823 
Annual Report for 1893 of the Zoologist. 
allowed to cool before application. This wash was more effective 
against the plague than any other. The mites no doubt besieged 
the house for warmth and shelter, and not in search of food, so that 
ordinary insect-powders, such as “ Keating’s” were quite ineffectual. 
Mr. Roney Dougal writes: “If they find themselves in a small 
heap of ‘ Keating’s Insect Powder,’ they double themselves up and 
roll out with admirable presence of mind, and then make off with 
perfect dignity in an opposite direction.” 
The Black Currant Gall-iiite. 
Phytoptus ribis. 
Many acres of black currants have been devastated during the 
year by this microscopic creature, which infests the flower-buds and 
causes them to assume an abnormally swollen appearance, at the 
same time tinging them with a characteristic golden hue. 
In the case of so minute and so well-concealed a pest eradication 
by means of washes is scarcely to be hoped for ; but in view of its 
rapid increase of late years it behoves the intending grower to take 
the utmost precautions with regard to it, and to make very sure that 
the bushes he obtains for planting, and the cuttings taken in the 
autumn, are entirely free from infestation. 
Infested bushes should be very severely pruned, and all the 
cuttings removed and carefully destroyed. 
Though washes are not likely to penetrate the buds and kill the 
mites in their breeding quarters, they are useful in destroying such 
as are in the act of migrating, and in restricting the spread of the 
attack. They are best applied after the leaves have fallen, and the 
following, which are recommended by Mr. Whitehead, will probably 
be found the most effectual. 
1. One ounce of Paris green and two ounces of soft soap to 
twelve gallons of water. 
2. Five pounds of soft soap and eight pounds of quassia chips 
(or, if preferred, three quarts of carbolic acid) to a hundred gallons 
of water. 
The Cockchafer. 
Melolontha vulgaris. 
In South Wales and in Surrey meadow land was reported to be 
suffering much damage from grubs which on examination proved to be 
the larva? of the cockchafer. The grub was not recognised by any of 
those who applied for advice with regard to it, and it does not seem 
to be so well known as it might be. It has been already well described 
and figured 1 in the Journal, and its appearance is so characteristic 
that when once seen it is not likely to be confounded with anything 
except the larva} of the Lucanidae or stag-beetle group. The grubs 
1 See Journal (3rd Series), Vol. II., 1891, p. 169, 
