246 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



mentioned, is observable j but even on these it is not very 

 serious, and has never been carefully observed or accurately 

 estimated. Many newspaper writers took up the cause of the 

 pigs, who were supposed by Mr. Rich, in the passage I have 

 cited, to be on the point of losing a favourite esculent 

 through the agency of this gall; and the watchword sounded 

 far and wide, — " Rally round the pig." " Stand by the pig" 

 was the war-cry thoughout the West of England. The farmers 

 girded themselves for the combat ; but, alas, could not discover 

 the enemy. Willing, aye, eager, to fight by the side of their 

 favourite, his enemy was nowhere to be seen, — was too small 

 to contend with ; fighting was out of the question ; the war-cry 

 was abandoned, and the helpless wail arose from every Western 

 press, " Pity the poor pig." And those entomologists who, 

 like myself, are ever on the look-out for the protection of 

 crops from insect-enemies, were continually appealed to, to 

 recommend some powder or chemical that should be a 

 remedy against the galls. But here I must introduce 

 Mr. Parfitt's letter, which embraces the whole subject, and, I 

 think, shows, amongst other things, that the remedy was not 

 required. This accomplished naturalist begins by objecting 

 to the statement that these galls were first brought into notice 

 by Mr. Rich, and then proceeds, thus : — " I was the first to 

 take particular notice of them. I sent some of the galls to 

 Mr. Westwood as far back as 1848 or 1849, to ask the name 

 of these excrescences. I sent to him through one of the 

 gardening periodicals, and received from him the name of 

 Quercus terminalis. This was stated in a letter I wrote to 

 Mr. Stainton some moths ago, which was read at one of your 

 meetings [meaning the meetings of theEntomological Society], 

 and caused rather a sharp discussion. Mr. Westwood was 

 present, but took no part in it; he no doubt considered that 

 the name he had given was the correct one; but in this he 

 was in error,* as the gall now appears to be the Cynips 

 Lignicola of Hartig. Had it been new, or should a specific 

 difference between our insect and Lignicola be hereafter 



* Subsequent!}' Mr. Westwood seems to bave altered bis opinion, for be is 

 reported (Zool. 4708) to bave said, at a meeting of tbe Entomological Society, 

 on tbe 2nd April, 1855 : — " I determined the specimens to be C. Quercus- 

 petioli so long ago tbat tbe ink with which tbe name was written on the 

 label has faded." 



