34 APPLE- TRUNK BAKK-LOUSE — ITS SCIENTIFIC NAME. 



trees,) first by Modeer,,(Act. Gothenb. i. 22,) by which name it 

 •has been noticed by GeoSroy, and authors generally since. Gmelin 

 refers to the same insect, atlgast as it has been generally supposed, 

 under the name Coccus conchiformis, or the Shell- form or Oyster- 

 shaped Bark-louse. The specific name, arborum linearis, if really 

 designed for the Bark-louse upon the Apple-tree, is a very unfor- 

 tunate one, as this species is not linear in its form, but tapering, 

 and nearly all the other species of Bark -lice infest trees as well 

 as this. Costa has recently reformed this name, by omitting from 

 it the redundant word arhorum. But if the original name is to 

 berejected, in consequence of its non-conformity to. the present 

 rules nf scientific nomenclature, Gmelin's name conchiformis ranst 

 assuredly take its place, in consequence both of its priority and 

 its appropriateness. Some of the latest authorities, however, 

 regard the conchiformis and linearis as being two distinct species. 

 This threw such doubts upon the question which of these names 

 should be adopted for our Apple Bark-louse, provided it was 

 identical with the European insect, as I felt myself scarcely com- 

 petent to resolve, with the few authorities upon these insects 

 which I have at hand. As Mr. Curtis, the distinguished British 

 entomologist, now president of the Entomological Society of Lon- 

 don, had communicated a series of articles upon several of the 

 species of this genus, to the third volume of the Gardener's Chro- 

 nicle — a volume to which I have not access — and as I had here- 

 -tofore had some correspondence with him, I recently enclosed to 

 him fof his opinion, specimens of our Apple Bark-louse, and also 

 a seemingly identical species found upon our Red osier, {Comus 

 sericea.) The following is an extract from his reply : " I have 

 carefully examined your specimens. They are identical, and are 

 the Coccus arhorum linearis, Geofl"., and I believe the C. cmichi- 

 formis of Gmelin, which is in that case a synonym. You are 

 right in placing them in the genus Jspidiotm." I trust this 

 information will satisfy some of my western friends who have 

 been reluctant to credit rny statement that their insect is not new, 

 but is common here at the east, and also in Europe. 



Mr. Rennie speaks of having found this species in great plenty 

 upon currant bushes. I have never met with it upon the culti- 



