16 



soon as all the plants have been consumed, such 

 of the insects as have not been collected will 

 perish."* 



There exist good grounds for concluding 

 that instances of the destruction of Prickly-pear 

 in Southern India, by this introduced Wild 

 Cochineal Insect, might be greatly multiplied, as 

 the outcome of examining the archives relating 

 to events in India during the first half of the 

 last century. 



Lately, however, instances of the Wild 

 Cochineal occurring in injurious relation with 

 the Prickly-pear plant have occurred quite 

 sporadically in Southern India. Balfour re- 

 ported such an occurrence at Vizagapatam; E. 

 Thurston, in the Kurneool, Anantapur, and Gan- 

 jam districts; whilst K. Rangachara, Botanist 

 to the Mysore Agricultural College, informed 

 the Commission that he had found it at Sandur, 

 near Bellary. 



Inquiry, supplemented by personal observa- 

 tions, in the course of extensive journeys in the 

 Madras and Bombay Presidencies and in the 

 State of Mysore, failed to bring to light • any 

 quite recent instance of the Wild Cochineal In- 

 sect's occurrence. More protracted search, 

 especially in the region north of Madras bounded 

 by Ganjam and Vizagapatam, would doubtless 

 have resulted in finding it sparingly. 



In addition to the above mentioned occur- 

 rences in Southern India, the insect evidently 

 spread (presumably from Calcutta) over 

 Northern India, extending along the Ganges 

 Valley to the Punjab, since Dr. A. Fleming (1857, 

 p. 200) referred to its presence in 1848 on 

 Prickly-pear hedges near Jindiala, the cochineal 

 dye being sufSciently common to be an article of 

 commerce. 



Mr. Baden Powell (1872, p. 194), in referring 

 to the rapid increase of Prickly-pear in the 

 Jullundur Doab district, mentioned that rewards 

 were offered for its extermination, but that a 

 kind of coccus appeared and soon destroyed the 

 plant so effectively that the pear was then only 

 occasionally met with. The species referred to 

 is certainly 0. monacantha, which at the time 

 of the Commission's visit was rather uncommon, 

 while the " Pimjab Pear," which has replaced 

 it, is quite common at Jullundur and is not 

 affected by the cochineal. Powell also referred 

 to the destruction caused by the insect in 1849 

 and 1850 in the Ludhiana district. 



Sir G. Watt stated, in 1889, that, though 

 located for twelve years in Bengal, he did not 

 remember having seen cochineal on the cactus 

 hedgerows of the Lower Provinces. He seems to 

 have shown conclusively that the only form 

 introduced was the wild coccus or Grana 

 sylvestre. Stewart mentioned (1869, p. 101) 

 that from 1844 to 1852 the cochineal insect was 

 destroying Opuntias in the Punjab, the destruc- 

 tion at Ludhiana being practically complete, a 

 fact referred to by Baden Powell in 1872. At 

 the present time the " Punjab Pear" is common 

 near this town. 



♦Buchanan, Francis (M.D.). "A Journey from 

 Madras through the Countries of Mysore, Conara, and 

 Malabar," pp. 399-400. Madras, 1807. Also, ib., 2nd 

 Edition, Vol. II., p. 479. Madras, 1870, 



Mr. Burkill (1911, p. 308) mentioned that 

 Purdon had seen the insect west of Gujrat in 

 1851, and that he himself had noticed it at 

 Kangra in 1902. 



Mr. Parker (1912, p. 1096) has recently 

 stated that he saw the cochineal insect on 0. 

 monacantha throughout the Kangra and Hazara 

 districts, the attacked plants as a rule dying. 

 The " Punjab Pear" (which he regards as 0. 

 ficus-indica or a closely allied species) was not, 

 however, attacked. 



The visit of a member of the Commission to 

 Kangra Valley confirmed the reports of Messrs. 

 Burkill and Parker. The cold moist climate of 

 the Lower Himalayas does not prevent the insect 

 from exercising its detrimental effect on its host- 

 plant. 



Lieutenant-Colonel J. G. Balman is said to 

 have sent to the Madras Government in 1862 an 

 account of the destruction caused by the Wild 

 Cochineal. Owing to the spread of Opuntia 

 in Southern India, a native official in 1863 sug- 

 gested its use for destroying the Prickly-pear, 

 so prevalent then in the neighbourhood of Tri- 

 chinopoly. The Collector of that district, Mr. 

 Wathouse, accordingly procured the insects from 

 Madras, and " these were sprinkled on the 

 Prickly-pear trees." In former procedures this 

 would have been all that was necessary, but now 

 the operation was " with no effect." 



The Acting Collector, Trichinopoly, again, 

 in 1872, expressed his desire to experiment in 

 Prickly-pear destruction with the insect, " hav- 

 ing heard that the insects were found wonder- 

 fully successful in some districts."* The ex- 

 periment again gave negative results. Its use 

 was also tested at BeUary, and found a failure.f 



In 1896 the Madras Government commis- 

 sioned Mr. E. Thurston, Superintendent of the 

 Government Museum, Madras, "to institute an 

 inquiry, in consultation witii the Board of 

 Revenue, as to the practicability of destroying 

 Prickly-pear (Opuntia dillenii) by means of the 

 Cochineal Insects and other parasites." This 

 officer accordingly approached the Collectors at 

 Ganjam, Vizagapatam, BeUary, Kistna, South 

 Canara, Malabar, Nilgiris, North Arcot, South 

 Areot, Nellore, Madras, Tanjore, Trichinopoly, 

 and Tinnevally — i.e., all the districts in the Presi- 

 dency — "to cause inquiry to be made as to 

 whether any animal or vegetable parasite had 

 been anywhere observed, or could be found, feed- 

 ing upon the Prickly-pear. ' ' Accordingly, it was 

 elicited that the Cochineal Insect still existed at 

 Ganjam, Maliahs, where " a small clump of 

 Prickly-pear was fed upon by some kind of 

 cochineal insect, and in the course of a year or 

 two the greater portion of the clump was 

 destroyed," and had apparently existed a few 

 years previously in a certain part of the Chingel- 

 put district, near Madras. He reported that " no 

 parasites, animal or vegetable, have been 

 observed living on Prickly-pear in such a manner 

 as to warrant a hope that they might be used as 

 an agency for the destruction of the plants." 



The Board of Revenue pronounced accord- 

 ingly that ' ' there are no parasites known to the 

 Presidency which can be relied on to destroy 



* Proc Bd. Revenue, Madras, No. 3, 4th Jan., 1873. 

 t Vid. Balfour, Cyclopedia of India, Vol. I., p. 278. 

 Madras, 1871, 



