Pat
ie Hy it ye

 

 

 

a
Loar
te

ia
Maen
Aah cht ah store
Lat hes
eemyrt
ec

aL
Par
in

ri

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4
crt
Ra ct
Paanohr Nia Cnt A Heise tes
a Eins tatsett ait AES aa a
ah ES MaSabaaie alana!
7 can Tel eR BALLS panna
OA Susan eit
Mpiensias s
is : Nido
teen fa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ht
Peri
Rebate
pst dk
A ah
oer
ey

-
ts
cay

 

Gi Dba he i 1) .
titi a BIPTCR ROA Uishn j i i ‘
APE 7 3 i is Era ' i it nies
ard 0 \. c (4 “ he " AA Re 0 Sih ih a
Hi i i bn

ERP RTEAT (iat a yet Ph RS aaa a PaRsearacars daa HL RD ea ni aay si teh heed take t oad eae raed

Hr Later Ht AES dU pa ers Wis Hea hitsdr pinata ALR ; ad me : Roath ss pe ot

aAL i; z te ‘ pe 8 1
fe f bb beige ie : ea ft ee ; eee pean

Mca itee ohh : Fees fess

s my

 

 

 

 

 

SUG ae
yee

 

ont
Pern

rit
¥

C
verre a

tf
4 VG
Part

at One
i agit
A prey oe nt
HUE AS i 4
Rope tie Sent pie:

LMP, 4 in

a
nice
ayommat
Clune eee
bolt Wr Stato
Lulitpoa!
et Rn nee
Riera
CP ese

ReneS
CPN ETS
paar
tithe fi}

Pant set
Terehatisae

SEAN bia
yee ans

sao
Spree edn cris

 
 

 

eal

New York
State College of Agriculture

At Cornell University
Ithaca, N.Y.

 

 

 

 

Library
Cornell University Library

SB 615.P8Q3
Re

iT
3 1924 002 830 838

mann

 

 
1914,

—

QUEENSLAND.

 

REPORT

OF THE

PRICKLY-PEAR TRAVELLING COMMISSION

Ist NOVEMBER, 1912—30TH APRIL, 1914.

BY

i. DAERVEY JUAMSTON, ILA, Doe. F.L8.,
BIOLOGY DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND, BRISBANE ;

AND

HENRY TRYON,
GOVERNMENT ENTOMOLOGIST AND VEGETABLE PATHOLOGIST,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND STOCK, BRISBANE.

 

 

PRESENTED TO BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BY COMMAND.

 

 

BRISBANE : 1
BY AUTHORITY: ANTHONY JAMES CUMMING, GOVERNMENT PRINTER, BRISBANE.

1914.
C.A. 91—1914.
CONTENTS.

Letter of Appointment and Duties of the Commission ae a ai are ate oe
Letter of Transmission to Hon. Secretary for Public Lands we ot ae oe ot
Summary and Recommendations e oe oe oe oe oe +e ee oe
Section 1.—Investigations in Sydney, Java, Singapore, and Coylon os a ae aie
Summary of Section 1 .. we oe oe we ee ee oe oe oe oe
Section 2—In India .. ass <a +e aie *s a af ae oe =e
Summary of Section 2 .. a a) a ass as oe oi ee eo oe
Section 3.—In South Africa .. ss ais ee ais us oe +e ee ae
Summary of Section 3 .. sv oe aa ee se a oe ae oe oe
Section 4.—In Canary Islands ot a wis ave oe ac wie aie ne
Summary of Section 4 .. ae es aie sie oe as 6 ace ae vs
Section 5.—In Europe and the Mediterranean Area oe ie oe oe oe +e
Summary of Section 5 .. axe ae ns oie oe ar ae oe a oe

Section 6.—In the United States a oie aye oe “6 ae ava wie oc

Summary of Section 6 .. is ae +e ics ee ate oe oe ee oe
Section 7.—In Mexico and Central America .. as i i ats ss ne aus
Summary of Section 7 ... iP, at hs <@ ‘i ie wis at ae oe
Section 8.—In the West Indies a os as si ae aia a aw oe
Summary of Section 8 .. ate oe aN ee oe ee oe oe ‘is a
Section 9.—In South America ae ee ete are Sis ie ae o <i
Summary of Section 9 .. si ste ae ae nC eve ne ta ae a
Section 10.—In the Hawaiian Islands nie a6 ae oe ai oe oe oe
Summary of Section 10 aie te a aie ois oe ss a oe ee

Section 11.—Summary of Information available in Australian States other than Queensland
References to Literature -e ee oe oe oe oe oe a oe oe

ae

Supplementary Notes .. 8 te tts ae

 

PAGE,
Iv.

Vv.

28
28
41
42
44
44
59
61
84
86
90
90

101

102

109
110
111

11

114

126
APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSION.

 

Department of Public Lands,
Brisbane, 10th September, 1912.

To Messrs. ‘Thomas Harvey Johnston, M.A., D. Sc., F.L.S., and Henry Tryon.

GenTLEMEN,—I am dirétted to inform you that the Governor in Council has been pleased
to appoint you to be a Commission of Inquiry to visit countries in which prickly-pear plants are
indigenous, or have become naturalised, for the purpose of ascertaining if there are present in
such countries any natural enemies of the prickly-pear that may be utilised for the destruction
of the plant in Queensland, and also of inquiring into the possibility of utilising prickly-pear for
commercial purposes, and, has also appointed Thomas Harvey Johnston to be Chairman of the
Commission.

In conveying to you this decision I am desired to state that the Government wish you to
give consideration to the following points (among others that may suggest themselves to you)
with respect to the various species of prickly-pear and allied Cactacez, viz. :—

1. What diseases parasitic plant organisms and parasitic or predatory insects are injuriously
related to these plants, and the nature, character, and extent, in each case, of the injuries.

2. The circumstances of the occurrence of all such agents affecting these plants.

3. The checks, if any, that control or impair the exercise of the full virulence of all such
agencies, and the nature of such checks.

4, The introduction into Queensland, subject to the elimination of any such checks, of
such diseases, parasitic plant organisms and parasitic or predatory insects, and their establishment
therein in connection with the naturalised species of prickly-pear already growing at large within
the State, having regard to the question of destroying, subjugating, or controlling them without
ill effect on any object whatever other than prickly-pear.

5. The possibility of utilising prickly-pear for commercial purposes, and so destroying it by
means of its utilisation.

I have the honour to be,
Gentlemen,

Your Obedient Servant,

P. W. SHANNON,
Under Secretary,
REPORT OF THE PRICKLY-PEAR TRAVELLING
COMMISSION.

 

TO THE HONOURABLE THE SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS.

Brisbane, 25th November, 1914.

Stzr,—We have the honour to submit the subjoined report of our
investigations.

We have, &c.,

T. HARVEY JOHNSTON,
HENRY TRYON.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

INTRODUCTORY.

It may be pointed out that prickly-pears or opuntias, of more than
one kind, are pests of agricultural and pastoral lands, locally, in many countries
besides Australia—for example, India, Ceylon, and South Africa, as well as in
North and South America and the West Indies. The pest pears of most of
these regions, however, being especially spiny species, while the common pest
pear of Queensland and New South Wales (Opuntia inermis) is comparatively
unarmed, do not lend themselves so readily to spontaneous dissemination and
propagation as does the latter, since cattle, one of the chief agents in these
processes, are debarred from access to them, and as a result the ground does not
become littered to any extent with fragments each capable of originating a new
plant-individual. For the same reason, the fruits of the former are less likely
to be partaken of and their contained seeds carried far afield with their germin-
ating powers not only preserved but enhanced. These remarks do not apply,
however, to prickly-pears of the class represented by O. aurantiaca, which are
of a very brittle nature, for in their case this spininess of the joints actually
brings about their adherence to, and transportation by, animals browsing

amongst them.

ITINERARY.

The Prickly-pear Travelling Commission entered upon its inquiries on
lst November, 1912. In order to become more familiar with the problems
to which it had been called upon to address itself, it visited Westwood, Rock-
hampton, Gayndah, and Dulacca where infestation was heavy. Thereupon it
proceeded to Sydney to obtain advice and assistance from Mr. J. H. Maiden,
Government Botanist of New South Wales, who has for many years been actively
interested in opuntias.

Some investigations were made in Java whilst en route to Ceylon. After
concluding our work in the latter island, India was visited. In order to cover
the field more expeditiously the Commission divided its labours, one member
proceeding to Northern and North-western India, while the other confined
VI.

his attention to the Presidencies of Bombay and Madras and to the State .
Mysore. South Africa was reached vid the east coast of Africa. Here mos
of the time was spent in the infested regions of the eastern and south-eastern

portions of the Cape Province.
The Canary Islands were toured while we were en route to Europe.

In order to economise time, it was decided to divide the work in the
Mediterranean littoral, just as had been done in India. The Commissioners
therefore separated after leaving Spain, one proceeding to Sicily and Italy and
thence to England, where inquiries regarding utilisation were instituted, while his
colleague travelled through the Barbary States, Malta, and Syria (vid Egypt),
returning to England vid Italy and Germany.

The United States were then visited, and its chief cactus regions examined
for the presence of any agents controlling the spread of prickly-pear there.
From that country the Commissioners travelled each by a different route to
the West Indies, where, after some preliminary inquiries, it was decided to
again divide forces, one member to more thoroughly investigate matters in these
islands while the other instituted inquiry in South America.

The Commissioners met again in San Francisco, and left for Australia,
vid Honolulu, where some investigations were made while awaiting a steamer
for Sydney, the latter port being reached on 27th April. We arrived in Brisbane
at the end of that month.

As was to be expected from the nature of the work, a very large amount
of time was necessarily spent in travelling. The duration ‘of the stay in any
particular country or island depended to some extent on the frequency of
means of communication between it and others.

The itinerary, just indicated briefly, allowed the carrying out of investi-
gations in countries where prickly-pears occurred as exotics and in those in which
these plants exist as indigenous plants. In the former, it was already known
to the Commission that they covered, more or less continuously, large areas,
and were in some districts objects of cultivation; hence it was anticipated
that, as usually happens with economic plants under similar conditions, natural
enemies would have become manifest amongst them in some place or other.
It was expected that the prickly-pears growing in their proper homes would
harbour injurious insects or diseases, as native plants commonly do. Besides,
collections of growing opuntias, in which there had been brought together
plants emanating from various parts of the world, were inspected, with the
hope that the enemies which affect them in those regions, had been transported
along with them to their new homes.

‘As might be inferred, the literature relating to the opuntias, although
very scattered, is most extensive, and, moreover, deals with these plants from
every point of view. Accordingly much time was devoted to searching it in
order to ascertain channels in which the inquiry might be undertaken with
promise of results. The list of works of reference appended to the report, and
those cited in that section of it dealing with our work in India, will indicate
to what extent this has been drawn upon.

Moreover, many authorities identified with researches bearing directly ©
or indirectly on the subject of our inquiry were interviewed, and their opinions
and advice sought ; but since it was not practicable to meet some investigators
without much delay, their experience and counsel could not be availed of to the
extent hoped for. These inquiries and consultations occupied considerable time
and involved visits, sometimes necessarily repeated, to various libraries, educa-
tional and scientific institutions, administrative and other official departments,
&e.
Vil. .

In many instances those whom the Commission consulted had been
accustomed to regard the prickly-pear as a botanical species, or as an economic
plant serving one use or another, and could therefore scarcely be brought to
regard it from the present Australian standpoint. The Commission was, how-
ever, greatly aided in dealing with this emergency, and in bringing home to
its auditors the actual state of affairs in Australia with regard to it by an
excellent series of photographs illustrating the different species of Queensland
“pears,” as well as their habits of growth and mode of occurrence, which had
been procured by Mr. Temple Clerk, of the Department of Public Lands,
Queensland, and considerately made available by him.

The Commission had been asked to visit both those countries where
prickly-pears were indigenous and those in which these plants were naturalised.
To have carried out that itinerary in its entirety would have involved a very
protracted inquiry. Hence many countries were omitted, owing to the difficulties
in reaching them—e.g., Bolivia, Peru, Northern Chile, Northern Argentina,
Central America, many of the smaller West Indian Islands, as well as certain
parts of the Mediterranean region. The civil war in Mexico, especially in the
dry northern States, where the cactus flora is so rich, prevented the Commission
from pursuing inquiries there, and consequently only a few of the cities within
the northern frontier of Mexico were visited. .

THE PRICKLY-PEARS NATURALISED IN AUSTRALIA.

There are at present naturalised in Queensland not less than eleven
species of prickly-pear, viz. :—

1. The common pest pear, Opuntia inermis, DC., var. Its home is in the
Greater Antilles (West Indies) and the adjacent coasts of the United States
(Florida).

2, The spiny pest pear—an ally of that just named—which is especially
prevalent in the Gayndah District, and occurs also in the Rockhampton area
and elsewhere. It is this species which Mr. Maiden has identified in error as
O. dillenit. It is also a West Indian plant.

3. O. monacantha, Haw.—A tree pear which occurs along the banks of
the Suttor River, North Rockhampton, and elsewhere; but except in the
localities named is sparsely distributed. Its home is Eastern and South-eastern
Brazil and adjacent parts of the neighbouring Republics. This species prefers
moister and more shaded conditions than do the other opuntias now occurring
in Australia.

4. O. aurantiaca, Gillies.—This low-growing, very brittle plant, which
occurs at Warwick and Roma, is the dreaded “ jointed cactus”’ of South Africa.
It should be immediately eradicated from our State by vigorous methods, such
as systematic spraying and burning. Owing to the extreme ease with which the
small spiny joints and fruits become separated and conveyed by flood water,
and, moreover, attached to animals, the species is likely to become widely spread.

- By reason of its generally small size, the plant is likely to be overlooked until
such time as it has obtained a strong foothold. It is a native of Uruguay, in
South America.

5. O. tomentosa, 8.D.—This “‘ tree pear”? may be found commonly in the
Helidon District, and is especially prevalent in the Gogango District, a few miles
west of Rockhampton, and to a less extent near Gayndah. Its home is Mexico.
This plant is used in some countries as a ‘“‘ nurse” for raising the true cochineal.

?

6. Nopalea cochinelifera, Linn.—‘‘ The cochineal plant”; is also a tree
pear, and may be found at Gayndah and Emerald. It is spineless and cannot
be considered a pest. Its home is, doubtless, in Mexico.
Vill.

7. O. imbricata, Haw.—This is a Cylindropuntia, one of the so-called ace
cacti, whose habitat is Northern Mexico and the adjacent dry, arid, regions 0
the United States. It occurs naturalised at Laidley.

8. Opuntia, sp. (?) O. megacantha, SD. or O. chavena, Griff.—This large
jointed, white-spined prickly-pear is known as the “Westwood pear, and is to
be met with in the Rockhampton District. It is a Mexican species, and 18
related to the pest pear of South Africa, as well as that found in the Hawaiian
Islands.

There is another Opuntia in the Rockhampton area which closely resembles
this one and is perhaps identical with it.

9, Another white-spined Opuntia occurs near Rockhampton, where it is
called the “ yellow-fruiting Mexican pear.” This species, which is of Mexican
origin, is very like the spiny pest pear of South Africa, and resembles the
spiny Barbary fig or Indian fig (O. amyclea) of the Mediterranean coasts.

Mr. Maiden has recorded the occurrence in Queensland of two other
prickly-pears, viz. :—

10. O. nigricans, Haw. ; and

11. Nopalea dejecta, 8.D. The former, which is found at Yelarbon, is
indigenous to certain parts of Brazil, while the latter, which is reported from
Rockhampton, is regarded as being a native of Cuba, though perhaps Mexico
is its true home.

New South Wales possesses—(1) O. inermis, DC., var. ; (2) O. nigricans,
Haw. ; (3) O. monacantha, Haw. ; and (4) O. ficus indica as well as (5) O. micro-
dasys, Lehm. The lastnamed belongs to the drier parts of Mexico.

O. monacantha occurs naturalised in Victoria and South Australia, and the
spiny pest pear of Queensland is also reported from the latter State.

THE PRICKLY-PEARS NATURALISED IN OTHER COUNTRIES
VISITED.

The pest species in Northern Ceylon is O. dilleniit, Haw., while in India
there is, in addition to this one, O. nigricans, the former being especially prevalent
in the Presidency of Madras, the latter in Bombay and Central India. Both
occur in Northern India, but are not sufficiently beyond control to constitute
pests. O. stricta, or a very closely related species, occurs fairly commonly in the
Punjab. O. monacantha was formerly abundant in India and Ceylon but has
been practically exterminated there by the action of a wild cochineal insect,
Coccus indicus, Green.

In South Africa the pest species are the “doornblad” variety of O.
decumana, and the “ jointed cactus,” O. aurantiaca. O. monacantha is also
widely spread, but is controlled by the dry climate and by the action of another
wild cochineal insect, Coccus confusus capensis, Green. Several other opuntias
are naturalised there but are not yet a menace.

In the Canary Islands, certain species are still cultivated as host plants
for the true cochineal insect Coccus cacti, Linn. (Dactylopius coccus, Costa).

In the Mediterranean region many species are naturalised, two of them
being regarded as being of considerable economic importance. These are the
two kinds of Indian or Barbary fig, O. ficus indica, Mill, and O. amyclea, Ten.,
which may perhaps be only varieties of one species. O. dillenii, though not
especially abundant in any one locality, is widely distributed in the coastal areas.
Some species are locally prevalent, e.g., O. inermis, DC., in the Balearic Islands,

and O. nana, Vis. ( = O. opuntia, L.) in parts of the Tyrol, Switzerland, and
Dalmatia.
IX,

The pest pear of the Oahu, Hawaii, closely resembles the ‘“‘ Westwood
pear’ of our own State.

Since America is the home of prickly-pears, they were there studied by
us under their natural conditions. Still, species belonging to one region have
become naturalised, especially if useful, in parts of the North and South
American continents other than those to which they are indigenous.

DESTRUCTION BY NATURAL ENEMIES.

A. Rodents.

In the cactus regions of the United States and Mexico, there occur several
species of so-called ‘‘ wood-rats,”’ belonging to the genus Neotoma, which at
times cause great havoc to prickly-pear, utilising it as food to such an extent
sometimes as to locally exterminate it. Occasionally this action involves its
propagation. However, since they, as well as various other rodents, are not
restricted in their dietary, to cactaceous plants, their introduction to Queensland
would probably be attended with grave risks, and is therefore not recommended.

-B. Insects.

Prickly-pears were found to be little if at all adversely affected by insect
enemies in the Mediterranean region, the Canary Islands, and Hawaii, and only
to a slight extent in the West Indies and in most parts of South America
which were visited.

In Ceylon, India, and South Africa, only one species of Opuntia O. mona-
cantha, was controlled in this way, the agent being in each case a wild cochineal
insect. In the two first-named countries the result of the parasitism by Coccus
indicus had been so disastrous to the host plant that extermination had been
practically brought about, O. monacantha now being found. only in relatively
few scattered situations, whereas it was formerly abundant, and in places so
prevalent that this insect was actually employed in its subjugation. In a few
isolated localities in both of these countries the wild cochineal is still exerting
its baneful influence. The other naturalised species in India (O. dillenti and
O. nigricans) and Ceylon (O. dilleniz) were not attacked.

In South Africa the effect was much less marked, this result being due
partly to the different specific action of the particular wild cochineal insect
found there (Coccus confusus capensis), and partly to the presence of predatory
insects which controlled the spread of the coccid. The other species of Opuntias
found naturalised in South Africa were unattacked.

The interest of the foregoing remarks lies in the fact that O. monacantha,
the plant victimised by this insect, is one of the Queensland prickly-pears,
whereas O. dillenii, and also the South African pest pears, which were not affected,
are related to certain other of our pest pears, viz., the common pest pear, the
Gayndah pear, the Westwood pear, and O. aurantiaca. It is unlikely that any
of these will be attacked by it, although they may have other species of Coccus
similarly related to them.

As was to be expected, it was in the Western hemisphere that insect
enemies were found to be prevalent. Most information regarding them was
obtained in the United States, where a considerable amount of investigation
concerning prickly-pear enemies had already been carried out by the Bureau
of Entomology of the United States Department of Agriculture, as well as by
certain other institutions.

The most important insect enemies of cacti, known to them and to the
Commission as occurring in America, are certain beetles, moths, plant bugs, and
midges, all of which are restricted to the Cactacez.
xX.

In regard to the Coleoptera, the following are capable of causing damage
to prickly-pear :—The various species of Moneilema, Cenopeus, and Gers-
teckeria. .

The adult of Moneilema is a large black wingless longicorn beetle, which
feeds gregariously on the young segments of the host plant, while the larva is
a large grub living in tunnels hollowed out by it in the stems and joints. M onet-
lema is widely distributed in the drier parts of the United States and Mexico.

Ceenopeus is also a large longicorn with similar habits, its home being
Southern California and the adjacent regions.

The various cactus weevils, Gersteckeria, spp. with the exception of G.
hubbardi, do comparatively little damage to the joints, either in the larval or
adult stages, though the injuries caused by the larva while feeding within the
segments, may sometimes become the seat of secondary infection by micro-
organisms and certain scavenging flies. G. hubbardi was found to be usually
associated with a very destructive moth, Melitara prodenialis, in its attacks
on prickly-pear in Florida.

The lepidopterous enemies comprise a number of cactus moth borers,
belonging to the Phycitide, found in North and South America and in the
West Indies, as well as certain others, such as Mimorista and Marmara, found
especially in North America and the West Indies.

The Phycitid enemies include the very destructive cactus moths belonging
to the genus Melitara, found in the United States, Mexico, and the West Indies,
and also certain moths, Zophodia, spp., occurring in Argentina and Uruguay,
in South America.

The caterpillars of these insects live within the joints of the plant, and
cause great destruction, partly on account of their eating out the tissues and
partly on account of the rapidity with which attacked segments become invaded
by secondary organisms, such as bacteria, fungi, and scavenging flies. The
death of infected joints, and even plants, is a quite common result.

Mimorisia causes a great destruction of young segments of prickly-pear,
and therefore acts as an important agent in controlling the spread of this group
of plants. This insect, or insects producing a similar effect, occur in Texas,
the West Indies, in Brazil, and, no doubt, in Mexico also.

Marmara, whose tiny caterpillar is a “leaf-miner” causes very little
injury as a rule, though sometimes secondary invasions may be serious.

Amongst the Hemiptera are certain prickly-pear enemies, especially
the various species of wild cochineal insects, and the members of the genera
Chelinidea and Narnia. These all more or less injure the species with which
they are associated. There are also others, such as various Aphids and. scale
insects (Diaspis), but they are not of much importance, as a rule, in controlling
or destroying Opuntias. ,

The wild cochineal insects found attacking prickly-pear in India, Ceylon,
and South Africa have already been referred to. Those seen in the United States,
West Indies, Brazil, and Argentina had very little effect on their host plants.
This might be accounted for in great measure by the presence of parasites.
It is known that some of them, ¢.g., the true cochineal, and certain wild cochineals
cause very little injury by feeding, whereas others, e.g., those in Ceylon, india:
South Africa, and some in Mexico, cause serious constitutional slishanbanions
which may result in the death of the affected plant.

The “ Cactus bugs” Chelinidea and Narnia attack the joints and fruit
respectively, and are regarded as being very serious enemies of prickly-pear
They are found in the United States, Mexico, and the West Indies, and related
forms occur in Brazil. :
xt,

The chief dipterous insects which infest prickly-pear are certain gall
midges belonging to the genera Itonida and Asphondylia. The former produces
galls under the areoles, and, under hot-house conditions at least, these not
infrequently become the seat of secondary infection which leads to the destruc-
tion of the attacked plant. The species of Asphondylia which infest Opuntias,
live during their larval stage within the fruit or the flower bud, and either
destroy the seeds or else cause a proliferation, so that there is produced an
‘abnormal fruit”? from which a joint or a flower bud arises. In either case
seminal increase is prevented or restricted, and thus these insects are capable

of acting as important agents in controlling the spread of various species of
prickly-pear.

Notwithstanding the insect fauna of the Opuntias of the United States is
relatively large in the matter of distinct insects, it may be pointed out that
our knowledge concerning it—both that derived from the records of others
and from the Commission’s own observations—relates only to a limited section
of the cactus area, and that, therefore, other more or less potent insect enemies
of this group of plants may await discovery. This may be more especially the
case with regard to the cactus regions outside its limit, e.g., Mexico, Central
America, and South America. Accordingly it is anticipated that additional
natural enemies of the class, some of them quite as injurious as any yet discovered,
may exist and be utilised.

In view of what has been stated above, we recommend that, for the time
being, the following insects be introduced into Queensland :—Moneilema, spp.;
Cenopeus palmeri; Gersteckeria hubbardi; Melitara, spp.; Mimorista
flavidissimalis ; Chelinidea, spp.; Narnia, spp.; the wild cochineal insects ;
Itonida opuntice and Asphondylia opuntie, from the United States: Zophodia
cactorum and its ally, the “‘Mendoza moth borer,” from the Argentine Republics

The Commission has already introduced into Queensland certain destruc-
tive wild cochineal insects, from Ceylon and South Africa. These have become
established, and have maintained their character for destructiveness, at the
Prickly-Pear Experimental Station, Dulacca. They should exert a powerful
influence in controlling O. monacantha. Zophodia, which is destructive to a
large number of prickly-pears, including several of the Queensland pest species,
was also brought to this State, but most of the larve have died.

The insects whose introduction is recommended may prove more harmful
or less harmful to cacti in Australia than in their native home. Then, again,
they may not be able to adapt themselves to our climatic conditions.

In their native country they are more or less controlled by predators
and parasites, and therefore cannot exercise their full influence. It is conse-
quently a matter of great importance that, before admission into Queensland,
parasites should have been eliminated. It was for this reason, amongst others,
that the Commission consulted Dr. L. O. Howard, the chief of the Bureau of
Entomology, Department of Agriculture, U.S.A., and one of his senior officers,
Mr. W. D. Hunter, who suggested that comparatively few individuals of each
species, free from any parasites likely to control their activity, should be
introduced to our country, and these subjected to careful attention. This, of
course, would necessitate the providing of a suitable insectary under the control
of an entomological staff with experience in this kind of parasitological work,
as well as in the technical details involved in receiving, multiplying, and
distributing such insects.

The question of collecting, breeding, eliminating parasites from and
transporting desired insects to Queensland from the United States was discussed
with Dr. Howard and Mr. Hunter. It was assumed that the Government of this
XI.

State would bear whatever expense was necessary. The Bureau of Entomology
offered to supervise and be responsible for the work, which would be placed under
the control of an officer who had had experience in the field, and was familiar
with cactus insects and with parasitological work. Assistance would be required
for him, hence the suggestion that a trained entomologist belonging to the
Dallas Experiment Station of the Bureau might be seconded for this purpose.
About £40 per month would be required to pay salary and expenses.

Mr. F. W. Maskew, the Chief Inspector of the Board of Horticultural
Commissioners, San Francisco, who is also an officer of the Bureau of Ento-
mology, offered to attend to the transmission to Australia of any parcels of
cactus insects which might be forwarded to him by the officers of the Bureau.

Professor J. J. Thornber, of Tucson, Arizona, and Professor D. E. Merrill,
of Mesilla Park, New Mexico, also expressed their willingness to co-operate
with the Bureau of Entomology in any way desired. ;

Dr. C. Spegazzini, La Plata, Argentina, informed the Commission that
he was willing to assist in regard to any insects which it was desired to obtain
from that country.

We desire to emphasise the necessity for such provision, already alluded
to, being made in Queensland in good time, so that any insects whose introduction
is authorised by the Government, may, on arrival, at once receive the proper
care and attention needed for their propagation and for their serviceable
employment.

The Policy of Introducing Insects.

On the general policy of introducing living insects at ali when regard
is had to the fact that so many imported ones are already highly destructive
to vegetation, the Commission may make a short pronouncement.

It may be affirmed with regard to the Cactus insects that in some respects
they are as peculiar as are the Cactacese themselves, and that hence the associa-
tion is often very close between plant and insect. This statement, however, is
not of general application, but it is obviously true as regards certain kinds. It
especially applies to the true Cochineal Insects—Coccus cacti and its congeners.
So close indeed is it that not only are these insects incapable of living on plants
outside the Cactaceous Order, but they will often live only on particular species
of prickly-pear. Thus of the two Opuntias named, cochinelifera to indicate
the association referred to, the Precious Cochineal insect (Coccus cacti) will
subsist on that so designated by Miller, whereas it will not attach itself to that
named cochinelifera by Linnzeus (our Nopalea cochinelifera). Similarly the
Cochineal of the latter, Coccus confusus Newsteadi is confined to it. So again
another wild Cochineal Insect is restricted as far as we know to Opuntia mona-
cantha. This statement as regards the cochineal insects is based on recorded
observations and experiences of upwards of a hundred years standing and
extending to many different countries. The last remark cannot be made respec-
ting certain other prickly-pear loving insects, but these, too, from other con-
siderations, however, we conclude are restricted to cacti.

With regard to other prickly-pear insects mentioned in this Report, we
can pronounce on their exclusive cactus relationship almost with equal confidence.
Not only have they and their habits formed the bases of special memoirs implying
diverse and extended observation, but the special insect-groups in which they
are embraced have received the exclusive attention of entomologists of the highest
repute living in the country where they occur: moreover, they are included
in the comprehensive lists detailing all the food habits of insects amassed by the
Division of Entomology of the United: States. From the sources thus indicated

has been, derived our knowledge—confirmed as it has been by our own observa-
tions—on which this conclusion is based.
xin.

However, there are a good number of Cactus insects that in their feeding
habits are not invariably confined to the Prickly-pears as is known from actual
observation or as may be inferred on reasonable grounds. Amongst these may
be mentioned the fruit fly—Ceratitis capitata, Wied. ; the Mealy Bugs Pseudo-
coccus obscurus, Essig. ; Rhizococcus multi-spinosus, Kuhlg; the Cuban Cactus
Coccid Paleococcus, Sp.; the Plant Bug—Stylopidia picta, Uhler ; the blossom-
injuring Beetle—Trichochrous texanus, Le Conte; the Calandrid root-borers
Cactophagus, spp.;- the Cactus Aphis—A. gossypii, the Cactus Red Spider—
Tetranychus, sp., &c.

Now with regard to these three categories under which the Cactus-
injuring insects may be distinguished, we are of opinion that those embraced
in the first and second may with perfect safety be introduced into Australia ;
whereas those included in the last division should be rigorously excluded.

No entomologist consulted with regard to this matter has expressed a
different opinion, except a distinguished Australian one who has pronounced
strongly against the introduction, on any consideration, of any plant-eating
insect for such work as is here contemplated.

The experience of the Hawaiian Islands in subduing Lantana, has shown
that in certain cases plant-eating insects may be advantageously introduced
for weed destruction without detriment in any way to other vegetation. This
we have been able to confirm by personal inquiry. Moreover, we do not know
of any destructive insect of exotic origin accidentally or ignorantly introduced
here or elsewhere, whose destructiveness evinced in its new home, could not
have been anticipated from a consideration of its habits in its country of
origin.

C. Disease.

As a result of its investigations the Commission is led to conclude that
disease does not play a very important part in checking the spread of prickly-
pear when growing under natural conditions. However, we have seen and
studied a number of maladies caused by parasitic agency, as well as others
due to unsuitable environment, including climatic conditions. The latter
are of no importance from the point of view of our inquiry, and moreover, some
of them are already present in Queensland.

There is apparently only one disease which the Commission regards as
being of sufficient value to warrant its introduction. This is the “ anthracnose,”’
“ shot hole,” or ‘‘black rot’? malady, caused by a fungus Gleosporium lunatum,
E. and E. Ordinarily this organism has but little effect on the plant, but under
conditions such as obtain on warm moist days it causes a considerable and
rapid destruction of young segments, while older joints previously infected,
may also succumb to the “ black rot” conditions set up. Cultures were brought
to Queensland by the Commission and handed over to the Dulacca Experimental
Station.

In the Argentine Republic there is a very serious disease, ‘“‘ the white
rot” caused by a fungus Sclerotiwm (or Sclerotinia) opuntiarum, Speg., which
brings about the destruction of joints and stems of various cacti. As the habits
of this parasite are not sufficiently known the Commission does not, for the

present, recommend its introduction.

There are other parasitic diseases known in the West Indies, United
States, Mexico, and the Mediterranean region, but their effects are not of much
importance in controlling the spread of prickly-pear.
XIv.

DESTRUCTION BY UTILISATION.

Considering the importance of finding uses for the prickly-pears in the
industrial arts, and the extent to which the questions involved may depend on
the outcome of exact scientific research, especially into the methods of isolation
of their constituents or derivatives and into the properties thereof, the Commis-
sion suggests that the Government might wisely offer a series of premiums by
way of encouragement of such investigations, and that these, whilst covering
in the aggregate a very wide field, should be severally limited to specific inquiries,
none being excluded on the ground that they do not from their nature appear to
present immediate prospect of a profitable outcome.

A. As Food for Man.

The fruit of certain species of prickly-pear is used as human food in many
parts of the world, but more especially in Mexico and the Mediterranean littoral.
In the former country, various food products, such as “miel”’ and ‘‘queso,”’ are
derived from these edible fruits, which contain a high percentage of sugar.
These various methods of utilisation would not be of much value in compassing
destruction of Opuntias in Australia. They suggest, however, that an abun-
dant source of nutritious food, availed of in other countries, may have been
entirely lost sight of here.

B. As a Fodder for Stock.

The experience in other parts of the world, India, South Africa, the
Mediterranean region, and America, regarding prickly-pear as a food for stock
is, as a rule, similar to that in our own country. It is generally regarded merely
as a roughage or as an emergency fodder which can be drawn upon during
times of scarcity. Owing to its high water content, and its low-feeding value,
some more concentrated fodder, such as lucerne, bran, cotton-seed meal,
oileake, &c., should be added in order to form a balanced ration. The com-
position of several such rations has been published in India, Italy, the United
States, and elsewhere. One or two of these may be given here. For a 1,000-lb.
milch cow it has been suggested in America that the ration might consist of
50 Ib. of prickly-pear, 10 lb. wheat bran, 10 1b. of lucerne; or of 40 lb. of
‘ pear,” 10 lb. wheat bran, and 12 Ib. of corn stover, the nutritive ratio being
1: 5-4, which is the standard European ratio for dairy cattle. In India it has
been found that when the cotton-seed has been incorporated with prickly-pear
to the extent of constituting 6 per cent. of the weight of the mixture, that
not only will cattle subsist on the ration, but they will regain condition should
they have become poor from semi-starvation, the average daily consumption
being 72 lb. of prickly-pear per 1,000 Ib. live weight. In Sardinia and elsewhere
dry grass or foliage and small branches of certain edible trees may be added
to the opuntia.

The fruit has much more nutriment than the other parts of the plant,
but the greater part of this is contained within the seeds, and since these pass
through the intestine of the animal, this supply of food material is not available.

The amount of pear used per animal daily, along with other food, may
vary in parts of the United States from 40 to 70 1b. If more than this be employed
there is a likelihood of scouring. Some preparation is generally necessary,
the amount varying in the case of the different species. As a rule the stems
and joints are singed and chopped up, but sometimes dairy animals are turned
into the “ pear” paddocks to feed on the scorched standing plants. In parts
of the United States and the Mediterranean littoral, certain species of prickly-
XV.

pear are grown as a range crop for cattle, while in some localities they are actually
planted as a farm crop. In Queensland, however, Opuntias are already in posses-
sion of the ground, hence their employment as part of a cattle ration, if more
widely adopted than at present, would bring about a considerable amount of
destruction of the pest. Since cattle are, in our opinion, a very important, if
not the most important, factor in the spread of the pest, both by the breaking
down of standing plants, and by the distribution of seeds in the excreta, we
consider that they should, as far as possible, be kept away from growing pear,
the material which it is proposed to utilise as part of their fodder being brought
to them, preferably in a prepared state.

