natural
enemies.
Koebele a has earlier discussed the sugar-cane insects. Up to the
time of the leafhopper invasion the sugar-cane borer ([Sphenophorus]
Rhabdocnemis obscurus Boisd.) was the most injurious species. The
sugar-cane aphis (Aphis sacchari Zelmntner), the sugar-cane mealy-bug
(Pseudococcus calceolariae Maskell), the leaf-roller (Omiodes accept
Butler), cutworms, and certain other pests occurred locally, but up
to this time no detailed study of their injury had been made.
An insect enemy of sugar cane has exceptional advantages for
development in the Hawaiian Islands. Approximately only one-
half the total area is harvested at any one time. Thus the great
extent of the plant gives an abundant supply of food, while the system
of cropping provides a continuous supply. These conditions,
together with the even climate, favor the uninterrupted breeding
of any enemy of the plant. A further factor in the undue increase
of the cane-feeding insects is the impetus to development arising
From the absence of the special parasitic and predaceous enemies
of the plant-feeding species. The absence of natural enemies is
understood when it is known that the islands are isolated from all
continental areas and that the economic plants are introduced forms
for which the native flora has made way, carrying with it the endemic
species of insects, while the insect enemies of a cultivated plant are
of foreign origin, introduced into the islands with their host plant
but without their natural enemies. These very facts, together with
the almost total absence of secondary parasites as a group and the
opportunity of eliminating them when introductions are made,
furnish ideal conditions for the introduction and establishment of
special parasitic insects. The greatest factor in the successful
establishment of a special parasite is the absence -of the secondary
parasites of which it is the host. One can understand why emphasis
has been placed on the use of natural enemies in the control of
injurious species in Hawaii and why also greater success has been
*
a Hawaiian Planters' Monthly, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 590-598, December, 1896; vol.
17, nos. 5 and 6, pp. 208-219 and 258-269, May and June, 1898; vol. 18, no. 12, pp.
576-578, December, 1899; vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 519-524, November, 1900.


11





THE SUGAR-CANE INSECTS OF HAWAII.


attained in Hawaii than in continental regions where investigations
of this character are under way. From the above remarks it is
apparent that the entomologists of the Hawaiian Sugar Planters'
Experiment Station are justified in placing emphasis on this phase
of insect control. Indeed, their work has been almost entirely
along this line.

THE SUGAPR-CANE LEAFHOPPER.

(Perkinsiella saccharicida Kirk.)

DISTRIBUTION.

The Hawaiian sugar-cane leafhopper (Perkcinsiella saccharicida
Kirkaldy) was introduced into the islands some time prior to 1900
from Queensland, Australia. The species occurs throughout the.
sugar-cane areas both in Australia and in Hawaii and has been
recorded from Java."

APPEARANCE OF THE LEAFHOPPER IN HAWAIIAN CANE FIELDS.

The first appearance of the leafhopper in Hawaii is recorded
by Mr. Albert Koebele in January, 1902. Koebele notes the species
under the heading "Leafhopper (Fulgoridae)," the species at that
time not having been described. Regarding its appearance Mr.
Koebele says:
According to Mr. Clark a small homopterous insect appeared upon the sugar cane
at the experimental station sdme twelve months since, affecting the Demerara and
Rose Bamboo plants. Its presence is easily seen by the black and dirty appearance
of the leaves and more or less red midribs.
The insect lives in company with its larva in large numbers behind leaf sheaths,
which it punctures to imbibe the sap of the plant. When mature it is exceedingly
active in its habits, springing with suddenness from its resting place at the least dis-
turbance. The eggs are oviposited into the midrib over a large extent, most numerous
near the base, in groups of about from four to seven, and large quantities are often
present in a single leaf. The surroundings of the sting become red and in advanced
stages the whole of the midrib becomes more or less of this color and brownish red.
That the species caused little alarm at this time is indicated by
Mr. Koebele's further statement in this same article. He says:
Should this insect become numerous on any plantation, they could be kept in
check by careful and repeated stripping and burning, immediately after, of the leaves
containing the eggs. I do not anticipate any serious results from the above insect,
which may have been present upon the island for many years.
In May, 1902, Dr. R. C. L. Perkins under the title "Leafhoppers
(Fulgoridae)," in a report to Mr. C. F. Eckart, director of the Hawaiian
a KIRKALDY, G. W.-A note on certain widely distributed leafhoppers. vol. 26, no. 659, p. 216, 1907.
b KOEBELE, A.-Report of the committee on diseases of cane. Monthly, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 20-26, January, 1902.


12






THE SUGAR-CANE LEAFHOPPER.


Sugar Planters' Experiment Station, mentions the doubtful origin
and identity of the species. a Doctor Perkins again records the insect
under the heading "The leaf-hopper of the cane" in December of
the same year and says: "This small insect is highly injurious to
cane and its destructiveness threatens to exceed that of the cane
borer beetle." b
In response to repeated requests made to the department the
writer was detailed early in May, 1903, to make a report on the
pest. On May 11, 1903, specimens were forwarded by the writer
to Dr. L. 0. Howard, Chief of the Bureau of Entomology, Wash-
ington, D. C. Under date of June 1, 1903, Doctor Howard replied
that the species was new to science and that there was in press a
description of the insect under the name Perlkinsiella saccharicida
by Mr. G. W. Kirkaldy of the British Museum.

DESCRIPTION OP THE LEAFHOPPER.

The species was described by Mr. G. W. Kirkaldy in 1903 and rep-
resents a new genus which was named after Dr. R. C. L. Perkins.
The description of the genus and species is taken from Mr. Kirkaldy's
article in The Entomologist, London, for July, 1903, pages 179-180,
and is as follows:
Perkinsiella, gen. nov.
Closely allied to Armopus Spinola, but distinguished by the first segment of the
antenna being distinctly shorter than the second; distinguished from Dicranotropis
Fieber, to which it bears some resemblance, by the form of the frons, and by the
flattened apically dilated first segment of theantenne. Type, P. saccharicida Kirkaldy.
Second segment of antennal peduncle about one-half longer than the first; flagel-
lum about one-third longer than the entire peduncle, first peduncular segment much
wider at apex than basally, flattened and explanate; second segment nearly as wide
at base as the apex of the first segment [in Araopus it is much narrower, while the first
segment is more parallel-sided]. Exterior longitudinal nervure of corium forked near
the base, and its exterior branch forked near its middle; interior longitudinal nervure
forked near the apex. Membrane with six nervures, the fourth (commencing inwardly)
forked; the first area has an incomplete nervure reaching only to the middle. Other
characters as in Araeopus.
P. saccharicida, sp. nov.
Long-winged form 9 .-Tegmina elongate, narrow, extending far beyond apex of
abdomen, interior half of clavus and corium more or less faintly smoky, a long dark
smoky stripe on middle of membrane, three or four of nervures of the latter smoky at
apex.
Short-winged form, 9 .-Tegmina reaching only to base of fifth segment, costa more
arched, apex more rounded, neuration similar but shortened. Tegmina hyaline,
colourless; nervures pale testaceous brownish, with blackish brown non-piligerous
dots (in both forms).
a ECKART, C. F.-Precautions to be observed with regard to cane importations.
b PERKINS, R. C. L.-Notes on the insects injurious to cane in the Hawaiian Islands.


13





14 THE SUGAR-CANE INSECTS OF HAWAII.
j. Pallid yellowish testaceous. Abdomen above and beneath black, apical miak-
gins and laterally more or less widely pallid. Apical half of first segment and carinate
edges of second segment of antennae, flagellum, basal half of frons (except the pustules)
and a cloudy transverse band near the apical margin of the same, longitudinal stripes
on femora, coxae spotted or banded near the base, a large spot on each pleuron, anterior
and intermediate tibiae with two or three annulations, apical segment of tarsi, etc.,
blackish or brownish. First genital segment large, deeply acute-angularly emarginate
above.
9. Like the male, but abdomen aboveand beneath stramineous, irregularly speckled
with brownish. Ovipositor, etc., blackish. Sheath not extending apically so far as
the "scheidenpolster." Long. 94 4 mill.; to apex of elytra in long-winged form,
6- mill.

DISPERSION OF THE LEAFHOPPER.

The spread of the insect over the cane districts of the Hawaiian
Islands was apparently very rapid, although it had undoubtedly
occurred in the fields unnoticed by the planters for several years. By
February, 1903, the species became generally abundant throughout
the cane fields of the entire Hawaiian Territory.
The main factor in-the distribution of the pest is the habit of the
female of depositing her eggs beneath the epidermis of the internodes
of the cane stalk. It seems probable that the pest was introduced
into the islands and to a great extent distributed over the cane
districts in seed cane. In local distribution other factors present
themselves. The leafhopper is an insect readily attracted by light
at night, as its presence about lamps in the factories and homes on
the plantations testifies. Passengers and steamship officers of the
interisland steamers have frequently stated to the writer on inquiry
that in many instances, especially at night, great numbers of the
insects have come aboard in certain ports or when offshore from
certain plantation districts. These adults have undoubtedly traveled
in this -manner from one locality to another so that an uninfested dis-
trict might easily have become infested by adults flying ashore from a
passing steamer previously infested while stopping it or passing by
an infested locality. Railway trains have been equally active in the
spread of the insect on land.
Another mode of distribution, during the general outbreak of 1903,
under conditions of heavy infestation, was the migration of the pest
from one locality to another during the daytime. These migrations
were observed by many of the planters. The manager of one planta-
tion in the Hamakua district of the island of Hawaii stated to the
writer that in the early evening of April 26, 1903, the atmosphere was
"thick with hoppers" for a distance of 2 miles and that the "hop-
pers" were traveling with the prevailing wind, about southwest.
Similar migrations, described by the observers as "clouds," were
mentioned by other managers.


HiiiJ
": ii
.a .I
1.. i.





THE SUGAR-CANE LEAFHOPPER.


LIFE HISTORY AND HABITS.

The writer spent tw6 months in the cane fields during the outbreak
and in the early part of July, 1903, presented a report to the Hawaiian
Sugar Planters' Association on the occurrence and injury of the
species. Later an account of these investigations was published,
from which a part of the information on the leafhopper presented
herewith is taken.a
"'Leafhopper" is a popular term applied to a certain group of
plant-feeding insects of the order Hemiptera. The family Fulgo-
ride, to which the Hawaiian sugar-cane leafhopper belongs, is
included in this group. Common characteristics of these insects
axe their peculiar habit of springing or jumping when disturbed;
their feeding upon plants by sucking from the tissue the plant juice
or sap through a beak or proboscis, a piercing organ by means of
which they puncture the epidermal layer of the plant; their incom-
plete development (that is, the young upon hatching from the eggs
resembles the adult, except that it is smaller in size, wingless, and
sexually immature and by a gradual process of development acquires
the characteristics of the adult); and the fact that their eggs are
deposited in the same plant upon which the young and adult appear
and feed.
The eggs of the sugar-cane leafhopper (Plate II, figs. 1, 2) are
deposited beneath the epidermis of the cane plant in situations
along the midrib of the leaves, in the internodes of the stalk, or, in
the case of young unstripped cane, in the leaf sheath of the lower
leaves. When deposited in the leaves, the eggs are inserted from
either side, but usually from the inside, the greater number being
in the larger portion of the midrib down toward the leaf sheath.
The place of incision is indicated at first by a whitish spot, this being a
waxy covering over the opening. The female accomplishes the process
of oviposition by puncturing the leaf or stem with her ovipositor,
which organ (fig. 1, b) is plainly visible on the lower side of the abdo-
men, attached to the body at the center behind the last pair of legs
and extending backward along the median line of the abdomen,
reaching nearly to the end. By the aid of this structure the female
pierces the epidermis of the cane stalk and through the one opening
forms a cavity or chamber to receive the eggs. The number of
eggs deposited in each cavity varies, the writer finding the average
to be between four and six. That a single female is responsible for
many of these clusters has been verified by the writer by observation.
As the growth of the cane continues and the new leaves unfold
toward the top of the plant, the infested leaves naturally occupy
a VAN DINE, D. L.-A sugar-cane leaf-hopper in Hawaii, Perkinsiella saccharicida.


15





16 THE SUGAR-CANE INSECTS OF HAWAII.

the lower position on the stalk. The leafhopper, during a heavy
infestation, will continue to puncture the midribs of the leaves as
rapidly as the leaves unfold. The older egg chambers of the lower
leaves are distinguished from the newly formed chambers of the
upper leaves by a reddish discoloration.
Under laboratory conditions the writer found that the eggs
deposited in cane growing in rearing cages hatched two weeks there-
after. The period of development of the young to the adult required
34 additional days, making the life cycle 48 days in length.
The length of the egg stage, under certain conditions, is much
longer than the time given above. Mr. C. F. Eckart, director of
the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Experiment Station, records that hatch-
ing continued for 38 days from cane cuttings infested with eggs of
the leafhopper.a
The fact that the eggs will hatch from cane cuttings during a
period of at least 38 days is a very important point to bear in mind
in the shipping of infested cane from one locality or country to
another. Since practically the only means by which the Hawaiian
leafhopper could be introduced into the cane fields of the Southern
States is by the shipment of seed cane from New South Wales,
Queensland, Java, or Hawaii to this country, the writer would
emphasize the necessity of having all introductions made through
officials engaged in sugar-cane investigations.
On issuing from the cavity, or chamber, the young, newly hatched
leafhoppers appear at first small, slim, wingless nymphs, almost
transparent. During the process of hatching or emerging from
the egg chamber the insects slowly work their way head first to the
surface of the leaf or stalk. The writer found, by timing the opera-
tion, that from 8 to 15 minutes were required, during which time
the nymphs rest occasionally to unfold and dry their legs. When
they become detached from their egg-cases and have emerged to
the surface, they are at once active and scatter over the plant to
feed, congregating at first down within the sheaths of the upper
leaves. In a few hours the body becomes shortened and the outer
covering, on exposure to the air, becomes darker in color. The habit
of the very young in secluding themselves within the lower sheaths
of the leaves renders them quite inconspicuous unless especially
sought for. They may become very abundant and still remain unde-
tected by an ordinary observer until the result of their feeding
becomes apparent. (See nymphs, Plate II, figs. 3-6.)
Ordinarily when disturbed the adult leafhopper does not fly but
moves off in an odd, sidewise fashion to another part of the leaf, or
springs suddenly to another portion of the plant. (See adults,
Plate II, fig. 7, and text fig. 1.)
a ECKART, C. F.-Report of the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association Experiment
Station for 1903, Honolulu, 1904, pp. 78-79.


