UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE. 
 
 AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 
 
 GRASSHOPPERS IN CALIFORNIA 
 
 By C. W. WOODWORTH. 
 
 Young Grasshopper on Blade of Grass. 
 (Slightly enlarged). 
 
 BULLETIN No. 142 
 
 (Berkeley, August, 1902.) 
 
 SACRAMENTO : 
 : : : superintendent state printing. 
 1902. 
 
BENJAMIN IDE WHEELER, Ph.D., LL.D., President of the University. 
 
 EXPERIMENT STATION STAFF. 
 E. W. HILGARD, Ph.D., LL.D., Director and Chemist. 
 
 E. J. WICKSON, M.A., Horticulturist, and Superintendent of Central Station Grounds. 
 W. A. SETCHELL, Ph.D., Botanist. 
 
 R. H. LOUGHRIDGE, Ph.D., Agricultural Geologist and Soil Physicist. (Soils and Alkali.) 
 C. W. WOODWORTH, M.S., Entomologist. 
 *M. E. JAFFA, M.S., Assistant Chemist. (Foods, Fertilizers.) 
 G. W. SHAW, M.A., Ph.D., Assistant Chemist. (Soils, Beet-Sugar.) 
 GEORGE E. COLBY, M.S., Assistant Chemist. (Fruits, Waters, Insecticides.) 
 LEROY ANDERSON, M.S.A., Animal Industries, San Luis Obispo. 
 A. R. WARD, B.S.A., D.V.M., Veterinarian, Bacteriologist. 
 E. H. TWIGHT, B.Sc.,DiplomeE.A.M., Viticulturist. 
 E. W. MAJOR, B.Agr., Dairy Husbandry. 
 
 A. V. STQBENRAUCH, M.S., Assistant Horticulturist and Superintendent of Substations. 
 * J. BURTT DAVY, Assistant Botanist. 
 H. M. HALL, M.S., Assistant Botanist. 
 W. T. CLARKE, Assistant Entomologist. 
 C. A. COLMORE, B.S., Clerk to the Director. 
 
 EMIL KELLNER, Foreman of Central Station Grounds. 
 
 JOHN TUOHY, Patron, ) 
 
 y Tulare Substation, Tulare. 
 JULIUS FORRER, Foreman, ) 
 
 R. C. RUST, Patron, ) 
 
 y Foothill Substation, Jackson. 
 JOHN H. BARBER, Foreman, ) 
 
 S. D. MERK, Patron, ) 
 
 y Coast Range Substation, Paso Robles. 
 J. H. OOLEY, Workman in charge, ) 
 
 S. N. ANDROUS, Patron, ) ( Pomona. 
 
 y Southern California Substation, ■{ 
 J. W. MILLS, Foreman, ) ( Ontario. 
 
 V. C. RICHARDS, Patron, ) 
 
 y Forestry Station, Chico. 
 T. L. BOHLENDER, in charge, ) 
 
 ROY JONES, Patron, ) 
 
 y Forestry Station, Santa Monica. 
 WM. SHUTT, Foreman, \ 
 
 * Absent on leave. 
 
 The Station publications (Reports and Bulletins) will be sent to any 
 citizen of the State on application, so long as available. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 INTRODUCTION 5 
 
 GRASSHOPPERS THIS YEAR 6 
 
 At Roseville; at Fair Oaks _ 6 
 
 Attempted State work 9 
 
 NEED OF LEGISLATIVE ACTION 10 
 
 THE INSECTS CONCERNED 11 
 
 Insects falsely called locust 11 
 
 True locust and their relatives _ _ 12 
 
 Blattidre; Forficulidse ; Phasmidae; Mantidse; Gryllidse; Locustidee; 
 
 Acrididse ._ 12 
 
 GRASSHOPPERS IN FORMER YEARS 19 
 
 LIFE HISTORY .. 21 
 
 Breeding-grounds in California ... 21 
 
 Drifting 22 
 
 Migration 23 
 
 REMEDIES 24 
 
 Control of flying swarms 24 
 
 Driving; Poisons _ 24 
 
 Control of drifting swarms 26 
 
 Barriers; Smudging; Sacking; Plowing-in ; Poisons; The use of the hop- 
 per-dozer _ __ _. 26 
 
 Control in breeding-grounds __ _ _ 30 
 
 Plowing; Burning; Hopper-dozers ._ 30 
 
 Complete control 33 
 
 A plan for State action _ 34 
 
 Hopper reporters ; Competent inspection ; Supervision ; Local authority ; 
 
 State authority _ _._ 34 
 
 The plan in brief ._ 36 
 
GRASSHOPPERS IN CALIFORNIA. 
 
 Grasshoppers or locusts have, during the last season, caused a great 
 deal of alarm in the minds of fruit-growers in this State, though the 
 losses sustained have not been particularly large. Hoppers were mod- 
 erately abundant over a very large area, including both sides of the 
 Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys; and in southern California in a 
 few places in Santa Barbara and Ventura counties and in the hill 
 regions of San Diego County. The presence of considerable numbers 
 of hoppers over such a large extent of territory in a single season is 
 quite remarkable. The actual numbers present in each of these regions 
 was a great deal less than had been known in previous years. Had the 
 numbers been as great as they have formerly been in all these same 
 regions, the total amount of injury would have been enormous. 
 
 It is not known exactly what the conditions are that have favored 
 the unusual increase of hoppers this year, but in every region where 
 migratory locusts are prevalent this same sudden increase in seasons 
 favorable to them is the common experience. The increase of the 
 insects this year simply emphasizes the fact that California is one of 
 the regions where the conditions are favorable to migratory locusts. In 
 every part of the world where there is an arid climate, where grass- 
 covered highlands exist with neighboring cultivated lowlands, migratory 
 locusts abound and do injury, the extent of which depends primarily 
 upon the season but also upon the extent of this bare arid upland 
 country, and upon its proximity to the cultivated lands. 
 
 The open pasture lands in California are very widely scattered over 
 the State and are in the aggregate quite extensive, though very insig- 
 nificant as compared with those on the other side of the Rocky 
 Mountains. While we will not, for this reason, expect as great grass- 
 hopper migrations as have occurred there, still our orchards and vine- 
 yards are each year coming closer and closer to the breeding-grounds. 
 These interests can be so seriously injured by grasshoppers that the 
 question of grasshopper control is even now a matter of extreme impor- 
 tance, the solution of which is becoming more and more imperative. 
 
 Change of Law Imperative. — We will attempt in this bulletin to pre- 
 sent a review of the present knowledge of the hopper situation in this 
 State, and to show that there is ground for believing that the danger 
 from this insect could be almost entirely avoided if the proper pro- 
 
6 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION. 
 
 visions were made for the study of the problem and for the carrying-out 
 of a sound general policy in accordance with the facts so determined. 
 At the present time the laws are such as to really prevent any concerted 
 action; and no one has the exact knowledge of the breeding-grounds or 
 the habits of the insects there, to intelligently direct such action. This 
 year's experience has indicated very clearly the needs of a hopper 
 investigation and control. 
 
 GRASSHOPPERS THIS YEAR. 
 
 About the first of June reports of injury were received from several 
 widely separated regions. In the lower San Joaquin Valley the grass- 
 hoppers had already begun to obtain wings, but there was no true 
 migration; indeed, nowhere this year has there been serious injury from 
 migratory swarms, the whole work being done by drifting swarms in 
 regions immediately adjacent to the breeding-grounds. The hopper 
 invasion in Sacramento County received the most public attention, 
 though the greatest injury was done in Fresno and Tulare counties. 
 
 Grasshoppers at Roseville. — The Placer County swarm was first inves- 
 tigated by W. T. Clarke, assistant entomologist of this Department, who 
 
 was called into consultation in 
 
 Fig 
 
 reference to the injury done in 
 the vicinity of Roseville. As 
 a result of his studies he was 
 able to show that the orchards 
 and vineyards adjacent to Rose- 
 ville were threatened by a com- 
 paratively small swarm which 
 bred in the pasture lands north 
 and east of town. Fig. 1 illus- 
 trates the situation at the time 
 his investigations were made. 
 He called a public meeting at 
 Roseville on June 9th, at which 
 he urged that measures be at 
 once taken to attack the hopper 
 upon its breeding-ground, showing that in this way the whole 
 situation in that district could be handled. He advised the use of the 
 hopper-dozer and the burning of a very narrow strip of pasture nearest 
 the cultivated fields. 
 
 Instead of doing this themselves, the parties interested finally 
 decided to call upon the county horticultural commissioners to order the 
 owners of the infested territory to suppress the hoppers. This the 
 commissioners did, and on the refusal of the owners they prepared to 
 carry out the plan proposed at the meeting. Because of threats that 
 
 Map showing the Roseville Swarm of 
 Grasshoppers, June 9, 1902. 
 
 The arrows indicate the direction taken by the 
 hoppers. 
 
grasshoppers: roseville and fair oaks. 7 
 
 were made they first sought legal advice, and learned that they might 
 be personally responsible for damages to the burned pastures. There- 
 upon they very naturally refused to act. According to the advice 
 obtained, their powers in the matter were very doubtful, if existing at 
 all; and thus the matter rested, with nothing done, for two or three 
 weeks. In the meantime the hoppers continued to drift over the culti- 
 vated lands, doing scarcely any injury to grain crops, because the grain 
 at this time was nearly all ripe, but destroying some vineyards and 
 isolated orchard trees, the owners of which, as a general thing, did not 
 attempt to save them in any effective way. Fig. 2 will show how com- 
 pletely the leaves may be stripped from vines. 
 
 Fig. 2. Vineyard Near Roseville, showing Work of Grasshoppers. 
 From photograph taken in Jane, 1902. 
 
 Grasshoppers at Fair Oaks. — The next point at which hoppers 
 caused apprehension in this district was in the vicinity of Fair Oaks, 
 in Sacramento County. Here the hoppers were quite numerous, and 
 threatened to do a great deal of damage. The people in this com- 
 munity became thoroughly aroused, and at a series of public meetings 
 decided that the adjacent breeding-grounds should be burned over. They 
 appealed to the County Supervisors for power to do this work. The 
 prompt and decided action of the members of this Board showed their 
 public spirit, for they at once authorized and directed the people owning 
 the threatened orchards to undertake the matter. This action was 
 taken in spite of the fact that there was considerable doubt as to the 
 legality of the action, and therefore considerable individual risk on the 
 part of the Supervisors for suits of damage. 
 
h UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION. 
 
