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 prepared in time, and our 

 space will not permit. 



[Fig. 219] 



Colors — All yellowish, except /, 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; (6) her foot or 

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

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

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

 of a gall ; (g) the tubercled root-inhabiting form ; 

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

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

 all from nature; (j and k) ditfercntly veined 

 wings of the Oak 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 9AS of our first volume we criticised 

 the founding of the Family Dactylotphixritht 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 ofler 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 whii^h so exercised ft'iend 

 Shimer. It runs as follows : 



The louse which forms the gall was first described as 

 Pemphigus mtifolioi by Dr. Fitch, of New York, though 

 it does not Ijefong to that genus. Dr. Shimer, of Sit. 

 Carroll, made some interesting observations on the 

 habits of this insect, and made it the type of a new 

 family (DaetyloephmriJtr) and of a new ^'cniis (Hinlylog- 

 phcera). The distinguisliing features of this supposed 

 family are certain appendugcs att;iihid to iliu legs 

 which Dr. Shimer calls iliijiluli, llicpii^'h lb<- cbaniclers 

 of the wings point unmi>t:il<alilv tn llic ^'riiiis I'fiyltoj-era 

 of the true l»laut-lice. \Vc shall nut n.iw cli^^■^^^s the 

 validity or propriety of this new family, a< \\r inhnd to 

 give a more complete account of this liju>c in inii- liuure 

 articles on Grape insects; but we will ^a^ line that l)r. 

 Shimer is unfortunate in grinding out new gcmi a and 

 new families, for he has proposed a new family and 

 genus (Lepidoeaphes) for the conunon Apple-tree Hark- 

 louse (Aspidiutus) IMydlcMpu} conchijurmu, (iuicl.) 

 based upon similar appendages, which he found on its 

 legs; whereas, if he had been better posted he would 

 have known that these appendages are characti^ristic of 

 almost all Bark-lice . 



And here is Dr. Shimer's appeal : 



Here they would like to make the public believri'llDint 

 these appendages, digituU, are the characters outol 

 which 1 have proposed two families in Fntomology ; 

 whereas, the leading character upon which 1 propose 

 my fauuly DactylosphaeridtXj is two claws on a oue- 

 jointed tarsus, and the leading charai'liis in LfpidoKa- 

 phida are a tarsus without a claw, and a ^cih-inakinij, 

 not a scale-like insect. The digitnii Inmi lliiir globe- 

 ended extremities I consider of sonic iuiporlaiue, but 

 by no means of primary weight in the lirst named 

 family, and in the second family I give them no more 

 than secondary importance. What reasons the junior 

 editor, for he alone now becomes responsible, can 

 assign for so gross misrepresentation I am not able to 

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

 some reason for the fai'th within him. » » • 

 I have not the slightest personal feeling in the matter, 

 and I hope that my much respccU-d friend. Sir. Uiley, 

 State Entomologist of Slissouii, will be fiee to defend 

 the position he has thus taken against nie. 



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 that in the few words 

 we are about to pen we are goverm^d by no personal 

 considerations whatever, but by a lo\e of truth for 

 truth's sake. As Dr. Shinier 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 ho 

 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 toiiic under con- 

 Bideration. Dr. Shimer, it is true, deserves severe 

 handling for the cool and skeptical manner in which he 

 refers to the work of all preceding entoinologist.s, and 

 the laughable way in which he arrogates to himscll 

 the power of correct observation;* but at present wo 



•Trans. Am. Ent. Soc. I, pp. 371-2. 



