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 |