33 



the plants* killed by the insect (Tryon, 1911, p. 

 18). Specimens forwarded by hiih to Mr. E. E. 

 Green, late Government Entomologist of Ceylon, 

 were established on Nopalea cochinelifera at 

 Peradeniya. They were found to be somewhat 

 different to the lypical Wild Cochineal Insect of 

 India and Ceylon, and hence were described as 

 belonging to a distinct variety — Coccus confusus 

 capensis, Green (1912).t 



Independently of T. O'Hagan's testimony 

 regarding this well-known insect, since reiterated, 

 as announced by the Queensland Acclinmtisation 

 ' Society, one might have inferred that it would 

 probably destroy its host plant in South Africa, 

 since another varietal form of Coccus confusus, 

 Ckrll. — viz., indicus, G-reen — had earlier been 

 found to do this in British India, as shown in a 

 detailed account of the circumstance given by 

 Watt and by Tryon, and since confirmed by 

 Burkill (1911) and by the personal inquiries of 

 this Commission. However, neither Captain 

 Charlton's introduction of the insect to British 

 India in 1836, nor that of John Bell two years 

 later, seems to have resulted in any such injurious 

 effect on Prickly-pear as having been occasioned 

 there by Coccus indicus. 



During the present inquiry, this South 

 African " Wild Cochineal Insect," when 

 associated with Prickly-pear growing at large, 

 was found to attack exclusively plants of one 

 species, 0. monacantha; and it was met with in 

 this connection, in the vicinity of Capetown, 

 Paarl, Port Beaufort, Bathurst, Grahamstown, 

 Port Elizabeth, Ilankey, Humansdorp, and 

 Gamtoos River Valley, Port Alfred (Kowie 

 River), and Uitenhage. It also occurred near 

 Durban. 



It was, nevertheless, found, on Nopalea 

 cocMnelifera, as well as on 0. monacantJia, in a 

 garden attached to the laboratory of the Govern- 

 ment Botanist at Pretoria, having been pur- 

 posely established on them. Although 0. 

 decumana and some of its varieties were growing 

 there beside the infected plants, it had not spread 

 to them. 



With regard to the action of the Wild 

 Cochineal Insect as a cacticide in South Africa, 

 the comclusions arrived at, as a result of the 

 Commissi*)n 's personal inquiries' in the several 

 districts in which it was met with, harmonised 

 generally with those of Mr. Lounsbury and his 

 colleagues. The Officer in Charge of Prickly-pear 

 Destruction at Uitenhage, J. E. Butler, however, 

 deposed that he had seen plants practically 

 destroyed by the insect, which caused the seg- 

 ments of the plants attacked to rot. Mr. P. 

 Rademeyer, whose work is connected with the 

 destruction of Prickly-pear, stated that the insect 

 not only destroyed its host, but was purposely 



* Although Mr. Lounsbury's brief description shows 

 that he is referrin-' to 0. monacantha, this name was used 

 by him as denotino; Oe pest pear of South Africa — evidently 

 alapsus calami, since a little later Mr. E. E. Oreen (1912, 

 p. 91) quoted his stfl,tement that " the Wild Cochineal is 

 found only I'ppn the wild Prickly-pear, Opuntia mona- 

 cantha." 



t Messrs. Hunter, Pratt, and Mitchell (1912, p. 42), in 

 their L'st of Cactus Insects, refer to the occurrence of 

 Daclylopius {Coccus) sp. on O. polyantha at Capetown. 

 This Opuntia, according to Schumann (1899, b, p. 724), is 

 allied to 0. dillenii. The South African records doubtless 

 refer to the occurrence of Coccus capensis on O. rrionocantha. 



distributed by farmers of his district (Gamtoos 

 River Valley) with this end in view, some ycfirs 

 being necessary for its accomplishnicut. 



A member of the Select Connnittee on 

 Prickly-pear, 1906, Mr. Niland, deposed that he 

 had seen the variety with the purple fruit and 

 purple juice {i.e., 0. monacantha) being des- 

 troyed by a parasite, referring to the Cochineal, 

 and remarked that he wondered if it could not 

 be introduced on to the fruit of the ordinary 

 kind of Prickly-pear — i.e., the pest pear of South 

 Africa (R.S.C., 1906, p. 19). 



The Commission itself observed that there 

 was, generally speaking, a very marked difference 

 between the condition of growth of 0. monacantha 

 that was not being attacked by the Wild 

 Cochineal Insect and that which was ; also, that 

 the Prickly-pear which had evidently been in- 

 fested for some time differed again in develop- 

 ment and vigour from that which had been 

 recently attacked. In illustration of these alleged 

 differences, one has only to compare the masses 

 of 0. monacantha growing along the sea-front at 

 the foot of Table Mountain, where there is as 

 yet no wild cochineal, with the plants to be met 

 with at the entrance of the Plaat Klip Gorge, 

 Capetown, where they have been established for 

 a long time past; and, again, to contrast the 

 appearance of the Prickly-pear in this latter spot 

 with that forming a hedge along the main road 

 through Constantia, where infestation has 

 evidently been recent. In the former case the 

 ground beneath the insect-laden plants was 

 strewn with dead stem-joints, and the dried up 

 portions were here and there still attached to 

 the " ragged" old plants, whose appearance was 

 suggestive of some vigorous pruning agency at 

 work; whilst at Constantia, save for the white 

 patches of Coccus that were very evident, the 

 plants were of almost normal appearance. 



Again, it was to be remarked that in many 

 localities where Cochineal-infested pear occurred, 

 the isolated manner in which these were often 

 distributed suggested that the destruction of 

 plants occurring in the intervals had taken place 

 by some abnormal agency ; otherwise, seeing that 

 there is no seminal increase of 0. monacantha, 

 and that it is not utilised by grazing animals, 

 as 0. decumana is, this mode of occurrence would 

 be difficult to account for. The Commission has 

 itself seen quite small plants of 0. monacantha 

 whose destruction had been certainly brought 

 about by the insect, and, if this result was 

 commonly realised, such action on its part alone 

 would prevent the spreading of the plant. It 

 was also observed that in many places a con- 

 siderable number of large plants, notwithstand- 

 ing that they were grossly infested, were still 

 alive, some of them presenting little evidence of 

 injury. 



The season of the year when the inquiry was 

 made was not one during which the Wild 

 Cochineal Insect actively propagates, and, there- 

 fore, affected plants might not be the victims of 

 active injury at the time, but might be main- 

 taining a stationary condition as regards health. 

 Moreover, that old plants with much woody tissue 

 would succumb to its attack is improbable. Under 

 the conditions of South Africa, the effect on the 

 host plant is certainly not nearly as marked as 

 that caused by the allied Coccus confusus indicus, 

 Green, in India and Ceylon. The amoimt of 