 Work in this region was greatly facilitated by the public spirit also 
 of one of the largest land-owners of that district, who freely consented 
 to the destruction of the grass on his holdings. A large area in this 
 way was burned over, and the immediate danger to the orchards of Fair 
 Oaks and Orangevale was entirely overcome. The whole community 
 turned out to do this work. Fig. 3 shows a gang of men with hoes 
 clearing a line though the grass preliminary to starting a. fire. 
 
 More or less friction occurred in some of the districts where this burn- 
 ing was done, and some of the troubles were carried into court. Because 
 of the lack of careful inspection it is more than possible that burning was 
 done over a great deal of territory on which there was not sufficient 
 
 Fig. 3. The Preparation of the "Firing Line" in this Season's Campaign. 
 
 infestation of hoppers to justify the work. It is almost certain, also, 
 that in some of the burning, carelessness resulted in losses that might 
 have been entirely avoided; but at best, burning is accompanied by more 
 or less risk. It is also true that other means, as for instance the use of 
 the hopper-dozer, would have been equally effective and cheaper, without 
 the loss of any of the pasturage. In spite of all these criticisms of the work 
 in Sacramento County, no one who was conversant with the situation 
 there this summer can have any doubt that great loss to the fruit 
 interests of that part of the county was avoided by these measures. 
 
 The inadequacy of the laws now in existence to meet an invasion of 
 hoppers is very clearly shown; for it is doubtful if another Board of 
 Supervisors could be found in the State that would have the temerity 
 
grasshoppers: state work. y 
 
 to take the matter in its own hands, as was done in Sacramento County; 
 and without such boldness absolutely nothing could be done concertedly 
 under our present law. 
 
 Attempted State Work. — After the ground in the neighborhood of Fair 
 Oaks and Orangevale had been burned over, the people in those com- 
 munities very naturally began to be somewhat alarmed by the possibility 
 of flying swarms from the immediately adjacent breeding-grounds of 
 Placer and El Dorado counties. A committee of Supervisors of Sacra- 
 mento County, together with the District Attorney, held conferences 
 with the Supervisors of these two adjacent counties, and urged them in 
 the strongest possible manner to take similar action in their respective 
 districts. The Supervisors of neither of these counties saw fit to take 
 the action desired, so nothing along this line could be accomplished. 
 If the hoppers had been slightly more abundant, so that there might 
 have been flying swarms, there is quite a possibility that these orchards 
 in the Fair Oaks and Orangevale colonies would have been destroyed in 
 spite of the very energetic and expensive work that was done for their 
 protection in their immediate neighborhood. 
 
 Failing to accomplish anything in these counties, the Supervisors of 
 Sacramento County appealed to the State Board of Horticulture to 
 exercise what power they imagined might rest in the State Board to 
 defend Sacramento County from the hoppers of Placer and El Dorado 
 counties. The State Board of Horticulture could do nothing, because 
 the law creating this board is so framed as to expressly prevent it. This 
 has been repeatedly so decided by attorneys, and is in accord with the 
 advice of the Attorney-General of the State. 
 
 Being unable to do anything but to recognize the importance of the 
 matter, the members of the Board residing at Sacramento, together with 
 the chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County, 
 appealed personally to the Governor to use the power which, in the 
 opinion of the Attorney-General, rested alone in the Chief Executive of 
 the State. The Governor, after carefully considering the matter, sug- 
 gested to the members of the State Board of Horticulture that they 
 undertake the burning of the breeding-grounds in these Counties, after 
 first securing from the owners a contract permitting the work to be done, 
 the Governor agreeing to recommend to the Legislature a bill appro- 
 priating an amount not to exceed $10,000 to reimburse those whose 
 grounds were thus burned over. It seemed to all parties of the confer- 
 ence that this action would accomplish all that was necessary, it being 
 believed that even though the consent of part of the owners of pasture 
 lands could not be obtained, still sufficient work could be done to 
 decrease the number of hoppers to a point where the probability of fly- 
 ing swarms would be very slight. This measure was never carried out, 
 owing to the legal advice to the effect that in case the State Board 
 
10 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION. 
 
 ordered work to be done under this arrangement, the individual mem- 
 bers would be responsible for any accidental fires that might result from 
 the burning of these lands. 
 
 While these various propositions were being discussed, the hoppers 
 were growing and obtaining their wings, and had, to quite a large extent, 
 left their breeding-grounds; and were drifting in adjacent stubble fields 
 and occasionally injuring orchard property. They had reached a point 
 where the burning of the breeding-grounds would have but little effect. 
 We therefore advised those who were still trying to find a way to get 
 the work done, that it would then be of doubtful utility, and the effort 
 ceased. The fighting of the drifting swarms was taken up with con- 
 siderable success. Commonly it was necessary to go into the fields, do 
 the work, and get results, before the growers in a community would try 
 to help themselves in an effective way. 
 
 Fortunately, as has already been said, flying swarms did not occur 
 this year, so that the total injury resulting was in the immediate neigh- 
 borhood of the breeding-grounds. It is doubtful if, in this year, any 
 considerable numbers of hoppers crossed county lines, but if there had 
 been flying swarms, the need of State control would have been still 
 more evident. 
 
 NEED OF LEGISLATIVE ACTION. 
 
 The account just given of the grasshopper situation this year, clearly 
 brings out the necessity for concerted action, for providing the means of 
 securing greater knowledge of the insect, and for adequate laws to deal 
 with the hoppers in years when they are really highly injurious. 
 There is no doubt whatever that each succeeding grasshopper-year will 
 bring the need of community action, and a demand for it that can not 
 be denied. Orchard interests are too great to permit the destruction of 
 any considerable areas of growing trees or vines when there is any hope 
 that by prompt action these losses can be greatly decreased or entirely 
 avoided. If left to go on as it is, there will be the demand on the part 
 of the fruit-growers each hopper-year that infected pasture land be 
 burned over, and this burning may at times cause more actual loss than 
 the saving through the destruction of the hoppers. It will be as much 
 to the interest of the owner of pasture lands as of the orchardists, that 
 the matter be settled now, and settled right. The things to be done to 
 bring this about are, first, to provide for obtaining the facts relative to 
 the location of the breeding-grounds, and the habits of the various 
 species of locusts; second, the securing each year of enough information 
 to allow the use of the most economical means for the destruction of the 
 hoppers, and for provision for compensating those whose property it 
 may be necessary to injure in the work; and, third, careful and com- 
 
grasshoppers: insects concerned. 
 
 11 
 
 petent supervision of every general effort communities may desire to 
 make for their protection. The details for this work will be presented 
 at the close of this bulletin. 
 
 THE INSECTS CONCERNED. 
 
 The name grasshopper or locust is applied to a large number of 
 insects, many of which have never been of much economic significance. 
 Usually the really destructive locusts in any country belong to a single 
 species. In California generally one species will greatly predominate in a 
 swarm, though usually our swarms are not confined to a single kind. In 
 some seasons one species will become abundant, and in another a second 
 may be the most common ; and during the same season one species may 
 do injury over one section of the State, while a different species prevails 
 elsewhere. During the past season at least half a dozen different kinds 
 did injury in some part of the State. Other kinds which were not 
 troublesome this season have been destructive in former years. The 
 situation is thus very complicated, because these different kinds of grass- 
 hoppers have quite different habits and peculiarities, and will require 
 somewhat different conditions to develop them into destructive num- 
 bers. All of them must be carefully studied to make our knowledge 
 extensive enough to plan for their best control. 
 
 Insects Falsely Called Locusts. — A great deal of misunderstanding 
 arose this year in regard to the habits of the grasshoppers, on account of 
 the confusing of this insect with another and entirely different creature 
 found only in the Eastern States, to which the name locust is commonly 
 though incorrectly applied. The so-called "17-year locust" of the 
 Eastern States is a sap-sucking insect, the young of which feeds on the 
 juices of the roots of plants and requires seventeen years for full devel- 
 opment. The sudden appearance of the adults of this insect doubtless 
 
 suggested to the Puritan fathers who had 
 
 never lived in a country subject to locust 
 invasions, that this creature was the locust of 
 the Bible. At any rate, in no other country 
 is the term locust applied to any member of 
 the order to which it belongs. 
 
 In California we have a couple of rather 
 common members of the family Cicadidse, the 
 harvest fly family, to which the so-called 17- 
 year locust belongs. These are illustrated in 
 Fig. 4. The larger species belongs to the 
 same genus as the seventeen-year species, but 
 
 as far as we know both our species require but a single year for their 
 full development. 
 
 Flg. 4. Harvest Flies. 
 
 (A) Platypedia areolata Uhl. 
 
 (B) Tibicen rimosa Say. 
 
12 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION. 
 
 Ovipositor 
 
 Pulnllui 
 Tarsus > Claw ■ 
 6 furs 
 Pro- Neso- /YeUCtiordi 
 
 True Locusts and Their Relatives. — The only insects that have any 
 right to the name locust or grasshopper belong to the order Orthoptera. 
 These two names are usually applied interchangeably to all the members 
 of the family Acrididae and to such members of other families as are 
 not clearly distinguished from them, by people in general. Indeed, some 
 of the members of the family Locustidae seem to have almost earned the 
 name by living and feeding in company with grasshoppers and doing 
 the same sort of injury. 
 
 We give below a list of all the kinds of grasshoppers known to exist 
 in the State, together with the other members of the Order. The differ- 
 ences between the 
 different kinds are 
 also given in the form 
 of synopses, for the 
 benefit of any who 
 may wish to study 
 grasshoppers care- 
 fully and who desire 
 to determine their 
 names. Most of the 
 technical terms it 
 was necessary to use 
 are shown on Fig. 5. 
 The work of finding 
 these names will be much easier if one first makes quite a collection of 
 these insects so as to be able to make comparisons. 
 
 The families of Orthoptera may be distinguished as follows*: 
 
 Body as thick as broad, (a) ; -flattened. Ending in a pincer behind, Forjiculidx; -not, 
 Blattidse. —(a) Hind legs enlarged for leaping, (6) ; -not. Front legs enlarged for grasp- 
 ing, Mantidss; -not, Phasmidse. — (6) Antennae shorter than the body, Acrididx; 
 -longer. Feet four-jointed, Locustidse; -three-jointed, Gryllidse. 
 