7.4
... 1

.I!
J,,:,,:









Sul. 93, Bureau of Entomology, U. S. Dept of Agriculture.





X x27-


Q Xl3


-11

F

I::


~I.
~jq;:.


PLATE II.





4x 27*


(B x 13


THE SUGAR-CANE LEAFHOPPER (PERKINSIELLA SACCHARICIDA).
Fig. 1.-Egg chambers in midrib of cane leaf, slightly enlarged. Fig. 2.-Eggs, greatly enlarged.
Fig. 3.-First-stage nymph. Fig. 4.--Second-stagenymph. Fig. 5.-Third-stagenymph. Fig.6.-
Fourth-stage nymph. Fig. 7.-Adult male. (After Kirkaldy.)







THE SUGAR-CANE LEAFHOPPER.


SSYMPTOMS OF LEAFHOPPER INJURY.
4* .*The presence of the pest on the plantations was noticed first by
the appearance of a sooty black covering on the lower leaves of the
.::=e plant. This black covering became known as smut. It is a
ur ungous growth and finds a medium for development in the trans-
p1arent, sticky fluid secreted by the leafhoppers during their feeding
on the plant. This secretion is commonly known as honeydew.
The black smut or fungous growth in the honeydew secretion of
the leafhopper and the red discoloration about the openings to the
egg chambers in the midribs of the leaves are the most pronounced
symptoms of'the work of the
leafhopper on cane.
SIn the case of heavy infesta- ".
tion a further result is the -
appearance of the plant as a
whole. The leaves on which the
insects have been feeding de-
velop a yellowish appearance,
and as the work of the insects
progresses they become dried
and resemble the fully matured
,lower leaves of the plant. This
premature death of the leaves
is due to the excessive amount
of juice extracted for food. As
long as the cane plant is able to
produce new leaves its life is
not actually in danger, the in-
jury being a check to the growth I
and indicated by the small,
shortened joints in the stalk. FIG. I.-The sugar-cane leafhopper (Perkinsiella sac-
Leaves thus prematurely rip- charicida): a, Adult female, much enlarged; b,
ended do not drop away from ovipositor, greatly enlarged. (After Kirkaldy.)
the stalk at the junction of the sheath, as is the case under normal
conditions, but break and hang down at the junction of the leaf to
the sheath, leaving the sheath still wrapped about the stalk. Leaves
in such a condition remain green for some time, attached to the
sheath by the midrib, and an attempt to strip the cane results in
leaving the sheaths still adhering to the stalk and wrapped about it.
In the last stages of an attack, when the plant is actually overcome
by the pest, the young unfolded leaves at the top do not appear
to have the vitality to unfold and the "bud" gradually dies out. At
this stage the normal growth of the plant ceases. Many plants in
833270-Bull. 93-11---3


17




XJ.LBV bUUAJn-UANDJ1 IJ.NbfJULb UJVd flAWAI.1,


such a condition will then throw out sprouts from the eyes. Til
a serious circumstance, since the growth of the sprouts is supportedi.!
by the stalk, and unless the cane is soon cut and ground the stalk i..
rendered worthless.
CHARACTER OF INJURY TO THE CANE.
The first injury to the cane plant by the leafhopper occurs through:: :-..:
the piercing of the epidermal layer by the ovipositor (fig. 1, b) of the
female and the later rupturing of the tissue of the plant on the hatch- : >|j
ing of the young. This injury to the tissue in itself is not serious, :
but the many openings in the leaves and stalks allow excessive a
evaporation to occur. Through these wounds various diseases may |
also gain entrance to the tissues of the plant, carried thereto by the .
leafhoppers themselves in flying from infested to noninfested plants, '
or by other insects, particularly certain flies, which frequent the
cane plant. *.|
The most serious injury to the plant is the drain upon its vitality '
caused by the young leafhoppers in feeding. The structure of the
mouth parts of the leafhopper has been mentioned; that is, a piercing :
organ, which is inserted through the outer covering of the tissue, by ,
means of which the insect sucks the juice or sap from within. The;!
amount extracted in this manner by any particular individual is small .,
and of little consequence, but the result of a myriad of individuals work- .
ing constantly in this manner upon a plant is readily conceived to be
serious in its consequences. The leafhopper in feeding upon the
cane plant extracts therefrom an amount of juice greatly in excess
of its own needs for development. This excess is excreted from the 'Ji
body of the insect upon the cane plant in the form of a sweet, sticky !
substance, known as honeydew. It is in this substance that the .... I
black smut develops.
The sooty covering or smut of the leaves referred to is a super- .;
ficial fungus which bears a close resemblance to the fungi of the genus 2
Sphaeronema. The writer was informed by Dr. A. F. Woods, at that
time Pathologist of the United States Department of Agriculture,
that this fungus may be responsible for the dying back of canes 2
which followed heavy leafhopper infestation. It is believed, how- .P
ever, that in the cane the smut affects the plant only by preventing .
the assimilation of the elements taken up by the plant from the soil :|,
as food, in cutting off the rays of direct sunlight, and also in closing .., !...
the stomata of the leaves, preventing the entrance and escape of
carbon dioxid and oxygen, respectively. In damp localities another |
fungus was taken in company with the smut, anid was determined
by Dr. Woods as a species of the genus Hypochnus. The resulting
injury to the plant from the leafhopper attack is also complicated by '!





STHE SUGAR-CANE LEAFHOPPER. 19

S the presence of the pineapple disease of sugar cane (Thielaviopsis
S ethaceticus) and the rind disease (Melanconium sacchari). The latter
S species, it is believed, gains entrance to the tissue of the plant through
the wounds made by the leafhopper.

EXTENT OF INJURY.

It was estimated that the leafhopper caused a loss of $3,000,000 to
the planters of Hawaii during 1903 and 1904.a In the writer's
opinion this loss can not be attributed entirely to the leafhopper
injury. Other species of insects and certain diseases were implicated.
The leafhopper was directly responsible for the larger percentage of
loss and indirectly responsible for the unusual development of cer-
tain diseases.
In speaking of the rind disease of sugar cane in Hawaii in 1907
Mr. L. Lewton-Brain says: b
To bring before you the actual extent of the loss that the rind disease is now causing
in your cane fields, I take the following fact obtained by Doctor Cobb from actual
counts in the field. In one case the cane left on the ground represented about one
ton of sugar to the acre. That is to say, that if the cane left on the field had been
sound cane that portion of it left on an acre would produce about a ton of sugar. The
area counted over, in this particular case, was representative of 200 acres.
A few years ago, when the leaf-hopper was at the height of its glory in reducing
Sthe vigour and vitality of your canes, these figures would have been much higher.
I have been assured that, at that time, there were acres and acres of cane to be seen
on which the majority of the sticks had been mruined by rind disease.
: Apart from the direct and indirect injury of the leafhopper (Perk-
insiella saccharicida Kirk.), the sugar-cane borer (Sphenophorus
obscurus Boisd.), the sugar-cane leaf-roller (Omiodes accept Butler),
and other minor pests contributed to the loss sustained.
t The explanation of the undue increase on the part of the leaf-
hopper is made clear when it is known that up to the time of the
i leafhopper invasion the sugar plantations had been particularly free
from serious attacks of insect and disease pests. The planters were,
therefore, unacquainted with the insect life to be found in their cane
fields. They did not know the source or nature of the leafhopper
attack and had at hand no general knowledge of insect warfare.
The injury of the leafhopper, combined with that of the other species
mentioned, and the complications arising through the development
of certain diseases gave the leafhopper a favorable opportunity to
develop great numbers in those localities where climatic influences
or soil conditions were unfavorable to the sugar cane or where a
I deteriorated condition of the cane varieties prevailed.
"a Report Governor of Hawaii for fiscal year 1907, p. 22.
'; b LEwToN-BaAN, L.-Rind Disease of the Sugar-Cane. S era' Exp. Sta., Div. Path., Bul. 7, p. 15, 1907.





THE SUGAR-CANE INSECTS OF HAWAII.


FACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OUTBREAK OF 1903. ....... 0,.

On those plantations where the outbreak of the leafhoppers became : ',
epidemic the writer made careful observations to determine, if pos-
sible, the conditions of season, soil, varieties, or methods of cultiva-
tion which might have contributed to the leafhopper development.,:
Some of these conditions noted will be mentioned.
(1) The season during which the attack was most serious was not
the growing season, and in some localities the weather was most
unfavorable for the growth of the cane. In one instance, for example,
there were during one month 24 rainy days out of the 30; and since
the temperature on a rainy day is some ten degrees lower than on a
bright day, and because of the absence of sunshine to carry on the
work of assimilation, a less vigorous growth of cane resulted.
' (2) The long duration of prevailing high winds.
(3) An impoverished condition of the soil. Certain fields in which
the leafhopper was epidemic had been planted continuously to cane
for over 20 years. The soil in certain parts of some fields, also,
where the leafhopper infestation was greatest was found to be in poor
condition because of lack of drainage. "
(4) As the rainy season was followed by a long period of dry weather,
without the means of irrigation, the cane lacked sufficient moisture
to enable it to put forth a vigorous growth. This point was demon-
strated on an unirrigated plantation in the district of Kohala, Hawaii.
A portion of a field was seriously attacked by the leafhopper during
the month of September, 1903, after several months of dry weather.
The manager of the plantation, Mr. E. E. Olding, was able to run
water into this portion of the field and irrigated the cane four times
at intervals of about a week, with the result that the cane, although
showing the attack in the smallness of the joints grown during that
time, recovered, and when the writer visited the field during the:
month of November of the same year was, in appearance, not unlike
healthy portions of the same field.
(5) The presence of other pests, principally the cane borer (Sphem-
ophorus obscurus) and the leaf-roller (Omniodes accepta.
(6) The lack of thorough cultivation.
(7) The injury to cane on the makai (seaward) fields by the salt
spray or the check to the cane by the cold on the mauka (mountain-
ward) fields.
(8) The deterioration of varieties.
(9) The complications due to the presence of certain diseases.
THE LEAFHOPPER AND BEEKEEPING.

An interesting condition of affairs arising from the leafhopper
attack on sugar cane is the collection of the honeydew by honey bees.
The increase in the production of Hawaiian honey of recent years


20






THE LEAFHOPPER AND BEEKEEPING.


corresponds with the advent of the sugar-cane leafhopper into the
cane fields, and the recent extensive proportions which the bee-
keeping business in the islands is assuming is in the vicinity of the
immense areas of land given to cane culture.a (See fig. 2.)
The principal source of floral honey in the islands is the flowers of
the algeroba (Prosopis juliflora). The total production of this floral
honey does not exceed 600 tons. The output of honey for 1910 in
the islands exceeds 1,000 tons, and the remaining 400 tons consists
almost entirely of the product gathered from the honeydew of the
sugar-cane leafhopper. Some 100 tons of this forms a typical


FIG. 2.-An apiary near a sugar-cane field. (From Phillips.)


honeydew honey, the remaining amount consisting of natural blends
of these two types.
Honeydew honey from the sugar-cane leafhopper is noncrystal-
lizable and usually of a very dark color. The aroma is very similar
to that of molasses and the taste insipid. The product is abnor-
mally high in ash, the amount ranging from 1 to 2 per cent, and it
has a decided right-handed polarization, while the floral or algeroba
honey is low in ash and has a left-handed rotation, which is
a VAN DINE, D. L.-The Source and Characteristics of Hawaiian Honeys.
PHILLIPS, E. F.-A brief survey of Hawaiian Bee Keeping. Bur. Ent., Bul. 75, Pt. V, Jan. 19, 1909.


21





THE SUGAR-CANE INSECTS OF HAWAII.


characteristic of all floral honeys. The larger amount of hone*_
dew is obtained from the insects on the young plant
for there the leafhoppers are more abundant. The amount pF !
honeydew gathered depends on the maturity of the cane and toe::'
amount of rain which washes the secretion from the leaves.

CONTROL OF THE LEAFHOPPER.
DIRECT MEASURES.
Insecticides.-Those familiar with the culture of sugar cane will .:
readily understand the difficulty of getting in and through the I
fields after the cane obtains any height. This.difficulty renders the :
use of insecticides as a remedy unpractical. In Hawaii such a .:||
method becomes still more difficult because of the 'prevailing slope
of the cane lands and the manner in which the fields in many dis -"-s,
tricts are laid out for purposes of irrigation. The feeding habits :
of the leafhopper are such that a contact poison or irritant would be
necessary for its destruction, and the activity of the leafhoppers--
that is, the suddenness with which they disperse at the least dis- .
turbance-still further prevents the successful application of a con- .
tact insecticide. Then, too, the cane fields of Hawaii are subject
to prevailing winds, which greatly interfere with the use of any
substance in the form of a spray. In the face of the above diffi-
culties the writer attempted the destruction of the leafhopper by
direct measures and found that an application of kerosene emulsion
applied in the shape of a finely divided stream with considerable
force was capable of killing only a small percentage. A mixture of ;
lime and caustic soda was also applied, with negative results. Lime,
prepared by reducing fresh stone lime to a powder by the1 use of
solutions of copper sulphate and caustic soda, was applied as a dust '
on cloudy days, or just after showers, and while in comparison to
spraying a much larger area was covered, and the dust came in i
contact with a large percentage of the leafhoppers, no appreciable .
beneficial results were observed. :
Collection by nets.-Ordinary sweeping nets supplied with short ;'
handles were placed in the hands of the laborers, and the leafhoppers i
were collected by having the laborers go in i body through adjoining.:|:'
rows and sweep the nets over the cane leaves. The insects collected ;:::|:
were dumped from the nets into buckets of water and kerosene at: .:
the ends of the rows. While immense numbers were captured in .',f
this way, the number collected and the area covered were so small ..':'
in comparison to the abundance of the leafhoppers and to the extent.::',,
of the infested area that this measure was also discarded. ,|
Cutting and burning in the infested centers.-The direct measures ,
of control advised by the writer were confined to the cutting down ;i:i