It has been proved experimentally elsewhere that succulence, owing
to its influence on lactation, is an important factor in fodder for cattle,
especially milch cows. The presence in the ration of the succulent under
consideration—#.e., prickly-pear—not only had no detrimental effect on the
composition of the milk, but, on the other hand, led to an increase in quantity
without any depreciation in quality, so that there was a very distinct gain in
regard to the total yield of dairy products. Further, it has been demonstrated
in Mexico that this class of succulent food under the same circumstances reduces,
too, the diminution in these that is due to a lowering of atmospheric temperature.

A suggestion was made to the Commission, while in Australia, that it
should be possible to make a transportable fodder from prickly-pear, chopped
up finely by machinery, and then sun-dried, either with or without the addition
of other food substances. No evidence of its use in this way was obtained, nor
did the Commission meet with anyone who could express an opinion based
upon experience and observation regarding the merits of the proposal. In
South Africa, a project to convert chopped prickly-pear into a “‘feed-cake” for
cattle by adding molasses, bran, and other nutritive substances was brought
under our notice.

It should be pointed out that the matter of utilising prickly-pear as
cattle fodder is still in a more or less experimental stage. It must be admitted,
however, that within certain limits the prickly-pears vary considerably in their
composition—even so with regard to a single species as is evident from the
published chemical analyses relating to the different species. Accordingly it
must not be inferred that results obtained in feeding stock in one country, and
on one kind of prickly-pear, will apply generally to Australia.

It appears, therefore, to the Commission that it is expedient for the
Government to undertake investigations, similar to those that have been carried
out in other countries, to test in a comprehensive manner to what extent the
commoner prickly-pear plants of this State can also be utilised to supplement
the various fodders at present in use for stock. A dairy herd consisting of a
sufficient number of animals should be employed, and such investigations should
be controlled at every stage by exact scientific methods, so that whatever results
be obtained these may be attributed to their true factors, the variations affecting
lactation arising from recognisable causes ordinarily obtaining being eliminated
in estimating them.

The attempts to utilise prickly-pear as ensilage have not as a rule been
a success. However, a satisfactory result has been attained from a complex one
in which are laid down alternate layers of Opuntia and maize or sorghum. Since
prickly-pear is available throughout the year, there does not appear to be any
necessity to convert it into ensilage, except in cases where the object in view

is a readily transportable fodder.
XVI.

C. As a Soil Fertiliser.

Prickly-pear has been used to considerable advantage in Ceylon, India,
South Africa, and the Mediterranean littoral, as a green manure, and since
this method of utilisation involves the destruction of the plant, we submit that it
might be employed to a much greater extent in our own country than at present.
Our arable Western lands readily lose more or less of their humus—always
relatively small in amount—under their climatic conditions. It is considered
that this deficiency might be remedied by the use of prickly-pear as a “leaf
manure.”’

By this procedure, too, there might be added to the soil not only humus
but also potash, since succulents, including Opuntias, are always rich in this
constituent. A method found to be very satisfactory in India consisted in
digging series of wide trenches, almost filling them with broken plants, and then
covering the latter with a layer of earth some 18 inches or 2 feet in thickness.
Any new growth which may make its appearance should, of course, be removed
and buried. After séveral months the ‘“ pear” becomes converted-into humus,
a valuable addition to the soils there also.

In many localities the joints are distributed over the field and then
turned under, as are other so-called leaf manures.

Lands in other parts of the world, treated in the ways mentioned, have
also given much better crops than untreated areas.

It is recommended that experiments be conducted in this State, to
ascertain in what way and to what extent our naturalised prickly-pears could
be suitably employed for similar purposes, especially with reference to the
conditions prevalent in our Western lands, which are deficient in the soil
constituent referred to.

D. As a Source of Alcohol.

In dealing with the following methods of utilisation of prickly-pear in
the industries, the Commission has necessarily in mind the fact that the end
in view is the destruction of the pear, and that the undermentioned methods
of using what are thus really by-products are looked upon as a means by which
the cost of clearing may be lessened.

Some investigations have been carried out in regard to utilising the
whole plant as a source of alcohol, but these have shown that the amount to be
obtained is practically negligible, since only about 10 per cent. of the total weight
of the green plant consists of carbohydrate, in which the amount of sugar is
small, while starch is practically absent.

The fruit of various species of prickly-pear, however, has been used for
alcohol production, especially in the Mediterranean littoral (Italy, Sicily, and
Spain), where the manufacture was a commercial success until the imposition
of an excise rendered the concern unprofitable.

The amount of sugar present in the fruit varies in different species, and
even in the same species may be increased by cultivation. In the best Mexican
varieties, from 10 to 15 per cent. is usually present. It is estimated by some
American chemists that about 140 Ib. of fruit, with 10 per cent. sugar, is necessary
to produce | gallon of alcohol. By the addition of active distillery yeast practi-
cally all the sugar was found to have become converted into alcohol in labora-
tory experiments. However, in order that the production of alcohol might
be carried out profitably, it was considered necessary that there should be the
XVII.

production of a large amount of fruit from small areas, ¢.g., about 10 tons per
acre, and also some rapid method of collecting the fruit. It may be added
that the pest pear of the Burnett Valley is especially prolific in fruit.

Investigations in Italy, where the fruit of O. ficus indica was used,
showed that Saccharomyces opuntie, the yeast ordinarily associated with it, sets
up a slow and incomplete fermentation, but if another ferment, S. pastorianus, be
allowed to operate on sterilised must, complete conversion takes place. However,
the extra cost involved in sterilising was regarded at the time as being a serious
hindrance to commercial success. Later investigations have, however, over-
come this difficulty.

Still it must be mentioned that potable spirit, not raw alcohol, was the
article manufactured commercially from this prickly-pear fruit, notwithstanding
the fact that in those countries it has considerable market value as an edible
product. In Queensland, on the other hand, the fruit at present has no
marketable value, but is a waste product. Accordingly, if alcohol could be
produced from it, such action would probably lower the cost of eradication.
We, therefore, recommend that investigations be carried out in our own State,
especially since some of our commoner pest species are prolific in fruit production.

E. Utilisation of the Fibre.

Some years ago paper-makers examined samples of the fibre of O. dillenia
from India, and considered the material valueless for their purposes when
compared with other equally plentiful materials.

As a result of most methods of destruction employed in this State, the
woody tissue of the plant is left intact, and it was recognised that if this fibre—
a by-product—possessed any value, then the cost of clearing infested land could
be correspondingly decreased. Therefore, paper-pulp manufacturers and paper
technologists were interviewed, and their opinion sought regarding its possible
utilisation in the manufacture of the various cruder kinds of “ boards,” e.g.,
roofing boards, millboards, leather boards, trunkboards, strawboards, &c.,
rather than of paper proper; and even floor-cloths might be mentioned in this
connection. :

It was ascertained that the shortest fibre used for paper proper was that
of esparto, and that any shorter fibre could be employed only as a filling material,
and even for that purpose only if its cost were very low.

American plants are stated to have an average of 84°3 per cent. water
and 2°4 per cent. of crude fibre, and the latter, yielding about 42 per cent. of its
own weight of dry pulp, so that about 100 tons of green plant would be needed
to produce one ton of pulp of low quality, worth not more than a few pounds
per ton.

The Imperial Institute, London, carried out some investigations con-
cerning the common pest pear of New South Wales and Queensland, and reported
that its fibre, which has an average length (0°029 inch), only a little more than
half the average for esparto grass (0°045 inch), is readily converted into a dark-
brown pulp, from which a coarse paper of poor strength may be made. It was
considered that it would not be remunerative to produce the pulp in Queensland
for export, and it was regarded as being unlikely that it could be profitably
used locally even in admixture with materials of better quality, though this
could only be decided by actual trials on the spot, and a consideration of the
results in connection with the prices of chemicals and labour in Queensland.
Xvi.

The Commission submits that this matter should be investigated more
fully, especially as regards its use for other purposes than the manufacture of
paper proper, and, therefore, recommends that Messrs. R. W. Sindall and W.
Bacon, the well-known paper technologists in London, be asked to report on
the potentialities of the fibre of our prevalent prickly-pears. If such report be
found satisfactory, having in mind that the fibre is from our point of view a
by-product, then the establishment of pulp manufactories in the dense prickly-
pear areas might be considered.

F. Utilisation of the Mucilage.

Some samples of mucilage from the Queensland pest pear were submitted
to the Imperial Institute for examination, but as they had undergone some
fermentation it was not proceeded with in detail.

An American investigator, who has given attention to the mucilage
occurring in the stem of one of the New Mexican Opuntias, found that in a dry
condition it contained galactan (15 per cent.) and a pentosan (31 per cent.), as
well as 12 per cent. of ash, whereas the ripe fruits had only a trace of galactan,
and 1-57 per cent. of pentosan, but a large quantity of fructose and glucose.
A 10 per cent. “solution” was found to be very viscous, but had poor adhesive
qualities, and did not prove satisfactory as a paper glaze. It is suggested by the
Imperial Institute that the mucilage might serve as a glaze for cheap cotton
stufts.

It has been used in Northern India as an addition to whitewash, while
in Southern India it is employed in the making of a kind of plaster, which is

largely used in the internal decoration of edifices, and is said to have a fine
texture and to be capable of receiving a fine polish.

Other methods of employing this body, which is so conspicuous a feature
in the composition of prickly-pear, might be suggested. However, the question
of determining the commercial value of the mucilage is one for a chemical
technologist.

G. As a Source of Oxalic Acid.

All parts of the prickly-pear, as has been indicated by one of us,
including even the root system, contain in relatively large amount oxalate
of lime in a crystalised condition, as well as other salts of oxalic acid in a
dissolved state. There are grounds for concluding that the former could be
readily isolated by mechanical means only. As is well known, oxalate of lime
is the principal source for the manufacture of oxalic acid that finds so large a
place in the industrial arts. In practice this salt is decomposed with sulphuric
acid, yielding under the process sulphate of lime and oxalic acid—bodies that
are readily separable. At present ordinary sawdust is employed as a source for

the body referred to, but contains oxalate of lime in far less amount than do
prickly-pear plants.

H. Utilisation of the Colouring Matter in the Fruit.

The fruit of many prickly-pears, including most of those naturalised: in
Australia, contains a magenta colouring matter. That obtained from O. dillenii
is used in Sicily as a dye for basketware, while in the Andean region, and in Mexico
and adjacent parts of the United States, the coloured juice of local species is
used to colour various beverages and foodstufts.
The dye obtained from a New Mexican species of Opuntia has been
investigated by an American chemist. The mucilaginous matter was first pre-
xIxX.

cipitated by means of alcohol, and then the pigment obtained from the filtrate
on the addition of acetone. The syrupy magenta precipitate was then dried.
The colour was found to’ be permanent. Experiments were made with wool,
silk, and cotton, mordanted and not mordanted, but the dye was not
sufficiently fast. However, the pigment was found to be of use as a colouring
matter for confectionery, icecreams, beverages, and fruit preserves, but could
not be retained in foods and drugs in the presence of oxidising agents or light.

I. Minor Uses.

Various proposals to make different products, e.g., coffee, cattle food-cake,
vinegar, soap, &c., have been suggested, but as far as we are aware no articles
of commercial value and importance, other than those already referred to earlier
in the report, have been made.

Prickly-pears are made use of in other ways, e.g., as host plants for the
true cochineal insect ; as hedges; as fuel; for timber; as protection for sandy
soil against wind; as cover for young trees; for supplying curios, &c.; but
none of these methods of utilisation are of value from our point of view.

DESTRUCTION -BY OVERGROWTH.

It has been suggested that the introduction of a certain fodder grass
from Brazil might be of service, as on account of its very rapid growth it would
probably choke the prickly-pear. The Commission has had no experience of
the efficacy of this method, and is therefore not prepared to make any recom-
mendation concerning it.

In a northern portion of South America a rapidly-growing climbing
leguminous plant is used. The twining branches form a network enclosing the
prickly-pear clump around which the seeds of the plant have been sown, and
then the stems are cut. After the climber has become sufficiently dry, it is set
alight and the prickly-pear becomes seriously scorched. A repetition would
probably destroy the latter.

DESTRUCTION BY CHEMICAL MEANS.

Although the Commission was not specially asked to look into the question
of destroying prickly-pear by chemical means, it has obtained whatever informa-
tion was available. This has been incorporated as an appendix to that section
of the report which deals with our investigations in South Africa. It may be
pointed out, however, that no method superior to those already in vogue in
Queensland either was suggested or was found to be practised.

DESTRUCTION BY MECHANICAL MEANS.

Proposals for the destruction of the prickly-pear by mechanical means
have, from time to time, been voiced in Australia. The actual factors as
regards prickly-pear occurrence therein, involved in the devising of such
processes and their application, have not, however, been defined and made
public. Accordingly, no data relating to them has been forthcoming for
submission to the mechanical engineer’s of the countries visited, that they
might be confronted with the nature of the problem at issue. We have, therefore,
refrained from consulting them with regard to this important matter.

0
XxX.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.

In the body of the report we have acknowledged the help afforded us
by others in different parts of our journey. In addition to those named we are
indebted to His Majesty’s Foreign Office, and to His Britannic Majesty’s
Ambassadors, Ministers, and Consular Officers for letters of introduction, and,
in many cases, for personal assistance ; also to Sir Thomas Robinson, the Agent-
General for Queensland in London, for many acts of kindness; to Mr. J. C.
Briinnich, the Chemist to the Department of Agriculture and Stock, Brisbane,
for supplying us with important information regarding the analyses of Queensland
prickly-pears, his report being included as an appendix to section 5 of our report;
to the Department of Agriculture and Stock, Brisbane, for taking many of the
photographs used in illustrating this report; and to the Government Printer for
the care which he has taken in the printing and illustrating. We desire also
to express our appreciation of the manner in which our Secretary, Mr. C. W.

Holland, has carried out his duties.

To the report there is added a summary of information available in
the Eastern Australian States other than Queensland, as Well as certain
Supplementary Notes compiled after the report was in the Press.

The delay in presenting this record of our investigations is due to the
fact that both members of this Commission entered upon their ordinary public
duties immediately after their return to Queensland, so that the preparation
of this report had to be undertaken at such times as opportunity afforded.

Progress reports of the work during the earlier period of the investiga-
tions were forwarded from time to time.

 
PRICKLY-PEAR TRAVELLING COMMISSION.

 

I. INVESTIGATIONS IN SYDNEY, JAVA, CEYLON, Evc.

SYDNEY.

The Commission at the commencement of its
work visited Sydney, in order to confer with Mr.
J. H. Maiden, F.L.8., Government Botanist and
Director of the Botanic Gardens, and a recog-
nised authority on matters relating to Prickly-
pear. Representative specimens and _photo-
graphs of Queensland species, with which the
Commission had provided itself, were utilised
during the discussion.

The information gained as the outcome of
this conference may be summarised as follows :—

As the Commission had already concluded,
there are now more than one species of Prickly-

pear occurring as a pest in Queensland. These

several species, so far as they have been identi-
fied, are—

1. Opuntia mermis, D.C., var.

2. O. dillent (Haw.) of Maiden. The
Queensland form differs from that
growing under this name in the Botanic
Gardens, Sydney.*

These two species are the commonest of
the pest pears, the former being found
at Dulacca and elsewhere, while the
latter occurs especially in the Gayndah
district.

8. O. monacantha, Haw. (the Suttor River
pear of Mr. Temple Clerk).

4. O. tomentosa, Salm-Dyck, a Tree-pear
occurring plentifully at Westwood,
at Helidon, and elsewhere.

5. O. aurantiaca, Gillies, the small and very
spiny form occurring at Roma and
Warwick.

6. O. imbricata,
Queensland.

Haw., not common in

 

* The spiny pest-pear of Queensland is distinct from,
though related to, O. dillenii which we have seen
naturalised in Ceylon, India, the Canary Islands, and the
Mediterranean littoral, as well as growing indigenously in
the West Indies.

7. O. nigricans, Haw. (? O. elatior, Mill.) ;
not common in Queensland, though
more prevalent in New South Wales,
and apparently capable of developing
into a serious pest.

8. Nopalea cochinelifera, Mill., a food plant
of the true cochineal insect. The Tree-
pear of Emerald, but occurring
sparingly elsewhere.

9. Nopalea dejecta, Salm-Dyck, specimens of
which Mr. J. H. Maiden has received
from Rockhampton.

In addition to these species, there are in
Queensland others whose identification had not
been settled at the time of the Commission’s
visit. ‘‘ Joints’’ of these were brought by it
to Sydney and have been planted in the Botanic
Gardens by Mr. Maiden, in order that their
names may be ascertained. They include the
two (possibly three) thick-jointed spiny species,
bearing large edible fruits, occurring in the Cen-
tral district, where they are known locally as the
‘* Red Mexican ’’ or ‘‘ Westwood,’’ and ‘‘ Yellow
Mexican’’ Prickly-pears. The latter is ap-
parently related to 0. amyclea.

In the course of the interview he brought
under notice a statement made to him that in
Southern Italy, where the hillsides are devoted
to the culture of certain species of Opuntia, a
breed of cattle, habituated to feeding on the
Prickly-pear and to chewing the spines without
any apparent injurious result, had been evolved
by crossing Holsteins and Jerseys. As the ques-
tion of utilisation has been referred to the Com-
mission, he suggested that this matter might not
be overlooked. ‘

He also referred to his introduction of spine-
less species of Prickly-pear as a possible method
of solving the problem of using to better advan-
tage, for the purpose of grazing, the dry western
lands of New South Wales. These spineless
varieties, however, developed spines under the
dry climatic conditions existing there. A fine
collection of these fodder torms, belonging to the
O. ficus-indicus, Mill., group (t.e., O. decwmana,
according to Burkill) was seen growing in the
Gardens.

Owing to the courtesy of the Director, the
Commission was afforded opportunity for study-
ing the specimens growing in the Gardens, as
well as those contained in the Herbarium, and
for consulting many important works of refer-
ence. He, moreover, furnished it with letters of
introduction to prominent workers in other parts
of the world interested in the problems connected
with the mission.

A visit was paid to the Government
Entomologist, Mr. W. W. Froggatt, F.L.8., who
had lately travelled in countries where Prickly-
pear is indigenous or naturalised, but as he had
not given attention to it no information of value
relating to the purposes of the Commission was
obtained.

JAVA.

. The voyage to Ceylon and India was made

vid Java, where some inquiries were instituted
whilst awaiting an opportunity to resume the
‘journey.
__ It was known that in 1828 a cochineal insect
had been introduced into Java, the industry
associated with its culture being maintained until
1865, and that at least one species of Opuntia,
Nopalea cochinelifera, had been established for
‘its propagation. It was, therefore, considered
advisable to ascertain the variety of cochineal
‘insect introduced and its influence on the host
species of Prickly-pear. At the same time
inquiries bearing on the possibility of utilising
the plant, as well as the occurrence of Opuntia
diseases, &c., were not lost sight of. In this
work the Commission received every assistance
from the Government officers at Buitenzorg,
including Dr. H. J. Lovinck, the Director of
Agriculture; Dr. J. C. Konigsberger, the Director
of the Botanical Gardens; and Dr. T. H. Valeton,
the chief of the Herbarium.

It was learnt from old records that the
insect and its host plant, N. cochinelifera, were
introduced from Cadiz in 1828 by J. Bisch.
At some time prior to 1847 there had been
imported into Java a second Prickly-pear, which
de Froideville referred to as Cactus tuna L., but
which was known locally as Nopalea doerie or
‘‘etang-etang’’—a form possessing long thorns
and used as a hedge plant.

There seems to be little doubt but that the
insects introduced were the true cochineal,
Coccus cacti L., which are not injurious to their
host plant. In support of this belief it might be
mentioned that their source was Cadiz, to which
place the ‘‘ grana fina’’ insect had been brought
eight years previously (1820) from Mexico
(Burkill, 1911, p. 304). Two living insects cared
for by de Seriére constituted the basis of the
industry which up to 1865 yielded a commercial
product of considerable value. The experi-
mental area for the growth of the Nopalea and
the cochineal in connection with the Buitenzorg
Botanical Gardens was situated on the Tjidam
River, but operations ceased there about 1867.
That the wild cochineal insect (Grana sylvestre)
had not become established in Java may be

inferred from the fact that de Froideville in
writing of the injurious insects of the Nopals,
makes no mention of it.

Having discovered, from these old records,
the places in Java where the cochineal industry
formerly thrived, and where possibly the insect
still survived, one of these ( Krawang) was visited
by a member of the Commission, with the result
that, although examples of the Nopal (N. cochi-
nelifera) were still to be met with growing spora-
dically there, no cochineal or other insects were
found to occur in connection with them.

In the Buitenzorg Herbarium there are
specimens labelled O. dillentt, Haw., from Batavia
(1909) and O. tuna, Mill, from Bondowoggo
(1846). They are both O. dillenti and no doubt
represent the plant referred to by de Froideville
as Cactus tuna. It was found by inquiry that
this species in addition to growing in several
places as a hedge plant, was still to be found
naturalised to the south of Sourabaya, on sand
dunes along the coast near Glendong (Kretig),
and in the Preanger Regencies (between Soeka-
boemi and Naugela). As there was no evidence
of the pear being held in check by any enemy,
these localities were not visited during the short
period available. O. dillenw may be met with
also along the sea front in the neighbourhood of
Batavia.

The small collection of Cactacez in the
Buitenzorg Gardens was examined, but no
natural enemy was detected. The humid tropical
climate seemed to be prejudicial to all Opuntias
except Nopalea cochinelifera and Opuntia mgri-
cans.

Dr. J. C. Konigsberger pointed out a
peculiar natural enemy of the Lantana that
occurred in Sumatra, at Deli, and suggested that
this occurrence might yield a new outlook in con-
nection with the work. This was a weed belong-
ing to the composite genus Eupatoria, which
grew with great vigour and literally choked the
plant in question.

SINGAPORE.

A delay of about twenty-four hours in
Singapore, whilst waiting for a boat leaving for
Ceylon, gave an opportunity of interviewing Mr.
I. H. Burkill, M.A., F.L.S., formerly Economie
Botanist to the Botanical Survey of India, but
now Director of the Botanic Gardens at Singa-
pore. He is a well-known writer on the Prickly-
pears of India. and was able to give information
regarding the distribution of the various species
occurring there. He stated that O. monacantha,*
which is the main pest pear of Northern India,
has been held in check by the Wild Cochineal
Insect in certain places that he mentioned. To
assist the work of the Commission, he was good
enough to suggest an itinerary, indicating the
special features of each locality in their bearing
on the inquiry.

MALAY STATES.

En route to Ceylon, the steamer called into
Port Swettenham for a few hours. This gave an
opportunity to visit the Agricultural Depart-
ment of the Federated Malay States at Kuala
Lumpur. The Commission was unable to see the

 

_. “Mr, Burkill informed the Commission that 0.
dillentt occurs along the coast of Singapore.
Director, Dr. Lewton Brain, who was formerly
Pathologist te the West Indian Department of
Agriculture, and whose spetial investigations of
plant diseases in that locality, it was hoped,
might have been extended to those of the Opun-
tias growing there. In a letter he referred to
Dr. Watts, the Imperial Commissioner for Agri-
culture at Barbados, as one who would no doubt
be able to render assistance to the Commission
in its inquiry.

PENANG.

The small collection of Cactacee in the
Penang Botanic Gardens was inspected, but here,
as at Java and Singapore, the hot moist climate
had a detrimental effect on all but a few species.
An unidentified white superficial fungoid growth
appeared to be able to attack and injure Cactacex
under these climatic conditions.

CEYLON.

Visits were paid to the Royal Botanical
Gardens at Peradeniya, where assistance was
obtained from Mr. R. N. Lyne, the Director of
Agriculture, Mr. E. E. Green, the Government
Entomologist, and Mr. T. Petch, the Mycologist.

The lastnamed investigator informed us that
Prickly-pear was very prevalent in the Northern
Province of the island and was found to some
extent in the dry zone along the south-eastern
coast from Tangalla to Hambantota. He was
not aware of the occurrence in Ceylon of any
fungoid or bacterial disease of Opuntias, such as
might be utilised in destroying them.

Mr. Green, who is an authority on Coccide
and who has recently published a paper on the
cultivated and wild forms of cochineal insects
(1912), gave us an opportunity to examine
mounted specimens of the species Coccus indicus,
Green, naturalised in India and Ceylon, as well
as of C. confusus capensis, which is now found
in South Africa. Living examples of the latter
were seen growing in his garden on Nopalea
cochinelifera, and were generously placed at the
disposal of the Commission for transmission to
Queensland. He believed that C. indicus was
now a rare insect since he had found it only
on a few isolated plants at Hambantota and
Tangalla (1912, p. 85). Its destructive work had
already been referred to in his paper, where the
host plant is quoted as O. dillenwi since that was
the only species of Opuntia recorded from the
island. He was not aware of any other insect
enemies of Prickly-pear in Ceylon.

From information already available (Lewis,
1895, p. 279) it was known that Mr. P. A. Dyke,
formerly Government Agent for the Northern
Province, had in 1863, as well as previously,
introduced a cochineal insect from Jaffna, at the
extreme north of the island, and from Trincomalee
on the eastern coast, to Mullaittivu, where Prickly-
pear referred to as OQ. dillenit was very common.*
The destruction of Opuntia caused by these
parasites was said to be so considerable that it
was a difficult matter to find a plant three years
later. Insects sent from Jaffna had also brought
about great havoc near Mattalau and Chinnaru,

 

*The Tamil term naka kalli, with variations, is
applied indifferently at the present day to 0. dillentt and
O. monacantha. The same remark is true for the Sinhalese
name patuk or katu patuk (thorny patuk).

while those which destroyed the Prickly-pear in

the Vanni district (Chemmalai) had come from
Trincomalee by way of Nuwarakkalawiya. From
a reference to Dyke’s Diary, 1865-68, given by
Lewis, it would seem that this coccus, which
appears to have been the wild cochineal, was
derived from Madras.

The destruction just referred to was wit-
nessed by Sir William Twynam, K.C.M.G., who
was then Assistant Agent at Manaar under Mr.
Dyke (vid. Tryon, 1910, p. 188; 1911, p. 11).

Mr. Thos. Steele,* while acting as Govern-
ment Agent in the Hambantota district (1872),
recorded the presence of this insect there as well
as elsewhere in the island, as a very destructive
enemy of Prickly-pear. On comparing it with
specimens of the true cochineal from Mexico, he
recognised that the Ceylon coccid was distinct
from it, though perhaps allied.

After making the necessary preliminary
inquiries, it was decided to visit the northern
province where the insect had in 1865-8 proved
itself an exterminator; and also the district
which included Hambantota and Tangalla, where
more recent destruction was known to have been
occasioned.

Visit TO THE NORTHERN PROVINCE.

From Pallai, 222 miles from Colombo along
the Northern Railway, to Kankesanturai, 34 miles
further on, Prickly-pear was found to grow
sporadically, but in some places quite thickly;
and from the latter place westward to Kayts
Island and eastward to Point Pedro the same
noxious weed was found to be quite prevalent,
causing in some quarters much concern. The
area embraced by these limits affords the home
of an agricultural Tamil community, which in
some localities was already taking steps to
extirpate it. Prickly-pear was also found to
grow in large patches adjacent to the tobacco
fields on the island of Mandativu, and near the
town of Jaffna. Moreover, testimony received
suggested that it had a much wider distribution
in the Northern Province than even this personal
investigation disclosed.

Tt was found that the pear was almost
exclusively Opuntia dillenti, Haw., which is the
only species of Prickly-pear recorded as being
naturalised in Ceylon.t

Though O. dillenit had been referred to as
the host of the Wild Cochineal insect in Ceylon,
first by Lewis (1895, p. 279) and. lately by
Green (1912, p. 85), yet Burkill (1911) has
stated that the coccid which is found in India
and which Mr. Green has identified as also being
Coccus indicus, has been met with by him
exclusively on another species, O. monacantha,
which is not recorded as a naturalised plant in
Ceylon. A careful search was made and though
~ € Steele, Thos., Assist. Govt. Agent, in “ Annual
Report on the Hambantota district, 1872,” Administration
Reports, Ceylon, 1872, Colombo, by authority, 1873—

. 165.
: +H. Trimen (“ Handbook of the Flora of Ceylon,”
II., p. 267) states that O. dillenit is the common cactus
found on waste ground and roadsides in the low country.
Tt oceursrarely in the moist regions, but is abundant in the
drier coastal districts. In parts of the Northern Province
it is a nuisance. It is called Katu-patuk by the Sinhalese
and Naka-kalli by the Tamils. He mentions that the
species is an old introduction from South America. He
goes on to state that no other naturalised species occurs

in Ceylon.
Q. dillenii was seen in abundance yet not a single
specimen of Coccus indicus was seen. In regard
to O. monacantha, only a few isolated plants were
noticed in the areas traversed, these occurring
at Vallalai, near Kankesanturai, and near Jon-
damanar, where they were growing under cirewm-
stances which suggested that they were “* sur-
vivals.’’ None of these coccids were scen nor
were local residents able to find any after search-
ing for them.

Evidence obtained from the oldest residents
jn the district showed that the plant had been
more plentiful, and that the insects introduced
by Mr. Dyke had caused its destruction. This
coccid they named Tambalam pouchee, the
term proper to a related red-dye-yielding insect
oceurring about the roots of grasses at Jaffna
and elsewhere.

A visit to Sir William Twynam, at Jaffna,
served to elicit a statement of facts corroborative
of what has been already recorded regarding the
work of the Wild Cochineal Insect in the
Northern Province under the Government Agent,
Mr. Dyke. He also referred to its being liberated
by him at Valviddaturi, which is adjacent to the
place where O. monacantha was found by us still
growing, though almost extinct.

Although this inquiry in the Northern Pro-
vince failed to bring to light a single dying
Prickly-pear plant, or an insect capable of
destroying it, yet from the evidence available
we may conclude:—That formerly Opuntia
monacantha was a prevalent plant in the district;
that it had gradually disappeared through the
attacks of the parasite named; and that another
species common in Southern India—.e., 0.
dillenii, Haw.—has supplanted it there, and
is itself not now victimised by any natural
enemy. Sir Wm. Twynam, indeed, stated that,
owing to the recent aggressiveness of this weed
in the division named, he had represented to the
Government at Colombo the desirability of taking
measures to exterminate it.

It might be added that, many years sub-
sequent to P. A. Dyke’s successful employment
of the Wild Cochineal Insect in the subjugation
of Prickly-pear plants in the Northern Province,
an undue development of Opuntias there
suggested resort to the same remedy again. Thus,
in November, 1902, the Assistant Government
Agent of the Hambantota district of the Southern
Province, in reporting on a special question sub-
mitted by the Colonial Secretary, stated that this
insect appeared to have been especially preva-
lent in the Hambantota district that year, and
undoubtedly killed the Prickly-pear. Moreover,
he despatched a quantity of plants affected with
the cochineal insect to his colleague at Jaffna,
for use in that division of the colony of which it
is the metropolis.

With regard to this consignment, the
Northern Province Government Agent, writing
in November, 1903—1.c., after a lapse of some
months—reported that the specimens previously
sent when tried on some Prickly-pear bushes
had proved a failure. Accordingly, a further
supply of Opuntia affected by coccids was sent
him, but the result seems to have been similar
to the first; for in July 1904, J. R. Lewis,
Government Agent, writing from Jaffna,
requisitioned for still another consignment. This

4

third supply was forwarded to Kankesantural,
at the extreme north of Ceylon, im August of
the same year. These insects appear to have
been all derived from Kahawatti, near Tangalla.

When visiting Kankesanturai and other parts
of the Northern Province in the course of this
inquiry, we could neither find, nor hear of
there being found, in the locality a single living
cochineal insect, much less learn of any destruc-
tion of Prickly-pear that may have resulted from
their introduction.

The unsatisfactory outcome of all ‘these
attempts to reinstate the Opuntia-destroying in-
sect in the North, appears to be fully accounted
for by the fact that the Prickly-pear that had
now become prevalent in the district was Opuntia
dillenti—a distinct kind from that previously
occurring there as a _ pest (O. monacantha)
and, therefore, one distinct from ‘the host-plant
of Coccus indicus.*

Although this investigation yielded negative
results so far as its main purpose was concerned,
it served to indicate how complete might be the
destruction of a particular kind of Prickly-pear
when once it. was confronted with a natural
enemy so prolific and virulent as is the Wild
Cochineal Insect (Coccus indicus, Green) when
living under conditions favourable to its
existence. It is, therefore, reasonable to expect
a similar result should this association between
it and its proper host, which is one of the
Queensland pest species, be brought about, even
in another country.

.

SouTHERN CEYLON.

Matara was first made a centre for investiga-
tion in the Southern Province. The train jour-
ney from Colombo along the south-western shores
of the island revealed the presence of Prickly-pear
(O. monacantha), growing either as hedges or as
scattered plants, at or near Colombo, Mt.
Lavinia, Angulana, Moratuwa, and other villages
as far south as Induruwa. A little was found
at Weligama.

At Matara, the terminus of the South Coast
Railway, there were found a few plants belong-
ing to the same species, a fair proportion of
which was parasitised by the Wild Cochineal
Insect. These occurred in great numbers on
some of the specimens. In every case the
presence of the insect had caused disease, the
result of heavy infection being the death of the
hostplant, which either rotted through de-
composition setting in or else dried up into a
hard mass. The first indication of disease could
be recognised by the presence of bleaching or
chlorosis at the spot where the insect had applied
itself. This yellow area increased in size, and,
where a joint harboured many coccids, the
entire surface became yellow, death supervening.
No other disease-producing agencies were
detected. Evidence was forthcoming that 0.
monacantha, which, as far as our. observation
has indicated, is the only pest species present in
the Southern Province, was formerly much more
abundant, but that some white disease (i.e. Wald
Cochineal) had appeared on it and had killed it.

* The Commission is indebted to the Archives of the
Hambantota Kachcheri, to which it was courteously
permitted access by the Assistant Government Agent,
Mr. T. A. Carey, for a knowledge of the repeated trans-

mission of the Wild Cochineal from that district to the
Northern Province,
 

 

 

 

 

Photo. by A. P. Corrie.
Fig. 1.-The Common Pest Pear.—O. inermis, DC., var. Specimens from Rosalie, Toowoomba district.

 

 

 

 

 

Photo., Dept. Agriculture, Brisbane.

Specimens from Goondiwindi and Miles. The scale, wherever shown in

Fig. 2.—The Common Pest Pear.
these Plates, is in inches.
The finding of the insect here in some quantity
was unexpected, as the information available
pointed to its rarity in Ceylon.

The Commission then prosceuted its inquirics
in the Hambantota district further northwards
along the south-east coast of Ceylon, the report
made by Thomas Steele, when stationed there in
1872, suggesting that important results might
follow an investigation in that locality.