 BLATTiDiE. — Cockroaches are great pests indoors, but, except in the 
 more northern part of the State, are rather rare insects. Many tropical 
 species often come here in banana bunches, but do not long survive in 
 this climate. Only four species have been recorded in this State, dis- 
 tinguishable as follows: 
 
 All the femora strongly spined beneath, Stylopyga orientalis Linn, -front femora 
 almost devoid of spines beneath, Blatta germanica Linn. (Fig. 5, A); -none spined 
 beneath. Winged, Planchora hyalina Saus. ? -wingless, Cryptocercus punctulatus Scud. 
 
 of Mate 
 
 Pl d t c Proiternal dpine 
 
 Fig. 5. Schisticeka venusta Scud., The Largest of the 
 Injurious Species This Year. 
 
 * These synopses are to be used as follows: Suppose one would determine the family 
 name of a cricket. He reads the first character, and as the body is as thick as broad, 
 he goes to section —(a), and as the hind legs are enlarged for leaping, goes to —(b), and 
 as the antennae are longer than the body and the feet are three-jointed, he arrives at 
 the family name Gryllidse. 
 
grasshoppers: insects concerned. 
 
 13 
 
 Forficulid^e. — Earwigs are credited with injury to flowers in other 
 countries, but have not caused complaint here. They live in damp 
 situations and feed mainly on decaying vegetation. We have two 
 species: Sphingolabis cali- 
 fornica Dohrn (Fig. 6, B) 
 and txniata Dohrn, the 
 latter possessing oblique 
 ridges on the second ab- 
 dominal segment above. 
 
 Fig. 6. Orthoptera that Do Not Hop. 
 (A) Blatta germanica Linn. (B) Sphingolabis californica 
 
 Dohrn, young. (C) Litaneutria pacijica Scud., young. 
 
 Phasmid^e. — "Walking 
 sticks" feed on vegetation 
 in much the same way as 
 
 grasshoppers, but can not leap nor migrate, being wingless. The eggs 
 are dropped loosely on the ground. We have two species: Sermyle 
 arbuscula Rehn. and Timema calif ornicum Scud., the latter distinguished 
 by possessing two spines between the eyes. 
 
 Mantid^e. — Mantids feed on other insects, which they capture by 
 means of their greatly developed front legs. They will eat each other 
 so readily that they never become abundant enough to be of much 
 service in killing injurious insects. The two species recorded as occurring 
 here are Litaneutria pacijica Scud. (Fig. 6, C) and obscura Scud., the 
 
 £^^_ latter distinguished by having 
 
 Bx2^ v a large black spot near the 
 base of the hind wing. 
 
 Gryllid^e. — Crickets are not 
 very abundant in California, 
 though some species do occa- 
 sionally become quite abun- 
 dant locally. Some of the 
 swarms called in former years 
 grasshoppers, were really crickets, and often wingless grasshoppers are 
 called crickets. The following tables will enable one to distinguish our 
 species: 
 
 Front legs suited for digging, (a); -not. Body subspherical, Myrmecophila formica- 
 rum Scud, -much longer than broad. Hind tibise saw-toothed between the spines, 
 (Ecanthus calif ornicus Scud. -not. Spurs on hind tibiae movable, Nemobius; -fixed. 
 Ear on front leg large, Gryllus; -small or wanting, Myogryllus sicarius Scud. — (a) Two 
 ocelli, Gryllotalpa cultriger Uhl. -three, Tridactylus. 
 
 Tridactylus. Length over 5.5 mm., apicalis Say.; -less, minutus Scud. (Fig. 7, B). 
 
 Nemobius. Hind wings long, neomexicanus Scud, -wanting, mexicanus Walk. (Fig. 
 7, A). 
 
 Gryllus. General color yellowish brown, assimilis Fabr. -blackish. Front wings 
 yellowish brown, integer Scud, -black. With light-colored shoulder stripes, vocalis 
 Scud. (Fig. 7, C); -without, pennsylvanicus Burm. 
 
 Fig. 7. Crickets. 
 
 (A) Nemobius mexicanus Walk. (B) Tridactylus minutus 
 
 Scud. (C) Gryllus vocalis Scud. 
 
14 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION. 
 
 LocusTiDiE. — True katydids, those possessing wings by means of which 
 the males produce shrill notes, are not at all common in this State, but 
 there are a considerable number of more or less cricket-like wingless 
 forms. Some of the latter are found in company with true grasshoppers, 
 feeding in the same way and drifting with them into cultivated fields. 
 Occasionally they will become so abundant as to constitute the bulk of 
 the swarms. They are unable to migrate, as all having these habits 
 are wingless. Quite a number of these insects live in the ground like 
 crickets, the largest example of which has received the name "potato 
 bug" by many growers, on account of its injury to this tuber. The egg- 
 
 Fig. 8. Katydids. 
 
 (A) Scudderia furcifera Scud. (B) Anabrus simplex Hald. (C) Ceuthophilus pacificus Thorn. 
 
 (D) A teloplus notatus Scud. (E) St 'enopelmatus irregularis Scud. 
 
 laying habits are very different in the various members of the family. 
 Some of the larger winged forms arrange their eggs in two regular rows 
 on a twig, and are often mistaken for some strange form of scale insect. 
 The genera occurring in California may be distinguished by the follow- 
 ing tables : 
 
 Wingless, (c); -with short useless wings, (6); -with wings suitable for flight. Hind 
 tibiae with no spines on inner side, (a) ; -spines present on both sides. Both pair of 
 wings equal in length, Platylyra californica Scud, -unequal, Scudderia. — (a) Front and 
 middle tibiae with spines beneath, Conocephalus acutulus Scud, -unarmed. Ovipositor 
 straight or male subgenital plate excavate, Orchelimum agile DeG. -ovipositor curved or 
 plate truncate, Xiphidium. —(b) Prosternum armed with two spines, Tropizaspis; 
 
grasshoppers: insects concerned. 15 
 
 four spines, Capnobotes; -unarmed. Front tibiae spined above on both margins, 
 Anabrxis simplex Hald. (Fig. 8, B); -on outer margin only. Only one such spine, 
 Ateloplus notatus Scud. (Fig. 8, D); -four spines, Clinopleura melanopleura Scud, -three 
 spines. Lateral carina? of pronotum divergent behind, Idionotus brunneus Scud, -sub- 
 parallel, Steiroxys borealis Scud, -feebly present behind, Idiostatus; -entirely wanting, 
 Cacopteris. — (c) Pulvilli wanting, Stenopelmatus ; -pulvilli present. Hind tibioe spined 
 on both sides, Tropidischia xanthostoma Scud, -unarmed beneath. Front tibiae hollowed 
 out above, Gammarotettix bilobatus Thorn, -not hollowed out. Palpi long, Ceuthophihis ; 
 -short. Third joint as long as the fifth, Phrixocnemis validus Scud, -shorter, Udeopsylla 
 nigra Scud. 
 
 Scudderia. Hind femora nearly as long as the wing, mexicana Saus. -much shorter, 
 furcifera Scud. (Fig. 8, A). 
 
 Xiphidium. Hind femora spinose beneath, spinosum Scud. -not. Vertex more than 
 half as wide as the distance between the eyes, occidentale Scud, -less, vicinum Scud. 
 
 Tropizaspis. Lateral carina? of pronotum divergent from head backward, ovata Scud, 
 -converging and then diverging. Hind femora one and one half times as long as pro- 
 notum, castanea Scud, -about twice. Pronotum widest far behind the middle of 
 metazona, steindachneri Herm. -scarcely behind middle, diabolica Hald. 
 
 Cacopteris. Pronotum with slight lateral carina? behind, femorata Scud. -none. Pro- 
 notum with a slight posterior sinus, xqualis Scud, -none, fuscopunctata Scud. 
 
 Capnobotes. Metazona considerably elevated above prozona, bruneri Scud, -scarcely, 
 occidentalis Thorn. 
 
 Idiostatus. Length of body 30 mm., bilineatus Thorn. -25 mm., hermani Thorn. 
 
 Ceuthophilus. Hind tibia? strongly arcuate, (a); -straight. Front femora a third or 
 more longer than the pronotum, celatus Scud, -scarcely longer. Hind femora no wider 
 at the middle than at the base, vinculatus Scud, -twice as wide, californianus Scud, 
 —(a) Middle femora with a long spine near tip, pacificus Thom. (Fig. 8, C) ; -short spine 
 or none, henshawi Scud. 
 
 Hemiudeopsylla. Length of body 10.5 mm., californiana Saus-Pict. -18 mm., platyceps 
 Saus-Pict. 
 
 Stenopelmatus. Hind tibia? with three spines on inner margin above, pictus Scud. 
 -four, histrio Saus. -five. Hind tibia? about twice as long as pronotum, longispina Brun. 
 -about one and one half times as long. Apical spine on inner margin above of hind 
 tibia? about as large as preceding, oculatus Scud, -markedly smaller. Interspace 
 between spine 3 and 4 of this series larger than between others, irregularis Scud. 
 (Fig. 8, E); -spines equidistant, californicus Brun. 
 
 Acrididte. — Grasshoppers constitute by far the largest family in the 
 order and contain the most injurious species. Five subfamilies are 
 represented in California, as follows : 
 
 Pronotum extending to tip of abdomen, Tettiginse; -only to base of abdomen. An- 
 tenna? shorter than front femora, Mastacinse ; -longer. Prosternum with distinct spine, 
 Acridinx; -unarmed. Face rounding into vertex, or if slightly angled fovea? of vertex 
 wanting, (Edipodinse; -angled or with distinct fovea?, Truxalinx. 
 
 Tettiginse. — Very small and rare grasshoppers that live in damp 
 situations. They have never been known to attack cultivated plants. 
 Eight species are known in California. 
 
 Vertex advanced beyond the eyes, (a) ; -not. Narrowed anteriorly, Telmotettix ; -not, 
 Paratettix. —(a) Vertex wider than one of the eyes, Tettix granulatus Scud, -equal, 
 Merotettix pristinus Morse. 
 
 Telmatettix. Lower angle of the side of pronotum acute, aztecus Saus. (Fig. 9, A); 
 -obtuse. Body rather coarsely granulose, aridis Hanc. -smooth, hesperus Morse. 
 
 Paratettix. Middle femora slightly lobate beneath, morsei Hanc. -strongly. Wings 
 undeveloped, toltecus Bol. -fully developed, mexicanus Bol. 
 
 Mastacinse. — This subfamily contains a single recently discovered 
 rare species, Morsea calif omica Scud. 
 
16 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION. 
 
 Truxalinx. — None of the members of this subfamily has as yet been 
 recognized as forming any important part of a destructive swarm in 
 this State. Two or three of the species are quite common, however, 
 and might at any time therefore become injurious. 
 
