The Cabbage Root Maggot. 573 



caused me to wonder if all these years this common pest has been discussed 

 under the wrong name. After a laborious critical study of all accessible des- 

 criptions and accounts of the insect, with my specimens always at hand, I 

 have reached the conclusion that the Cabbage Maggot should be called 

 Phorhia brassicar Bouche. 



Realizing the responsibility incurred by the wide divergence from the 

 opinions of systematists which my synonomy represents, I deem it necessary 

 to offer a detailed explanation of the facts from which I reached my conclu- 

 sions. For 50 years past, so far as I can discover, every economic writer, 

 whether American or European, has called the Cabbage Maggot Anthotnyia 

 brassicce Bouche. But I have found only two or three references to Bouche's 

 species in the systematic literature of the Anthomyiians. Westwood, Osten 

 Sacken, and Leunis apparently accepted brassiccz Bouche without question ; 

 but Schiner thought it probably identical with ricficeps Meigen. L,ater 

 Dipterologists seem to have overlooked the species entirely.* Naturally the 

 question arose : What is Anthoinyia brassiccs Bouche. 



Mr. Meade answers the question for me in a recent letter as follows : 

 " There is no doubt that the true Cabbage Fly is the Phorbia floccosa of 

 Macquart, but this species has been confounded with Anthoinyia radicutn 

 Linn. ... I have no doubt that Bouchi' confounded P. floccosa and A. 



radiciim together I am convinced that Bouche, Curtis, Zetters- 



tedt, and others did not know the difference between these two species and 

 confounded them together." The question is answered by Mr. Stein in a 

 recent letter to me, thus : " I believe that Phorbia floccosa Macq., Rond., 

 Mde. and A. brassicae Bouche are synonymous. The first name has the 

 priority." I had reached the conclusions represented in my s.ynonomy be- 

 fore receiving either of the above answers ; and after a careful review of the 

 whole subject, I still adhere to the same opinions. 



I believe with Mr. Stein \}iX3X floccosa Macq. and brassicce Bouche are 

 synonymous; but Macquart's description did not appear until 1835,* while 

 Bouche had twice described his brassicce before this. His first description in 

 1833 is brief, but the next year it was given in detail and both accounts are 

 accompanied by accurate descriptions of the larva and pupariuni. Bouche's 

 brassicce thus has the priority oxer floccosa Macq. 



I believe with Mr. Meade th.a.t floccosa Macq. has been confounded with 

 radicuni Linn, by some authors, as my synonomy shows. .But I do not think 

 that Bouche confounded them. It is true that Bouch a-escribes only the 

 larva and pupariuni of radicum, but he makes these entirely distinct from his 

 brassiccs, thus indicating that he knew radicum Linn. All European authors 



♦Thereisan older .4H//io;«>'ia brasstca: described by Wiedemann several years before 

 Bouch6 published his description. However, Wiedemann's species was soon placed in the 

 synonomy of A . radicum Linn, by Meigen seven years before Bouchi wrote ; and this 

 synonomy has been accepted by Schiner and Meade. 



*I have examined his earlier work on the "Insectes Dipteres du Nord de la France 

 (i826-i834)",and find no reference to floccosa ; and all th references to floccosa I have seen 

 refer to his later work (1835) for the original description 



