92 



THE PRACTICAL ENTOMOLOGIST. 



Entomologist from its commencement, he would 

 have found in the very first number of that Jour- 

 nal an article written by myself, iu which it is con- 

 clusively shown that there are two perfectly dis- 

 tinct species of Doryphora — -juncta and \Q-lincata 

 ^— which are yet so remarkably alike in their mark- 

 ings and coloring, that they were confounded to- 

 gether by so excellent an entomologist as Dr. 

 Fitch; although, by the way, seven years before 

 that author wrote, some of the principal distinctions 

 between the two, had been clearly pointed out by 

 Rogers. Moreover, he would have perceived very 

 clearly that the characters, that distinguish these 

 two species, are not such as can be given in an un- 

 colored wood-cut of the size of nature ; and that 

 consequently the very same wood-cut will represent 

 one species just as well as the other. He would 

 also have found there the proof, that \0-Uneata in- 

 fests the potato and jnnrfa never does ; and that 

 juncta had been captured for time immemorial in 

 Illinois, but \Q-Unea(a not, so far as could be ascer- 

 tained, till 1864. Lastly, he would have seen a 

 Synopsis of the principal points of difference be- 

 tween the two insects, so that he could have estab- 

 lished the fact at once, that his specimen was a true 

 juncta, and "not by a jugful" a genuine Colorado 

 Potato Bug. 



This is not the first, nor the second, nor the 

 third, nOr the fourth time, that I have known it to 

 be roundly asserted, and sometimes by entomolo- 

 gists who thought themselves "some pumpkins," 

 (hat they had years and years ago taken the true 

 genuine Colorado Potato Bug in Illinois. In every 

 such case it turned out, on subsequent investiga- 

 tion, that they had mistaken juncta for 10-lincata. 

 I conclude, therefore, that the correspondent of the 

 Rural American has fallen into the same error; 

 more especially as we can readily guage his ento- 

 mological knowledge by his ludicrously absurd as- 

 sumption, that an insect can be always identified 

 with certainty from an uncolorcd and unmagnified 

 wood-cut. 



Let it be clearly understood here, that I blame 

 no man, whether Editor or Correspondent, for not 

 being a first-rate Entomologist. I know from my 

 own personal experience, that it requires almost a 

 whole lifetime to master the rudimentary principles 

 of the science, and to acquire that practical know- 

 ledge of insect life which no mere book-knowledge 

 can ever supply. We cannot all of us know every- 

 thing; and even Editors, who are popularly con- 

 sidered to be, like the Pope of Rome, the very in- 

 carnation of infallibility, do actually sometimes, or 

 at all events once or twice in a century, make some 

 wee little blunder, iu some department of know- 

 ledge with which they do not happen to be fami- 

 liar. Even the admirable Criehton must have been 

 very ignorant in Chemistry, Electricity and Geolo- 

 gy ; and Scott's Infantry Tactics would probably 

 have puzzled to death either Julius Cas.sar or Alex- 

 ander the Great. Still it is provocative of sudden 

 convulsions in the diaphragm, to see any man cri- 

 ticize what he has nevet read, and theorize in sci- 

 ences of which he has not learnt the A, B, C. But 



blessed are the ignorant, for they know nothing 

 and think that they know everything ; and there 

 are some minds that are so intellectually unculti- 

 vated and unclothed, that like Adam and Eve in 

 the Garden of Eden, "they are naked, and know 

 it not." B. D. w. 



PEAR-TBEE AND APPLE-TEEE INSECTS. 



The Pear and the Ap]ile are, as is well known to 

 Botanists, very closely allied. Reasoning a priori, 

 therefore, we should naturally infer, that insects 

 which feed upon a great variety of widely distinct 

 plants, including the Apple, would also be found 

 on the Pear. For example, the great Gecropia 

 moth feeds upon apple, plum, cherry, currant, bar- 

 berry, hazel and hickory leaves, and also, as I have 

 just heard from Dr. F. W. Brewer, of Boston, very 

 extensively upon pear-leaves. 



But there are two well-known insects, which, al- 

 though they are common on the apple and a varie- 

 ty of other trees, yet never, so far as I can find out, 

 attack the Pear. The first of these two is the no- 

 torious Tent-caterpillar {Clisiocampa americana), 

 which feeds freely on Apple, Plum, Cherry, Birch 

 and Willow, and yet, according to Dr. Trimble, 

 will starve on the Pear. (^Frnit Insects, p. 104.) 

 The second is the Striped Borer of the Apple, 

 (Saperda Livittata,') which is death upon the 

 Quince, a tree belonging to a distinct botanical 

 genus from the Apple and Pear, and yet appears 

 never to be found on the Pear, though it is so very 

 common ou the Apple.* At all events Mr. Cole- 

 man, of St. Louis, the editor of tlie Rural World, 

 says that he " has been cultivating pears for a num- 

 ber of years, and has never been troubled with the 

 borer ;" and 0. P. Moran, of Barnesville, Mo., 

 states that he has "borers and caterpillars" on hi.s 

 apple-trees, but neither of them on his pear-trees, 

 although of these last he has as many as fifty trees. 

 (Ai/r. Rep. Missouri, 18G5, append, pp. 134, 402.) 

 In New Jersey, indeed, they found a very large 

 borer troubling the huts of their pear-trees in 1866; 

 but this insect, of which I received a specimen, 

 does not even belong to the same family as the 

 Striped Borer {Cerambi/.c family), but to the Pri- 

 onus family, which is represented by larger and 

 rarer beetles. What particular species this large 

 pear-boring larva would have produced, I cannot 

 say for certain, as the specimen after going under- 

 ground unfortunately died. But I conjecture that 

 it would have produced a large beetle, Orthoso- 

 ma ci/lindricum, which may be found figured in 

 Harris's Injnrionx Insects, (p. 96,)and which has 

 been supposed, for very insufficient reasons, to feed 

 upon pine. (See Pr.\ctical Entomolo<5IST I, 

 p. 00, and Fitch K r. Rep. 11, § 239.) 



From the above facts — if they be facts, as I be- 

 lieve them to be — we may draw two inferences, the 

 one theoretical, the other practical. 1st. Not to be 



» Harris says, that "the trees arid shrubs principally 

 attaokeil liy tliis borer, are the apple-tree, the quince, the 

 ni(iiuitiiiii-!ish, hawthorn and other thorn-biishes, the 

 .Jiuu'-b-n-y or shad-bush, and other kinds of Ainolau- 

 chier and Aronia." (/'!)• I'lS. p. lOS.) 