Along the road thither from Matara as far
as Tangalla, plants of a single Prickly-pear species
(Opuntia monacantha) were seen growing here
and there on the banks on either side.
Apparently owing to the presence of shade
conditions, these were generally small and
spindly. They were not found to be infested
by the Wild Cochineal Insect, one small clump
near Gandara being the sole exception. This
observation would tend to indicate that, under
the circumstances stated, the insect has very
limited powers of spreading from an infested
centre when the plants grow widely separated
from one another.

Beyond Tangalla, an abrupt change in
prevalent climatic conditions obtains. Here
Prickly-pear plants were almost absent from the
roadside except at a place distant 2 or 3 miles
from Hambantota, where two plants of Opuntia
monacantha were growing vigorously. At
Hambantota itself a few isolated clumps of this
Opuntia were found in the vicinity of the
Government buildings. These were in a
vigorous condition, and were not affected by
injurious insects or disease. A survey of the
district within a radius of 2 to 3 miles of the
town did not bring to light any additional
plants, but some may have been growing in the
low dense jungle without their presence being
remarked.

On interviewing the Assistant Government
Agent, Mr. T. A. Carey, stationed at Hambantota,
he courteously accorded the Commission an op-
portunity for consulting the official records, in
which it was stated that as recently as 1902 the
cochineal insect appeared to have been especially
prevalent in this district during that year.
Although coccid-infested pear was sent by
request to the Northern Province in 1902-4 for
employment in subduing an Opuntia there, it
appears to have been derived exclusively from
Kahawatti, a place inland from Tangalla.

Mr. Carey also introduced to the Commission
several of his subordinate officers who gave im-
portant testimony as to the former abundance of
Prickly-pear in the district, and the means by
which its diminution had been brought about.

Amongst these was Mr. H. E. Ameresekere,
the Mudaliyar or official representative of native
affairs, whose province of work embraced an area
of 640 square miles. He not only mentioned
the circumstances regarding the decadence of
the plant referred to, but attributed it to the
cochineal insect that he designated ‘‘ Latti ’’—
a word, which he stated, suggested its natural
affinity with the producer of the Lac of
commerce. He also mentioned the interesting
fact that about a year ago he had procured some
of these cochineal insects on Prickly-pear grow-
ing near Hambantota and conveyed them to
Tissamaharama, some 20 miles distant, where he
placed them on a quantity of the plant which

died, through their increase and attacks, within
six months or so.

Messrs. R. de Zilva, J. E. Amarasinhe, and
M. HH. Jayman, of the Hambantota Kachcheri,
referved to the prescnee of the cactus (Opuntia
monacantha) as a pest in the district ten years
ago. They stated that it then occurred along
the sea-coast as well as in the jungle, but that it
was since destroyed by a white insect similar to
that shown them by the Commission. One of
these officers referred to the Mudaliyar’s experi-
ment already mentioned. The parasite was said
to be still active at Mrijjawala some miles away.

Transmission of the Wild Cochineal
Insects—A considerable amount of coccus
infested pear (O. monacantha) was collected at
Matara and taken to Peradeniya where it was
carefully examined for the presence of any
parasites associated with the cochineal insects,
but none were found.

On returning to Colombo, the infested pear,
together with fresh, healthy specimens of the same
species, was taken to the Museum, the Director,
Dr. J. Pearson, kindly affording every assistance
in packing.

The excessively moist conditions prevailing
during the period occupied by these investigations
in Ceylon has rendered satisfactory packing a
matter of difficulty. Hence, several methods
were adopted in order to increase the probability
of the material arriving in Queensland in good
condition, since it was a matter for experiment
as to which was the most suitable. As the
receipt of living insects did not necessarily
mean their establishment in Queensland, a ‘‘ Me-
morandum of measures to be adopted with the
cochineal-infested pear on its arrival ’’*-was
forwarded at the same time as these consign-
ments.

Some of the insects (Coccus indicus)
reached Queensland in a living condition and
have been propagated at Dulacca, particulars
regarding this matter having been mentioned
by Dr. Jean Whitet in her Report for 1912
(p. 72-3).

The Commission contemplated that it might
be necessary to provide for several successive
shipments of the Wild Cochineal Insect to
Queensland in order that their establishment
might be brought about in more than one centre
and as promptly as possible. Since the available
supply of insect-infested Prickly-pear appeared
to be small, and occurred at a spot 100 miles
distant from Colombo, it was accordingly deemed
necessary for the development of this proposal
that some small area of land should be secured,
where the host plant could be raised and the
Wild Cochineal bred in quantity on it.

On consultation with the Colonial Secre-
tary’s Office it was suggested that the assistance
of the Director of the Department of Agricul-
ture should be sought. Mr. R. N. Lyne, the
officer referred to, met the Commission’s pro-
posal in a singularly friendly and sympathetic

 

* See Appendix.

+ The small consignment of Coccus confusus capensis
from Ceylon did not lead to their establishment in our
State, as the insects died, but, as mentioned in a later
section of our report, further samples were sent from
South Africa, Dr. White’s Report for 1913 giving an
account of their establishment and propagation at the
Prickly-pear Experiment Station, Dulacca.
manner, offering to make provision for the work
immediately at the Henaratgoda Institution,
and later on at the projected Agricultural Ex-
periment Station at Anuradhapura. This con-
siderate offer the Commission accepted, offering
on behalf of Queensland to meet all necessary
cost. The Director arranged ‘that the ‘officer
in charge of the latter institution should assist
in the project. He also proffered the services of
an officer from the head office at Peradeniya to
supervise its development.

In connection with the project the Commis-
sion had thought fit to endeavour to habituate
the Wild Cochineal Insect to feeding on certain
other kinds of Prickly-pear, including the com-
moner one of Queensland, Opuntia inermis, It
had, indeed, conveyed to Colombo living plants
of one or more of these kinds, in order to test
the possibility in this country in which the insect
had been found to develop with special vigour
and apparently unaffected by any parasites. Mr.
Lyne, however, was, in the interests of Ceylon,
naturally averse to the introduction of these
plants, being most eager to avoid all risk of
establishing by any chance such notorious pests
there. This attitude the Commission fully
appreciated, and therefore did not urge ‘this
portion of the proposal.

A visit was paid to the Henaratgoda Experi-
ment Station, an institution connected with the
Ceylon Department of Agriculture, where the
Conductor pointed out several places on the
station which could be made available as a
nursery for Prickly-pear plants and for raising
the Wild Cochineal Insect. One of these was
selected, and an area of about a quarter of an
acre, arranged for, to be exclusively set apart
for the work. This officer, by request of the
Commission, also undertook to have the area
fenced and the ground prepared for planting;
also, to receive the Prickly-pear destined for this
purpose. The cultivation of the species of
Prickly-pear naturalised in Ceylon—viz., O.
monacantha, O. dillenit, and Nopalea cochineli-
fera—was planned, the lastmentioned to be
grown to a very limited extent. Infection of all
three was attempted.

Some time later, one of the members of the
Commission revisited Ceylon and found that the
insects had become well established on O. mona-
cantha and to a less extent on Nopalea, but had
not attacked O. dillenit. It is, therefore, likely
that they will not infest our Australian pest
pears which are more allied to this last-mentioned
species than to the firstnamed.

Whilst in South Africa, the Commission
asked that a further consignment of the Coccus-
infested pear (O. monacantha) be packed and
forwarded from Ceylon to Queensland according
to directions ‘supplied.*

SPECIES OF PRICKLY-PEAR OCCURRING IN CEYLON.

In regard to the species of pear occurring in
Ceylon, O. monacantha, with its parti-coloured
petals, is present in scattered patches along the
southern, south-eastern, and south-western sea-
boards. A few specimens were also seen at
Heneratgoda, at Kandy, and also along the coast
in the Northern Province.

* This has led to a second establishment of that

species of Wild Cochineal, Dr. White referring to it in her
report for 1913 (p 72),

 

oa

6

O. dillenii is the common pear occurring m
the coastal districts of the north of the island,
and found occasionally as a hedge plant in the
vicinity of Colombo.-

Nopalea cochinelifera is found here and
there growing in gardens and occasionally at
large. Whilst at Hambantota there were dis-
covered three or four very large plants of this
species, on which the precious cochineal of com-
merce the Grana fina, is said to thrive. These
occurred within a mile of the settlement, and,
although in the jungle, were in ground that
may have previously been under cultivation.
They were evidently many years old. It
appeared likely that they may have been pro-
cured and planted by Thomas Steele, Assistant
Government Agent, when it was thought by him
that the Wild Cochineal Insect that he had
observed might be the true Coccus cacti of com-
merce.

While at the Royal Botanical Gardens, Pera-
deniya, opportunity was embraced for examin-
ing the small collection of Cactacez in cultivation
there. In this the most prominent and vigorous
species were Nopalea cochinelifera and 0.
monacantha. Opuntia dillenti, as known to us,
was not comprised amongst the kinds grown.

UTILISATION.

The Commission has not witnessed the em-
ployment in Ceylon of either of the prevalent
species of Prickly-pear‘in any manner that would
suggest that they might be of any great use in
the industries or arts.

In no place was it remarked that the plants
were used as a stock food; and although in the
Northern Province, where, as one of the members
of the Commission noticed, goats occasionally
nibbled the tender growth of Opuntia dilleni, the
possibility of the plants being used for fodder,
when represented to its inhabitants, seemed to be
in the nature of a revelation—a circumstance all
the more remarkable in view of the difficulty,
often experienced there, of providing their work-
ing cattle with ordinary sustenance.

One interesting use for it had, however, been
discovered by the Tamil agriculturists of
Northern Ceylon—viz., as a source of supply of
humus for soils depleted of this valuable com-
ponent. Thus, it was not unusual to see fallowed
ground destined for the growth of tobacco,
brinjal, or other crops, covered completely with
the stem-joints of Opuntia dillenit, which were
about to be dug under by their implements, which
combine the features of spade and hoe.

This use for the Prickly-pear is one whose
importance cannot be overlooked in a compara-
tively dry tropical country, where the develop-
ment of humus in the soil so essential to the
agriculturist, is difficult to bring about, and where
climatic conditions are so favourable to its dissi-
pation.

In the Maranoa wheat-growing area in our
own State, as one of the Commission has seen,
our more prevalent Prickly-pear is occasionally
employed in this manner, and with good results;
but observations in Ceylon confirm his previous
conclusion that it is a practice which might be
more commonly pursued in Western Queensland,
where the arable soils are naturally poor in
humus and soon become bereft of it.
_ The common use of the Prickly-pear (0.
dilleni and O. monacantha) in Ceylon is as a
hedge component. Such a method of employ-
ment has nothing to commend it from the stand-
point of Australian circumstances.

In some places, e.g., Mount Lavinia, 0. mona-
cantha was planted around the bases of cocoanut
trees as a protection against thieves, while it
was not uncommon in the coastal districts to
find the same species of pear fastened around
the trunks of these trees for the same purpose.

THe CEYLON INVESTIGATIONS SUMMARISED.

These do not seem to assist to any material
extent in solving the problem of destroying
Prickly-pear by utilising it.

Previous to the visit of the Commission
to Ceylon facts had already been recorded by
one of its members indicating that formerly a
Wild Cochineal Insect had proved highly destruc-
tive to a particular kind of Prickly-pear natural-
ised there and, in fact, had locally exterminated
it; also, that it had done the same where pur-
posely disseminated. It has now elicited testi-
mony and made observations corroborative of
these facts.

Moreover, the investigations in Ceylon
have proved that these incidents, which occurred
in the middle of the last century, are still hap-
pening in a certain portion of the island.

But that the insect is not really an enemy
of a variety of Prickly-pear (i.¢e., O. dillenit,
typical form) whose existence in Queensland is
open to some doubt, but of one (O. monacantha)
which is actually naturalised there and is locally
very abundant—e.g., in the Suttor River Valley.

Consignments of the insect were sent to
Queensland. This has led to the establishment
of Coccus indicus in our State.

“APPENDIX.

MEASURES TO BE ADOPTED WITH
COCHINEAL-INFESTED PEAR FOR-
WARDED BY THE PRICKLY-PEAR
(TRAVELLING) COMMISSION (FIRST
CONSIGNMENT) ON ITS ARRIVAL IN
QUEENSLAND.

“orwarded to the Under Secretary for Public
Lands with Letter from the Commission dated
10th January, 19138.

INTRODUCTORY.

In the district of Ceylon, in which the’ Wild
Cochineal Insects referred to hereunder were
procured, these natural enemies of the Prickly-
pear were found by us to be capable of keeping
one of the Queensland Prickly-pear pests in sub-
jection and generally destroying it. It is possible
that they will in time prove similarly baneful to
one at least of the other kinds that constitute such
notorious weeds in North-eastern Australia—e.g.,
Opuntia inermis. The Prickly-pear species that
at present claims their attention in Ceylon is
Opuntia monacantha, which we learn from Mr.
Temple Clerk is so prevalent in the Valley of the

The Wild Cochineal Insect will in appearance recall
the form of an ordinary Mealy Bug, and, like it, is slowly
active when young; but it is without the filamentary
processes of this insect.

 

7

Suttor River, and also occurs sporadically not
only in other parts of Queensland, but in New
aout Wales, Victoria, and South Australia as
well.

Since the unsuitable conditions that have
obtained at the time of shipment will necessarily
reduce the number of insects arriving alive, it is
of high importance that every care be taken of
the consignment on its receipt in order that it may
result in this Wild Cochineal becoming established
in Queensland and destroying Prickly-pear plants
there as it has done and still does in Ceylon. It
is, therefore, recommended as follows :—

ARRIVAL OF THE CONSIGNMENT.

1. On arrival of the consignment, it should
be taken over with as little delay as possible by
one of the Entomologists attached to the Depart-
ment of Agriculture and Stock.

2. This officer should open the boxes and at
once ascertain the extent to which living cochineal
insects are present, noting, for future report
under the several numbers by which the different
packages are marked, the facts in this regard.
At the same time he should take prompt mea-
sures—

(a) To protect the insects and their progeny
(eggs and larve) from access of ants
and cockroaches, both of which may
consume them;

To place them, as far as practicable,
under conditions that will admit of their
retaining their former vigour and multi-
plying. For this purpose he should
have for his work a small site, secluded
from public access (? at Stock Institute,
Yeerongpilly), and either rooted ex-
amples of the favoured host plant of the
insect—1.¢., Opuntia monacantha—or re-
cently established cuttings whose con-
tinuous growth may be anticipated. As
much young growth as possible is a de-
sideratum in this connection, and this
should be dry and free from dust;

And to transfer the Wild Cochineal to
such fresh food-plants. Two procedures
might be adopted—

(1) Little loose masses, not more than 1144
inches in diameter and composed of
cocoa-nut fibre (coir from matting)
or fine Raphia, and two or three fully-
developed cochineal insects enclosed in
their centres, so that when the young
issue they may crawl forth; or

Small pieces of the Prickly-pear leaf
having insects upon them should be
cut out.

In either case the material bearing
the insects should be fastened to the
leaf of thé growing plant by means of
an Opuntia thorn, choosing preferably,
as a site for this implanting, a surface
little exposed to cutting wind or to rain,
and preferably near some young growth,
this being especially favoured by the
larval cochineal insects on hatching out.

Tt is further to be observed that, in the
Brisbane area at least, the Wild Cochi-
neal Insect may meet with a formidable
enemy in a small beetle and its larve,
Oryptolemus Montrouziert, that natur-
ally preys on mealy bugs. Accordingly,

(0)

2)

(2)

(d)
these operations, having in view the con-
tinued existence and reproductive in-
crease of the Wild Cochineal, will need
to be carried out under conditions that
will prevent the access of this probable
natural enemy. To this end a small en-
closure covered with scrim (hessian)
should be erected to cover growing plants
that are being used in these experiments,
access to its interior being gained by a
properly secured door. This enclosure
might also aid in over-wintering the in-
sect before its transmission to localities
where it is to be employed.

(e) Since several methods of transmitting
the Coccus-infested Prickly-pear have
been followed, these remarks presuppose
that many individual insects will arrive
in a living condition. Should any in-
fested pear arrive in a condition suitable
for planting, such pieces should be
directly grown and their condition
noted.

(f)

It is possible that only a limited number
of insects exhibiting vitality may be re-
ceived. Having in view the fact that the
Cochineal Industry in Java was formerly
based on the receipt at Batavia of two
living individuals only, it will be recog-
nised that even from a comparatively
small beginning much may be accom-
plished, should the entomologist realise

the importance of the undertaking and
bring to bear on the work ordinary. skill
and be afforded the fullest opportunity
for exercising it.

Insects apparently dead may’ still
give birth to living young, since the aet
of reproduction is usually’ followed by
the death of the parent insect.

However, anticipating the possible
failure of the first experiments in trans-
mission; provision is being made for'con-
tinuous supplies of this Wild Cochineal
Insect of Ceylon (Coccus indicus) until
it shall become established in Queens-
‘land.

A report of the conditions of the contents of
the several packages forming this first consign-
ment should on its arrival be prepared and early
placed at our disposal.

One of the packages (marked II.-4) contains
a particular Opuntia (Nopalea cochinelifera) in-
fested by a second Wild Cochineal Insect.* This
Opuntia is the Tree Prickly-pear growing at
large at Emerald and elsewhere. It is sug-
gested that endeavour be made to maintain its
development on any cuttings sent which arrive
in a condition suitable for planting. Ceteris
paribus, similar action to be taken with regard to
this insect as prescribed for the foregoing one.

(9)

 

* Coccus confusus capensis, the species occurring
naturalised in Cape Colony.

II. INDIA.

The itinerary followed by the Commission
during its stay in India was practically that
outlined for it by Mr. J. H. Burkill, M.A., now
Director of the Botanic Gardens, Singapore, but
formerly Economic Botanist to the Botanical
Survey of India. A few modifications were
made at the suggestion of certain officers inter-
viewed during the journey in India.

Travelling by rail from Tuticorin, in the
south of the Pensinsula, to Madras, Prickly-pear
\as noticed more or less frequently, occasionally
on waste areas, but usually growing as hedges.
The species occurring in the more southerly
portion of the railway route was recognised as
Opuntia dillenii, which, as already referred to
in the Ceylon report, is found in the northern
part of the island as well as at a few other
isolated places such as Anuradhapura and at
Kollupitiya, near Colombo. As Madras was
approached it was noticed that the main pear
was O. nigricans,* a species occurring near
Sydney, New South Wales, and at Yelarbon, in
South-western Queensland.

Both of these cacti, as well as Nopalea
cochinelifera, may be found growing as hedges
and also in a naturalised state in the city of
Madras and the surrounding district.

In order to render possible, within a reason-
able time, the covering of the large area
suggested by Mr. Burkill, it was deemed
necessary for the members of the Commission to
Separate at Madras—one travelling through

* O. elatior, Burkill.

northern and north-western India, the other
proceeding through southern and south-western
India as well as revisiting Ceylon in ‘order to
inspect the wild ecochineal station established by
the Commission with the consent and assistance
of the Director of Agriculture, at the Govern-
ment Experiment Gardens, Henaratgoda.

A. JTINERARY AND SPECIES MET WITH IN
NoRTHERN INDIA.

Madras to Calcutta.—Whilst travelling
northwards from Madras towards Calcutta,
masses of Prickly-pear were noticed more or less
commonly. ‘The main species first seen was
Opuntia dillenti, extending from Madras to near
Bezwada, where it became more or less replaced
by O. nigricans. The zone of the latter extended
as far north as Vizianagram and Vizagapatam,
and even further. Near Naupada O.. dillenii
again became predominant. In the neighbour-
hood of Cuttack and Puri (Jugganath) 0.
nigricans was plentiful. Sometimes the infesta-
tion was moderately dense—a great deal more
dense than was seen in any portion of Northern
India, except perhaps in a few small areas. such
as at Jaipur and near Delhi. This occurred only
on poor waste land, since in arable- country
Prickly-pears have had very little chance of
surviving on account of the large agricultural
population to be supported. In nearly all cases
the pear was used for making hedges. On the
outskirts of Indian villages it is no uncommon
sight to see cacti which have been allowed to
run wild, but they are not permitted to invade
the neighbouring fields to any extent.
 

 

 

 

 

Photo., Dept. Agriculture, Brisbane.
Fig. 3.—Segment, flower, and bud of 0. inermis, var. Goondiwindi.

 

 

 

 

j
{

 

|
hn hhh hh hhh

 

Pititeniat

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photo., Dept. Agriculture, Brisbane.

Fic. 4.—Fruit of the plant shown in the above photograph. For comparison with Fig. 7.
» Calcutta.—The Commission visited the
Indian Museum, interviewing the Director, Dr.
N. Annandale, and his scientific staff, who were,
however, unable to materially assist in the
inquiry. Mr. D. Hooper, Acting Botanist to the
Botanical Survey of India, kindly allowed an
inspection of the Cactacee in the Herbarium.

A visit was paid to the Caleutta Botanic
Gardens at Sibpur, where the Deputy Director,
Mr. Calder, and the Curator, Mr. G. T. Lane,
showed the Commission the small collection con-
taining the species found naturalised in India,
this having been made and named by Mr. Burkill.
The four species are O. monacantha, O. nigricans
(labelled as O. elatior), O. dillenti, and Nopalea
cochineltfera.*

Mr. Lane mentioned that specimens of
certain of Luther Burbank’s varieties had been
imported by the authorities at the Gardens for
Mr. J. Laurie, a tea-planter at Akbarpore, South
Sylhet, Assam. In reply to a letter from the
Commission, Mr. Laurie stated that, with the
exception of one variety, ‘‘ anacantha,’’+ the
imported cacti developed -spines and were not
made use of by him for feeding to cattle, and
that, moreover, the excessively wet climate did
not favour the spreading of cacti; besides, they
soon rot when hoed under ground, and hence
are easily kept in check.

In the neighbourhood of Caleutta, Opuntias
are not common, O. monacantha being the species
more usually met with, especially at Serampore.
O. dillenti and O. nigricans are much less fre-
quently seen.

No information regarding the presence of
cochineal or of fungoid diseases affecting Prickly-
pear was available.

Through the kindness of Dr. Annandale, the
Commission was able to meet Mr. Wm. Kirk-
patrick, of Messrs. Bird and Co., Calcutta, who
had had experience in regard to the feeding of
Opuntias to his ostriches near Delhi. His infor-
mation is summarised later under the heading of
** Utilisation. ’’

Calcutta to Delhi.—Prickly-pear was noticed
more or less frequently along the railway route,
also as hedges surrounding villages and _ fields,
between Mokameh and Allahabad. In certain
centres Opuntias were fairly common, such as at
Bukhtiarpur (0. dillenii) ; Patna (O. dillent and
O. nigricans); Bankipur (0. nigricans, O.
dillent) ; Dinapur (both species); Arrah (both
species); Buxar (both species); Sakaldiha (0.
dillentt) ; Moghal Sarai (O. dillenii) ; Mirzapur
(O. dillenw); and Allahabad (0. dillenit).
Between Allahabad and Delhi scarcely any
Prickly-pear was seen along the line.

Delhi.—A visit was made to Delhi in order
to present the official credentials, the Commission
being courteously received by the Hon. Sir
R. W. Carlyle, and the Hon. Sir E. D. Maclagan,
Members of the Government of India and of the
Department of Public Revenue and Agriculture.

 

* Mr. Burkill has recorded the occurrence of another
Opuntia, O. decwmana, a large jointed, more or less spine-
less species. As we shall see later, there is a widespread
Opuntia not listed by Mr. Burkill.

+A variety resembling O. decumana in its general
characters.

These Officials had caused a letter to be
circularised amongst the chief officers of the
Department of Agriculture and Foresty through-
out British India, asking them to render the
members of this Commission any assistance
within their power. Besides, the Governments
of certain of the native States were algo invited
to further the inquiry. | Sir Edward Maclagan
had gone to the trouble of collecting certain
literature relating to Opuntias for our infor-
mation.

The Prickly-pear in the Delhi district was
examined, but the presence of disease could not
be detected. There were two very common species
—9O. dillenti and O. nigricans, the former being
plentiful on the outskirts of the town and
amongst the ruins near the city, while the
common form on the Delhi Ridge was O.
nigricans, O. dillenti‘being met with less fre-
quently there. The latter species was, however,
extremely common for some miles along the rail-
way line across the river to Shahdara and
Ghaziabad. O. nigricans occurred quite fre-
quently to the north-west at Jahazgarh, and to
the south at Gariharsura and Faruknagar, atten-
tion to the ‘‘ salt-wall,’’ consisting of this
particular species of Prickly-pear, planted to
prevent the smuggling of salt, having been
ealled by Mr. Wm. Kirkpatrick during the Com-
mission’s visit to Caleutta.

Cawnpore.—F rom Delhi a journey was made
to the Agricultural Research Institute, Pusa. On
the way thither, a halt was made at Cawnpore,
where the Agricultural College and Experiment
Station at Nawabganj were visited. Some infor-
mation was given by the Principal, Mr. A. W.
Fremantle, and the Botanist, Mr. H. M. Leake,
regarding the experiments carried out with,
Prickly-pear at Cawnpore, as well as at a branch,
station at Orai, in Bundelkund, Central India.
These are referred to later.

Opuntias are very rare in the Cawnpore
district, the only species seen being O. mona-.
cantha, of which there is not sufficient to be used’
for making hedges.

Agricultural Research Institute, Pusa,
Behar—Here the Commission was afforded
assistance by Mr. B. Coventry, C.I.E., the
Director of the Institute and Agricultural
Adviser to the Government of India, as well as
by the officers of his scientific staff, especially
Dr. E. J. Butler, Mycologist, Mr. F. Howlett,,
Pathological Entomologist, and Mr. A. Grove,
Acting Entomologist. As there had not been
oceasion to deal seriously with the question
of Prickly-pear since the establishment of the
institute, no information of value for the purpose
of the inquiry was available, with the exception
of some notes by Dr. Butler on a disease occur-
ring in Southern India, and partly investigated
hy him (see later).

A hurried journey through parts of Behar, .
the United Provinces, and Bengal revealed the
fact that cacti are not by any means common
plants in these districts, where the agricultural
population is very dense. Practically the only
species seen was O. monacantha, which occurred ‘
usually as isolated plants. It was seen at
Parbatipur, Katihar, Lakhminia, Narayanpur,
Waini, Muzaffarpur, Samastipur, Sonepur, &e.
Some O. dillenit was seen near Barauni.
10

Bankipur—Both 0. dillenti and O. nigricans
were found to be common in and around Banki-
pur, but no disease was discernible. Mr. Burkill
(1911, p. 315) has stated that O. elatir, 0.
nigricans, and O. dillenuw occur here, the two last
being uncommon. He distinguished the first
from the second by the colour of the flowers,
which he stated to be orange in O. nigricans and
lemon-yellow, changing to rose-pink, in 0.
elatior. In this district, as well as elsewhere in
India, all of these colours may be met with on
the same plant, the more common colour being
orange. There is thus little doubt that these
two names as used by Mr. Burkill apply to the
same cactus, which is designated in this report
as O. nigricans, since the plant agrees fairly
fully with the description given by Karl
Schumann in his ‘‘ Gesamtbeschreibung der
Kakteen,’’ O. elatior being quoted by this author
as an insufficiently characterised species. As
already mentioned, O. nigricans occurs near
Windsor, New South Wales, and in at least one
locality in Queensland. Mr. J. H. Maiden has
figured and described it in the ‘‘ Agricultural
Gazette,’?’ New South Wales (1912, a, p. 208;
1913, b, p. 865). The species recorded by Mr.
‘Maiden (1913, d, p. 1073) under the name
O. dillenii, as being the common pest pear of the
Gayndah district in Queensland, is distinct from,
though allied to, the true O. dillenii, which
occurs so widespread in India.*

Dehra Dun—From Bankipur a visit was
paid to the Forestry School and Research
Institute at Dehra Dun, at the suggestion of Mr.
F. B. Bryant, the Inspector-General of Forestry
(Delhi), but no information of any value for the
-purposes of the inquiry was available. The
small collection of Cactacer in the Herbarium
was examined by permission of Mr. Hole, the
Forest Botanist. Most of the staff were away,
being engaged in field work in various parts of
India. The Director, Mr. L. Mercer, stated that
Prickly-pears were not forest pests, and were
rare in Northern India. The Forestry Depart-
ment used them occasionally for marking the
boundaries of forests, but preferred agaves.
The very moist climate of Dehra Dun is unfavour-
able to most Opuntias. O. monacantha was
recognised amongst the local specimens, but it is,
however, a rare plant in the district. On the
south side of the Siwalik Hills, towards Saharan-
pur, O. dillenit occurs.

J. F. Duthie, in his ‘‘ Flora of the Upper
Gangetic Plain and the adjacent Siwalik and Sub-
Himalayan Tracts’’ (Calcutta, 1903, p. 384),
refers only to O. dillenii.

Lucknow.—En route to Dehra Dun, the
Lucknow Horticultural Gardens were visited.
Although Prickly-pear (0. dillenii) wag quite
common at Moghal Sarai and Benares, none was
seen between the latter city and Lucknow.
Cacti are not very common in the district, though
both O. dillenti and O. nigricans are used for
making hedges. The fruits of the latter are
eaten, and the juice is used by the villagers as
a medicine. Mr. H. J. Davies, the Super-
intendent of Public Gardens, stated that Prickly-

*In some of his papers (1898, 1918) Mr. Maiden has

referred incidentally to some of the ickly- "
ae prickly-pearg of

pear and agaves were originally employed to
mark the railway boundaries between Lucknow
and Allahabad, fences being built later.

Mr. Gill, Superintendent of the Naini Tal
Gardens, who happened to be in Lucknow at the
time of the Commission’s visit, mentioned that
Opuntias were extremely rare in his district.

Neither of these officers knew of the presence
of any pest controlling the spread of cactus.

Mr. Burkill (1911, p. 814) mentions that 0.
decumana was grown successfully at Lucknow.
In the Gardens we saw a few plants still grow-
ing, but the species does not seem to be utilised
in any way in the locality.

Punjab.—A journey was made from Dehra
Dun to Lahore; from the latter place to the
Kangra Valley; and thence back to Delhi.
Opuntias were fairly frequently met with in the
regions travelled through, between Saharanpur
and Lahore. As already mentioned, the species
occurring at the former place was O. dillenii.
This became replaced by another species which,
at first sight, might be taken for O. monacantha.
It has evidently been overlooked by Mr. Burkill.
O. monacantha is comparatively rare in many
parts of the Punjab, having been almost exter-
minated by the ravages of the Wild Cochineal
Insect, as is referred to later. A short descrip-
tion of this Punjab species has been given by Mr.
R. N. Parker, in a paper entitled ‘‘ Notes on Cacti
in North-West India ’’ (1912, p. 1095). His
account runs thus:—‘‘ About 4 feet in height,
as a rule spineless, occasionally 1 (—38) spines
in some of the tufts of bristles. Leaves one-
eighth of an inch long, conical, green or reddish.
Joints dull, greyish green, thick, very uniform
in size, usually about 6 by 214 inches. Flowers
yellow.’’ The species reminds one very strik-
ingly of the Queensland pest pear of the Rock-
hampton district. The rather small thick,
rounded and elongated joints are generally
spineless, but some joints, on an _ otherwise
unarmed plant, bear numerous spines, usually
one, but sometimes two or even three on each
cushion. The purple pyriform fruits are much
alike in each case. Though Mr. Parker
identifies this Punjab species as O. ficus-indica, it
is certainly not a member of the group of
Opuntias usually associated under that name or
O. decumana. It appears to be O. stricta or a
related species. Mr. Parker mentions that it
is the commonest species in the Plains of the
Punjab between the Jhelum and the Sutlej, but
elsewhere appears to be less common than the
other species (t.e., O. monacantha), which is

widely distributed, but not common, in the
Plains,

The Punjab Opuntia was seen growing either
on waste land or else as hedges along roads and
fields and surrounding villages, being common at
Ludhiana, Phillour, Chiheru, Jullundur, Dhil-
wan, Butari, Hamira, Beas, Kartarpur, Jandiala,
Amritsar, and Khasa.

0. monacantha was seen sparingly at Phil-
lour, Amritsar, and Jandiala; and 0, dillenii at
Phillour and Amritsar.

At Lahore, Mr. R. N. Parker, the Deputy
Conservator of Forests, who is interested in
Opuntias, showed the Commission the Prickly-
ll :

pears of the district.* The commonest is the
Punjab Opuntia, which has been used for cover-
ing some hillocks (formerly native brick kilns)
in the gardens. This species has been allowed
to run wild on this particular spot, and in com-
pany with it are both O. nigricans and O. dilleni.
The latter is used occasionally in the city for
hedges, and in places may be seen occupying waste
land in and near the town and cantonment. O.
monacantha occurs rather rarely at Lahore.
Growing under cultivation in the Lahore Gardens
were both spiny and spineless varieties of O.
ficus mdica, which were being propagated for
fruit and fodder purposes, but they had not yet
arrived at a stage at which feeding experiments
might be carried out. Certain varieties of the
same species were also being propagated in Sind
with a view to utilisation ultimately as a fodder
plant. Mr. Parker pointed out an interesting
hedge composed of Nopalea cochinelifera, O.
monacantha and O. dillenwi, surrounding a
private house.

Mr. Parker (p. 1096) was able to corro-
borate Mr. Burkill’s statements as to the activity
of the Wild Cochineal Insects in the Kangra
Valley. He pointed out that although O.
monacantha was ‘attacked, the Punjab Opuntia
growing by its side was not.

As both of these investigators suggested that
an inspection should be made of this Sub-Hima-
layan region, a visit was paid to the Kangra
Valley. A small amount of O. monacantha was
recognised at Pathankote, while at Nurpur, in
a spot indicated by Mr. Parker, there was found
a composite hedge consisting of O. monacantha,
the Punjab Opuntia, O. dillenii, and O. decumana.
All of these, except the first, were growing quite
well, though the altitude is about 3,000 feet. 0.
monacantha was found to be attacked by the Wild
Cochineal Insect with the same disastrous results
as had already been found to be the case in
Ceylon. None of the other Opuntias, even though
growing beside infected plants, was found to be
attacked. O. monacantha occurred sparingly in
the district, but was seen to be much more common
at Sharpur, a district higher up the valley. At
the latter place the cochineal insect was not de-
tected.

Rajputana.—After returning to Delhi, a
short visit was made to Jaipur, where Mr. Parker
had recorded that O. nigricans was particularly
abundant. This species was seen to be very
common at Gariharsura, Jataoli, and Rewari. At
Jaipur it was found to be used very extensively
for hedges along the streets and around fields,
and in many places occupied waste lands, this
being especially the case at Amber, a few miles
away. At the latter place, this cactus has been
allowed to spread in such a way that it covers
practically the whole district, including the ad-
jacent hillsides. The Opuntias were particularly
vigorous in this locality, the only sick plants
noticed being so situated that they were unable to
prosper under the hot, dry climatie conditions on
account of lack of moisture. O. monacantha was
also found sparingly at Jaipur and at Amber
generally as a hedge plant.

_ Jaipur to Bombay.—The journey to Bombay,
from which port the Commission had decided to

* Chitta thor is the general Punjabi name for Opun-
tias, Nagphan or Nagphani or Phenimoonsha being the
common Hindustani names,

leave India for South Africa, was made vid Agra
and Central India. At Agra, Opuntias were quite
rare, the only species noticed being O. mona
cantha, which was used in a few places as a hedge
plant. O. wigricans was seen at Jhansi, but no
cacti were detected between that place and Agra.
It was noticed that this latter species was very
comnion at Manmad, Lasalgaon, Nihad, Kher-
vadi, Nasik, Devlali, &c., becoming rather less
common, though still frequently seen, as Bombay
was approached. O. nigricans was recognised on
waste lands of the suburbs of that city.

