THE STATE ENTOMOLOGIST. 95 



ira, which has long been ready to receive it, and which, with the genera Vacuna and Chermes, 

 form the sixth Tribe, Chcrmesince, of the Aphid.e, according to Passerini's latest revision of this 

 family. 



We can commend the carefulness with which Dr. Shimer made the interesting observations 

 which he has given us on this insect, but no man should undertake to found new families without 

 first informing himself more thoroughly of what has already been done by others. 



It was by no very easy means that we arrived at the conclusion that our Gall-louse is identical 

 with the European species, but now that the fact seems sufficiently proved, Planchon's specific naiua 

 vastatrix will have to give way to Fitch's vitifolia,* or at the most be retained as a variety. 



At first there seemed to be many reasons for considering the two insects distinct. First, the 

 European root-louse was exceedingly destructive, and their gall-louse of only exceptional occur- 

 rence ; while our gall-louse was very common and destructive, and no root-lice were known to exist 

 here at all. Secondly, the insect found in the galls was smooth, while that on the roots was dis- 

 tinctly ornamented with piliferous tubercles, and the two were sufficiently unlike to cause M. 

 Lichtenstein, who believed in their identity, to propose the term gall-inhabiting (gallicole) for the 

 one race, and root-inhabiting (radiciole) for the other. Thirdly, our insect was described as having 

 a one-jointed tarsus, whereas M. Signoret described and figured the tarsus of the winged root, 

 inhabiting form as two-jointed. Fourthly, there seemed to be a difference even in the form o 

 our gall-inhabiting louse and theirs, as ours appeared much more obese and globular than theirs, as 

 represented in their figures. All these apparent differences were rather calculated to give rise to 

 doubts as to the identity of the two insects ; but by careful observation and persistency we have 

 been enabled to dispel them all. 



First, we might naturally expect — and those who believe in the Darwinian hypothesis certainly 

 would — that, presuming our insect to have been imported into Europe, it would undergo some 

 modification in its habits, not only because of change of climate, but because of its having to live 

 on another species of the Grape-vine — all the European species belongs to Vitis vinifera. Hence 

 its normal habits there, of feeding on the roots, may have been gradually acquired. We believe 

 a parallel case presents itself in our Apple Root-louse (Erioso.na pyri, Fitch) and the Wooly Aphis, 

 or so-called "American Blight" (Eriosoma lanigera, Hausm). It is conceded on almost all sidest 

 that the last insect was imported into Europe from this country, and there is now every reason to 

 believe that the two insects are identical, or that at furthest they can only be considered as varieties 

 of one species. Yet while in this country our root-louse is very injurious in the West, and only 

 exceptionally found on the limbs above ground (though more often so found in the Eastern States); 

 all authors that we are acquaintedwith have spoken of it as occurring solely on the limbs in Europe; 

 though M. Lichtenstein informs us that he has found it on the roots also, and that in those cases it 

 caused just such swellings of the roots as our root-louse does here. We know in St. Louis of an old 

 apple-tree, standing in a yard where the ground is trodden hard, the limbs of which have been for 

 the past three years more or less affected with this insect, though none can be found on the roots. 

 But where the ground is more porous, and not so closely pressed to the roots, it seldom occurs on 

 the branches, but often on the roots, even in the immediate neighborhood. Upon the closest 

 examination we cannot find the slightest difference between the root and branch-inhabiting lice, 



there being red specimens with unforked nerves (Fig 40, j) and yellow specimens with forked nerves 

 (Fig. 40, k). I have in my possession the very drawing made by Mr. Cresson from Dr. ^'timer's 

 specimen of vitijolice, which Mr. Walsh refers to in his Report, and which led Mr W. erroneously 

 to place our louse with the Coccids. The drawing is rough, evidently imperfect, and well calcu- 

 lated to mislead, for the discoidal nerve of the front wing is represented more as a fold, the forks 

 are omitted, and the costa of hind wing is represented perfectly straight. The drawing is also ac- 

 companied by Mr. Cresson's statement that he could not give any decided opinion as to the neura- 

 tion, as the wings on the specimen were not spread out. 



* M. J. Lichtenstein has objected to Fitch's specific name "vitifolicc." on the score of its bein^ 

 ungrammatical, and has substituted the term "vitis-folii" in his published reports. Now Dr. Fitch 

 has given the termination '•folia" to a number of his specific names, and though "folii" would of 

 course be more grammatically correct, one would suppose the Doctor had some reason for his con- 

 duct. At all events I believe it is perfectly proper to drop the middle s in compounding the two 

 words, and certain it is that Fitch's term has been adopted by all subsequent writers in speaking of 

 the insect. Irregularities in entomological nomenclature seem to be allowable, or at least^are 

 very frequently and purposely perpetrated for the sake of euphony. "Whatever is, is ri-ht," 

 is as true in language as it is iu religion, ami if we alter vitifolite we must alter a thousand utli'^r 

 entomological names that are not, strictly speaking, grammatically correct. It is quite proper to 

 correct a faulty name, but after showing that it is faulty it seems best, to prevent endless contu- 

 sion, to adopt the faulty name, and thus make its author shoulder the blame, until he himself cor- 

 rects it. 



f M. Eudes-Deslongchamps and M. Blot are the only authors, according to Amyot and Serville 

 who believe it is indigenous to Europe. 



