574 ' Bulletin 78. 



seem to have accepted Bouch^'s descriptions of the eariy stages of radicum, 

 for their accounts are but compilations from Bouche. I think a careful 

 comparison of Rouche's descriptions of the adults of his brassicce with speci- 

 mens oifloccosa Macq. will convince any fair critic that he had Macquart's 

 species, and not radicum Linn., before him. I believe Bouche saw the char- 

 acteristic tuft of hairs on the hind femora, for he says : "Schenkel aussen 

 vielborstig ; " no similar expression occurs in his descriptions of any other 

 Anthomyiian. A further strong argument for the validity of Bouche 's 

 species is to be found in the accurate detailed descriptions of the larva and 

 puparium. These descriptions of the early stages of the pest are the models 

 from which nearly all of the later accounts have been taken ; the careful des- 

 criptions of Dr. Fitch are the only notable exceptions of original work. 

 Westwood has testified to Bouche's capabilities and abilities for observation 

 (Gard. Mag. for 1837, p. 243.) Furthermore, I think but few authors have 

 confounded radicum Linn, sxi^floccosa Macq. A study of the descriptions 

 of radicum, brassiar, axxAfloccosa in the works of ^Meigen, Bouche, Macquart, 

 Walker, and Schiner shows that in every case the abdomen of the male 

 insect of radicum is described as sub-elliptical (Mr. Meade says : "short, 

 wide, somewhat pointed"). While all the descriptions of either yfocroia or' 

 <5ra55zVcr agree that the male abdomen is sub-cylindrical, "streifenformig," 

 or long and narrow. INIacquart puts radicum and his floccosa in different 

 groups on this difference in the shape of the abdomen. I have not seen 

 Zetterstedt's work. In 1867, Dr. Fitch pointed out that the slight difference 

 indicated by Curtis between brassiere Bouche and the species supposed by 

 Curtis to be radicum Linn, were hardly more than accidental and not of suffi- 

 cient value to indicate a specific difference between the insects. In a recent 

 letter Mr. Meade incloses Curtis' figure ol radicum with the remark that "it 

 gives a very good figure of F. Jloccosa." I have never seen a specimen of 

 radicum Linn., and the only authentic record that the species occurs in this 

 country is the fact that a specimen was found in the Cambridge Collection by 

 Mr. Meade in 1S78. From theabove evidence, the only conclusion I can reach 

 is that brassiccr Bouche is a valid species, has priority over floccosa Macq., 

 and is the name to be applied to the Cabbage Maggot unless some other 

 name appears which antedates it. 



In 1883, Mr. Meade stated in his description of floccosa INIacq. that "there 

 is but little doubt that this species is the same as the IM fl oralis of Fallen, 

 Meigen, Zetterstedt, Schiner, and others ; for the general descriptions of both 

 species agree together, though none of the last-named authors mention the 

 tufted femora." In a recent communication to me Mr. Meade reiterates the 

 same opinion. However, Mr. Meade has not yet, in print, removed the 

 question mark from his reference oifloralis to the synonomy oifloccosa. In 

 1882, Miss Ormerod had specimens of the Cabbage Maggot Fly determined 

 by Mr. Meade, and she has since used the name Anthomyia floralis Fallen. 

 This possible identity of these two species is a very important question, for 

 7?(7ra/z5 antedates Bouche's brassicae by several years. Thus, if their iden- 

 tity could be shown beyond a doubt, the Cabbage Maggot would have to be 

 called Phorbia floralis Fallen. 



