Scientific Memoirs/1/Researches relative to the Insects, known to the Ancients and Moderns, by which the Vine is infested, and on the Means of preventing their Ravages

by Charles Athanase Walckenaer

Article IX.

Researches relative to the Insects, known to the Ancients and Moderns, by which the Vine is infested, and on the means of preventing their Ravages. By M. le Baron Walckenaer..

From the Annales de la Socité Entomologique de France, vol. iv. p. 687, et seq.

Introduction.
General Considerations.—Division of these Researches into three Sections.

WHEN the human intellect began in Europe to emerge from the darkness and ignorance in which it had for many centuries been buried, its progress was everywhere the same, and the same method was adopted for the advancement of knowledge in all the sciences.

Before the invention of printing the ancients were the only sources of instruction; after the discovery of that art their works became more extensively circulated and better known, and as the necessary consequence of the abundance and the perfection of their labours, the admiration which they had excited was augmented, and increased effect was given to the ascendency they had acquired over the human mind. The only ambition of the learned was to understand, to arrange, and to comment upon the notions which they had transmitted to us. A treatise upon any branch whatever of human knowledge was merely a compilation, more or less complete and methodical, of what the ancients had written upon the subject: an addition was sometimes made of what the moderns had thought or observed on the same topics, but these supplements had not the same weight and authority as the rest of the work in the estimation of either the author or the reader. A remark or a proposition was judged of little value to which could not be added ut ait Aristoteles, ut ait Plinius, ut ait Hippocrates, or other similar phrases.

Happily for the progress of natural history, the great number of new productions brought into Europe from the countries recently discovered, at the end of the fifteenth and the commencement of the sixteenth centuries, soon rendered apparent the insufficiency of the works of the ancients with respect to this science.

It was perceived that the greater number of objects for the observation and description of which opportunity was afforded were unknown to them, and that they had very superficially observed and very imperfectly described those with which they were acquainted. This conviction was quickly impressed upon the mind with regard to the smaller species of animals, because upon this point their ignorance was the greatest, and the application of the notions which they had acquired to the knowledge of the moderns the most difficult and perplexing.

With regard to insects in particular, it was easy to see that the ancients had treated of only a veiy small number, and that with great inaccuracy; their works on this class of animals consequently ceased to occupy attention, which was exclusively devoted to the study of nature, and the science soon advanced rapidly.

However, the names that the ancients had imposed upon some classes of insects easily recognised remained, having parsed from the ancient languages into the vernacular tongues. The more obscure names, the signification of which was doubtful or unknown, were employed by the modern naturalists for the numerous genera which the progress of science rendered it necessary to establish. Naturalists did not resolve to invent new names until all those employed by the ancients in the classes which they were studying were exhausted; and even then all, excepting M. Adanson, composed the new names from Greek or Latin roots. But even when naturalists gave names employed by the ancients to the genera of insects which they had formed, it was generally without any idea of applying them to the species which they had been employed by the ancients to designate, and without any attempt to aid in the recognition of those species. That a name had been used by some ancient author to designate an insect of some kind, or that there was no certain proof of the contrary, has been deemed a sufficient reason by modern entomologists for the application of an ancient name to a new genus. Our entomological systems contain names employed by the ancients, the signification of which is so entirely lost that it is matter of doubt whether they belonged to an animal or a plant.

It is necessary for the object that I have in view to illustrate this by an example, which is far from being the only one which I could produce.

M. Camus, the translator into French of Aristotle's Natural History of Animals^[1], remarks with reason in his notes, that commentators are divided with regard to the signification of the word Staphylinus, employed by that philosopher. Some have considered it as the name of an insect, others as that of a plant; but, says Camus, on the authority of the "Dictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle de Valmont de Bomare," in which he found the word Staphylinus, "The Staphylinus is an insect well known to naturalists, because it has preserved its name as well in the Latin as in the French." From these words we learn that Camus was ignorant that the application of the word Staphylinus to a genus of insects of the class Coleoptera, now divided into a great number of genera bearing other names, is not more ancient than the time of Linnæus, who was the first to employ this word in its present signification, without attempting to determine that which it bears in Aristotle, whom he does not quote.

As to the superior orders of animals, such as quadrupeds, birds, fishes, and reptiles, naturalists have been careful to establish, whenever it was possible, the identity of the species which they have described with those mentioned by the ancients; and for this reason, that the latter nave recorded facts that have not since been so well observed, and some that have not been observed at all, and because still they all form part of the science; but this is not the case with insects. Notwithstanding the imperfection of the science of entomology, the most difficult branch of natural history, the moderns have made such progress in it that they have nothing to learn from the ancients upon this subject; if, therefore, we except the domestic bee, the caterpillar of Bombix Mori, or the silk-worm, two species of insects as important as the largest animals in the history of man, of commerce, and of the arts, we shall find that the moderns have occupied themselves very little with what the ancients have said upon insects: at the same time, the names that they have borrowed from them prove that they had read their works upon the subject, and that they would willingly have established, by the identity of the objects upon which they were employed, a direct relation between their labours and those of the naturalists who had preceded them in ancient times; but they appear to have considered this to be too difficult, or as impossible to be undertaken with success. This is the reason that the number of dissertations upon this subject is so small; and even of the few that we possess the object is only to discover to what class of insects the ancient name should be applied, not to determine the genus or the species.

If the science of natural history has little to hope from such investigations, they may yet be subservient to the acquisition of a better and more exact interpretation of the ancient texts; and the difficulties with which the subject is attended ought not to induce us to neglect it. With regard to this, as well as all the uncultivated parts of the vast field of erudition, we may say, if this had been easy it is probable that it would not have remained undone.

The above are the considerations which have induced me to write, and submit to the Academy the researches^[2], to which I was led by a question which one of my learned brethren did me the honour of addressing to me, respecting the interpretation of the name of an insect infesting the vine mentioned by Plautus. The text of this author in the passage alluded to is so explicit that I ventured immediately to give the solution required. To assure myself that I was not mistaken I commenced an examination of what ancient and modern authors had written on the species of insects infesting the vine, and the means of destroying them; but in explaining and arranging the ancient texts, and in afterwards applying them to the observations of the moderns, I found more difficulties than I expected; I however exerted all my efforts to surmount them. Such was the origin of this Memoir. The subject will doubtless appear minute, but as learning, natural history, and agriculture are equally interested in it, I think it cannot be considered either futile or unworthy of attention.

This Memoir will be divided into three sections. The first, which will be in some degree preparatory, will contain a critical examination of the ancient texts relative to the signification of the names of insects designated in them as being particularly injurious to the vine.

In the second section, by means of results obtained in the first, I shall determine which are the species of insects known to the ancients and moderns as being those injurious to the vine: I shall then indicate the means of preventing their ravages.

In the third section this dissertation will be terminated by a concordance of names, that is to say, a synonymy of all the species of insects mentioned in these researches, arranged in classes, which will render its application to use easy to those naturalists and agriculturists who may think proper to have recourse to it.

First Section.

Critical examination of the ancient texts with respect to the signification of the names of insects which are therein mentioned as being particularly injurious to the vine.

I. Preliminaries.—This section is, as I have already said, only preparatory to the principal object of the Memoir.

No application of modern names to interpret the ancient texts will here be made; but we shall content ourselves with investigating the signification of the ancient words, by means of the use to which the ancients themselves have applied them. In the second section the circumstances or the particulars of this use will enable us to interpret the ancient names, that is to say, to ascertain the names corresponding to them in the language of naturalists, the only names applicable to the definitions and descriptions proper to determine with precision the objects named. The vulgar names will be only a secondary consideration.

For objects, the differences of which escape superficial observation, the ancient as well as the modern languages furnish only general denominations, common to several objects or species, and are consequently extremely vague, a single word being employed to designate beings of very different natures. Scholars, grammarians, and lexicographers frequently add error to the confusion by their false distinctions, and sometimes the prodigious erudition of modern commentators increases the difficulty still more.

The true method of acquiring a complete and exact idea of the notions represented by each of the names we seek to explain appears to be this; to examine all the texts in which these names are employed, and afterwards to endeavour to remove the obscurity of the various meanings which have been assigned to them when they have been employed in different significations. By this method we can establish our opinions and conjectures upon the ancient texts with security, and without being exposed to the danger, to which we often yield without perceiving it, and sometimes even consciously, of selecting from the ancient authors only such passages as support our interpretations and systems, while we keep out of sight all those which are in opposition to them.

II. List of the Names of Insects injurious to the Vine mentioned by the Ancients.—The following are all the names of insects infesting the vine, or mentioned in connexion with it, that I have been able to discover in ancient authors:

1. Thola, Tolea or Tholaat.

2. Gaza.

3. Ips.

4. Iks.

5. Spondyle or Sphondyle.

6. Cantharis.

7. Phteïre or Phteïra.

8. Kampé.

9. Joulos or Julus.

10. Biurus or Bythurus.

11. Involvolus, Involvulus, Involvus.

12. Convolvulus.

13. Volvox.

14. Volucra.

15. Eruca.

III.List of the Authors in whom the above Names are found, and whose texts are explained in these Researches—The following are the authors in whom the names above mentioned are found, and who will consequently receive some explanation in this dissertation:

The Bible.

Homer.

Ctesias.

Alcman.

Aristotle.

Theophrastus.

Plautus.

Cato.

Cicero.

Strabo.

Pliny.

Columella.

Athenæus.

Origen.

St. John Chrysostom.

St. Epiphamius.

Ammonius.

Herodian (the gramraarian).

Festus.

Suidas.

Hesychius.

Eustathius.

Philo.

IV. Thola, or Tholea, or Tholaath.—This is a Hebrew word, and is found in Deuteronomy, in the part which treats of the punishments with which the Israelites were menaced if they abandoned the law of God^[3]. This verse is thus rendered in the translation of the Greek and Hebrew texts by the pastors and professors of the Church of Geneva^[4].

"You shall plant vines, you shall cultivate them, you shall not drink the wine of them and you shall gather nothing from them, because the worms shall eat their fruit."

De Sacy, after the Vulgate, translates it in the following manner:

"You shall plant a vine and you shall dress it, but you shall not drink the wine of it, and you shall gather nothing from it, because it shall be destroyed by the worms."

In the first of these translations the word fruit is printed in italics, because in fact it is not in the Hebrew; but it ought not to be added, for it is useless to the sense, which is complete without it, and it may lead to error; for the insects which injure the vine by cutting the root are not the same as those which knaw the leaves, nor are the latter the same as those which eat the fruit.

The word Tholath in the interlineary version of the Hebrew Bible by Arias Montanus^[5] is also translated by Vermis. But the Hebrews had also another word for worm, rimma. This word is often employed figuratively in the Bible in the same sense as thola, to designate a vile being or an animal engendered from corruption.

The word rimma is employed several times in this sense in the Book of Job; in Exodus, chap. xvi. verse 24; in Hosea, chap. xiv. verse 11.

The word tholaat is also employed in Job, chap, xxiii. verse 6; in Exodus, chap. xvi. verse 20; in the passage already cited of Deuteronomy; in Psalm xxii. verse 17; and lastly in Jonas, chap. iv. verse 7.

But it is necessary for our object to cite the whole of this last passage, and to justify the translation we shall give, which will differ from that of the professors of Geneva and from the Vulgate of De Sacy. In this chapter it is said, that the prophet having quitted the city, and stopped at a place in the east, made himself a shed.

"Then, said the prophet, God caused a plant (kikajon) to spring up, which being elevated above Jonas, became a shadow for his head, which pleased Jonas extremely; but at the dawn of the next day God prepared a worm (tholaat), which wounded the plant (kikajon) and caused it to wither."

I can easily show that I am right in translating it thus, in preference to adopting any of the three versions that are before me.

The word that I have rendered "plant" is kikajon in the Hebrew, and the sense of the passage shows that it was a plant large enough to have foliage sufficient to form a shade. But what is this plant? No one is acquainted with it. In the Septuagint it is called a gourd, and St. Jerome makes it an ivy, but St. Augustine informs us in a letter to that Father, that the people of Africa were greatly shocked by this alteration, and obliged their bishop to remove the word ivy from the version of St. Jerome. De Sacy, who retains in his version the ivy of St. Jerome because it is the text of the Vulgate, inclines to the idea that it'is a vine or a fig-tree. The pastors of Geneva and M. Gesenius^[6] make the Kikajon a Ricinus agreeing with Bochart^[7], who leans to the same opinion; but he, far from having proved it, brings before us texts which support the contrary opinion.

But if we indulge in conjectures respecting the plant mentioned in this passage of Jerome, we must for the same reason conjecture the species of insect which caused its destruction, and shall thus be liable to give to the word Tholaat a different signification from that really belonging to it. The liability to error is much increased if we translate with De Sacy, "it pricked the ivy at the root," a circumstance which is not mentioned either in the Hebrew text or in the Vulgate, and which would expose us to the danger of drawing consequences from false premises, which would be erroneous in proportion to the regularity and learning with which they were deduced.

I have therefore altered the translation of the text in such a manner as to leave nothing that may not be read with certitude.

From all that has just been said it appears that the words Rimma, and Thola or Tholaath, are often indifferently employed in the Bible, one for the other, in the sense of worm or grub, of an animal born of corruption, vile, and despicable; but with this difference, that the word Thola or Tholaat is twice used in the Bible to designate a worm which preys upon a plant. In the first of the passages alluded to this plant is the vine; we are ignorant of the species of plant intended in the second passage, but we are certain that it is a plant. We know that such an animal, though it possesses the form of a worm, is not one strictly speaking; we are certain that it is either a grub, or a little insect, or the larva of an insect subject to metamorphosis. The word Rimma has never been employed in this last sense, at least not in the Bible. It appears therefore that in this point of view the Hebrew language is richer than our own, since in ordinary discourse we have only one word to designate the worms of the nut, pear, apple, and all other fruits, and likewise the earthworm, though these animals differ not only in genus, but belong to very different orders^[8].

V. Gaza.—Gaza is another Hebrew word which is once used in the Bible as the name of an insect particularly injurious to the vine, but it is afterwards frequently employed as the name of an insect which devastates all sorts of plants; with several other names of insects which have given occasion to a great number of dissertations, some of which extend to volumes. We have examined the modern names which appear to correspond to the ancient ones of the insects mentioned in the Bible in connexion with the word Gaza; and this examination may perhaps form the subject of another memoir. At present we shall confine our investigations to the word Gaza, because it is the only one among these names employed to denote an insect particularly injurious to the vine; and we shall notice the other names of insects which accompany the word Gaza, only so far as may be necessary for its interpretation. But such is the diversity of opinion among translators, that to obtain clear ideas it will be necessary to produce the passages in which this word occurs, giving our own translation of them, but retaining the Hebrew names.

The following passage in which Gaza is employed as the name of an insect destructive to the vine is in the prophet Amos, chap. iv. v. 9:

"I have smitten you with a scorching wind, and with mildew. Gaza has devoured your gardens, all your vines, and all your olive plants and fig-trees, and you have not returned to me, saith the Lord."

We find the word Gaza again in Joel, chap. ii. v. 25:

"I will restore you the fruits of the year, and all that you have lost by Arbeh, Jelek, Chazil and Gaza, that destroying multitude that I sent to you."

But there is a passage in Joel, chap. i. ver. 4, of still greater importance with regard to the translation of the word Gaza:

"That which the Gaza leaves, the Arbeh eats; that which the Arbeh leaves, the Jelek eats; and that which the Jelek leaves, the Chazil eats."

In all these passages the Seventy have translated Gaza by Kampé, and the Vulgate by Eruca, that is to say, a caterpillar. The pastors of Geneva and De Sacy have adopted this translation. It has also the approval of Bochart^[9] and Michaelis. But the Chaldee Version applies Gaza to a sort of creeping locust, and the Talmud enumerates ten species of locusts mentioned in the Prophets alone, and among these is the Gaza.

The three other names of insects mentioned in the same verse of Joel, Arbeh, Jelek, and Chazil, are included in the ten species of locusts enumerated in the Talmud by the Hebrew doctors.

ticulated animals, in which this naturalist proves that tlie worms, otherwise called Annelida, ought to be placed at the head of this division, and before the Crustacea, the Arachnida, and Insects. The expositors of the Bible are divided in opinion upon the signification of the words Jelek and Chazil, but are all agreed upon that of the word Arbeh. There can be no doubt that a locust is signified by this word. The Chaldee Version, the Septuagint, and the Vulgate, all agree in their rendering of those passages of the Bible in which this word is found. The Arbeh is the first of the four species of insects, or creeping animals, named by Moses as proper for the food of man; and Forskael informs us that the Arabs at the present day give the name of Arbeh to the species of locust which is used among them for food. Now we know from Joel that what the Gaza leaves the Arbeh destroys; we are therefore entitled to conclude with certainty that Gaza was the name of an insect not only particularly destructive to the vine, but also to plants of every kind; and that to its ravages succeeded those of several species of locusts, which consumed all that was left undevoured by this formidable insect. Several learned expositors have considered this insect to be a caterpillar, while others of equal authority have decided it to be a sort of creeping locust. We shall consider this point upon another occasion; but at present, faithful to the plan we have traced for our guidance, having exhausted what the Hebrews have written upon the insects destructive of the vine, we shall pass to the Greeks.

VI. Ips, Iks.—I shall treat of these two words in one article, because, as will be seen, they cannot be separately considered.