22






STHE SUGAR-CANE LEAFHOPPER. 23

and burning over of those centers in the fields where the species had
become numerous. In this practice it was observed that many of
the adults were able to take flight from the burning cane and escape
to adjoining fields. However, many adults and all of the unhatched
eggs in the leaves and the immature wingless forms were destroyed.
The center of infestation was destroyed, and this gave the ratoon
crop over these areas a chance utinder more favorable conditions.
Stripping the leaves.-For agricultural reasons it was a common
practice in Hawaii to strip the lower mature leaves from the cane
stalk. It was believed at first that this operation would greatly
lessen the numbers of the leafhopper by the exposure of the un-
hatched forms in the leaves of the cane and by removing a place of
shelter for the active forms. Observations made during the summer
months indicated that stripping was beneficial from the standpoint
of the control of the leafhopper. Later observations made during
the winter months, however, when growth of the cane practically
ceases, showed a very serious condition of affairs, namely, that in
heavy infestation the internodes of the stalk of stripped cane con-
tained hundreds of punctures from egg laying, while the internodes
of unstripped cane were protected from such injury by the leaf-
sheaths.
Burning of trash after harvesting.-The thorough burning of the
trash after the cane is harvested is the most effective method prac-
ticed for the control of the insects of sugar cane. In the case of
the leafhopper many of the adults no doubt take flight, but the
destruction to the eggs and immature forms in the trash is enormous.
The place where the greatest numbers of the leafhopper were noted
in 1903 was on a plantation where the practice of "burning off"
had been discontinued for several years, and the manager attributed
the unusual increase of the pest to the fact that the trash had not
been burned. Both for the leafhopper and the cane borer, burning off
has become general once more.
INDIRECT MEASURES.
PREVENTIVE METHODS.
Selection of varieties of cane for planting.-There was noticeable
in general throughout the plantations a marked difference in the
power of the different varieties to resist the attack of the leafhopper.
While the same variety would vary in different localities as regards
growth and resistance, still the difference between any two varieties
remained constant. For example, Yellow Caledonia was invariably
the more resistant as compared to Rose Bamboo and Lahaina, and
while the former was more seriously attacked in some localities than
in others, wherever the opportunity offered itself for comparison with
the latter, the Yellow Caledonia made the best showing. It is for




a. :::


24


THE SUGAR-CANE INSECTS OF HAWAII.