B. PRICKLY-PEAR IN SOUTHERN INDIA.
The investigations in Southern India were

carried out in the Presidencies of Madras and °

Bombay, as well as in the States of Mysore and
Hyderabad (Deccan), ready assistance being
afforded by administrative, agricultural, and
forestry officers belonging to the Government of
India, as well as to that of the Presidency of
Mysore.

Madras Presidency—For forty years and
upwards it had been a matter of complaint
that Prickly-pear (Opuntia dillenti, Haw.)
already covered one-eighth of an important
district, situated at the southern extremity
of the Peninsula—in fact, it was this occur-
rence that led to a recommendation being
made at this time by the Madras Government that
compensation should be accordingly granted for
lands taken up by the Tuticorin Extension of the
Great Southern India Railway. Moreover, the
‘« disastrous spread of Prickly-pear’’ in the
Trichinopoly and other areas was then matter
for complaint also.*

In 1892 the extent of occurrence of Opuntia
in the Madras Province was specially reviewed
by the Government with a view to devising
measures for coping with its presence and
spreading. In the document dealing with this
work it is stated that—‘‘ Prickly-pear is
reported to have become a formidable evil
throughout the whole or in parts of the following
districts :—Kistna, Nellore, Anantapur, Bellary,
North Arcot, Salem, ‘Trichinopoly, and
Madura.’’+

In 1913 O. dilleni still existed in the parts
of India referred to. One may, in fact, traverse
hundreds of miles from Tuticorin northwards
and from Trichinopoly westwards, especially
along the Valley of the Caveri, and have this
prickly-pear almost continually in view, but
not, as a rule, encroaching to any extent on the
good agricultural land, the watchfulness of the
ryot (agriculturist) guarding against such
extension. Of the more northern parts of the
Madras Presidency the same is also true.
Again, in several districts, its habit of blocking
up public roads is proving objectionable, and,
moreover, the obstacle that its presence constitutes
to the sale of ‘‘ waste lands’’ is remarked—in
fact, it was commonly stated that Prickly-pear
was, in Southern India, becoming yearly more
pronounced its spread reducing the area of land
available for grazing purposes; whilst at the
same time it was proving locally harmful to
forestry enterprises.

 

 

* Pennington, J. B., Actg. Collector, 3rd June, 1872.
+ Vid. Proceedings Board of Revenue, Madras, No
697, 7th Dec., 1892.
Bombay Presidency —There was also a con-
siderable development of Prickly-pear locally in
the Bombay district, the species represented in
these infestations being exclusively O. agricans
(O. elatior). At Ahmednagar, lying to the east
of Poona, it was very plentiful throughout an
area of 5 square miles or more, while in the
Belgaum district, again, miles and miles of
country had been rendered useless by reason of
its dense occurrence. This occurred also at Nar-
gard, in the Dharwar district, south of Belgaum.
Generally speaking, it was quite common in the
precincts of many towns and villages.

Mysore—In the Mysore State Prickly-pear
(O. dillenii) was seen to be quite prevalent in
the vieinity of Nanjangud, Grundulpet, and
Chamrajnagar, while amongst other places in
which it was still very prevalent, Kolar and
Chitaldrug were mentioned. Its rapid growth
in many areas is viewed with apprehension.*
It is, however, by no means of general occurrence
in this State, and it is a matter for con-
gratulation that, with respect to localities in
which it is now prevalent, the Government of
Mysore has already made provision as follows :—

In the first place, it appointed a Special
Commissiont of some of its leading
officials, to consider the question of the
occurrence of Lantana and Prickly-
pear, and then made (18-11-10) a com-
prehensive Order based on its report.
In this Order the Forest Department
is held responsible with respect to
lands under its control for the clear-
ance generally of Prickly-pear ‘‘wher-
ever it has extended itself to the
prejudice of more useful growth.”’ It
is also asked to see that Prickly-pear
grown on the reserved lands under its
control does not spread to neighbour-
ing areas, and has to report from
time to time concerning the measures
adopted by it for the extinction of
the pest, and the progress made in this
direction.

To encourage people to take up other
lands whose assessment is below a
definite limit and already infested
with Prickly-pear, and so render them
fit for cultivation by its removal, the
Government provides that such lands,

. as-may be conveniently made available
.for cultivation, may be granted to
applicants, free of assessment, for a
period not exceeding twelve years, at
the discretion of the Deputy Commis-
sioner, who may lay down the con-
ditions under which this provision
may be taken advantage of by land-
owners, Similarly, under certain cir-
cumstances, remission of assessment.
subject to prescribed condition, may
be granted for a period not exceeding
five years with respect to lands already
under occupation and pear-infested.

District funds may in some cases be drawn

- “upon to meet the eost of clearing
Prickly-pear 'on commonages, while
definite grants for its destruction
may be bestowed in special instances
of pear-infestation.

* Vid. M. Kantarajurs, Proc. Gov. of H.H. the
Maharaja of Mysore, 10-11, p 16, 1 Rev Sect. 1.
went Vid. Gov. Proceedings No. 10005-21, 12th April,

. from Mr. G. Carmichael, the

12

In villages where Opuntia is rampant,
Village Sanitation Regulations may be
brought into force for compelling its
destruction, the state of being “‘ over-
grown with weeds or noxious vegeta-
tion’ constituting an unsanitary -
condition. The cost of the work in
some instances is recoverable, if
necessary, as an arrear of land
revenue. Municipal bodies may be
required by Regulation to remove
noxious vegetation, including Prickly
pear.*

This method of coping with the evil may have
some interest to the Australian administrator, and
is set forth since it is described in a document not
generally accessible. a

ITINERARY, &C., IN SOUTHERN INDIA.

Madras.—As the Government Central
Museum had previously published information
relating to the action of cochineal on prickly-pear,
a visit was paid to that institution, but its Super-
intendent, Mr. J. R. Henderson, was not able to
supply any additional facts.

Sir Alfred Bourne, formerly Professor of
Biology, Madras University, was also interviewed.
He had in 1897 investigated the habits of this
same species of insect, called by him Coccus cacti,
var. grana sylvestris, his material having been
derived from a certain species of Opuntia from
Ganjam. Consequently it was considered advis-
able to ascertain what particular prickly-pear
had claimed his attention in this inquiry: The
local collections of Opuntias were examined in
his company.

O. dillentt, O. nigricans, and Nopalea cochi-
uelifera were found occurring naturalised in the
neighbourhood of the city.

Bombay.—F rom Madras the journey across
the peninsula direct to Bombay was undertaken.
Westward of Guntakal Junction 0. nigricans
seemed to be the only prickly-pear present and
in the drier parts of the Deccan was seen to be
seriously affected by the arid climate, some plants
being killed outright. No evidence was obtain-
able regarding the prevalence of natural enemies
in this region.

Whilst in Bombay Pa ALON ys, ReceareA i

hief Secretary to
the Government, regarding the oMicial measures
taken to restriet the growth and spread of
Opuntias in the Presidenev. He mentioned that
natives were not allowed to plant prickly-pear
near cantonments, and that municipalities had
wuthority to order its destruction where already
occurring. He also dwelt upon its use in the
Poona district as a green manure,

Mr. C. W. Turner, Under Secretary of the
Department of Revenue and Finance. tendered
information regarding the use of Opuntia as
fodder for stock. R. B. Vakil, Khan Bahadur,
Assistant Secretary to the Government, also
rendered assistance.

Tt was in the Bombay Presidency that a wild,,,
cochineal insect had been locally prevalent and
destructive to prickly-pear some time ago. In
1837-8 J. Bell had reported its occurrence
between Cossipore and Dum Dum. Its presence

 

* Vid. 1910-11, Gov. of His Highness the Maharaja
ef eal Revenue, Sect. 1, Proceedings 18th Nov.,
 

 

 

 

Photo., Dept. Agriculture, Brisbane.
Fig. 5.—The Spiny Pest Pear. Specimen from Gayndah.

 

 

 

 

 

Photo., Dept. Agriculture, Brisbane.
Fig. 6.—Flowers and developing fruit of the Spiny Pest Pear, from Gracemere.

 
13

at. Candeish, Poona (in 1839) and Belgaum (in
1859 and 1863) had also been recorded. These
occurrences suggested that it ,might still be
discoverable in these localities, but inquiry in
Bombay did not afford any hope of such being
likely...

Poona.—In the absence of Mr. G. Keatinge,
the Director of Agriculture, his Deputy, Mr. T.
F. Main, gave us access to certain official records.
Mr. H. Mann, the Principal of the Poona Agri-
cultural College, brought under notice a report
by a member of his staff relating to the action
of a scale insect, Diaspis echinocacti, on prickly-
pear.

Professor J. B. Knight placed at the dis-
posal of the Commission.his reports on the ex-
perimental feeding of Opuntia to stock in the
Poona area. In his company, visits were made
to the Experiment Station of the College, and
to the Government Farm at Kirknee, where
these trials were being carried out; and also to
Mr. A. Norton’s farm at Dhond, where prickly-
pear had been utilised to a considerable extent
as a cattle fodder, the incident having received
notice in the Indian and Australian Press.

Professor G. A. Gamie, who is the Imperial
Cotton Expert, was interviewed regarding the
use of prickly-pear as a soil fertiliser.

The prevalent cactus at Poona was found
to be O. mgricans. In one locality there was seen
another Opuntia, which was evidently a more
useful fodder plant.*

Belgaum.—In this district O. nigricans
occurred commonly, and was regarded as a
nuisance by the agriculturists. Nopalea cochineli-
fera was also found in the neighbourhood. No
sign of insects or disease affecting prickly-pear
was noticed here.

Mr. L. Napier, the Deputy Conservator of
Forests, stated that he was not aware of the
presence of any natural enemy of O. nigricans,
nor of the alleged occurrence of the wild cochineal
in.that region. In regard to utilisation fifty or
sixty years ago, he stated that the only use made
of it was as a hedge plant, except under stress of
circumstances when the fruit was eaten by man
and beast. The difficulty of preparation and a
conservative distrust of a new method of feeding
cattle were the chief obstacles to its employment

as a'stock fodder:’ Fle mentioned that when’ once,

théplant had obtdiined a firm hold in the, forests
in the district, no steps were taken to subdue it
on account of the prohibitive cost.

Mr. R. S. Mudakattee, of the Forestry Ser-
vice, also rendered assistance.

Dharwar.—The Collector, Mr. E. Maconochie,
informed us that prickly-pear was regarded as a
pest in the district, and was especially prevalent
at Nargand, to the south. He also wrote: ‘‘ As
far as I know, we, in India, have no results of
any value to communicate; no means of removal
is practised beyond the primitive one of cutting

 

* This prickly-pear is to be seen growing in the yard
of the Police quarters adjacent to the offices of the Depart-
ment of Agriculture at Poona. Here it forms a lofty hush,
but! no iniiéations of flower or fruit were noticeable on it
when,examined. It is evidently the Opuntia decumana
dealt with by Burkill (1912, pp. 314-5), who expresses the
opinion that it is identical with Roxburgh’s Cactus chinensis.
It may be here pointed out that the latter received it from
Dr. James Anderson, who, after having obtained it from
China and propagated it in his nopalry at Madras, had
distributed it widely in 1788 (vid. “Letters to Sir Joseph
Banks,” 1789, p. 15).

x

and burning; and as to economic use, it has been
employed to a limited extent as a subsidiary
cattle fodder in time of famine, but it requires
careful preparation for which the Indian ryot
has no inclination or aptitude.”’

The Deputy Collector, Mr. G. R. Balehundri,
made available certain information contained in
reports, and submitted specimens of the cacti
naturalised in the district, these being determined
as O. nigricans, Nopalea cochinelifera, and Cereus
pterogonus. Inquiry failed to bring to light the
occurrence of O. monacantha or of the wild.
cochineal or other insect affecting any of the
prickly-pears there.

Bellary.—It was in this part of the Madras
Presidency that A. Sabhapathi, in 1876-7 and
1891-2 had carried out some feeding experiments.
with stock during periods of famine.

Mr. G. F. Paddison, the district Collector,
rendered considerable service in placing at our
disposal all the available official information
relating to prickly-pear, and brought under notice
the local Opunitias, O. nigricans and O. dillenu, .
which were prevalent in some places and might
be seen growing commingled. He also com-
missioned one of his officers, Mr. M. R.
Ekambiiah, to accompany us. No natural enemy
was known to him or was detected by us while
there.

Guntakal—It had been our intention to
travel from Guntakal to the Kurnool country
lying to the north-west, where cochineal insects
had been obtained in 1865 and subsequently,* but
it was found impracticable.

Anantapur.—aA. visit was paid to this town
since it was reported that prickly-pear had been
destroyed there at about the same time as at
Kurnool, but no information was available from
the Collector or his officers regarding the occur-
rence.

Bangalore (Mysore State).—On arrival here,
it was found that Sir Hugh Daly, the British
Resident, who is also the Chief Commissioner of
Coorg, had kindly arranged for assistance beiny
afforded us in Coorg, in the event of our visiting
that State, but this we found impracticable, in
view of the limited time available.

» Dr, lL. C. Coleman, Director of the Mysore
Department of Agriculture, Bangalore, placed at
our disposal reports—some of which are quoted
above—relating to the methods adopted by the
Mysore Government for coping with the prickly-
pear problem. He also suggested employment
of the plant for manurial purposes, though in his
publication on ‘‘Green Manuring in the Mysore
State’’t he had not mentioned the utilisation of
Opuntia in this way. ~

The collection of prickly-pears in the local
Botanical Gardens, in charge of Mr. G. Koum-
biegel, was examined, but neither disease nor
injurious insects were found.

In our further investigations in Mysore we
were accompanied by the Assistant Mycologist.
Mr. Venkata Rau, for. whose services we are
indebted to Dr. Coleman.

Mysore —It was here that cochineal insects
had been formerly established on an acclimatised

 

* Indian Museum Notes IV., 1899, p 212. ue
+ Bull. 1, Dept. Agric., Mysore, Bangalore, 1912.
‘cactus’? brought originally from Teneriffe,
but our inquiries did not lead to the obtaining
of any information during our visit to that city.

Nanjangud.—Karly in the nineteenth cen-
tury, Buchanan Hamilton had reported that wild
cochineal insects had injured prickly-pear plants
near Beilura, about 30 iniles south of Mysore.
It was decided to examine the neighbouring
region, and accordingly journeys were made to
Nanjangud and Grundulpet, near the foot of the
Nilghiri Mountains. No traces of the insect were
encountered, but a few living specimens of its
host plant, O. monocantha, were met with under
circumstances which would suggest that they
were survivals. The species prevalent in these
two localities was O. nigricans, which at Grun-
dulpet was seen to be commonly infested by the
white cactus scale insect Diaspis echinocacti, but
no perceptible damage was caused.

Coimbatore —It was at Coimbatore that
Grimes in 1884, at the instance of Surgeon-Major
G. Bidie, Superintendent of the Central Museum,
Madras, experimented with some cochineal insects
introduced from Algiers,t but no record of the
facts discovered, or of the action on the host
plants, was found to be available.

The District Forest Officer, Mr. Puncha-
picasa Iyer, though interested in prickly-pear
matters, was not able to supplement our informa-
tion to any extent, except with an account of the
ordinary local method of destroying O. dillenit
by hand labour. He mentioned that O. mona-
cantha grew in the district.

Mr. R. C. Wood, Principal of the Agricul-
tural College, informed the Commission that the
problem in that district was directly opposite to
our own, that it was there a question of utilisation
—as a hedge plant and as a protection for trees—
rather than destruction.

Mr. T. Rainbridge Fletcher, the Entomologist
to the Government of India, who was met here,
drew attention to certain insects, mentioned later,
whose attacks on Opuntias caused some slight
injury.

In addition to O. dillenii, which was found
growing commonly in this district, O. decumana
was met with occasionally.

Trichinopoly.—tThis city was reached from
Coimbatore, vid the valley of the Caveri. In the
absence of the Collector, his deputy, V. Patha-
saradtry Chetty, gave serviceable information
regarding the local use of prickly-pear as a soil
fertiliser, and also allowed the perusal of official
reports relating to the plant.

Professor H. Sampson, the Director of Agri-
culture, who is stationed at Trichinopoly, referred
to the use of Opuntias as green manure, and
mentioned that the mucilage from prickly-pear
plants was utilised in the making of a kind of
plaster called chunar.

The species found growing in this locality
were O. dillenti as well as, occasionally, O. decu-
mana.

From Trichinopoly, Ceylon was revisited, vid
Tuticorin, for work in connection with the experi-
ment relating to the propagation of the wild
cochineal insect. The return journey to Bombay
was made vid Madras.

* Ceylon Hand icti i
Colombo, A. M. ae cena ae eer

t Rep. Govt. Central Museum, Madras, 1883-4,

14

DESTRUCTION BY NATURAL ENEMIES,
A. INSECTS.
The Wild Cochineal (Coccus indicus, Green.)

As a result of investigations it was found
that at least one species of Opuntia (O. mona-
cantha) has suffered greatly from the attacks
of the wild cochineal insect (Coccus sdicus,
Green). A great deal of evidence regarding this
matter has been collected by Sir G. Watt (1889
and 1908), by one member of this Commission
(Tryon, 1910, p. 188), and by Mr. I. H. Burkill
(1911), formerly Reporter on Economic Products
to the Government of India. A summary of
information published by them, as well as of facts
contained in less accessible writings and of those
obtained by the Commission, will now be given.

In 1786 Dr. J. Anderson, of Madras,
drew the attention of the East India Com-
pany to the desirability of introducing the coehi-
neal insect into India on acount of its commercial
importance at the time, the actual introduction
being made in 1795 by Captain Neilson, who
brought it to Caleutta from Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil.* The specimens were transferred to the
various species of Prickly-pear growing in the
Caleutta Botanic Gardens under the care of Dr,
Roxburgh, but it was found that the insects throve
only on the so-called indigenous Opuntia, which
we now know as O. monacantha, Roxburgh calling
it O. indicus. A portion of this introduced Wild
Cochineal Insect was sent from Calcutta to
Madras, addressed to Dr. J. Anderson, who was
the Company’s Physician-General.t There were
other importations of the Wild Cochineal Insect
into India—one by Prinsep into Bombay from
Campeachy in 1821 and 1822, and the other
by Perotet into Pondicherry from Bourbon,
his stock coming originally vid Cadiz. From
Bourbon a supply was sent in 1837 to Calcutta,
this being the second introduction there. In the
same year a box of insects on Opuntias (0.
monacantha) was forwarded from the Cape.
There does not appear to be any evidence that
these later introductions were successful, as
auhey the insects or the plants, or both, soon

ied.

Very soon after its introduction to Calcutta
in 1795, and its transmission to Madras, it was
disseminated through the Madras Presidency.

under special Orders issued to its Collectors by
the East India Company.t

Previous to this—in 1787-1788—Dr. Ander-
son had formed a plantation at Madras of the
Opuntia (i.e, O. monacantha), which he had
found growing wild in several localities ‘and
which he believed to be a native plant. From
this garden he brought about its establishment
throughout the province of Madras, as he had
assumed that when the Cochineal insect was
introduced, this Opuntia, adapted to local con-
ditions, would be found to constitute a suitable

* Royle.
p. 60.

} This introduction of the Wild Cochineal Insect from
South America has been briefly dwelt upon by E. Balfour
in 1871 (vid. Cyclopedia of India, 2nd Ed.. Vol. L., p. 278,
Madras, 1871, s.v. °‘ Cochineal ”’), and more fully in 1889
by Sir G. Watt, in his “‘ Dictionary of Economie Producta
of India,” pp. 398-409, s.v. “ Coccus Cacti.”

{Tryon (1911, p. 10); and Prinsep, G.A., as quoted
therein.

“ Productive Resources of India,” 1840,
15

host plant for it. The insect introduced not
being, as was afterwards discovered, the Precious
Cochineal (Grana fina), but the wild one (Grana
sylvestre), the correctness of his assumption was
established by future happenings, but this would
not have been the case had the more valuable
insect been introduced as intended,*

As it is a material contribution to our know-
ledge of the history of this Wild Cochineal In-
sect, and its action on destroying Prickly-pear,
the work of this East India Company’s officer
may be here described.

Dr. James Anderson recorded, in 1787,+
that an Opuntia grew wild everywhere in the
neighbourhood of Madras, possessing, amongst
others, the following characters:—The petals
much longer than the stigmas, and when closed
entirely covering them;{ they were yellow,
streaked with red; the fruit never red-coloured,
nor has it red juice.§ The prickles on the stem
joints perfectly straight.|| In addition to the
Madras district he. mentions its occurrence as a
native plant at Chingleput, Tanjore, Chiniapa-
paigpollam,|| also at Coimbatore and at Pondi-
cherry, where the gardens were enclosed with it.]
He stated that it bore the vernacular name Naga-
kulli, and the technical one Cactus opuntia.

This plant he cultivated at his Prickly-pear
Farm at Madras, since he had (he wrote, 29th
May, 1787) ‘‘ not yet been able to find the Cactus
cochinilifer.’’** Dr. A. Berry, who had charge
of this ‘‘ Nopalry’’ under Dr. Anderson, wrote
regarding ‘‘ the country Opuntia that wanted
red juice’’: that he had planted 1,000 to have
something in readiness to receive foreign insects
till such time as the plants that were better
recommended as host plants for the cochineal
should be brought to perfectiont{ (the true
Opuntia cochinilifer having been meanwhile
received from an exotic source).

In addition to cultivating this Opuntia at
Madras, Dr. Anderson sent it to Masulipatam,
Madipullam, Ganjam, Nellore and Samateota,
Vizagapatam, Samal-Cotah, and Caleutta.t{
He also stated that he expected to get plan-
tations made of it in more sheltered situations
amongst the great ranges of hills at Vellore,
Santgurry, and Ambor.§§ From this we may
assume that he sent the plant to these also, and

 

* The publications in which Dr. Anderson describes
this long-sustained work have been overlooked by all
subsequent writers, although mentioned by Hooykaas
(J.C.) and du Rieu (Dr. W.N.) in their “‘ Repetorium of de
Koloniale Litteratuur,” Vol. I1., Amsterdam, 1877 (s.v
“ Cocchenille,” op. cit. pp. 449-451). As evidently they
are now scarce, their full titles may be cited :—
(1) Letters to Sir Joseph Banks, Baronet, President
of the Royal Society on the Subject of Cochineal
Insects discovered in Madras. Madras, Charles
Ford, 1788 (pp. 1-36, Plate 1, Nopalry).

(2) Letters on Cochineal (continued) by James
Anderson, M.D. Madras, Charles Ford, 1789.

(3) The conclusion of Letters on Cochineal, by James
Anderson, M.D. (pp. 1-21). Madras, Charles
Ford, 1790.

+ Letters, 1788, p. 8.

{ Op. cit., p. 10.

§ “ Letters,’’ 1789, p. 24.

|| ‘* Letters,”’ 1788, p. 8.

4 Op. cit., p. 9.

** “ Letters,” 1788, p. 11.
tt ‘ Letters,” 1789, p. 24.
tt ‘ Letters,” passim 1788 to 1790.
§§ ‘ Letters,” 1788, p. 11.

b

perhaps even prior to the date of the letter in

Hh this intention is mentioned—ie., July,
7.

Evidently in reference to this and other
species of Prickly-pear sent out by Dr. Ander-
son, the East India Company, as early as 1799,
granted a special remission of dues with respect
to land on which it was cultivated :—‘‘ One-six-
teenth of the ordinary rate of towns will be re-
quired for lands growing mulberry, the Mauri-
tius Cotton, the Opuntia.’’*

The introduced insect evidently found con-
genial conditions, as we are informed by Prinsep
(Burkill, 1911, p. 302) that large quantities of
prepared cochineal were exported in 1797 and
1798. The decline in value of cochineal and the
fact that the Grana sylvestre had only one-fourth
of the colouring properties of the true cochineal
or Grana fina, caused the industry to be of less
importance and to finally disappear. The insect,
however, continued to spread and to exercise a
destructive influence on its host plant. Dr. W.
Ainsliet stating that such quantities of the
Sylvestre appeared on the Coromandel coast that
it almost rendered extinct one of four kinds of
Opuntia growing there at the time. A similar
event occurred about the years 1859-1863 in the
southern part of the Bombay Presidency about
Belgaum and elsewhere.

Mr. Burkill (1911, p. 301) mentions an
interesting account of such Prickly-pear ex-
termination on the part of this insect, in
Southern India, given by Wilks in his
“¢ Historical Sketches of the South of India,’’
Vol. III., 1817, p. 84. Wilks referred to the
former existence at Poongur, on the banks of the
Caveri, of fences, &c., composed of a Prickly-
pear, the straight-thorned Opuntia,{ sufficiently
grown to cause the entanglement of Tippoo Sul-
tan’s horse there on September, 1790; but that
afterwards, when its removal was contemplated,
it was found that ‘‘the Sylvestre cochineal imtro-
duced into Coromandel, shortly after the order
had been given, had devoured not only the
‘leaves’ but the root of the plant with such
avidity as nearly to have terminated its exist-
ence in the south-eastern provinces,’’ and not
alone in these fences.

Moreover, when the Wild Cochineal Insect
was distributed the plant was already estab-
lished, and it not only multiplied but did so to
the extent of killing its host plant. Thus Dr.
Francis Buchanan, another officer in the Medi-
eal Service of the East India Company, writing
in 1807 of the new cochineal-raising industry,
in which ‘‘ the Cochineal of the bad kind lately
introduced ’’ and the ‘‘ Cactus—the aboriginal
of the country ’’ figured, states, with reference
to operations at Bailura, on the Caveri River,
and about 20 miles north of the small State of
Coorg, that ‘‘ the young insects .. . . put upon
the new hedges, will have in six months in-
creased so that they may begin to be collected,
and that, after a year more has elapsed, the
whole plants are consumed.’’ Also that, ‘‘ so

 

* Vid. Circular issued by Col. A. Reid, Salem
embodying a Kaulnama or Proclamation dated 15th Nov..
1796, in the name of the Kudds, Vastagans, and other
Ryots of the district of Tirupatur—quoted by H. le Fanu,
‘Manual of the Salem Districts,” I., p. 222. Madras,
1883.

+ W. Ainslie. Materia Medica of Hindustan, 1813.

t Cactus ficus-indica, Lin., Ainslie (i.e., O. monacantha).
16

goon as all the plants have been consumed, such
of the insects as have not been collected will
perish.’’*

There exist good grounds for concluding
that instances of the destruction of Prickly-pear
in Southern India, by this introduced Wild
Cochineal Insect, might be greatly multiplied, as
the outcome of examining the archives relating
to events in India during the first half of the
last century.

Lately, however, instances of the Wild
Cochineal occurring in injurious relation with
the Prickly-pear plant have occurred quite
sporadically in Southern India. Balfour re-
ported such an occurrence at Vizagapatam; H.
Thurston, in the Kurneool, Anantapur, and Gan-
jam districts; whilst K. Rangachara, Botanist
to the Mysore Agricultural College, informed
the Commission that he had found it at Sandur,
near Bellary.

Inquiry, supplemented by personal observa-
tions, in the course of extensive journeys in the
Madras and Bombay Presidencies and in the
State of Mysore, failed to bring to light: any
quite recent instance of the Wild Cochineal In-
sect’s occurrence. More protracted search,
especially in the region north of Madras bounded
by Ganjam and Vizagapatam, would doubtless
have resulted in finding it sparingly.

In addition to the above mentioned occur-
rences in Southern India, the insect evidently
spread (presumably from Calcutta) over
Northern India, extending along the Ganges
Valley to the Punjab, since Dr. A. Fleming (1857,
p. 200) referred to its presence in 1848 on
Prickly-pear hedges near Jindiala, the cochineal
dye being sufficiently common to be an article of
commerce.

Mr. Baden Powell (1872, p. 194), in referring
to the rapid increase of Prickly-pear in the
Jullundur Doab district, mentioned that rewards
were offered for its extermination, but that a
kind of coceus appeared and soon destroyed the
plant so effectively that the pear was then only
occasionally met with. The species referred to
is certainly O. monacantha, which at the time
of the Commission’s visit was rather uncommon,
while the ‘‘ Punjab Pear,’’ which has replaced
it, is quite common at Jullundur and is not
affected by the cochineal. Powell also referred
to the destruction caused by the insect in 1849
and 1850 in the Ludhiana district.

Sir G. Watt stated, in 1889, that, though
located for twelve years in Bengal, he did not
remember having seen cochineal on the cactus
hedgerows of the Lower Provinces. He seems to
have shown conclusively that the only form
introduced was the wild coccus or Grana
sylvestre. Stewart mentioned (1869, p. 101)
that from 1844 to 1852 the cochineal insect. was
destroying Opuntias in the Punjab, the destruc-
tion at Ludhiana being practically complete, a
fact referred to by Baden Powell in 1872. At
the present time the ‘‘ Punjab Pear’’ is common
near this town.

 

*Buchanan, Francis (M.D.). “A Journey from
Madras through the Countries of Mysore, Conara, and
Malabar,” pp. 399-400. Madras, 1807. Also, <b., 2nd
Edition, Vol. II., p. 479. Madras, 1870,

Mr. Burkill (1911, p. 308) mentioned that
Purdon had seen the insect west of Gujrat in
1851, and that he himself had noticed it at
Kangra in 1902.

Mr. Parker (1912, p. 1096) has recently
stated that he saw the cochineal insect on 0.
monacantha throughout the Kangra and Hazara
districts, the attacked plants as a rule dying.
The ‘‘ Punjab Pear’’ (which he regards as O.
ficus-indica or a closely allied species) was not,
however, attacked.

The visit of a member of the Commission to
Kangra Valley confirmed the reports of Messrs.
Burkill and Parker. The cold moist climate of
the Lower Himalayas does not prevent the insect
from exercising its detrimental effect on its host-
plant.

Lieutenant-Colonel J. G. Balman is said to
have sent to the Madras Government in 1862 an
account of the destruction caused by the Wild
Cochineal. Owing to the spread of Opuntia
in Southern India, a native official in 1863 sug-
gested its use for destroying the Prickly-pear,
so prevalent then in the neighbourhood of Tri-
chinopoly. The Collector of that district, Mr.
Wathouse, accordingly procured the insects from
Madras, and ‘‘ these were sprinkled on the
Prickly-pear trees.’? In former procedures this
would have been all that was necessary, but now
the operation was ‘‘ with no effect.’’

The Acting Collector, Trichinopoly, again,
in 1872, expressed his desire to experiment in
Prickly-pear destruction with the insect, ‘‘ hav-
ing heard that the insects were found wonder-
fully successful in some districts.’’** The ex-
periment again gave negative results. Its use
was also tested at Bellary, and found a failure.}

In 1896 the Madras Government commis-
sioned Mr. E. Thurston, Superintendent of the
Government Museum, Madras, ‘‘to institute an
inquiry, in consultation with the Board of
Revenue, as to the practicability of destroying
Prickly-pear (Opuntia dillenit) by means of the
Cochineal Insects and other parasites.’’ This
officer accordingly approached the Collectors at
Ganjam, Vizagapatam, Bellary, Kistna, South
Canara, Malabar, Nilgiris, North Arcot, South
Arcot, Nellore, Madras, Tanjore, Trichinopoly,
and Tinnevally—.e., all the districts in the Presi-
dency—‘‘to cause inquiry to be made as to
whether any animal or vegetable parasite had
been anywhere observed, or could be found, feed-
ing upon the Prickly-pear.’’ Accordingly, it was
elicited that the Cochineal Insect still existed at
Ganjam, Maliahs, where ‘‘a small clump of
Prickly-pear was fed upon by some kind of
cochineal insect, and in the course of a year or
two the greater portion of the clump was
destroyed,’’ and had apparently existed a few
years previously in a certain part of the Chingel-
put district, near Madras. He reported that ‘‘ no
parasites, animal or vegetable, have been
observed living on Prickly-pear in such a manner
as to warrant a hope that they might be used as
an agency for the destruction of the plants.’’

_ _ The Board of Revenue pronounced accord-
ingly that ‘‘ there are no parasites known to the
Presidency which can be relied on to destroy

 

“Proc Bd. Revenue, Madras, No. 3, 4th Jan., 1873.

+ Vid. Balfour, Cyclopedia of India, Vol. I., p. 278.
Madras, 1871,
 

 

 

 

Photo., Dept. Agriculture, Brisbane.
Fig. 7.—Fruit of the Spiny Pest Pear (Fig. 5), from Gayndah. For comparison with Fig. 4.

 

 

 

 

, | i] 2] “ A] ‘] a] 7] a] af 10] n] BI 13] val

 

 

 

 

 

Photo., Dept. Agriculture, Brisbane.
Fig. 8.—A Spineless Tree Pear—Nopalea cochinelifera, L.—from Emerald.

 
Prickly-pear growth,’’ but suggested ‘‘ procuring

‘specimens of the cochineal insects, and making
experiments. ’’* ‘

_ The specimens of ‘‘ Wild Cochineal Insect,’’
which Mr. Thurston named Coccus cacti, var.
Grana_ sylvestris, were accordingly obtained
from Ganjam and handed over to Dr. A. G.
Bourne (now Sir Alfred Bourne), Professor of
Biology, Madras University, who tested their feed-
ing habits on ‘‘a clump of the yellow-flowered
Prickly-pear (Opuntia dillenii), and on plants,
secured from the Horticultural Society’s Garden,
of the red-flowered species (Opuntia (Nopalea)
cochinelifera), and three other species (O. decu-
mana, O. monacantha, and O. spinosissima). The
specimens sent were all attached to the red-
flowered Cactus (O. cochinellifera).’’ Dr.
Bourne, however, arrived at negative results. The
brief report embodying his findings is entitled
‘‘ Destruction of Prickly Pears with the aid of
the Cochineal Insect or other Parasites.’’+

On interviewing Sir Alfred Bourne at
Madras (on 26th January, 1913), it was elicited
that he was not able to add to what he had written,
nor to definitely identify the Opuntia spp. that
has been used in his experiments.

The foregoing statements indicate that in
Southern India three things had been early
brought about :—(1) A plant (one of the Prickly-
pears, Opuntia, sp.), having the ability to spread
freely and already occurring in several localities,
was widely disseminated, and its development and
increase encouraged ; (2) an insect especially par-
tial to it was similarly propagated; and (3) the
destruction of the formert by the latter occurred
whenever and wherever they became associated.
Also, that in more recent times (1862-1872) the
last event was apparently not always realised.

