The herald., 1893-10-28
The Disappearance of the Aus
tralian Bugs Accounted For.
Some Remarkable Revelations ON an
Important Subject.
Letters That Throw World OF Light
ON Matters That Have Been Very
Mysterious - A Time for
Explanations.

The revelations are not at all to the
credit OF those concerned.
1t appears marvellous that any Of them
have been allowed to survive the vindic-
tive jeaiousies which prevailed.
Mr.. A. s. Chapman, well known.
San Gabriel orchardist, spoke quite free
ly to reporter yesterday in regard to
things he aaid:
ION August 20. 1898. in company with
Prof. S. M. Woodbridge of Los Angeles, /
Visited the olive orchards of Hon. ELL
wood Cooper, near Santa Barbara, with
the view OF nscertaining the status OF
the rhizobus ventralis. DR.. Wood
bridge had visited these orchards and
was, therefore, acquainted with their
then badly infested condition, with the
black scale. Mr.. Cooper treated us very
courteously and took us through his
orchards. We saw the rhizobius in
great quantities and were pleased and
astonished at the results of their work
in cleaning out these pests.
Z The next move on our part was to
ask for colony. In words Mr.. Cooper
refused to give US any for Southern Cal
ifornie, saying that he had to take care
OF the central and northern part OF the
state, inasmuch as Mr.. Coqullett had re-
ceived colonies from Mr.. Koebele at
about the same time as Mr.. Cooper. for
the southern part of the state, and that
we should draw our supplies for our
needs from Mr.. Coquillett. The irony
of Mr.. Cooper's refusal was made ap-
parent by his action in giving us three
colonies. We put these out on August
29th, and DR.. Woodbridge reports his
colony as doing well.
When we returned to Los Angeles, in
company with Mr.. Goodwin of the Cali
forris Cutivator and Poultry Keeper,
we called on Mr.. Coquillett at his resi-
dence. He received us politely and, in
answer to our queries about the rhizo-
bius ventralis, eaid he had never re-
celved any.
1t now became question of veracity
between Mr.. Cooper and Mr.. Coquillett,
and very unpleasant situation for my
self. Pursuing my investigation fur
ther, have been enabled to throw this
additional light on the subject, namely,
letter from Mr.. Koebele You will
see that Mr.. Coquillett did at least
handle sc ventralis rhizobius according
to this letter.
| also at this juncture take it upon
myself to defend the statements made
in report of the state board of horti-
culture OF 1891 on beneficial insects,
page 2l5, where some agent was called
to account for pinning beneficial insects
in his cabinet in preference to placing
them out in come orchard where they
might propagate, by giving you q Pc
cullar letter from Prof. Coquillett."
The letter referred to by Mr.. Chap
man is as follows:
LOS ANGELES, April 16, 1892
"Mr. B. NJ. DeLong:
"DEAR SIR: The copy of your last
annual report is received, and in glanc-
ing through its pages notice the com.
plimentary ~ remarks you make of the
way treated the thalpochares moths
received from Koebele few years ago.
Had you known the facts in the case
you certainly would not have put this
matter as you did. Only one lot of the
thalpochares was sent to me, and in his
letter that accompanied them, all that
Koebele wrote about them is as fol-
lows:
"'Then an equally important insect,
moth, of which | send a number OF
larvae and chrysalids on twigs of euca-
lyptus infested with bad scale on that
tree: be careful to keep it away from
eucalyptus, they will only live on that
tree and no other, so don't Se afraid to
place them on orange with plenty OF
icerya for food, later we could '.ransfer
them on most any large ecale bug; they
are in bottom OF wooden box
This is all. He did not give the name
Of the moth, did not state to what
family it belonged, nor that it was
known to feed ON the black scale in
Australia. To make matters worse, L
found the box to oontEin the larvae and
chrysalids OF two different kinds Of
moths, the one Tineid, the other a
Noetnid which, when too late, I learned
was Thalpochares. How was L to know
which of these moths Koebele referred
to? | tested the larvae of both kinds
with different kinds of scales, and fonnd
that the Tineid larvae fed upon them,
but the Thalpochares larvae would not
pay any attention to them even after
they were confined in breeding gage
with different kinds of ccales for two
weeks. In the meantime the Thalpo-
chares moths were issuing from the
chrysslids. What could / do with
them? What could you have done
WlUu tueH uuuer the circumstances!
None of the books that had access to
made any mention of either of these
moths. Had Koebele stated that the
Larvae and chrysalids in the cocoons be-
longed to Thalpochares cocciphaga, and
that the larvae were known TO feed upon
the black scale, all would have been
well +; but he did not etate this, and |
am made tossuffer for his negligence.
ID. W. CoQUILLETT.
WHERE THE BUGS WENT.
The following astonishing statement
from Prof. Koebele needs no explana-
tion. 1t shows what Prof. Coquille tt
did with most of the Australian bugs col
lected with such care by the talented
Koebele:
List OF coccinellide received in alco-
hol by Albert Koebele from d. w. Co
quillett in September. 1892. This list
comprises some of the species received
by D. w. Coquillett from Albert Koe.
belle from Australia -
"Orcus bilunnlatus, IL orcus austria
lasia, 81; orcus clahybeus, 427; orcus
numeralie, 1S; coccinella kingi, A coc-
cinella conformis, IL; coccinella arcuata,
81; coccinella repanda, IL; media testud-
maria, IL alesia fronata, 26; halzia gal
bula, 8; platyomus lividigaster, 5;
montrouzieri, 73; novius
koebelei, 49,; erithionyx lanosus, 6;