 Top of head strongly bent up from pronotum, Ligurotettix coquilletti McN. -distinctly 
 though rather feebly, Gymnes punctatus Scud, -not at all. Antennae nearly cylindrical 
 
 or somewhat flattened, (a); -triquetrous. Inner spurs of 
 hind tibiae unequal, Opeia testacea Scud, -equal. Front 
 wings longer than the abdomen, Horesidotes cinereus 
 Scud, -shorter, Napaia gracilis McN. — (a) Tempora vis- 
 ible from above, (&); -not. Fastigium without distinct 
 median carina, Orphulella; -with distinct carina. Prono- 
 tum with distinct lateral carinas, (Eonomus alius Scud, 
 -without, Amphitornus ornatus McN. — (b) Face and ver- 
 tex as seen from the side not meeting at an angle, Plec- 
 trotettix patriae, Scud, -meeting in an angle. Temporae 
 less than twice as long as broad, (c); -more. Prozona 
 longer than metazona, Bruneria shaslana Scud, -equal, 
 
 Fig. 9. Grasshoppers. Stenobothrus oregonensis Scud. (Fig. 9, B). — (c) Pronotum 
 
 (A) Telmatetti.r aztecus Saus. shorter than the head, Eupnigodes megacephala McN. 
 
 (B) Stenobothrus oregonemis Scud, -longer. Prozona longer than metazona, Aulocara 
 
 elliotti Thorn, -shorter. Tempora visible from above 
 only on the inner half, Psolmssa; -throughout their length, Stirapleura pusilla Scud. 
 
 Orphulella. Median area of front wings with two or three series of cells, pelidna 
 Burm. -one. Lateral carina} of prothorax divergent before and behind, affinis 
 Scud, -parallel, compta Scud. 
 
 Psola'ssa. Sides of pronotum with feeble oblique carinae, texana Scud, -none, 
 maculipennis Scud. 
 
 (Edipodinas. — This subfamily contains quite a number of injurious 
 species, but only one of them contributed appreciably to the injury this 
 year. 
 
 Interspace between the metasternal foramina broader than long, (a) ; -longer than 
 broad. Hind wings bright-colored at base, Arphia; -not. Middle median vein midwajr 
 between the others, Chortophaga brevipennis Scud, -nearer the anterior. Head com- 
 pressed, Chimarocephala ; -rotundate, Encoptolophus pallidus Brun. — (a) Principal 
 sulcus distinct on the sides of pronotum, (c) ; -feeble or wanting. Pronotal carina very 
 slight, (6); -conspicuous. Pronotum rough, Hippiscus; -smooth, Camnula pellucida 
 Scud. (Fig. 10, D). — (b) Front wings shorter than abdomen, Agymnastus ingens Scud, 
 -longer, Leprus. — (c) Pronotal carina twice intersected, (rf); -once or not. Costal 
 margin of front wing thickened nearly to the tip, Lactista gibbosus Saus. (Fig. 10, G); 
 -apical third membranous. No band on middle of wing, Dissosteira ; -band present. 
 Crest deeply intersected, Spharagemon venustum Stal. ; -not, Scirtetica occidentalis 
 Brun. — (d) Crest deeply intersected between sulci, {e); -not. Pronotum not crested in 
 front, Hadrotettix mundus Scud. (Fig. 10, F); -crested. Sides of metazona narrowed 
 beneath, Derotmema; -not. Lateral canthi of pronotum bending at principal sulcus or 
 absent in front, Mestobregma ; -not. Posterior veins of the hind wing swollen in the 
 middle, Circotettix; -not. Crest as high on metazona as on prozona, Conozoa; -not, 
 Trimerotropis. — (e) Middle independent vein evident, Anconia Integra Scud, -lacking 
 or feeble, Heliastus. 
 
 Arphia. Facial costae not convergent above, hesperiphila Rehn. -convergent. Fas- 
 tigium wider than long, sulphurea Fab. (Fig. 10, B) ; -longer than wide. Carina on prono- 
 tum slightly arcuate, ramona Rehn. -not, behrensi, Saus. 
 
 Chimarocephala. Body smooth, behrensi Saus. -rough, pacifica Thorn. (Fig. 10, A). 
 
 Hippiscus. Carina of pronotum intersected by two sulci, (a); -by one. Spots 
 obscure on tip of front wing, californicus Scud, -as elsewhere, marmoratus Scud. 
 
grasshoppers: insects concerned. 
 
 .17 
 
 —(a) Dark crossband on hind wings near the apex, (6) ; -far from apex. Metazona two 
 thirds as long as prozona, zapotecus Saus. -twice as long, pardalinus Saus. —(6) Sides of 
 pronotum slightly widening below, neglectus Thom. -not. Lateral canthi of prothorax 
 absent on prozona, (c); -present. Markings of front wings obscure, stigmosus Scud, 
 -distinct, aurilegulus Scud, —(c) Metazona transversely wrinkled anteriorly, lateritius 
 Saus. -not, calthulus Scud. 
 
 Leprus. Hind wings blue, glaucipennis Scud, -yellow, intermedins Saus. 
 
 Dissosteira. Disk of hind wings black, Carolina Linn, -only obsoletely spotted, 
 spurcata Saus. (Fig. 10, E). 
 
 Derotmema. Metazona distinctly broader than the eyes, saussureanum Scud, -scarcely 
 broader, delicatulum Scud. 
 
 Fig 
 
 Grasshoppers. 
 
 (A) Chimarocephala pacifica Thom. (E) Dissosteira spurcata Saus. 
 
 (B) Arphia mlphurea Fab. (F) Hadrotettix mundus Scud. 
 
 (C) Conozoa behrensi Saus. (G) Lactista gibbosus Saus. 
 
 (D) Camnula pellucida Scud. (H) Circotettix shastanus Brun. 
 
 (I) Trimerotropts pseudofasciata Scud. 
 
 Mestobregma. Median carina of pronotum crested between the sulci, kiowa Thom. 
 -nearly obliterated. Front lobe cristate, hyalinum Scud, -not prominent, rosaceum Scud . 
 
 Circotettix. Hind wings not marked with black, thallassinus Saus. -black at base , 
 maculatus Scud, -black band across the middle. Tip blackish, suffusus Scud, -mostly 
 hyaline. Front wings conspicuously marked, shastanus Brun. (Fig. 10, H); -obscurely, 
 occidenialis Brun. 
 
 Conozoa. Lower hind angles of the sides of the pronotum rounded, ivallula 
 Scud, -angulate. Crest of pronotum incised on prozona, behrensi Saus. (Fig. 10, C) ; -not, 
 sulcifrons Scud. 
 
 2— Bul. 142 
 
18- UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION. 
 
 Trimerotropis. Front wings banded, (a); -not. Sides of pronotum toothed beneath, 
 coquillettii McN. -not. Ground color pale reddish brown, hyalina McN. -yellowish 
 brown. Prozona of pronotum entire, porrecta McN. -bilobate. Crest of prozona in 
 dentiform lobes, rebellis Saus. -rounded, albolineatus Brun. —(a) Front wings with 
 basal and median bands solid and equaling following clear spaces, (6); -not. Hind 
 wings hyaline, pseudofasciata Scud. (Fig. 10, I); -with indistinct dark band. Spots on 
 front wings in clouds or bands, (c); -evenly scattered. Hind tibiae blue, fallax Saus. 
 -not. Hind wings hyaline beyond the dark band, variegata McN. -dark, conspersa 
 McN. — (&) Two black bands between the eyes, cincla Thom. -none, Juliana Scud. 
 — (c) Hind tibiae coral red, californica Brun. -whitish, pacifica Brun. -obscure yellow, vin- 
 culata Scud, -deep brown, pilosa McN. -blue. Metazona one and one half times as long 
 as prozona, (d); -twice. Apical part of hind wings hyaline, coeruleipes Scud, -dark, 
 calignosa McN. — (d) Ground color white, albescens McN. -brown or gray. Fastigium 
 with median carinas, bifasciata Brun. -none, koebelei Brun. 
 
 Heliastus. Length of body $ 15 mm. 9 27 mm., aridus Brun. -much less, californicus 
 Thom. 
 
 The insects of this last genus are commonly attracted by electric 
 lights at night. Several species are highly injurious; and members of 
 the smaller genera less often become troublesome. 
 
 Acridinx. — This subfamily contains the greatest number of highly 
 destructive grasshoppers. The two doing the greatest injury this year 
 were (Edaleonotus enigma and Melonoplus devastator. 
 
 Hind tibiae with apical spur on both sides, Dracotettix ; -none on outside. Face 
 nearly vertical, (a); -very oblique. Hind tibiae expanded apically, Paropomala; -not, 
 Arnilia mexicana Saus. — (a) Mesosternal lobes longer than broad, Schistocerca ; -equally 
 long or broader. Hind tibiae with 6-8 spines on outer margin, Dactylotum variegatum 
 Scud, -at least nine. Wings entirely absent, Bradynotes; -present. Pronotum with 
 scarcely a trace of median carina, Poecilotettix coccinatus Scud, -carina present and 
 interrupted between sulci, (Edaleonotus enigma Scud. (Fig. 11, B) ; -distinct and equal on 
 pro- and metazona, Hesperotettix ; -feeble on prozona, distinct on metazona. Pronotum 
 as seen from above narrowest in front, Moloplus; -as narrow at the principal sulcus, 
 Melanoplus. 
 
 Dracotettix. Median carina of pronotum scarcely stronger than the lateral, plutonius 
 Brun. -distinctly, monstrosus Brun. 
 
 Paropomala. Front wing reaching tip of abdomen, virgata Scud, -not, calamus Scud. 
 
 Schistocerca. Pronotum obtusangulate behind, (a); -rectangulate. With dorsal 
 stripe, vaga Scud, -none, carinata Scud. — (a) No dorsal stripe, shoshone Thom. -stripe 
 present. Hind tibiae coral red, venusta Scud. (Fig. 5); -not, alutacea Harr. 
 
 Bradynotes. Interspace between mesosternal lobes considerably wider than the 
 lobes, satur Scud. (Fig. 11, A); -scarcely. Pale lower portion of sides of pronotum con- 
 trasting with dark above, referta Scud, -not, obesa Thom. 
 
 Hesperotettix. Front wings much shorter than abdomen, pacificus Brun. -equal or 
 longer. Legs green, pratensis Scud. -buff. Transverse sulci of pronotum marked with 
 black, viridis Thom. -not, festivus Scud. 
 
