442 INSECTA, RHYNCHOTA. 
It is impossible here to abstract this elaborate work — the author's 
summary being divided into 22 heads, and occupying five pages. 
Derbes {ibid. xv. Art. 8, pi. 3. figs. 1 & 2) supplements his 
former account of certain Aphides observed in galls on Pistacia 
terebinthuSj attributed by Passerini to Pemphigus, and originally 
considered to belong to 5 diflPerent species by the author, who 
had observed 3 generations of each. He now refers them all 
to one species, and gives particulars of their economy and phy- 
siology, figuring both sexes, with details. He notes that of the 
5 recorded generations, not one resembled any of the others— 
that only one generation was the result of the connexion of in- 
dividuals of perfectly distinct sexes, one egg being the result, 
which remains in the body of the ? , who dies and still envelopes 
it until it hatches — and that this connexion does not occur be- 
tween individuals with wings, but of the ordinary larval form. 
Passerini (Bull. Ent. Ital. iii. pp. 144-160, 244-260, 333-346) enumerates, 
alphabetically, the various Italian plants affected by Aphides, attributing to 
each their peculiar species. 
On migration of Aphides, cf. Walker, Ent. v. p. 354. 
Aphis. Kunstler (Verb. z.-b. Wien, xxi. Beih. p. 8J discusses injuries to 
cultivated plants from members of this genus, especially noticing Phylloxera 
vastatrix (p. 86) and Schizoneura laniyera (p. 67). 
Aphis mali and Eriosoma {Pemphigus) pyri, “ the Apple-tree Plant-louse.” 
For particulars of economy and parasites, with figures, cf. i. Kep. Ins. Ont. 
pp.77&78,andp.69. 
Pemphigus viiifolice, the Grape-leaf Gall-louse.” For particulars of eco- 
nomy, with figure of infested leaf, cf. ibid. p. 113. 
Periphylius testudu, v. d. Hoev., and P. laricce, Ilal. Ritsema, Tijdschr. 
Ent. (2) vi. p. 147, refers to the differences of these insects, and suggests that 
the latter has the same relationship to Aphis {Lachnus) laricis, AValk., as the 
former to A. ( Chcetophorus) aceris, viz, that of a larva-form. 
Phylloxera vitifolice, Fitch. Riley (iii. Rep. Ins. Mo. pp. 84-96, figs. 39 & 
40), in a treatise on the Grape-leaf Gall-louse,” refers the European P. vas- 
tatrix to this species as a synonym, or at most a variety, considering that it 
was introduced from America. He enters at some length upon its economy^ 
agreeing with Lichtenstein as to its being the cause of the vine-disease usually 
attributed to it j and especially criticizes Shimer’s proposed family, Eactylo- 
sphceridce {cf. also i. Rep. Ins. Ont. p. 114, on the American Phylloxera). 
Phylloxera vastatrix. Signoret, Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. (5) i. Bull. p. xiii, 
has kept specimens alive for more than 6 months in an hermetically-sealed 
tube, and notes a fresh generation of them (/. c. p. xxv.) in it. He also records 
Riley’s communication that in America the species that lives on leaves in the 
summer takes to the roots in winter. 
Lichtenstein {ibid. p. xlvi et seq.) discusses in detail the ravages of this 
species in the south of France. He thinks he has detected the (S , and, in 
suggesting means of destruction for the insect, infers, from the observations of 
Laliman & Riley in America, that as in that country Vitis vinifera is attacked 
in the roots, V , cordifolia in the leaves, and V. labrusca in neither, it might 
