358 



THE AMERICAN 



will simply accede to his request, as follows : 



We confess that in stating that Dr. Shimer had based 

 his new family, Lepidosaphid^, upon the occurrence 

 oidigifuU, we should have qualified our language hy in- 

 serting " partly " before "upon,' ' since the characters 

 as given by him are, ' ' Fowr digituli terminated hy puU 

 mlli or arolia, wnd no clww, wnd ihe female limng heneuth a 

 scale or shell-lihe liabitation of Tier own constructing.^^* 

 But we insist that the proposition of a family on such 

 grounds was not only unfortunate, but unwarranted, 

 for the following reasons: First, the so-called digituli 

 are not even of generic, much less of family value, as 

 they are really nothing but modified hairs, and occur in 

 a more or less perfect form in all young Voccidm and 

 ApMdcB which we have examined, and are acknowl- 

 edged hy the best authorities to be common to both 

 these families. Secondly, the insect in question really 

 has a more or less perfect claw, as we have abundantly 

 demonstrated the present year. Thirdly, the assump- 

 tionf that the scale in all CocciD^ should be part and 

 parcel of the insect itself, is a purely gratuitous one, 

 since there are many other species which live separate 

 from their scales, and since the ge\ms Aspidiotus "wsis 

 especially erected by Bouche for those species which 

 thus live under and separate from them. Consequently 

 there remains not a single character mentioned by our 

 author but what is well known to belong to the Cooci- 

 ViM, and there is not even the slightest excuse imagin- 

 able for separating it from Costa's genus Diaspis, to 

 which it is now correctly referred by Signorel^-our 

 highest authority on this family. 



Now let us return to our Grape-leaf louse. We have 

 no trouble in proving by Dr. Shimer's own words that 

 we were perfectly justified in saying that the " digituli" 

 were the ' ' distinguishing features ' ' of his supposed 

 family BactylosphcBridce. The very meaning of the word 

 (globe-fingered) given to the family indicates such to 

 have been the case, and he himself expressly says: 

 %" The wing neuration of Dactylosphiera is synonymous 

 with that of Phylloxera ; it is, therefore, upon the other 

 characters that I found this genus." Now what are 

 the other characters f Turning to the family charac- 

 ters given, we find: "Wings four, carried flat on the 

 back in repose. Antennse few-jointed. Tarsi com- 

 posed of one joint terminated by two claws, and from 

 two to six digituli. Honey tubes none; otherwise re- 

 sembling Aphidce."^ The only other character given 

 which is not Aphldian is the one-jointed tarsus, which, 

 as we shall presently show, cannot, strictly speaking, 

 be considered a character of our Gall-louse, and which, 

 even if it were , would scarcely warrant the making of a 

 new family. Every other character, including the 

 " digituli" is common to dozens of plant-lice, and the 

 neuration of the insect's wing | places it beyond any 



•Trana. Am. Eut. Sec. I, p. 372. 



trbid, p. 371. 



X Characters for a supposed new family, p. 5 note: from 

 thel'roc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil., Jan. laiiT. 



§Ibid, p.l. 



||The neuration of the wing differs sliglitly Irom the typical 

 Kurojiean Pnylloxera quercus, in the two discoidal veins of 

 the front wing uniting in a fori! instead of being perfectly 

 separated. Un this account Mr. Walsh proposed for our in- 

 eeot, and for certain other species found in hickory galls, 

 which have the same neuration, the generic name of Xero- 

 phylla. But it seems to us that the polymorphism of Apm- 

 VM has not yet been suffloiently investigated to allow of 

 making even different species, much less different genera, 

 upon a forked or unforked nervm-e, for there is frequently 



doubt in the genus Phylloxera, which has long been 

 ready to receive it, and which, with the genera Vacwna 

 and Ghermes, form the sixth Tribe, Ghermesinw, of the 

 ApHiDiD.aE, according to Passerini's latest revision of 

 this family. 



We can commend the carefulness with which Dr. 

 Shimer made the interesting observations which he has 

 given us on this insect, but no man should undertake 

 to found new families without first informing himself 

 more thoroughly of what has already been done by 

 others. 



It was by no very easy means that we arrived at the 

 conclusion that our Gall-louse is identical with the 

 European species, but now that the fact seems suffi- 

 ciently proved, Planchon's specific name vastatrix v/iW 

 have to give way to Fitch's mtifolice,* or at the most 

 be retained as a variety. 



At first there seemed to be many reasons for consid- 

 ering the two insects distinct. First, the European 

 root-louse was exceedingly destructive, and their gall- 

 louse of only exceptional occurrence ; while our gall- 

 louse was very common and destructive, and no root- 

 lice were knovra to exist here at all. Secondly, the in- 

 sect found in the galls was smooth, while that on the 

 roots was distinctly ornamented with pUiferous tuber- 

 cles, and the two were sufficiently unlike to cause M. 

 Liohteustein, who believed in their identity, to propose 

 the term gall-inhabiting {gallicole) for the one race, and 

 root-inhabiting [radidcole) for the other. Thirdly, our 

 insect was described as having a one-jointed tarsus, 

 whereas M. Signoret described and figured the tarsus of 

 the winged root-inhabiting form as two-jointed . Fourth- 

 ly, there seemed to be a difference even in the form of 

 our gaU-inhabiting louse and theirs, as ours appeared 

 much more obese and globular than theirs, as repre- 

 sented in their figures . All these apparent differences 

 were rather calculated to give rise to doubts as to the 

 identity of the two insects; but by careful observation 

 and persistency we have been enabled to dispel them all. 



First, we might naturally expect — and those who be- 

 lieve in the Darwinian hypothesis certainly would — 

 that, presuming our insect to have been imported into 

 Europe, it would undergo some modification in its 

 habits, not only because of change of cUmate, but be- 

 cause of its having to live on another species of the 

 Grape-vine — all the European species belonging to Vitis 

 iiinifera. Hence its normal habit there, of feeding on 



much greater difference in .specimens coming from the same 

 parents; and, as we are intormed by JM. Lichtensteui, the 

 European Phylloxera of the Oak actually presents both kinds 

 of neuration; there being red specimens with unforked 

 nerves (Fig 219, J) , and yellow specimens with forked nerves 

 (Fig. 219, k.) . We nave m our possession the very drawing 

 made by Mr. Cresson from Dr. Shimer's specimen of vi/»- 

 folice, which Mr. Walsh refers to in his Rejjort, and which 

 led Mr. W, erroneously to place our louse with the Coccida. 

 The drawing is rough, evidently imperfect, and well calcu- 

 lated to mislead, for the discoidal nerve of the front wing 

 is represented more as a fold, the forks are omitted, and the 

 costa of hind wing is represented perfectly straight. The 

 drawing is also accompanied by Mr. Cresson's statement 

 thaf he could not give any decided opinion as to the neura- 

 tion, as the wings on the specimen were not spread out. 



*M. J. Lichtenstein has objected to Fitch's specific name 

 *' vitifoliis" on the score ol its being ungrammatical, and 

 has substituted the term * * vitis-folii " in his published re- 

 ports . W e cannot see any reason for being so ultra nice in this 

 matter. IiTegularities in entomological nomenclature seem 

 to be allowable, or at least are very frequently and purposely 

 perpetrated for the sake of euphony. " Whatever is, is 

 right,*' is as true in language as it is in religion, and if we 

 alter vWfolicE we must alter a thousand other entomological 

 names tliat are not, strictly speaking, grammatically cor- 

 rect. 