 JEoloplus. Front wings longer than the abdomen, californicus Scud, -shorter, 
 chenopodii Brun. 
 
 Melanoplus* Front wings about equal or longer than abdomen, (c); -much shorter 
 Cerci broadest beyond middle, (&); -not. Cerci broad and short, rileyanus McN. -at 
 least as long as broad. Subgenital plate short and broad, various Scud, -distinctly 
 narrower than long. Cerci gently tapering, gracilipes McN. -abruptly. Front wings 
 longer than pronotum, phcetaliotiformis Scud, -shorter. Subgenital plate tuberculate 
 at tip, fuscipes McN. -not. Hind margin of pronotum emarginate in the middle, (a); 
 -not. Tapering portion of cerci about as long as basal portion, pinctus Scud, -about 
 half as long. Lateral carinas of pronotum distinct, borckii Stal. -indistinct, pacificus 
 Scud, —(a) Color ashy, tenuipennis McN. -dark brown, missionum Scud. — (6) Inter- 
 
 *This synopsis refers only to the males; the females in this genus are difficult to distinguish 
 from each other. 
 
GRASSHOPPERS IN FORMER YEARS. 19 
 
 val between mesosternal lobes about twice as long as broad, ascensus Scud, -about 
 square. Subgenital plate longer than broad, ablutus Scud, -short and broad. Cerci 
 about as long as supraanal plate, ligneolus Scud, -much shorter, nanus Scud. 
 — (c) Cerci broadest beyond middle, (g); -not. Furcula truncate at tip, flavescens 
 Scud, -pointed. Three or four times as long as broad, (d) ; -not over twice. Median 
 groove on supraanal plate disappears toward the tip, atlanis 
 Riley ; -reaching the tip, spretus Uhler. — (d) Subgenital 
 plate narrowed at apex, femur-rubrum DeG. -not. Interval 
 between mesosternal lobes twice as long as broad, (e) ; 
 -about half as long as broad. Cerci not narrowing toward 
 the tip, ater Scud, -narrowed. Cerci sulcate on the outside 
 of tip, sierranus Scud, -only dimpled, consanguineus Scud. 
 —(e) Front wings without spots, (/) ; -spotted. Pronotum 
 with distinct pale stripe interrupting the black band on 
 the side near the front edge, virgatus McN. -not, devas- 
 tator Scud. (Frontispiece). — ( /) Whole body light colored, 
 uniformis Scud, -dark, angelicus Scud. — (g) Cerci bifurcate f ig . n. Grasshoppers. 
 at tip, (*); -rounded. Furcula much longer than its seg- (A) Bradynotes satur Scud, 
 ment, (K) ; -scarcely. Supraanal plate suddenly bent down (B) (Edaleonotus enigma Scud, 
 beyond the middle, packardii Scud, -all in one plane, 
 
 marginatus Scud. — (h) Furcula narrowing uniformly, cyanipes Brun. -sides of part of 
 the tip parallel. Color markings feeble, dealbatus Scud, -distinct, cinereus Scud. 
 — (i) Furcula absent, differentialis Uhler ; -present. Interval between mesosternal lobes 
 less than twice as long as broad, olivaceus Scud, -more, femoratus Burm. 
 
 GRASSHOPPERS IN FORMER YEARS. 
 
 The earliest history of grasshoppers in California appeared in Clavi- 
 jera's History of California. He noted insects as injurious to Mission 
 property in 1722, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1753, 1754, 1756, 1766, and 1767. 
 His account of these insects is very elaborate and interesting, though, 
 of course, full of errors as to their life history*. 
 
 After these dates there appears to be no record of grasshoppers for 
 half a century, though there is no reason to doubt their continued 
 injury. The dates during the rest of the Spanish occupation of the 
 country are, 1823, 1827 or 1828, 1834 or 1835, 1838, 1839, and 1840f. 
 
 After the American control, the first record of their appearance (omit- 
 ting 1849, mentioned by Taylor without locality) is in June and July, 
 1852, in the marsh lands on the east side of San Francisco BayJ, which 
 we believe is also the latest record of injury by hoppers in this region; 
 and the time of the year suggests that it must have been some other 
 species than the one now dominant there. 
 
 In 1854, on the Wolfskill ranch on Putah Creek, and on the Ameri- 
 can River near Sacramento, hoppers became troublesome, and there was 
 near San Jose a swarm of what must have been crickets, covering the 
 ground for miles§. 
 
 The year 1855 witnessed the greatest invasion of grasshoppers that 
 has been experienced since the American occupation, at least in the 
 
 * A. S. Taylor, in California Farmer^ January, 1858, p. 18. 
 t Ibid. February, 1858, p. 34. 
 
 X L. G. Yates, in first report U. S. Ent. Comm., 1878, p. 451. 
 § Colonel Warren, in California Farmer, August, 1854, p. 52. 
 
20 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION. 
 
 cultivated portion of the State. The accounts in the California Farmer, 
 the Sacramento Union, and the Shasta Courier of that year, show that 
 the pest did its greatest injury about Sacramento, though it extended 
 all over the State. Much injury had already been done and the insects 
 were flying in great swarms as early as the middle of June, and migra- 
 tions occurred in the northern end of the Sacramento Valley as late as 
 the middle of September. 
 
 Following this we have the dates 1856 in Mariposa and Fresno 
 counties, 1859 in Modoc and Sutter counties, 1862 or 1863 in Modoc 
 County, 1866 or 1867 in Stanislaus County, and 1869 in Tulare County, 
 as collected by the U. S. Entomological Commission*; and in 1857 when 
 a swarm fell into Suisun Bay on the 14th of Julyf. In 1858 hoppers 
 were bad in Monterey County, and in Siskiyou County large crickets, 
 as they were called, appeared in June and JulyJ. 
 
 The remaining dates are mostly taken from the Pacific Rural Press 
 of the years given, and from records in our office: 
 
 1870, in Yolo County; 
 
 1871, in Tulare County; 
 
 1877, in Sonoma, Sierra, San Joaquin, Fresno, Santa Barbara, and 
 San Diego counties; 
 
 1878, 
 1879, 
 1880, 
 1882, 
 1883, 
 1884, 
 counties 
 1885, 
 1886, 
 1887, 
 1888, 
 1889, 
 1890, 
 1891, 
 
 n Sierra County; 
 
 n Sierra and San Joaquin counties; 
 
 n Sierra County; 
 
 n San Luis Obispo County; 
 
 n Kern County; 
 
 n Butte, Sacramento, El Dorado, Sonoma, and Mendocino 
 
 n Napa, Yolo, Sacramento, Merced, and Fresno counties; 
 n Yolo and Fresno counties; 
 n Sacramento County; 
 n Sacramento and Santa Cruz counties; 
 n Solano and Tulare counties; 
 
 n Shasta, Yolo, Nevada, and Santa Barbara counties; 
 n Butte, Sutter, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and 
 Kern counties; 
 
 1892, in Tulare and Kern counties; 
 
 1896, in Kern County; 
 
 1897, in Glenn County; 
 
 1898, in Alameda and Santa Clara counties. 
 
 These dates are certainly incomplete. In many sections grasshoppers 
 are so common that they do not cause comment. With one or two 
 
 * 1st Report IT. S. Ent. Comm., p. 453. 
 
 t A. S. Taylor, in California Farmer, January, 1858, p. 10. 
 
 X Ibid. February, 1864, p. 11. 
 
grasshoppers: life history. 21 
 
 exceptions we do not have access to any of the southern California dates, 
 but know that they are often troublesome there. That which is given 
 will be enough, however, to show that grasshoppers are almost con- 
 stantly doing damage in some part of the State. 
 
 LIFE HISTORY. 
 
 There is yet so much to be learned in regard to the life histories of the 
 injurious species of grasshoppers in this State that no very satisfactory 
 account can be given. The process of egg-laying has been observed in the 
 case of certain of our species by farmers and others, but no accurate 
 observations have been made as to the manner in which it is done, nor the 
 places chosen for this purpose. As far as known, our species have simi- 
 lar habits in this particular as the Melanopus spretus, which is the most 
 injurious species east of the Rocky Mountains, and which has been very 
 carefully studied. From these observations and the distribution of 
 young hoppers, we can infer that uncultivated land is almost exclusively 
 selected. This accords also with what is known of the habits of the 
 injurious species of the Eastern States. It is likely that the egg-laying 
 period extends over at least two months, being probably at its height, 
 in the case of our best known Melanopus devastator, about the first of 
 August in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys. In some localities, 
 as at Berkeley, egg-laying does not commence until the latter part of 
 August or first of September. 
 
 All of our very injurious species pass the winter in the egg con- 
 dition, though some kinds of grasshoppers are hopping about all through 
 this season. The hatching of the egg in the spring has never been care- 
 fully observed and described. The very young hoppers are so small 
 that they usually escape attention. The time of hatching probably 
 varies even more than the time of egg-laying. 
 
 While the grasshoppers are young, even when very abundant, they 
 do not do an appreciable amount of injury to grass, upon which they 
 chiefly feed. They are so active, moving about between meals and dis- 
 tributing their attack, that any one plant is only slightly injured at 
 one time, and is generally able to grow rapidly enough to keep ahead of 
 the work of the hoppers. Young hoppers do not seem to require a great 
 quantity of food, probably because of their rather slow growth. During 
 their growth they change their skin from time to time, probably going 
 through this process, as does the Eastern species, five times before obtain- 
 ing their wings. 
 
 Breeding-Grounds in California. — The grasshopper situation on this side 
 of the Rocky Mountains differs very decidedly from that on the other. 
 Here there is really no plateau region corresponding to the great plains 
 of Colorado, Montana, and Wyoming. The grasshoppers that do injury 
 
22 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION. 
 
 are all developed within the State, since it is pretty well demonstrated 
 that the hoppers do not cross the high Sierras from Nevada, where they 
 are also destructive. The danger from hoppers in this State arises from 
 a comparatively narrow strip of rolling and hill land used for pasture 
 purposes. This forms a strip bordering on the east of the Sacramento 
 and San Joaquin valleys, and to a less extent along the hills of the Coast 
 Range; in southern California along the hills to the north and east of 
 the cultivated region. These breeding-grounds are nowhere many miles 
 in width, and present a considerable diversity of conditions, in conse- 
 quence of which the hoppers but seldom become excessively abundant 
 over any considerable area at one time. We need not therefore expect 
 the insects ever to become so abundant as to occur in such overwhelming 
 numbers as they sometimes do on the other side of the Rocky Moun- 
 tains; but on the other hand, it is also true that with our diversity of 
 situation and of species we may expect much more frequent injury 
 from hoppers than will occur there. This will come to be more and 
 more apparent as our orchard area continues to expand, for at present, 
 as in the past, the large grain fields offer a partial protection, lying as 
 they usually do between the breeding-grounds on the pasture lands and 
 the orchards where the most serious injuries are done. As fast as 
 orchards replace these grain fields, the danger of injury from the 
 smaller swarms, which in times past have been held back by the pres- 
 ence of the wheat fields, will come more and more in evidence. 
 