During the extended travelling in Southern
India only a single instance of the occurrence of
Opuntia monacantha growing at large came
under notice. This was afforded by the discovery
of a few plants growing isolatedly near Grund-
lupet, at the extreme south of Mysore. Again,
to the various Government officials that were
consulted in Madras, Bombay, and Mysore,
Opuntia monacantha, as a locally-growing plant,
was apparently unknown. Special inquiry
amongst intelligent ryots was equally fruitless
in bringing a growing plant to light. Nor were
specimens included in the Herbaria attached to
the Poona, Bangalore, and Coimbatore Agricul-
tural Colleges. However, M. Punchapicasa Iyer,
the District Forest Officer of the Western Circle,
Coimbatore, mentioned, as growing at the Thada-

 

* Vid. Proc. Board of Revenue, Madras, Res. No
135, 17th June, 1896; and E. Thurston’s Report, dated
15th June, 1896, published (pp. 2 and 3) therein; also,
Proc. Board of Revenue, Misc. No. 3844, 4th Aug., 1896.

ft Administration Report, Madras Government
Museum, for the year 1897-1898. Appendix J., op. cit.,
pp. 28-29.

t One member of the Commission (Tryon, 1910) has
pointed out that this was Cactus indicus, Roxburgh,
and followed others in erroneously identifying “ indicus ”
with Haworth’s Opuntia, dillenii, instead of pointing out,
as I. H. Burkill has since done (1911), that it was only
another name for Opuntia monacantha Haw. Burkill has,
moreover, accumulated abundant evidence in support of
the conclusion that this plant—in India, at least—is its
exclusive host plant, the Manila Opuntia mentioned in the
“ Asiatic Register” and elsewhere as “ one which the Wild
Cochineal Insect would eat” not being identifiable.

17 :

gam Reserve, 15 miles away, a few bushes of a
species of Prickly-pear distinct from Opuntia
dillentt and which apparently was referable to
this species.

Hence it may be inferred that the species
once common in Southern India and so freely
distributed to many districts by Dr. Anderson
in the eighteenth century, as has been already
mentioned, is now on the verge of extinction
there.

Its virtual extermination may, therefore, be
attributed to the insect referred to; the insect
becoming rare as its host plant has become rare.
The failure of the Coccus to act as a cacticide is
accounted for by its not being confronted with
its proper host plant—Opuntia monacantha.

Burkill (1911, pp. 318-9) may be quoted as
confirming this conclusion:—‘‘ The Wild
Cochineal Insect introduced into India in 1795
spread so rapidly on Opuntia monacantha as to
destroy it, branch and root, out of the country-
side. The insect was introduced into both
Bengal and Madras, but, owing to the action of
the Government of Madras in encouraging its
propagation, it spread more rapidly there than
in Bengal. It had almost done its work of
destruction in Southern India in twenty years.
- ~ + +. Opuntia monacantha, thanks to the
Cochineal Insect, which is still with us (referring
to its occurrence in Northern India), is now a
comparatively scarce plant.’’

Referring to species of Prickly-pear other
than O. monacantha that are now endemic in
India, Burkill expresses a hope ‘‘that his work
will prevent any waste of money in fruitless
attempts to destroy Prickly-pear by means of the
Cochineal Insect; such attempts as have been
made in the past have been made in ignorance of
the true food plants of that little insect.”’

As already mentioned, the ‘‘ Punjab
Opuntia,’’ which closely resembles one of the
Queensland pest pears, is not affected by the
parasite. Moreover, it is known that none of the
following species is attacked by it in India:—0O.
nigricans, O. dillenit, and O. decumana; while
the Commission’s attempt to infect O. dillenw
experimentally at the Henaratgoda Gardens in
Ceylon has not succeeded.

With reference to the insect itself, Mr. E.
Green, the Entomologist to the Government of
Ceylon, has pointed out that this ‘‘ Wild Cochi-
neal Insect’’ attached to Opuntia monacantha in
India, and that he named in 1908 Coccus indicus,
Green, is identical with the one now occurring in
Ceylon on a plant that he erroneously identifies
with Opuntia dillenit, but that is actually, as we
have seen, the same as its Indian host plant
(1912).

The interest of the foregoing remarks consists
in the fact that Opuntia monacantha is one of the
Prickly-pear pests of Queensland (Suttor River
and Rockhampton), and occurs in New South
Wales, Victoria, and South Australia also. The
insect spoken of was despatched in quantity
by the Commission from Ceylon to the first-
named State, where it should accomplish, in
destroying Opuntia monacantha, what has been
enacted through its instrumentality in British
India as well as in Ceylon.
18

Other Insects.

This Coccus is not the only insect that
subsists on Opuntias in India.*

An armoured scale insect, belonging to the
genus Diaspis, was observed occurring very
thickly on Opuntia nigricans near the Manri
State Farm, Poona district, and on varieties of
Opuntia decumana under cultivation at Dhond.
It was also met. with at Grundlupet, Southern
Mysore, on O. dillenii throughout a rather large
area, and in some spots plentifully. The coccid
in all these occurrences seemed referable to a
single species. In no instance was a plant ob-
served to be destroyed or even checked to any
extent in its growth by it.

However, Ram Rao 8. Kasargode, Lecturer
in Entomology at the Poona Agricultural College,
stated that this plant-louse has been identified
by E. E. Green as Diaspis echinocacti, Bouché
and has been found in the Bombay Presidency
on Opuntia on both sides of the flat stems.
It is widely distributed, and occurs especially
during the months of March and April. It was
observed to be destructive in only one instance—
that of a hedge—in Ahmednagar district. .

A species of Diaspist was found on a few
specimens of an Opuntia in the Caleutta Botanic
Gardens and on the ‘* Punjab Pear’’ growing. in
the Lucknow Gardens, but it had no visible
detrimental effect.

In the Brisbane district this, or an allied
species of cactus-loving Diaspis (referred to as
Diaspis calyptroides, Costa, var. Cacti, Com-
stock), occurs on Opuntia and other Cactaces
so plentifully as almost to whiten the stem-joints.
Oceasionally under experimental conditions it
has been found to kill badly-rooted individuals
of Opuntias inermis there (Tryon, 1911, p. 17).

Two other insects injuriously associated with
Prickly-pear in Southern India, but not to the
extent of destroying it, were brought under notice
by T. Rainbridge Fletcher, Government Ento-
mologist, Agricultural College, Coimbatore,
Madras. They were :—

A large Cantharid beetle named Mylabras
pustulata. This, it was stated, consumed
the flowers of Opuntia, but not so com-
monly, or in such a manner, as to affect
in any way its spread. The yellow
blooms of many other yellow-flowering
plants it was also partial to, and was
especially addicted to attacking Hibiscus
in this manner. It is related to an insect
that we have observed in Natal as harm-
ful to cultivated Leguminose, by
similarly attacking their blossoms.

An Erotylid Beetle (gen. et sp. undeterm.).
This was said to feed in the dead stem-
joints of Prickly-pears. Again, it was
an insect that was not an exclusive
enemy of Opuntia, being more partial
to Euphorbia than to it. In this latter
plant it usually followed the injuries due
to Pyralid moths.

 

* Burkill (1911, p. 305) has given an account of the
unsuccessful attempts to introduce the true cochineal
jnsect or grana fina into India.

+ Mrs. Fernald, in her Catalogue of the Coccidas of the
world, mentions India as a locality for Diaspis echinocacti,
Bouché, as well as its subspecies cacti, Comstock.

B. DISEASES.

No disease of a parasitic nature capable of
destroying Prickly-pear was met with in
India.

Moreover, no instance of a special pernicious
influence being exerted by any higher plant on it
was observed; although, in travelling through the
Caveri Valley, it was noted that when Jatropa
and Opuntia were associated in growth on the
same site the latter usually presented a depauper.
ated habit.

Local conditions were at times, however,
decidedly prejudicial to it, and occasionally fatal,
The excessively moist climate of certain party
of Assam and Bengal is detrimental to most
species, the only one able to withstand such con-
ditions being O. monacentha, which, however, is
not a pest in any part of India, as far as ig
recorded.

The very hot, dry season experienced in
most parts of India during some part of the year
checks growth of most plant life, and even such
Prickly-pears as O. dillenti and O. nigricans
suffer, becoming drooped and chlorosed, many
dying, especially those growing in poor land on
hillsides or along hedges, the drainage in these
cases being such that little, if any, moisture
remains available in the soil for plant growth.
In a large area, of which Trichinopoly may be
regarded as about the centre, many clumps of
O. dillenit were observed where the growth of
individuals had evidently almost ceased, and their
surfaces had become brown and suberised—the
dead epidermis supporting various micro-fungi.
This state of things appears to coincide with
uncongenial conditions of growth, being especially
evinced where the plants were older and where
the soil was shallow and reposed on a stony or
otherwise unsuitable substratum. This gradual
local decadence of the Prickly-pear recalled a state
of things very noticeable within the town of Gayn-
dah and to a less pronounced extent elsewhere,
within the State of Queensland.

In a memorandum (6th December, 1912),
prepared by Mr. R. C. Wood, Principal of the
Agricultural College and Research Institute,
Coimbatore, in view of the Commission’s pro-
jected investigations, and addressed to the Con-
servator of Forests, Western Cirele, it is stated
as follows:—‘‘ The Government Entomologist
and Government Mycologist report that, so far
as their knowledge goes, there is no insect nor
fungus in this country that is likely to prove
valuable in the destruction of Prickly-pear.”’

Some years previous to this—in 1886—the
Madras Government requested the Superinten-
dent of the Madras Government Museum (Dr. E.
Thurston) ‘‘to institute an inquiry . . . as
to the practicability of destroying Prickly-pear
(Opuntia dillenii) by means of Cochineal Insects
or other parasites,’’ this officer reporting on 15th
June, 1896, as follows:—‘‘ No parasites, animal
or vegetable, have been ovserved living on
Prickly-pear in such a manner as to warrant a
hope that they might be used as an agency for
the destruction of the plants.’’** The Board
accordingly concluded+ that ‘‘ there are no
parasites known to the Presidency which can be
relied on to destroy Prickly-pear growth.”

* Vid. Proceedings Board of Revenue, &c., No. 135,
17th June, 1896,

t Vid, Le.

 

Resolution No, 1.
19

Dr. Thurston, as his report indicates, made

no personal investigations, but submitted the

question to the Collectors of the ‘several districts

of the Presidency for consideration. Amongst

. the replies that he publishes, the following may
be mentioned :—

The Collector at Cuddapah reported that
spots of a rusty colour appear on the green plant
and increase in size. They may cover the whole
plant and destroy it.

The Collector at Chingleput submitted a letter
from Lieutenant-Colonel W. G. King, in which
the following statement occurs :—‘‘ In the course
of my inquiry as to the existence of Cochineal
Insects I ascertained that considerable destruc-
tion of Prickly-pear had occurred in a village
south of Samiapagunta (of Ponneri taluk), on
the border of the Pulicat Lake, which my in-
formant believed might be the Cochineal In-
sect.’? . , . The Tahsildar of Chingelput sent a
special messenger for specimens for Dr. King;
and the latter states that he ‘‘ confirmed what I
had heard as to the destruction proceeding in
this neighbourhood, and brought me a speci-
men.’’ Dr. King then submitted this to a
‘“ Madras expert ’’. . . ‘‘ who, however (as Dr.
King states), could only state that it was a name-
less mycelial growth.’’ Evidently the specimen
was in an advanced state of decay when he re-
ceived it, for it is stated that ‘‘ the whole sub-
stance of the plant underwent a process of de-
composition by liquefaction.’’*

The Collector (W. J. H. le Fanu) at Salem
forwarded the following ‘observations made by
some of his subordinate officers :—

1, ‘‘ The occurrence of an orange-coloured
disc-shaped fungus attacking the
Prickly-pear,’’ and ‘‘ such parts of the
plant as are attacked by it are eventu-
ally partially or entirely killed out by
it,’? is reported by S. C. Moss, Extra
Assistant Conservator of Forests,
Hosur and Dhamapur Ranges. It is
further stated that specimens illustrat-
ing the occurrence of this fungus were
sent to J. 8. Gamble, Director of the
Imperial Forest School, Dehra Dun,
who on examination ‘‘ expressed doubts
as to the discs being an insect.’’} -

2. With regard to Salem also, the District
Forest Officer reports the existence of
an ‘‘ orange-coloured fungus or para-
site, not unlike Coffee Leaf Disease, de-
stroying the Prickly-pear. This fungus
seems to attack the plant more readily
in shady or moist situations. I have
seen it very frequently withering away
with the said yellow spots, and have in-
variably noticed that this was the case
when the soil was bad. I do not be-
lieve there is any fungoid disease which
will damage Prickly-pear in good soil,
and generally it is prolific in such soil.’’

3. The Head Assistant Collector, again, with
reference to the same place, reports the
existence of ‘‘two kinds of disease
amongst Prickly-pear.’’ The first he

* Lieut.-Col. W. G. King, 9th Dec., 1895, Board of
Revenue, Madras, No. 2316, 1895. Vd. Mr. Wood’s
conclusions previously cited, since they relate also to a
“ disease? of Prickly-pear occurring at Chingelput.

+ Vid. Dr. Thurston’s Report, p. 3.

 

mentions as presenting the following
symptoms :—The plant becomes at first
yellow, then brownish spots appear on
it extending over the whole plant.
When the last stage has been reached,
‘‘the pulpy matter becomes dry and
brittle and the plant is dried up and
destroyed.’’ This is said to he a very
common disease, which ‘‘ eventually de-
stroys the Prickly-pear.’’ Of the second
he states that when the plant is ‘‘af-
fected by it, it keeps its green colour,
but presents a very dried appearance
and looks as if it had no humidity in it.
In the course of time white spots appear,
and the plant looks as if it were bitten
off in places. This disease is said to be
rare, and it is not known whether it
ultimately destroys the plant.’’

These references to Prickly-pear affections,
mentioned in 1896 in those reports of several Col-
lectors of the Madras Presidency, serve to de-
seribe two Prickly-pear maladies, both of which
appear to be of a non-parasitic nature and non-
communicable. One of these, the second Prickly-
pear trouble mentioned by the Head Assistant
Collector of the Salem district, appears to corre-
spond to one elsewhere described (Tryon, 1908)
as ‘‘ Dry Rot.’’ The other, in which the earlier
symptoms are the appearance of ‘‘ rusty-coloured
spots,’’ ‘‘ yellow spots,’’ ‘‘ brownish spots,’’ or
“fan orange-coloured disc-shaped fungus’’ (?),
with more or less chlorosis, is evidently one the
subject of official unprinted reports by one of us
(H.T.) on Prickly-pear maladies in the West-
brook and Nudgee districts of Southern Queens-
land, and considered to be due to the immediate
action of some locally-produced irritant of a
chemical nature acting under permanent or
transitory defective soil conditions, and in its
origin is not explicable by any parasitie micro-
organism—fungus or otherwise—evidence of
whose presence is not forthcoming.

Both of these constitutional derangements
were met with in the Madras Presidency, the
former only occasionally at Bellary and else-
where.

The prolonged investigation necessary for
the proper elucidation of the latter disease could
not be entered upon in the course of this inquiry,
and was, moreover, not a work quite within the
scope of the Commission. Some light may, how-
ever, be thrown upon it by the following state-
ments made in the course of a paper by one of
us (Tryon, 1911, p. 7) :—

The symptoms exhibited at an early period
in the history of this Prickly-pear affec-
tion are, generally speaking, compatible
with the action of some parasitic organ-
ism—of a fungus or bacterial nature.
However, microscopical investigation
fails to bring to light the presence of
any such agent. Moreover, when kept
under conditions favourable to their
growth and manifestation, no micro-
fungi capable of acting as parasites are
found occurring, much less any one of
the several kinds that are know to con-
sort with Opuntia as a host plant.

The features that are the earliest to be dis-
played suggest the action of some toxie
fluid, formed within the plant tissue,
20

and acting sporadically on the more
superficial cells of the cortical layer of
the plant and on their contents.

No micro-chemical action of this character
has, however, been determined, and it
can, therefore, be conjectured only—if
it, indeed, actually takes place—in what
it consists. :

In this connection it may be remarked that
in the Prickly-pear a singular feature is
exhibited, consisting in the presence of
a layer of cells, intervening between the
chlorophyl containing palisade cells and
the epidermis, each of which contains a
large spherolith of oxalate of lime, and
this is denotive of the fact that during
the growth of the plant a large amount
of oxalic acid is formed, probably in
connection with the special metabolism
involved.

Could we conceive that under exceptional
circumstances the reduction of this
oxalic acid takes place to form poisonous
bodies—e.g., glycollic or glycoxylic acids
that are created in the course of this
process prior to its being rendered inert
through union with lime—such action
would account for the figure that charac-
terises the initial changes when first
apparent—that of a drop of fluid
flattened out. However, as I am assured,
such action as is referred to is unknown
to the physiology of plant-life.

Some attention has been given to the same
disease by the Imperial Mycologist, Dr. E. J.
Butler, who kindly placed the following note at
the disposal of the Commission, which, though
inconclusive, is of much interest :—

‘““ Early in 1904 I received specimens of
Prickly-pear* from the Conservator of
Forests, Central Circle, Madras.

The Conservator stated that they were af-
fected by a disease which he had traced
over a stretch of country 150 miles long,
and that, in the drier soils and wherc
fully exposed to sunlight, it certainly
resulted in the death of one-third to
one-half of the plants. His description
was that small spots appeared on the
‘* leaves,’’ around which developed cir.
cular brown patches; the ‘‘ leaf ’’ be-
came yellow, wax-like, and translucent,
and then the lower stems turned brown
and decayed. The blossoms were few,
and the flowers and fruit were un-
healthy and rotten. When growing in
shade, the plants did not succumb go
readily, the ‘‘ leaves ’’ not becoming
translucent, and the main stems not de-
caying so completely, and reviving and
resuming growth when moistened.

Later information from the same source in-
dicated that the area infected included
part of Salem, Trichinopoly, North

 

 

 

“The species is O. dillenii. Dr. Butler showed

oe of us a few tiny pieces (diseased) which he had at
usa,

Arcot, and Cuddapah districts. It was
stated to have been known in Salem
since 1896.

In October, 1904, I visited Manaparai, a _
little south of Trichinopoly, to examine
the disease on the spot. I also carried
out more detailed examinations, and
tried to reproduce the disease in my
laboratory at Dehra Dun.

The results of this work were to throw
doubt on the condition observed by the
Conservator being due to a definite dis-
ease or being capable of entirely killing
the plant.

Many of the spots were found to be due to
insect punctures, through which semi-
parasitic fungi and bacteria entere1 the
‘leaf ’’ tissues and sometimes set up a
rot. In severe cases the rotting ap-
peared to spread over the whole plant.
except the root stock; and in such cases
bacteria appeared to be the cause of the
rotting. The root stock, however, was
always found uninjured and capable of
throwing out new stems. Even half-
dead ‘‘ leaves,’’ which had broken away
from the rest of the plant, were found
rooting freely and sending out new
sound shoots. In several cases seen the
effect of the ‘‘ disease ’’ was actually to
multiply the pest by breaking up a
single plant into a number of indepen-
dent units.

My conclusions were that the constant re-
newal of growth from planis wholly or
partially rotted in their above-ground
parts put it out of the question that any
permanent lessening of the pest could

be hoped for from the disease.

In this opinion I was supported by the na-
tives whom I questioned, and by the
Forest Ranger at Manaparai, all hold-
ing that the rot was only temporary and
that the plant ultimately revived.’’

The Principal of the Agricultural College
and Research Institute, Coimbatore, informed the
Commission that an instance of a so-called disease
was afforded by an occurrence at the Saltpans of
Chingelput, a place situated a little to the south
of Madras; and that in this case it has a peculiar
economic bearing, since the occasion of its being
noted was the inability of the local manager to
maintain intact a hedge of Prickly-pear that sur-
rounded the factory buildings there. Mr. Cecil
Wood, to whom the matter had been thus re-
ferred, inclined—as he stated—to the opinion
that it was merely a case of the action of unsuit-
able soil conditions, arising from an undue pro-
portion of saline material being present. A supet-
ficial examination of a specimen, derived from an
affected plant that he exhibited, was not in-
consistent with this explanation. However, he
was having this minutely examined by a mycolo-
gist on the staff of his department, since micro-
fungi were to be noted on the dead tissue. It is
uncertain whether the diseases mentioned by
Lieutenant-Colonel King, as oesirring in 1895
in the Chingelput also, be identi.s] with the one
now under review or be a distinct affection.
 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 9.—Nopalea cochinelifera and Cereus, sp. Burnett River,
Gayndah.

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 10.—Nopalea cochinclifera and Pest Pear. Gayndah.

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 11.—Tree Pear—0. monacantha. North Rockhampton.
21 ‘

DESTRUCTION BY UTILISATION AS
FODDER.

Northern India.

The question of utilising as fodder such
succulent plants as Prickly-pears occurring in
abundance in certain parts of India, especially
the Presidencies of Madras and Bombay, where
dry conditions often prevail and drought and
famine are not uncommon, has received consider-
able attention. There is little doubt that, as is
already admitted in Queensland, cacti have some
value as food, this being especially the case during
times of scarcity.

In the report of the Nagpur Experiment
Farm for 1892-3* it ig stated that cattle were
fed on Prickly-pear (presumably 0. mgricans) ,
and, in spite of the fact that they were worked
during the whole time of the experiment, actually
increased in weight.

In the report on the Cawnpore Agricultural
Station, United Provinces, for the year ending
June, 1907 (Allahabad, 1908), Dr. J. M. Hayman,
the Deputy: Director of Agriculture, mentioned
that spineless varieties of a cactus (Opuntia
ficus-indica) were being propagated for use on
waste land as a possible fodder in times of
drought, but regarded it as an open question
whether the spiny forms would not be better, as
they were self-protecting and hardier, and their
spines could be, and were in that province,
scorched off in a manner similar to that employed
in Mexico, Arizona, and Texas. Although it was
admitted that cactus was a poor fodder, yet it
might be supplemented by other food, and, more-
over, it contained a considerable quantity of
moisture at a time when water was scarce. Its
drought-resisting properties were well known, but
it became withered by the hot winds and drought
of the province. Some were grown in Bundel-
kund, but did not propagate readily and, in order
to plant out large areas, he stated that it would
be necessary to send supplies of joints or seed-
lings. Later reports do not contain any reference
to Prickly-pear, but in the report on the Agricul-
tural Station at Orai (Bundelkund) for the year
ending June, 1909) Mr. B. C. Burt mentioned
that Prickly-pear plants were being propagated
at Cawnpore with a view to planting out an
area at Orai. In the report for the next year
he stated that the spineless cactus (O. ficus-
indica) sent from Cawnpore had been planted
out in certain waste lands on the station, and had
become established, though growth was very slow
during the hot weather. ..No further information
was either available in reports or known to the
officials at Cawnpore Agricultural College. The
species referred to was seen at the latter place.
It was Nopalea cochinelifera, and not O. ficus-
indica.

A few working cattle were fed at Cawnpore
for a month on singed cactus chopped up and
mixed with wheat straw without any ill result.
About 3 parts of the latter were added to 1 of the
former.

Madras Presidency.

In 1866—that is a considerable time after
Sir G. le Marchant had proposed the use of
cactus as a fodder for cattle in India, the Agri-

 

* Not available.

cultural and Horticultural Society of Madras
making the experiment, but with negative results
—Mr. H. 8. Thomas, the sub-Collector of Salem*
prepared fodder by adding bran or hay to seg-
ments of GO. diilenti which had been sliced after
the clusters of thorns had been removed. The
animals (bullocks and milch cows) were given
in addition to the hay, as much cactus as they
would eat.

During the great famine of 1876-1877, con-
siderable use was made of Prickly-pear. A.
Sabhapathi, of Bellary, kept cattle alive during
the period by feeding them on cut up pear, from
which the thorns had been removed by hand
tools, and to which one or two pounds of rice
straw were added. Sometimes the pear was fed
alone, sometimes dry hill grass and cotton hulls
were added in the case of working cattle.t The
ration was simplified by J. H. Cox,t so that each
animal received a daily allowance of 40 lb. of
pear with 1 1b. of rice straw, no injurious result
from this diet being noticed. In the case of
animals new to this diet and to the end that they
might relish it, the pear on being cut was
sprinkled ‘‘with a handful of horse gram flour
or the fiour of some other pulse, mixed with a
little common salt.’?

This use of Opuntia in combination with
certain other vegetable products in a dry condi-
tion (grass, rice straw, &¢.), or without such addi-
tion, in the extensive Bellary district in 1876-
1877, initiated apparently by Sabhapathi, was
adopted by many of the local agriculturists.
Thus the Collector (J. N. Master), reporting in
July and August, 1877, stated that many ryots
about Bellary had been feeding their cattle on
Prickly-pear for months past.§

Reviewing at the time the evidence regarding
this method of utilising Opuntia dillenti, the
Madras Government concluded that ‘‘experience
in the [Bellary] district generally was the same
as elsewhere—viz., that cattle can be induced to
eat the plant after a time, and will thrive on it.’’||

In addition to the Bellary experiences of the
use of Prickly-pear as a food-stuff for cattle, those
of other Divisions of the Madras Presidency
during the Famine period, 1876-1877, may also
be referred to, summarising what is contained in
various official reports.]

The favourable results obtained at Bellary
led to the carrying out of similar experiments in
the Cuddapah district, a large number of cattle
being carried through the period of famine as a
result.**

In the Kurnool Collectorate demonstration
experiments were carried out on a small farm
obtained for that purpose. Here the ‘‘ encourag-
ing results obtained induced many people to seek
admission for their cattle,’’ and applications to-
this end had to be rejected eventually, owing to
the difficulty of obtaining Prickly-pear there

 

* Thomas, H.S., in lit. 3, VII., 1866 (Proc. Bd. Rev.,
Madras, 30, VIT., 1866).
+ Letter, 26th Jan., 1900.
t Proc. Bd. Rev., Madras, 7th Mar., 1877.
§ Proc. Bd. Rev., Madras, 20th July, 1877, and 22nd
Aug., 1877.
|| Op. ctt., 22nd Aug., 1877.
§ Proceedings Revenue Dept., No. 2, 539, pp. 1-17,
21st Aug., 1877, Madras.
** Actg. Collector, 30th Mar., 1877.
22

after a while, In this work animals were fed daily
on Prickly-pear and dry grass, ‘‘ 20 to 22 lb. of
cactus leaves to about 4 Ib. of hill grass,’’ being
the daily ration.

At Madura, the work was only of an experi-
mental character and on the lines followed by
Sabhapathi, positive results being obtained.

At Coimbatore, ‘‘the cattle (under experi-
ment conditions) lived on the fodder for a month,
and improved in condition. The milch cows
yielded an increased quantity of milk.’’

The reports from the Chingleput and Bud-
wali Collectorate, again, adduce similar results.

With regard to the former, it is of interest to:

learn that the difficulty arising from the presence
of thorns was overcome by removing them by
roasting, and not solely mechanically, as had been
done hitherto by Sabhapathi at Bellary and by
others elsewhere. ‘

During the Famine period, 1891-1892, th
use of Prickly-pear was again under the con-
sideration of the Madras Government, demon-
strations of the method of using the segments
as fodder being conducted by officials in the
Kurnool district. . The Collector at
Bellary reported:—‘‘Fifty head of valuable
cattle, and 100 head of municipal cattle in hard
daily work, were for several months continuously
‘ fed on a daily ration of 20 lb. of Prickly-pear
and 1 1b. of hill grass, supplemented, in the case
of Mr. Sabhapathi’s cattle, by 9 seers of cotton
refuse and 8 seers of oil cake.’’’ For the main-
tenance of ordinary cattle, the Collector stated
that ‘‘he had been trying to introduce the
system of feeding cattle on Prickly-pear with a
small addition of grass.’’*

To further bring about its use, ‘‘ Instruc-
tions,’’ prepared by Sabhapathi, and dated 24th
January, 1892, were circulated.

During the Famine period, 1896-1897,
Prickly-pear again came into use, but not to the
same extent as before, by reason of the fact that
there was not the same pressing need as in 1876-
1877, the visitation being far less severe.

No one appears to have suggested this method
of employing the Prickly-pears of the Madras
Presidency in ordinary seasons—1.e¢., in those free
from drought conditions.

Bombay Presidency.

In the Bombay Presidency the species of
Opuntia (0. nigricans) is distinct from that (0.
dillentt) used in Madras as an emergency fodder
for stock.

The Great Famine of 1876-1877 and the econ-
sequent starvation of cattle which, where not
realised, was imminent, led to the Bellary
(Madras) method of utilising cactus as an emer-
geney fodder being made known by the Bombay
Government, to which a letter from Messrs.
Harvey and Sabhapathi, with whom it appears
to have originated, had been communicated.+

In the year in which this information wag
disseminated, stock-feeding experiments with
Prickly-pear were carried out at Kalagi by the

* Collector Bella: ivisi i i
Revenue, Madras, We dah ton ce ToL ene

+Vid. Revenue Dept., Bombay, Resoluti
llth Nov., 1876. P y, Resolution No. 6476,

Collector of that district. Moreover, the Revenue
Commissioner, Mr. A. Guy, having these facts
before him, impressed on the Collectors of
both Belgaum and Dharwar (Southern Division)
the desirability of adopting similar measures for
preparing Prickly-pear for cattle.*

In 1892 the Bombay Government again made
public the availability of Prickly-pear for stock-
feeding purposes, publishing a report on the
subject from the Superintendent of Farms,
Bombay, to the Director of Lands.t The Inspec-
tor of Government Farms (Mr. Mollison), writing
from Poona, reported favourably as to its un-
doubted value as an auxiliary cattle-food in
famine times.

In 1896, appended to its special Resolution§
entitled ‘‘ Famine: Adoption of Measures for the
Preservation of Agricultural Cattle in the
Affected Districts,’? there was issued by the
Government another one—No. 1241. Here, as
the outcome of experiment, we find it reported
upon ‘‘ favourably as to its undoubted value as
an auxiliary cattle food in famine time.’’

The experiments alluded to were carried out
at the old Botanical Gardens, Kanish Kind, and
were continued only for thirty-two days, being
confined to three animals, which were tied np to
exelude access to other food. Seven and a-half
pounds of Prickly-pear,|| deprived of thorns and
eut up according to Sabhapathi’s method, were
given to each animal three times a day. A pinch
of salt and, during the first part of the experi-
ment, 114 lb. of mixed dal husk and bran was
allowed daily. This was mixed well through
the pear. In the evening each animal received
also 7 lb. of hay. During the last of the three
weeks the cattle received the Prickly-pear with-
out any admixture. Under this diet there was
an increase of 41 |b. in weight, to which one
animal principally contributed. These cattle
were in good condition originally. A second
experiment of feeding pampered milch cattle on
the pear was practically a failure. When the
animals were fed with Opuntia alone they were
inclined to scour.

During the famine of 1899-1900 the Bombay
Government again revived the project of saving
the lives of cattle by utilising the Prickly-pear
plant, and issued for public information a large
number of reports from the Famine Department
dealing with the facts established in the different
districts affected by it. It also issued instructions
‘to press on the Collectors of the Deccan, parti-
cularly the Collector of Khandish, the desir-

 

* Vid. Revenue Comm., Bombay, 15th December,
ae and Rev. Dep., Bombay, Resolution, 7th December,

+ Vid. Revenue Dept., Bombay, Resoluti
Ist April, 1892. P mbay, Resolution No. 199,

{ Vid. Rev. Dept., Bombay, Resolution 3946, 11th
June, 1892.

§ No. 8939, 14th Nov., 1896, Rev. Dep.

_ || In the Bombay Presidency the Prickly-pear often
dies under the influence of dennaht: At other times it
assumes a yellow or brownish-yellow colour; the leaves
get thin and stiff, and become almost brittle through
loss of water. _ Hedges of this plant are to be seen
shrivelled and withered away,’’ wrote the Commissioner of
the Northern Division of the Presidency in 1900 in allusion
to the famine of 1900. Accordingly the weight of the
plant mentioned as used would fall far beneath that of
Prickly-pear growing under normal conditions.
23 ;

ability of sparing no efforts to get Prickly-pear
prepared for forage in the places where fodder is
very scarece.’’* =

Of the reports published, the following have
been perused :—

Belgaum.—From the District Deputy Col-
lector, N. C. Soman. In the experiments on
which the conclusions arrived at were based, only
three animals were used. These cattle were under
observation some time. In the first report (Dec.,
1899) it is stated that they were fed entirely on
Prickly-pear, a little salt being added to render
the fodder appetising. In the second (Feb.,
1900) N. C. Soman mentioned the use of grass,
chaff, and pulse (chuni) as adjuncts. Referring
to the experiment where Prickly-pear alone was
used, he stated that it appeared to be a com-
plete success, and that in his opinion any
number of cattle could be saved by feeding
entirely on Prickly-pear.

The costliness of removing the spines was
overcome by substituting the scorching method
for that of Sabhapathi which involved the use
of special tongs and pincers; this procedure being
afterwards adopted elsewhere in the Presidency.+

Poona.—In the earlier investigations the
Mamlatdar of Khed émployed people in pre-
paring fodder for cattle from Prickly-pear.}

Gajarat (Northern Division).—Here, as re-
ported by the Commissioner, the use of the
plant was already known to the people, and
cultivators were generally keeping their cattle
alive at the time on Prickly-pear. An experi-
ment, in which a few cattle were used, gave
results that seemed to show that Prickly-pear
is a useful fodder if supplemented with other
more substantial diet.§

Nasik.—Here, as the result of the pervading
drought, the stem-joints of the Prickly-pear
were yellowish and dry. Thin and famished
bullocks were fed, each receiving 30 lb. per day.
During the first three days the ration had gram
flour and salt incorporated with it, but afterwards
no such addition was used, whereupon the bul-
locks gradually gave up eating it, and soon
declined to touch the segments whether scorched
or not. This want of success was attributed to
the dry condition of the pear as above noticed.'|

Nevasa.—Here experiments of a very limited
nature were carried out, and only unsatis-
factory results were reported.

Shevgasaon.—Only an experiment with
four bullocks was carried out. Eventually each
consumed 18 Ib. of Prickly-pear, with which was
mixed 114 lb. of bran and about 2 lb. of kadbi
daily. They were fed three times per diem. The
thorns were removed by mechanical means. The
report stated that there was no deterioration,
but a noticeable improvement in the condition of
the animals.]

* Mem. to Commrs. C.D., 25th April, 1900.

+ Vid. Revenue Dept., Bombay, Resolutions 92>
22nd Jan., 1900, and 1331, 7th Mar., 1900.

{ Vid, Collector, 29th May, 1900, Famine Dep.,
Bombay, Res. 2787, 11th July, 1900.

§ Vid. Rev. Dep., Bombay, Res. 4177, 17th April,

5.

|| Vid. Mémlatdaér of Sinnar, 13th June, 1900,
Famine Dept., Bombay, Res. 2950, 28th July, 1900.

{ Dep. Collector, 16th July, 1900, vid. op. cit.

