The ranch. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1902-1914, 1904-06-15
Concerning the CutwOrm


time in the study of economic ento-
mology I feel bound to take exception
to the article with which your issue of
June 1st begins: Look Out for the
Cutworm." Almost every statement
therein contained is glaringly incor-
rect. One is used unfortunately, to
the absurdities of newspaper ento-
mology," but a paper of the standing
of The Ranch, which is intended for
the instruction of the farmer, and
which could, suppose, at any time
command the services of an official
entomologist to supply information,
should not publish such nonsense as
that contained in the article COM
planned of. The writer has mixed up
every kind of CATERPILLAR which is
likely to occur on a farm and con-
structed a life history that does not
fit any of them.
The white butterfly" is the parent
of the cabbage caterpillar. 1t passes
the winter in the chrysalis state and
lays its eggs in May on cabbage and
other cruciferous plants. 1t never
feeds on clover. The dreaded cut
worm moth (peridroma saucia) passes
the winter in the moth state, lays its
eggs about the first week in June and
the caterpillars are most destructive
in July Their supposed plentifulness
every two or four years is myth.
No one can predict their appearance
for certainty, as we do not yet know
enough of the various factors that
have to be taken into consideration.
The caterpillars at present troubling
your state so far as can be gathered
from the newspaper accounts, are tent
caterpillars. The moth producing
them lays it's eggs in the fall on twigs
of various trees. The eggs are
Matched in the spring and the young
caterpillars construct conspicuous
web or net on and in which they con-
gregate during the best part of the
day. These caterpillars are as I'M
likely to touch garden crops as the
cabbage worms are to touch clover.
The farmers best plan, it an insect
pest is troubling him, is to first find
out what the creature is and then ask
advice from the proper officials at the
department of agriculture or state ex-
pertinent station. But | pity the
farmer who follows the advice of the
writer | have attempted to crlt1clse.
Yours faithfully. B. q.
Our Canadian friend should read
the article again. The statements
therein contained are based upon OBJ
servations and Investigations maue
four years ago by both the Washing
ton and the Oregon agricultural col
leges, principally the former, and also
upon personal observations made by
the writer in 1900, when the cutworms
were the most numerous in western
Washington. Investigations by the
California experiment station and a
number of eastern stations also show
the same general conclusions as are
indicated in the article in question.
This is particularly true regarding
the statement that the true cutworm
is more numerous every two years
than during the intervening years.
Such has been the experience in Cali
fornia, Arkansas, and one or two other
states besides our own-and to call 1T
a myth is not correct. In the article
to which our friend objects it was not
claimed that the caterpillars, just be-
ginning to make themselves known at
the time the article was written, were
the true cutworms but a warning was
thrown out. Developments since the
article went into print have shown
that those caterpillars were the tent
caternillars and thew have been well