the planter to decide whether or not the advantages of one variety ..:m
over another are offset by the ravages of the leafhopper. If the lossw
from the leafhopper is greater than the gain in the yield between any
two varieties in the absence of the leafhopper, then it is policy to i
select the more resistant cane.
The Yellow Caledonia (fig. 3) is a hardy cane and the plant makes :
a vigorous growth. These qualities, together with the showing which
the variety made during the leafhopper epidemic, have made the
cane a popular variety in the Hawaiian Islands. Mr. C. F. Eckart,


~~~~~~~~.......:..: ..:.:. '.................. ...........:., ': ::..... ..... .. ... .......... ....
... ... .~~.. .... ..:: .i : .: ..:






















FIG. 3.-Yellow Caledonia sugar cane, a variety which is replacing Lahaina and Rose Bamboo in the
Hawaiian Islands. Photograph taken during the leafhopper epidemic of 1903. (Original.)
9
Director of the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Experiment Station,
reports as follows on this cane:a
Probably no subject pertaining to the cultivation of cane in the Hawaiian islands
during recent years has held more interest for the planters, in various localities, than
that relating to the introduction and trial of new varieties.
In the Hilo and Hamakua districts, the Lahaina first made way for the Rose Bamboo,
and the latter, after a strong stand for many years, is now being rapidly succeeded by
the more vigorous Yellow Caledonia. This cane with its upright growth and deep
rooting propensities has proved a most valuable acquisition in wet and dry localities
alike. Growing erect, with a natural tendency to shed its dried leaves, it becomes
an admirable cane for rainy districts, where varieties that are prone to fall to the
ground and remain in contact with a frequently saturated soil have shown extreme
.. .'.. :,.:



















a ECKART, C. F.-Varieties of cane. mittee, Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association, for the year ending September 30, 1904,
Appendix IV, p. 31.






THE' SUGAR-CANE LEAFHOPPER.


sensitiveness. The frequent stripping, required for Lahaina and Rose Bamboo in
these wet places, has necessarily added to the cost of cultivation, and the ready manner
in which Yellow Caledonia tends to strip itself is no small item in favor of economy.
Again the manner in which it keeps down weeds, which were such a menace to its
predecessors on the unirrigated plantations, is another strong point in its favor. In
dry districts subject to occasional drought, it has amply demonstrated its hardihood
over Rose Bamboo, which in turn is more resistant to such unfavorable climatic features
than Lahaina. By sending its roots down deep into the soil it draws from a larger
reserve supply of water than the older varieties, which are more shallow feeders and
which soon feel the effects of a rainless period.
Dr. R. C. L. Perkins reports as follows on the relative immunity
of different varieties of cane from leafhopper attack: a
It seems certain that some varieties of cane will stand the attack of leaf-hopper
better than others. Mr. Eckart, Director of the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Experiment
Station, has furnished me with a list of new varieties of cane (see Appendix, Note II
below), grown there, arranged in order, according to the relative injury that each
sustained from leaf-hopper.
There may come, however, so severe an attack that no cane can resist it. Thus
we have seen plants of "Yellow Caledonia" (at the extreme end of the list) which
were of the strongest and most thrifty nature previous to the attack, some entirely
destroyed and others very badly injured after a bad outbreak. It is, however, prob-
able that from an attack of hopper which would entirely destroy a field of "Rose
Bamboo," for instance, a field of "Yellow Caledonia" might recover.
The following is the note to which Doctor Perkins refers above:
The following list of new varieties (i. e., varieties other than the old standard ones
of these islands) of cane at the Hawaiian Planters' Experiment Station has been drawn
up for me by Mr. C. F. Eckart, the Director. They are arranged in order, according
to the amount of damage sustained from leaf-hopper attack, Queensland 4 suffering
most and Yellow Caledonia least:
(1) Queensland 4 (10) Tiboo Merd
(2) Queensland 1 (11) Louisiana Striped
(3) Queensland 8A. (12) Striped Singapore
(4) Louisiana Purple (13) Big Ribbon
(5) Demerara 95 (14) Queensland 7
(6) Gee Gow (15) Demerara 117
(7) Cavengerie (16) White Bamboo
(8) Demerara 74 (17) Yellow Caledonia.
(9) Yellow Bamboo

Cultural methods on the plantation.-The writer has already men-
tioned the fact that the epidemic of 1903 began during the winter
months, in a wet season, and at a time when the cane was making
practically no growth. The centers from which the infestation spread
over the cane fields were invariably unfavorable locations for growth.
It has been noted in this report that all varieties suffered in these
unfavorable locations but that certain varieties made a better show-
ing. The extension of the acreage of one variety in particular,
a PERKINS, R. C. L.-The leaf-hopper of the sugar-cane. estry, Hawaii, Div. Ent., Bul. 1, p. 13, 1903.
833270-Bull. 93-11----4


25





THE SUGAR-CANE INSECTS OF HAWAII.


Yellow Caledonia, will be a leading factor in preventing ao i
epidemic. One other point was brought home to the Hawaatiial
planters as a result of the leafhopper epidemic, and that was tha
importance of intensive cultivation. The grass and weeds must bt.
kept down by cultivation, the low places drained, and the impovexa. '
ished lands fertilized. Those plantations which were in a high state :
of cultivation suffered less from the leafhopper attack, and the estates :i
provided with the means of irrigation, in addition, suffered the mini- I
mum loss. There is a direct relation between intensive cultivation, ii
fertilization, and irrigation and the amount of insect injury to any
crop, showing that these operations are of great value in lessening .4:
insect damage. ..
Diversification of crops.-Sugar cane has been the leading crop in .:
Hawaii since the days when the islands turned from the sandal-wood
trade and the whaling fleet as a source of revenue. Some of the lands
have been under cultivation to cane continuously for over twenty-five
years. The time is at hand when the sugar-cane planters will find :
it both necessary and more profitable to diversify their crop. Some
lands at present require a change from sugar cane, and the lands whichL
are still highly productive will also require such a change as the years
go by. When the general practice of inter-cropping cane with other .
plants does come, it will have a direct bearing on the control of the
sugar-cane insects, the leafhopper included. The intermediate crop
may be one of value in itself or one to be plowed under for green
manure. Since it is not wise to cease the practice of burning off the
trash after harvesting the cane, the planters can find no cheaper source
of plant food, or no way in which the requisite texture and water- ;
holding capacity of the soil can be more easily obtained than by
removing their lands from cane cultivation in regular rotation and
planting some nitrogen-gathering plant to be turned under when the
land is put back into cane.
Control of the rind disease of sugar cane.-As has been mentioned,
leafhopper injury is aggravated by the presence of the rind disease.
In a discussion of the rind disease (Melanconium sacchari) Dr. N. A.
Cobb says: a:
According to my observations on thousands of cuttings dug up on some twenty-five .....
plantations a considerable part of the cuttings in some fields fail to grow on account
of this disease, which, being present in the cuttings when they are planted, develops ,
sufficiently to prevent germination. This is a difficult thing wholly to avoid by |
means of inspection of the seed, as the disease is sometimes present in cane that looks i|
sound. It may be suspected to be present in any cane that has been attacked on the
stalks by leaf-hopper or by borers. Other wounds that give admission to the rind '
disease fungus are those made by injudicious stripping, cracks at the bottom of the
cane due to the effects of storms, and what are sometimes called "growth cracks." A^l
a COBB, N. A.-Fungus maladies of the sugar cane. Exp. Sta., Div. Path., Bul. 5, p. 107, 1906.


S NH


26






THE SUGAR-CANE LEAFHOPPER. 27

Cane raised specially for seed and not stripped until wanted for planting is more
likely to be free from insect punctures, and will therefore be less likely to develop
rind disease after planting.
Mr. L. Lewton-Brain in a report on the rind disease thus describes
the relation between the leafhopper and the disease: a
Under field conditions, of course, the spores gain access to the interior of the plant
through natural wounds. Perhaps the most abundant wounds offered for this pur-
pose are leafhopper punctures; even more favorable for the fungus are the tunnels of
borers, leading as they do right into the heart of the sugar-containing tissue; other
wounds may be made in stripping; in fact, it is a difficult matter to find a stalk of
cane without a wound of some sort. The spores are produced in immense numbers
on every stick of rotten cane. They are doubtless distributed partly by the wind,
though the mucilaginous substance by which they are joined does not favor this;
insects are certainly also important distributers of the spores, leafhoppers will get
infected and deposit the spores in their punctures, ants will carry them into borer
and other wounds in their search for food, flies may also serve the fungus in the same
way.
The control of the rind disease of cane on the plantation will be
another factor in reducing 'leafhopper injury. Since the leafhopper
can not be exterminated and the punctures from this insect will
always occur on a plantation to a greater or less degree, it becomes
particularly essential for the planter to eradicate the disease.
On the control of the rind disease, Doctor Cobb has the following
on pages 109 and 110 of his report referred to above:
The number of spores of this disease that exist on every plantation is past calcula-
tion, and almost inconceivable. This abundance of the spores of the disease tends
of course to increase the losses. If there were no spores there .could be no rind dis-
ease. Anything that can be done to reduce the number of spores will tend to reduce
the amount of the disease. Something can certainly be done in this direction. Stalks
dead of the disease can be destroyed, and there can be no doubt that in some cases
expenditure in this direction will be well repaid. There can be no doubt that the
collecting and complete destruction of the stalks on the field would be a paying
operation. How to destroy them is the question. The ordinary burning off destroys
only a part of these rind disease stalks, leaving the rest untouched or only partially
roasted, to go on producing their millions upon millions of spores.
It is the custom on all the Hawaiian plantations to leave on the ground after harvest
the sticks of cane that have been attacked by borers or are worthless for other reason.
The reason for this is easy to understand. Such material is unsuitable to the highest
efficiency of the mill as an extractor of cane juice. It is also of such a nature that
it may interfere with the clarification, evaporation, or crystallization.
Notwithstanding this I think it would be advisable to consider whether this material,
which is really a menace to the health of future crops, cannot in some way be run
through the mill and burned. This is a practice adopted in some other parts of the
world. 'On Saturday afternoons a special run of the mill is devoted to the milling of
such refuse as I have mentioned, the "bagasse" being burned. The juice is allowed
to run to waste, being first sterilized by heat.
In Hawaii it is usual to attempt to burn this diseased material, but from careful
observation I am certain that this attempt often ends in failure, that is to say the
disease that exists in the waste-cane is only partially destroyed.
a LEWTON-BRAIN, L.-Rind disease of the sugar cane. Exp. Sta., Div. Path., Bul. 7, p. 21, 1907.






THE SUGAR-CANE INSECTS OF HAWAII.


It may be that it would be better, at least from the disease point of view, if I'"
harvesting of the fields were more in the nature of a clean sweep. If the disemieil")
sticks are not too numerous they would not seriously interfere with the working of ;i
the mill. The advantage would be that whatever diseased material was thus dealt I.1
with would be dealt with in the very best manner, that is, it would be utterly de-
stroyed. :,!


NATURAL ENEMIES.
SPECIES ALREADY PRESENT IN THE ISLANDS.
Many beneficial species of insects, already present in the islands
at the time "of the leafhopper invasion, adapted themselves to the
leafhopper as a source of food. The following species were noted'
during 1903:
A4 ladybird beetle, Coccinella repanda Thunb., one of Mr. Koebele's
Australian introductions, was particularly abundant in the cane-
fields and the larva did good work against the young leafhoppers,
An enemy of this species, the hymenopterous parasite Centistiea
americana Riley, has found its way to the islands and will no doubt
reduce the effectiveness of the ladybird. The writer observed also
the ladybird Platyomus lividigaster Muls. in the cane fields. A
predaceous bug, (Echalia griseus Burm., was found in large numbers
in the infested cane fields on the Island of Hawaii. The larvae of
two lacewing flies, Chjrysopa microphya McLachl., and Anomalochrysa
sp., were observed feeding on the young leafhoppers, the first species
being particularly abundant in some localities.
Several species of spiders were abundant in the cane fields and
were active enemies of the leafhopper. The writer collected two
species, Tetragnatha mandibulata Walck. and Adrastidia nebulosa
Simon. On the writer's advice large numbers of the egg-nests of
spiders were collected in the localities where they were abundant
and placed in sections where they had not as yet become established
in the cane fields.
In the forest above the Kohala district, on the island of Hawaii,
the writer found a fungous disease infecting to a great extent the
common leafhopper Siphanta acuta Walk., a species belonging to the
same family as the cane leafhopper. Quantities of this fungus
were distributed in the cane fields in the hope that it would infest
the cane leafhopper. No striking results were obtained, though
diseased cane leafhoppers were found in some of the rainy districts.
SSeveral species of ants were very active about the leafhoppera in
the cane fields, the honeydew being an attraction to them.
SDoctor Perkins mentions further in his early report a predaceous
bug, Zelus peregrinus Kirk., and describes as new a hymenopterous
parasite of the leafhopper under the name Ecthrodelphaz fair-
childii Perk.a


a PERKINS, R. C. L.-Bd. Core. Agr. and Forestry, Hawaii, Div. Ent., Biul. ;|
pp. 20-22. ..u. ..i
.. :. ............ ..
.. H',:.i" .i i
.E E : H...:::'I


I




" ". ii-


28


i."






( THE SUGAR-CANE LEAFHOPPER. 29

More recently the species of beneficial insects which were already
present in the islands when the leafhopper was introduced and
which have sought the leafhopper in the cane fields have been reported
upon in detail by the entomologists of the Hawaiian Sugar Planters'
Experiment Station.a
SPECIAL INTRODUCTIONS.

In 1903 Mr. Albert Koebele, after consulting with Dr. L. 0. How-
ard, undertook extensive observations on the American parasites of
leafhoppers. In Ohio MAir. Koebele had the assistance of Mr. Otto
H. Swezey. A large quantity of living material was collected both
in Ohio and in California and shipped to Doctor Perkins at Honolulu.
The American material consisted in the main of insects belonging
to the hymenopterous family Dryinidae. The Hawaiian parasite
Ecthrodelphqx fairchildii Perkins is also a member of this family
and, at the time of Mr. Koebele's American introductions, was
being reared and distributed over the islands by Doctor Perkins.
These introductions are discussed by Doctor Perkins in Part I of
Bulletin 1, Division of Entomology, Hawaiian Sugar Planters'
Experiment Station, 1905.b
Mr. Koebele also collected during his American investigations
representatives of the order Strepsiptera (Stylopida) and a single
species of an egg-parasite, Anagrus columbi Perk., belonging to the
family Mymaridae.c
In the spring of 1904 Messrs. Koebele and Perkins sailed for
Australia to continue the search for parasites of the leafhopper.
They reached Sydney in May and because of the cold weather which
prevailed they proceeded to Brisbane. The results of the work in
Australia are thus summarized by Doctor Perkins .d
Early in June we arrived at Brisbane, and on the first cane that we saw, a. few plants
in the. public gardens, we at once observed the presence of the cane leaf-hopper. A
a Leafhoppers and their natural enemies. Div. Ent., Bul. 1.
PERKINS, R. C. L.-Part I, pp. 1-60, May, 1905. (Ecthrodelphaxfairchildii.)
PERKINS, R. C. L.-PartIV, pp. 113-157, pls. 5-7, September, 1905. (Pipunculida.)
TERRY, F. W.-Part V, pp. 159-181, pis. 8-10, November, 1905. (Forficulidse,
SyrphidaT and Hemerobiide.)
.. SWVEZEY, 0. H.-Part VII, pp. 207-238, pis. 14-16, December, 1905. (Orthoptera,
Coleoptera, and Hemiptera.)
b PERKINS, R. C.L.-Leafhoppers and their natural enemies. Planters' Exp. Sta., Div. Ent., Bul. 1, Part I, pp. 1-60, May, 1905. (Dryinidw.)
c PERKINS, R. C. L.-Leafhoppers and their natural enemies. Planters' Exp. Sta., Div. Ent., Bul. 1, Pt. III, pp. 86-111, pis. 1-4, August, 1905.
(Stylopide.)
PERKINS, R. C. L.-Leafhoppers and their natural enemies. S Planters' Exp. Sta., Div. Ent., Bul. 1, Pt. VI, p. 198, November, 1905. (Anagrus
: columbi.)
L d PERKINS, R. C. L.-Leafhoppers and their natural enemies. : Planters' Exp. Sta., Div. Ent., Bul. 1, introduction, pp. In, iv, May, 1906.






30


THE SUGAR-CANE INSECTS OF HAWAII.


... .. . ...6 : ,i~ iiM
short stay of about ten days gave ample proof of the existence in Astmima offt &.iW
siderable variety of Hymenopterous parasites of leaf-hoppers, of Dipterons pnas i*&l
of the genus Pipunculus, and of Stylopid parasites of the genus Elenchus.
At Bundaberg, about twelve hours by rail north of Brisbane, we spent anot0r.l|
