STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 161 



The Bibliography of the Bark louse extends back for more than a century through 

 the writings of the fathers of Natural Science, Linnaeus, Burminster, Geoffroy, Fahricius, 

 Latreillc, Burchard, etc., and were all arranged under one natural family Coccidce. They 

 have been looked upon as, ''inert and tixed masses of animal matter, motionless and 

 apparently senseless, resembling nothing more nearly than the vegetable excrescences 

 called galls; " and were supposed to lose all traces of articulations in the body as well 

 as of articulate limbs as they approached the imago state, much of which, although the 

 works of Westwood, Curtis, the fothers above named, and many others, I have already 

 been compelled, after close scientific investigation, to pronounce incorrect, (Trans. 

 Amer. Ent. Soc. , Jan. 1868), and many more perhaps, still more surprising contradic- 

 tions of these standard authors may be found in my unpublished notes, and thus we 

 find it all along the Entomological highway proving conclusively that we can only 

 arrive at primary truth by the most persevering toil. 



All this comes out of patient study, for the Coccidae themselves have not changed. 

 The Bark louse of to-day is without doubt the same as those lice in the gardens of the 

 ancient Romans, Babylonians, or of the Pharoah kings of Egypt at ancient Memphis, 

 on the Nile, or going farther down the vista of time, the Bark louse may have been 

 found on the wild fruit tree in the morning of creation, calling upon Father Adam to 

 give it a name. 



Upon a closer examination of these insignificant creatures we find many " Hnds." 

 These separate varieties, whether real or imaginary, we are in the habit of distinguishing 

 as species, and here in general I would say that I, with the leading Entomologists of 

 our country, have been far too much inclined to consider each Bark louse, as well as 

 Plant louse, on a diflerent food plant as a distinct species, without other sufiicient dis- 

 tinguishing characters; this I have, latterly, by studying their habits, proved to my 

 own satisfaction to be an error, as I have already intimated, (Transactions Northern 

 Illinois Horticviltural Society, 1868), and by subsequent investigation I have been able 

 to breed the same Bark louse — an individual species on the '^Linden'' (Silia Amer- 

 icana) (order Tilacece), on the " Ash-leaved Maple" or " Box Elder," [Negundo acer- 

 oides, order, SapindaceK ; suborder Acerinem) ; and on the "Hornbeam," "Iron 

 Wood," {Garpinus Americana; order, Cupulifera), trees that are in all respects en- 

 tirely difterent in wood, in fruit, in flower, and in taste of their juices, and their 

 natural botanical relations are entirely difterent. The first bears a woody, globular 

 nut, and is arranged in the first {A) department of the Polypetalous division of the 

 Angiospsrmoi, by Dr. Gray the standai'd author of American botany. The second bears 

 a winged, one seeded fruit, and is arranged under the second (C) department of the 

 same. The third bears a small ovoid nut, flowers in Catkins, belongs to the Aiyetalous 

 division, and is of the Oak family. 



With these facts before us, we cannot longer adhere to the time-honored custom of 

 manufacturing species of Bark lice or Plant lice out of the same, because we find the 

 individuals on the various food plants. And the time is coming, with advancing 

 science, resting on close unprejudiced oljservation, when we must rely upon more 

 substantial characters for distinctions. It were just as wise to pronounce the rabbit 

 to-day one species, which is feeding upon grass; to-morrow, another species, because 

 found feeding upon cabbage; the following day another, because it is eating an apple, 

 and in mid-winter another species, because it is barking the young apple trees in your 

 nursery. 

 12 



