ENTOMOLOGIST AND BOTANIST. 



357 



We had intended to say something about the 

 several insect enemies of this louse, but the illus- 

 trations could not be jirepared in time, and our 

 space will not permit. 



[Fig. 219] 



Colors— All ypUowish, oxceiit /, which is green. 



Figure 218, at the head of this article, repre- 

 sents a leaf covered with galls. Figure 219 — (a) 

 represents the winged female; (b) her foot or 

 tarsus — after Signorct; (c) an enlarged egg; 

 (fZ) the newly hatched gall-inhabiting type, ven- 

 tral view; (e) same, dorsal view; (/) a section 

 of a gall ; (g) the tubercled rootrinhabiting form ; 

 (h) the mother gall-louse at the heighth of her 

 fertility, ventral view; (i) same, dorsal view — 

 all from natui-e; (j and k) differently veined 

 wings of the Oalc Phylloxera of Europe. All 

 these figures are greatly enlarged, and the natural 

 size is approximately shown by hair-lines. 



APPENDIX. 



It will be remembered that in what was said about 

 this insect on page ?48 of our first volume we criticised 

 the founding of the Family Daciylosjihrnridtt, by Dr. 

 Shimer. In an essay read before the Illinois State 

 Horticultural Society at Ottawa last winter, Dr. Shimer 

 took exception to our remarks, and called upon us to 

 give a reason for the faith that is in us. Not consider- 

 ing a horticultural meeting the proper place to enter 



into the discussion of purely entomological questions, 

 we declined to waste the precious time of the members, 

 but intimated that we should be glad to answer the 

 Doctor whenever a favorable occasion presented. The 

 opportunity did not offer till now, as the Transactions 

 of the Society, containing the essay in question, have 

 but recently been published, but as we ourselves wrote 

 the strictures, we will briefly give our reasons for so 

 doing. In order to lay the question clearly before 

 those interested, it will be necessary to quote that por- 

 tion of our former article which so exercised friend 

 Shimer. It runs as follows : 

 The louse which forms the gall was first described as 

 . Fitch, of New York, though 



niiions on the 

 type of a new 

 u.'iuis (Dadylos- 

 I tlii.s supposed 

 -I lo thu legs 



II our future 

 CIV thutDr. 

 m iiria and 

 lUuiilv and 

 ■-tree 'Bark- 

 iie, Gmel.) 

 ound on its 

 ■d he would 

 ■acteristlc of 



Pemphigus vUifoliai by Dr. F 



it does not belong to that !;( 



Carroll, made some int('n>tiim- 



habits of this insect, ami iiia.lr 



family (Dactylosphmrida) and ul' :: 



phcera). The distinguishing leal 



family are certain appentlages 



which Dr. Shimer calls digttuU, I 



of the wings point unmistakably 



of the true Plant-lice. We sha 



validity or propriety of this new I 



give a more complete accdiint ni" i 



articles on Grape insects ; luit xm 



Shimer is unfortunate in ;.;iiiHlii 



new families, for he ha^ |.ii.|iii 



genus (Lepidosap/ies) forili- r.in 



louse (Aspidiotus) [ilyt> 



based upon similar apprii I _ 



legs; whereas, if he had ii • n k 



have known that these appi-nday 



almost all Bark-lice. 

 And here is Dr. Shimer's appeal : 

 Here they would like to make the public believe that 



these appendages, digituU, are the characters out of 



which I have proposed two families in Entomology ; 



whereas, the leading character upon which 1 propose 



my family Dadylosphaerida^ is two claws on a one- 



jomted tarsus, and the leading characters in Lepidosa- 



pfiidm are a tarsus without a claw, and a scale-maUng , 

 not a scale-Uke insect. The digituli from their globe- 

 ended extremities I consider of some importance, but 

 by no means of primary weight in the first named 

 family, and in the second family I ^iv. ili.ni nn more 

 than secondary importance. \S\v.\\ na-iui- ihr junior 

 editor, for he alone now becunu > 1.-1^.11 il.k-, can 

 assign for so gross mlsrepreseutatiuu 1 am not able to 

 anticipate. He certainly, however, will be able to give 

 some reason for the faith within uim. s * * 

 I have not the slightest personal feeling in the matter, 

 and I hope that my much respected friend, Mr. Eiley, 

 State Entomologist of Missouri, will be free to defend 

 the position he has thus taken against me. 



Now, we believe Dr. Shimer is sincere in stating that 

 he has no personal feeling in the matter, else we should 

 not even notice his request. We hope, therefore, that 

 he will believe us when we state th.at in the few words 

 we are about to pen we are governed by no personal 

 considerations whatever, but by a love of truth for 

 truth's sake. As Dr. Shimer becomes more familiar 

 (and we hope he will so become) with the minute and 

 interesting insects to which he has more especially 

 turned his attention, he will no doubt regret that he 

 ever proposed those two families without longer pon- 

 dering and considering. 



Regarding the Bark-louse, we will dismiss the subject 

 in a few words, as it is foreign to the topic under con- 

 sideration. Dr. Shimer, it is ti'ue, deserves severe 

 handling for the cool and skeptical manner in which he 

 refers to the work of all preceding entomologists, and 

 the laughable way in which he arrogates to himself 

 the power of correct observation;* but at present we 



•Trans. Am. Ent. Soo. I, pp. 371-2, 



