Insects Injurious to the Apple. 153 



Several growers have found considerable benefit from spraying 

 with lime and salt. 



REFERENCES. 



(1) Stedman. Bulletin Xo. 35. Agricultural Experiment Station of Missouri 



(1896). 



(2) Theobald, F. V. American Blight or Woolly Aphis and a related subter- 



ranean species. Journal S. E. Agri. Coll., No. 6, pp. 15-21 (1897). 



(3) Connold, E. Vegetable galls. 



(4) Theobald, F. V. Report on Economic Zoology for the year ending 



April 1st, 1907, pp. 30-38 (1907). 



(5) French, C. 'Handbook of the Destructive Insects of Victoria,' Part I., 



p. 37 (1904). 



(6) French, C. Journal of the Bureau of Agriculture, Western Australia, 



February 18th (1896). 



(7) Lounsbury, C. Rp.port of the Government Entomologist for the year 



1896. Cape of Good Hope, pp. 107-114 (1897). 



(8) MacOioan and Pillans. ' Manual of Practical Orchard Work.' Dept. 



Agriculture, Cape Colony (1894). 



(9) Lounsbury, C. Agricultural Journal, Cape Colony, Sept. 19 (1895). 



THE APPLE SUCKER. 



(Psylla mali. Schniidb.) 



Of all apple pests this is one of the most troublesome. It has 

 been known for many years, for Kollar (1), quoting Schmidberger in 

 1837, gives an excellent account of it. 



The Apple Sucker belongs to the family Psyllidce, of which 

 Edwards (2) describes twenty-eight species in this country. They 

 are related to the Frog-hoppers (Cicadina), but can be told at once by 

 their two-joirited tarsi or feet. Three species occur on the apple, of 

 which P. mali is by far the most abundant and frequently the only 

 culprit. It, has been placed by some of the older writers in the genus 

 Ohermes, and we even find Ormerod (3) calling it the " apple cherm.es." 

 It has no connection with that group of insects. 



Its attack on the apple is very persistent. This fact, well known 

 to growers who suffer from its ravages, has evidently not been noticed 

 by writers, for we find such statements as the following : " The attack 

 appears to be of only occasional appearance to a serious extent and 

 has been only specially reported to myself in 1890 and 1891, and 

 again in 1897," Ormerod (3). 



Growers in Kent, Cambridgeshire, Worcestershire and Surrey 

 report its constant presence. Mr. H. J. W. Best of Suckley tells me 

 it has been a great pest in parts of Worcestershire during the past 