 Drifting. — When the young hoppers are unusually abundant, or the 
 food-supply begins to dry up and become scarce, they are forced to 
 move about more than usual in search of new food, and this they 
 accomplish by jumping and walking about. The direction that they 
 pursue is entirely a matter of accident, unless it should happen that a 
 gentle wind is blowing, in which case they will all be seen to be moving 
 in one direction. The reason appears to be that the insect dislikes to 
 stand with its side to the wind, but after a leap will turn itself about 
 and face the wind, and the next time it leaps it will naturally leap in 
 the direction from which the wind is blowing. While walking the 
 insect pursues the same course.* In hollows or sheltered places the 
 hoppers will gradually accumulate if hopping toward the wind, so that 
 ultimately instead of being evenly distributed over the breeding- 
 grounds they will begin to gather in great swarms. These will rapidly 
 eat the available food they come to, and will be forced to migrate more 
 continually than they would if not massed in swarms. The hoppers 
 may in this way leave their breeding-ground en masse, and traveling 
 
 * There appears to be no such definite rule in the case of the Eastern species, and in 
 the East the direction of migration is considered an unsolved mystery. The account 
 given here accords with all the observations made this year, but it is possible that 
 further study will show other causes that may at times determine their direction. 
 
grasshoppers: life history. 23 
 
 straight across the country, devour the orchards, vineyards, and orna- 
 mental plants that may come in their way. This form of traveling 
 should be distinguished from the true migration, which occurs after the 
 insects obtain their wings. We have suggested and used the term 
 "drifting" to distinguish this movement from migration by flight. 
 Drifting may also occur after many of the insects have obtained their 
 wings, the insect hopping, walking, and flying for short distances 
 against the wind in the manner just described. 
 
 Migration. — When drifting swarms are large and the food-supply 
 correspondingly meager, winged grasshoppers will, under the proper 
 atmospheric conditions, suddenly, as by a common impulse, rise high in 
 the air and travel for many miles in a dense swarm. This is the true 
 migration. These flying swarms are the ones best known in the liter- 
 ature of grasshopper work, and it is the only form with which regions 
 distant from the breeding-ground become menaced by grasshopper 
 invasions. Exactly what conditions cause insects to rise for the migra- 
 tion is not well understood. Those who are well acquainted with the 
 phenomena in this State have described the condition to us in these 
 terms, " When the hills look unusually blue the hoppers are extremely 
 liable to take to wing." Usually it is the settling of the insects from 
 the sky that has been most commonly observed. It is likely that 
 the purpose of migration is entirely identical with that of drifting, with 
 the exception that under the peculiar atmospheric conditions the hoppers 
 have a tendency to fly unusually high, and are there met by a current 
 of air which will sweep them down over the valley until they, for equally 
 poorly understood reasons, decide to alight. The U. S. Entomological 
 Commission has collected an immense amount of data in reference to 
 the flights of the swarms of grasshoppers of the species Melariopus spretus, 
 but is not able to determine very accurately the details of the process, 
 or find explanations for the cause, amount, or direction of the motion. 
 Only in a general way it appeared that hoppers which come to maturity 
 in the higher arid regions usually fly southeast toward the valley of the 
 Mississippi, while those hatching in the low lands, and coming to 
 maturity somewhat earlier because of the warmer climate, usually 
 migrate in the opposite direction. 
 
 These differences in direction correspond somewhat with the prevailing 
 direction of the winds at the times of the two sets of migrations. The 
 observations in this State are still extremely meager, and the distance 
 between the center of the Great Valley and the breeding-ground is so 
 slight, that it is not strange that we have not recognized here any dis- 
 tinct return migrations. As far as we are aware the hoppers have never 
 developed in injurious numbers in the orchard region, and we are 
 inclined to think that we need not usually fear an attack a second year 
 in the same locality. 
 
24 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION. 
 
 REMEDIES. 
 
 Grasshoppers are insects unusually difficult to control. They often 
 occur in such overwhelming numbers that it is really impossible to do 
 anything that will be effective. Fortunately, in California such num- 
 bers will be of extremely rare occurrence, on account of the very lim- 
 ited breeding-grounds from which any particular swarms may come. 
 While they will not with us be so absolutely uncontrollable, still it 
 remains an extremely difficult problem. The fact that a method very 
 efficient under one set of conditions will be entirely valueless under 
 others, still further complicates the subject. 
 
 We can recognize three very distinct sets of conditions, each of which 
 will demand an entirely different programme: 
 
 I. Control of the Flying Swarms. 
 
 When grasshoppers come into an orchard after a true migration, the 
 difficulty of the situation lies largely in the suddenness of their appear- 
 ance, a fruit-grower often being quite unaware of the danger before the 
 hungry hoppers have descended upon his crops. Usually, therefore, 
 what can be done must be done very quickly. Available means can be 
 grouped under the heads of "Driving" and "Poisoning." 
 
 1 . Driving. — There is considerable evidence that the use of smudges, 
 at the time that the insects are alighting, may cause them to pass over 
 and beyond the protected fields. Usually this measure will not entirely 
 protect the fields in which it is used, and becomes less and less effectual 
 if the swarm comes slowly, as is sometimes the case, when they may be 
 for hours alighting; or, on the other hand, if they come on successive 
 days. In either of these cases smudging will not commonly drive 
 enough away to be of material benefit. Under favorable conditions, 
 swarms may in this way be so dissipated that the hoppers will not be 
 in very destructive numbers in the protected field; and perhaps if the 
 swarm is not too large it will be prevented from doing material injury. 
 
 Since so many of the swarms in the State are of small size the 
 smudging process is really quite an important addition to our list of 
 available remedies. The method of smudging is to build fires on the 
 windward side of the fields to be protected, making as dense a smoke as 
 possible and so placing the fires as to keep the fields as completely as 
 possible covered by the smoke of the smudge. It is also the practice to 
 add from time to time small quantities of sulfur to the burning smudge- 
 piles. If care is had this can be used without any danger to the trees. 
 If sulfur is used, however, it should be clearly understood that there is 
 more or less danger to the foliage, especially that of the younger plants, 
 and that corresponding care must be exercised. 
 
grasshoppers: remedies. 
 
 25 
 
 Another driving method is by frightening the insects out of the field 
 by putting in a gang of men and, beginning on the windward side, 
 gradually work back and forth across the field, thus scaring the hoppers 
 ahead of them. The walking of the men through the field may be 
 
 Fig. 12. The Use of Smudge to Protect Vineyard. 
 
 fmmmMBmm 
 
 Fig. 13. Application of Sulfur to Smudge Fires. 
 
 sufficient for this purpose, but commonly short sticks, to each of which 
 a piece of cloth is attached, are used to frighten them more effectively 
 from the plants, which maybe at the same time jarred or lightly beaten. 
 In this method, as well as in the smudging method, the idea is not to 
 rid the orchard completely of the insects, but to drive out sufficient 
 
26 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION. 
 
 numbers, so that the remaining hoppers may not injure the plants to a 
 serious extent. 
 
 2. Poisoning. — In addition to the method suggested above, more or 
 less satisfactory results can be obtained by the use of poisons, either 
 applied as a spray to the plants or in the form of poisoned bran mix- 
 ture, described below. This method of poisoning will not be as effective 
 against winged insects as it is against the drifting swarms, for which it 
 was originally devised. 
 
 Flying insects are not as readily attracted to the bran mixture on the 
 ground as are hopping, insects. They are quite commonly in greater 
 numbers and do their work more rapidly, and therefore the method can 
 seldom be depended upon, if used by itself. It is, however, a very 
 useful supplementary measure to that of driving, just referred to. It is 
 possible that the use of poisoned paper placed in the vines or trees 
 would prove much more satisfactory than the bran mixture, which of 
 necessity must be placed chiefly upon the ground. At least, this is a 
 point well worthy of investigation. 
 
 The paper used should not be glazed; newspapers or straw paper 
 would be good for the purpose. The best way to treat the paper is to 
 unroll it on the ground and apply the poison with a garden sprinkling 
 pot. The arsenic should first be dissolved by boiling with four times 
 its weight of sal soda, and then mixed with molasses. The proportions 
 are, for each pound of arsenic, two gallons of water, four pounds of sal 
 soda, and two gallons of molasses. 
 
 II. Control of Drifting Swarms. 
 
 Cultivated ground immediately adjacent to the breeding-grounds is 
 always more or less subject to injury from drifting swarms, even when 
 numbers are not sufficient to cause the true migration. The hoppers 
 go into the fields slowly enough when drifting in this way, to give 
 plenty of time for the farmer to plan and execute the defense. The 
 chief difficulty lies rather in the fact that very often hoppers will con- 
 tinue to drift out of the breeding-ground for weeks at a time, so that the 
 fight is a long continued one. The means that have been employed 
 with greater or less success against drifting swarms consist of barriers, 
 smudging, sacking, plowing-in, poisons, and the use of the hopper-dozer. 
 
 1. Barriers. — A great many plans have been tried to prevent the 
 entrance of hoppers from breeding-grounds. That which has been used 
 on the largest scale in other countries, though we believe as yet not used 
 in California, is fencing them out. Usually a strip of cloth a yard wide, 
 reaching to the ground, will be found an effectual barrier as long as the 
 insects are wingless. If a fence is used there should always be other 
 means for actually destroying the insects, because otherwise they will be 
 
grasshoppers: control of drifting swarms. 27 
 
 able to climb to the top of the fence and hop over. The use of the 
 fence then, like all the barrier methods, is a scheme for assembling the 
 hoppers (thereby making their destruction easy) rather than a means 
 effective in itself. These cloth fences, when properly managed, are 
 probably the most effective of all the barrier plans. In connection with 
 the fence, or even without the use of the fence, very good results are 
 obtained by the use of furrows, in which the hoppers will accumulate 
 and may be destroyed by dragging a heavy log along the furrow. 
 Very commonly this furrow method is used without fencing, and has 
 proven effective, in this State, in a few cases where the swarms were 
 small but dense. The furrow should be plowed deep, with its steep or 
 land side toward the ground to be protected; and it requires consider- 
 able and continuous attention to prevent the hoppers from passing over. 
 