ten days in June. Here is an extensive cane district with our leaf-hopper ev.y.w
where present, but never in numbers such as we are accustomed to in thrnpis taa. i
In fact we never saw the hoppers nearly as numerousas they are on our least affect:'*'d"
plantations. From eggs collected here Mr. Koebele soon bred out specimens of the" S:
Mymarid parasites he had felt so confident of finding. H'l
From our observations on the habits of the cane leaf-hopper in these islands, It iii
seemed probable that in tropical Australia this species would be in its greatest uBJ- a :- i
bears in the colder months, so after a brief stay in Bundaberg, we proceeded north to .....
Cairns, which place we reached at the beginning of July. This plan seemed very l
expedient, for by retreating gradually towards the south, as the hot season advanced, I
we hoped to prolong the season during which natural enemies for the cane leaf-hoppr "I
could be obtained. It appeared likely that effective work could only be done at ji
Cairns for a month or two, since without a reasonably large supply of hoppers, it wai :
evident that the parasites could not be found in sufficient numbers for shipment. "
This indeed proved to be the case, and by the end of August, leaf-hoppers and their
eggs had become so scarce in the cane fields, that we came south again to Bundabeg.
At Bundaberg we made a long stay on this occasion, regularly sending off consign- v
ment-s of parasites, until here too, owing partly to the season and partly to the harvest-
ing of the crop, the locality became unprofitable. After a short stay in Brisbase,
at the end of the ear, I returned to Honolulu, while Mr. Koebele proceeded to Sydney, :
where his attention was largely given to collecting beneficial insects for pests other :
than leaf-hopper. On the return journey Mr. Koebele spent one month in Fiji, the
enemies of the cane-hopper in those islands being mostly similar to those already
found in Australia. A fine consignment of the Chalcid egg-parasite (Ootetratiwmus)
of leaf-hopper was most important, as it enabled us to establish thatimportant species
without any doubt.
During January and February, 1906, Mr. F. Muir continued the
work in the Fiji Islands begun by Mr. Koebele in the latter part -of
1904. He reported as follows concerning the Fijian sugar-cane leaf-
hopper and its parasites:a
The Fijian sugar-cane leaf-hopper (Perkinsielila vitiensis) I found all over the island,
but it does no damage, being kept in check by several natural enemies. ,
The most important of these are the eg.-parasites, Ootetrastichus, Anagrus and
Paranagrus. The first of these was introduced from Fiji into Hawaii by Mr. Koebele, i
and the other two appear to me the same as the Queensland species. In some fields
as many as 90 % of the hopper eggs were parasitized, but in other fields it was lower. J
Observations extending over ray six months' stay, and made at the various parts of i:
the island visited, show that an average of 85 % of hopper eggs were destroyed by
these parasites. These figures are only approximate, as I have to estimate that one ::
Chalcid (Ootetrastichus) destroys four hopper eggs, which is a low estimate. This
Chalcid is more numerous, and on account of destroying the whole batch of hopper "^
eggs, is of very much higher economic value than the Mymarids. ...
,-- '--------------------- *!i
a MAIrIR, F.-Notes on some Fijian insects. Div. Ent., Bul. 2, p. 3, November, 1906..



A :

., :Iiii
S". .,IBS






THE SUGAR-CANE LEAFHOPPER. 31

The Australian and Fijian material has been described in detailed
reports with elaborate illustrations by Messrs. Perkins, Terry, and
Kirkaldy."
Regarding the effectiveness of the various parasites and enemies of
the leafhopper, Dr. Perkins says: b
If we consider the effectiveness of the four egg-parasites, Paranagrus optabilis, P.
perforator, Anagrus frequens, and Ootetrastichus beatus, in areas where all are well
established, we must rate the first-named as at present by far the most effective. As I
have previously pointed out, this species is capable by itself of destroying about 50
per cent of the cane-hopper's eggs and Anagrusfrequens and P. perforator, extraordi-
narily numerous as they appear, where seen alone, are but as isolated examples in
the crowd, where all are well established in one spot. The Ootetrastichus slowly but
steadily increases in numbers, and on many plantations I expect that, it will ulti-
mately be the most efficient of all parasites. I do not think that it can show its full
value till 1908, for each harvesting of the cane crop is necessarily a very great setback
to its natural increase. Anagrusfrequens, under which name are probably more than
one species, or at least one or two distinct races of a single species, although it appears
at a disadvantage, when in company with Paranagrus optabilis, is nevertheless a
most abundant parasite. In Part VI of this Bulletin I have compared the habits of
the two and need not refer to the matter here, but I may say that as many as eighty
or a hundred exit holes of the Anagrus have been counted in a single cane-leaf, so
that its great utility is unquestionable. P. perforator, common in Fiji, attacking
eggs of hopper laid in thick stems of grass, more rarely those in cane, will probably
gradually wander away from the cane-fields to attack the eggs of native hoppers, that
are laid in stems and twigs, as it now chiefly attacks the cane-hopper eggs when these
are laid in the stems.
Nor must it be forgotten, what valuable aid these egg-parasites receive in the
control of leaf-hopper from other insects parasitic and predaceous, native or introduced.
In fact, had there existed previously no restraint to the multiplication of the pest, no

aHawaiian Sugar Planters' Exp. Sta., Div. Ent.:
PERKINS, R. C. L.-Bul. 1, Pt. I, pp. 1-69, May, 1905 (Dryinidwe).
PERKINS, R. C. L.-Bul. 1, Pt. II, pp. 71-85, figs. 1-3, June, 1905 (Lepidoptera).
PERKINS, R. C. L.-Bul. 1, Pt. III, pp. 86-111, pls. 1-4, August, 1905 (Stylo-
pide).
PERKINS, R. C. L.-Bul. 1, Pt. IV, pp. 113-157, pls. 5-7, September, 1905
(Pipunculida).
TERRY, F. W.-Bul. 1, Pt. V, pp. 177-179, November, 1905 (Syrphide).
PERKINS, R. C. L.-PBlu. 1, Pt. VI, pp. 183-205, pls. 11-13, November, 1905
(Mymarida, Platygasteridw).
PF.RKINS, R. C. L.- Bul. 1, Pt. VIII, pp. 239-267, pl9. 18-20, January, 1906
(Hymenoptera).
KIRKALDY, G. W.-Bul. 1, Pt. IX, pp. 269-479, pls. 21-32, February, 1906
(Leafhopper).
PERKINS, R. C. L.-Bul. 1, Pt. X, pp. 4S1-499, pls. 33-38, March, 1906 (Hy-
menoptera, Diptera).
KIRKALDY, G. W.-Bul. 3, pp. 1-186, pls. 1-20, September, 1907 (Leafhop-
pers, Supplement).
PERKINS, R. C. L.-Bul. 4, pp. 1-59, May, 1907 (Parasites of Leafhoppers).
b PERKrNS, R. C. L.-Leaf-hoppers and their natural enemies. Planters' Exp. Sta., Div. Ent., Bul. 1, introduction, pp. xv-xvu, May, 1906.





32


THE SUGAR-CANE INSECTS OF HAWAII.


one who has paid the least attention to such matters can doubt that it would some ..m .
since have become impossible to raise any crop of sugar cane in the islands. Therei...:.:
why these natural enemies have not alone got the upper hand of the hopper is du ".
to various causes. In the first place, a number of the parasites such as the DryinMi W
Ecthrodelphax fairchildii and the parasitic flies of the genus Pipunculug are of local
occurrence, and in many places cannot (for climatic or other unknown re.sons).
maintain their existence. This was well shown by the behavior of the first-named, i
which was distributed in thousands by the entomologists and the Plantation man- ,
agers themselves to all the districts in the islands, but in many places did not thrive. i
Such, too, is the case with the predaceous black earwig (Chelisoches mono) which, a .I:
natural immigrant to the islands and no doubt acclimatised centuries ago, is found :"i
on comparatively few plantations. Other natural enemies are themselves periodically :i,
decimated by parasites, as is the case with the introduced green cricket (Xiphidium s !
varipenne), which has its own egg-parasite (Paraphelinus). Other enemies like the i
common lady-bird (Coccinella repanda) introduced by Koebele years ago for other I
purposes, prey on young leaf-hoppers, in default of more favorite food, and this valu-
able predator too is itself subject to parasitic attack by the common Braconid (CenT-
tistes). At present the whole number of parasites and predaceous insects that attack :
cane leaf-hopper to such an extent as to render their services worth noting is consid- 1
erable, as the following summary shows. II
The most valuable are the four egg-parasites, which there is every reason to hope ::
will become still more effective with reasonable time, one (Ootetrastichus) having as ::
yet had no chance to show its full effectiveness.
The two Pipunculus flies (Pipunculus juvator and terryi) are restricted to certain
localities and are native species, which have transferred their attacks from native
Delphacids to the cane leaf-hopper. :
The ubiquitous lady-bird (Coccinella repanda) is valuable as a destroyer of leaf-
hopper, though originally imported by Koebele to destroy Aphis. It is hoped that
other lady-birds, especially Verania strigula, may become established and do good
work, as in Australia and Fiji, whence they were imported.
The earwig Chelisoches monrio is a local species, but no doubt useful where it exists
in numbers.
The green cricket (Xiphidium varipenne) is very valuable, but is most unfortunately .
heavily attacked at certain seasons by an egg-parasite.
The Dryinid Ecthrodelphax fairchildii is locally valuable. At certain seasons in
suitable, but limited, localities, it destroys a considerable percentage of hoppers.
Its services are underestimated because for a large part of the year it lies as a dormant
larva in the cocoon, and parasitized hoppers at such a time are naturally hardly to be
found. '
There are many other natural enemies of more or less importance, e. g. the various -
predaceous Hemiptera, and the several lace-wing flies (Chrysopin.).
In addition to these insect enemies, we must mention the two fungous diseases of
hoppers (amounting locally and at certain seasons to epidemics) which, long previ- I
ously known to kill the native leaf-hoppers, have become transferred to the introduced
pest. We also found one or more fungous diseases attacking leaf-hopper eggs in Fiji 'y
and Australia in all localities. With material imported from these countries, I easily '
infected eggs of the cane leaf-hopper under cover, and subsequently established the
fungus at large in the field. As it was most probable that parasitized and healthy |
hopper eggs would be affected alike by the disease, and consequently many of the egg- ;
parasites would be destroyed, it became a subject of discussion whether we should
attempt to establish the fungus or not. As, however, throughout Australia, the ;T
fungus and parasite both attacked the eggs, Mr. Koebele was of opinion that we
should try and establish the same conditions here. Consequently with the first .
'" :Eii:Ei





THE SUGAR-CANE LEAFHOPPER. 33

cages sent to the plantations the cane cuttings and the cane itself were well sprayed
with water containing spores of the fungous disease, so that these would be certainly
carried abroad by the emerging hoppers and parasites. I imagine there is no doubt
as to this disease becoming established in all suitable localities.
In speaking of the necessity for the continued propagation and dis-
tribution of the introduced parasites of the leafhopper, Doctor
Perkins reports as follows: a
Owing to the manner in which cane is cultivated in these islands, the entomologist
working along the lines that have been adopted to control the leaf-hopper pest, meets
with a serious obstacle such as is not encountered in dealing with insects injurious to
our other vegetation. I refer here to the universal custom of burning off the trash over
great acreages, after the crop has been harvested. I have been told that on the Colo-
nial Sugar Refining Company's estates in Australia no such burning off is allowed. If
this is correct, it may help to account for the insignificant numbers of our cane-leaf
hopper there, as well as of several other insects of the same group, which are fortunately
not known in our cane fields. As, however, burning of trash is an established fact here,
it becomes necessary to see what steps can be taken to provide against this serious disad-
S vantage. I will first show whereof this disadvantage consists. The parasitic enemies
of the leaf-hopper are mostly delicate and minute creatures, not accustomed to take
prolonged flights. Their wings serve well to bear them from plant to plant, but for fur-
ther distribution they are dependent on air-currents. If when a field of cane is cut the
wind blows towards another cane field, no doubt some or many parasites will reach it,
but if otherwise, probably none will do so. In burning over a field it is quite certain
that almost every parasite yet present will be destroyed, but the adult leaf-hoppers on
S the other hand are well able to take care of themselves. When, as an experiment, a
patch of about nine acres of cane, so heavily attacked by leaf-hopper as to be useless,
wa3 set on fire all around to destroy these, it was noticed that the adult hoppers rose
from the cane in a cloud and spread to other fields; so this plan for destroying them was
of no value. I have in an earlier publication shown how quickly the leaf-hoppers
spread to new fields of very young cane, and with what regularity they distribute them-
selves over the young plants. It cannot be hoped that the parasites will (except under
rare and fortuitous circumstances, such as constant favorable winds) spread themselves
in like manner, and in the same time. Yet it is essential that the parasites should be
on the spot when the leaf-hopper begins to lay in order to secure proper control. If the
supply of laying hoppers at the beginning of the great breeding season is very small, it
means that there is not time for the attack to become serious before that season is over.
It is when the hopper is least abundant, that one wants to be assured that it is being
attacked by all possible enemies. When a field is already seriously injured and
swarming with hoppers, not much immediate help can be given for obvious reasons. It
S will be easier to prevent such a condition than to find a remedy. If one could provide
that in each large area of cleared land, ready for planting, there should be in the middle
a small patch of some variety of cane most susceptible to the attack of leaf-hoppers,
that this cane should be kept well stocked with these, and with a variety of parasites
and predaceous insects, and itself be of sufficient growth to afford good shelter to all
these, the condition from an entomological standpoint would be ideal. This patch of
cane, being already of suitable age and growth and stocked as aforesaid, at the time
Sthe much younger cane of the rest of the field began to be infested with hoppers, would

a PERKINS, R. C. L.-Leaf-hoppers and their natural enemies. S Planters' Exp. Sta., Div. Ent., Bul. 1, introduction, pp. xvin-xxi, May, 1906.






34 THE SUGAR-CANE INSECTS OF HAWAII.

daily be distributing thousands of natural enemies, that should control these. M
though such a plan or modification of it might be adopted on some plantaton gi|
others (at least such as are under irrigation) it would either be difficult, or altogetbw!l
impracticable. Only in the case of some fields of long ratoons would the matterbe vwy :
simple, when a small area of the original ratoon growth in each field could be left uncut,
and if well supplied with hoppers and their natural enemies would serve later onto.'i8
stock the rest of the field. Unfortunately, owing to the fact that ratoons afe exceptinga :"
unusual cases) not severely attacked as compared with plant-cane, this matter becomes .i
one of minor importance. Otherwise, in the majority of cases, owing to the clearing of I
large areas and the burning of trash, it is probable that new fields will have to be sup- .
plied by cages similar to those already used. Two things will be absolutely necessary: .ii
(1) that the new fields be well supplied with parasites; (2) that they be stocked immne- !!
diately the hoppers enter them and commence laying. This plan, though leas ssatisfac-
tory than would be the other method, is nevertheless simple, and does not call for i1
much expenditure of time, nor for skilled labor. The one thing necessary to be podi- i
tively ascertained is that the spot whence the cuttings for distribution are taken is well :
supplied with all the kinds of parasites that it is desired to establish in new fields. It.1
is now well known to us that all these destroyers are not yet established in all pas of
all plantations, and therefore at present unless an entomologist previously test samples
from the spot, whence distribution is to be made, it is quite likely that some of the ',
most valuable parasites will not be taken to the new fields. If a sample be submitted ::::
to the entomologists, it can be passed as fit to supply all necessary parasites to new :
fields, or if not, cages of the deficient species can always be supplied from the cane in i
the grounds of the Experiment Station in Honolulu. As the parasites are continually :.
spreading and increasing, such expert examination will at the most be necessary for a .
year or two; for it is perfectly certain that by that time all the species will be so gen-".
eral that it will be quite impossible to take any extensive sample of cane-leaves that ::
bear eggs of leaf-hopper, which will not contain all. Such in fact is now the case in the
cane at the Experiment Station. To sum up, the clearing of all cane from large acre-
ages is a decided obstacle to the complete success of natural enemies of leaf-hopper, and
the burning of trash aggravates the difficulty. As an offset to these conditions new
fields should be supplied artificially with natural enemies, and they should be supplied
as soon as any leaf-hoppers enter them. Of course future observation may prove this '
distribution unnecessary, buit for the present it should be adopted.

RELATED SPECIES.

The Hawaiian sugar-cane leafhopper does not occur on the mainland .,
of the United States. The insect is closely related to the corn leaf- '
hopper (Dicranotropis maidis Ashm.), common on corn in the South-
ern States.' A West Indian species of leafhopper is recorded as inju- i