The word Ips is used in ancient authors as the name of an insect particularly injurious to the vine; but it is also employed by Homer, St. John Chrysostom, and the lexicographers and grammarians of the lower ages, to denote an insect or worm which preys upon horn; and in these two acceptations this word cannot denote a worm properly so called, which has another name in the Greek language.

We will first consider the Ips of Homer.

This word is employed in the Odyssey, book xxi. verse 295, in which Ulysses, who is not yet recognised by his friends, is represented as receiving his terrible bow. The poet says, "The hero takes the bow, examines it with attention, and turns it in every direction, fearing that in the absence of its master the horn might have been injured by the Ips."

To ascertain what species of horn was subject to the attacks of the Ips of Homer, we must discover the animal the horns of which were employed in the time of Homer in the construction of bows of the best quality, such as were suitable for a king like Ulysses. Upon this point Homer himself gives us information: in the Iliad, book iv. v. 105, we read that the bow of the divine Pandarus was made of the horns of the Aigos, or the Ægagrus or wild goat; that its horns were five feet four inches in length; and that after being polished and united with care by a skilful workman their extremities were gilt.

The horns of the Ægagrus are often nearly three feet and a half in length; they are naturally bent, and when united, as Homer describes, they would form a bow of the dimensions stated by him.

The Ægagrus, or wild goat, is found, though but rarely, in the mountains of Western Europe. One was killed while I was in the Pyrenees, and the horns, which I saw, were two feet and a half in length. This animal is very common in the East: in Persia it is named Paseng. Burckhardt informs us that the Arabs of Syria give it the name of Bidin (Beden), and that the wild goats are found in their countries in herds of forty and fifty. Their flesh is much esteemed, and the horns are collected and sent to Jerusalem to be made into handles for knives and poniards. Burckhardt^[10] saw a pair of the horns of these animals which were three feet and a half in length. We may suppose that the Ips of Homer must be both known and feared by the warriors of that country.

But the word Ips is not found thus applied in the Greek authors who follow Homer; and it is employed in Strabo, Theophrastus, and the writings of the learned agriculturists whom we shall presently quote, to denote an insect or a worm injurious to the vine, consequently a larva which preys upon plants and not upon horn.

We, however, again find the word Ips with the same signification as when employed by Homer in a remarkable passage of St. John Chrysostom, which I shall translate thus : "The same deleterious effects as are produced by copper upon the body, by rust upon iron, by moths in wool, worms in wood, and Ipes in horn, vice produces in the soul^[11]."

But I repeat that in the most learned Greek authors, and those of the highest authority, Ips is an insect which preys upon the vine.

We read in Strabo:

"The Erythræans give to Hercules the name of Ipoctonus, that is, destroyer of the Ipes, insects thus named which prey upon the vine^[12]."

Theophrastus^[13], after describing how worms are produced in corn, adds that the Ipes are engendered by the south wind; and in another place he says, "There are, however, places where the vines are not infested by the Ips; this occurs in places exposed to the winds, where there is a free current of air, and no excess of humidity."

In the Geoponics^[14] it is said, "that to prevent the little worms named Ipas from attacking the vines, the reeds used for the vine-props should be smoked, because the reeds decomposing in the earth engender little worms, which will othemise ascend upon the vine."

Galien, cited by Aldrovandus, says that the black earth kills the Ipes.

In the Dictionary of Suidas^[15] the word Ipi is defined by Worm; but it is remarked that Ips is a better expression. That work, however, does not furnish any other information upon the word Ips.

But the name Ips in a form slightly altered, or another insect under a name differing but little from that, is mentioned by several authors as being very hurtful to the vine.

In a fragment of Alcman quoted by Bochart:^[16], it is said that "the variegated Ika is the scourge of the young shoots of the vine."

The grammarian Ammonius in bis Treatise upon Synonyms^[17], says also, "the Ikes are animalcula which destroy the buds of the vine."

Bochart thinks that Ips and Iks are but one word, according to two different dialects.

Valckenaer in his notes upon Ammonius is of the same opinion: Ego verisimilam censeo (says this accomplished critic,) Sam. Bocharti sententiam qui ab Alcman Ika, ex dialecto pro Ipa positum sagaciter animadvertit, et ex idoneis auctoribics loca produxit in quibus, qui in vitibus nascuntur vermiculi Ipes dicuntur." Valckenaer concludes with Bochart that Ips is the most ancient form of the word.

However in Hesychius, and in another grammarian quoted by M. Boissonade, these two words are distinguished from each other and applied to two different insects.

In Hesychius's Dictionary we find Iks as the name of an animalculum (Theridion) which infests the vine; and in the same work Ips has this explanation, that this word is employed by grammarians to denote an insect which preys upon horn.

The anonymous grammarian cited by M. Boissonade in his notes to his edition of Herodiani^[18], enumerating the various names attributed to the different species of worms or larvæ, according to the substances in which they lodge, or which they destroy, mentions Iks as the worm of the vine, and Ips as that of meat and horn.

Have these two species of insects been accurately distinguished from each other, and the habit acquired of expressing them by different names? Or is it a distinction erroneously established by grammarians and lexicographers, who of one word slightly varied have made two different words? Whatever may be the fact, the consideration of it is foreign to our present purpose, and will engage our attention at another opportunity. We confine ourselves at present to collecting the facts of the language as we derive them from the critical examination of the texts, without anticipating the consequences which may be deduced from them.

From what has been said we draw the following conclusions:

1st, That in the most learned ancient authors, and in those who have treated ex professo of agriculture, natural history and geography, the word Ips has never been employed except to denote the larva of an insect very injurious to the vine.

2nd, That in Homer, St. John Chrysostom, and lexicographers and grammarians of the period of the decline of literature, the word Ips is exclusively employed to denote the larva of an insect preying upon horn.

3rd, That the word Iks, whether it be considered as a different word from Ips, or the same in another dialect, is employed by Alcman, and the lexicographers and grammarians of the lower ages, to designate exclusively a variegated insect, which injures the vine, and preys upon its buds.

VII. Spondyle or Sphondyle.—Aristotle in his Natural History of Animals^[19], after describing the mode of coition of flies and beetles, adds that the Spondyle (or Sphondyle), the Phalangium, and other insects agree with them in this respect.

I say Spondyle or Sphondyle, because the editors and translators of Aristotle's work are divided upon this point. In the Greek text of Schneider the word is Sphondyldaī, in that of Camus Sphondyldaī: they each represent that it is an insect, because in this passage the meaning is evident; but in another passage of the same work^[20], speaking of the diseases of the horse, Aristotle mentions cases in which that animal draws up the hip and drags the foot, and says, "the same thing occurs if he devours the Staphylinus. The Staphylinus is of the same size and appearance as the Sphondyle."

M. Camus, in his translation, writes Sphondyle, and agrees with Hesychius, who represents the Staphylinus, and consequently the Spondyle, as an animal. M. Schneider, on the contrary, who this time also writes Sphondyle, considers this word to be entirely different from Spondyle, the name of an animal in the first passage which I have quoted. M. Schneider, adopting the opinion of Scaliger, regards the Staphylinus, and consequently the Spondyle mentioned in this last passage, as a plant (the parsnep)^[21].

M. Schneider in his note does not attempt to prove the accuracy of his translation, but contents himself with citing the authority of Scaliger. I confess that I here lean to the opinion of Le Camus. It is not, however, necessary to discuss the subject; and the circumstance that Aristotle has twice mentioned an insect named Spondyle or Sphondyleis of little importance, since he gives us no information respecting it. In the second passage, indeed, he compares it to the Staphylinus, but we know still less of the Staphylinus than of the Spondyle, and in neither passage is any mention made of the vine. Nor should we have noticed the Spondyle of Aristotle were it he alone who had spoken of it; but Pliny^[22] remarks upon the Aristolochia and the wild vine (Vitis silvestris), which vegetates a year in the shade, that no animal infests the roots of these plants, nor of others of which he has treated, excepting the Spondyle, a sort of serpent, which attacks them all. "Et Aristolochia ac vitis silvestris anno in umbra servantur: et animalium quidem exterorum nullum aliud radices a nobis dictas attingit excepta Spondyle quce omnes persequitur. Gemis id serpentis est."

Schneider after quoting this passage adds, "Ineptè ut solet."

Pliny has conceived with genius and executed with ability an abridged encyclopædia of human knowledge; he may perhaps be esteemed the author of the most learned work ever composed; and it certainly is not allowable to speak of a writer of such merit with the asperity and disdain manifested on this occasion by the learned German. However, if the severity of the criticism sometimes occasioned by the difficulties we experience from the gross errors into which Pliny has been led, by the necessity of treating of so many things which he understood imperfectly, can be excused, it is certainly in the editor or translator of Aristotle's Natural History of Animals. Pliny has borrowed extensively from that admirable work; sometimes he is contented with translating it; but even then he generally confuses, by inaccurate or pompously obscure phrases, what Aristotle had explained with clearness and precision, and often mixes with it popular and ridiculous stories, or erroneous and inconsistent notions. But it would have been better if M. Schneider, who combines the knowledge of a naturalist with the erudition of a philologist, instead of allowing himself to use the expression we have cited on this passage of Pliny, had inquired what advantage might be reaped from it; he would then have seen that the error of Pliny will enable us to determine what species of insect is meant by the Spondyle in the first passage of Aristotle, and perhaps also in the second. As it is certain that, in Europe at least, no serpent injures the roots of plants, from the comparison of this passage of Pliny with that of Aristotle we deduce the following facts:

1st. That the larva of the insect named Spondyle by the Greeks was known to the Latins, and that it devoured the roots of plants of every kind.

2nd. That this larva was very large, since it was compared to a small serpent.

We shall see hereafter the consequences deducible from these circumstances.

It may perhaps be said that this long discussion on the word Spondyle might have been omitted, because Pliny speaks only of the wild vine, Vitis silvestris, which is not really the vine, nor has it any relation to the plant producing grapes, but which was an annual, like the Aristolochia, as Pliny himself informs us. To this I reply, that the vine is included in the plants mentioned by Pliny as being exposed to the attacks of the Spondyle, and that consequently anything relating to this insect belongs strictly to my subject.

[To be continued.]

SCIENTIFIC MEMOIRS.

---

---

VOL. I.— PART II.

---

Article IX. concluded

Researches relative to the Insects, known to the Ancients and Moderns, hy which the Vine is infested, and on the Means of Preventing their Ravages; by M. le Baron Walckenaer, Hon. Memb. of the Entomological Society of France.

From the Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, vol. iv. p. 711, et seq., and vol. v. p. 219, et seq.: read Nov. 18, 1835.

VIII. Cantharis.—Directions are given in the Geoponics^[23] for preventing Cantharides from injuring the vine: these insects are to be macerated in oil, and the plant rubbed with the preparation.

Another recipe for the preservation of the vine is given in Palladius, for which the Cantharides of the rose are required; they are to be macerated in oil until an unctuous liniment is formed, with which the branches are to be rubbed^[24].

The name Cantharis occurs very frequently in several Greek and Latin authors without any mention of the vine. Pliny, however^[25], says, "Verrucas Cantharides cum uva taminia intritæ exedunt —"Cantharides pounded with the uva taminia destroy warts."

The Uva taminia, which we translate by wild grape, is, I apprehend, unknown; it is certainly not the fruit of the vine.

It would be superfluous to produce here the numerous passages of the ancient authors in which the word Kantharis occurs, because there can be no doubt as to its signification. They all prove evidently that the ancients understood by this word, not the larvæ of insects, but perfect insects; that these insects were all of the order Coleoptera, vulgarly Beetles; and that Cantharis was a general term denoting several species of beetles, but not all the species indifferently. This word is always employed by the ancient authors to denote those species of Coleoptera, or beetles, which are brilliantly coloured and remarkable for their vesicant or venomous properties; but those authors differ greatly from each other with regard to the species which they have in view.

Thus the Cantharis of Aristotle appears to be the same species as that mentioned by Aristophanes^[26]; but it is an insect very different from that with black and yellow bands, which has been so well described by Dioscorides that it is impossible to be mistaken by modern naturalists. To this latter insect must be referred the winged Cantharis of a fulvous colour, to which on account of its malignity and mortal poison Epiphanius compares heresy^[27]. The Cantharis of Origen^[28], produced from the larva of an insect which lives in the flesh of the ass, is evidently a different species from that of Epiphanius and Dioscorides, and also from that of Aristotle and Aristophanes, though more resembling the latter.

Pliny mentions several species of Cantharis^[29], which for want of exact details are difficult to recognise; but when he says (book xviii. chap. 44.), "Est et Cantharis dictus Scarabæus parvus frumenta erodens^[30]," we instantly fix upon the small and formidable coleopterous insect to which he here gives the name of Cantharis. Theophrastus, who has also mentioned the little insect engendered in corn, gives it the name of Cantharis.

From what has been said it appears that to find the insect named Cantharis considered by the ancients as injurious to the vine, we must seek for it among the perfect insects of the class Coleoptera; among those which are brilliantly coloured and distinguished by their vesicant venomous quality; and among the largest as well as the smallest species of that class.

IX. Kampe and Phtheir.—I class these two words together for an instant, regardless of their different signification, because I find them united in a passage of the Geoponics^[31], the only place in which the first is mentioned in connexion with the vine. The author gives a recipe used by the Africans to preserve the vine from the Phtheirs and Kampes which infest it. Ctesias also mentions the Phtheirs which destroy the vine in Greece^[32].

X. Kampe.—Aristotle^[33] was well acquainted with the metamorphoses of the Butterfly, the larva of which he calls Kampe. He particularly mentions that which feeds upon the cabbage.

Theophrastus^[34] , in his History of Plants, employs the word Kampe for an animal which eats the leaves and flowers of all sorts of trees.

Pliny^[35], abridging the passage of Theophrastus alluded to, translates Kampe by Eruca, Caterpillar.

We have already seen that the word Kampe occurs three times in the translation of the Bible into Greek by the Seventy, twice in Joel, and once in Amos^[36]; and that in the Latin translation of the same passages in the Vulgate, the word Eruca is always employed, though, as we have already remarked, we are not certain that either Kampe or Eruca gives the sense of the Hebrew Gaza, for which they are used.

St. John Chrysostom, in a remarkable passage, speaks of the Kampes as having been an object of worship in the times of paganism^[37]; and this word is with reason rendered Erucas, Caterpillars, in the Latin translation. In the Dialogues of Pope Gregory the Great^[38] mention is made of Boniface, Bishop of Ferentum, who enters a garden in which are a very large number of Caterpillars: " Ingressus hortum, magna hunc Erucarum multitudine invenit esse coopertum."

Pope Zachary, translating the same Dialogues into Greek, renders the word Eruca by Kampe.

But the following passage of Columella leaves no doubt upon the subjec^[39]:

" Animaiia qua a nobis appellantur Erucæ Græce autem καμπαι nominantur." "The animals that we (the Romans) call Erucæ (Caterpillars) are named in Greek Kampai."

Palladius and Columella, though writing in Latin, always prefer the Greek to the Latin word when they have occasion to mention the caterpillar.

Thus Palladius, giving instructions how to destroy the caterpillars infesting vegetables and the vine, recommends that the stems of the plant producing garlic should be burnt in the garden, and the pruning-knife employed to dress the vine anointed with the garlic, and says: "Campas fertur evincere qui fusticulos allii sine capitibus per horti omne spatium comburens, nidorum locis pluribus excitavit. Si contra easdem vitibus voluerimus consulere, allio trito falces putatoriæ feruntur unguendæ^[40]."

Columella having occasion to speak of the destruction caused by the Caterpillar, twice employs the word Campe.

" Nec solum teneras audent erodere frondes
Implicitus conchæ limax, hirsutaque Campe^[41]."

And afterwards :

" Non aliter quani decussa pluit arbore nimbus
Vel teretes mali, vel tectæ cortice glandis,
Volvitur ad terram distorto corpore Campe^[42]."

It is therefore evident that it is among the Caterpillars, or the larvæ of the Lepidoptera or Butterflies, that we must search for the Kampes, which, according to the Geoponics, are produced in the vine and destroy it.

XI. Phtheir.—This Greek word is known to apply to the parasitic insect peculiar to man, the Louse. We shall have to examine whether Ctesias^[43] and the author of the Geoponics have employed this word to signify all sorts of insects injurious to the vine, which include implicitly the Kampes or Caterpillars; or whether they had in view a particular insect, which being small was for that reason considered by cultivators as the Louse of the vine.

XII. Julos or Julus.—Suidas, an author of the ninth or tenth century, says in his Dictionary^[44], that the Julos is a worm of the vine; that it has a great number of feet, and is also called Multipede; that it coils itself up, and breeds in moist vessels.

From these few particulars the most learned lexicographers have not hesitated to establish the identity of the Julos with the Ips, Iki, Convolvulus, and other insects mentioned by the ancients as injurious to the vine.

We shall soon see how many errors are accumulated from thus establishing relations for which there is no authority in any text.

No ancient author has mentioned the Julos in connexion with the vine, or as an animal destructive of it.

The Latins have employed the word Julus or Julius in several of the same senses as were given to it by the Greeks; but I am not aware that they have ever employed it to denote a worm or an insect, or any animal whatever.

Aristotle speaks of the Julios in his History of Animals^[45]; but all the information which he gives us is, that it is an insect without wings, like the Scolopendra.

