14 



" cactus" brought originally from TenerifEe,* 

 but our inquiries did not lead to the obtaining 

 of any information during our visit to that city. 



Nanjangud.— 'Early in the nineteenth cen- 

 tury, Buchanan Hamilton had reported that wild 

 cochineal insects had injured prickly-pear plantH 

 near Beilura, about 30 miles south of Mysore. 

 It was decided to examine the neighbouring 

 region, and accordingly journeys were made to 

 Nanjangud and Grundulpet, near the foot of the 

 Nilghiri Mountains. No traces of the insect were 

 encountered, but a few living specimens of its 

 host plant, 0. monocantha, were met with under 

 circumstances which would suggest that they 

 were survivals. The species prevalent in these 

 two localities was 0. nigricans, which at Grun- 

 dulpet was seen to be commonly infested by the 

 white cactus scale insect Diaspis echinocacU, but 

 no perceptible damage was caused. 



Coimbatore. — It was at Coimbatore that 

 Grimes in 1884, at the instance of Surgeon-Major 

 G. Bidie, Superintendent of the Central Museum, 

 Madras, experimented with some cochineal insects 

 introduced from Algiers, t but no record of the 

 facts discovered, or of the action on the host 

 plants, was found to be available. 



The District Forest Officer, Mr. Puncha- 

 picasa Iyer, though interested in prickly-pear 

 matters, was not able to supplement our informa- 

 tion to any extent, except with an account of the 

 ordinary local method of destroying 0. dillenii 

 by hand labour. He mentioned that 0. mona- 

 cantha grew in the district. 



Mr. E. C. Wood, Principal of the Agricul- 

 tural College, informed the Commission that the 

 problem in that district was directly opposite to 

 our own, that it was there a question of utilisation 

 — as a hedge plant and as a protection for trees — 

 rather than destruction. 



Mr. T. Eainbridge Fletcher, the Entomologist 

 to the Government of India, who was met here, 

 drew attention to certain insects, mentioned later, 

 whose attacks on Opuntias caused some slight 

 injury. 



In addition to 0. dillenii, which was found 

 growing commonly in this district, 0. decumana 

 was met with occasionally. 



Trichinopoly. — This city was reached from 

 Coimbatore, via the valley of the Caveri. In the 

 absence of the Collector, his deputy, V. Patha- 

 saradtry Chetty, gave serviceable information 

 regarding the local use of prickly-pear as a soil 

 fertiliser, and also allowed the perusal of official 

 reports relating to the plant. 



Professor H. Sampson, the Director of Agri- 

 culture, who is stationed at Trichinopoly, referred 

 to the use of Opuntias as green manure, and 

 mentioned that the mucilage from prickly-pear 

 plants was utilised in the making of a kind of 

 plaster called chunar. 



The species found growing in this locality 

 were 0. dillenii as well as, occasionally, 0. decu- 

 mana. 



From Trichinopoly, Ceylon was revisited, via 

 Tuticorin, for work in connection with the experi- 

 ment relating to the propagation of the wild 

 cochineal insect. The return journey to Bombay 

 was made via Madras. 



•CeylonHandbookandDictionary, Edit. 1885-6 n 84 

 Colombo, A. M. and J. Ferguson. ' ' 



t Rep. Govt. Central Museum, Madras, 1883-4. 



DESTRUCTION BY NATURAL ENEMIES. 



A. Insects. 



2' he Wild Cochineal {Coccus indicus, Green.) 



As a result of investigations it was found 

 that at least one species of Opuntia (0. mono- 

 cantha) has suffered greatly from the attacks 

 of the wild cochineal insect {Coccus inddcus, 

 Green). A great deal of evidence regarding this 

 matter has been collected by Sir G. Watt (1889 

 and 1908), by one member of this Commission 

 (Tryon, 1910, p. 188), and by Mr. I. H. Burkill 

 (1911), formerly Reporter on Economic Products 

 to the Government of India. A summary of 

 information published by them, as well as of facts 

 contained in less accessible writings and of those 

 obtained by the Commission, will now be given. 



In 1786 Dr. J. Anderson, of Madras, 

 drew the attention of the East India Com- 

 pany to the desirability of introducing the cochi- 

 neal insect into India on acount of its commercial 

 importance at the time, the actual introduction 

 being made in 1795 by Captain Neilson, who 

 brought it to Calcutta from Rio de Janeiro, 

 Brazil.* The specimens were transferred to the 

 various species of Prickly-pear growing in the 

 Calcutta Botanic Gardens under the care of Dr. 

 Roxburgh, but it was found that the insects throve 

 only on the so-called indigenous Opuntia, which 

 we now know as 0. monacantha, Roxburgh calling 

 it 0. indicus. A portion of this introduced Wild 

 Cochineal Insect was sent from Calcutta to 

 Madras, addressed to Dr. J. Anderson, who was 

 the Company's Physician-General. t There were 

 other importations of the Wild Cochineal Insect 

 into India — one by Prinsep into Bombay from 

 Campeaehy in 1821 and 1822, and the other 

 by Perotet into Pondicherry from Bourbon, 

 his stock coming originally via Cadiz. From 

 Bourbon a supply was sent in 1837 to Calcutta, 

 this being the second introduction there. In the 

 same year a box of insects on Opuntias (0. 

 monacantha) was forwarded from the Cape. 

 There does not appear to be any evidence that 

 these later introductions were successful, as 

 either the insects or the plants, or both, soon 

 died. 



Very soon after its introduction to Calcutta 

 in 1795, and its transmission to Madras, it was 

 disseminated through the Madras Presidency, 

 under special Orders issued to its Collectors by 

 the East India Company.^ 



Previous to this — in 1787-1788— Dr. Ander- 

 son had formed a plantation at Madras of the 

 Opuntia {i.e., 0. m,onacantha) , which he had 

 found growing wild in several localities and 

 which he believed to be a native plant. Prom 

 this garden he brought about its establishment 

 throughout the province of Madras, as he had 

 assumed that when the Cochineal insect was 

 introduced, this Opuntia, adapted to local con- 

 ditions, would be found to constitute a suitable 



p. 60 



'Royle. "Productive Resouroes of India," 1840, 



T This introduction of the Wild Cochineal Insect from 

 South America has been briefly dwelt upon by E. BaltouT 

 m 1871 (vid. Cyclopedia of India, 2nd Ed.. Vol. I., p. 278, 

 Madras, 1871, s.v. •' Cochineal "), and more fully in 1889 

 by Sir G. Watt, in his " Dictionary of Economic Produoto 

 of India," pp. 398-409, s.v. " Coccus Cacti." 



t Tryon (1911, p. 10) ; and Prinsep, G.A., as quoted 

 therein. 