Sholapur.—In this case the thorns were
removed mechanically before the leaves were cut
up. Gram flour was mixed with this for the first
three days to cause it to be relished. An average
bullock was found to need a daily ration of 40 Ib.
of the prepared fodder. In the latest report it is
stated that for the first four or five days the
bullocks ate somewhat less than their usual
quantity, but after that they began to eat freely
and required between 72 and 80 lb. per day.
On the experiment being protracted, it was found
that the animals did not improve in condition
but remained the same, thus proving that
bullocks can live exclusively on Prickly-pear
(Opuntia migricans) for any length of time,
though in a somewhat reduced condition, and
can regain strength and be fit for work a short
time after they have again received ordinary
fodder.*

Planting Prickly-pear—As the outcome of
these experiments in 1900-1901 regarding the
use of ‘‘ Cactus’? (Opuntia nigricans) as an
emergency cattle foodstuff, the Bombay Govern-
ment, in 1901,+ proposed that the growth of
Prickly-pear be encouraged in barren areas, in
or out of forests, in the Dharwar, Nasik, and
Ahmednagar districts, the object of the proposal
being to rear in land, which, at the time, would
not grow anything more valuable, a shrub which
would be useful, and also to test the possibility
of thus being able to improve the land and so
obtain more valuable forest.t

The proposal met with considerable opposi-
tion from Collectors and Forest Officers alike,
especially in the Sholapur district, where the
District Forest Officer (28th January, 1901) and
the District Deputy Collector (5th August, 1901)
were both against it. Hence it was planted—to
test this adaptability—only at Khandish. Two
years afterwards the Commissioner of the Cen-
tral Division wrote deprecating any further ex-
penditure being incurred on the propagation of a
plant of which the advantages were at best so
uncertain, and which would probably become
an intolerable nuisance.§

The Bombay Government then (in 1902)
resumed its experimental inquiry, the firstfruits
of which was a report dated 16th April, 1903,
from P. R. Mehta, Deputy Director of Agricul-
ture, entitled ‘‘ Note on Prickly-pear and Aloe
as fodder for Cattle during Scarcity.’’|| These
experiments were carried out at the Poona
Farm, and the Surat Farm. In the former
two bullocks of the small hardy Deccan breed,
two buffalo heifers, and one calf were the
subject of investigation. The experiment lasted
five months. Its result is thus summed up by
P. R. Mehta:—‘‘ The result of our extended and
thorough trial proves conclusively that Prickly-
pear has hardly any value as a cattle food. It
is only when given with a moderate quantity of
ordinary fodder that the animals can just manage
to live for a period of four or five months. This

 

* Vid. Dep. Collector, Sholapur, 17th Sept. and 8th
Dec., 1900, and Collector, 14th Dec., 1900, Famine Dept.,
Bombay, Res. 1296, 26th April, 1901.

+ Vid. Rev. Dep. Bombay, R. 3946, 11th June, 1901.

t Vid. Rev. Dep., Bombay, R. No. 909. 12th Feb.,
1902.

§ Vid. Commr. C.D., 28th Mar., 1903, Rev. Dep.,
Res. 6th May, 1904.

|| Vid. Addendum to Revenue Dept., Bombay, Res
No. 3396, 6th May, 1904.
24

period, however, is too short during a famine
which extends over a year.’’ The Deputy
Director submitted a sample of the Opuntia
‘after it had been sun dried for four days, when
it lost 80 per cent. of its water,’’ to Dr. Leather
for analysis, and states in his report that ‘‘the
analysis confirms the results of the feeding trials
as to the poor quality of the Prickly-pear as a
cattle food: water, 16-96; organic matter, 60:64;
ash, 22-40.’’ Unfortunately, the report itself
lacks details regarding the procedure followed in
this investigation.*

In 1911 the latter published a leafiet entitled
‘“‘Prickly-pear as Fodder,’’ in which he men-
tioned that it may be used along with other
fodder for cattle, and the amount fed may be
gradually increased in about a fortnight to 20 lb.
per day per animal, but that it can never
entirely replace dry fodder for cattle. The dry
fodder must amount to at least half the weight of
the Prickly-pear, or else the animals will become
loose and unhealthy.

In the meantime J. B. Knight, Professor of
Agriculture 6f the Poona Agricultural College,
carried out feeding experiments with Opuntia
aigricans on more scientific lines than any pre-
viously in India. The author intimated to the
Commission that inasmuch as they led to no
practical result, the information was never pub-
lished. Moreover, he now considers that the
conclusions at which he then arrived may need
modification, although the facts on which these
were based may stand. The experiments were
conducted along two lines—(qa) to find out the
best method of preparing the food; and (b) to
find out, if fed as an additional food to the
usual rations given to milch cows and to working
bullocks, whether any advantage would be
derived thereby. Of several methods employed
for removing the spines, singeing over the blue
flame (of a primus stove) was most convenient,
and soaking (which facilitates. the detachment
of these) the cheapest.

Feeding Operations at Dhond.t{—During
1912-1913 renewed interest in the method of
utilising Prickly-pear was experienced by an
instance of its being prosecuted by Albert
Norton at Dhond, in the Poona district; and, as
this interest extended to Queensland as well as
to other parts of Australia, it is a matter to
claim attention in this report.§

 

*P. R. Mehta’s report was issued in the form of
Bulletin No. 22, 1903, by the Department of Agriculture
of Bombay

+ Vid. Dep. of Agriculture, Leaflet No. 7, 1911, Gov.
Centr. Press.

t Dhond is situated in « very dry part of the country.
During 1912, 9 inches of rain had fallen; and up to 5th
February, 1913, 2 inches more. ‘The ill-effect due to
absence of rain would, of course, be minimised by the
time of incidence of the little falling. Thus, if 9 inches
were properly distributed there, enough cereal and fodder
crops for the year might be secured. This did not happen
in 1912.

§ The stock-feeding operations at Dhond have been
previously made known in the following publications :—
(1) Norton (Albert), ‘‘ Experience with Cactus as an
“Emergency Fodder’ in India,” a letter, “Bombay
Guardian,” 10th August, 1912. (2) Knight (Prof. J. B.)
“Note on Mr. Norton’s Experiments of Feeding Prickly-
pear,’ Bombay Press, December, 1912. (3) Anon.
(Rev. H. Fairbank, fide A. Norton), ‘‘ Times of India,”
25th Jan., 1913. Contents: The foregoing letter (1)
and extracts from publications on the use of Prickly-pear
in stock-feeding generally. (4) Anon., “ Daily Telegraph,”
Sydney, New South Wales, 7th Sep., 1912. Contents :
Reprint of No. 3. (5) Anon., The ‘ Courier,” Brisbane,
Queensland, 11th Sep., 1912. Contents : Reprint of No. 3.

From A. Norton’s letter (1) the following
account of his operations is elicited. Hig
experience in preparing cactus for fodder began
in 1907; and for three years previous to August,
1912, he had been feeding it to the animals of the
farm as an emergency feed, but this must not be
taken as signifying continuous feeding for the
period mentioned.

During the eight months ending August,
1912, he had kept alive a herd of about twenty
oxen and buffaloes on 1,000 lb. of cactus daily,
the thorns having been previously removed.

Professor Knight’s ‘‘note’’ relates to
observations made by himself during a visit to
Mr. Norton’s farm. The eighteen animals there
were seen to eat the ration greedily, this daily
ration consisting of 1,000 lb. of prickly-pear
which had been passed through a circular chaff-
cutter after its thorns had been burnt off, and
60 Ib. of cotton seed, the mixture being fed twice
a day. No other food had been given to the
animals for eleven months, but a small amount
was evidently obtained by grazing, even though
the rainfall was so low. The additional fodder
obtained was at times sufficient to reduce the
consumption of prickly-pear by 40 per cent. The
animals were found to be maintained in good
condition. ‘

These feeding operations at Dhond were
evidently not regarded as sufficiently conclusive,
since the Department of Agriculture, at the in-
stance of Professor Knight, planned and insti-
tuted other Prickly-pear stock-feeding experi-
ments. These were being prosecuted at the time
of our inquiry, at the Civil Dairy, Kirknee,
Poona, with E. W. Horne as manager. A visit
was paid to the institution on 3rd February,
1913, in company with Professor Knight, but, as
the experiments had only recently been com-
menced, further reference to them may be
postponed.

Since Mr. Norton was still using Prickly-pear
as an emergency stock food at the time of this
inquiry, a call at the ‘‘ Orphanage Farm,’’ Dhond,
was made on 5th February, 1913, on which ocea-
sion the fullest information to hand was cour-
teously furnished. He stated that he was now
feeding twenty-one cattle on the emergency
ration as described above. The animals, not
being within the precincts of the homestead,
were not seen. The species of Prickly-pear
used was the prevalent Opuntia nigricans. This
material was much drier, owing to prevalent
drought, than Prickly-pear of the same species
growing at Poona, and accordingly had a much
lower water and higher solid content. The
cotton seed mixed with the prepared Prickly-
pear at the time of feeding was usually, as
was stated, ground first in a bone-mill operated
by tread power. No difficulty was found to
persuade cattle to consume this diet after a
little preliminary coaxing. Mr. Norton, more-
over, stated that he was now giving to each of
the grown cattle at night, in addition to the cactus
and cotton seed, a bundle of dry sorghum stalks,
each weighing, say, 3 to 5 lb. A heap of har-
vested sorghum stalks from which the supply was
evidently drawn was noticed in a small yard. The
cattle had access, it was noted also, to a small
sorghum cultivation, where they could obtain
what little stalks the stubble still yielded there.*

* Those who have watched Indian cattle being fed in

the Deccan will have observed the extent to which coatse
dry fodder enters into the dietary.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photo., Dept. Agriculture, Brisbane.
Fig. 12.—O. monacantha, from Gympie.

 

 

 

 

Photo., Dept. Agriculture, Brisbane.
Fig 13.—0. monacantha, from Kangaroo Point, Brisbane.

 
25

During 1912, Mr. Norton remarked, the cattle
got very little of these stalks, and their feed
was much the same this year. For the last
sixteen months the food had been composed
mostly of ecactus—say from 97 to 98 per cent.
of it. No evidence of animals having suffered
from scouring was remarked in the feeding-
shed, and it was stated that this did not occur,
the relative dryness of the Prickly-pear, per-
haps, furnishing the explanation of this. The
single ox that was pointed out as pear fed, and
that could be closely inspected, was in fairly good
condition.

_ It was found that Mr. Norton had had
imported in 1907, cuttings of some of Luther
Burbank’s “‘spineless cacti?’ as well as speci-
mens from elsewhere.
been propagated by him, but of those that were,
a practically thornless variety of O. decumana,

obtained from the old Horticultural Gardens at”

Poona, and Nopalea cochinelifera were the most
suitable, both being readily eaten by stock.

Much attention has been given to the so-called
‘* Norton Experiment Feeding.’’ It should, how-
ever, be remarked that the fodder actually re-
ceived by the animals apparently accords with
the ‘‘ W. Standard ’’ for a cattle ration, and

that in this ration Prickly-pear actually contri- _

buted a not very large proportion of the com-
ponents.

In nearly all the experiments already
alluded to, involving the almost exclusive employ-
ment of Prickly-pear, the duration appears to
have been too short to admit of definite ‘conclu-
sions being arrived at as to the efficiency of
Prickly-pear during ‘‘famine times.’’

Dried Prickly-pear as a fodder.—In regard
to the possibility of using dried Prickly-pear as
fodder, N. C. Soman, of Belgaum, reported in
1910 that it was eaten by cattle when moistened
with salt.* At Athni it was found that animals
ate the plants when scorched and dried as
greedily as when fresh. Such instances led to
the suggestion that dried segments might be im-
ported into Gujarat to be utilised in this way.t
The proposal was not acted upon owing partly
to the extra expense necessary, and partly to
doubts as to the feeding value of such dried

pear.t

Prickly-pear as fodder for Ostriches.—Mr.
Wm. Kirkpatrick, of Messrs. Bird and Co., Cal-
cutta, was kind enough to supply some particu-
lars regarding the feeding of his ostriches near
Delhi with Prickly-pear (O. nigricans), the
birds coming originally from South Africa and
from Somaliland. His information was corro-
borated by Mr. Jugal Kishore and a native assis-
tant who carried on the farm for Mr. Kirk-
patrick. The spines were removed from the
plants either by plunging the ‘‘ joints’’ into hot
ashes in an ashpit or else by holding them over a
fire and singeing them. The singed joints were
then sliced. The Prickly-pear being insufficient
by itself, to it was added herbs and gram, but not
wheat or maize. About 1 part of cactus was

* Vid. Famine Dep., Bombay, Res. No. 226, 14th
Feb., 1900, and Res. No. 1331, 7th Mar., 1900.

+ Vid. Memorandum No. 1558, Bombay, 16th Mar.,
1900: also “‘ Use of Prickly-pear as Fodder in Gujarat,
ib. No. 2298, May, 1900. ;

t Vid. Commr. N.D. 25th April, 1900, Famine Dep.
Rew. 2293, May, 1900.

Several of these had not

added to about 2 parts of gram, while other
green fodder was added as found necessary for
the comfort of the birds. Though the latter did
not require much water when cactus formed part
of their diet, it was considered advisable to have
water available in case the birds needed it.
Prickly-pear was not fed to ostriches until they
were at least 40 days old, and then only in small
quantities, on account of the danger of causing
intestinal trouble.

Objections to the use of Prickly-pear—The
Indian farmers commonly showed a_ very
marked aversion to the use of cactus as
fodder (even during times of scarcity), this
attitude being largely based on ignorance and
distrust of any novelty.* It was, however, in
part due to a belief that its use was not attended
with any beneficial results, but rather was the
cause of looseness of the bowels, as well as a
general debility.t Besides this, there was the
danger of personal injury by the thorns, as well
as the cost of removing them from the segments
during the preparation of stock fodder. Since
these were at first often dug out with a knife by
hand labour, a great deal of time and expense
was involved, but later, Messrs. Harvey and
Sabhapathi, of Bellary, introduced a form of
iron pincers for the purpose. As already men-
tioned, burning was also resorted to in some
districts, the spines being singed.

Use as Ensilage-—A few attempts have been
made in India to utilise Opuntias in the making
of ensilage. At Nellore, in 1888, it was found
that the product was not eaten at all by stock,
probably on account of the thorns.t Quite
recently (1910) an article appeared in the
‘‘Tndian Agyriculturist,’’§ mentioning that in
New South Wales the most practicable
method for dealing with Prickly-pear was
to convert it into ensilage, the thorns becoming
softened during the process. This report led to
attempts being made in the Anantapur district,
Madras (June-October, 1910), but the resulting
material was too rotten to be used, the condition
being attributed at the time to access of rain
water. It was mentioned that it was useless to
attempt any silage work in India on account of
the destructive effects of white ants. No cases
of utilising Prickly-pear as ensilage were met
with or heard of, during the Commission’s tour
in India.

DESTRUCTION BY UTILISATION AS A
SOIL FERTILISER.

Should it be found practicable to restore to
the soil whatever the prickly-pear plant has
accumulated during its growth, it is obvious that
in many instances this course would add to value
of the soil as a yielder of crops of one kind or
another. That this is so, has been long recognised
by the agriculturists of Southern India, O dillenii
being thus utilised in Madras and Mysore, and 0.
nigricans in the Bombay Presidency. Moreover,
this method of employing prickly-pear involves
its destruction. ,

* Vid. Famine Dep., Bombay, Res. 1296,
April, 1901.

+ Master, J.N., Proceedings Board of Revenue,
Madras, 20th July, 1877.

+ Rep. Bd. Rev. No. 209, May, 1888.

§ Indian Agriculturist 34, I., Feb., 1909, p. 61.

 

26th
Madras—In 1893-4 when the collector at
Coimbatore raised the question of destroying
Opuntias in this way, the Government of Madras
stated that this method had been under considera-
tion for a long time. In 1896 it was suggested
that the matter should be investigated.

The usual method of using prickly-pear as a
soil fertiliser is as follows :—Shallow pits are dug,
the pear being thrown into them during the rainy
season and then covered with a layer of earth
18 inches to 3 feet in depth. After some six or
more months, the plants are more or less fully
converted into humus, the thorns alone remain-
ing. Fields thus treated have been found to
produce more and better sorghum, plantains, and
sugar-cane than untreated land* at Veleapatty
and Kunnathur in the Coimbatore district. M.
R. Punchapicasa, Forest Department, Coimbatore,
told us that this practice is still followed there,
and is found especially useful in obtaining a good
crop of sorghum. Mr. H. Sampson, the Director
of Agriculture at Trichinopoly, informed the
Commission that he had frequently seen local
farmers using decaying plants with benefit as a
manure for Pennisetum and sorghum crops. He
also mentioned that his predecessor, Mr. Butter-
worth, had reported that in one district prickly-
pear was so extensively used as manure that
people could not obtain sufficient of it to meet
their requirements.

G. Girimaji Rao, of Kolar, Mysore, in an
article on Prickly-pear written in 1911,+ gave
details of a similar local procedure.

He stated that the plants are cut down and
then thrown into large trenches, a layer of earth
about 2 feet in thickness being used to cover them.
Care is taken to destroy any new growth which
makes its appearance on the surface. After about
six months’ decay, a very good manure is obtained,
its quality improving if it be left for a longer
period. This manure was found to be especially
beneficial for such crops as ground nut, rabi,
sugar-cane, betel vine, and dry-land paddy.
Owing to its use in this way, Prickly-pear has
been almost eradicated in the Kolar district,
Mysore.

Dr. Coleman, Director of the Mysore Depart-
ment of Agriculture, informed the Commission
that investigations were to be carried out to test
the value of the plant as a fertiliser.

In the Bellary district, where prickly-pear
has been similarly used, inquiry elicited the fact
that its decay was found to be promoted by the
application of a certain amount of lime.

Bombay Presidency.—W. H. A. Wallinger,t
the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Poona, had,
as early as 1876, in a pamphlet ‘‘Concerning the
Opuntia vulgaris—the prickly-pear—as a natural
preserver of plants and trees, as a powerful and
valuable vegetable manure, spate ”” called
attention to this method of utilising O. nigricans,
which he had found to be beneficial in the case of
poor soils. He also mentioned that the superin-
tendent of the Government Botanical Gardens at

 

* Proc. Bd. Revenue, Madras, No. 135, 17 June, 1896,

+ Translation from the “‘ Mysore Revenue and Agri-
cultural Gazette,” VI., Nov. 1911, p. 23, sqq. ca

t Folio, Gov. Central Press, Bombay, 1876.

26

Ganesh Kind, near Poona, had deposited the pear
in the irrigation tanks, where it decomposed
readily, the resulting material being distributed
in the irrigating water.

Professor Knight, of the Poona Agricultural
College, informed the Commission that he had
carried out experiments with O. nigricans as a
fertiliser, but that the results obtained so far had
hardly paid for the cost of the work. Mr. Gamie,
the Imperial cotton expert, who also was seen in
the Poona district, stated that this method of
employing Prickly-pear did not add much humus
to the soil.

The Commission noticed that, though the
practice of using Opuntias in this way was not
general, yet it is carried on in many places, as,
for example, in the Caveri Valley. That they
are not used to a much greater degree, is due to
the presence of abundant spines on both species
of Prickly-pear prevalent in the drier regions of
India. These thorns remain intact, even after
having been embedded in the ground for a long
time, and consequently would constitute a danger
to the barefooted agriculturists, especially in the
case of wet cultivation (¢.g., rice growing).

It may be added that this drawback to the
use of Prickly-pear as an ameliorator of the soil
would, by reason of a lesser development of spines
on its prevalent species, be far less felt in Queens-
land than in India, should its employment for
the purpose mentioned be found expedient.

The following account of an attempt to over-
come this difficulty was brought under our notice
by V. Patthasaradhy Chetty, Deputy Collector
of the Trichinopoly district :—

Recognising the value of the pulped plant
for rice fields, an English company, having a Mr.
Miller as its Director, had, some ten years pre-
viously, leased from a Zemindary at Sivagunga,
in the Madras district, certain lands infested
with Prickly-pear, which it was proposed to pass
through rollers so heavy that not only would
the Prickly-pear be reduced but that the thorns
would be crushed. It was not ascertainable at
the time whether these operations had been
successfully carried out by the company.

The accessibility of other plants capable of
supplying humus—e.g., the ‘‘Neem’’ (Melia),
Ponganua glabra, Cassia auriculata, Calatropis
sp., the wild indigo, &e., has in many districts
rendered unnecessary the use of the locally
growing Opuntias for the purpose.

UTILISATION OF THE FIBRE.

_ it was not observed during the limited
time available, that the woody fibrous portion of
the Prickly-pear was anywhere put to an
economic use other than its limited one as a fuel
constituent. Sir G. Watt (1891) has not only
included Prickly-pear amongst ‘‘ The Economie

plants of India,’’ but concerning its fibre has
stated as follows :-—

‘‘A coarse kind of fibre can be obtained from
Opuntia dillenti which it has been sug-
gested might prove useful as a paper
material, and Dr. Bride, speaking of this
27

fibre, wrote:—‘ The Prickly-pear, which
so abounds and has become such a
nuisance in the coumtry that large sums
are expended annually in cutting it down
and burying it, might prove valuable
as a paper material.’ Liotard, in his
‘Materials in India Suitable for the
Manufacture of Paper,’ describes it ag
a coarse fibre, easily cleared of extrane-
ous matter, which he is inclined to think
would pulp well. The samples of fibre
shown at the Colonial and Indian Ex-
hibition were, however, by the paper-
makers who examined them pronounced
quite worthless as compared with other
equally plentiful materials.’’

We have no evidence that the material has
as yet been examined by manufacturers of wood
pulp, much less has wood pulp derived from
prickly-pear been tested as a constituent in the
many trade articles (other than paper proper)
into which wood pulp enters. This matter is
again referred to in the section of our report
dealing with the investigations in Europe and the
Mediterranean area.

MINOR USES OF PRICKLY-PEAR OR ITS
CONSTITUENTS.

Mucilage-—Amongst other uses of the
Prickly-pear may be mentioned one to which
attention was drawn by Mr. H. Sampson, Director
of Agriculture, Trichinopoly. This consisted in
employing the mucilage of the plant suspended
in water in making the chunar forming the
surface of walls, &c., in various stone edifices.
By this means, it was stated, a plaster was
obtained of singularly close texture capable of
taking a high degree of polish. This is a matter
that may be further looked into.

Fruit—In some places the natives use the
fruit as a food, while in a few districts it was
said that the juice was used as a medicine for
colds, &e.

Use as a Hedge Plant.—Prickly-pear is
the plant most commonly used for making
hedges throughout India. In some districts
the natives use aloes or agaves, as well
as certain species of Huphorbia, and oceasicn-
ally the columnar cacti (Cereus spp.). Sur-
rounding each field or group of fields there is
generally an embankment; and it is on this that
the hedge plants are grown. In the case of the
various species of Prickly-pear employed, those
in general use are the spiny, sturdy species such
as O. nigricans and O. dillenii, both of which grow
commonly to a considerable height, and form
a strong protection against the entrance of man,
cattle, and hedgehogs into the fields. They pos-
sess the disadvantage of affording a harbouring
place for snakes, so many of which are venomous.
Should any plants die during the hot, dry season,
they become replaced by the planting of others.

A similar embankment is built around each
of the young trees planted out in fields or along
the main roads, Prickly-pear (O. dillenti or 0.
nigricans) being laid on the top of and against
the outside of these small circular walls. This
prevents cattle eating down the plants. It is
quite a common occurrence in India to see trees
surrounded by a mass of cactus which originally

protected it. Gamble, in his ‘‘ Manual of Indian
Timbers,’’ (1902, pp. 382-3) refers to the use of
Prickly-pear as hedges for marking forest boun-
daries and for protecting avenues of trees along
roadsides against injury by cattle.

Relative to this practice, G. Girimaji Rao
writes :—‘‘It must also be stated that when this
bush (Opuntia dillenii) is planted around fruit
trees the trees come to bear very soon on account
of the moisture stored in the soil by it. Fruit
trees so surrounded by Prickly-pear do not need
any watering at all, even in summer. Anybody
can grow any kind of fruit tree here in this way.
In our experience, tamarind trees grown in this
way have come to bearing sooner than have trees
grown in the usual way.’’*

Mr. Wm. Kirkpatrick called our attention
to the huge ‘‘ saltwall ’’ built to the south of
Delhi. This high, dense mass of Opuntia nigri-
cans extends for very many miles along the bor-
ders of Rajputana, being originally erected to
prevent the smuggling of salt. Portions of this
hedge were seen by the Commission at Garihar-
sura and Faruknagar. At Dharwar, this species
is used as a formidable gaol fence.

Prickly-pear plants are occasionally used in
olher ways as a meaas of protection; for example,
many of the inhabitants of Benares place O.
dillenii on the tops of their huts to prevent the
monkeys, which enjoy full liberty in this
“‘ Sacred City of THinduism,’’ from stripping off
the roof. Sometimes this species, as well as O.
migricans, is spread over setting cement to protect
it against intruders.

Use as a Cover Crop.—A further method for
employing Prickly-pear was followed in Madras
Presidency from 1874 onwards, which doubt-
less served to widely propagate these notorious
weeds. This was to purposely cultivate it
as a cover to protect growing seedlings of
economic trees. This scheme, attributed to H.
S. Thomas, was strongly advocated by the Deputy
Conservator of Forests of South Arcot (Mr.
Woolridge), who reported that ‘‘ there could be
no doubt of the result of the system,’’ and com-
pared it to that of using dwarf date plants then
in vogue. He also reported that as the trees grew
the Prickly-pear plants on their part died. ‘‘In
his experience the increased shade and moisture
from the growing trees have been found to destroy
the cactus in time—a view also held by Mr.
Steavenson.’’t

However, the Madras Government had sub-
mitted this proposed method of using Prickly-
pear to the various Collectors, whose replies up
till 1883 were nearly all inconclusive, since either
insufficient time had elapsed for results from ex-
periments to be shown or opportunity for carry-
ing these out had not presented itself.t Later
reports also showed that further experiments
were for various reasons also inconclusive.§ ||

 

* Vid. ‘‘ Prickly-pear,” ‘‘ Mysore Revenue and Agricul-
tural Gazette’? (Vernacular), Vol. VI., No. 2, Nov. 1911
(Translation) ; also, Wallinpir, W.H.A., ** Concerning the
Opuntia vulgaris.” Bombay, 1876.

+ Vid. Proceedings Board of Revenue, Madras, No.
1135, 20th April, 1882. .

t Vid. Proceedings Board of Revenue, Madras, No.
1777, 10th June, 1883.

Vid. Proceedings Board of Revenue, Madras, No
732 (Forest 143), 25th Mar., 1886.

|| Vid. Proceedings Board of Revenue, Madras,

Resolution 27, 15th April, 1887.
28

Land Protection —Prickly-pear, especially
Opuntia dillenti, has been purposely planted in
some places to prevent the transportation of sand
and light soils by the wind and other agencies—
a practice that again has aided in its permanent
occupancy of some areas.

Entanglements—In visiting the mountain
fortress of Bellary and remarking the abundance
of the formidably-armed Prickly-pear (Opuntia
dillenii) still clothing some of its ramparts, one is
reminded of another use for the plant that the
exigencies of circumstances in India have dis-
covered. In this connection one may recall
Bishop Heber’s description of Rampoor, ‘‘ a large
town chiefly remarkable for its sort of fortifica-
tion which surrounds it. This is a high, thick
hedge, or rather plantation, of bamboos, set as
close to each other as possible, and faced on the
outside by a formidable underwood of Cactus.’’*
In this connection one may mention the small
enclosures bounded by hedges of Euphorbia and
Opuntia referred to by Wilks in his ‘‘ Historical
Sketch of the South of India,’’ vol. IIT., p. 84,
1817 (quoted by Birkill), ‘‘ as having caused the
entanglement of Tippoo Sultan’s horse in the
battle of Poongar on the banks of the Caveri on
September 12th, 1790.”’

SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATIONS IN
INDIA.

There are two species of Prickly-pear
occurring in Southern India which may be con-
sidered as pests. These are Opuntia dillentt and
O. nigricans. Both of these are very common in
Madras Presidency and other parts of Southern
India, while O. nigricans occurs plentifully in the
Bombay Presidency and in certain areas of
Central India.

In Northern India both of these species are
to be met with more or less frequently, but do

 

* Heber R., “Narrative of a journey through the
Upper Provinces of India from Calcutta, to Bombay,”
1824-5, Vol. 2, London 1829.

not constitute a pest. The Punjab Opuntia
though common in North-western India, has not
yet reached such a stage that it can be regarded
as a pest pear.

One species (O. monacantha) has evidently
been very widespread throughout India in years
past, but is now relatively uncommon in North
India and practically extinct in South India.
This result has been brought about by the Wild
Cochineal Insect (Coccus indicus, Green).

No disease of a fungoid or bacterial origin
has been met with, or heard of, in India by the
Commission which is likely to be of value in
checking the spread of Prickly-pear.

There exists in India—rarely now, but
formerly in abundance—an insect, the Wild
Cochineal, which is capable of controlling and
destroying one particular species, O. monacantha,
in the same way as in Ceylon.

In regard to utilisation as fodder, various
species have been employed in different parts of
India during times of scarcity. Their use has
been attended, as a rule, with some good result,
more particularly when other food of a dry
nature has been added. Experiments have
generally been carried out over too short a period
to allow of opinions being expressed as to their
applicability to Queensland conditions. The mat-
ter is regarded by the Indian authorities as being
still in an experimental stage, and investigations
are being continued by them. The removal of .
thorns in the case of spiny species is necessary,
though tedious and relatively costly. This objec-
tion is not so important in Queensland, as our
commonest pest pear is less formidably armed.

In certain districts Prickly-pears have been
used as a fertiliser of soils.

Though the fibre of O. dillenii has been pro-
nounced as being worthless as a substance for the
production of paper, when compared with other
equally abundant materials, we have no evidence
that manufacturers of paper pulp have as yet
examined it.

III. SOUTH AFRICA.

EAST COAST OF AFRICA.

The Commission left Bombay for South
Africa, the steamer calling into various East
African ports, at some of which Prickly-pears
were found to be growing naturalised. The
species met with on Zanzibar Island, also on the
outskirts of Beira, in Portuguese East Africa, as
well as in and near the town of Lorenzo Marques,
on Delagoa Bay, was Opuntia monacantha. As
already stated, this species occurs in various
Australian States and is especially abundant on
the Suttor River in Queensland. It is able to
withstand a much moister climate than the other
species so far met with by the Commission. In
none of the three places referred to was the
cactus a pest plant. <A species of Dactylopius
was found on it at Lorenzo Marques, but no detri-
mental effect was observable. There was no evi-
dence of any disease affecting the pear in the
localities visited,

‘.

SOUTH AFRICA.

One member of the Commission landed at
Durban, and the other at Lorenzo Marques,
travelling thence to Pretoria. An itinerary was
arranged by Mr. C. Lounsbury, Government Ento-
mologist, and Mr. R. Thornton, Principal of
Grootfontein Agricultural College, Middelburg,
Cape Province, in consequence of which a visit
was paid to Pietersburg, in North Transvaal, and
then to the Eastern Division of the Cape Pro-
vince. It was in the latter area that. most of the
inquiry was made, as it is in this region that the
Prickly-pear has become a serious pest. Cape-
town was made the point of departure from South
Africa for England.

_ During the stay in South Africa, every
assistance was most willingly rendered by the

officers of the Department of Agriculture of the
Union,
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photo., Dept. Agriculture, Brisbane.
A large-jointed white-spined Prickly Pear resembling the ‘“ Westwood Pear’’ (Fig. (15), from
Gracemere.

Fig. 14.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photo., Dept. Agriculture, Brishane.
Fig. 15.—The “ Westwood Pear,’’ from Gracemere.
29

SPECIES OF PRICKLY-PEAR.

Historical—There appears to be consider-
able confusion as to the number and actual names
of the species of Opuntia found naturalised in
South Africa. P. MacOwan, in 1888 (1897, p. 2),
referred to several—viz., O. tuna, O. vulgaris,
O. dillenti, and O. aurantiaca; but mentions only
the first and third as actually occurring there. He
also stated (p. 5) that he had sent hundreds of
cuttings of O. twna to Angra Pequina, in German
South-West Africa, Schumann (1899 a, p. 30)
referred later to the fact that O. tuna is wild in
Namaland,. but he associated the name with a
quite distinct type of Opuntia, O. dillenu, Haw.,
being regarded by him (1899, p. 724) as a
synonym of his O. tuna.

In July, 1891, A. C. Macdonald (1891), a,
p. 21; 1891 b; 1892 a, p. 22; 1897 a, p. 28)
referred all the South African Prickly-pears
to one species, O. tuna, of which there exist two
varieties—the ‘‘ thorny-leaved’’ form locally
called the Doornblad, and a much less spiny-
jointed pear called the Kaalblad. He included
also that form on which the Wild Cochineal
Insect occurs. This, we know, is a distinct
species—O. monacantha. Next year Dr. Marloth
(1892 a, p. 11; 1892 b, p. 18) showed that
there were four species found naturalised—viz.,
0. monacantha, O. tuna (the two above-mentioned
varieties), a species resembling O. dillenw, and
another, probably O. pusilla.

In 1892 (1897 b, p. 36) Macdonald referred
to the last-named as a possible dangerous pest.

I. H. Burkill (1911, p. 290) has stated re-
cently that the Cape contains 0. monacantha, O.
decumana, perhaps O. triacantha, and possibly
0. elatior, or, if not, a very kindred species. The
first-named was collected by Oldenburg in 1772
(Burkill, l.c.).

The observations and inquiries of the Com-
mission in South Africa point to the presence of
two species occurring commonly—viz., O. mona-
cantha, found mainly along the coastal regions;
and O. decumana,* the pest pear of South
Africa. Of the latter there are two forms, the
spiny and the comparatively spineless, these
having been formerly determined by Kew autho-
rities as O. triacanthat and O. decumana, respec-

 

* The name O. decumana is used in this section with @
considerable degree of doubt. The South African doorn-
blad and kaalblad belong to the same group of species as
O. ficus indica, O. decumana, and the “red and yellow
Mexican species’? of our Rockhampton district. These,
together with many others, are Mexican white-spined
forms, a large number of which have not as yet been
satisfactorily defined, though Dr. Griffiths, of Washington
D.C., has done, and is doing, a great deal towards differ-
entiating the various species and varieties growing wild in
the Mexican highlands. The term 0. decumana should
probably be restricted, as has been done in the preceding
section of this report, to certain almost or quite spineless
forms possessing very large segments—much larger and more
variable in shape than the kaalblad. It is often regarded as
being merely a variety of O. ficus indica. The common
South African species or varieties, kaalblad and doornblad,
are, however, quite distinct from the O. ficus indica of _the
Mediterranean littoral. The name O. decumana is retained
for convenience, as it oxpresses a nearer relationship to the
forms under consideration than does the name 0. tuna,
which is now applied by Dr. Britton to the common
Jamaican species which is allied to, and grows in company
with, O. dillenit on that island.

+ The term 0. triacantha is now restricted to a rather
low-growing, brittle species, native to certain of the West
Indian Islands.

tively. In addition to these two species, there
is another, O. aurantiaca, whose growth has
caused alarm in certain districts.

Besides these three, certain others have been
met with, but they are comparatively rare.

MacOwan’s and Wallace’s (1896, p. 88) O.
tuna is the same as that called O. decumana in
this Report. O. vulgaris,* of the former, is pro-
bably only a variety of the same species. His 0.
dillentt and O. aurantiaca we do not know; O.
aurantiaca did not call for attention until much
later. The four species mentioned by Dr. Mar-
loth are quite distinct. That described by him as
resembling O. dillenti in many ways, and said
to occur in a certain spot in Capetown, has now
been entirely destroyed and, therefore, as far as
known, does not exist naturalised in South Africa.
It is probably the same as that referred to as O.
dillenti by MacOwan. Mr. Burkill’s O. elatior (?)
is evidently this species, photographs of which
were sent to Kew Herbarium by Dr. Marloth,
and were recently inspected by Mr. Burkill (fide
Mr. N. E. Brown, Assistant Keeper, Herbarium,

Kew). No trace of O. elatior was found. Mac-
donald’s and Marloth’s 0. pusilla is 0.
aurantiaca.

The prickly-pears occurring in South Africa
are thus :—
monacantha, Haw.
. decumana, Mill.
. aurantiaca.
. fulgida?
. microdasys.
Opuntia lindhewmeri?

Opuntia spinulifera.