Speaking of animals in general, Aristotle distinguishes those which have only four feet from those with a larger number^[46], and among the latter he names the Scolopendra and the Bee. It is evident that Aristotle names these two examples as being the extreme limits of the class; one animal having but six feet, only two more than the animals of his first division, or quadrupeds, and the other having a much larger number: one of Aristotle's commentators however, forming his judgement in a similar manner to the lexicographers, makes a Wasp of the Scolopendra. An insect without wings a Wasp!

Aristotle mentions the marine Scolopendra^[47], a different animal, that lives in the sea; he describes it, and says that it is similar to the terrestrial Scolopendra, but of a deeper red colour; that it has a larger number of feet, and those more slender. He remarks upon the terrestrial Scolopendra^[48], that if it be divided into several parts, each part has a progressive movement.

Pliny^[49], translating this passage of Aristotle upon the marine Scolopendra, says that it resembles an insect of the earth named Centipede; and in another part of his work he thus defines the Centipede^[50]: "The Millipede, which is also named Centipede and Multipede, is a kind of worm of the earth, which crawls upon all its feet, describing an arch, and coils itself up on the slightest touch. The Greeks call it Oniscos, and some of them Tylos." Further on he says again: "The species of Scolopendra which moves without sinuosities, and is named by the Greeks Seps, and by others Scolopendra, is more venomous."

"Millipeda, ab aliis centipeda aut multipeda dicta, animal e vermibus terræ pilosum, multis pedibus arcuatim repens, tactuque contrahens se: Oniscon Græci vocant, alii Tylon…… Ilam (centipedem) autem quæ non arcuatur Sepa Græci vocant, alii Scolopendram minorem perniciosamque.''

I may here remark, that in this passage Pliny^[51] confounds the Julios with another species of Millipede, to which Aristotle gives the name of the polypodous Ass, [Asellus,] ονος ό πολνπος; and Pliny afterwards appears to give the names of Seps and Scolopendra to the Oniscos, and says that it is smaller than the Centipede, and moves without making sinuosities. Errors of this sort are common in this author.

Numenius, cited by Athenæus, calls the Julios the entrails of the earth. Eustathius, commenting upon this passage, and Theon, a more ancient author, give different reasons for this expression.

Hesychius says that the Joulos is like the Polypus, that it lives in moist places, and that it is different from the Onos or Asellus.

Lycophron applies the epithet of Juliopezos to a vessel propelled by a great number of oars.

From all these texts we gather the following particulars: that the Julos or Julus was an apterous insect, or without wings, and furnished with a great number of legs; that it rolls itself up immediately upon being touched; that it describes a curve or sinuosities in moving; that it conceals itself in the earth; that it is found in moist places; and lastly, that Suidas alone informs us that this insect preys upon the vine.

XIII. Biurus —We now arrive at names applied by the Romans to insects destructive to the vine, and we shall commence with a word which, from its etymology, appears to have been derived from the Greek.

The name of Biurus employed by Cicero to denote an insect injurious to the vine is only known to us from a passage of Pliny the naturalist. Speaking of different medical prescriptions, and several curious particulars relative to the history of animals, he concludes a chapter with these words: "Marcus Cicero says that there are insects, named Biuri, which prey upon the vines in Campania." "M. Cicero tradit animalia Biuros vocari qui vites in Campania erodant."

It has been rightly remarked that this word is derived from the Greek oura, and appears to be a synonym of Bicaudes, insects with a double tail. This etymology deserves attention, as we learn from it the only peculiarity by which this insect can be recognised. In the most ancient manuscripts the word is written Biuros, and we should reject the orthography of Byturos adopted by certain editors of Pliny, This latter word has been employed by modern naturalists as the name of a genus of Dermestes^[52]. while they have neglected the true orthography.

XIV. Involvolus, Involvulus, or Involvus.—The words which remain to be noticed are purely Latin; they have, if I may be allowed the expression, a family likeness, and appear to be derived from each other.

We shall commence with the word which the most ancient author has employed, and which is that which has given occasion to this memoir.

Involvolus or Involvulus occurs in Plautus.

In the Cistilliarius, act 1, scene 2, verses 455-458, the slave Lampadiscus, speaking to his mistress of another slave, says that she imitates a dangerous beast:

"Imitatur nequam bestiam, et damnificam."

"What is it, I pray?" says his mistress:

"Quamnam, amabo?"

The slave replies: "The Involvolus, which rolls and envelops itself in the leaf of the vine. In the same manner does she purposely involve the meaning of her speech^[53]."

" Involvolorum, quæ in pampini folio intorta implicat se,
Itidem hæc exorditur sibi intortam orationem."

In the Dictionary of Pomponius Festus^[54] we find this definition of the word Involvus: "Vermiculi genus qui involvit pampino."

No one can hesitate to recognise the Involvolus of Plautus in the Involvus of Festus. The word is the same with a very slight alteration. The curious industry of this insect is confirmed by the testimony of two authors; and we learn from Festus that the bestiola of Plautus was not a perfect insect, but the larva of an insect.

XV. Convolvulus.—Marcus Porcius Cato, in his treatise De Re Rustica, gives a recipe to guard the vine from the attacks of the insect named Convolvulus, which is there engendered. The directions are, to boil the residuum of oil until it acquires the consistency of honey, and then to anoint the top and the axillæ of each plant with the preparation^[55].

"Convolvulus in vinea ne siet, amurcam condito," &c. And at the end, "Hoc vitem circum caput, et sub brachia unguito, Convolvulus non nascitur."

Pliny thus quotes this recipe ^[56]:

"Ne Convolvulus fiat in vinea, amurcæ congios duos decoqui in crassitudinem mellis," &c., &c. And in the conclusion, "Hoc vites circa capita ac sub brachiis ungi; ita non fore Convolvulum."

These passages, which are the only ones in which the name Convolvulus occurs, contain no information respecting the insect intended by it, excepting, indeed, that it greatly injures the vine. We shall have to examine whether it be the same insect as the Involvulus of Plautus, or whether the two words are applied to two different insects.

XVI. Volvox.—It will not be necessary to inquire whether the insect named Volvox by Pliny is the same as that which he names Convolvulus, for he himself distinguishes them.

After indicating the remedy for the Convolvulus, this author informs us that the Volvox is another animal which destroys the young grapes; and to prevent its propagation, he recommends that the knife employed to dress the vine should be wiped with the skin of the beaver, and the plant rubbed with bear's blood.

"Alii Volvocem appellant animal prærodens pubescentes uvas: quod ne accidat, fales, cum sint exacutæ fibrina pelle detergent, atque ita putant; sanguine ursino liniri volunt post putationem easdem."

XVII. Volucra.—Eruca.—We must consider these two words together, because we find them associated in the same passage of Columella; and indeed I am not certain that they ought to be separated from Volvox; for it must be stated, that in the passage of Pliny which I have just quoted, several editors read Volucra instead of Volvocem. Volvocem is however the reading of all the ancient manuscripts of Pliny; and the reading of Volucra has only been introduced, because there is a passage in Columella which, though rather different, appears to have been derived from the same source: and as it is impossible to substitute Volvox for Volucra in Columella,—this latter word being a second time employed in the plural, in a verse which cannot be altered without destroying the measure,—the editors of Pliny have decided upon altering the text to bring it into agreement with that of Columella. Columella's commentator,Gesner, justly censures this alteration, and recommends that the reading of the manuscripts should be preserved in these two authors, and that consequently the word Volvocem should be re-established in Pliny.

In his treatise upon trees, Columella^[57], after mentioning the rats and mice which infest the vine, says: "Genus est animalis, Volucra appellatur, id fere prærodet teneras adhuc pampinos et uvas: quod ne fiat, falces quibus vineam putaveris, peracta putatione sanguine ursino linito…… Vel si pellem fibri habueris, in ipsa putatione quoties falcem acueris, ea pelle aciem detergito atque ita putare incipito."

"There is a kind of animals named Volucra, which destroys almost entirely the tender shoots of the vine and the grapes. To prevent its ravages, the vino after it is dressed should be frequently anointed with bear's blood, and the pruning-knife rubbed with beaver's skin every time it is sharpened."

Columella in his poem upon the cultivation of gardens, after speaking of culinary vegetables, recapitulates the enemies by which the hopes of the agriculturist are destroyed, viz. tempests, rain, hail, inundations, and, which are still more formidable, the Volucra and Caterpillar, enemies of Bacchus and green willow plats, which envenom the seed, devour the leaves, and leave nothing of the plant but a withered and barren stem.

" Brassica, cumque tiiment pallentia robora betæ,
Mercibus atque olitor gaudet securus adultis,
Et jam maturis quærit supponere falcem,
Sæpe ferus duros jaculatus Jupiter imbres,
Grandine dilapidans hominumqne boumque labores:
Sæpe etiam gvavidis irrorat pestifer undis,
Ex quibiis iufestæ Baccho, glaucisque salictis
Nascuntur Volucres, serpit Eruca per hortos.
Quos super ingrediens exurit semiua morsu,
Quæ capitis viduata coma, spoliataque nudo
Vertice, trunca jacent tristi conjuncta veneno^[58]."

Here the Volucres and the Erucæ are mentioned by Columella as different insects; the first are described as enemies of the vine, the second as destructive to the willow. "Et quibus infestæ Baccho nascuntur Volucres, glaucisque salictis (infesta) serpit Eruca per hortos."

This interpretation, which does not appear doubtful, suggests a curious remark. It is this, that with the exception of the Latin translation of the Bible—the Vulgate—in which the word Gaza has been improperly rendered Eruca, the word Eruca has never been employed by the Latins, in its Latin form, to denote an enemy peculiar to the vine. Pliny and Columella mention the Eruca as the scourge of trees and plants in general, without excepting the vine, but they do not speak of it as its especial enemy; and when Palladius, in the passage which we have cited, gives a specific for the caterpillars infesting the vine, we have seen that he employs the word Campas and not Erucas.

This observation is not made with the intention of inferring from it, that among the names applied by the Latins to insects infesting the vine there are none denoting Caterpillars, or the larvæ of Lepidoptera; but it suggests the idea that the insects injurious to the vine mentioned under the names Involvulus, Convolvulus, Volvox, and Volucres by the Latins, were considered by them as particular species of worms or insects, and not as the larvæ of Lepidoptera, or Caterpillars, or of animals of the same nature as the Kampai and Erucæ; and that consequently the Latins were unacquainted with the metamorphoses of these species of insects.

In this critical examination I have been careful not to omit any words which are found employed in the writings which remain to us of the Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans to denote insects destructive to the vine. I shall now pass to the second part of this memoir, in which we shall explain the ancient texts by the aid of modern science, and offer such practical considerations as may be useful to the agriculturist.

Second Section.

Determination of the species of insects known to the ancients and moderns, by which the vine is infested, and indication of the means of preventing their ravages..

I. Preliminary Remarks.—In the first part of these researches, I examined the ancient texts in which the names of insects injurious to the vine occur, taking the authors in chronological order whenever this plan did not destroy the relations of etymology or derivation existing between the words the signification of which was to be determined. This method appeared to me the only one adapted to the attainment of the end which I proposed.

All languages vary, and, like the people by whom they are spoken, experience the effects of time, revolutions, and custom. Various contemporary writers employ the same words in different senses, either because they do not possess the same degree of knowledge of the things designated by them, or because they differ from each other with respect to the intention with which the terms in question are employed; one writer being required to limit his meaning to one simple, special, or rigorous sense, and another, on the contrary, having in view a figurative sense only, or a vague or general notion.

The examination of all the texts in which the same word is employed, has furnished us with the signification, more or less determinate, which each author attached to the word, and also with the different circumstances and particulars contained in each text relative to the insect named, which consequently may serve as means to distinguish it.

We have been careful to recapitulate the various significations which result from our critical examination of each word; to compare the imperfect notions of the ancients with the more precise knowledge of the moderns; it will therefore only be requisite to recall to our minds the result of each of these examinations, without being perplexed, in this last and difficult investigation, by philological discussions. Should we be forced to commence new inquiries of this nature, it will only be with regard to words which offer matter for curious or useful digressions, and not in relation to those which essentially belong to the subject of which we are treating.

But it will not here be requisite to follow the same order of discussion which we thought it necessary to adopt in our first section. We are not now endeavouring to determine the significations given by each author to a certain word, independently of its real sense, but to ascertain that real sense from the various significations that have been ascribed to the word, and the different applications which have been made of it. Things, not words, are now the subjects under consideration; things must therefore indicate the order to be followed in determining the value of words. We therefore commence with insects which are only slightly connected with our subject, or upon which the ancients have furnished us with particulars from which only vague and uncertain or too general notions can be derived; and we shall pass successively to those insects which are the principal objects of our researches, and for which the texts furnish us with circumstantial details and more precise methods of determination; according to the custom of algebraists, who first eliminate from their equations the parasitic quantities, or those which furnish only imperfect data for the solution of the problems to be solved.

II. Spondyle, or Sphondyle.—Scarabaeus Melolontha of Linnæus —The Chafer (Hanneton).—Digression on the various species of Chafers known to the ancients, on several Scarabæi which are allied to that genus, and on the employment of the word Melolontha by the ancients and the moderns.

According to the order which we have marked out, the word Spondyle, or Sphondyle, claims priority.

The conclusions derived from the examination and comparison of the texts are, that the larva of this insect is sufficiently large to have been taken for a small serpent; and that it preys upon the roots of all sorts of plants, excepting that of the Aristolochia, or Wild Vine, Vitis sylvestris, which is the Clematis or another plant, but which is not the Vine^[59].

We are acquainted with only one species of larva which fulfills these conditions; it is the common Cockchafer, so well known and so much dreaded by horticulturists under the name of the white worm. The larva of the Melolontha Fullo, or of the Melolontha vulgaris of modern naturalists, according to the results we have obtained, is the Spondyle of Aristotle and Pliny.

I find in Aldrovandus^[60] that Agricola said that the modern Greeks give the name of Spondyle to a species of worm of the size of the little finger, with the head of a reddish colour, and the body white, which is found in the earth entwined around the roots of esculent vegetables. This is certainly the larva of the Chafer. Did Agricola receive this information from modern Greeks, and is the word Spondyle still employed by them to denote the white worm?

If the Spondyle of Pliny is the same as that of Aristotle, it follows that the latter naturalist, who designated a perfect insect by this name, was acquainted with its metamorphosis; which will not appear surprising if we remember that Aristotle, as I have already observed, has exceedingly well described the metamorphosis of the Cabbage Butterfly, and that after that description he generalizes the fact, and remarks that the greater number of insects come from a worm (scolex): " the whole worm grows larger," he says, " and becomes an articulated animal^[61]."

Aristotle has well observed that the Spiders, Grasshoppers, and Crickets are not produced from worms, but from animals similar to themselves. These ideas upon the metamorphosis of insects are very exact, and though Aristotle blends with them a few errors, which it is unnecessary to consider here, they afford proof of the perseverance with which he pursued his observations, and the surprising skill which he possessed for generalizing acquired facts, and for discovering and predicting those not previously observed.

It must not be forgotten that it is in relation to the manner in which coition is effected in insects that Aristotle names the Spondyle; and the Chafer is precisely one of those insects which present themselves most frequently to our notice in coition.

From the text of Pliny and the assertion of Agricola, it appears that among the Latins, and the Greeks of the Lower Empire the name of Spondyle has been retained to denote the larva of the large species of Chafer, with the metamorphosis of which they were unacquainted. That an insect so common as the Chafer, and which acts a part so important to agriculture by the mischief which it occasions, even in the state of a perfect insect, to the leaves of plants and trees, was known to the Latins as well as to the Greeks, cannot be doubted; but we are ignorant wliether they gave it a particular name, or whether they included it under the general names of Scarabæus and Cantharis, so often employed by them to denote all kinds of Coleoptera.

Fabricius, who has detached the Chafers from the genus Scarabæus of Linnæus, has given to this genus the name of Melolontha, which the Swedish naturalist had assigned as the specific name of the most common species. This name is borrowed from Aristotle, who employs it in the same manner as those of Cantharis and Carabus, to denote various species of Scarabæi, which in our natural systems belong to very different families or to very dissimilar genera. It was from the opinion of the learned of the time of Aldrovandus^[62], and adopted by Bochart^[63], that Linnæus made the Melolontha of Aristotle our common Cockchafer; but, as Latreille has well observed^[64], from a comparison of the texts of Suidas, Pollux, and the scholiast on Aristophanes, it appears that the name Melolontha was given, among the Greeks, to insects of brilliant colours, a description which does not apply to the common Cockchafer.

Aristophanes, in the comedy of the Clouds, puts these words into the mouth of Socrates when speaking to Strepsiades: " Let go your thought, like the Melolontha which is launched into the air with a thread around its foot." The ancient scholiast remarks that this Melolontha is an insect of a golden colour, which children hold with a thread and cause to fly^[65]. We know that in modern Greece the children at the present day attach a thread to the foot of the beautiful gold-coloured insect which naturalists call the Cetonia fastuosa, which is not scarce in that country, where the children amuse themselves with it in the same manner as those of our climates do with the common Cockchafer; the name of Melolontha should therefore have been applied to the genus Cetonia, not to the genus Chafer.

