AVllim \) M , C(3CCM)yR. 
443 
be effectual if the infested vineyards were restocked with the last plant, on 
which the vine of the country might afterwards be grafted. He comments 
(p. Ixxviii) further upon these observations, adding Riley’s statement that 
V. vinifera is always destroyed in U. S. A. by Phylloxera^ but that it prospers 
in California, where the Aphis does not occur. 
SiQNORET {ihid. p. Ixxx) quotes Pellicot’s opinion that the vine-disease 
is not caused by Phylloxera. He doubts whether the cf has been detected, and 
also whether the American vines would not in their younger state be liable 
to attacks of Phylloxera, supposing the insect to cause the damage. 
Planchon & Lichtenstein publish a small pamphlet (Montpellier: 
1871, 8vo) on the Phylloxera of the vine in England and Ireland. 
Desmartis (‘ Le Mouvement,’ 22 Aug., 1871, and ‘ La Guienne,’ 1 Oct., 
1871) publishes some observations on Phylloxera. Planchon (C. R. Ixxiii. 
p. 783), Faucon [ihid. p. 784), and Bossin & Baudot [ihid. p. 1169) respec- 
tively suggest phenic acid, submersion, trenches filled with carbon, and 
naphthaline as agents for stopping its ravages. 
Giraud, Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. (4) i. Bull. p. li et seq., communicates and com- 
ments upon a note from Desmartis, describing an apparently new and widely 
spread disease of the vine, consisting of a gall-like growth, commencing near 
the roots, and which he dubiously refers to the injuries attributed to the PhyU 
loxera, remarking that somewhat similar vegetable parasites occur on Phodo-^ 
dendrum hirsutum and Azalea procumhens. Signoret [ihid. p. Ixxxi) is in- 
clined to refer this disease to a vegetable cause [cf. Schnetzler, Bibl. Univ. xl. 
p. 18], Cf. also Desmartis, ‘ La Guienne,’ 6 Dec., 1871. 
CocciDiE. 
Signoret, Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. (6) i. pp. 421-434, in the 8th part of his 
Essai sur les Oochenilles,” continues his notices of the Lecanides, treating, 
first, such of them as are enclosed in sheaths or sacks, formed of cottony fila- 
ments, viz. Signor etia, Targ. (type S. c%?ea^a,Targ.,:= C. luzulce, Duf., described 
p. 427, pi. vi. f. 1), Eriopeltis, Sign, (type C.festucce, Fonsc., described p. 430, 
pi. vi. f. 3-3 /), Philippia, Targ. (type P. follicularis, Targ.,= Coccus olece, 
Costa, described p. 433, pi. 6. f. 2-26). These only are discussed at length j 
but the author indicates his intention of treating in like manner such species 
as are covered with a more or less thick coating of waxy matter, simulating 
the carapace of a tortoise or ^^xAsteria, viz. Vinsonia, Sign. ( V. pulchclla), and 
Ceroplastes [C. psidii and caricce, F., for which the author cannot admit the 
generic separation proposed by Targioni-Tozzetti). After these will come 
such species as are naked, or present a mere assemblage of cottony matter, 
viz. Pidvinaria, Targ. [Lee. vitis, auett., the gasteralpha of leery), Lccanium, 
auett. (in the treatment of which the author materially differs from Targioni- 
Tozzetti, rejecting his Physokermes), Ericerus, Gu^r., and Lecanopsis. After 
these, in the present state of his knowledge, the author proposes to place 
Kermes, according to his own views, and not those of Tozzetti [K. vermilio, 
Planchon, hauhinii, fuscus, gihher, Dalm., &c.), which he considers to com- 
mence the Coccides, as it is not to be reconciled with the Lecanides , — to 
be followed by Nidularia. According to him, Eriococcus, Targ., contains both 
Lecanides and Coccides, and he retains the name for the latter subfamily. He 
also considers Kermes emerici, Targ., to be undistinguishable from Lecanium 