Ssooas

In addition to these, there are others found
growing in gardens, while Nopalea cochinelufera
is being grown near Pretoria and at Middelburg,
Cape Province, as fodder for cattle and ostriches.

OPUNTIA MONACANTHA.—O. monacantha
calls for slight mention, as it has already been
referred to in this report. In South Africa
it is commonly called the Sour Prickly-pear,
either from the fact that it grows on ‘‘ sour’”
land or from the fact that its fruit remains
sour—both explanations having been published.
As already mentioned, it was for a time regarded
in South Africa as being merely a variety of the
spiny form of O. decumana (Macdonald, 1891
a, b; Marloth, Roy. Soe. S. Afr., 1906, p. 15).
This species has evidently been naturalised in the
country for a long time, as Oldenburg had col-
lected it in 1772 (fide Burkill).

Although O. monacantha was seen to be
utilised occasionally for making hedges in
Pietersburg and Pretoria in_the Transvaal, it
was mainly along the coastal regions of Cape
Colony and Natal that the plant was found wild.
it may be seen in more or less isolated patches
near Durban, Pietermaritzburg, and Avoca in
Natal; while in the Cape Province one may find
it scattered along the coast between Capetown
and East London. It does not apparently thrive
on the soils of the Karoo, these being compara-
tively rich in lime. It may be met with at or

 

 

* Q. vulgaris may probably refer to 0. monacantha as
well, judging from the scant account of it siven by Mac-
donald (1891 a, p. 21).

 

 
30

near East London, Port Alfred, Alexandria,
Albany, Bathurst, Port Elizabeth, Grahamstown,
King Williamstown, Uitenhage, Humansdorp,
and Hankey, the valley of the Gamtoos River,
Fort Beaufort district, Capetown, Stellenbosch,
Paarl, and Malmesbury.

Macdonald’s ‘‘Doornblad’’ (1897 a, p. 28),
with spines two inches long, from Addo and
Grahamstown, is evidently this specics. He men-
tions (p. 29) the occurrence of the Cochineal
Insect on the form with small ‘‘ leaves’’ and
long spines.

OPUNTIA DECUMANA.—The history of the
introduction of the Prickly-pear into South
Africa is briefly given by MacOwan (1891) and
by Macdonald (1891 a, p. 21), who stated that
it was brought vid India by Dutch East India-
men.

The Western Province of Cape Colony was
first invaded, the pear becoming spread east-
wards by human agency. Thunberg, in his work
published in 1823, recorded its presence; and
Sparrman found a cactus, which appears to have
been the pest pear, in the Sneeuberg in 1776.
Macdonald (1891 a, p. 21) has traced the in-
troduction of the pest in 1750 from Capetown to
Buffels Hoek, and a little later from this place
to the Pearston district, which has now become
the centre of a densely-covered area. The slow
progress of the invasion is no doubt accountable
for the fact that Drege has not included this
cactus amongst his list of plants found in the
locality between 1826-1834 (see Bolus ‘‘ Flora of
South Africa,’’ 1886, p. 23). In 1847 the pear
had established itself in the Cookhouse and
Somerset East districts (R.S.C., 1898, p. 19),
whence it gradually spread.

It has already been mentioned that, a great
deal of confusion has arisen regarding the name
of this pest pear (O. decumana) of South Africa.
In that country it has been called O. vulgaris
(Grobelaar, 1891; MacOwan, 1881), O. tuna, O.
triacantha, O. decumana, and O. cochinelifera.
It is usually known under the names of its two
more or less well-marked varieties—Doornblad or
‘* thorny-leaved ’’’ pear, and Kaalblad or
** smooth-leaved ’’ pear. There seems now to be
little doubt that the two forms belong to the same
species, as it is not a difficult matter to obtain
a series in which the specimens may be ranged
in such a way that one passes from the typical
Doornblad to the Kaalblad. Intermediate forms
are quite common.

A good description of the two varieties of O.
decumana was given by Dr. Marloth in his report
on ‘‘The Prickly-pears of South Africa’’ (1892
b, pp. 19-20), where the species is regarded as
O. tuna or O. ficus-indica. Both names are held
to belong to the same plant, but on account of the
confusion of names he has adopted the former
(R.8.C., 1906, pp. 22-3). He also referred to
some well-marked variations which may be met
with, all of which have also come under the notice
of the Commission. For a long time the Kaalblad
and the Doornblad were held to be distinct,
though the possibility of hybridisation was recog-
nised. With a view to settling the question,
which, as will be seen later, was one of much
importance in the matter of destruction, experi-
ments were suggested by Dr. Marloth and
carried out by the Department of Agriculture
(Nobbs, R.S.C., 1906, p. 89; Fischer, 1892, p. 18;

Marloth, 1906, p.16). There is now little doubt
but that the thorny variety or Doornblad is
simply a reversion from the cultivated Kaalblad
or ‘‘ smooth-leaved ’’ form.

The two kinds differ in a few particulars.
In the latter instance, sometimes spoken of by
Dutch farmers as the female Prickly-pear
(wyfetje), the joints are less sweet, but rather
thicker, more succulent, and less spiny, and
may in large plants be spineless. The fruit
is stated to be rather less sweet and less spiny,
but somewhat larger. The general appearance
of the plant and the flowers is similar. The
young joints of both varieties are equally spiny,
but as they mature, the spines persist in the
case of the Doornblad (the mannetje or male
Pear of the Dutch farmers), while they become
more or less aborted in the case of the Kaalblad.
The flowers vary from yellow to orange in both,
the usual colour being orange. The Kaalblad is
generally restricted to the rich soils found in
valleys, while the Doornblad thrives Just as well
amongst the rocky hills as in those.

Wallace (1896, p. 90) recognised that the
Kaalblad was the true Cochineal Cactus, and men-
tioned that specimens of the insect might be
seen living on it in the Botanical Gardens at
Capetown.

Distribution—In regard to the agencies
which are at work in distributing this species in
South Africa, undoubtedly the chief is man. Be-
fore the seriousness of the introduction was
realised, farmers commonly took joints from one
centre and planted them in another. Then,
again, the fruits being edible and abundant,
they have formed an important article of diet
for natives and for the ‘‘ poor white’’ popula-
tion, and as a result the seeds have become dis-
tributed in the excreta. Cattle, birds, goats,
horses, pigs, baboons, &c., are responsible for
much of the distribution.* Though ostriches are
fed at times on the joints and fruit of this cactus,
they are probably not responsible for spreading
the pest by means of the seed: in their excreta,
owing to the pulverisation of the contents of the
digestive tract of the bird. Rivers have also
assisted in scattering the pest pear. Then,
again, the Boer hereditary system (R.S8.C., 1906,
p. 55; Macdonald, 1891, b, p. 27; 1897, a,
p. 31) has been partly responsible for the neglect
which has allowed the weed to obtain such a
strong foothold.

In regard to the distribution of the pest
pear, there is an area in the Karoo, in the
Eastern Province of Cape Colony, where 0.
decumana has spread to such an extent as to
constitute a very serious pest, to which public
attention has been called on many occasions
(R.8.C., 1890, 1891, 1898, 1906). This area
ranges from about 1,000 feet to 4,500 feet in
height, receives a low annual rainfall, and pos-
sesses a soil rich in lime. Though this species is
widely spread in South Africa, it has not proved
itself a pest except in certain regions.

It occurs abundantly in the following dis-
tricts in Cape Colony :—Graaff Reinet,
Aberdeen, Pearston, Willowmere, Jan-
senville, Humansdorp and Hankey,

 

* The weight of evidence in regard to the germina-
tion of the seed appears to be in favour of the conclusion
that it is hastened by the passage through the alimentary
canal of a bird or mammal,
31

Steylerville, Uitenhage, Bedford, Fort
Beaufort, Fort Brown, Alexandria,
Albany, Cradock, Cookhouse, Somerset
Hast, and to a less extent at Middelburg,
Stockenstroom, Tarkastad,. Victoria

West, Gamtoos, Loeric, Oudtshoorn,
Swellendam, Queenstown, and Hast
London. In other areas occasional

patches of this pear may be seen—e.g.,
Malmesbury, Stellenbosch, Capetown,
Tulbagh Road, Vogelsvlei, Malan, Hex
River, — Biesjespoort, Kabeljaauws,
Thornhill, Port Elizabeth, Persever-
ance, Ladysmith, Richmond, Philips-
town, Stutterheim, Uniondale, King
Williamstown, Beaufort West, Steyns-
burg, Murraysburg, Lady Frere, Nauu-
poort, Aliwal North, Colesburg, Con-
way, Rosmead, Glenheath, and Cypress
Grove.

It has been found a difficult task to grow the
Kaalblad variety of this species at Kim-
berley and in many parts of the Western
Karoo (R.8.C., 1906, p. 11, &.). It is
cultivated as a fodder plant for ostriches
in certain parts of this region—e.g.,
Richmond, the neighbouring portion of
Griqualand West and Orange Free
State, Fraserburg, Victoria West, &c.;
irrigation being resorted to in some cases
(R.8.C., 1891, pp. 16, 18, 19).

In the Orange Free State, O. decumana may
be seen at Fauresmith, Vredefort,
Bethlehem, Bloemfontein, Springfon-
tein, Brandfort, Glen, Edenburg, and
Donkerpoort; but it has not yet become
a pest.

In the Transvaal clumps may be noticed
thriving at Pretoria and Johannesburg
at an altitude of over 5,000 feet; while
near Pietersburg there are masses
which, though well established, have
not, as a rule, spread to any appreci-
able extent. At Mpatlele, in the
Zoutpansburg district, about 40 miles
from the town of Pietersburg, there is a
large clump occupying a considerable
area, having been originally planted by
the natives around their settlements as a
protection and as a hedge. Prickly-pear
may not infrequently be seen around
the sites formerly occupied by native
huts. Burtt Davy (1969) has published
a photograph of a thicket in this dis-
trict.

In the Transvaal and in the northern part
of the Orange Free State, it is the
Kaalblad which is usually met with;
while in Southern Orange Free State
and in Cape Colony, it is the Doornblad,
which is rather more common. Hybrid
forms are classed as Doornblads.

The Kaalblad is cultivated in certain parts
of the Western Karoo, in Cape Colony, as well
as in a few places in the Orange Free State and
Transvaal, as a supplementary fodder for cattle
and ostriches. In addition to this form, two
other varieties—‘‘anacantha’’ and ‘‘manado’’—
are being experimented with at Groenkloof
(Transvaal) and Middelburg (Cape Colony),
and will probably be of value for the same
purpose.

E

OPUNTIA AURANTIACA, GILLIES.— This small
plant is known in South Africa as the Jointed
Cactus or O. pusilla, and has been figured
by E. Nobbs (1906, p. 812) and J. Burtt
Davy (1913, p. 13). It was originally intro-
duced into Cape Colony as an ornamental plant,
just as has been done in the case of some of the
pests now existing in Australia. A. C. Mac-
donald (1892 b, p. 93; 1897 b, pp. 87-8) and,
later, Dr. Nobbs (1906, p. 818; R.S.C., 1906, p.
7) referred to its introduction into the Bedford
district of Cape Colony, R. Leonard (R.S.C.,
1906, p. 44) having supplied the information to
Dr. Nobbs.

This cactus has been proclaimed _as a noxious
weed in very many districts of Cape Colony
(Nobbs, 1908, p. 341) as well as generally in the
Transvaal and Orange Free State (Burtt Davy,
1918, p. 15).

_ Its presence was first reported by Dr. Mar-
loth (1892 a, p. 112; 1892 b, p. 21), who
believed it to be O. pusilla, this being the name
by which it has come to be known in South
Africa. Macdonald (1892, p. 93; 1897 b, p. 87)
and Nobbs, as well as others, have dealt with
this pest, which will be referred to later. (See
Appendix.) Mr. Maiden (1912, d, p. 888) has
recently referred to the occurrence of O. auran-
tiaca in South Africa.

Distribution—It was thrown out from a
private garden into the Kaga River in 1874.
Soon after the river became flooded and distri-
buted the cactus, so that it now extends down to
the river mouth and has spread widely, being
found in many districts—Albany, Alexandria,
Bathurst, Bedford, Cradock, Fort Beaufort,
Humansdorp, King Williamstown, Peddie,
Somerset East, Stockenstroom, Uitenhage, and
Victoria East, &c. (Nobbs, 1906, p. 818; 1908,
p. 341). In addition to the places mentioned by
Nobbs, some occurs at Grahamstown ; while at
Graaff Reinet a small patch which existed pre-
viously has been eradicated by the municipality.
Tt is now more or less under control at Bedford,
Somerset Bast, Alice, &e. It appears to be really
troublesome only in a few places, such as
Uitenhage and Hankey (ITumansdorp district).

Tt was introduced as a garden plant into the
latter town by a lady belonging to the staff of the
Hottentot Mission at that place, but has now
spread from the village down to the Gamtoos
River, and has become a rather serious pest.

The plant is so developed that its small
joints and fruits are readily detached and, by
reason of their long barbed spines, become at-
tached to cattle, &c., and may thus be transported
over very great distances. On several occasions
the Commission noticed mules and cattle carry-
ing pieces of jointed cactus attached to their
limbs and faces. The joints and fruits readily
sprout to give rise to new plants. Owing to
their small size, it is no easy matter to thoroughly
cleanse an area of the fragments of the pest. It
generally forms small low clumps, and is not
nearly so evident as the large-jointed species of
Opuntia. It grows much higher and the joints
are longer when protected by undergrowth.

OpuNTIA FuLGIDA (?):—At Uitenhage, a
Cylindropuntia is beginning to spread on the
town common, but as yet it has not obtained
a strong footing. It resembles O. imbricata,
32

which occurs in certain places in New South
Wales and near Gatton, in Queensland, but
is rather more spiny. It is probably 0.
fulgida. There is a specimen in Kew Herbarium
from Barkly West (Cape Colony) which has been
identified as O. arborescens (?). It belongs to
the same specics as the plants seen by the Com-
mission at Uitenhage.

OPUNTIA micRopasys, Lenm.—This dwarf
species is occasionally met with growing natural-
ised in certain districts of the Orange Free
State, where there is a low rainfall, specimens
being forwarded by C. van der Merwe.

NopaLEA COCHINELIFERA, Mint.—This spine-
less tree-pear does not, as far as is known, occur
naturalised in South Africa, but is cultivated at
the Experiment Farm at Groenkloof (Pretoria),
and Grootfontein (Middelburg, Cape Colony)
as a possible fodder crop.

MacOwan (Fischer, 1891, p. 43) has, evi-
dently in error, applied the name O. cochinelifera
to the Kaalblad, but in this respect has followed
high authorities.

Opuntia, sP.—Dr. Marloth (1892 a, p. 111;
1892 b, p. 18) referred to the presence in
Capetown of a Prickly-pear used for making
hedges, this species resembling O. dillenti in
many ways, but differing in the character of
the flower. In company with him, the Com-
mission visited the locality, but found that
this cactus had been entirely eradicated.
Photographs were sent to Kew in 1892
by him, and it was these that Mr. Burkill
(1911, p. 290) consulted (fide Mr. N. E. Brown,
of Kew Herbarium) and based his record of the
occurrence in South Africa of O. elatior or of a
kindred species.

Opuntia, sp.—At Tidbury’s Toll, near
Beaufort, attention was drawn to another
species, which occurred in isolated patches in
the district as well as at King Williamstown.
The following description will serve to charac-
terise it :—

It forms a compact hemispherical shrub of
from 4 to 6 feet in height. The joints
are deep green, circular to sub-circular
with the base narrowed and prolonged
to form a short stalk-like portion. The
terminal segments are 7 or 8 inches
long and about 6 inches wide, while
those bearing fruit are typically larger,
being about 12 inches long by 10 inches
in width and half an inch in thickness.

The spines are not numerous, but occur
singly, occasionally in pairs, being
situated mainly along the edge of the
upper half of the joint, while a few
may be distributed here and there on
the upper half of one or both faces. The
spines are very short, 114 to 114 inches
in length, and project prominently,
being more or less curved but some-
times straight. They are of general
orange colour with their bases more of
an orange-red, but become light coloured
or white with age. The fairly prominent
cushions or areole are generally sur-
rounded by a darker green rim. Each
bears a dense tuft of numerous short
grey-brown bristles or glochidia,
amongst which the large spine, if pre-
sent, lies eccentrically.

Flowers were not seen, but fruit was in
abundance (April-May). The latter
arise chiefly from the appendages of the
joints, from 4 to 22 being counted on
each, the average number being 7 or 8.
Their uniform purple colour contrasts
strongly with the general hue of the
plant. They are pyriform with a con-
cave apex, and from 2 to 244 inches
long by 114 to 114 inches broad. The
spinules of the cushions on the fruit are
generally much smaller than those on
the joint. The grooves present on the
green fruit disappear at maturity.
Deeper purple longitudinal markings,
indicating the position of the vascular
bundles, show through the purple skins.
The sub-acid ‘‘ flesh ’’ is firm, the cor-
tical portion being red-purple, while the
pulp in which the seeds are embedded
is colourless. The juice is purplish.
The seeds are discoidal with wide, red,
rims.

A local farmer, Mr. C. H. Every, stated that
birds do not distribute it, as they do not feed on
the fruit. Though ostriches will eat it, they
prefer the other species. Cattle do not willingly
feed upon either the fruit or the joints.

The species appears to be O. lindheimeri,
Eng., or an allied form.

OPUNTIA SPINULIFERA, S.D.—This occurs in
at least two widely-separated localities, namely,
at Wylie’s Siding, Capetown, and near Tidbury’s
Toll, in the Fort Beaufort district. It is natural-
ised in both places, but has not spread to any
extent.

DESTRUCTION BY NATURAL ENEMIES.
INSECTS.

The Wild Cochineal Insect of South Africa
(Coccus confusus capensis, GREEN).

According to Vauxhall and Prinsep, Baron
Ludowigne received at the Cape from Hamburg,
about 1832, specimens of a Wild Cochineal
Insect (Grana sylvestre), which, after its intro-
duction, showed a preference for the Opuntia
growing there rather than for the species on
which it had been brought. This local pear was ~
designated as O. vulgaris, Mill. (syn. Cactus
opuntia, Linn.), a name amongst others formerly
bestowed on O. monacantha, Haw. It was from
South Africa that the Wild Cochineal was taken
in 1836 by Captain Charlton to India and estab-
lished in the East India Company’s Garden, Cal-
eutta (Tryon, 1910).

Its presence in South Africa does not appear
to have been referred to again till 1891, when
Macdonald (1891 b, p. 40) recorded its occur-
rence at Grahamstown and Capetown. It was
further mentioned incidentally in 1906 (R.8.C.,
1906, p. 19). In 1911 one member of this Com-
mission recorded that Mr. Thomas O’Hagan in-
formed him of the presence of a Cochineal Insect
near Port Elizabeth which attacked, and was
sometimes capable of destroying, one of the two
species of Prickly-pear growing in that district.
This evidence as to its occurrence in South
Africa was corroborated by Mr. C. Lounsbury.
Government Entomologist of the Union, who,
however, stated that he had never seen any of
 

 

 

 

 

Photo., Dept. Agriculture, Brisbane.
Fig. 16.—Flower, buds, etc., of the “Westwood Pear’’ (Fig. 15), from Gracemere.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 18.—The Westwood Pear.”’
Spring Creek, Westwood.

Fig. 17.--The “ Westwood Pear.’’ Spring Creek,
Westwood. Pest Pear in the foreground.
the plants* killed by the-insect (Tryon, 1911, p.
18). Specimens forwarded by hifh to Mr. E. B,
Green, late Government Entomologist of Ceylon,
were established on Nopalea cochinelifera at
Peradeniya. They were found to be somewhat
different to the typical Wild Cochineal Insect of
India and Ceylon, and hence were described as
belonging to a distinct variety—Coccus confusus
capensis, Green (1912).+

Independently of T. O’Hagan’s testimony
regarding this well-known insect, since reiterated,
as announced by the Queensland Acclimatisation

‘Society, one might have inferred that it would
probably destroy its host plant in South Africa,
since another varietal form of Coccus confusus,
Ckrll.—viz., indicus, Green—had earlier been
found to do this in British India, as shown in a
detailed account of the cireumstance given by
Watt and by Tryon, and since confirmed by
Burkill (1911) and by the personal inquiries of
this Commission. However, neither Captain
Charlton’s introduction of the insect to British
India in 1836, nor that of John Bell two years
later, seems to have resulted in any such injurious
effect on Prickly-pear as having been occasioned
there by Coccus indicus.

During the present inquiry, this South
African ‘‘ Wild Cochineal JInsect,’? when
associated with Prickly-pear growing at large,
was found to attack exclusively plants of one
species, O. monacantha; and it was met with in
this connection, in the vicinity of Capetown,
Paarl, Fort Beaufort, Bathurst, Grahamstown,
Port Elizabeth, Hankey, Humansdorp, and
Gamtoos River Valley, Port Alfred (Kowie
River), and Uitenhage. It also occurred near
Durban.

It was, nevertheless, found. on Nopalea
cochinelifera, as well as on O. monacantha, in a
garden attached to the laboratory of the Govern-
ment Botanist at Pretoria, having been pur-
posely established on them. Although 0.
decumana and some of its varieties were growing
there beside the infected plants, it had not spread
to them.

With regard to the .action of the Wild
Cochineal Insect as a cacticide in South Africa,
the conclusions: arrived at, as a result of the
Commission’s «personal inquiries: in the several
districts in which it was met with, harmonised
generally with those of Mr. Lounsbury and his
colleagues. The Officer in Charge of Prickly-pear
Destruction at Uitenhage, J. E. Butler, however,
deposed that he had seen plants practically
destroyed by the insect, which caused the seg-
ments of the plants attacked to rot. Mr. P.
Rademeyer, whose work is connected with the
destruction of Prickly-pear, stated that the insect
not only destroyed its host, but was purposely

 

* Although Mr. Lounsbury’s brief description shows
that he is referriny to O. monacantha, this name was used
by him as denoting (he pest pear of South Africa—evidently
a lapsus calami, since a little later Mr..E. E. Green (1912,
nr. 91) quoted, his statement that “ the Wild Cochineal is
found only vpon the wild Prickly-pear, Opuntia mona-
cantha.”

+ Messrs. Hunter, Pratt, and Mitchell (1912, p. 42), in
their list of Cactus Insects, refer to the occurrence of
Dactylopius (Coccus) sp. on O. polyantha at Capetown.
This Opuntia, according to Schumann (1899, b, p. 724), is
allied to O. dilleniti. The South African records doubtless
refer to the occurrence of Coccus capensis on O. monocantha.

8

fot +

33

distributed by farmers of his district (Gamtoos
River Valley) with this end in view, some years
being necessary for its aevomplishinent.

A member of the Select Comuuittee on
Prickly-pear, 1906, Mr. Niland, deposed that he
had seen the variety with the purple fruit and
purple juice (te, O. monacantha) being des-
troyed by a parasite, referring to the Cochineal,
and remarked that he wondered if it could not
be introduced on to the fruit of the ordinary
kind of Prickly-pear—i.c., the pest pear of South
Africa (R.S.C., 1906, p. 19).

The Commission itself observed that there
was, generally speaking, a very marked difference
between the condition of growth of O. monacantha
that was not being attacked by the Wild
Cochineal Insect and that which was; also, that
the Prickly-pear which had evidently been in-
fested for some time differed again in develop-
ment and vigour from that which had been
recently attacked. In illustration of these alleged
differences, one has only to compare the masses
of O. monacantha growing along the sea-front at
the foot of Table Mountain, where there is as
yet no wild cochineal, with the plants to be met
with at the entrance of the Plaat Klip Gorge,
Capetown, where they have been established for
a long time past; and, again, to contrast the
appearance of the Prickly-pear in this latter spot
with that forming a hedge along the main road
through Constantia, where infestation has
evidently been recent. In the former case the
ground beneath the insect-laden plants was
strewn with dead stem-joints, and the dried up
portions were here and there still attached to
the ‘‘ ragged’’ old plants, whose appearance was
suggestive of some vigorous pruning agency at
work; whilst at Constantia, save for the white
patches of Coccus that were very evident, the
plants were of almost normal appearance.

Again, it was to be remarked that in many
localities where Cochineal-infested pear occurred,
the isolated manner in which these were often
distributed suggested that the destruction of
plants occurring in the intervals had taken place
by some abnormal agency; otherwise, seeing that
there is no seminal increase of O. monacantha,
and that it is not utilised by grazing animals,
as O. decumana is, this mode of occurrence would
be difficult to account for. The Commission has
itself seen quite small plants of O. monacantha
whose destruction had been certainly brought
about by the insect, and, if this result was
commonly realised, such action on its part alone
would prevent the spreading of the plant. It
was also observed that in many places a con-
siderable number of large plants, notwithstand-
ing that they were grossly infested, were still
alive, some of them presenting little evidence of
injury.

The season of the year when the inquiry was
made was not one during which the Wild
Cochineal Insect actively propagates, and, there-
fore, affected plants might not be the victims of
active injury at the time, but might be main-
taining a stationary condition as regards health,
Moreover, that old plants with much woody tissue
would succumb to its attack is improbable. Under
the conditions of South Africa, the effect on the
host plant is certainly not nearly as marked as
that caused by the allied Coccus coufusus indicus,
Green, in India and Ceylon. The amount of
34

chlorosis produced by individual insects is negli-
gible when compared with what is occasioned in
those regions by the latter variety. The expert-
ence of C. Lounsbury and of his colleague at the
Cape, C. W. Mally, is that attacked plants are
not killed hut are made sickly, recovering when
congenial climatic conditions return. It would
appear, then, that some influence of climate may
account for the difference in the mode of action
of the Wild Cochineal Insects in India and South
Africa respectively. In the latter region, at any
rate, it appears to exert some influence in pre-
venting the increase and spread of the plant it
affects—one identical with the Suttor River
“* nest pear ’’ of Queensland.

In order to test whether this difference in
result was due to the presence of some check
operating against the South African Cochineal,
specimens of the latter were kept under observa-
tion by the Commission and by Messrs. Louns-
bury and Fuller at Pretoria, but no parasites were
found to be present in the material obtained
locally. In Capetown, however, C. capensis is
commonly preyed upon by a Ladybird Beetle
identified by Mr. C. Lounsbury and by Mr. Mally
as Hzocomus nigromaculatus. This was seen in
abundance feeding on the insect in that locality.
No parasitic hymenoptera, diptera, &c., were
found, though frequently looked for.

Despatch of the Cape Wild Cochineal to
Qucensland.—A small consignment of C. capensis
was collected by the Commission and forwarded to
Queensland by Mr. C. W. Mally, the Cape Ento-
mologist. This arrived in July, 1913, and,
according to Dr. Jean White’s recent report
(1914), has led to the establishment of the species
in our State, the small consignment of C. capen-
sis which was forwarded on Nopalea from Ceylon
having died out.

It may be pointed out, in dealing with the
Wild Cochineal Insects—different forms of the
species Coccus confusus named indicus and
capensis—referred to in this Report, that their
exclusive plant-relationship is well known to all
entomologists. Moreover, so special is their dietary
that it may be confined to a few species within
the cactaceous genus that they affect. A member
of -the Commission has already dwelt upon the
‘““ question as to the harmfulness to vegetation
other than Prickly-pear following the introduc-
tion of the Wild Cochineal’’ (Tryon, 1910). In
fact, the great Alexander Humboldt, writing
nearly a hundred years since, used this feature
in their economy as suggestive of the fact now
known—that the insects comprised under the
term Grana fina (Preeious Cochineal) and thoge
designated Grana_ sylvestre (Wild Cochineal)
were distinct species of Coccus (Humboldt, 1818,
Dp. 432). This matter is dwelt upon to allay any
suspicion that may arise that the Wild Cochineal
cannot be introduced to a new country (¢.g.,
Australia) without prejudice to other vegetation
than Prickly-pear plants.

_ Establishment of the Ceylon Wild Cochineal
wm South Africa—The Commission supplied to
the Entomological Division of the South African
Department of Agriculture, Pretoria, and also
to the Cape Entomologist, colonies of Coccus
indicus from the Henaratgoda Station, Ceylon.
Part of this material was handed over to the Natal

Museum, where the insects were propagated, the
result being reported on by Dr. E. Warren (1914,
p. 887) in a recent number of the South African
Agricultural Journal. The common species of
Prickly-pear, the Doornblad (called O. tuna by
him), was found to remain unattacked, while
O. monacantha was seriously affected, some plants
being destroyed (p. 390). He considered that
these insects may be of use in keeping the prickly-
pear within bounds, and that if they can stand the
winter climate and also remain free from attacks
by their own enemies, that they might become
sufficiently numerous to cause the extermination
of the latter Opuntia. A summary of this paper
has appeared recently in the Review of Applied
Entomology (Ser. A, vol. 2 (7), July, 1914, p.
440).

The True Cochineal.

The true Cochineal (Coccus cacti) thrives in
the Capetown Municipal Gardens on O. tomen-
tosa, Nopalea cochinelifera, and O. decumana;
but it exists rather as a curiosity. Though intro-
duced from the Azores about 1880 (fide Dr.
Peringuey of the Capetown Museum), it has not
been the means of destroying any of the plants.*

Diaspis, sp.

A species of Diaspis was found attacking 0.
monacantha at Capetown and O. decumana
(Kaalblad and Doornblad) in various parts of
Cape Colony (Bedford, Cradock, Cookhouse,
Graaff Reinet, &c.); but though the degree of
infection was sometimes considerable and had
been operating for many years, yet no detri-
mental effect was noticed. In one ease, near
Graaff Reinet, Diaspis was very common, and,
though acting for sixteen years (fide Mr. R. W.
Thornton), had not caused any disease or
‘“leaf’’ destruction. The experience of Mr.
Lounsbury and Mr. Mally confirms the Commis-
sion’s finding.

DESTRUCTION BY NATURAL ENEMIES.
DISEASE.

The Commission interviewed at Pretoria Mr.
Pole Evans, Plant Pathologist to the Union of
South Africa, with reference to the possible
occurrence of diseases of the Prickly-pear and
to the question of utilising any that might be
found to occur in the subjugation of these plants.
He stated that he had not met with a single fungus
parasite on Opuntias in South Africa; also, that
he had not seen or had brought under his notice
any Prickly-pear disease. "Where specimens pre-
sumed to be disease-affected had been submitted
to him, the appearances presented had been found
to have been oceasioned by insects, The Opuntias
in South Africa commonly grew in such arid
areas that the occurrence of fungi in association
with them was little to be expected. Regarding
the inquiry from the point of view of the plant
pathologist and mycologist, there did not appear
to be much hope from what might be discovered
in the Union. However, the Aloe, a plant that,
like the Opuntia, was met with in comparatively

 

.* Green (1912, p. 84) refers to the presence of Coccus
cactt at the Cape, where Mr. Lounsbury informed him that
it grew on O. tuna, a species which, Burkill stated, did not
oceur there. The confusion regarding the identity of
O. tuna has already been mentioned in this report,
35

dry areas, was practically wiped out in South
Africa by a fungus parasite—a kind of Rust ;
and if an organism similar to this, was to be found
m association with Prickly-péar, there was
something to be expected from the discovery in

accomplishing what was desired.

In several places Prickly-pear plants were
remarked showing lack of vigour and evidence
of general constitutional derangement—e.g.,
various degrees of etiolation, areas of skin dis-
coloration, &¢. This phenomenon suggested
soil imperfection of one kind or another as a
probable cause. In official reports (unpublished)
to the Department of Agriculture of Queensland,
relating to the occurrence of alleged Opuntia
diseases at Nundah and Westwood respectively,
one of the Commission has pointed out the in-
fluence of this factor in occasioning ill-health in
the class of plants under consideration (Tryon,
1908, 1911, p. 9)... Further, in South Africa
it has been found that there is a distinct con-
nection between a comparatively high lime con-
tent in the soil and the presence of at least one
kind of Opuntia—.c., the pest pear, O. decumana.
Dr. G. F. Juritz, the Agricultural Chemist to the
Union Department of Agriculture, and whose
work on the soils of South Africa gives weight to
any statement from him regarding South African
soil composition, informed the Commission that
most of the land on which the plant was trouble-
some possessed a high lime content, instancing
the eastern part of the Karoo—e.g., Cradock and
Somerset East, outside which area, i.¢., ‘‘ in dis-
tricts deficient in lime,’’ it was grown only
as a hedge plant or for its fruit, and, although
O. decumana was also said to be plentiful along
the eastern coastal belt where the soils did not
contain much lime, other factors there might be
concerned in determining its prevalence. With this
exception, generally speaking, ‘‘ where the land
was poor in lime pear did not become a pest.”’
The influence of this particular character of the
soil on the occurrence of Prickly-pear might be
taken into consideration in any forecast of the
direction of its future extension, as well as
explain defects in its growth such as are alluded
to.

DESTRUCTION BY UTILISATION.

The only naturalised species which has been
utilised to any extent is O. decumana, the Kaal-
blad variety having been made more use of than
the thorny form or Doornblad. As already men-
tioned, certain other varieties—‘‘ anacantha ”’
and ‘‘ manado,’’ as well as a distinct species,
Nopalea cochinelifera—have been grown as an
accessory fodder crop for ostriches and stock,
while O. monacantha is used occasionally as a
hedge plant either alone or in company with
the Doornblad. The succeeding remarks regard-
ing utilisation refer to O. decumana, and as they
have reference to a plant related to one of the
Queensland Prickly-pears their inclusion appears
justified.

UTILISATION AS FODDER FOR STOCK.

There is a considerable amount of literature
published in South Africa (mainly Cape Colony)
on this subject, and much evidence has been col-
lected by the Commission; but it can be sum-
marised in a short space.

*

Owing to the fewness or absence of spines on
the joints of the Kaalblad, this variety has been
used much more extensively than the more thorny
form, though it appears from experiments carried
out by Mr. Thornton, Principal of the Grootfon-
tein Agricultural College, Middelburg, Cape
Province, as well as from the experience of many
farmers (R.S.C., 1898, p. 21; Adams, 1895, p.
447), that the Doornblad segments are sweeter
and more nourishing, but the labour involved in
removing the spines by singeing or otherwise is
a serious consideration. Hence it is the Kaalblad
which is used; while the Doornblad remains and
fruits, and has become the dominant form,
The pest pear. of South Africa is thus the Doorn-
blad variety of O. decumana, the form which
had been determined as O. triacantha by the
authorities at Kew. The singeing is usually
done over a kind of gridiron, and ig rather over-
done than underdone.

Prickly-pear has been used to a considerable
extent as fodder, more especially during times
of scarcity. As a rule, some other material is
added to it (Macdonald, 1891 b, p. 29). From
evidence obtained in various parts of South
Africa, it appears that stock, ostriches, cattle,
pigs, &c., can be maintained on a ration of pear,
and can actually thrive on it if the ration be
supplemented by ‘‘ mealies’’ (maize), hay,
lucerne, grain, linseed meal, &c. If sufficient
fruit of the plant be added, then stock may be
actually fattened on a Prickly-pear diet.

In some places farmers, having removed the
pear, have replanted in a fenced-off area so that
it might be available as a stand-by in seasons of
drought. In a few cases, such as on certain
Prickly-pear farms in the Cookhouse and Graaff
Reinet districts, no supplementary fodder had
been used, and the cattle and pigs from these
farms survived right through drought conditions
and maintained their condition. It is well known
that some animals become confirmed pear-eaters.
Besides this, there is a large amount of Kaal-
blad in these localities, hence the injuries which
commonly follow as a result of feeding on
Prickly-pear are not serious. The Commission
saw considerable areas of dense pear land at
Cookhouse, where the cattle were browsing on the
Kaalblad and keeping it quite short, while the
Doornblad remained untouched.

