BLACK APHIS; COLLIER, 53 
female, magnified. Eyes black; body wholly black; cornicles (honey- 
tubes) and tail black. 
Winged viviparous female-—Wholly black customarily, but occasion- 
ally of a slightly rusty-brown, and when changing from the pupal state 
brown, with honey-tubes and horns green, soon, however, gradually 
changing in tint to shining black; wings short and coarse, with fore- 
edge and patch on it greenish, other veins brown. 
Egg-producing female. — Very like the above-mentioned wingless 
form. 
Male.—Black and winged. 
Young.—Slaty-grey, afterwards with ‘a blackish velvet-like coat.” 
Pupa.—Head and fore body slaty-grey, with the wing-cases black. 
«« Abdomen black, with four strongly-marked white downy spots ranged 
on each side, followed by a break near the insertion of the cornicles. 
Two small white patches occur on each side near the tail, and also an 
exterior row of dots on each lateral edge. These squarish markings 
give the insect a kind of chess-board or chequered appearance.’’—(G, 
B. B., loc. cit.) 
The two other kinds, which so greatly resemble the above that they 
may very possibly be confused with it, are A. papaveris, Fab., and 4, 
atriplicis, Linn. The first of these is known to frequent Mangolds ; 
the second is to be found on Orache and other plants of the same order 
as that to which the Beet or Mangold belongs. Both these kinds are 
stated to have the pupe (that is, the stage in which the insect, if 
winged when perfect, bears wing-cases) spotted with white. But in 
the ‘‘ papaveris’’ the females are more of an olive-green tint; and the 
‘‘abdomen of the winged viviparous female is olive-green, with three 
or more dark lateral spots on each side, and several obscure transverse 
bands.” In the case of the “ atriplicis,” the winged viviparous female 
has the body of a dark olive, and the ‘‘ abdomen very large, obscurely 
barred with black, sides spotted.”’ 
Where the insects in all their stages are submitted for examination, 
and are typical in their markings, they may be pretty surely identified, 
and in addition to the definite statement of Mr. Newstead (who is per- 
fectly qualified to give a trustworthy identification) as to the infestation 
at Llandudno being of the A. rwmicis, it appeared to me to be so; still, 
the differences between the three species above-named are so very 
much involved, that it is difficult to speak with quite absolute 
certainty. 
Amongst the various observations of Mangold-attack sent me, none 
of the others appeared referable to presence of A. rumicis; but by 
favour of the Editor of the ‘ Agricultural Gazette’ I received, on 
Aug. 9th, spécimens of such an utterly overwhelming attack of mixed 
nature, including Aphis infestation as the chief part of it, that I give 
