127 
If it was imported from America to England in 1787, it did not 
pass into France until 1812, and did not reach Belgium until 1829, 
although possible, yet it is somewhat strange that Hausmann should 
describe it as infesting apple-trees in Germany in 1801, and that with¬ 
out any hint of its recent importation. A careful examination of 
what is said by Servilie and Amyotd in reference to this point, indi¬ 
cates that they overlooked Hausmann’s statement, yet they used his 
specific name and had before them volume 1, of llligers Magazine , in 
which the description is found and statement made. These facts, 
when connected with Salisbury’s statement, give us reason to doubt 
the correctness of the assertion that it was imported into England 
from America. I may also further add, that M. Eudes Deslong- 
champs, in a prize essay to the Royal Agl. Soc. of Caen in 1830, and 
M. Blot, in a work of the same date, maintained that it was not in¬ 
troduced from North America, but that it was indigenous to Europe, 
that occasionally, under favorable circumstances, it was greatly mul¬ 
tiplied in certain localities, and then for a time would disappear, and 
hence the idea of its importation. The name “American Blight,” 
given to it in England, indicates, on the hand, the popular belief in 
that conn try, of its American origin. 
Prof. Riley in his third report (1871,) asserts, upon what authority 
I am unable to say, that it is conceded on almost all sides that it 
was imported into Europe from America, and that there is every 
reason now to believe the two species here mentioned are indentical, 
or at least but varities of one species. Whithout attempting now to 
decide this point, as I have no European specimens, and am without 
copies of some of the latest works on the subject, I will give brief 
descriptions of the former species—the Wooly Aphis (Sch Ictnigera )— 
as found in Europe, and what is supposed to be the same species 
found in this country. 
The most recent description I have at hand at this moment is by 
Goureau (1802), who gives the characters briefly as follows: 
Aj)terous individuals. —About one-tenth of an inch long; reddish 
brown and covered above with a white, cottony secretion; alntennae 
short, and pale yellow; legs yellowish; knees brown; without honey- 
tubes, but with a circular cicatrix in place of each. 
Winged individuals. —Antenme shorter than the head and throax, and 
varying in color from brown to black; head and throax black, a brownish 
ring at the collar; the abdomen chocolate brown; legs, brownish; wings, 
hyaline with the veins and stigma deep brown; body enveloped in a 
white, cottony secretion. Servilie and Amyot give the length of the ap¬ 
terous individuals as only eight hundredths of an inch; they described the 
winged individuals as less and with the body almost naked. 
1. llausman and Knapp, and Harris, following them, were of the 
opinion the species never acquired wings; but so far as the European 
type is concerned, this is evidently a mistake; and Mr. A errill, in an 
article in The Practical Entomologist , informs us that he has observed 
quite a number of winged individuals ol this species—both males and 
females—upon apple trees in New England. These he describes as 
having well-formed and father large wings, but in other respects 
closely resembling the apterous specimens, except that they had but 
little of the downv substance on their bodies, which were nearly black 