 2. Smudging. — When hoppers are not too abundant, injury has some- 
 times been quite avoided by the use of smudging. The object in this 
 case is to scatter the insects so as to prevent their eating up the imme- 
 diate border of the fields adjacent to the breeding-ground. Very com- 
 monly one or two rows of the orchard or vineyard will be destroyed and 
 the trees or vines beyond remain uninjured. By the use of a smudge 
 the hoppers can be, in part at least, caused to move on, so that by dis- 
 tributing their injury no trees or vines will be seriously eaten. Young 
 hoppers do not "move on" as readily in response to the smudge as do 
 the winged insects, and it may be necessary in connection with it to jar 
 them from the trees and vines upon which they have gathered. 
 
 3. Sacking. — In almost every season that hoppers have appeared, the 
 sacking method has been resorted to with varying success. Sometimes 
 the trees have died within the covering, sometimes the coverings have 
 proved to be insufficient to keep out the hoppers, and at other times the 
 plants, while appearing all right at the time the sacks were removed, 
 have suddenly, after their removal, cast their leaves and lost their new 
 growth, if not dying outright. The material used in sacking has been 
 extremely variable, being sometimes as heavy as grain sacks. With 
 our present knowledge and with the extremely variable results obtained, 
 it is impossible to make any definite recommendation. At best it is an 
 expensive operation, and will probably not be generally resorted to 
 except as a protection to plants of more than ordinary value, or to newly 
 set orchards where very small coverings will be sufficient to inclose the 
 green parts. When this method is used, injury to the plants can be 
 avoided by carefully watching the conditions, and removing the cover- 
 ing in the same way recommended in the case of vineyards plowed- 
 under. As soon as there is the beginning of any sign of yellowing of 
 the leaves the covering should be removed and other means of protection 
 resorted to. Whether there will be any of this yellowing will depend 
 
28 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION. 
 
 upon the condition of the plant and of the weather during the time the 
 covering is on. 
 
 In removing the coverings the death of the plant can usually be 
 avoided by a gradual instead of a sudden removal. Injury in a case of 
 removal is usually or always caused by the tenderness of the foliage on 
 the new growth, induced by the protection afforded by the covering. If 
 the covering is gradually removed, and the plant brought into the out- 
 side air a little at a time, the leaves will slowly adjust themselves to 
 the outside conditions. 
 
 4. Plowing-in. — When the drifting swarm attacks a newly planted 
 vineyard it is sometimes possible to accomplish good results by covering 
 the latter up by means of the plow, throwing a furrow over it from each 
 side. This may prove perfectly feasible and efficient if the hoppers are 
 moving in a distinct swarm and the source of supply is at a distance, or 
 so located that the hoppers will not be likely to continue coming for a 
 long period. 
 
 The only question will be that of the ability of the vines to retain 
 their life beneath the ground long enough to allow the hoppers to pass 
 by. The vines will ultimately be killed unless uncovered. The length 
 of time that they can stay underground will vary according to the tem- 
 perature and character of the soil. One can keep watch of the vines 
 thus plowed-under, and uncover them as soon as he sees evidence of the 
 beginning of injury. If by this time the hoppers are gone or have 
 passed on, the method will be satisfactory. 
 
 5. Poisoning. — The most effective means for killing young hoppers 
 has been the use of poisons. The method most commonly used is the 
 bran mixture containing sufficient arsenic to kill them, and enough 
 attractive sticky material, as molasses, or sugar solution, to hold poison 
 on the bran. The formula used quite extensively this year was bran 
 forty pounds, molasses two gallons, arsenic five pounds, and water about 
 six gallons. The whole was very thoroughly mixed and applied by 
 means of a spoon or paddle, about a teaspoonful at the base of each 
 vine or tree. The formula is often varied, sometimes by using twice or 
 four times as much arsenic, but the amount here given is amply suffi- 
 cient to kill. Indeed, it would probably be quite as effective if the 
 arsenic were greatly diminished in quantity. The most important 
 point in its preparation is the thorough mixing of the material. The 
 poison may be well stirred into the liquid used, or even into the dry 
 bran; but in either case the mixing must be thorough before the bran is 
 wetted, for otherwise the mixture will not be uniform. The best method 
 is to mix the ingredients in the same manner that mortar is hoed or 
 shoveled. It is quite probable that if the arsenic were first dissolved, 
 and its solution used in mixing, a greatly diminished dose of arsenic 
 
grasshoppers: control of drifting swarms. 
 
 29 
 
 would be sufficient; but as arsenic is cheap, and the mixing of the dry 
 powder is so much easier than making a solution that will require boil- 
 ing, it is likely that the dry arsenic is the most economical. 
 
 In the use of this mixture it is well not to lose sight of its poisonous 
 nature. Stock are particularly liable to be poisoned, so every precaution 
 should be taken to prevent their eating it. Hoppers are not at once 
 killed after eating it; they will usually show no effect of poisoning for 
 several hours, and it may take a day or two before an insect that has 
 had a poisoned dose will actually die; but they cease to eat long before 
 death occurs. As far as could be estimated the rate of dying is about 
 as follows: after twenty-four hours, one quarter of the hoppers are dead; 
 in forty-eight hours, nearly one half. Others continue to die after this, 
 but at least twenty-five per cent apparently fail to feed upon the poison 
 
 Fig. 14. Dead Grasshoppers in a Hopper-Dozer, Collected in a Vineyard. 
 
 at all. The reduction in number, even if it should not be over one half 
 of those attacking the vines, will in most cases be enough to prevent 
 the destruction of the latter. When the hoppers are very abundant it 
 will not do to depend wholly upon any one method of treatment, and 
 so, while poisons are the cheapest and perhaps the most effective single 
 means of treatment, it is advisable to supplement it with other plans. 
 
 The Use of the Hopper-Dozer. — When the hoppers are excessively 
 abundant it will pay to use the hopper-dozer in the orchard or vine- 
 yard; it may be necessary to make one of especial size or shape for this 
 purpose. It may be useful also to drive the hoppers more or less by the 
 use of the cloth on a stick, as described above, the idea being to cause 
 the hoppers to jump from the trees or vines onto the ground, or better 
 
30 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION. 
 
 still onto the hopper-dozer as it passes. Quite effective work was done 
 this year in the vineyard by three men, one driving the dozer and two 
 working along on the opposite side of the adjacent rows of vines, causing 
 the hoppers to jump on the dozer. The use of the hopper-dozer in the 
 orchard is thus much more troublesome and really a good deal less 
 effective than in meadow or pasture lands, but will undoubtedly pay 
 well where hoppers are more than usually abundant. 
 
 It is likely that hoppers will never be in so great numbers in this 
 State but that, with the use of the remedies here suggested, they can be 
 prevented from killing orchard trees or grapevines. 
 
 III. Control in Breeding- Grounds. 
 
 It is probable that a careful investigation of the life of the insect will 
 show that in every part of California it is entirely possible to destroy 
 the insects very economically in their breeding-grounds, to such an 
 extent as to reduce the probability of injury to adjacent fields almost 
 to nothing. Indeed, it seems that the real solution of the problem 
 toward which we should strive, is that of the control of the insect in its 
 breeding-ground. The methods that have been employed most effect- 
 ively have been plowmg in the winter, the use of the hopper-dozer 
 while the insect is still young, and burning after the grass becomes 
 sufficiently dry. 
 
 1. Plowing. — The plowing of the breeding-ground is the favorite 
 method on the other side of the Rocky Mountains, where work against 
 hoppers has been longest under way, especially in the northern part of 
 that hopper region. It is found that plowing, in the fall, the ground in 
 which hoppers have been observed to be depositing their eggs in more 
 than usual numbers, almost entirely prevents their hatching the fol- 
 lowing spring. It may be that the same will be found true in Califor- 
 nia; certainly the observations of this season indicate that the young 
 hoppers do not exist in grain fields or winter-fallowed land, or indeed 
 anywhere except on uncultivated roadsides and pasture lands. The 
 economical use of this remedy requires careful observations of the egg- 
 laying in the fall, because it will not pay to plow large tracts of land 
 only slightly stocked with hopper eggs. It may be found, indeed, that 
 this method is only applicable to roadsides; but its efficiency in other 
 regions indicates that it should be given a very thorough test under our 
 conditions. 
 
 2. Burning. — Our observations of the burned areas this year, and the 
 uniform testimony of those who have burned in this and in preceding 
 seasons, agree as to the thorough efficiency of this method of ridding 
 breeding-grounds of grasshoppers. The method can not be used early 
 
grasshoppers: control in breeding-grounds. 
 
 31 
 
 in the season, because the grass is not dry enough to be completely 
 burned off, and the hoppers will be most abundant in parts of the field 
 not burned. Indeed, burning can not be used until the hoppers have 
 already begun to drift. When the time comes* for burning, therefore, 
 it must be done at once. Usually only two or three weeks are available 
 
 Fig. 15. Burning the Breeding-Grounds to Kill Grasshoppers. 
 
 Fig. 
 
 16. Field After Burning, Showing How Completely Bare the 
 Ground is Made. 
 
 for this purpose during the season. Of all methods of hopper control 
 this is the one that can be applied most readily, and large areas can be 
 very quickly treated in this way. 
 
 The method is not without its objections, however, the chief of which 
 is probably the losses covered by the destruction of pastures. As to 
 how great this loss is there is difference of opinion; some claiming that 
 
32 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION. 
 
 it really amounts to very little, since a new growth will take place as 
 soon as the rains come; and some pasture lands are regularly burned 
 over and remain well stocked with grass. Others contend that unless 
 the rainy season is particularly wet a large percentage of the seed in 
 the soil will fail to germinate, and that the destruction of the seed on 
 the surface also decreases the grass to such an extent that it requires 
 several years of ordinary rainfall before the pastures are able to carry 
 their normal quantity of pasturage. Still others claim that even if the 
 succeeding season is unusually good, the destruction of the seeds is so 
 great that the pasturage does not come up to the normal for several 
 years. It is probably safe to assume that there will be considerable 
 loss from burning. Indeed, the. action of the railroad companies in 
 settling for a considerable bill of damages, in case of the accidental 
 burning of pastures from sparks from the engines, is very good evidence 
 that loss is produced. 
 
