99 
FIRST ANNUAL REPORT OF THE 
phigus) to which he referred it, nor even, in my opinion, to the Plant-louse Family, 
but rather to the Bark-lice. It causes on the lower surface of the leaves of the grape¬ 
vine immense numbers of green, fleshy excrescences, about the size of a small pea. I 
was the first to observe, in the columns of the Practical Entomologist , that it does not 
attack indiscriminately all our native and cultivated grape-vines, but is peculiar to the 
Frost Grape ( Vitis cordifolia ) and to a small number of our cultivated varieties, namely, 
the Clinton, the Delaware, and, according to Mr. George Husmann, of Missouri, the 
Taylor. Dr. Morse, of Missouri, who has had great experience with the grape, confirms 
the truth of the above assertion, and informs me that in Missouri the Delawares are 
sometimes covered with these galls, so as to injure them greatly, and that he has occa¬ 
sionally seen a few of these galls even on the Iona vine, which, according to Mr. William 
Saunders, is a variety of the Northern Fox Grape (Vitis labrusca.) One of my corres¬ 
pondents has informed me, that a whole vineyard of Clintons near Bloomington, in Cen¬ 
tral Illinois, was destroyed by this insect in 1866 ; and it is undoubtedly this variety of 
the cultivated grape that is the most subject of any to its attacks. Even at such a 
remote point as Clinton County, in the North West corner of Missouri, the Clintons are 
reported as “not doing well ” on account of their leaver being covered with these galls. 
(.Agricultural Report Missouri , Appendix , p. 135-6.) What is very remarkable, and well 
illustrates how certain species of insects swarm periodically and then are not heard of 
it displays tlie unmistakable wing-neuration of the genus of Plant-lice which Dr. Pitch considered as 
probably identical with the European genus Phylloxera, (see my fig. of it, Proc. Ent. Soc., Phil., I., p. 297, 
fj g ; 8) _ which I have since proposed to name Xerophylla (ibid. VI., pp. 282-3, note) — and to which the 
plant-louse of my Caryse globuli gall belongs. This figure of Dr. Shimer’s, it. may be added, is totally 
unlike a drawing of the wings of the veritable male Pact, vitifolise, which was kindly executed for me 
by Mr. Cresson, from specimens presented to the Entomological Society of Philadelphia by Dr. Shimei 
himself, and which drawing I sometime ago communicated to Baron Osten Sacken. For, m this last, 
the neuration of the front wing is almost exactly identical with that of a male Bark-louse (see Westw. 
Introd., II., p. 443, fig. 7), and the hind wing lacks entirely on its front margin the characteristic hook 
to fasten on to the hind edge of the front wing, which is found in all the genera ot Plant-lice with which 
I am acquainted. Dr. Shimer, indeed, lays great stress upon the absolute necessity of such drawings 
being executed from the living or recent insect. (Page 5, note.) So far as regards the body of the 
insect, this is true enough; but every entomologist knows, that the wings of any insect can be drawn 
just as accurately from the dried as from the recent specimen. 
With similarly unfortunate results, this same author has recently re-described and re-named, as 
Hamamelistes cornu, a gall-maldng Plant-louse (Hormaphis hamamelidis, Fitch), which had been already 
named and described twice over many years before he wrote — namely, once in 1851 by Fitch, and once 
in 1861 by Osten Sacken — and to receive which Osten Sacken had very properly founded the genus 
Hormaphis, of which Dr. Shimer’s so-called new genus Hamamelistes is a mere synonym. It is very 
true that we are all of us liable to such oversights, when the book in which a supposed new species 
has been already described is out of print, or very rare, or only to be met with in foreign countries. 
But, in this particular case, all the details, which prove the above facts, were collected together and 
published by myself eleven months before Dr. Shimer himself published, and in the very work in which 
he Mmself published, which can be procured by any one, with the greatest ease, by paying the very 
moderate price demanded for it. (Compare my Paper, Proc. Ent. Soc., Phil., VI., p. 281 and Dr. Shimer’s 
Paper, Trans. Am Ent. Soc., I., pp. 283-4.) 
In order to clear away as much as possible the mystery in which Dr. Shimer has enveloped this very 
interesting subject, I annex, from my Journal, a full account of the Bark-louse Hickory-gall, which 
I had referred to, as quoted above, under the MS. name of Caryse semen. I am now acquainted in all, 
besides the Grape-leaf gall Vitifolise, Fitch, with three very distinct galls on the Hickory, all apparently 
formed by this same genus of Bark-lice (Dactylosphsera); namely, Cary a semen, new species on the 
Pignut Hickory (Carya glabra;) Carysevense, Fitch, on the Shellbark Hickory, (Carya alba;) and an 