An interesting question in archdæology here arises, in connexion with the exact interpretation of a passage of Pliny, which is well worthy of attention. The Roman naturalist, speaking of the different species of amulets used in his time to cure the quartan ague, says that three sorts of Scarabæi are employed for this purpose. "The first," he says, "is the Scarabæus which rolls pills, qui pilas volvit, and in consideration of which the Scarabæi are placed among the gods by a great part of Egypt." This circumstance enables us to distinguish, without any doubt, two or three insects of the family of the Coprophagi, the Ateuchus sacer of Fabricius (Scarabæus sacer of Linnæus), or the Ateuchus laticollis, and the Ateuchus Ægyptiorum, brought from Nubia by M. Caillaud, and recently described by M. Latreille^[66], who considers it exclusively as the Sacred Scarabæus so often sculptured by the Egyptians upon their monuments, and separately in hard stones of various kinds. But I think that he is mistaken; for I have recently examined all the Scarabæi of Ancient Egypt, sculptured separately, which are in the Bibliothèque du Roi, where an individual of the Ateuchus Ægyptiorum, presented by M. Caillaud, is also preserved, and I am convinced that, among the Egyptian stones representing Scarabæi with smooth elytra, a certain number have been sculptured from the Ateuchus sacer of Fabricius, and the others (a smaller number) from the Ateuchus laticollis; but all those stones which have the elytra striated, or with ribs and longitudinal furrows, have the Ateuchus Ægyptiorum of M. Caillaud for their type. Thus the name Scarabæus, of the Egyptians, is applicable to three different species, closely allied to each other certainlv, and having probably similar manners and habits, but which, notwithstanding, it is easy to distinguish in the sculptured monuments by unequivocal characters^[67]. The Ateuchus sacer, which is black, appears to be much more common than the Ateuchus Ægyptiorum, which is of a golden green colour, and must be that imitated by the artists of Lower Egypt; while those of Upper Egypt have chosen the Ateuchus Ægyptiorum for their model. M. Caillaud found this insect in Sennaar, but not in Egypt. He however discovered the elytra and other remains of them in the mummy-cases in Egypt, which seems to prove that this insect has existed, and perhaps still exists, in that country. As Aristotle and Aristophanes employ the word Cantharis to denote the Sacred Scarabæus, I infer that these two authors had in view the Ateuchus Ægyptiorum of M. Caillaud.

This first species of Scarabæus of which Pliny speaks is also, according to the view we have taken, the first of the three species of these insects which are mentioned by Horapollo as being held in great veneration by the Egyptians.

The second species of Scarabæus used as an amulet for the cure of the quartan ague, spoken of by Pliny, is employed, he says, by the magicians, but that care must be taken to collect these insects with the left hand. This species has small reflected horns, cui sunt cornicula reflexa.

From this indication, Hardouin, and other commentators following him, refer this insect to the Lucani. They are mistaken.

The Lucanus, vulgarly called the Stag-Beetle, is one of those insects which Pliny has most correctly described^[68]; and naturalists have therefore allowed it to retain the name which he assigned to it. He gives a good description of its long, indented, and bifurcated horns, which he says are suspended around the neck of children to preserve them from the bite of venomous beasts: "Cornua prælonga bisulcis dentata forcipibus in cacumine." This will not agree with the little recurved horns of the other species of Scarabæus with which it has been identified. This second species of the Scarabæus of Pliny appears to be the second species described by Horapollo; according to this author it has two horns, and the form of the bull; it is sacred to the moon. We are disposed to think that this is the large species of Copris (Bousier), with two horns, which M. Savigny brought from Egypt, and named Midas. It is sculptured in the temple of Karnak, and according to the observation of Latreille appears to belong to the genus 'Onitis, recently separated from the Coprophagi^[69].

M. Millin, in his account of the engraved Egyptian stones in the Bibliothèque du Roi, says that an engraving of a sculptured Scarabæus may be seen in the cabinet of antiques of St. Geneviève, which he considers as the Scarabæus Mimas. In this he is mistaken, for the Scarabæus Mimas is a species peculiar to America; but the error of this estimable archæologist is a slight one, since the Scarabæus Mimas is a Copris as well as the Midas of Egypt, which it resembles even ahnost to its colours. There is therefore reason to think that the Egyptian stone mentioned by M. Millin represented the Copris Midas which M. Savigny discovered in Egypt.

The third species of Scarabæus employed, according to Pliny, as an amulet against the effects of the quartan ague, was named the Fuller (Fullo). This insect was spotted with white; and the mode of employing it was to divide it into two portions, one of which was affixed to each arm, while the two other species of insects of which we have treated were attached only to the left arm. "Tertium, qui vocatur Fullo, albis guttis, dissectum utrique lacerto adligant, cætera sinistro." All Pliny's commentators are silent upon this remarkable passage, and upon the insect named Fullo by the Romans; but naturalists have not been equally careless. Mouffet, whose work appeared after his death in 1634, describing the largest species of Chafer of our climates, which is nearly an inch and a half in length, and is distinguished with facility by the brilliant white spots upon its corselet and elytra, combats the opinion of those who consider the Fullo of Pliny as a Copris or a Forficula, and supposes that by this name the Roman naturalist intended to denote the large species of Chafer with white spots which he (Mouffet) had just described^[70]. Ray, whose History of Insects was published in 1710, is of the same opinion^[71]; and lastly, M. Schœnherr, in his laborious work specially devoted to the synonymy of insects, cites Pliny for his Melolontha Fullo^[72].

It is with regret that I contest an opinion apparently so well established by the suffrages of so many eminent naturalists; but my own observations are opposed to it. I have examined a great number of antique stones upon which insects were sculptured or engraved, some of which have perhaps been used as amulets, for they were pierced in a manner adapted for suspension at the neck, and they all represented either Coprophagi or Cetoniæ^[73]. Not one of them can belong to a species of Chafer, which may be easily distinguished from the insects previously mentioned by a more lengthened form. The fact is the same with regard to the obelisks, and all the monuments of Egypt of which drawings have been published. I here speak only of the Scarabæi or Coleoptera, and not of the species of Bee or Wasp sculptured upon the obelisks at Luxor^[74]. M.Latreille, who has been engaged in a similar examination, has arrived at the same conclusion.

It appears therefore that the Melolontha Fullo of Pliny should be sought for among the Coprides, (Bousiers,) or among the Cetoniæ, and not among the Chafers.

Pliny says that the green Scarabæus possesses the property of rendering the vision more penetrating, and that engravers upon gems rest their eyes by gazing upon these insects. "Scarabæi viridis natura contuentium visum exacuit, itaque gemmarum sculptores contuitu eorum acquiescunt^[75]." Marcellus Empiricus, copying Pliny, relates the same fact, but he gives us the additional information that this Scarabæus is of the colour of the emerald, "Scarabæus coloris smaragdini." This definition is exactly suitable to the Cetonia fastuosa, and to the Cetonia aurata, particularly to the former. These two species are of a beautiful golden or emerald green, but the Cetonia aurata is distinguished from the other by white spots upon the elytra ("albis guttis"); it is nine lines in length, and is frequently found in gardens, upon roses and other flowers. The great Chafer with white spots, the Melolontha Fullo of modern naturalists, is, on the contrary, rare, and is found only upon downs and in the vicinity of the sea.

From all these circumstances I conclude that the Cetonia aurata was the object of the superstition of which Pliny speaks, and is the insect to which he gives the name of Fullo.

To recapitulate: the word Spondyle, or Sphondyle, in the works of Aristotle, denotes the Cockchafer, both the perfect insect and its larva.

As employed by Pliny, who was unacquainted with the metamorphosis of the Cockchafer, Spondyle denotes only the larva of this insect, or the white worm, taken for a small serpent, which in the time of Agricola, in the sixteenth century, was still known to the Greeks by this name of Spondyle.

The "Scarabæus qui pilas volvit" of Pliny, which cured the quartan ague and was adored by the Egyptians, is the Scarabæus sacer of Linnæus, the Ateuchus sacer and Ateuchus laticollis of Fabricius, and the Ateuchus ægyptiacus of Latreille and Caillaud.

The true Scarabæus of HorapoUo, the wings of which form rays when extended, is also the same insect.

The Sacred Scarabæus, named Cantharis in Aristotle and Aristophanes, is the Ateuchus ægyptiacus.

The "Scarabæus cui sunt cornicula reflexa" of Pliny is the Ateuchus Midas, the Copris Midas, common in Egypt and brought from that country by M. Savigny.

The Scarabæus with two horns, sacred to the moon, of Horapollo, is also the Copris Midas.

The Melolontha of Aristotle and the Greek authors, which served as a toy for children, is the Cetonia fastuosa.

The Scarabæus viridis of Pliny, which the engravers upon gems loved to contemplate, is also the Cetonia fastuosa.

The Scarabæus Fullo albis guttis of Pliny is the Cetonia aurata, the Scarabæus auratus of Linnæus, which has white spots upon the elytra.

As it is proved that the Spondyle of Aristotle and Pliny is the Chafer, we have been right in directing our attention to this word, for the Chafer destroys the leaves of the vine, as well as of all other plants. This genus includes a species, smaller than the common one, which entomologists have named the Chafer of the vine, Melolontha Vitis, because it is frequently found upon that plant with the Chafer of Frisch, Melolontha Frischii, which is perhaps only one of its varieties^[76]; but this insect is found almost as frequently upon the leaves of the willow and the rose-tree as upon those of the vine; and it is not one of those of which our vine-dressers and cultivators particularly complain, nor did it attract the attention of agriculturists among the ancients.

Before concluding my observations upon the word Spondyle, I must not forget to remark that Fabricius has employed it to designate a genus of Coleoptera which he has formed in the family of the Prioni, and named Spondylis buprestoïdes, the Attelabus buprestoïdes of Linnæus; but this insect, the larva of which lives in the wood of green trees, has no relation to the Spondyle of the ancients, the larva of which attacked the roots of young or annual plants. It was not M. Fabricius's intention, in selecting this name, to assume that any relation existed between them: but what I have said in my preliminary reflections may be applied to this case, and relieves me from the necessity of extending my observations upon this subject.

III. Joulos, or Julus.—The Juli.—There is still less reason for the appearance of the name of Joulos among those given to insects injurious to the vine than for that of Spondyle, although Suidas has said that the Joulos was a worm of the vine; but this lexicographer is the only one who has so ill defined the insect of which the ancients have spoken under the name of Joulos. From a comparison of their texts, it appears that the Joulos is an apterous or wingless insect, possessing a great number of feet; that it has the lengthened form of a worm; moves in a serpentine manner; coils itself up when touched; and is found in moist places. Modern naturalists cannot have been mistaken with regard to this insect, for which they have retained the ancient name. The name of Julus, given to a genus of insects by the moderns, corresponds exactly to the Julus or Joulos of the ancients; especially if the modern signification of the word be restrained to the genus Julus of Leach^[77], as defined in his excellent work upon the polypodous insects, excluding the Polydesmata and other genera, which have with propriety been removed from it. The Juli which the ancients had in view were probably the terrestrial Julus and the Julus sabulosus of modern entomologists, and the common Julus of M. Soavi, erroneously confounded with the former two. These insects are found on the earth under stones; they feed upon the leaves and fruits which fall upon the ground and are there decomposed; but they neither injure the vine nor any other plant. As they are found under the shadow of the vine, as well as in all other dark and humid places, the injuries arising from another cause have been attributed to them.

IV. Biurus.—Grillo-talpa.—Mole-cricket.—The word which, after Spondyle and Julios, has the least relation to our subject of those which we have passed in review is Biurus. I find it only in an isolated passage of Cicero, cited by Pliny, in which it is said that this animal destroys the vines of Campania. Thus, it is not mentioned as an enemy to the vine, correctly speaking, but as injuring the vines of Campania in particular, by its rapid multiplication. Perhaps also in this passage, which Pliny only quotes incidentally, Cicero was speaking of a particular case in which the Biuri were seen to be injurious to the new plantations of vines in Campania, though they would be incapable of injuring them when the roots had acquired sufficient hardness to resist their attacks. Whatever be the fact, the etymology of the word Bi-Uros, which, as we have seen, implies an insect armed at its posterior extremity with a double tail, directs us to the Mole-cricket and the larger species of locusts (Sauterelles), the only insects so formed that can answer to the particulars specified, from their size and the destruction which they cause, and of ravaging vine plantations extending over a whole country. But the locust having been well known to the Latins under the name of Locusta, and to the Greeks under that of Acris^[78], it follows that the name of Biurus is applicable only to the Mole-cricket. The probability of this is increased by these circumstances: that this insect is the largest which is known in our parts of Europe, it being not less than an inch and half in length; that it is one of the most singular in its formation, and one of the most destructive; that it cannot be recognised in any of the descriptions of insects transmitted to us by the ancients; and lastly, that, in all the writings which they have left us, the name Biurus is the only one that can be applied to it.

Latrellle says that the Mole-cricket was unknown before the time of Mouffet. This is not the case: it is true that Mouffet is the first who published a good representation of it;—the first who gave it the name of Mole-cricket, or rather Cricket-mole, Grillo-talpa, a description which applies to it alone^[79]. "Liceat," says he, "hic quæso nobis præ nominum inopia onomatopoiein;" and he properly rejects the names of Sphondyle and Buprestis, which had been given to it; but this rejection proves that the Mole-cricket had previously attracted and engaged the attention of naturalists. In fact, Aldrovandus had given a good description of this insect before Mouffet, and a representation of it which, though bad, may still be recognised: he named it Talpa Ferrantis, because this insect had been previously named Mole, and Ferrante Imperato had figured it: Neapolitanus diligentissimus aromatarius in naturali sua historia, book xxviii., says Aldrovandus. Mouffet is therefore indebted to Ferrante for half the name which he gave this insect; for, that he was acquainted with his work is evident from his having borrowed from it the figure which he published of the Tarantula Spider. Ferrante's work was printed in Italian after his death in 1599, and translated into Latin. The original edition is scarce^[80], and no naturalist of late times, that I am aware of, even including Linnæus, was acquainted with it; at least not one of them has quoted it. They all think that they have done much in ascending to old Aldrovandus; but we have just shown that the history of the Mole-cricket commences before him and Mouffet, and even before Ferrante; for if the application which we have made of the word Biurus be, as it appears, exact, we must refer to ancient times for the first mention of this insect.

The Mole-cricket causes great devastation, especially in the southern parts of Europe; it digs holes and constructs subterranean galleries, and cuts and detaches the roots of plants by means of its fore feet, which are shaped like saws; but this it does solely to provide a habitation for its posterity, for it neither eats plants nor their roots, but feeds only upon insects, and destroys a great number of the injurious ones^[81]. The havoc caused by the Mole-cricket (Courtillière) has probably been confounded with the devastation committed by the white worm of the Cockchafer, for, according to a recent dictionary of agriculture^[82], the name of Courterolle has been given to both in several of the cantons of France^[83].

V. Gaza.—Saddle Locust:—Locusta ephippiger—Wingless Locust:—Locusta aptera.—Nymph Locust:—Locusta Puppa.—It will be recollected that from our examination of the name Gaza, employed by the prophets Amos and Joel, (p. 174,) we ascertained that it was used as the name of an insect eminently destructive, not only of the vine but of all kinds of plants; and that its ravages were succeeded by those of several species of locusts, which completed the destruction of all that this formidable insect had left undevoured. The word Gaza is rendered by caterpillar in the Septuagint and Vulgate, and by creeping, that is, apterous or wingless, locust in the Chaldee version. If it be remembered that in the days of Ptolemy the Jews of Egypt, to whom we owe the Greek translation of the Sacred Books, were very imperfectly acquainted with Hebrew, which was to them a dead language; that St. Jerome, whose translation has served as a basis for the Vulgate, was still more ignorant with regard to the designation of material objects, it will be found that the Chaldee version is on these accounts of higher authority than the two other versions: and if the works of Rosenmiiller and Oedmann^[84], who have discussed this point of criticism with equal sagacity and erudition, be consulted, we shall be convinced, notwithstanding the opinion to the contrary of Bochart and Michaëlis, that the four different names employed by Amos and Joel as the names of insects, all denote locusts. The observations of the judicious traveller Shaw remove all doubt upon the subject. He informs us that in Africa, in the months of March and April, it frequently happens that the locusts driven by the south wind obscure the sun, and augment in density until the middle of May, and that after completing their ravages they remove to lay their eggs, and diminish in number. Then follow, after the interval of a few days, some smaller species, moving like the former in troops, which are in turn succeeded by one or two other species, which complete the devastation.

M. Oedmann thought that completely to vindicate the Chaldee text it was necessary to suppose the Gaza to be a locust without wings or elytra, not yet come to its full growth, which was mistaken by the Hebrews for a perfect insect and distinguished by a particular name. But the orientals were too well acquainted with locusts, which from all antiquity had supplied them with food, to allow of our imagining that the Hebrews could have committed such an error. Neither is it necessary to suppose it. We now know several species of creeping locusts which perfectly correspond to the creeping locust of the Chaldee version; a fact of which Oedmann appears to have been ignorant. There is in particular one species which has a deeply excavated corselet raised at the back like a saddle; this corselet hides the sonorous and vaulted elytra, which are very short, and do not serve for flying. These locusts resemble nymphæ, but have however arrived at their perfect state, and propagate their kind. This species has been named the Locusta ephippiger. There are even other species of which the females at least are without wings or elytra, and which perfectly resemble the larva of the Locust; such are the species named Locusta aptera and Locusta Puppa by Fabricius. But I am more inclined to consider the Saddle-locust, or the Locusta ephippiger, as the Gaza of the Bible, than either of the two other species that I have mentioned. Of all the species of creeping locusts the ephippiger is that which I have most frequently found upon the vine, though never in sufficient abundance to produce much injury; and it cannot be classed with the true insects of the vine, neither is it mentioned as such in Scripture.

