HOP APHIS. 
47 
These larvae, or lice, I found agreed precisely with the lice from 
Hop bines.* 
On the 12th of May I received information from Mr. W. Gardner, 
of Bekesbourne, near Canterbury, of the appearance of these Aphides 
on Plum, and specimens of wingless females and lice forwarded by 
him three days later corresponded in characteristics with the true 
Hop Aphis.t 
A week later—that is, on the 22nd of May—Mr. Gardner re¬ 
ported that since observing the Aphides on Plum he had carefully 
examined his Hop-ground close by, but there was no appearance 
of Fly on the plants until that morning ; and still there were no 
lice, excepting such a small number that he forwarded them in a 
quill. 
On May 29th Mr. R. Cooke, writing from Detling, Kent, showed 
the gradual march onward of attack by mentioning the “ increase of 
vermin : washings of Damsons and Plums had been going on a fort¬ 
night, and Hop washing had certainly been commenced [on the day of 
writing] in one ground in Farleigli parish. The grounds at Detling 
were still fairly [clean.” 
The disappearance of the Damson-Hop Aphides from Damson and 
Sloe was reported on the 26tli of June from Wateringbury, near 
Maidstone, by Mr. R. H. Fremlin, as follows:—“I now send you 
Aphides from the Sloe, but I cannot find any on the Damsons ; they 
appear all gone, and very few left on Sloe, and correspondingly 
diminished numbers come to the Hops.” 
The specimens forwarded had tubercles on the forehead, swollen or 
slightly gibbous base to the lowest joint of the horns, and long honey- 
tubes—in short, were either the common Hop Aphis or its variety, the 
Damson-Hop kind, if, indeed, it is distinguishable enough to be called 
a variety. It was also to be observed that almost all the specimens 
were on the point of passing to the winged state. 
Now, looking at the history of the Hop Aphis and of the Damson- 
* From this time up to about the middle of June, after long and repeated exami¬ 
nations, the lice of the Hop and Damson-Hop Aphis in their first stage (that is, 
shortly after being produced) appeared to me to be indistinguishable. 
f In identifying I have mainly considered the development of the frontal 
tubercles, and also the form of the basal joint of the horns (antennae) ; likewise the 
length of the honey-tubes or cornicles. Amongst the many observations sent me 
some few occurred which, from the specimens sent accompanying, obviously 
belonged to the Aphis Pruni of Keaumur, that is, the common “ Plum Aphis,” not 
to the kinds under observation. All communications relatively to tMs kind have 
been most carefully removed, as it has nothing to do with the subject ; and also 
because it so much resembles the Aphis Huviuli and its’variety Malaheb in general 
appearance, that its presence, and especially it being obviously ready for egg-laying 
in late autumn, has much added to the intricacies of the subject. 