 If burning is adopted as a method of fighting grasshoppers there 
 should be ample provision made whereby those whose lands are burned 
 over are indemnified to the extent of the loss suffered. We are inclined 
 to think that this method of fighting grasshoppers should be adopted 
 only as an emergency measure, in case other methods fail, and only 
 when the hoppers are in such great numbers as to constitute a very 
 serious menace to adjacent fields, or when the area is so large that there 
 is great danger of flying swarms being developed. 
 
 3. Hopper-Dozers. — The use of the hopper-dozer upon the breeding- 
 ground is a method which at the present time promises most for the 
 control of grasshoppers. There is a long period, at times two or three 
 months, in which it can be used. The cost of its application is really 
 very slight. Its effectiveness has been demonstrated in many hopper 
 regions, though never extensively used in California. The lands in 
 which the insects appear are open, rolling ground upon which the 
 hopper-dozers can be easily used, so that this appears to present the 
 most practical means of hopper control at our command. The hopper- 
 dozer is very simple in construction, consisting of a shallow galvanized 
 iron pan of any convenient dimension; those in use the last season 
 under our directions were about six feet long by three feet wide, with 
 the edges turned up about one inch. These pans are mounted upon 
 wooden runners, one inch thick, shod with hoop irons beneath and 
 having along their back a vertical screen of cloth intended to prevent 
 the hoppers leaping entirely over the pan. The construction of these 
 pans will be very clearly understood from the figures on page 33. 
 
 In the bottom of the pans crude oil is placed. This is usually pre- 
 vented from flowing and splashing out by a layer of cloth, such as grain 
 sacking. In front of this apparatus at a convenient distance, say about 
 a foot, there is hung a light pole, which drags upon the ground and 
 
grasshoppers: complete control. 33 
 
 frightens the hoppers. As they jump into the air they are caught upon 
 the pans and wetted with the oil. Very often they again hop out of the 
 pan, but will usually have gotten enough oil upon them to cause their 
 death; a great many die in the pans, so that they have to be emptied 
 and new oil added from time to time. The amount of oil used is really 
 a small item, however, and a great deal of territory can be covered in a 
 single day. It is better in using the hopper-dozers to have a number 
 following each other like the plows in the gang-plow, so as to sweep 
 large swaths across the field. Under favorable circumstances a large 
 percentage of the hoppers will be killed by once going over the fields. 
 It may be desirable, however, in most cases to repeat the operation once 
 
 Fig. 17. Hopper-Dozers for Destruction of Grasshoppers. 
 
 or twice. With the proper inspection of the breeding-grounds in the 
 State, and the use of hopper-dozers under competent direction, it would 
 seem possible to entirely control the insect. 
 
 COMPLETE CONTROL. 
 
 The hopper question can not be considered as finally settled until the 
 insects are brought under practically complete control. This complete 
 control, as already indicated, can only be accomplished by attacking 
 them in their breeding-grounds. Every one will realize that this is a 
 work demanding concerted action, and that individual effort can not be 
 depended upon to accomplish the result. Usually if local initiative 
 be depended upon the fight will be delayed until the actual injury can 
 be seen, when it is too late to accomplish the best results, and what 
 can then be done will require a vastly increased expenditure. 
 
 The presence of hoppers in their breeding-grounds in sufficient num- 
 3— Bul. 142 
 
34 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION. 
 
 bers to cause great damage when they drift into adjacent vineyard 
 lands will scarcely injure the grass of the pasture. The owners of these 
 lands can hardly be expected to do anything when the amount of injury 
 done there is so small as to be quite out of proportion to the cost of 
 the destruction of the hoppers. Those whose properties are most 
 menaced should bear most of the cost of the extermination of the 
 insects; or rather it is a matter of general property interest that should 
 be attended to by the district, the county, or the State. This is clearly 
 recognized in other States, and there has been much grasshopper legis- 
 lation. But the scheme developed in another State would not be likely 
 to fit our conditions and might be very inappropriate. 
 
 A suggestion that has in several instances formed an important item 
 in these laws is the offering of a bounty for the destruction of the 
 hoppers. This plan has nowhere proven very satisfactory, and this 
 State has had an experience with bounty legislation in another matter, 
 which it is not anxious to duplicate. The difficulty with this plan 
 arises from the fact that while it is continually an expense, work will 
 never be done thoroughly enough to accomplish the results aimed at. 
 
 A PLAN FOR STATE ACTION. 
 
 A plan which seems to meet the needs of the case in California 
 involves, first of all, an ample provision for the careful study of the 
 breeding-grounds and habits of young hoppers, in order that we may 
 know which are the places where the hoppers are likely to become 
 abundant, and where we can prepare to take measures against them in 
 the seasons of their unusual prevalence. This provision should be 
 made at once, so as to be ready for the next season of hopper injury. 
 This study should include a careful mapping of these grounds, and the 
 preparation of a working plan for future control work. 
 
 Hopper Reporters. — The knowledge thus obtained should enable those in 
 charge of this work to secure, by means of correspondents in each locality, 
 reports which would give early information of the first appearance of 
 hoppers in unusual numbers. It may be possible to ascertain the 
 localities and to determine the kind of locust which is liable to increase 
 to injurious numbers corresponding with the character of the season; 
 and thus to be able to so direct the observation of those living in such 
 localities as to obtain from them full information at a time when other- 
 wise they would not be likely to observe their presence at all. 
 
 This securing of early information is the key to the whole situation, 
 because with it the suppression of the hoppers can be planned and 
 executed before they begin to do any injury at all. It will be impossible 
 to have enough trained investigators in the field to accomplish much in 
 the way of keeping track of the abundance of the insect, but with the 
 
grasshoppers: plan for state action. 35 
 
 necessary information furnished to those living in these threatened 
 localities, there is no reason why in every neighborhood persons could 
 not be found who could make satisfactory reports. 
 
 Competent Inspection. — The information secured by correspondents in 
 this way will be very unsatisfactory, unless there are also provided, at 
 the same time, competent inspectors, who will visit the grounds where 
 hoppers are reported as being in excessive numbers. These inspectors 
 should very carefully inquire into the situation and determine 
 accurately the relative numbers and the range of the insects. 
 
 If this is done early enough it will be possible to plan out a campaign 
 which will enable the people of that locality, in most cases, to so reduce 
 the numbers that the danger of migration will be nothing. The ability 
 to make accurate observations in this matter will require that the 
 inspector making this final inspection shall have acquired a good degree 
 of knowledge of the conditions of the insects in ordinary years, so that 
 he will not be misled on the one hand into thinking that the hoppers 
 are not in dangerous numbers, or on the other hand, into suggesting the 
 expenditure of time and money for the destruction of the hoppers when 
 in reality there is not sufficient danger. 
 
 Supervision. — After this knowledge has been secured it will be neces- 
 sary, in order to produce the best results, that the efforts that are made 
 for the suppression of the insects shall be under the immediate super- 
 vision of a competent officer. The need of careful supervision of this 
 work arises chiefly because in this way the most economical fighting 
 can be done. It is not merely a matter of choosing the right remedies, 
 but of knowing when and where to work to the best advantage, and 
 where it will be safe not to make any effort at all. There is no doubt 
 that in the past year, where burning has been resorted to, a great deal 
 of the territory has been burned over that had no sufficient stock of 
 hoppers upon them to justify any kind of treatment. If left to local 
 initiative it is entirely likely also that expensive methods, like that of 
 burning, will be the ones usually chosen when cheaper methods would 
 be equally efficient. 
 
 Local Authority. — It will be imperative, if the hopper situation is to 
 be controlled in the State, that the laws be so amended that there will 
 be definite provision giving some one in each locality the power to con- 
 duct the local fight against the hoppers. Perhaps the best way in which 
 this can be accomplished would be to definitely enlarge the powers of 
 the county horticultural boards and specifically make it their duty to 
 look after the hoppers of their county. This has worked very satis- 
 factorily in the grasshopper fights of other States, and there seems no 
 reason why this machinery already created in this State should not be 
 utilized in this way. There will really be no need of creating any new 
 powers, but merely making the powers we have now for fighting scale 
 
36 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION. 
 
 insects apply also to the fighting of the grasshopper pest. Of course it 
 should be also clearly understood that in this matter these county com- 
 missioners shall work under the directions of the competent supervision 
 insisted upon above. 
 
 State Authority. — The experience this year in Sacramento and 
 adjacent counties shows that it is very important for the success of this 
 work that there shall be a central authority, equally powerful with the 
 local authority, whose duty it shall be to undertake work where adjacent 
 districts are in danger and where the local authority neglects or fails to 
 act. ' As the horticultural law now stands there is no one who has any 
 power to step in between counties and prevent the inaction of one result- 
 ing in a loss to the other. When the horticultural laws were framed 
 the insects had in view were the scales, which are very slow and poor 
 migrants, so that there was scarcely any danger in one county from the 
 neglect of the authorities of the other. With the grasshopper the 
 situation is entirely different. This matter would be put in the proper 
 shape if the State Board of Horticulture were given the same powers 
 possessed by the county boards, which at present the law expressly 
 denies it. 
 
 The Plan in Brief. — In all this work it should be clearly recognized 
 that there are two distinct things to be provided for: 
 
 1. Investigators who will secure data regarding the hoppers, direct 
 those charged with their destruction, and advise regarding the best 
 means to pursue — in short, to serve as a source of information. 
 
 2. An executive body with the legal power to enter premises and to 
 do everything needful to accomplish the destruction of these pests. 
 
 It is a good thing to keep these two functions entirely distinct. For 
 the latter, a very slight modification, as suggested above, of the laws 
 relative to our Boards of Horticulture would provide a very satisfactory 
 machinery for accomplishing the results. For the former work there 
 ,might be established, as is done in many of the other States afflicted 
 with grasshoppers, an office of State Entomologist, whose duty it would 
 be to investigate injurious insects and to distribute the information, 
 particularly that of fighting grasshoppers. In some cases this officer is 
 also the Entomologist of the Experiment Station, but when this is the 
 case it is recognized that the work is not wholly such as would be suit- 
 able to be classed as Experiment Station work; so that in every State 
 where this connection is maintained provision is made for the extra 
 work by suitable appropriation to cover the cost of such investigations. 
 
 California is the only State among those affected by grasshoppers, in 
 which there is hope for the complete control. Such control does seem 
 quite possible here, if adequate means are employed to accomplish it,, 
 following more or less the lines suggested above.