VI. Cantharis of the Geoponics.—Ninth Cantharis of Aldrovandus.—Rhynchites Bacchus, or Rhynchites Betuleti, or Attelabus of the Vine.—Becmar-Diableau.—Lisette, and Green Velvet (Velours vert) of the Vine-dressers.—The Coleoptera or Scarabæi which destroy the Vine, and do not answer to the Cantharides of the Geoponics.—Lethrus Cephalotes.—Gray Curculiones (Charansons).—The ancient authors give the name of Cantharis to the insects which they employed when pounded as an ingredient of the liniment or unguent with which they anointed the vine to protect it from injurious insects; but it is in the Geoponics alone, when treating of this employment of Cantharides, that we are informed that these insects were engendered in the vine, and were destructive to it; and the author or authors of this compilation only give the recipe of Cantharides macerated in oil as a remedy for the disasters which these insects themselves produce^[85]. We have seen that the word Cantharis was employed by the Greeks, as well as by the Latins, as the designation of the Coleoptera or Scarabæi in general; that this name was often applied to the brilliantly-coloured Coleoptera, or those possessing corrosive or vesicating properties; and that it was also used as the name of insects, whether of large or small dimensions, which were rendered remarkable by their destructive effects. Of the first we have noticed the Mylabris of the endive, the Mylabris Cichorri of modern naturalists, so well described by Dioscorides; and the Lytta or Meloë vesicatoria, the Cantharides of our apothecaries^[86]. Among the second, or those which are very small, is the Scarabæus parvus Cantharis dictus of Pliny which infests corn, which is the Curculio granarius or Calandra granarius of our modern naturalists; the Curculio frumentarius of Linnæus, the Apion frumentarius of Schœnherr and Latreille. The former is of a dark fulvous colour; the latter is red and brilliant, and is, I think, that of which Pliny speaks, for it attacks wheat, while the other principally infests oats^[87]. These indications leave us in great uncertainty relative to the Cantharides of the Geoponics. But as it was undoubtedly their corrosive or vesicating properties which caused the Cantharis of the ancients to be employed in the liniment which was destined to destroy other insects, it is probable that their Cantharides of the vine were insects of the same nature, or other insects which, from the resemblance of their colour, were confounded with them. Now, as no Coleopterous insect, or Scarabæus, has vesicating properties, as no Mylabns, Lytta, Meloë, or Cantharis lives upon the vine, it is evident that the insect of which we are in search must be found among those which from their colour may be confounded or compared with them, especially with the yellow-banded Mylabris of the endive and the brilliant green Cantharis of apothecaries, for we know that these species were employed by the ancients in medicine and agriculture.

We will now pass in review all the Coleoptera or Scarabæi which injure the vine, and that which corresponds the best to these indications must be the Cantharis of the vine of the Geoponics. The largest of all these Coleoptera or Scarabæi is the Lethus Cephalotes, which gnaws the young shoots of shrubs in general, but particularly those of the vine, and carries them into its hole.^[88] But this species appears peculiar to Hungary, where it is named Schneider, cutter; it is also frequently found in the western parts of Russia; but neither our cultivators nor those of Italy make any complaint of it. I do not find anything relative to this insect in the ancient authors, and if they were acquainted with it, it must have been comprehended by them under the general name of Scarabæus.

It is different with the Curculiones (Charansons), of which we have several species which infest the vine. The one which I have found most frequently upon this plant is the Curculio picipes of Fabricius, which is perhaps the same species as the Curculio Corruptor of Host, and the Curculio Vastator of Marsham^[89]. The grey Curculiones, with globular bodies, devour the shoots of the vine as soon as they come out of the bud. They prevent its development and the production of grapes; but pear and apple trees arc more exposed to their attacks than the vine, and they are more prejudicial in Germany and the South than in our climates.

The Eumolpus of the vine, vulgarly called the Coupe-bourgeon, is a third species of the Coleoptera still more destructive than the two which we have just mentioned; but this insect, of which we shall presently treat more at length, like the two preceding ones, possesses but little brilliancy of colour.

It appears then that among all the Coleoptera or Scarabæi which infest the vine, there are only two species closely allied, and which must have been considered as one by the ancients, as they have long been by the moderns, which appear to correspond by their colour to the particulars which we have obtained in our examination of the ancient texts relative to the word Cantharis. These two species are the Rhynchites Betuleti and the Rhynchites Bacchus of modern naturalists; the Attelabus of the vine, or Attelabus Bacchus, and the Attelabus of the birch, of their predecessors. These two species, considered as one by the vine-dressers, have received from them in the different dialects and provinces of France, and even in the different districts of the same province, the names of Becmare, Urbec, Urbère or Urbée, Diableau, Beche, Lisette, Velours vert, Destraux, and perhaps others of which we are ignorant. The Rhynchites Betuleti^[90] is of a brilliant silky green colour, or of an equally brilliant and silky violet blue. The Rhynchites Bacchus^[91] is of a golden violet purple or of a golden green mixed with purple. These insects cut the petioles of the leaves to cause them to wither and soften so as to allow of their being rolled with greater facility; this they effect with great dexterity, leaving a cavity in which they place their eggs, and thus injure greatly the plants to which they attach themselves. The Rhynchites Bacchus^[92] prefers the leaves of the vine and cherry tree; the Rhynch. Betuleti those of the vine and the white birch. In the environs of Paris I have most frequently found the R. Bacchus upon the vine; but it was the R. Betuleti which committed the extensive ravages among the vines of Burgundy about fifteen years ago. M. Silbermann told me, at Strasburg, that the R. Betuleti is more destructive than any other insect to the vines of Alsace and the banks of the Rhine, and that the R. Bacchus is seldom found there. According to the observations of this able entomologist, the R. Betuleti is seen in that country as a perfect insect upon the leaves of the vine towards the end of August. The larva rolls the leaf to hide itself, and attacks the young grape, but not the buds, being hatched too late. Schranck, in his Fauna Boïca^[93], has placed these two insects in a particular genus, to which he gives the name of Involvulus; but the Involvulus of the ancients, as we shall presently show, does not belong to the class Coleoptera, but to the Lepidoptera; and I may remark that the genus Involvulus of Schranck, being badly constituted, has not been adopted by any naturalist. Though it contains but few species, some of them are distributed by M. Schœnherr among his Apoderi, one among his Attelabi, and a third among his Rhynchites. Aldrovandus was well acquainted with the Rhynchites Bacchus; and I am surprised that no naturalist has quoted this venerable father of natural history in modern Europe upon the subject of this small but formidable insect. He places it among the Cantharides, to which he devotes a chapter, thus separating them from the true Scarabæi which occupy another chapter. The following is the description which he gives of this Curculio: "Nonus numerus significat Convolvulum, Ιπα Græcis, Tagliadizzo vulgo apud Italos agricolas, corpore cæruleo, pedibus obscure lutescentibus, in vite repertum, ac folia ejus depopulantem. Nascitur ex oris bombicum ovis similibus magnitudine, colore rubicundis. Hic cum parere vult multa cumulat convolvitque folia (unde forte a Latinis id nominis datum), atque in his sua ova reponit." Thus the name of Tagliadizzo,—cutter,—given to it by the vine-dressere of Italy; its bluish colours; the injury done to the leaves of the vine, which the insect rolls up and in which it deposits its eggs, all mark with certainty the synonymy of our Rhynchites Betuleti or R. Bacchus with the ninth Cantharis of Aldrovandus^[94]. But as to the identity of this insect with the Ips of the Greeks, and the Convolvulus of the Latin authors, which Aldrovandus attempts to establish, the continuation of our researches will prove that it must be rejected.

VII. Ips.—Iks.—Volucra.—Volvox.—Eumolpus Vitis.—Eumolpus of the Vine.—Coupe-bourgeons.—Tête-cache.—Bêche.—Lisette.—Gribouris de la Vigne—After having treated of the Cantharides, Aldrovandus devotes an entire chapter to the Ips of the Greeks, to confirm his assertion in the preceding chapter that this insect is the Tagliadizzo of the cultivators of Italy; but he remarks that he had only found this insect upon the vine, though the ancient authors say that it preys also upon horn. If Aldrovandus was wrong in maintaining that the Ips of the Greeks was the Convolvulus of the Latins, he was right in thinking that it belonged to the Coleoptera, and was one of those which the Italian agriculturists class among the Tagliadizzi, or cutters.

It appears evident, as has been advanced by Valckenaer, Bochart, and the most learned philologists, that the Iks of certain authors, an insect which infests the vine, is the same word as the Ips employed by other authors as the name of an insect which also infests the vine, and that Ips, Ipes, Iks, Ikes, are only differences of dialect.. This agreed, it is evident from our critical examination, that the conclusion to be formed from the information we receive from the Greek authors, including the grammarians and lexicographers of the lower ages, is, that Ips is employed as the name of an insect which preys upon horn and meat, and also of one which infests the vine, of which it devours the buds, either in the state of larva or as the perfect insect. We learn from this that the name of Ips or Iks was applied by the ancients to two or three different species of insects or larvae of insects. But since the ancients confounded these species, and assigned them but one name, there must necessarily be an analogy between them. There is only one species of the larvæ of the Coleoptera or Scarabaei possessing trophi, or organs for manducation, sufficiently hard to pierce horn. The Ips of Homer and of St. John Chrysostom belongs therefore to the Coleoptera, consequently the Ips of meat and of the vine must also belong to that class. As we are treating of an insect which preys upon horn and meat, naturalists know that it must belong to Linnæus's tribe of Dermestes, the larvæ of which are so formidable to their collections. They are not ignorant that these insects are found in warehouses of furs, in offices, pantries, and all places which receive animal matters, and that they spare neither horn nor feathers; but our knowledge of them is not sufficient to determine to what genus of modern entomologists those Dermestes belong which prey upon old goat's horn, particularly upon that of the Ægagrus, of which the bow of Ulysses was formed, and which is particularly mentioned by Homer. We are well acquainted only with the metamorphoses of the Dermestes lardarius, and the Dermestes Pellio, the Dermestes of bacon and furs. These insects belong to the numerous family of the Nitidulariæ of Latreille^[95]. Degeer^[96] long ago separated from the Dermestes a genus to which he judiciously gave the name of Ips; but this name has been since given to genera very different to that which he had created, though they also were formed from the numerous family of the Dermestes. It might possibly be the same larva which infested horn and meat, as is asserted by the grammarian published by Boissonade; it is also possible that the ancients confounded the larvæ of two affinal but different genera. But certainly the insect designated by the ancients as preying on horn and meat cannot be the same as that whose worm or larva feeds upon the young shoots of the vine. However, to render the same name applicable to them both, they must have belonged to the class Coleoptera, the larvæ of which could not be confounded with caterpillars, or the larvæ of Lepidoptera; the perfect insect which destroys the shoots of the vine must also resemble the Dermestes in form and dimensions. All these conditions meet in the Eumolpus Vitis, the Eumolpus of the vine of modern naturalists, which is one of the greatest scourges of that plant. This insect, which is of a black and blood-red colour, belongs to a genus which has been separated from the Cryptocephali^[97], and is vulgarly known under the names of the Cryptocephalus (Gribouris) of the vine, Bêche, Lisette, and Tête-cache, because its head is covered by its corselet. It feeds upon the buds of the vine, or on the young shoots of that plant which still remain herbaceous, which it cuts in two and causes entirely to perish. It feeds also upon grapes. The great injuries inflicted by this insect upon the vine is an additional reason for considering it as the Ips of the ancients. As Strabo observes, we can imagine that the veneration in which the memory of Hercules was held in a country planted with the vine was more on account of his supposed destruction of this plague than of his victory over the Nemæan lion, and why the cultivators were so anxious to obtain and employ recipes for the destruction of these vermin. When the ancients spoke of the Ips or Iks as a worm which appeared in the spring, they had in view the larva of the Eumolpus of the vine. The larva of this insect is oval; it has six feet; its head is scaly and armed with two small maxillæ^[98] . The insect named Ips or Iks by the Greeks, was called Volucra or Volvox by the Latins; but with this difference, that the word Ips and Iks were applied to the larva of this insect, while Volucra and Volvox were the names of the perfect insect. This is proved by the use of the word animal, and not vermis, which Pliny and Columella employ when speaking of the Volucra or Volvox; while the Ips is always spoken of as a worm by the Greeks. The name Volucra has probably been given to these larvæ in consequence of the promptitude with which they escape from the hand which endeavours to seize them, for they drop down upon the earth as soon as the leaf in which they are enveloped is touched; and the name Volvox is undoubtedly derived from this insect's habit of rolling itself up in leaves. Forcellini, in his dictionary, gives the Italian word Ritoritelli as the equivalent of the word Volucra; this vulgar name of an insect of the vine in Italy has evidently the same origin as Volvox. Nearly all the insects of the genus Dermestes counterfeit death when they are touched, and this conformity of habit must have contributed to the error of the ancient authors in confounding together the Ips which preys upon horn and that which infests the vine. But there are still stronger reasons which prove that the Volucra or Volvox of the Latins is the same insect as the Ips or Iks of the Greeks. Pliny and Columella inform us that the Volucra or Volvox was a different insect from the Convolvulus. This difference between two insects which both infested the vine must necessarily have been complete and radical, since it was remarked by the ancients, who possessed so little information upon this class of animals. We shall show presently that the Convolvulus was one of the Lepidoptera or Butterflies; the Volucra or Volvox must belong to a totally different class. Now among insects there are only the larvæ and the insects of the Coleoptera, and the caterpillars or larvæ of the Lepidoptera, which are very injurious to the vine; the Volucra or Volvox must therefore belong to the class Coleoptera. Besides, we learn from Pliny and Columella that the Volucra or Volvox infested both the young shoots and the grapes. Pliny says, "Volvocem animal prærodens pubescentes uvas;" and Columella, "Genus animalis Volucra prærodit teneras adhuc pampinas et uvas." These expressions apply solely and entirely to the Eumolpus of the vine and the Ips of the Greeks, and not to the Cantharides of the Geoponics, the Rhynchites Bacchus or Betuleti, which injures the vine by rolling up the leaves and causing them to wither, but which does not attack the fruit. Neither can they be applied, as we shall shortly see, to the various species of the caterpillars or larvæ of the Lepidoptera which attack the vine.

It is therefore proved that the Ips or Iks of the Greeks is the Volucra or Volvox of the Latins, and the Eumolpus of the vine the Eumolpus Vitis of modern entomologists.

VIII. Involvulus.—Convolvulus.—Pyralis of Bosc d'Antic.—Vercoquin.—Procris Vitis, or Procris ampelophaga.—Vine-moth.—Grape-moth.—Tortrix Heperana.—Cochylis Roserana.—From the recipes given by Pliny and Cato to prevent the multiplication of the Convolvulus, we learn that it was an insect eminently destructive of the vine; but as they neither give any description of it nor furnish us with any particulars respecting it, excepting that it was a different species from the Volucra or Volvox, we have no means of ascertaining whether this name applies to the same insect as is denoted by the name Involvulus employed by Plautus in the passage which has been quoted. In this uncertainty, the similarity of the roots and the conformity of the onomatopœia, indicative of similar habits and industry, will not allow us to separate these two words, and induce us to presume that they were employed to designate the same object, or rather that they are one name, to which are adjoined two different particles, which do not alter its signification. The description of the industry attributed by Plautus to the Involvulis, to the little beast, "bestiola quæ in pampini folio intorta implicat se," can be applied only to caterpillars or the larvæ of the Lepidoptera. The caterpillar not only coils up the leaf of the plant in which it envelops itself, like the larva of the Eumolpus or Coupe-bourgeon, but it attaches itself to it, and by means of silken filaments which it draws from its own body, constructs for its metamorphosis a web of silk, in which it envelops itself, "implicat se." The caterpillars of a whole family of Lepidoptera envelop themselves in this manner in the leaves of plants. To discover the Involvulus or Convolvulus of the ancients it is therefore only necessary to examine those insects of the numerous family of the Phalænæ Tortrices of which the caterpillar attacks the vine. According to the observations of Bosc, the cultivators of the South of France give the name of Vine-moth to one of the Lepidoptera which is seldom found in the environs of Paris. The caterpillar or larva of this moth attacks the grapes when they have attained half of their full growth, and it proceeds from one grape to another by means of a gallery which it constructs^[99]. There is another species named Grape-moth^[100], which also devours this fruit, and commences its ravages at the same period as the former, but it seldom attacks more than one grape at a time; this species committed great depredations in the vineyards in the vicinity of Constance a few years ago. A species similar to this, or to the preceding one, and of which one or two insects are sufficient to destroy a whole vine, was observed in the Crimea by Pallas^[101]. This species appears to be the caterpillar of a Procris or Zigæna (a genus separated from the genus Sphinx), and is said to be nearly allied to the Zigæna Statices; it is found upon the sorrel and dock in the environs of Paris^[102]. The Pyralis fasciana^[103], which has anterior wings of a dark cinder colour, with a brown line and points of the same colour, has also been mentioned as infesting the vine, or as corresponding to one of the species just alluded to. There is also another species which may be ranked among the insects to which our cultivators have given the names of Vine-moth and Grape-moth, we mean Hübner's Tinea ambiguell^[104]. But to determine the synonymy of the various species of the Lepidoptera more particularly injurious to the vine, which I have found mentioned in the works of naturalists, travellers, and agriculturists, I have had recourse to the skilful and practised eye, and the judicious criticism of M. Duponchel, one of the most accomplished lepidopterists of Europe.

