Return to Publications List ◄ Next Page►

4

two years later in 1919.

As regards spread of the insect from one locality t? another, there are many diverse means in which this may be accomplished. Crumb, Eide and Bonn (1941) give an excellent summary of how this comes about in the following:

“The earwig rarely flies and is not inclined to travel very extensively by crawling, but is admirably adapted for transportation by man. Wandering at night, it crawls into any available hiding place at the approach of day and thus may be carried long distances in bundles of newspapers, the luggage of travelers, cut flowers, packages and crates of merchandise, lumber, and shingles, automobiles and even rarely in letters. Ships often are infested, and their cargoes are likely to carry earwigs.”

As is indicated in the above paragraph, this insect is nocturnal; this fact was not denied by any of the authors.

Among the workers, there are many opinions and viewpoints as to the kinds and extent of damage caused by the European earwig. The majority of them admit that damage does occur, but disagreements regarding the extent of damage are pronounced. In 1879 Kuwert discussed earwigs as being hostile to collectors of Lepidoptera by attacking moths on "sugar" and on the setting boards. They were recognized as pests on apples and their leaves by H. von Schilling in 1887. They were judged as pests of flowers and vegetables by A. B. Frank in 1896 in Breslau, Germany. The possible damage they might cause in beehives was not regarded as serious by Buysson in 1900. Lind (1914) tells of the serious destruction of garden vegetables in Scandinavia. These insects were thought to be overall serious pests by Fulton in 1922, and he favored complete destruction of them. Gibson, Arthur and Glendenning in 1925 regarded them as undesirable pests in Canada from the standpoint of their destructiveness to home gardens and as a general nuisance. In