rious to sugar-cane, by Westwood, in 1841, under the name Delphax 2
saccharivora and is a member of the same family of insects as the *i
Hawaiian sugar-cane and the corn leafhoppers. Three further spe- :l
cies of this same family, the Fulgoridoe, are recorded as sugar-cane .j.:..
pests in Java by W. van DeventerY.

a QUAINTANCE, A. L.-Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bul. 45, 1898. ;
b WESTWOOD, J. O.-Mag. Nat. Hist., vol. 6, p. 407, 1841. j
c Phenice maculosa, Dicranotropis vastatrix, and Eumetopina krfigeri. Van Devente,:;
Handboek ten dienste van de Suikerriet-cultuur en de Rietsuiker-Fabricage op Jav.. ,T :i
II. De Dierlijke vijanden van het Suikerriet en hunne Parasieten. Amsterdam, ;]
pp. 167-169, 1906. "

"A;i |





THE HAWAIIAN SUGAR-CANE BORER.


THE HAWAIIAN SUGAR-CANE BORER.
([Sphenophorus] Rhabdocnemis obscurus Boisd.)
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS.

The siugar-cane "borer" ([Sphenophiorus] Rhabdocnemis obscurus
Boisd.) (fig. 4), infesting the cane stalk in Hawaii is the grub of a beetle
belonging to the weevil family Calandridae. The sugar-cane stalk-
borer of the southern United States is the caterpillar of a moth,


2
-a

X5


I I


*....
.... A


itw


V


FIoG. 4.-The Hawaiian sugar-cane borer ([Sphenophorus] Rhabdocnemis obscures): 7, Eggs, natural size.
2, Eggs in situ, much enlarged: a, Section of egg passage with egg, c;: tb, egg placed unusually near the
rind, d. 3, Larvae, just hatched and older, natural size. 4, Full-grawn larva, natural size. 5, Larva,
side view, enlarged: a, Spiracles; b, cervical shield. 6, Larva, front view, enlarged. 7, Pupa, enlarged;
a, Rostrum or beak; b, antenna; c, elytron or wing cover; d, folded wing. 8, Pupal case or cocoon,
enlarged. 9, Adult, enlarged. (After Terry.)

Diatraa saccharalis Fab. Entomologically the two species are
widely separated, belonging to entirely different orders of insects, but
in the character of their injury to the cane stalk these two insects
are quite similar-that is, they both develop within the cane stalk, and


35


\\,


At




.* ^ ^(^t ::..".. .. ......

36 THE SUGAR-CANE INSECTS OF HAWAII.

by feeding on the interior cause great destruction to the plant.. C,3
paratively, the Hawaiian borer is more destructive and, because of the:.:
habits of the adult, a more persistent species to combat. The adult
beetle of the Hawaiian borer is a stronger flyer than the adult moth
of the mainland borer and therefore has a wider range over any v
infested territory. As the adult of the Hawaiian borer, too, can
emerge from any reasonable depth when buried in the soil, this
renders the question of infested seed cane a serious one in Hawaii,
while on the mainland the careful. covering of infested seed cane is
effective in preventing the emergence of the adult moth. These .
points are mentioned to bring out the fact that we are discussing :
here a species in no way related to the cane borer of the Southern .
States and in many ways not subject to the same means of control. i
[Sphenophorus] Metamnasius services Oliv. is a species injurious to
cane in the West Indies, being recorded from Jamaica, Barbadoes, *i
St. Kitts, Antigua, St. Lucia, and British Guiana. ::
In Porto Rico Sphenophorus sexguttatus Drury is recorded by Busck, I
as boring in the stalks of sugar cane. :i
DISTRIBUTION.

The sugar-cane borer of Hawaii is recorded also from Fiji, New '
Guinea, New Ireland, Tahiti, Queensland, and the Malay Archipelago
and probably occurs pretty generally throughout the islands of the
southern Pacific.
OCCURRENCE IN HAWAII. |
This species is a pest of long standing in the islands. The insect is j
recorded from the Island of Oahu in 1885 by the Rev. Thomas Black-
burn,b who found the species breeding in the stems of bananas in the
mountains, and the files of the Bureau (then Division) of Entomology, :
record the receipt of the borer from the Hawaiian Islands, as early as
1888.c It is believed that the sugar-cane borer was introduced into
the islands from Tahiti in the stems of the banana plant during the S
early communications between the Hawaiian Islands and those of
the South Seas. Hon. H. P. Baldwin, of Puunene, Maui, informed
the writer that to his personal knowledge the beetle was injurious to
sugar cane in the vicinity of Lahaina, the ancient capital of the
islands, as early as 1865.
Aside from the banana plant and sugar cane, the beetle infests the ...
coconut palm, the sago palm, the royal palm, the wine palm, (Cary-
ota urens), and the papaia (Carica papaya).
a U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Ent., Bul. 22, p. 89, 1900.|
b BLACKBURN, REV. T., AND SHARP, D.-Memoirs on the Coleoptera of the Hawaiian '
Islands. c General Notes, Bureau of Entomology, No. 4332b.




THE HAWAIIAN SUGAR-CANE BORER.


I Until the recent injury by the leafhopper (Perlcinsiella saccharicida)
r the sugar-cane borer was the principal insect affecting cane in the
islands.
The species was determined by the Bureau of Entomology at
Washington, D. C., in 1888 from specimens forwarded by the late
King Kalakaua and was discussed under the title "The Sandwich-
Island Sugar-cane Borer," in Insect Life, vol. 1, No. 6, pages 185-189,
December, 1888.
In 1896 Mr. Koebele gave the following record on the work of
the borer in Hawaii: a
This may be classed as the most injurious enemy of the sugar cane present on these
islands. Its ravages will exceed those of all other insects combined. Its attacks on
the sugar cane, however, seem confined to the more damp localities, whilst in drier
places, such as Lahaina, the borer is hardly noticed. I have been informed that the
Lihue Plantation has recently suffered severely from the attacks of the borer. Not
only sugar cane is damaged by this insect, but many other plants are damaged by it,
chiefly the bananas and cocoanuts. A grove of the latter was shown me in Hilo, in
1894, that was badly infested by the beetles. Setting fire to the dry leaves was rec-
ommended; this was done and the plants have since entirely recovered. Dying
cocoanut palms were examined and in the tender heart of the palm were found great
numbers of the insects, in all stages.
More recently (1907) Mr. F. W. Terry has discussed the sugar-cane
borer in the Hawaiian Islands in a circular of the Hawaiian Sugar
Planters' Experiment Station. b

LIFE HISTORY AND HABITS.

The eggs are found beneath the epidermis of the cane stalk, or
more rarely in the tissue of the leaf sheath, having been placed singly
in small cavities. The cavity is made by the female with her proboscis
before depositing the egg.
The young grub or larva, on hatching from the egg, bores on into
the stalk of the cane, completely honeycombing the interior with
tunnels running lengthwisewith the stalk (see fig. 5). The evidence
of its work is not indicated by the outward appearance of the stalk.
Many times a stalk, seemingly in a normal condition, is found on
examination to be utterly destroyed. The life of the borer within
the stalk of the cane is estimated to be about seven weeks by Mr.
S Koebele,c who points out the fact that the length of the larval life
a KOEBELE, ALBERT.-Report on insect pests. S 15, no. 12, p. 590, December, 1896.
b TERRY, F. W.-Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Exp. Sta., Div. Ent., Cir. 3, pp. 22,
plates 2, fig. 1, December, 1907.
c KOEBELE, ALBERT.-Hawaiian Planters' Monthly, vol. 19, no. 11, p. 520,
November, 1900.


37




38


THE SUGAR-CANE INSECTS OF HAWAI
THE SUGAR-CANB INSECTS OF HAWAII.


depends to a great extent upon the -0- ..
.^ edition of the food plant and clim'i.,
-.' conditions; that is, the development wil.
_.-.-..-". -"*" "^ 'ffn B ... jfjiuim
i..11 be more rapid in softer cane and during?!
S j .... ..the warm summer months than during te..:
1 ....I 'b low temperatures of winter. 'f
II::JkM .. When ready to pupate-that is, to trans- .....
A form to the inactive stage preparatory to:...:
:"~"^ emerging from the stalk as an adult .
*.::. ... ...beetle-the larva (fig. 5, a) forms about
A jl|| .itself a cocoon (fig. 5, b) from the fiber of :.j
I) ... the stalk within the tunnels it has made.. '
1. i c in feeding. The adult beetle on issuing .
4 j fj .from this cocoon bores its way through
:'. !! the side of the stalk to the exterior, and.
this opening in the lower joints of the cane
-f is the first distinct symptom of the pres- 3
ence of the borer. The length of the
d pupal period is as variable as that of the
larval, the average time for transforma-
tion and emergence being from two to
_./ three weeks. :,
i}lI ^il?'The beetles are night flying and hide :
during the day down within the sheaths
'17 of the lower leaves. The softer varieties
_f of cane are more subject to attack than
the hardier varieties, and the borer is more
abundant in the wet districts than in the
IWdry. Cane which has received an abun-
ii # dant supply of water by irrigation suffers
I' more from the work of the borer than un-
irrigated cane. The borers occur in the
._a 1 [largest numbers in young cane and the
suckers are infested to a much greater '
degree than the stalks. The borers always .
occur in the largest numbers in the vicinity
'l lJJS of the track used to haul cane to the fac- .:
tory, issuing from infested stalks that have "
dropped from the cars and have not been .i!
FIG. 5.-Work of the Hawaiian sugar- : :.;
cane borer in sugar cane: a,a,a,Emer- collected and destroyed afterwards. ,
gence holes made by the larva before The borer is a strong flyer and spreads 'I
pupation; b, b, "rupture" holes, ap-
parently accidental and made by the from field to field in this manner. It is dis- !:
larva while feeding; c, holes made by tribute in infested seed cane and also "
the female borer for the reception of ...
her eggs; d, cocoon; e, larva; /, develops from the stalks left in the field
frasss" or undigested cane fiber, after harvest or dropped from the wagons !
passed by the larva. One-half natural .'*
size. (After Terry.) or cars in hauling to the factory. ..




THE HAWAIIAN SUGAR-CANE BORER.


CONTROL MEASURES.
SELECTION OF VARIETIES FOR PLANTING.
4
As has been mentioned, the softer varieties are more subject to
attack than the hardier ones. The Yellow Caledonia, a variety
which is replacing to a great extent the common Lahaina and Rose
Bamboo in Hawaii, is injured to a much less extent than other
varieties. The infestation is not necessarily less in Yellow Caledonia,
but the borer meets with greater resistance in its feeding and conse-
quent development because of the firmness of the fiber.
IRRIGATION.
Excessive irrigation favors the development of the pest, since
cane in a succulent condition is more easily infested by the borer
and its development within the stalk is more rapid. It is plain that
in fields heavily infested by the borer the minimum amount of water
should be used in irrigation.
BURNING OF TRASH.
The burning of trash after harvesting the cane is the most effectual
method of keeping the borer in check. In this practice not only
should the fields be burned over, but all the unburned stalks left in
the fields and all stalks dropped from carts and cars along the roads
and tracks used in hauling the cane to the factory should be collected
and burned. One plantation found it necessary to collect such
stalks in piles and use crude oil on them in order to destroy them
completely, and by a careful estimate of the labor and cost of mate-
rial found that the money had been well invested, as was shown by
the reduction in the numbers of borers in the fields the following
season.
SELECTION OF NONINFESTED SEED CANE.
The Hawaiian sugar-cane borer is able to emerge to the surface
from any reasonable depth when planted with seed cane. For this
reason great care should be exercised in the selection of cane for
planting purposes, since new areas can in this way be readily stocked
with the pest. It is not practical to treat successfully cane infested
with the borer, since the borer is fully protected within the stalk.
Therefore, next in importance to the thorough burning of all trash
after harvest is the selection of noninfested seed cane.
PICKING AND BAITING.
The most effective direct measure employed against the cane
borer is the collecting of the adults during the daytime from their
hiding place within the lower leaf sheaths. The supply of labor will


39




.::. : .. i iii::. .. .. ... ...
40 THE SUGAR-CANE INSECTS OF HAWAII. : -*"

influence the ability to use this method. The method is m6re fea .g:. q
where the plantation is so situated that women and children cur-b .',
employed for the work. Care should be exercised in this work ia
order that the growing leaves may not be broken down. It i
obvious that a larger number of beetles will be collected when the ':!l,|
wages are based on the numbers collected, but the results are more:,
satisfactory, as regards breaking down the cane, when the wages of
the laborers are fixed at a certain amount per day. !
In the Fiji Islands a method of baiting the beetles is employed,
which consists of splitting cane stalks and placing pieces about the
edges of the field and within the rows at certain intervals. The
method as practiced in Fiji is thus described by Mr. Koebele.a
At the request of the Colonial Sugar Company we looked into the matter with a '.
view of getting rid of the beetles the best way possible;, all sorts of devices were em-
ployed and none worked better than pieces of split cane about 12 inches long, placed |
along the edges of the field and through the same at intervals of 12-18 feet; thus with .|
seven little Indian girls, I collected over 16,000 beetles in some four hours, and the -.:i
same little girls alone brought in the following noon over 26,000 beetles. i
This method was kept up, and followed on all the plantations for the next three of
years, or until no more of the borers could be found. Tons of the same were brought '
in at the Nausori mill alone, and the expenses of collecting were practically nothing
compared to the cost at Lihue, where such work has to be done by the day. laborersm.. -.
About four cents per pint of the insects was paid to the children. The result has been :11
highly satisfactory, for, ever since the last five years, the cane borer has not been a
pest in those islands. "i
An important point regarding this split cane is that the females ,
usually infest these pieces heavily with eggs and the young resulting I
grubs bore into the split stalks and perish as the pieces of cane become I
dry. In dry localities the pieces of split cane should be placed in the
irrigation ditches during the day and placed out as bait in the even" .
ing, otherwise they dry out rapidly and cease to attract the beetles. 'i

RELATED SPECIES.

The Hawaiian sugar-cane borer is represented in the United States ,
by the "corn bill-bugs," of the genus Sphenophorus, several species ,
of which in the adult stage attack the leaves of corn, but rarely breed
in the stalk of corn as does the Hawaiian Sphenophorus in the stalk |
of cane. The Hawaiian cane borer does not occur on the mainland of the ,.
UTnited States. '::

a KOEBELE, ALBERT.-Hawaiian Planters' Monthly, vol. 19, no. 11, p. 522, Novem-
ber, 1900. ;
..:::"...II: l
.4
:: ': NNWs
.'...'I

:"" .". ":i
i':"l'i~ii.::.:.





THE HAWAIIAN SUGAR-CANE LEAF-ROLLER.


THE HAWAIIAN SUGAR-CANE LEAF-ROLLER.
(Omiodes accept Butl.) (Plate III.)

EARLY HISTORY IN THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.

During the investigations relating to the leafhopper in 1903 the
writer found the Hawaiian sugar-cane leaf-roller, the caterpillar of
a native moth, doing serious damage to cane in the upper fields of
plantations in the Kohala district, Island of Hawaii. The larvae
were collected also from Hilo grass (Paspaluim conjugatum) growing
wild above the cane areas. The species, primarily a grass feeder,
occurs in the higher altitudes and invades the bordering fields from
these locations. It is recorded by Meyrick a in 1899 from the islands
of Hawaii, Maui, Molokai, and Kauai at elevations ranging from
1,500 to 5,000 feet. The caterpillar was described for the first time
by Dr. H. G. Dyar, of the United States National Museum, from
specimens collected by the writer on cane in the Kohala district. b
Swezey states that the leaf-roller occurs on practically all of the
plantations of the islands, but is less abundant in the dry districts.
Regarding its injury he says:c
It is present in some fields of cane sometimes in such large numbers as to do consid-
erable damage; in fact, cases have been reported where the young cane has been entirely
stripped of leaves. Such instances are not numerous, however, and even in the worst
cases would not result in entire destruction of the crop of cane as it would grow again
after the caterpillars had obtained their growth, or their parasites had got them checked.
It is not usually to be considered a serious pest. Possibly it is not so abundant now
as it was a few years ago when reports were made of cane fields having been entirely
stripped by them.
At present there are a number of parasites preying upon this species and this keeps
them well in check.
In this same report, page 10, the author describes the habits of the
caterpillar as follows:
On sugar cane the very young larve feed in the crown of the plant where the young
leaves have not yet unrolled. They are thus protected between the natural rolls of
the leaf; later on they roll over the margin of a leaf forming a tube for their "retreat."
When nearly full grown, they are usually found in tubes towards the tip of the upper
leaves. These tubes are easily observed if the ragged leaves where the larvae have
fed, are examined. The work of the smaller larvae shows as oval or elongate dead
spots on leaves which have unrolled in the growing of the cane after the young larvae
have fed upon them.
When disturbed in its retreat, as by its being torn open, or violently shaken, or
jarred, the larva wriggles very-lively and drops to the ground for escape. This habit is
a MEYMICK, E.-Fauna Hawaiiensis, vol. 1, Pt. II, p. 204, 1899.
b DYAR, IH. G.-Note on the larva of an Hawaiian pyralid (Omiodes accepta Butler).
c SWEZEY, OTTO H.-The sugar-cane leaf-roller, Omiodes accept. Sugar Planters' Exp. Sta., Div. Ent., Bul. 5, p. 7, August, 1907.





42 THE SUGAR-CANE INSECTS OF HAWAII. *

probably to escape from parasites, many of which prey upon them. The retire I