From an attentive examination of this subject we conclude that, with the exception of those which are occasionally found upon the vine, as well as upon other plants, without producing much injury, and of which we shall treat in the following sections, all the species of Lepidoptera which may be considered as particularly detrimental to the vine are reduced to the four following, all producing caterpillars which envelop themselves in leaves, and to which may equally be applied the ancient names of Involvulus and Convolvulus. In fact we cannot possibly suppose that the ancients made observations sufficiently exact to distinguish differences which the moderns themselves, notwithstanding the extended inquiries lately made upon the subject, have great difficulty in proving.

The first of these species is that which was observed by Bosc, and which he names Pyralis Vitis; Fabricius has described this insect under the name of Pyralis Vitanu, from the specimen in Bosc's collection. For reasons, unfortunately too decisive, which we shall presently allege, we shall not preserve either of these names: we name it Pyralis Danticana, from Bosc's second name Dantic, the name Bosc having been employed by Fabricius in his description of another Pyralis which he calls Pyralis Boscana. The second species is the Procris ampelophaga of Duponchel, Bayle, and Passerini, the Procris Vitis of Boisduval. The third species is the Tortrix Roserana of Frölich, the Cochylis Roserana of Duponchel and Treitschke, and the Tinea ambiguella of Hübner. The fourth is the Tortrix Heperana of Treitschke and Duponchel, the Pyralis fasciana of Fabricius.

The caterpillar of the Cochylis Roserana, mentioned by Fölich as causing great devastations in the vineyards near Stuttgard, has not been described by him or any other entomologist that I am acquainted with. There remains then the Pyralis Danticana^[105], the ampelophaga^[106] of Bayle and Passerini, and the Fasciana, the destructive effects of which upon the vine cannot be called in question. The caterpillars of the first two species are the only ones upon which we have continued observations; these we proceed to mention. The larva or caterpillar of the first of these two species, the P. Danticana^[107], according to Bosc, is comprehended with other species in the environs of Paris under the collective name of larvæ or worms which injure the vine; in Burgundy and the vine provinces it is called Ver-coquin, a denomination which is also sometimes given to the white worm of the Cockchafer, the Spondyle of Pliny. This caterpillar of the Pyralis of the vine is, shortly after its birth, a centimetre in length; its head is black and its body green, and it has a yellow spot on each side of the neck. Its first appearance is about the end of May, but its greatest devastations are made in the middle of June. It cuts the petioles of the leaves in halves, which causes them to wither, and enables the insect to roll them with greater facility. When the leaf first attacked withers, in consequence of the wound which it has made in the petiole, it proceeds to attack another; and thus one of these caterpillars will destroy several leaves, weaken the vine, and prevent the grapes from becoming large and sweet. This insect does not attack the fruit, but destroys the peduncle of the bunch, which, if it do not wither, remains small and without flavour. When the greater part of the leaves are infested, all the bunches are soon in the same condition, because they grow at the bottom of the stem, and it is there that this caterpillar commences its ravages. The butterfly or Pyralis of this caterpillar is of the size of the nail of the little finger; its wings are of a green fulvous colour, with three oblique bands of brown. These Pyralides are most abundant in the month of July. During the day they remain clinging upon the stems, under the leaves, whence they fly upon the slightest approach of danger. Towards the decline of the day, in the dusk, the male seeks the female; but those which leave their retreats at an earlier hour become the prey of the swallows and other insectivorous birds.

I have remarked that Bosc identified the butterfly which he described under the name of Pyralis Vitis with a new species that Fabricius names Pyralis Vitana. This species, as I have said, was described by Fabricius at Paris from a specimen in Bosc's collection; and he adds five or six lines of technical description. M. Coquebert, of Reims, published at the same time four fasciculi of insects, drawn, engraved and coloured from the specimens observed and described by the Danish naturalist in the collections of Paris, and among the number is the Pyralis Vitana or Pyralis Vitis of Bosc. It would appear that no insect ought to be better known than the one we are treating of; this however is not the fact. After a most attentive examination, Duponchel finds the descriptions of Fabricius and Bosc too short, and insufficient for the recognition of the insect and the determination of its species; he considers Coquebert's figure of it as too coarsely drawn to throw any light upon the descriptions. This is also the case with the descriptions of Bosc, and the figures by which his memoirs are accompanied. The German authors, Frölich, Treitschke, and others, who in latter times have particularly devoted themselves to the study of the smaller species of Phalænae, or Moths, are of the same opinion as Duponchel, for not one of them mentions the Pyralis Vitana of Fabricius. This species is not mentioned in their voluminous works specially devoted to these insects; or if it be mentioned, it is without their being themselves aware of it. If in the numerous species which they have described they had discovered the Pyralis Vitana they would not have failed to cite Fabricius, whose works are in the hands of every entomologist. In this difficulty Duponchel has had recourse to Bosc's collection, which now forms part of the collection at the Museum; and he has found there, under the name of Vitana, a Pyralis which is figured and described by the German authors under the name of Pillerana. Now, according to them, the caterpillar of this Pyralis lives upon the Stachys Germaniæ, a plant too entirely distinct from the vine to allow of it being easily admitted that it lives indifferently upon the two vegetables. But besides, Fabricius has also described the Pyralis Pillerana, and the description which he gives of it differs essentially from the Pyralis Vitana; the latter is marked with three bands, the Pillerana has only two; the colour of the ground in the Vitana is of a brownish green, that of the Pillerana is of a golden green. From these circumstances M. Duponchel thinks that Bosc has committed the error of labelling one species for another; or, which is more probable, that the label of the Pyralis Vitana has been displaced in his collection, which is in great disorder. Duponchel has compared the description given by Bosc of the caterpillar of the Pyralis Vitana with those of all the caterpillars of the Pyralides or Tortrices mentioned in the authors who have treated of this family, and has not found one which appeared to apply to it. I however maintain, and remarked to him, that even if we could suppose that Bosc had been deceived with regard to the butterfly proceeding from the caterpillar, he was not so with regard to the existence of the caterpillar itself, and the curious observations which he had made upon it; and that being myself, two years ago, at Braubach on the Rhine, in the state of Nassau, I remarked a cultivator (the innkeeper of the place) engaged in pulling off such of the leaves of his vines as were coiled up, and he told me it was to destroy an insect which made great havoc in them. I opened several of these leaves, and found in them a very small caterpillar, which I examined with a lens; I perceived that it was the caterpillar described by Bosc, and which I had also previously observed in the environs of Paris. I expressed my surprise to M. Duponchel that after the progress which had been made by the united efforts of French and German naturalists in this branch of entomology, we could not recognise a butterfly which had been twice drawn and described by skilful naturalists, and which must be common, since its caterpillar was so. To this M. Duponchel replied that he thought I was mistaken in supposing myself certain of having distinguished the caterpillar described by Bosc, because the description given of it by this naturalist in his memoir is so far from precise that it may be applied to all the caterpillars of this genus which have green bodies and black heads, but which differ in other characters of which he does not speak, such, for example, as the colour of the verrucose points with which all the caterpillars of this group are decorated. As to the butterfly, the description and figure by Bosc, the description by Fabricius, and Coquebert's figure, drawn from the individual described by Fabricius in Bosc's collection, may equally be applied to the four following species of Phalænæ: the Cerasana and Riberana of Treitschke, and the Corylana and Fascima of Fabricius. The last approaches more nearly than the others to Bosc's description; but this species is also described by Fabricius, and Bosc has not recognised it as his own. Still more, after saying that Réaumur had not anywhere mentioned the caterpillar which was the subject of his memoir, he adds: "It appears to be equally rare in other climates, for neither Linnæus, Fabricius, nor Scopoli has described the Phalænæ which it produces."

From these researches and explanations it appears that if the Pyralis Danticana, Pyralis Vitana of Fabricius, has not been confounded by him and Bosc with the Fasciana; that if it be not the same species as the latter, it must be considered as a species still unknown, and which cannot be well known until we have bred all the caterpillars found upon the vine which resemble the one described by Bosc. To deduce this deficiency in science is almost to acquire the certainty of its being speedily supplied. Although the silence of the Italian naturalists relative to this caterpillar be not a decisive reason for thinking that it is not found in Italy, and did not receive from the ancients the name of Involvulus, yet this is more especially true with regard to another caterpillar to which the names Convolvulus and Involvulus appear more peculiarly applicable. More attentive observations have been made upon this caterpillar than upon that described by Bosc, and its butterfly is well known as the Procris ampelophaga, or Procris of the vine so much dreaded by all the cultivators of Tuscany. This caterpillar sometimes injures considerably the buds and young shoots of the vine. In Piedmont it sometimes devours half the vine-plots. It is five or six lines in length, and two lines or two and half in width; its colour is a brown gray, and the hair is disposed in stars in four longitudinal rows in semi-globular relief towards the anterior part. The inferior surface of the abdomen is smooth and of a yellow white; it attains its full growth towards the end of May, and it is then that it destroys the leaves of the vine. It attaches itself to the upper part of the leaf, and if the branch upon which it is found be shaken, it bends itself in the form of a bow by resting upon the two extremities of its body, and drops down upon the earth. The greatest number of these caterpillars that are to be found upon one vine amounts to about ten; they are generally much fewer. Between the 20th and 30th of May this caterpillar spins a cod of long white flocks, in which it remains motionless, and is transformed into a chrysalis from the 5th to the 10th of June. The chrysalis is at first yellow, with black points upon each segment, but at the moment of transformation the colour increases in intensity and is changed into, a deep azure blue. The transformation of the chrysalis into the butterfly generally commences on the 19th of June, and is not concluded till the 25th. This butterfly is the Procris Vitis, or Procris ampelophaga of modern entomologists. Its wings are of a dark colour, approaching to black, and changing into a sombre green; the body is of a blueish green. The Musca brevis often introduces its eggs into the body of the chrysalis of this butterfly; the larvæ of the fly feed on the substance of the chrysalis without altering its exterior, and the chrysalis thus appears to be metamorphosed into a fly instead of producing a butterfly. Each female of this Procris lays about three hundred straw-coloured eggs, of so small a size that they are scarcely visible to the naked eye. Towards the 3rd of July these eggs produce small whitish caterpillars, which are transparent, and covered with almost imperceptible hairs. The caterpillars of this second race are metamorphosed about the 26th of August.

I have myself verified in part the observations made upon the caterpillar of the Pyralis Danticana by Bosc. The habits of the Procris ampelophaga are only known to me from the memoir of M. Passerini. But if the first species be as abundant in Italy as the second, I shall be induced to think that it is to it that the ancients more particularly applied the names of Involvolus, Involvulus, Involvus, and Convolvulus.

IX. Kampe.—Eruca.—Caterpillars of the Sphinx Elpenor, or Sphinx of the Vine,—of the Bombyx purpurea, or Ecaille mouchetée (Spotted Tiger-moth),—and of the Sphinx Porcellus, or Sphinx with red bands.—The other caterpillars that are found upon the vine, and which may occasionally injure it, as well as plants of every other kind, do not belong to the tribe of Tortrices, or Pyralides, nor to the genus Procris. The species which I have most frequently had occasion to remark, are the Bombyx purpurea of Fabricius, the Arctia purpurea of modern naturalists, and the Ecaille mouchctée of Geoffroy, which lives also upon the common broom, the elm, and twenty other plants^[108]. The Sphinx Elpenor, or the Sphinx of the vine of Geoffroy, (this is not the Sphinx Vitis of modern entomologists, an American butterfly which does not live upon the vine,) is frequently found upon the vine, but it is also met with not less frequently upon the Epilobium, the Salicaria, the balsam, and the convolvulus^[109]. Lastly, the Sphinx Porcellus, or the Sphinx with red indented bands, the caterpillar of which is sometimes found upon the vine, but still more often upon the honey-suckle, lavender, and more especially upon the yellow bed-straw, Galium verum^[110]. The last two species have caterpillars as large as the little finger, and as they keep upon the summit of the shoots they may be easily removed.

These are the caterpillars or larvae of Lepidoptera which the Greeks and Latins, when speaking of insects infesting the vine, designated by the general names of Kampe or Eruca; but they did not confound these larvae with worms, and they knew that they underwent metamorphoses.

X. Phtheir.—Tholea or Tholaath.—Coccus Vitis —Kermes of the Vine.—Coccus Adonidum.—Greenhouse Coccus.—The Phtheir or louse of the vine, which Ctesias mentions as an insect which causes the vine to perish, and which in the Geoponics is classed with the caterpillars among that plant's greatest enemies, can correspond only to the Coccus Vitis, to the Cocci, or the Kermes of the vine^[111]. We know that the Cocci or gall-insects, or the Cochineals, with the Aphides, are the insects which, from their small size and their rapid multiplication, are the most similar to the louse; their females also, like lice, are apterous, or without wings. The Cocci cover so completely the bark of the trees that it has a scurfy appearance. When the female has deposited her eggs, her body dries up and becomes a solid crust, which covers the eggs, and its squamous surface is not unlike fat nits. These insects do harm by piercing the wood with their sharp proboscis, which is formed of a sheath having numerous joints, and three bristles or darts of great tenuity. With this tube they suck the sap and cause it to flow. Our cultivators do not complain of these insects, and know but little of them, because the annual pruning which the vines undergo prevents their multiplication, as the Cocci can only live upon young wood, while its epidermis is still tender. They are however sometimes very abundant upon neglected vines; and in countries where the vine is only cultivated in greenhouses, they multiply extremely, whilst the other enemies of the vine are there unknown^[112]. But the vines in greenhouses are not attacked by the same species of Cocci as they are exposed to in the open air. In the former situation they are attacked by the Coccus Adonidum^[113], not by the Coccus Vitis. If, as has been asserted, this insect originally came from Senegal, it is not among the species treated of by the ancients, who also could never have distinguished from each other the various species of the Coccus, which is as much as can be effected by the practised eye of the modern entomologist, aided by a powerful lens, even since the beautiful and recent work of M. Boyer de Fonscolombe upon these insects. This skilful naturalist remarks with truth that there are no well-established limits between the Kermes and the Cocci, between the Gall-insect and the Progall-insects of Réaumur. He therefore makes but one genus of the Coccus and the Kermes; but this he subdivides into several sections, and the Coccus of the vine^[114] belongs to the section which is composed of species which at the time of laying have naked bodies, without any trace of rings or members, and rest upon a very cottony nest. The Coccus Adonidum, or Kermes of the greenhouse, is also remarkable for the white and downy substance which transudes through its skin, and which gives it a mealy aspect.

The interpretation of the word Thola, Tholea, or Tholaath employed in the Bible, which we considered at the commencement of these researches, applies to the name Phtheir given to the Gall-insect by the author of the Geoponics. It will be recollected that the result of our long discussion upon this subject was, that Thola is employed in the Bible to signify not only a worm, vermin, an insect or larva of an insect, or an animal vile and despicable, but also an insect or larva of an insect which infested the vine, and another plant, the name of which we are unacquainted with, but which we know to have been a large tree, because it gave an extensive shade. Indications so vague would not lead us to any probable conjecture upon the subject of the Thola or Tholea, if this word, which in the Bible is employed separately, were not elsewhere frequently found in conjunction with the word Dibaphi^[115] to denote the insect that the Arabs term Kermes, and which, when heated with vinegar, produces a fine red colour, in a word, the Cochineal insect. The species of cochineal which produces this colour in Europe are the Coccus Ilicis, which attaches itself to the green oak^[116], and which consequently may be the insect mentioned in the Bible as the destroyer of a tree giving shade; and the Coccus Polonicus, which adheres to the roots of the annual Scleranthus and other plants^[117]. The Coccus of the vine does not produce this colour, but the resemblance of these insects, and their generic affinities, must have caused them to be confounded with the other Coccus, or the Tholaath Dibaphi, or at least comprehended under the same denomination. Thus we say, and with much less propriety, the worm of the apple and the nut, though these are the larvæ of insects of very dissimilar genera. The word Thola or Tholaath in the Bible was employed for vermin, louse, a small, insignificant, vile, and contemptible insect, as the Phtheir; but the epithet Dibaphi, designating the Kermes or insect useful in dyeing, which was sometimes added to the word Thola or Tholaath, indicated sufficiently, by the similarity of the species, the nature of the insect or vermin intended by the word, and which was productive of so great injury to the vine and certain trees.

