246 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 
mentioned, is observable; 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 the Entomological 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 
* Subsequently Mr. Westwood seems to have altered his opinion, for he is 
reported (Zool. 4708) to have said, at a meeting of the Entomological Society, 
on the 2nd April, 1855:—I determined the specimens to be C. Quercus- 
petioli so long ago that the ink with which the name was written on the 
label has faded.” 