it constructs is undoubtedly for the same purpose, as well as for protection froimj Ilr
and birds which prey upon it. .
The caterpillars are full grown in about three weeks from hatching. Theyi.
five times at intervals of about three to five days, and five to seven days between".:
fifth molt and the spinning of the cocoon and pupation. Pupation takes placewita
a slight cocoon of white silk in the "retreat" where the caterpillar has lived; lt
ever, the cocoon is sometimes made beneath the leaf-sheaths of cane, and in 01
favorable places.
CONTROL MEASURES.

No special remedies are employed in cane fields against this
Swezey suggests that in fields of young cane a spray of Paris
or arsenate of lead might be used with effect, and mentions that i
times laborers have been sent over the field to pinch the caterpillar |
in their retreat between the folded cane leaves. H,

PARASITES.

The species is attacked, fortunately, by several introduced px*
sites. Regarding the natural enemies of the species of moths belongi7
ing to the genus Omiodes, Mr. Swezey reports as follows on pages .36
and 37 in his article above referred to: .
Omiodes caterpillars are attacked by a large number of species of parasites, some
which are native, and several which are the most valuable have been introduce .3
The most of the species are kept in.check by their natural enemies, so that they
not become very numerous; in fact, several of them are very rare. Two species foIts
so numerously on cultivated plants that they become serious pests; accepta on sag:l
cane, and blackburni on palms. These two species are preyed upon very extensively',!
by the parasites and checked considerably, but not sufficiently to keep them mfr.ni.
doing considerable injury in certain localities and at certain seasons. Apparently
moths are more prolific in the winter months (about December to March) and
parasites are scarcer owing to their having had fewer caterpillars for them to keep l: ...
breeding on during the preceding summer. Hence, when the winter broods of catsni:
pillars appear, there may be two or three generations of them before the paxauteii!|";
breed up to sufficient numbers so that they produce any noticeable check on ::::
number of the caterpillars; then in another generation or two the caterpillars may b;'...I
much reduced in numbers and a large percentage of them found to be parasitized; fart
example, on one occasion 75 % of the cane leaf-rollers in a field at Hutchinson plano".:
station, Hawaii, were found to be destroyed by one species of parasite; at Olaa plan.V
station, Hawaii, in a certain field, on one occasion a much higher percentage ofthe.,)
than that were killed; in Honolulu, of a large number of the palm leaf-roller cat
pillars collected, 90 % were parasitized.
Since there are so many species of parasites preying on the leaf-rollers which a.*i
pests, it might be asked "Why do they not become exterminated, or at least cedbe ...
be pests?" Apparently, with all of the parasites, they are still not numerous en{Mm
to overbalance the prolificness of the pest, even though they do kill such high H
centages of them at times. Since so many are killed by parasites, and yet there
enough left to do considerable injury at times, one cannot help but wonder to
extent these pests might increase were there no parasites preying on them, and
many times more serious would be the damage done by them. The extreme diffdll$.
and impracticability of treating sugar cane fields, or large palm trees, artificiallyt.- f..
S "'... C:i!i+:





Bul. 93, Bureau of Entomology, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.


aJill


PLATE III.


/


;':/i /


THE HAWAIIAN SUGAR-CANE LEAF-ROLLER (OMIODES ACCEPTA.
Fig. 1.-Adultmoth. Figs. 2, 3,4,5.-Larvae and details. Fig. 6.-Pupa. Fig. 7.-Apex of cremaster,
showing thecurled spines by which the pupa is fastened to the cocoon. Fig. S.-Cluster of 4 eggs
in groove on surface of leaf. Fig. 9.-Eggs more highly enlarged. Fig. 10.-Leaf spun together
for "retreat" or hiding place of caterpillar; showing where caterpillar has eaten. Fig. 11.-Leaf,
showing spots where very young caterpillar has eaten, leaving one epidermis intact, instead of
eating holes through the leaf. (After Swezey.)


WA 1._








THE SUGAR-CANE MEALY-BUG.


the destruction of these pests, makes it all the more important that there are so many
valuable parasites preying upon them; and shows the value of introducing natural
enemies to control a pest, for the four best parasites of these leaf-rollers are introduced
species, viz., Macrodyctium ominiodivorum, Chalcis obscurata, Frontina archippivora and
Trichogramma pretiosa.
THE SUGAR-CANE MEALY-BUG.
(Pseudococcus calceolarix Mask.) (Plate IV.)

IDENTITY.

This insect (see Pl. IV, from photographs by Mr. T. C. Barber) is
identical with the sugar-cane mealy-bug common on cane in the
southern parishes of Louisiana. The species is recorded by Mrs.
Maria E. Fernald from Australia, Hawaii, Fiji, Jamaica, and Florida.a
Iloebele earlier records this mealy-bug on cane in Hawaii.6

RELATED SPECIES.

The mealy-bug of the cane belongs to a very large family of insects,
Coccide, which are world-wide in their distribution. Two other
species of this family, Pseudococcus sacchari Ckll. and Aspidiotus
eyanophylli Sign., have recently been recorded from Hawaii by Mr.
J. Kotinsky.c
Three species, namely, Pseudococcus calceolaria, P. sacchari, and
Aspidiotus sacchari Ckll., are known to attack sugar cane in the
West Indies.
Van Deventer records several scale insects, among them Lecaniumn
kcrugeri Zehntn., Aspidiotus saccharicaulis Zehntn., Chionaspis spp.,
and a species of Pseudococcus very similar to P. calceolaria, on cane
in Java.e
In Mauritius two species of related insects, Icerya seychellarum
Westw. and Pulvinaria iceryi Guer., are reported as pests of sugar
cane./
FOOD PLANTS.

Mrs. Fernald gives the food plants of the sugar-cane mealy-bug
as Calceolaria, Danthonia, Phormium tenax, Cordyline australis, and
a FERNALD, MRS. MARIA E.-A Catalogue of the Coccidae of the World. Hatch Exp. Sta., Mass. Agr. Coll., p. 98, 1903.
b KOEBELE, ALBERT.-Hawaiian Planters' Monthly, vol. 15, no. 12, p. 596, Decem-
ber, 1896; vol. 17, no. 5, p. 209, May, 1898.
c KOTINSKY, JAcoB.-Coccide not hitherto recorded from these islands. Hawaiian Ent. Soc., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 127-131, 1910.
d BALLOU, H. A.-Review of the insect pests affecting the sugar cane. Indian Bul., vol. 6, no. 1, p. 41, 1905.
e DEVENTER, W. VAN.-Handboek ten dienste van de Suikerriet-cultuur en de
Rietsuiker-Fabricage op Java. II. De Dierlijke vijanden van het Suikerriet en
hunne Parasieten, Amsterdam, pp. 227-266, 1906.
I FERNALD, MRS. MARIA E.-A Catalogue of the Coccide of the World. Exp. Sta. Mass. Agr. Coll., Bul. 88, pp. 27, 133, 1903.


43





THE SUGAR-CANE INSECTS OF HAWAII.


sugar cane. In Louisiana the mealy-bug infests, aside fromi
.:" ...i~lim : P... iiriii :q
cane, the Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense) and the s a
sorghums.
LIFE HISTORY AND HABITS.

The feeding habits of the mealy-bug are similar to those of
cane leafhopper; that is, their mouthparts are formed for pie:eipg
the epidermis of the plant and sucking the plant sap from the .ier
tissues. The distinction in the feeding habit is that the leafhopji
is active throughout its entire life cycle, and jumps or flies hut
plant to plant, while the mealy-bug when partly grown remiM:
practically stationary and feeds upon but one portion of the- same
plant.
Where the cane mealy-bugs occur in Hawaii, they can be found
about the lower leaves of the cane, congregating for the most pat
behind the older leaves near the ground. The species may be
nized by the white mealylike covering of the adult female, to
the common name applies. The insects occur in a mass and w....
abundant are readily observable by the white covering of the fema.
This white covering serves as a receptacle for the eggs, which, u
close examination, may be observed embedded therein.
In Louisiana the insects occur not only about the lower ie"vie.
the plant, but are to be found also around the crown (Plate IV, fig.:
and beneath the surface of the ground about the roots of the pat
In this latter location they hibernate during the cold 'months it.
winter on both cane and Johnson grass. ":
The young mealy-bugs upon hatching from the eggs areq
active and disperse over the cane plants, finally congregating wFB
partly grown about the lower nodes of the stalk. The eminales are
practically inactive, remaining in a mass about one of the nodes or
beneath the leaves throughout their development and secrbting abbut
themselves in these locations the characteristic whitk covering
(Plate IV, fig. 3). The young males do not remain stationary on
the plant, but, after completing their development, spim: a narrow
white cocoon (Plate IV, fig. 4) within which they transform to:a
delicate winged adult.
CONTROL. )
Selection of seed cane.--Since the common method of distribute
*r *.. ::'.
is by the transportation of infested seed cane from plantationjo
plantation or from one part to another of the same plantation, *Ii
should be exercised to select clean stalks and not those which a:l
infested, for seed cane.
Burning of the trash.-The practice of burning the trash att
harvest is very effective in destroying this insect, since those rem -
S..:.... .'


44












Bul. 93, Bureau of Entomology, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.


THE SUGAR-CANE MEALY-BUG (PSEUDOCOCCUS CALCEOLARI/E).
Fig. 1.-Adult mealy-bugs clustered about the base of young cane. Fig. 2.-Adult fenmaule,
twice natural size. Fig. 3.-A single adult female, with white mealy-like covering.
Fig. 4.-Cocoons of male mealy-bug. (Original.)


PLATE IV.



















































































S" :::..: .
I'























































" .*'"
": *;!














.yjE







"::=














";!





OTHER SUGAR-CANE INSECTS IN HAWAII. 45

ing on the stalks are killed in the process of milling, and the remaining
forms on the discarded stalks and leaves in the field are destroyed
by the fire.
NATURAL ENEMIES.

There is present in Hawaii a ladybird beetle, Cryptolwimus mon-
trouzieri Muls., which is a special mealy-bug feeder. This ladybird
is one of Mr. Koebele's introductions from Australia. It has proved
particularly beneficial in feeding upon the sugar-cane mealy-bug
in the Hawaiian cane fields, and through its work the numbers of the
mealy-bug have been greatly reduced in recent years. This impor-
tant predator has been established in California, and the Bureau of
Entomology at Washington, D. C., has under way at present negotia-
tions to import this beetle into the cane fields of southern Louisiana
which are infested by the mealy-bug.
The ladybird is thus described by Prof. W. W. Froggatt, govern-
ment entomologist of New South Wales.a
This beetle is very variable in size, measuring from under 2 to 3 lines in length,
with the head, thorax, extreme tip of both wing covers light orange-yellow; the whole
of the under surface reddish-brown, and both the upper and under surface clothed
with fine hairs. In a number of specimens the under surface is variable in colora-
tion, the middle and hind pairs of legs with the thorax dark reddish-brown to black.
The larva is of the usual smoky-brown tint, but so thickly clothed on the upper
surface with white filaments that it appears to be of a uniform white, the pupa hidden
beneath the larval skin and the immature beetle are pale yellow.

MISCELLANEOUS INSECTS AFFECTING SUGAR CANE IN HAWAII.

An aphis, Aphis sacchari Zehntn., is occasionally injurious to sugar
cane. Koebele records an outbreak of the species on the Island of
Kauai in 1896 utinder the name Aphis sp.b The species was deter-
mined by Kirkaldy in 1907.c This insect is known to occur on cane
in Java. In Hawaii, the species is fed upon by the ladybird Coccinella
repanda Thunb., though the benefit from this beetle is offset by the
work of its braconid parasite, Centistes americana Riley.
In some districts where the cane fields are situated in moist loca-
tions, a mole cricket, Gryllotalpa africana Beauv., is sometimes
abundant enough to be injurious. Another species of mole cricket,
Scapteriscus didactylus Latr., is a most. important pest of sugar cane
a FROGGATT, W. W.-Australian ladybird beetles. Wales, vol. 13, pt. 9, pp. 907, 908, September, 1902.
b KOEBELE, ALBERT.-Hawaiian Planters' Monthly, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 596-598,
December, 1896.
c KIRKALDY, G. W.-On some peregrine Aphidae in Oahu. SSoc., vol. 1, pt. 3, pp. 99, 100, July, 1907.






46 THE SUGAR-CANE INSECTS OF HAWAII. "

in the island of Porto Rico." Regarding the work of the Hawaiian |
mole cricket, Prof. Koebele reports as follows:b i
A species of mole cricket has appeared in very large numbers in some of the moist ]
valleys on Oahu, it is likely another Asiatic introduction, as a rule these crickets i
are found around the muddy borders of shallow ponds and watercourses where they live .
in burrows resembling those of moles, and like that animal their food consists chiefly
of earth worms and the larva of various insects. The opinions as to its habits are as :
yet divided; whilst some authorities claim that it is beneficial, others place it amongst "
the injurious insects. "l
Specimens kept in confinement here with pieces of sugar cane would hardly touch *
them, yet they readily devoured a large number of the larva of the Adoretus or Japanese ;
beetle, as well as those aphodius and a number of earth worms, all within 24 hours.
The ground infested by these crickets was examined and found to be very wet and "
completely riddled with the burrows down to a depth of three and even four feet, as
many as three and four specimens were brought to light in a single shovel full of the
soil. In such localities there is no question as to the injurious effects of the crickets
on young cane plants, wherever they were numerous almost all of the seed cane was
destroyed; they would burrow into the seed from all sides, destroying all the eyes,
where the plants had made a growth of a couple of feet the cricket would burrow in
below the ground and eat to the center, killing the plant. This is the only instance
so far observed of the depredations of these crickets here. In rice and taro fields no
damage has been observed as yet, and the only damage that is likely to occur to cane
is when it is planted in wet swampy land, as the cricket can only live and thrive in
such places, and is not found in ordinary arable land; even in the swamp where the-
cricket was very numerous, it did not attack the old cane but paid its attention solely
to the newly planted seed and very young plants.
This cricket, although living in marshy land, cannot live under water, yet it is a
good swimmer; the only remedy that can be recommended at present is to flood the
land with water and collect the crickets as they come to the surface, destroying them
by placing them in a vessel containing kerosene and water.
The fungoid so contagious to many insects and larva here, does not seem to have any
effect on this lively cricket, nor will he have anything to do with poison given in the
style of bran, sugar and arsenic.
Certain army worms and cutworms, among them Heliophila uni4
puncta Haw., Agrotis ypsilon Rott., and Spodoptera mauritia Boisd.,
are occasionally known to strip fields of young cane. These species
and related forms, together with their natural enemies, are discussed
in a recent report by MAr. 0. H. Swezey. c
A bud moth, Ereunetis flavistriata Wism., is found generally
throughout the Hawaiian cane fields and at times is quite numerous.
Regarding its injury Swezey says:d
a BARRETT, 0. W.-The change or mole cricket in Porto Rico. Exp. Sta., Bul. 2, pp. 19, fig. 1, 1902.
b KOEBELE, ALBERT.-Hawaiian Planters' Monthly, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 594-596,
December, 1896.
c SWEZEY, 0. H.-Army worms and cutworms on sugar cane in the Hawaiian
Islands. November, 1909.
d SWEZEY, 0. H.-The Hawaiian sugar cane bud moth (Ereunetis flavistriata)
with an account of some allied species and natural enemies. Exp. Sta., Div. Ent., Bul. 6, pp. 40, pls. 4, October, 1909.





RATS INJURING SUGAR-CANE.


l It is usually not particularly injurious as it customarily feeds on the dead and drying
Tissues of the leaf-sheaths of sugar cane; but when very numerous and on particularly
I soft varieties of cane the caterpillars do considerable eating of the epidermis, and also
Seat into the buds and destroy them, occasioning a good deal of loss where the cane is
Desired for cuttings to plant.
S The grasshoppers Xiphidium varipenne Swezey and Oxya velox Fab.
feed to some extent on the leaves of cane. The former species is also
predatory in habit, attacking the young leafhoppers and the larvae
of the sugar-cane leaf-roller.
Two species of beetles which occasionally invade the cane fields
* from their common food plants and attack the leaves of the sugar
cane are Fuller's rose beetle, Aramigusfulleri Horn,a and the Japanese
beetle, Adoretus tenuirnmaculatu s Waterh. b

RATS INJURING GROWING SUGAR CANE IN HAWAII.

The so-called roof-rat (Mus alexandri-nus) in former years was
very common in the cane fields of Hawaii and did considerable
damage by eating the stalks. This is also the cane-field rat of the
island of Jamaica. The species in Hawaii lives now for the most part
in trees and the upper stories of dwellings, since it has been driven
to a great degree from the cane fields by the introduced mongoose.
The introduction of the mongoose was a benefit as regards its destruc-
tion to the rats in the cane fields, but the animal is an undesirable
acquisition to the fauna of the islands for the reason that in recent
years it has included in its dietary the eggs and young of ground-
nesting birds and domestic fowls. The destruction of the ground-
nesting birds is most regrettable.
a VAN DINE, D. L.-Hawaii Exp. Sta., Press Bul. 14, p. 5, October, 1905.
6 KOEBELE, ALBERT.-Hawaiian Planters' Monthly, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 260-264,
June, 1898.


47














































6*















INDEX.

Page.
Adoretus tenuimaculatus, injurious to sugar cane ............................. 47
Adrastidia nebulosa, enemy of Perkinsiella saccharicida ....................... 28