XI. Means which are to he employed to destroy the Insects which infest the Vine.—The recipes of Pliny and Columella for the protection of the vine from the insects which attack it appear to prove that the Cocci committed greater ravages upon the vines in ancient than in modern times. Their directions were to rub the stems and branches of this plant with greasy substances, such as oil or bear's fat, to which was also added the use of vesicating substances. Modern cultivators, as I have said, protect the vine from the Coccus by pruning it. But other methods must be employed for the destruction of the Weevils (Becmares) and Coupe-bourgeons, the Rhynchites Bacchus and Rhynch. Betuleti, and the Eumolpus Vitis. The best of all is to choose the moment when these insects have undergone metamorphosis and begin to copulate, and to place under each vine a kind of basin made for the purpose in the form of a deeply recurved crescent, so as to surround the stem or branch under which it is placed, and then to shake the branches and make the insects fall into it. The substitution for the basin of a very wide tin funnel with a bag at the extremity, into which the insects fall, has been proposed; also that of linen twisted into the same form. The same means may be applied for the caterpillars of the butterfly or moth as for the Coleoptera, especially when they have arrived at a certain size. The devastation is then indeed almost completed, for the leaves are decayed and partly devoured; but the repetition of the evil in the following years may be precluded by thus preventing the reproduction of the insects. To this method may be added another, which is particularly adapted to the destruction of the Pyralis of the vine, the Procris ampelophaga of Passerini, and in general to that of all the small species of Phalænæ which attack the vine: it is that of lighting fires at the commencement of the night in a direction opposite to the wind. The insects come in crowds to the fire and are burned. These fires must be renewed for ten or twelve days in succession, but not when there is much rain or wind; for not only the flame will not burn, but the butterflies in such weather remain obstinately fixed to the leaves to which they have attached themselves. The most effectual method of destroying all the larvæ of the Lepidoptera and Coleoptera which attack the vine is to remove, one by one, the coiled leaves in which these insects have deposited their eggs, and to throw them into a furnace and burn them. This method is the most tedious and expensive, but it is also the most certain; and I have seen it pursued with great patience and care in the state of Nassau by the cultivators on the banks of the Rhine.

Third Section.

Synonymy of all the species of insects which have been mentioned in these researches.

We shall present in this section one of the principal summaries of these investigations by giving the synonymy of all the insects of which we have had occasion to treat; but to adapt it to the end in view we must proceed in an order the inverse of that which we followed in the preceding section; that is, we must first give the synonymy of the insects which are most detrimental to the vine plants, and then proceed to those which only injure them occasionally, and conclude with those which the ancients have erroneously designated as the enemies of the vine; carefully conforming, with regard to each of these three sorts of insects, to the classification most generally adopted by modern naturalists. Finally, we shall conclude by giving a list of insects which do not injure the vine, but the synonymy of which has been incidentally determined in these researches.

I. Synonymy of the Insects most injurious to the Vine.

COLEOPTERA.
Ancient Names.		Names of Modern Naturalists, Latin and French.	Common Names.
1.	Greek. Ips (Vitis). Iks.	Eumolpus Vitis (the larva).	French. Gribouri de la Vigne (the larva). — Coupe-bourgeon. — Ebourgeonneur. — Couturière. — Ver de la Vigne.
2.	Latin. Volucra.	Eumolpus Vitis (the perfect insect).	Gribouri de la Vigne (the perfect insect).
		Eumolpe de la Vigne.	Coupe-bourgeon, &c.
3.	Latin. Volvox.	1. Rhynchites Bacchus (the larva).	Urbie. — Béche. — Lisette. — Diableaux. — Destreaux.
		2. Attelabus Betuleti (the larva). Attelabe de la Vigne. Charanson de la Vigne.	Italian. Tagliadizzo.
4.	Greek, Kantharis.	1. Rhynchites Bacchus (the perfect insect). 2. Rhynchites Betuleti (the perfect insect). Attelabe de la Vigne. Charanson de la Vigne.	Becmare. — Eng. Weevil. Velours vert.
5.	Greek. Kantharis. Melolontha. Latin. Scarabæus.	Lethrus Cephalotes.	German. Schneider (Cutter).
ORTHOPTERA.
1.	Hebrew. Gaza.	1. Locusta Ephippiger (Sauterelle à selle ou à cymbale).	English, Saddle Locust.
		2. Locusta aptera (Sauterelle aptère).	Wingless Locust.
		3. Locusta Puppa (Sauterelle-Nymphe).	Nymph Locust.
HEMIPTERA.
1.	Hebrew. Thola, Tholea, or Tholaath. Tholaath Dibaphi.	1. Coccus Vitis; Cochenille de la Vigne.	English. Mealy-bug (Punaise farineuse). Kermes of the vine.
	Greek. Phtheir.	——— Adonidum.	Cochenille des Serres (Greenhouse Coccus).
		——— Ilicis.	Cochenille du Chêne vert.
		——— Polonicus.	Cochenille de la Scleranthe.
LEPIDOPTERA.
1.	Latin. Involvulus or Involvolus.	Pyralis Danticana (the caterpillar)?	Fr. Ver-Coquin. Teigne de la Vigne.
	Involvus. Convolvulus. Campe.	Pyralis Vitis. Base Dantic, Mém. de la Société d'Agric. 1786, p. 22, pl. 4. fig. 6.	Eng. Vine-moth.
	Greek. Kampe.	Pyralis Vitana.
		Pyralis Fasciana. Fabric., Entom. System.
2.	Latin. Convolvulus. Involvulus.	Procris ampelophaga (the caterpillar). Duponchel, Suppl. à l'Hist. des Lépid. t. 2, p. 92, pl. 8, fig. 2.	Fr. Teigne du Raisin. Ver Coquin. Ital. Ritoritello. Eng. Grape-moth.
		Procris ampelophaga. Bayle-Barelle, Dei Insetti nocivi; Milano, 1824.
		Procris ampelophaga. Passerini, Mem. sopra due Specie d'Insetti nocivi, nelle Mem. dell' Accad. dei Georgifili, 1830, p. 4, t. 1, fig. 1 e 14.
		Sphinx ampelophaga. Hübn. Suppl. t. 24, fig. 153 et 154.
		Atychia ampelophaga. Treitschke, t. 10, Suppl. p. 100.
		Sphinx Vitis. Freyer, Beytr. ii., Bd. xii., Ht. 5, 69, tab. 68.
		Procris Vitis. Boisduval, Icones Historiques des Lépidoptères nouveaux, t. 2, p. 79, pl. 56, fig. 2 et 3.
3.	Involvulus. Convolvulus.	Cochylis Roserana. Duponchel. Hist. des Lépidopt. t. 9, p. 418, pi. 257, fig. 8.	Teigne de la Vigne. Rouleuse. Tordeuse.
		Tortrix Roserana. Frœlich, Enumer. Tortricum Würtemb. indig. p. 52. No. 511.	Eng. Leaf-roller. Small Brown-bar.
		Tinea ambiguella. Hübner, tab. 22, fig. 153 (fœm.).
		Cochylis Roserana. Treitschke, t. 8, p. 280.
4.	Involvulus. Convolvulus.	Tortrix Heperana (the caterpillar).	Chape-Brune Teigne du Lilas.
		Tortrix Heperana (the caterpillar). Duponchel, Hist, des Lépidoptères de France, t. 9, p. 67, pl. 238, fig. 7.	Teigne du Raisin. Teigne de la Vigne
		Tortrix Heperana. Wien, verz.? Illiger, Schranck, Gotze et Treitschke, t. viii. p. 58, No. 8.	Eng. Dark Oblique-bar.
		Tortrix Padana. Schranck, Faun. Boica, ii., 32, Abth. 5, 78, No. 1755.
		Tortrix Carpiniana. Hübner, tab. 18, fig. 16 (fœm.).
		Tortrix Pasquayana. Frœlich, Wien, Verz. p. 36, No. 55
		Pyralis Fasciana. Fabricius, Ent. Syst. iii. 2, 348, 24.
		Lozotænia Carpiniana. Stephens, Syst. Cat. of British Insects, p. 169, No. 6852.
		La Chape-Brune. Geoffroy, t. 2, p. 169, No. 118.
		Phalène Chape-Brune du Lilas. Degeer, t. 1. Mém. 13, p. 403.
II. Insects which only occasionally injure the Vine.
COLEOPTERA.
Ancient Names.		Names of Modern Naturalists, Latin and French.	Common Names.
1.	Greek. Spondyle.	Melolontha vulgaris. — Le Hanneton vulgaire.	Le Hanneton. — Eng. Cock-chafer; May-bug; Oak-web.
2.	Latin. Spondyle genus serpentis (Plin.).	Melolontha vulgaris (the larva).	Ver blanc. Turc.
	Melolontha Vitis (the larva).	Man. Courterolle. Petit Hanneton d'été, ou Hanneton vert (the grub).
ORTHOPTERA.
1.	Biurus	Acheta Grillo-Talpa (Fabr.). Talpa Ferrantis (Aldr.).	La Courtillièire. — Eng. Mole-cricket.
LEPIDOPTERA.
1.	Greek. Kampe. Latin. Eruca.	1. Arctia purpurea (the caterpillar). L'Ecaille mouchetée.	Chenilles de la Vigne. Vine Caterpillars.
		2. Sphinx Elpenor (the caterpillar). Sphinx ou Papillon rouge de la Vigne.	Eng. Elephant Moth.
		3. Sphinx Porcellus (the caterpillar). Sphinx ou Papillon à bande rouge dentelée.	Eng. Small Elephant Moth.
III. Insects erroneously described by the ancients as injuring the Vine.
POLYPODA.
1.	Greek. Iulios. Latin. Centipedes. Millipedes.	1. Julius sabulosus, Jules des sables.	Mille-Pieds. Eng. Galley-worm.
		2. Julius terrestris, Jules terrestre.
		3. Julius communis, Jules commun.
COLEOPTERA,
1.	Greek. Kantharis. Latin. Cantharis.	1. Mylabris Cichorii, Mylabre de la Chicorée.	Mouches-cantharides.
		2. Lytta vesicatoria, la Cantharide.	Eng. Spanish Fly.
2.	Greek. Ips (Homer).	Dermestes (the larva).	Ver. — Eng. Leather-eater.
IV. Names of Insects mentioned by the Ancients, which do not injure the Vine, but the modern names of which have been determined in these investigations.
1.	Greek. Melolontha. Kantharis.	Coleoptera of Linnaeus. Eleutherata of Fabricius.	Scarabées. Escarbots.
	Latin. Scarabæus. Cantharis.		Eng. Beetles, Chaffers, Dors, Clocks, and Bobs.
2.	Greek, Kantharis.	Latin. 1. Ateuchus sacer. Scarabæus sacer.	Le Pillulaire.
Latin.	1.	Scarabæus qui pilas volvit (Plin.).	2. Ateuchus Ægyptiorum. Scarabée sacré. Bousier sacré.	Eng. Tumble-dung Beetle.
3.	2.	Scarabæus cui sunt cornicula reflexa (Plin.). Bousierof Horapollo, which has two horns and resembles a bull.	Latin. Onitis Midas. French. Bousier à deux cornes.	Le Pillulaire.
4.	3.	Lucanus cui sunt cornua praelonga bisulcis dentata forcipibus in cacumine (Plin.).	Latin. Lucanus cervus.
			French. Lucane Cerf-volant.	Le Cerf-volant.—Eng. Stag-beetle. Pinch-bob.
5.	4.	Scarabæus Fullo albis guttis (Plin.).	Latin. Cetonia aurata.
			French. Cétoine dorée.	Eng. Green or Rose Beetle.
6.	5.	Ips of Homer, of St. John Chrysostom, and of the grammarians of the middle ages.	Larva of the Dermestes Pellio, of the Dermestes Lardarius; the larva not yet known of a species of Dermestes which is related to these two species, and which gnaws the horn of the Ægagrus, or wild goat.
7.	Greek. Kantharis.		Latin. 1. Curculio granarius, Calandra granaria.	Corn-weevil.
	Latin. Scarabaeus parvus Cantharis dictus (Plin.).		French. La Calandre, ou le Charanson des Grains. Laiin. 2. Curculio frumentarius, Apion frumentarius. French. Charanson du Froment.

V. Summary of the Synonymy of the Insects mentioned in these researches, arranged according to their natural order.—To accommodate agronomers and the learned, we thought it necessary in the preceding paragraph to divide the synonymy of the insects which have been mentioned in these researches into three sections. For the use of naturalists it must be repeated according [to the natural order, and without any distinction of those which injure the vine much, or little, or not at all. For the sake of brevity we shall be satisfied with designating the insect by the name which it bears in our best systems; it will be immediately followed by the French or common name most generally in use, and lastly by the ancient names, printed in small capitals.

Myriapoda.		Coleoptera.
1.	Julus sabulosus, Jule des sables. Julios, Centipedes, Millepedes.	1.	Dermestes Lardarius, Dermestes Pellio, aut species proxima; (the larva). Le Dernieste des fourrures ou de la come (the larva). Ips of Homer.
2.	Julus terrestris, Jule terrestre. Julios, Centipedes, Millepedes.
3.	Julus communis, Jule commun. Julios, Centipedes, Millepedes.
2.	Ateuchus sacer, le Bousier sacré, le Pillulaire.
	Cantharis, Scarabæus qui pilas volvit (Plin.).
3.	Atenchus Ægpytiorum, Bousier Egyptien.
	Cantharis, Scarabæus qui pilas volvit (Plin.).
4.	Onitis Midas, le Bousier à deux cornes.
	Scarabæus cui sunt cornicula reflexa.
5.	Lethrus Cephalotes, Schneider (Cutter).
	Kantharis, Melolontha, Scarabæus.
6.	Melolontha vulgaris, le Hanneton ordinaire.
	Spondyle (the perfect insect).
	Sphondyle genus serpentis (Plin.) (the larva).
7.	Cetonia aurata, la Cetoine dorée.
	Scarabæus Fullo albis guttis (Plin.).
8.	Lucanus Cervus, le Cerf-volant.
	Lucanus
9.	Mylabris cichorii, Mylabre de la chicorée.
	Kantharis, Cantharis.
10.	Lytta vesicatoria, la Cantharide.
	Kantharis, Cantharis.
11.	Eumolpus Vitis, Gribouri de la Vigne (the perfect insect). Ver-Coquin (the larva).
	Ips (the larva). Volucra (the perfecti nsect).
12.	Rhynchites Bacchus, Attelabe de la Vigne, Becmare, Tagliadizzo.
	Volvox, Cantharis.
13.	Rhynchites Betuleti, Velours-Vert.
	Cantharis.
14.	Calandra granaria, la Calandre, Charanson des grains.
	Scarabæus parvus Cantharis dictus (Plin.).
15.	Curculio frumentarius, Charanson du Froment.
	Scarabæus parvus Cantharis dictus (Plin.)

|

Orthoptera.
1.	Acheta Gryllo-Talpa, le Grillon-Taupe, la Courtilière.
	Biurus (Cicero, Plin.).
2.	Locusta Ephippiger, Loc. aptera. Loc. Pupa.
	Sauterelle à Cymbales, Sauterelle aptère, Sauterelle Nymphe.
	Gaza(Hebrew).
Hemiptera.
1.	Coccus Vitis, Coc. Adonidum, Coc. Polonicus, Cochenille de la Vigne, Cochenille des Serres, Cochenille de la Scléranthe.
	Thola or Tholaath (Hebrew). Phtheir (Greek).
Lepidoptera.
1.	Arctia purpurea, l'Ecaille mouchetée.
	Kampe, Eruca (the caterpillar).
2.	Sphinx Elpenor, Pap. rouge de la Vigne.
	Kampe, Eruca.
3.	Sphinx Porcellus, Papillon à bande rouge dentelée.
	Kampe, Eruca (the caterpillar).
4.	Pyralis Danticana, P. Vitana, Chenille ou Teigne de la Vigne, Ver-coquin, la Chenette.
	Campe, Involvulus, Involvus, Convolvulus.
5.	Procris ampelophaga, Atychia ampelophaga, Procris Vitis, Teigne du Raisin, Ritoritello.
	Campe, Involvulus, Involvus, Convolvulus (the caterpillar).
6.	Cochylis Roserana, Tortrix Roserana, Tinea ambiguella, Teigne de la Vigne.
	Campe, Involvulus, Involvus, Convolvulus (the caterpillar).
7.	Tortrix Heperana, Pyralis Fasciana, Lozotænia Carpiniana, Tort. Padana, T. Pasquayana, Chenille de la Chape-brune, Teigne du Lilas, Teigne de la Vigne.
	Campe, Involvulus, Involvus, Convolvulus, (the caterpillar).

|}

Thus there are thirty-six species of insects known by the moderns, of which we think we have determined the corresponding names in Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin.

VI. Conclusion.—In France at the present day, 800,000 hectares [1,976,914 acres] of land are planted with the vine, the fruit of which, converted into wine, yields an annual produce of 760,000,000 francs, [30,158,730l. sterling.] The consideration therefore of the insects destructive of a plant which is the source of so much wealth does not appear superfluous; and to lessen my regret at having so long occupied the time devoted by the Academy to researches of more importance, I would at least persuade myself that these minute inquiries are not devoid either of interest or of utility.

1. Camus, Hist, Nat. des Animaux d'Aristote, 4to, t. ii. p. 783.
2. These researches were read before the Academy of Inscriptions, of which the author is a member, before they were communicated to the Entomological Society.
3. Deuteronomy, chap, xxviii. verse 29.
4. La Sainte Bible, ou le Vieux et le Nouveau Testament, traduits par les Pasteurs et les Professeurs de I'Eglise de Geèeve. Genève, 1805, t. i. p. 276.
5. Bible of Arias Montanus.
6. Gesenius, Handbuch, &c., 1828, 8vo, p. 883.
7. Bocharti Hierozoicon, vol. ii. p. 623.
8. I Vide Cuvier, Regnè Animal, t.iii. p. 180, on the third grand division of ar-
9. Bocharti Hierozoicon, part ii. p. 483.
10. Burckhardt, Travels in Syria and the Holy Land, 1822, p. 405; Fischer, Synopsis Animalium, p. 483; Cuvier, Règne Animal (2eme edit.) t. i. p. 275.
11. Sanctus Joannes Chrysost. App. vol. iv. p. 669, E. St. John Chrysostom employs the word Scolex for the worm which preys upon wood. Scolex signifies the earth-worm, the true worm ; in fact, in the grammarians of the lower ages, according to the same authorities Scolex also means the worm infesting the ox, an intestinal worm, or the larva of an insect altogether different to the former. The Scolex of St. John Chrysostom, or the worm preying upon wood, can only be the larva of an insect, and in fact Aristotle employs the word with this meaning when he says that every insect proceeds from a Scolex.
12. Strabo (edit. Almenoven) folio, book xiii.p. 613: in the French translation, vol. iv. p. 213.
13. Theophrastus, De Causis Plantarum, book. iii. chap. 22; or 23 of Schneider's edit. vol. ii. p. 299. Scaliger translates the word Ips by Convolvulus, for which we shall see the reason elsewhere.
14. Geoponic, edit. Niklas, chap. liii. vers. 423.
15. Suidas, Lexicon, edit, of Kuster, 1705, folio, vol. ii. p. 141.
16. Bocharti Hierozoicon, vol. ii. p. 213.
17. Ammonius, tit. 2, chap. v. De Differentia adfinium Vocabulorum, nunc primum editum ope MSS. primæ edit. Aldinæ. Vulgavit Valckenaer, pp. 73, 74.
18. Herodiani Partitiones, Lend. 1819, 8o, p. 58.
19. Aristot., Hist. Anim., book v. chap. 7, edit. Schneider, vol. ii. p. 181 of the translation; and vol. i. p. 190 of the Greek; and book v. chap. 8. vol. i. p. 219 of the translation of Le Camus.
20. Aristot., book viii. chap. 24, Schneider, vol. iii. p. 276.
21. Schneider, Arist. Anim. Hist., vol. iv. p. 665.
22. Plin. Hist. Nat. book xxvii. §. 118. (chap. 13.); vol. viii. p. 106 of the edition of Franz.
23. Geoponica, edit. Niclas, 1781, 8vo, p. 418. ch. 49.
24. Palladius, book i. chap. 35; vol. i. p 43. Bipontinc edition.
25. Pliny, book .xx. chap. 9.
26. Aristophanes quoted In Aldrovandus De Insect., chap. iii. vol. i. p. 180.
27. St. Epiphanius, Panar. Rom., p. 1067, A. edit. Petav.
28. Origen, Contra Cels., book iv. chap. 57. p. 549, A. edit. Delavue.
29. Pliny, Hist. Nat., book xxix. chap. 30; vol. iii. p. 107. edit. Miller.
30. Pliny, Hist. Nat., chap. 44. or 17. vol. vi. p. 138 of the edition of Franzius.
31. Geoponica, edit. Niclas, chap. xxx. vol. iii. p. 485.
32. Ctesias, Indicorim, chap, xx p. 253. edit. Baehr. Frankf. 1824, 8vo.
33. Aristotle, De Anim., book v. chap. 19.
34. Theophrastus, book iv. chap. 16.
35. Pliny, book xii. chap. 24.
36. Joel, i. 4 ; ibid. ii. 25; Amos, iv. 9.
37. St. John Chrysostom, Homil. 2. in Acta Apostol., vol. iv. p. 621, book xiv Eton edit. 1612.
38. St. Gregory, Dialogorum Libri IV., book i. chap. 9. vol. ii. p. 396. Paris edition, 1675, folio.
39. Columella, book xi. chap. 3.
40. Palladius, in the Scriptores de Re Rustica, Bipontine edit., vol. i. p. 43.
41. Columella, De Cultu Hort., ver. 324. vol.i. p. 410. Bipontine edit, 1787, 8vo.
42. Columella, De Cultu Hort., book x. ver. 366. Gesner in his Dictionary also quotes Sextus Empiricus, t. 14, on the word Campe.
43. Ctesias, Indicorum, chap. xxi. p. 253. edit. Baehr. Frankfort, 1824, 8vo.
44. Suidas, Lexicon, vol. ii. p. 126. Frankfort edit.
45. Arist., Hist. Anim., book iv. chap. 1; vol. i. p. 129 of the Greek text, and vol. ii. p. 126 of the Latin translation, Schneider's edition; vol. i. p. 171 of the translation of Le Camus.
46. Arist., book i. chap. 5. vol, ii. p. 16 of Le Camus's translation.
47. Arist., book ii. chap. 4.
48. Ibid., book iv. chap. 7.
49. Pliny, Hist Nat., book ix. chap. 43.
50. Ibid., book xxix. chap. 6. vol. x. p. 128.
51. Pliny, Hist. Nat., book xxix. chap. 39. vol. viii.p. 273. Arist., Hist Anim., vol. v. chap. 25. (vulgò 31); Scaliger, 126. vol. ii. p. 221. Schneider's edition.
52. See Latreille, in Cuvier's Rèine Animal, vol. iv. p. 506. [edit, of 1829.]
53. It was necessary for my purpose to translate this passage literally; Limiers, Œuvres de Plaute, 12mo, vol. iii. p. 293; Levée, Théâtre des Latins, 8 vo, vol. iii. p. 416; Naudet, Théâtre de Plaute, 8vo, vol. iii. p. 187, may be consulted as to the manner in which it has been rendered by various translators.
54. Pomp. Festus, book i.. p. 103. edit, of Dair.
55. M. P. Cato, De Re Rustica, chap. 95. vol. i. p. 52, Bipontiiie edition; vol. i. p. 84. of the Scriptores Rei Agrariæ, 2nd edit, of Gesner.
56. Pliny, book xvii. chap. 28, 47. vol. ii. p. 91 of the edit. of Hardouin, folio; vol. v. p. 741. of the edit. of Franzius.
57. Columella, De Arboribus, chap. 15. vol. i. p. 55.
58. Columella, book x., De Cultu Hortorum, ver. 326 to 336.
59. Aristotle and Pliny. See p. 179, antea.
60. Aldrovandus, De Insectis: Frankfort, 1618, p. 225.
61. Aristotle, book v. chap. 19. vol. i, pp. 286 and 287; book i. chap. 4. No. 1. and books v., xii., and xvii. of Schneider's edition, 8vo, 1811, vol. ii. chap. 17. (vulgò 19. Scaliger 18), vol. ii. p. 207.
62. Aldrovandus, De Animalibus Insectis, p. 17.
63. Bochart, Hierozoicon, part ii. book iv. chap. 2.
64. See Latreille's Memoir upon the Insects painted or sculptured upon the ancient Monuments of Egypt, in the Mémoires sur divers Sujets, 8vo.
65. See Camus, Notes upon Aristotle's Hist. Anim., 4to, vol. ii. p. 478.
66. Caillaud, Voyage à Méroë et au Fleuve Blanc, p. 172, Atlas d'Hist. Nat. et d'Antiq., pl. 58: Latreille in Cuvier's Règne Anim., vol. iv. p. 533.
67. Compare Olivier, Coléopt., vol. i. No. 3. p. 150. No. 183. pl. 8. fig. 59. var. B. The pretended var. A. is a different insect; it has a clypeus between the elytra, which are also of a different form. Schœnherr, Synonymia Insect., vol. i. p. 18 ; Caillaud, Voyage à Méroë et au Fleuve Blanc, vol. iv. p. 272, Atlas d'Hist. Nat. et d'Antiq. ii. 58. p. 10.
68. Pliny, Hist. Nat., book il. chap. 34.
69. Latreille, Mémoires, pp. 148, 153. Compare Descript. de l'Égypte, vol. iii. p.34.
70. Mouffet, Insect., sive minimorum Animalium Theatrum, 1634, folio, p. 160.
71. J. Ray, Hist. Insect., 1710, 4to, p. 93.
72. C. J. Schœnherr, Synonymia Insect., part iii. Upsalia, 1817, 8vo, p. 164.
73. There are Coprides, but no Cetoniæ: among the Scarabræi at the Bibliothèque du Roi, but I have seen many of the latter in several other collections.
74. [What insect was really intended to be represented by the sculptures here alluded to is still we believe a subject of discussion. See London and Edinburgh Philosophical Magazine, vol. iv. p. 170.—Edit.]
75. Pliny, Hist. Nat., book xxix. chap. 38. vol. viii. p. 270.
76. Walckenaer, Faune Parisienne, vol. i. p. 185. Olivier, Entomologie, genus Hanneton, No. 39. pl. 2. fig. 12. a, b, c. p. 34. vol. i. Schœnherr, Synonymia Insect., vol. i. part iii. p. 193.
77. Leach, Zoological Miscellany, 1817, 8vo, vol. iii. p. 32 to 48.
78. Vulgate and Septuagint versions of the Bible. Aldrovandus, De Insectis, p. 160.
79. Mouffet, Insect. Theatr., p. 104. chap. 24.
80. Ferrante Imperato, Del Historia Naturale, libri 28, Naples, 1599, p. 787. Talpa insecto. This representation is better than the one given by Aldrovandus.
81. Acheta Grillo-Talpa, Fabr., System. Entom., vol. ii. p. 28. No. 1. Walckenaer, Faun. Paris., vol. ii. p. 282.
82. Baron de Morogue, Cours complet d'Agriculture, 1834, 8vo, vol. vii. p. 349, at the word Courterolle.
83. [An elaborate memoir "On the Anatomy of the Mole-cricket," by Dr. Kidd, will be found in the Philosophical Magazine, 1 st Series, vol. Ixvi. p. 401 .—Edit.]
84. Rosenmüller, Handbuch der Biblische alterthume Kunde, Leipsic, 4th Band, 1831, 8vo, pp. 386 and 388. Oedmann, Vermischte Sammlungen aus der Naturkunde, aus dem Schwedischen, uebersetz. von D, Groning, 1787, 12mo, 2nd Heft, pp. 116, 117.
85. Latreille in Cuvier's Règne Anim., vol. v. p. 63. Oliv. Coléop. iii. p. 47. pl. 1. Schœnherr, Synonymia, 1817, 8vo, p. 31. Mylabris, vol. i. part iii. p. 31. Oliv., Ent. iii. 47, 7. vol. i. fig. b, c.
86. Latreille in Cuvier, vol. v. p. 67. Schœnherr, Synonymia, vol. i. p. 20.
87. Schœnherr, Synonymia Curculionidum, vol. i. p. 283. No. 75, gems Apion. Walckenaer, Faun. Paris., vol. i. p. 237. No. 15. Latreille, Gener. Crust, et Insect., vol. ii. pp. 249 and 271. Ibid., Cuvier, vol. v. p. 88. Oliv., Entom. vol. v. 83, 16, 196.
88. Latreille, Gener. Crust, et Insect., vol. ii. p. 95. Ibid., Cuvier, vol. iv. p. 542. Fischer, Entom. de la Russie, p. 133. xiii. Kirby, Introd. to Entom., vol. i. p. 204. Ann. des Scien. Nat., vol. i. p. 221.
89. Walckenaer, Faun. Paris., vol. i. p. 249. Fabricius, Syst. Eleuth., vol. ii. p. 540. No. 201. Marsham, Entomologia Britannica, vol. i. p. 300. No. 180.
90. Walckenaer, Faun. Paris., vol. i. p. 235. Attelabus Betulæ. Schœnherr, Synonymia Insect., vol. i. p. 222. Panzer, Faun. Insect. Germ. xx. No. 6.
91. Schœnherr, Gen. et Spec. Curculionidum, Rhynchites Bacchus, vol. i. p. 219. No. 15. Latreille, Hist. Nat. des Ins., vol. ii. p. 85. Attelabus Bacchus. Panzer, Faun. Ins. Germ., fasc. 20. No. 5. Charanson Cramoisi of Geoff. Attelabe cuieré of Olivier.
92. Kirby, Introd. to Entom., vol. i. p. 199.
93. Schranck, Fauna Boïca, vol. i. p. 474. No. 498.
94. Aldrovandus, De Anim. Insect., chap. iv. 1638, folio, p. 472.
95. Latreille, in Cuvier's Tab. du Règne Animal, vol. iv. p. 503. Schœnherr, Synonymia Insect., vol. i. part ii. p. 236. No. 25. Walckenaer, Faun. Paris., vol. i. p. 124. No. 2. Panzer, Faun. Insect. Germ. Ixxxix. 12. Fabr., Syst. Eleulh., vol. i. p. 422.
96. Degeer, Mém. pour servir à I'Hist. des Ins., vol. v. p. 190.
97. Buchoz, Hist. Nat. des Ins. nuisibles à I'Homme, 1782, 12mo, p. 158 to 163.
98. Latreille, Nom Dict. d'Hist. Nat., vol. x. p. 358. He quotes Olivier, No. 96. pl. 1. fig. 1; but this figure does not represent the insect of the vine, but is a species from Brazil, the Eumolpus ignitus, which is a different insect.
99. Bosc, Notice sur la Pyrale et autres Insectes qui nuisent aux Vignobles; Esprit des Journaux, p. 139, and Bulletin de la Société d'Encouragement.
100. Kirby, Introduct. to Entomology, vol. i. p. 205.
101. Pallas, Travels in Russia, vol. ii. p. 241.
102. Walckenaer, Faun. Paris., vol. ii. p. 284. No. 2. Fabricius, Entom. Syst., vol. iii. part i. p. 406. No. 8. Godart, Hist, des Lépidoptères de France, vol. iii. p. 158. pi. 22. Dict. Classique d'Hist. Nat., vol. xiv. p. 289, at the word Procris.
103. Fabricius, Entom. Syst., vol. iii. part ii. p. 261. No. 78. Fabricius considers it to be the Tortrix Heparana of the Catalogue of Vienna; it is not the Fasciana of Linnæus. Compare Friedrich Treitschke, Die Schmetterlinge von Europa, vol. viii, p. 28.
104. Hübner, tab. 22. fig. 153. sect. 64. No. 61 of the text. Treitschke, Die Schmetterlinge von Europe, vol. viii. p. 280 and 281. No. 8. Cochylis Roserana alis anticis argenteis ochroleucis nitidis, fascia media intus angustiore fusca.
105. Pyralis Vitana, alis fusco virescentibus; fasciis tribus obliquis fuscis marginalibus. Bosc Dantic, Mém. de la Société d'Agriculture, 1786, for the summer quarter, p. 22. pl. 4. fig. d. Pyralis Vitis, Fabricius, Entom. Syst., vol. iii. p. 2, pl. 249; A.J. Coquebert, Illustratio Iconographica Specierum Insect, quæ in Musæis Parisinis observavit, J. C. Fabricius, duas 1. tab. 7. fig. 9.
106. Procris ampelophaga, C. Passerini, Memoria supra duo Specie d'Insetti nocivi. Zigæna ampelophaga, Bayle-Barelle, Degli Insetti nocivi al Uomo, alle Bestie, al Agricoltore; Milano, 1824, pl. 1. fig. 7 to 12.
107. Bosc, Nouv, Dict, d'Hist. Nat., vol. xxxv. p. 392.
108. Aretia purpurea, Fabr. Entom. Syst., vol. iii. part 1. p. 466. No. 185. Walckenaer, Faun. Paris., vol. ii. p. 291. Godart, Papillons nocturnes, vol. i. p. 339. No. 105.
109. Sphinx Elpenor, Fabr. Ent. Syst., vol. iii. p. 372. No. 51. Walckenaer, Faun. Paris, vol. ii. p. 276. No. 6. Godart, Crépusculaires, p. 46.
110. Sphinx Porcellus, Fabr. Ent. Syst., vol. iii. p. 373. Walckenaer, Faun. Paris., vol. ii. p. 279. Godart, Crépusculaires, p. 51. Duponchel, Iconographie des Chenilles, tribe of Sphingidæ, pl. 5. fig. 1, a, b.
111. Ctesias, Indicorum, cap. 21. p. 253. edit. Baehr, Frankf., 1824, 8vo. Ctesias speaks of a red insect which in India destroys the trees producing amber, as in Greece the Phtheir destroys the vine: Larcher, p. 341. vol. vi. of his translation of Herodotus, has badly rendered this passage.
112. J. Major, (Landscape Gardener,) A Treatise on the Insects most prevalent on Fruit Trees and Garden Produce, 1829, 8vo, p. 112.
113. Coccus Adonidum, Fabr. Syst. Rhyngotor., 1803, 8vo, p. 307. No. 4. Major, as just referred to, p. 144, the Mealy-Bug.
114. Coccus Vitis; Boyer de Fonscolombe, Ann. de la Soc. Enlom., vol. iii. p. 214. No. 14. Réaumur, Mem. Insect., vol. iv. p. 62. pl. 6. figs. 1 to 7. Fabr. Syst. Rhyngotor., p. 310. No. 4. Coccus vitis viniferæ.
115. Bochart, Hierozoicon, p. 22.
116. Coccus Ilicis, Fabr. Syst. Rhyngotor., p. 308. Réaumur, Insect., iv. tab. 5. Garidel, Plantes des Environs d'Aix, p. 250. pl. 35. Boyer de Fonscolonibe, Ann. de la Société Entom., vol. iii. p. 210.
117. Coccus Polonicus, Fabr. Syst. Rhyngotor., p. 310, No. 26. Frisch., Insect., 56. Walckenaer, Faun. Paris., vol. ii. p. 363.