Agrotis ypsilon, injurious to sugar cane...................................... -----------------------------------46
Algeroba. (See Prosopis juliflora.)
Anagrus columbi, parasite of Perkinsiella saccharicida ............................ 29
frequens, parasite of Perkinsiella sac&haricida .......................... 31
parasite of Perkinsiella viliensis ..................................... 30
Anomalochrysa sp., enemy of Perkinsiella saccharicida ......................... 28
Aphis sacchari, prey of Coccinella repanda ..................................... 45
sugar-cane pest in Hawaiian Islands ........................ 11,45
sugar cane. (See Aphis sacchari.)
Aramigusfulleri, injurious to sugar cane .................................... 47
Army worms injurious to sugar cane ......................................... 46
Arsenate of lead against Hawaiian sugar-cane leaf-roller ....................... 42
Aspidiotus cyanophylli, recorded from Hawaii .............................. 43
saccharicaulis, sugar-cane pest in Java ............................. 43
sacchari, sugar-cane pest in West Indies ........................... 43
Baiting Hawaiian sugar-cane borer ......................................... 39-40
Banana, food plant of Rhabdocnemis obscurus ................................ 36
Beekeeping in Hawaiian Islands, relation to sugar-cane leafhopper ........... 20-22
Beetle, Japanese. (See Adoretus tenuimaculatus.)
Borer, Hawaiian sugar-cane. (See Rhabdocnemnis obscurus.)
Bud moth of sugar cane. (See Ereunelisflavistriala.)
Burning against Hawaiian sugar-cane borer .................................. 39
sugar-cane leafhopper......................................---------------------------------.. 22,23
mealy-bug ....--------------... ---....----------------- ............ 44-45
Calceolaria, food plant of Pseudococcus calceolarix............................ --------------------------43
Cane-field rat of Jamaica. (See Mus alexandrin us.)
Carica papaya, food plant of Rhabdocnemis obscurus.......................... -------------------------36
Caryota urens, food plant of Rhabdocnemis obscurus............................ --------------------------36
Caustic soda and lime against sugar-cane leafhopper......................... ------------------------22
lime, and copper sulphate against sugar-cane leafhopper----------......... 22
Centistes americana, parasite of Coccinella repanda ............................. 28,45
Chalcis obscurata, parasite of Omiodes accept and 0. blackburni ................ 43
Changa. (See Scapteriscus didactylus.)
Chelisoches morio, enemy of Perkinsiella saccharicida ........................... 32
Chionaspis spp., sugar-cane pests in Java ..................................... 43
Chrysopa microphya, enemy of Perkinsiella saccharicida ....................... 28
Climate of Hawaiian Islands ............................................... 9
Coccinella repanda, enemy of Aphis sacchari ................................. 45
Perkinsiella saccharicida ......................... 28, 32
host of Centistes americana ................................ 28,45
Collection by nets against sugar-cane leafhopper .............................. 22
49






50


THE SUGAR-CANE INSECTS OF HAWAII.


Copper sulphate, lime, and caustic soda against sugar-cane leafhopper .......
Cordyline australis, food plant of Pseudococcusn calceolaria,......................
Corn, food plant of Dicranotropis maidis ......................................
leafhopper. (See Dicranotropis maidis.)
Crop diversification against sugar-cane leafhopper............................
Cryptolemus montrouzieri, description...................................
enemy of Pseudococcus calceolari .................
Cultural methods against sugar-cane leafhopper........................... ...
Cutting and burning against sugar-cane leafhopper............................
Cutworms injurious to sugar cane ..........................................
Danthonia, food plant of Pseudococeua calceolaria.------------------------............................
Delphax saccdwrirora on sugar cane in West Indies ............................
Diatrara saccharalis, sugar-cane pest, comparison with Rhabdocnemis obscurus...
Dicranotropis maidis on corn in Southern States..............................
rastatrixr, sugar-cane pest in Java...............................
Diseases of sugar cane, spread by Perkinsiella saccharidda......................
Diversification of crops against sugar-cane leafhopper..------..................
Ecthrodelphaxfairchildii, parasite of Perkinsiella sacrdaricida................ --------------28,
Elenchus, parasite of Perkinsiella saccharicida...............................
Ereunetisjlaristriata, injurious to sugar cane................................
Eumetopina krigeri, sugar-cane pest in Java..................................
Frontina archippirora, parasite of Omiodes accept and 0. blackburni .........
Fungous diseases of leafhoppers in Hawaii.......------.-----.....................
enemy of Siphanta acuta and Perkinsiella saccharicda................
Grass, Hilo. (See Paspalum conjugatum.)
Johnson. (See Sorghumin halepense.)
Gryllotalpa africana, injurious to sugar cane................................
Hand destruction against Hawaiian sugar-cane leaf-roller.....................
picking against Hawaiian sugar-cane borer.............................
Hawaiian Islands, climate and location......................................
sugar-cane insects........................................
industry.............................................
Heliophila unipuncta, injurious to sugar cane --.......------...-...................
Honeydew honey in Hawaiian Islands.......................................
Hypochnus, fungus accompanying injury to sugar cane by Perkinsiella sae-
charicida ................... ..................................................
Icerya seychellarum, sugar-cane pest in Mauritius............................
Insecticides against sugar-cane leafhopper........................---........
Insects injuring sugar cane in Hawaiian Islands.............................
Irrigation, excessive, favorable to Hawaiian sugar-cane borer..................
Kerosene emulsion against sugar-cane leafhopper............................
Leafhopper, corn. (See Dicranotropis maidis.)
sugar-cane (see also Perkinsiella saccharicida).
prey of Xiphidium raripenne .......................
Leafhoppers and their natural enemies, bibliographic reference......---.....
Leaf-roller, Hawaiian sugar-cane (see also Omiodes accepta.
preyed upon by Xiphidium varipenne.......
palm. (See Omiodes blackburni.)
Lecanium krugeri, sugar-cane pest in Java....................................
Lime and caustic soda against sugar-cane leafhopper ......................-
copper sulphate, and caustic soda against sugar-cane leafhopper........
Macrodyctium omiodirorum, parasite of Omiodes accept and 0. blackburni......
Mealy-bug, sugar-cane. (See Pseudocowus calceolarim.)


22
43
34

26
45
45
25-26
22-23
46
43
34
345-
34
34
19
26
29,32
30
46-47
34
43
32-33
28


45-46
42
39-40
9
11-47
9-10
46
21-22

18
43
22
11-47
39
22


47


47

43
22
22
43 4






INDEX.


Melanconium sacchari, control ..............................................
spread by Hawaiian sugar-cane borer.................
Perkinsiella saccharicida .................. 19,
Metamasius sericeus, sugar-cane pest in West Indies.........................
Mole cricket. (See Gryllotalpa africana and Scapieriscus didaclylus.)
Mongoose in Hawaii.................-----...............-- .............-.....
Mus alexandrinus, injurious to sugar cane ..................................
Natural enemies of injurious insects, importance of introduction into Hawaiian
Islands......... ................. .......................................
tEchalia griseus, enemy of Perkinsiella saccharicida.............................


Omiodes accept, control measures.


early history in Hawaiian Islands...............
habits .......................................
injury........................................
parasites ......................................
sugar-cane pest in Hawaiian Islands............
blackburni, injurious to palms.........................
Ootetrastichus beatus, parasite of Perkinsiella saccharicida..........
riitiensis.............
Palm, coconut, food plant of Rhabdocnemis obscurus ............
leaf-roller. (See Omiodes blackburni.)
royal, food plant of Rhabdocnemnis obscurus................
sago, food plant of Rhabdocnemis obscurus................
wine. (See Caryota urens.)
Palms, food plants of Omiodes blackburni ........................
Papaia. (See Carica papaya.)
Paranagrus optabilis, parasite of Perkinsiella saccharicida.........
parasite of Perk-insiella titiensis ...................
perforator, parasite of Perkinsiella saccharicida........


11,


Paraphelinus, parasite of Xiphidium varipenne ........................
Parasitic enemies of injurious insects, importance of introduction into Ilai
Islands.......... ..................................................
Paris green against Hawaiian sugar-cane leaf-roller.....................
Paspalum conjugatum, food plant of Omiodes accept a.................
Perkinsiella, description of genus ....................................
saccharicida, appearance in Hawaiian Islands-..............
control......................................
description...................................
dispersion ....................................
distribution .................................
*factors responsible for outbreak of 1903 .......
fungous disease............................-------------------------.
habits......................................
injury, extent...............................
to cane, character....................
life history.......... .........................
natural enemies................................
related species................................
relation to beekeeping.........................
sugar-cane pest in Hawaiian Islands............
vitiensis, parasites ......................................
Phenice maculosa, sugar-cane pest in Java.............................
Phormium tenax, food plant of Pseudococcus calceolariae.................


19, 20,


,aiian


.-. 11,


------------------------------------


Page.
27
26-27
26-27
36

47
47

11-12
28
42
41-42
41-42
41
42-43
41-43
42
31,32
30
36

36
36

42

31
30
31
32

11-12
42
41
13
12-13
22-28
13-14
14
12
20
28
15-18
19
18-19
15-18
28-34
34
20-22
12-34
30
34
43


- - - - - - -
. . . . . . .





52 THE SUGAR-CANE INSECTS OF HAWAII.

Pineapple disease of sugar cane. (See Thielaviopsis ethaceticus.) Pag.
Pipunculus juvator, parasite of Perkinsiella saccharicida ........................ 32
terryi, parasite of Perkinsiella saccharicdda ......................... 32
Platyomus lividigaster, enemy of Perkinsiella saccharicida ..................... 28
Predaceous enemies of injurious insects, importance of introduction into
Hawaiian Islands ....................................................... 11-12
Prosopis juliflora, honey plant in Hawaiian Islands .......................... 21
Pseudococcus calceolarix, control ............................................. 44-45
food plants ......................................... 43-44
habits .............................................. 44
identity ........................................... 43
life history ........................................ 44
natural enemies .................................... 45
related species .................................----------------------------------... 43
sugar-cane pest in Hawaiian Islands .............. 11,43-45
W est Indies ....................... 43
sacchari, recorded from Hawaii .................................. 43
sugar-cane pest in West Indies ........................ 43
sp., near calceolaria, sugar-cane pest in Java.................... --------------------43
Pulvinaria iceryi, sugar-cane pest in Mauritius ............................... 43
Rainfall of Hawaiian Islands ................................................ 9
Rats injuring sugar cane................................................----------------------------------------------... 47
Rhabdocnemis obscurus, control measures .................................... 39-40
distribution ........................................ 36
food plants ...................................--------------------------------------..... 36
general characteristics................................ ---------------------------35-36
habits .............................................. 37-38
life history .......................................... 37-38
occurrence in Hawaii ................................ 36
related species....................................-----------------------------------.. 40
sugar-cane pest in Hawaiian Islands ......... 11, 19, 20, 35-40
Rind disease of sugar-cane. (See Melanconium sacchari.)
Roof-rat. (See Mus altxandrinus.)
Rose beetle, Fuller's. (See Aramigusfulleri.)
Scapteriscus didactylus, injurious to sugar cane ................................ 45-46
Seed cane, noninfested, selection as preventive against Hawaiian sugar-cane
borer .............. 39
sugar-cane m e a 1 y-
bug ............. 44
Siphanta acuta, attacked by fungous disease................................ 28
Smut, black, of sugar cane, accompanying injury by Perkinsiella saccharicda.. 18
Soils of Hawaiian Islands ................................................... 9
Sorghum halepense, food plant of Pseudococcus calceolarise---------------------..................... 44
Sphseronema, fungus resembling species of this genus accompanying injury by
Perkinsiella saccharicida on cane.........................................---------------------------------------.. 18
Sphenophorus obscurus. (See Rhabdocnemis obscurus.)
sericeus. (See Mfetamasius sericeus.)
sexguttatus, sugar-cane pest in Porto Rico...................... ---------------------36
Spodoptera mauritia, injurious to sugar cane-------------------------------................................. 46
Stalk-borer, sugar-cane. (See Diatraa saccharalis.)
Stripping leaves against sugar-cane leafhopper.............................. -----------------------------23






INDEX.


S


ugar cane aphis. (See Aphis sacchari.)
borer, Hawaiian. (See Rhabdocnemis obscurus.)
bud moth. (See Ereunetisflavistriata.)
damage by Mus alexandrinus .....................................
diseases, spread by Perkinsiella saccharicida........................
food plant of Adoretus tenuimaculatus-----------------------.............................
Agrotis ypsilon .....................................
A phis sacchari .....................................
Aramigusfulleri .....................................
Aspidiotus sacchari ..................................
saccharicaulis ............................
Chionaspis spp .............. .. ......................
Delphax saccharivora ...............................
Diatrxa saccharalis .................................
Dicranotropis vastatrix ................ .............
Ereunetis flavistriala...............................
Eumnelopina kriigeri....................... ..........
Gryllotalpa africana.................................
Heliophila unipuncta ................................
Icerya seychellaru m..................................
Lecanium krugeri .................................
Metamasius sericeus ................................
Omiodes accepta.......................... 11, 19, 20,
Perkinsiella saccharicida......................... 11,
Phenice maculosa ..................................
Pseudococcus calceolaria' ......................... 11,
sacchari................................
sp., near calceolaria ...................
Pulvinaria iceryi ....................................
Rhabdocnemnis obscurus ..................... 11, 19, 20,
Scapteriscus didacylus ..............................
Sphenophorus sexguttatus................. ..... ....
Spodoptera mrnauritia ............. ....................
insects of Hawaiian Islands .....................................
leafhopper (see also Perkinsiella saccharicida).
preyed upon by Xiphidium varipenne.................
Fijian. (See Perkinsiella vzitiensis.)
leaf-roller, Hawaiian (see also Omiodes accepta.
preyed upon by Xiphidiur varipenne.................
mealy-bug. (See Pseudococcus calceolaria.)
pineapple disease. (See Thielaviopsis ethaceticus.)
rind disease. (See Melanconium sacchari.)
stalk-borer. (See Diatraa 8accharalis.)
Yellow Caledonia, resistant to leafhopper attack...................
sugar-cane borer, Hawaiian.........
varieties and' their relative resistance to leafhopper attack.........
least injured by Hawaiian sugar-cane borer ..............
industry in Hawaiian Islands.......................................
Temperature of Hawaiian Islands.........................................
Tetragnatha mandibulata, enemy of Perkinsiella saccharicida..................
Thielaviopsis ethaceticus, spread by Perkinsiella saccharicida .....-----...............
Trap bait against Hawaiian sugar-cane borer................................


53


Page.


47
19
47
46
11,45
47
43
43
43
34
36
34
46-47
34
45-46
46
43
43
36
41-43
12-34
34
43-415
43
43
43
35-40
45-46
36
46
11-47

47


47




23-25
39
23-25
39
9-10
9
28
19
39-40





THE SUGAR-CANE INSECTS OF HAWAII.


PAW
Trichogramma pretiosa, parasite of Omiodes accept and 0. blackburni ........... 43
Verania strigula, enemy of Perkinsiella saccharicida............................ --------------------------32
Xiphidium varipenne, enemy of Perkinsiella saccharicida...................... ----------------------32
sugar-cane leafhopper and sugar-cane leaf-
roller .....--------------------------------......... 47
host of Paraphelinus........---------.--------------------............ 32
on sugar cane ...............----------.................------......... 47
Zelus peregrinus, enemy of Perkinsiella saccharicida .......................... 28


0


54















































































<- > .
Fr














0a











it









|


















































































































I






















































































*




................

LA
i tt




44i


i Iw
i Ly

* 4






mlow
ii iWi




UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
I11111311111EIIlllEUn lnmlt
3 1262 09216 6676




Full Text
xml version 1.0 standalone yes
Volume_Errors
Errors
PageID P11
ErrorID 4