It is admitted that pear will keep stock
alive, and this has been made a reason against
the elimination of the Kaalblad. On the other
hand, it is pointed out that the mere occupation
of the land by the pear prevents the growth of
other plants which might be utilised for the
same purpose during drought conditions, with
less danger.

Many farmers have retained a clump of pear
on their farms, but have securely fenced it, so
that live stock cannot distribute the seeds or
joints and thus be the means of scattering the
pest still further. This clump of reserve fodder
is thus regarded as a form of insurance against
the evils following drought.

Prickly-pcar is fed quite commonly under
certain conditions to cattle and ostriches, also
to pigs and goats, and occasionally to horses.
All of these animals are fond of the fruit. Be-
fore feeding to ostriches, the joints must be
chopped up, special machines being utilised for
the purpose. When used as food for other stock,
Kaalblad may be chopped up or may be fed
whole, but the Doornblad must be treated in such
a way that the spines become less dangerous. The
latter may be done by singeing in various ways
or to a certain extent by chopping up the pear.
Boiling or steaming the joints is frequently done
before using them as fodder for pigs.

In some districts—e.g., Uitenhage, which is
rather fertile and rarely experiences a drought—
the pear is held to be worthless on account of its
low feeding value, though American aloes may
be chopped up and used to form part of the diet
of ostriches and cattle.

The utilisation of Prickly-pear for fodder
during droughts is not unattended with disad-
vantages. Unless care be exercised, purging of
the animals, whether ostriches, sheep, cattle,
goats, or pigs, frequently occurs (R.S8.C. 1898, p.
36; RS.C., 1890, p. 22; R.S.C., 1906, p. 69;
MacOwan, 1897, p. 3). Then, again, the small
spines from the fruit penetrate the tongue, Jaws,
&c., and give rise to inflammation which may ex-
tend even to the stomach and cause death
(Grobelaar, 1891, p. 246; Macdonald, 1891, b,
p. 26; 1897, a, p. 30). A similar result may
follow the eating of the joints of the more spiny
plants, but usually cattle suffer less than smaller
stock, such as goats and sheep (Wallace, 1896, p.
90). These injuries often prevent the animal
from being able to feed on harder stuff (such as
grass), supplying the animal with soft food, such
as lucerne, being then resorted to with much
success. Ulceration often results from the
wounds and not uncommonly is followed by fly
infection, the maggots aggravating the condition.
Sometimes the mouth of the affected animal be-
comes so bad that grazing is impossible, and
death by starvation frequently follows (B.8.C.,
1896, p. 9). Some beasts become go fond of the
plant that they, ‘‘ even when suffering acutely
from the injury which it produces, have been
known to remain beside a pear-tree with the
tongue hanging out and to continue to eat the
fruit until they have actually died of the effects’?
(Wallace, 1896, p. 90). Hutcheon (R.8.C., 1906,
p. 6) referred to the same matter, mentioning
that. it is not the Prickly-pear joint but rather
the spinules on the fruit which cause most of the
injury.

_. The actual direct loss of stock caused by
Injuries resulting from feeding on the pear has
been estimated to be £200,000 annually (B.8.C.,
1890, p. 2, 7, viii.; R.S.C., 1891, p. 111, Appen-
dix, p. 1; Wallace, 1896, p. 90, &.). On one
farm at Graaff Reinet, in one year, 1,200 goats
died from its effects (R.S.C., 1898, p. 69).
Ostriches, cattle, and even human beings have be-
come blinded temporarily or permanently by the
tiny spines blown from the fruit by the wind
(R.S.C., 1890, p. 22; R.S.C., 1898, p. 9; Grobe-

36

laar, 1891, p. 246; R.S.C., 1891, p. 25; Marloth,
1892, p. 111).

J. Burtt Davy (1909) has referred to the
subject of Prickly-pear as a stock food, and hag
summarised the matter (pp. 14,15). He states
that it is a useful though not very nutritious
form of stock food, but the presence of spineg
means an element of great danger and expense,
The chief value of the plant seems to be—
(1) its use as a food during prolonged drought,
when other and more nutritious food is scarce;
(2) its use as a roughage along with more con-
centrated foodstuffs for cattle; (3) or as an acces-
sory to ordinary rations of concentrated food and
hay, as it supplies succulence which is difficult
to secure in semi-arid regions during a large
period of the year; and (4) in the fact that
working oxen can be maintained for an indefinite
period on a ration consisting largely of Prickly-
pear. The amount used varies from 125 to 200 lb.
daily for a full ration to an adult animal, to from
40 to 70 lb. per day as part ration for a dairy
cow. He refers to the danger of feeding Prickly-
pear alone, owing to the tendency of the fibre to
form balls within the digestive canal—this some-
times causing the death of the animals—and
mentions that the spinules frequently cause irrita-
tion of the eyes, sometimes resulting in total
blindness.

Mr. R. W. Thornton carried out careful
feeding experiments at the Robertson Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, Cape Colony. He used
the chief kinds occurring locally (Kaalblad,
Doornblad, and O. monacantha) as well as a
number of imported species.

An extract from his report (29-4-13) reads
as follows :—

‘“ With regard to our feeding experiments, I
may say that these were carried out with catile,
ostriches, and pigs; and Prickly-pear was fed to
these animals pulped and boiled, with the thorns
removed by burning and with the thorns on. A
second series was tried by supplementing with
lucerne hay, and a third by supplementing with
maize.

‘‘ The ostriches did well in all cases, but did
best when the Prickly-pear was supplemented
with lucerne hay. The draught cattle, whilst
doing no work, did fairly well on Prickly-pear
alone, but became very thin when worked. The
milch cattle did not do at all well on the
Prickly-pear alone, and neither did the pigs;
but in all instances where the Prickly-pear was
used as roughage and supplemented with other
good food the results were very successful. The
older stems were found to be more nutritious than
the younger leaves.”’

[The experiments referred to were carried
out and reported on in 1908 with twenty-five
different cacti, those which were found to possess
some value being the varieties of O. decumana
and Nopalea cochinelifera.]
 

 

 

 

 

Photo., Dept. Agriculture, Brisbane.
—0O. tomentosa—from Rockhampton.

cB)

Fig. 19.—Segment, flowers, and buds of the ‘‘ Helidon Tree Pear

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photo., Dept. Agriculture, Brisbane.

Fig. 20.—Joints of 0. tomentosa, with buds and flowers, from Rockhampton.
37

‘‘'The percentage results of the analyses* of
these samples are given in the two following

a

tables, being calculated—(I.) upon the: fresh leaf
in each case, and (II.) upon the dried leaf :—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

|
FUEL VALUE |

- = af oaice ; Aehal aa (CALORIES) per 1b.
ater. | fO"G-o8. Fat. Ash. including Fibre. | Nutrient
Fibre. Including ) Excluding ae

| Fibre. Fibre.

| v4 | \
I.—Fresh “ Leaf.”
1 | Opuntia, sp. .. 95:95 27 -06 +92 2-80 | 38
tid, : . 58 51 1:9°5
2 | O. triacantha .. 94-42 “44 05 = L-Al 3:98 |  -73 82 69 1:76
3 | O. decumana .. 95-00 48 09, 1:02 3-41 | 53 74 65 1:6-4
4)0. cochinelifera 91-72 ‘91 10 1-46 5-81 | “75 127 114 1:5-8
5 | O. inermis 94-00 42 -06 1:35 4-17 ! ‘57 86 716 1:8-9
6 | Opuntia, sp. .. 93-77 -56 05 1:39 4-29 | 66 90 78 1:6:7
II.—Dried “* Leaf,”

1 Opuntia, sp. .. 8-52 1:49 | 22-70 67-29 9-26 | 1,440 1,271

2 | O. triacantha .. 7:86 -89 | 19-81 71-44 | 13-00 1,479 1,243

3 | 0. decumana ate 9-65 1-74 | 20-38 68-23 | 10-51 1,488 1,296

4|0. cochinelifera 11-05 1-15 | 17-60 70-20 9-09 1,525 1,360

5 | O. inermis 6-99 1-02 | 22-56 69-43 9-50 | 1,432 1,259

6 | Opuntia, sp. . 8-97 +82 | 22-27 67-94 | 10-63 | 1,433 1,239

 

 

 

The names given in the tables are those used by Mr. Thornton. No. 1, Opuntia, sp., is a cultivated form of
O. decumana, obtained from California. No. 2, O. triacantha, is the Doornblad of South Africa, and is also a variety of
O. decumana. No. 3 is the Kaalblad form of O. decumana. No. 4 is correctly named. No. 5 is a spineless species
said to occur in Mexico and West Indies; it is possibly another variety of O. decumana, and is not related to
the Australian pest. No. 6. Opuntia, sp.—a thornless form—was obtained from Madeira, and is also probably a

variety of O. decumana.

* These chemical data evilently do not refer to the composition of the entire Prickly-pear planis to which

they relate.

‘(The fuel values and nutrient ratios given
in the above tables have been calculated in the
manner described in Vol. 33 of the ‘‘ Agricultural
Journal of Cape of Good Hope,’’ July, 1908, pp.
100-1. The variations in the fuel values in
Table I. are due mainly to the differing propor-
tions of moisture contained in the fresh leaves.
No. 4, it will be seen, is, when fresh, considerably
in advance of the rest in food value—a fact
which is owing partly to its lower moisture con-
tent, but also to the lower percentage of fibre and
the higher proportions of proteins and digestible
earbo-hydrates. For the latter reason it also
occupies the premier position amongst the dry-
leaf results in Table IT.’’

Warren (1914, p. 388) mentions that, in
addition to the naturalised Opuntias, certain
Burbank varieties—viz., Anacantha and Manada
—are grown for feeding cattle during dry
seasons.

Lamont (1914, p. 386) has published the
average composition of various fodders. amongst
them being the Kaalblad, which is stated to con-
tain 94 per cent. water, 1-35 per cent. ash, 42
protein, -57 fibre, -06 fat, and 3-7 carbohydrates.
This represents five food units, whereas lucerne
hay has 80, green lucerne 20, maize ensilage 17,

and oats 99.

Ensilage-—The attempt to use Prickly-pear
as ensilage has not been satisfactory (B.8.C.,
1898, Appendix, p. V.; ‘Nobbs, 1908 a, p. 26).
though it has been suggested that the addition of
an equal weight of chaff would make the mixture
of some value, 340 lb. of which would be equiva-
lent in feeding value to 225 lb. of hay as a cattle
fodder. It has also been suggested that an ensi-
lage might be made of Prickly-pear fruit mixed
with lucerne, hay, or oat chaff. A kind was made
at Bloemfontein from the joints and fruit, but,
having too much acidity, grass or linseed meal
was fed along with it (R.S.C., 1898, p. 15-6).

UrinisaTION AS Foop For MAN.

The fresh ripe fruit forms a very important
part of the food supply of the ‘* poor whites’’
and the natives (R.S.C., 1891, p. 13; 1898, pp.
iv., 41, &.; 1890, p. 18). It is stated that the
latter live for many months of the year on it;
hence there is a scarcity of farm labour during
that period (Nobbs, 1906 a, p. 26; Wallace,
1896, p. 91). Many of the farmers also use it
as part of their diet, just in the same way as the
fruit of certain prickly-pears is utilised in
the Canary Islands, around the coast of the
Mediterranean, and elsewhere. It is an ordinary
article of commerce during certain seasons of the
year. Sometimes payment for native labour is
made in Prickly-pear fruit, and at times the latter
is given in exchange for mealies (maize) grown
by the natives. Sometimes the fruit is dried or
converted irito preserves, jams, or jellies (R.8.C.,
1898, p. 41; 1891, p. 15, &e.).

Alcohol, vinegar, syrup (molasses), and even
sugar are made from Prickly-pear oceasionally by
the farmers (R.S.C., 1891, pp. 15, 19; Macdonald,
1891 a, p. 23, &e.). In the case of the syrup,
chicory or ginger may be added to destroy the
flavour. The natives and the ‘‘ poor whites”’
make a liquor from the fruit, and this appears
to have an intoxicating and demoralising effect
which has called for public comment on many
oceasions (Wallace, 1898, p. 90; R.S.C., 1898, p.
viii, p. 2, &e.; Macdonald, 1891 a, p. 23). The
dense Prickly-pear thickets have become hiding-
places for stolen stock (R.8.C., 1898, pp. 32, 42;
1891, pp. 3, 8, Appendix, p. i.; 1890, p. 2, 16).
Besides this, the growth and extension of the
pest have greatly depreciated the value. of in-
fected properties, and have led to loss in revenue
(R.8.C., 1891, p. 1, 41, Appendix, p. i.; 1890, p. 7,
p. vii.; 1898, pp. 31, 37, &c.). Henee it can be
readily understood that, in evidence given before
the several Select Committees of the Cape Par-
liament which were inquiring into the question
of the eradication of Prickly-pear, many farmers
declared that the disadvantages were so great that
the plants should be eradicated in spite of the
few advantages presented by them (R.8.C., 1906,
p. 30, 51; R.S.C., 1898, p. 5, &e.; R.S.C., 1906, p.
11; Wallace, 1896, p. 90; Grobelaar, 1891, p.
246).

VINES ON PRICKLY-PEAR.

It was suggested by an anonymous correspon-
dent in the ‘‘.\gricultural Journal of the Cape of
Good Hope,’’ Vol. IV., 1891, p. 73, that the
stumps of Prickly-pear plants might be utilised
as stocks for vines, as had been done in certain
parts of the United States of America. The
attempt in Cape Colony was not a success; and
the Secretary for Agriculture (Mr. A. Fischer)
stated that, since vineyards could be established
with comparative ease, it was doubtful whether
the experiment was worth repeating.

PRICKLY-PEAR AS A GREEN MANURE.

On some farms in the Zoutspanberg district,
Transvaal, Prickly-pear has, according to local
evidence, been employed as a green manure for
citrus trees. Its use is said to have been beneficial.

DESTRUCTION BY UTILISATION IN THE
INDUSTRIES.

Prickly-pear does not appear to have been
as yet utilised for the preparation of commercial
articles in South Africa. Mr. William Frost, of
Graaff Reinet, has been experimenting for some
time past, and has recently patented a number
of articles prepared either wholly or in part from
the pest pear, O. decumana, A large acreage of
land forming part of the town common of Graaff
Reinet has been placed under the control of Mr.
Frost, who has undertaken to clear off and utilise
the dense pear infesting it, his profit to be made
out of the sale of the products which he expects
to prepare from the plants. At the time of the
Commission’s visit the work had not been com-
menced.

During the course of an interview, Mr. Frost
brought under the notice of the Commission a
number of smaJ! samples of his preparations
which he believed could be manufactured on a
commercial scale. Amongst them were food
balls made from the stems and joints with or
without the fruit. The patented process by which
these are proposed to be made is thus described:
—In order to convert the Prickly-pear to a
fodder, the parts of the plant are sliced, dried,
and pulped; then the juice is separated from the
fibrous matter and concentrated. This con-
centrated juice is added as required to the fibrous
material, and the mixture converted into dry
balls or cakes capable of being utilised as fodder
for cattle and ostriches. They may be fed entire
or broken up or else moistened with water, and
are said to be an alternative to lucerne as a diet
for ostriches, as they counteract the constipating
tendency of the latter.

It was stated that coffee made from the seeds
and certain other parts of the plants mixed
could be produced at a very low cost. Syrup or
molasses was obtained from the fruit, and from
this a crude sugar was manufactured, which sub-
stances it was proposed to utilise for the manu-
facture of sweets.

38

A kind of meal, vinegar, acetic acid, soaps,
&c., were to be made wholly or in part from the
plant. Samples of a fertiliser were made from
Prickly-pear mixed with farm manure.

The matter of commercial utilisation has not,
as yet, passed beyond the experimental stage.

An early proposal to make soap by boiling
Prickly-pear ‘‘leaves’’ with fat was shown by
MacOwan, 1890, p. 61, to be of no practical value.

PRICKLY-PEAR AS HEDGES.

It has already been inentioned that the various
species are occasionally used as hedges; but this,
of course, does not involve its destruction.

APPENDIX.
DESTRUCTION OF PRICKLY-PEAR BY
MECHANICAL AND CHEMICAL
MEANS.
The following compilation of available

literature, although not devoid of interest, will
suggest that Queensland has nothing to learn
from South African past procedure in its own
efforts to subjugate the plants under considera-
tion :-—

The spread of Prickly-pear in Cape Colony
became so serious that on four occasions (1890,
1891, 1898, 1906) Select Committees of the Cape
Parliament were appointed to inquire into the
question of eradicating the pest.

The first report (R.S.C., 1890) referred to
the great depreciation of public and private
lands, the large annual loss of stock, the demoral-
ising influence of the fruit and the liquor made
from it on the natives, caused by the presence of
Prickly-pear. Amongst the recommendations
were the proclamation of certain districts as
infected areas, each of these to be taken over by
a Commissioner, who should be given power by
an Act providing for complete extirpation of the
plant. These Commissioners should have power
to enforce obedience to the proposed Act. ‘‘In
such eases where the proprietors are not able
themselves to meet the expenses, the Commis-
sioners shall investigate and recommend such pro
rat@ assistance as they shall deem just. In those
cases where a proprietor cannot possibly clear
his land, such land to be expropriated, and the
fair value decided upon by arbitration to be
given to him for it. Then this land to be either
cleared at the expense of the Government and
then sold; or sold with a special stipulation
that it shall be cleared immediately by the pur-
chaser.’’

The report of the Select Committee ap-
pointed next year (R.S.C., 1891) again refers to
the alarming spread of the pest and to the econo-
mic losses caused by it. Owing to the lack of
information as to the identity or otherwise of
the Kaalblad and Doornblad, experiments to
decide the question were suggested. Until such
results were available, the Committee did not feel
justified in recommending the total eradication
of the former. It was also suggested that experi-
ments as to the efficacy of various sprays should
be carried out. The drafting of a Bill for the
eradication of the thorny Prickly-pear (Doorn-
blad) was urged.
39

Amongst the evidence received by this Com-
mittee was that of Mr. A. C. Macdonald (1891
b), who reviewed the question of »Prickly-pear
in South Africa, and made a number of sugges-
tions to the Government with regard to its eradi-
cation (pp. 34 and 35), most of these being sup-
ported by the Secretary for Agriculture
(Fischer, 1891, pp. 42-3).

In 1898 another Select Committee made its
report (R.S.C., 1898). The serious economic re-
sults of the spread of the pest, which have been
referred to earlier, are again emphasised. It
was considered that ‘‘ compulsory legislation for
the eradication of the -weed was not desirable,
but that the free supply of scrub exterminator
by the Government would be the most effectual
means of attaining the object sought.’’

A much longer report was furnished by the
Select Committee appointed in 1906 (R.S.C.,
1906). After reiterating the effect of the spread
of Prickly-pear on the general community, and
drawing attention to the seriousness of the pres-
ence of the jointed cactus, the report goes on to
state that the Committee was of opinion that the
State should now assist the private individual to
exterminate both of these pests. Though com-
pulsory eradication alone was considered unde-
sirable, it was believed that ‘‘ a system of obli-
gatory cleansing coupled with graduated State
aid and encouragement would bring about the
desired result.’ It was suggested that every
farmer troubled with the pest should clear his
land within a reasonable period, and, after pro-
ducing a verified statement of the cost, should
be reimbursed according to a scale, the following
being suggested :—

Cost of Eradication. Proportion of Bonus.

Under £100 . 124% per cent.
£100 to £500 .. .. 25 per cent.
£500 to £1,000 .. 983 percent.

£1,000 and upwards .. 50 _ per cent.

It was further recommended that arsenite of
soda be sold at cost price; that the carrying of
Prickly-pear or jointed cactus from an infested
to a clean area be punishable with a heavy pen-
alty; that the planting of these two pests be
prohibited; that farmers whose lands were free
from pear be compelled to keep them clean; and
that lands cleansed with Government assistance
be kept clean at the owner’s cost. Moreover, all
public lands, whether belonging to the Crown,
to municipal bodies, or to railways, should be
brought under similar conditions. Further ex-
perimentation with mechanical and chemical
means was urged.

The earlicr methods of clearing Prickly-pear
were purely manual, the plants being chopped
down and then stacked. After a time the mner
portion of the mass would decompose, while the
new growth from the outer parts was broken off
and thrown on the heap. Ultimately the heap

became dry enough to burn. The hardness of
the Karoo soil prevented the burial of the plants
(R.8.C., 1890, pp. 10-12; R.S.C., 1891, p. 4).
Cooper’s sheep dip was tried as a means of de-
stroying Prickly-pear (Agr. Journ. Cape of Good
Hope, I., 1888, Nos. 9, 12, 14).

About this time (Fischer, 1891 a, p. 443;
Macdonald, 1891 a, p. 24) it was proposed to
carry on experiments with scrub exterminator,
which had been found a success in India. This,
on analysis, was found to consist mainly of
arsenic and certain alkaline substances (Fischer,
1891 a, Appendix, p. 11; Juritz, 1892, p. 15).
The experimental work was initiated by A.
Fischer (1891 b, p. 183), who reported that
certain solutions of the Australian Scrub Ex-
terminator and also of arsenite of soda destroyed
the above-ground portion of the pear. The work
was carried on by A. C. Macdonald (1892 a,
pp. 21-8; 1892 c, pp. 112-3), who used, in addi-
tion, other sprays such as copper sulphate and
corrosive sublimate. The general result was
rather unfavourable, as new growth was pro-
duced by the semi-decayed plants, on account of
the failure of the chemicals to destroy the roots.
This result coincides with that obtained in
Southern India (Fawcett, in Fischer, 1892 a,
p. 24). The cost of clearing per acre in the latter
country, when using the scrub exterminator, has
been worked out by Fischer (1891 a, Appendix,
p. iv.) to be over £84 per acre.

Macdonald’s experiments were continued by
himself and Palmer (1892, pp. 276-7) and others
were carried out by Holmes and Davenport
(1893, p. 64).* Asa result of the work of these
men it was found that the arsenical sprays are
not very effective against growing Prickly-pear.
but that if the latter be chopped down and
heaped, or if the bark be well pierced before
spraying, then destruction follows in a short
time, and the dead plants may be burnt. A con-
siderable saving in time and expense was found
to oceur. The most effective strength of solu-
tion was shown to be obtained by dissolving 1
lb. of the arsenic compound in 8 or 9 gallons of
water. The poison was found to act more rapidly
if applied to the heaps after the plants had been
chopped down, winter time being the most suit-
able time for using it (Macdonald, 1894, p.
285). The Government, as a result of these ex-
periments, imported a supply of the arsenite of
soda and scrub exterminator and sold it to
farmers at 214d. per lb., this being about half
cost price (Tooke, 1898, II., IV.; Macdonald,
1894, p. 285).

Acting on the recommendation contained in
the report of the Parliamentary Select Commit-
tee (1898, p. v.), the Government, in 1898, dis-
tributed arsenite of soda free (R.8.C., 1906, p.
2; Nobbs, 1906, a, p. 9); but the supply was

* Macdonald’s “work has been referred to by Mr.
Maiden (1898, pp. 984-7).

 
40

intermittent, as the amount of money voted for
this purpose was insufficient. Moreover, there
appears to have been a considerable amount of
waste going on. From 1905 the poison was sold
at cost price (R.8.C., 1906, p. 2; Nobbs, 1906
a, p. 10).

Dr. Hutcheon, Acting Director of Agricul-
ture (R.S.C., 1906, p. 3), stated that it was more
effective to dig out the pear, collect it into heaps,
and then spray thoroughly, than to inject the
poison into the standing plants. Many South
African farmers have agreed with this statement
(B.8.C., 1906, pp. 52, 57).

About this time certain local proprietary
preparations came to be used. The most satis-
factory was that of a Mr. Pienaar (B.S.C., 1906,
pp. 13, 29, 36). This poison was patented, its
composition being given (p. 60) as copper sul-
phate, 14 oz.; sodium hydroxide, 20 oz.; water,
160 oz. Two solutions were made separately and
then mixed together. A tablespoonful of the
liquid was placed in a hole bored into the stem
and main branches at a distance of three joints
from the end (p. 61), and the hole was then
plugged up. Soon the pear began to die from
the tips downwards (p. 13), the joints remaining
on the plant if proper care were taken during
the injection. This was found by Dr. Nobbs to
be effective and to be more easily applied where
plants were sparse (p. 13). The objection to
the use of this preparation was its costliness (6s.
per gallon plus cost of railage), though it was
stated that the ingredients cost about 1s. per
gallon at Capetown. On the other hand, this
remedy was tried by the Municipality of Uiten.
hage, which cleared portions of its densely in-
fested town common of 5,000 ‘‘ trees ’’ at a cost
of £4 (p. 67) and 8,675 at a cost of £26 8s. (p.
35). This works out at a cost of about éd. and
34d. per tree, respectively. All the expenses can-
not have been included, since a later account
given by Dr. Nobbs (1906 a, p. 29) refers to
the destruction of 18,989 trees at a total cost of
£119 18s., the work thus costing the municipality
about 114d. per tree. In a Departmental report
(October, 1906) Dr. Nobbs stated that over
25,000 trees had been destroyed at a total cost
(for labour, material, and cost of supervision)
of £168 13s., which still works out at about lAd.
per tree. The plants were said to average 8 feet
in height. So successful was this remedy deemed
to be that the Uitenhage Council proposed (p.
36) to spend £200 per annum in clearing its com-
monage with the preparation. Though success-
ful at all seasons, its action was found to be more
rapid during summer (p. 63), decomposition set-
ting in about a fortnight after injection. In
winter time this occurs in about three weeks.

lixhaustive experiments were carried out
during 1906 and 1907 by Dr. Nobbs (1907). THe
used samples of eighteen preparations then in

use, each being used—(1) as a spray on heaps
of pear which had been grubbed out; (2) as an
injection into standing trees; (3) as an injection
into stumps; and (4) as a spray against standing
trees. The substances tried were arsenite of
soda, proprietary preparations (Steyn’s, Pie.
naar’s, Cairns’, Duplessis’, Mares, Atlas), Coo-
per’s Dip, common salt, blue vitriol, green
vitriol, arsenate of lead, potassium cyanide, sul.
phur, caustic soda, and paraffin. As regards
efficiency, arsenite of soda proved itself to be the
best and cheapest cacticide.

The most efficient and economical method of
using this poison (Nobbs, 1907, b, p. 4) was to
fell the trees, spray the heaps with 1-1 per cent,
solution (1 lb. arsenite to 9 gallons water), and
then inject about 1 to 114 tablespoonfuls of a4
10 per cent. arsenite solution into the butts of
the stumps projecting above the ground. Spray-
ing standing trees with a 5 per cent. solution of
arsenite of soda is ‘‘ recommended for use in
checking the progress of the Prickly-pear on
steep hillsides ’’ and other places ‘‘ where more
thorough work is impracticable, but where ex-
tirpation is very desirable,’’ since these act as
redistributing centres for the pest. The main
objection is the difficulty of water supply in these
spots.

The success following a demonstration of
the efficacy of a proprietary compound made by
Mr. Jansen (Edit., 1909) led the Government to
purchase the secret of its composition. It was
made as follows :—

1. Boil thoroughly for 30 minutes half a
pound of good finely powdered lime and
half a pound sulphur in one gallon of
water. An extra quart of water should
be added to above to allow for evapora-
tion whilst boiling.

2. Dissolve half a pound of salt and half a
pound of arsenite of soda in one gallon
boiling water.

3. Mix the above Nos. 1 and 2 together,
which will then equal two gallons fluid
stuff.

4. To be applied as the tree stands, as fol-
lows:—Make an incision with a knife,
with a sharp point, two to three inches
deep into one or more leaves, according
to size of tree, and inject the poison.

The number of incisions necessary for 2
tree can soon be gained after a short
experience with the extirpator. For
instance, if a tree of medium size con-
tain one stem with no branches, one in-
jection at the top of the tree will be
sufficient to destroy the whole tree.
Thus it only needs a little foresight to
enable the work to be done with the
least expense.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 22..—The “ Yellow-fruiting Mexican Pear.’? North
Rockhampton. Compare with the ‘“ Doornblad’”’ of
South Africa (Fig. 32).

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 23.—O. microdasys, from Teneriffe, Canary Islands. This
low-growing species is reported as being naturalised in the
Pillaga Scrub, New South Wales.
41

The method of injection is as follows:—The
leaf which is selected for the injection
is pierced with the sharp-pvinted knife
at the top side of the apex, and the
knife is then moved backwards and for-
wards to enlarge the incision. The
knife is given a half-twist to open the
incision made, and to keep it open a
pebble is dropped into the opening. A
little of the extirpator is then poured
from a kettle into the opening, care be-
ing taken, however, to keep the fluid
well stirred before pouring it out. The
poison travels down the stem, inoculat-
ing the leaves as it passes. In doing
large dense patches the outside fringe
must first be treated, and as these die
down the work is repeated on the next
fringe, and so on till the centre is also
treated.

This preparation is not meant to be sprayed,
and can only be used as per instruc-
tions. (Hdit., 1910 a, b).

Another proprietary poison—a spray—has
been experimented with (Hdit., 1910 c)—viz.,
that of a Mr. St. O’Gorman. Though appar-
ently an efficient one, its cost seems to be an
objection.

Still more recently, a Mr. Rademeyer has
patented a mixture which, though intended to be
used as a spray chiefly against the Jointed Cac-
tus, is claimed to be a destroyer of Prickly-pear
also. The Commission visited the small experi-
mental areas where it had been used two months
previously. The plants were not completely de-
stroyed, as they were then putting forth new
growth. Mr. Rademeyer stated that injuring the
plants before spraying was beneficial. He is
now engaged in clearing infested land by con-
tract.

The Municipality of Graaff Reinet lets out
to farmers for a period of 25 years, free of rent,
portions of the town common, for grazing pur-
poses, on condition that the land be cleared and
kept clear of Prickly-pear.

DESTRUCTION OF JOINTED CACTUS.

From what has already been stated in this
section of the Report regarding O. aurantiaca,
known as the Jointed Cactus (O. pusilla) in
South Africa, it will be recognised that this
species may become a very serious pest. Such
has occurred in certain districts in Cape Colony,
and may happen in Queensland unless the
infested area in the Roma district be thoroughly
cleansed.

The Uitenhage Municipality has for many
years been persistently fighting this pest as well
as the Prickly-pear, £200 per annum being ex-
pended in these directions under the control of
Mr, J. Butler. The method at first adopted was
to spray the standing plants with a solution of
4 per cent. arsenite of soda (Nobbs, R.8.C., 1906,
p. 33; Nobbs, 1908, p. 343); but at the time of
the Commission’s visit the plants were dug out,
eolleeted into a heap, and then sprayed, the mass
being burnt when dry. This latter method had
already been used against the pest by some

farmers in the Bedford district (R.S8.C., 1906,
p. 44, 47; Bowker, 1907, p. 343). The enclosing
of infected areas to keep out cattle is a means
to prevent the spread of the cactus.

Experiments were carried out by Dr. Nobbs
and Mr. R. W. Thornton during 1907, the results
being published in 1908 (Nobbs, 1908). Arsenite
of soda, as well as the proprietary preparations
claimed to be efficacious against the Prickly-pear,
were tried, the first-named being found to be the
cheapest and most effective, a 4 per cent. or 5
per cent. solution being the most satis-
factory. No material advantage was gained
by breaking the cactus down before spraying.
The results thus corroborated those obtained at
Uitenhage by Mr. Butler.

Just prior to the Commission’s visit to South
Africa, the Department of Agriculture had in-
stituted experiments in order to test the value
of a preparation made by Mr. P. M. Rademeyer
as compared with arsenite of soda. Agricultural
Assistant K. M. Johnson carried out the work at
Hankey, and reported that ‘‘Rademeyer’s exter-
minator ’’ destroyed Jointed Cactus more effec-
tively and more cheaply than a 5 per cent.
solution of arsenite of soda. The Commission
visited the treated areas, but did not find any per-
ceptible difference between them, as in both places
many plants were sprouting vigorously. There
is great difficulty in destroying the ‘‘bulb’’ of
this Opuntia.

The information obtained regarding the
destruction of Prickly-pear by chemical and
mechanical means, indicates that the most satis-
factory and economical results have been obtained
by using arsenite of soda solution or ‘‘Jansen’s
Extirpator,’’ these poisons being supplied to
farmers at cost price by the Government.*

SUMMARY OF SOUTH AFRICAN
INVESTIGATIONS.

There appear to be seven or eight species
of Prickly-pear naturalised in South Africa, two
of which, O. decumana and O. aurantiaca, have
become a pest in certain areas. The former is
represented by two varieties—a smooth-jointed
and a spiny-jointed form—the latter being the
troublesome one. O. monacantha, though widely
distributed, occurs scattered chiefly around the
coastal area.

O. monacantha, O. aurantiaca, and an ally of
O. decumana occur naturalised in Queensland.

No evidence was forthcoming as to the pre-
sence of any fungoid or bacterial disease con-
trolling the spread of any of these South African
Opuntias. A variety of the Wild Cochineal In-
sect, Coccus confusus capensis, was found to
attack and, at times, seriously injure O. mona-
cantha; but as far as the experience of the Com-
mission went, the general effect produced was not
nearly so marked as that seen in India and Cey-
lon as the result of the attack of an allied form,
C. confusus indicus. This may be due, in part
at least, to the presence of parasites. It is known,

 

* Under the title “ The Prickly-pear Problem, Clearing
by Gas,” there appears in the South African Agricultural
Journal, 1914, pp. 392-5, a reprint of an article in the
Queenslander, giving an account of Mr. Roberts’ experi-
ments with arsenious chloride as a cacticide.
however, that different species of eoccids produce
different results on their host-Opuntias. This
insect was forwarded to Queensland, and has
now become established at the Experiment Station
at Dulacea.

None of the other insects found attacking
Prickly-pear, appeared to produce any detri-
mental effect.

In regard to the destruction by utilisation
as a fodder for stock, the experience of South
Africa agrees with that of Hastern Australia.
Prickly-pear is of some value as an accessory

42

food supply during times of drought. It is used
at other times to some advantage as a roughage
for cattle and ostriches.

Its utilisation in the arts and industries has
not yet passed beyond an experimental stage.

In regard to the destruction of Prickly-
pear by chemical and mechanical means, the
most satisfactory and economical results have
been obtained by using arsenite of soda solution,
or ‘‘ Jansen’s Extirpator,’’ these poisons being
supplied to farmers at cost price by the Govern-
ment.

IV. THE CANARY ISLANDS.

The Commission prosecuted inquiries in the
Canary Islands, which were visited while
en route from South Africa to England,
remaining there from 21st to 28th May, 1918, and
visiting for this purpose both Teneriffe and
Grand Canary. Whilst on the former island,
attention was devoted to the condition of occur-
rence of locally-developed Prickly-pears in the
immediate neighbourhood of Santa Cruz, and be-
tween that city and Orotava. At Grand Canary,
the neighbourhood of Las Palmas afforded the
Commission good scope for its inquiry, but it also
inspected the infested country extending along
the north coast of the island to Agaete and in-
eluding Arucas, the still important site of the
cochineal industry.

SPECIES OF PRICKLY-PEAR.

The species of Prickly-pear occurring natur-
alised in the Canary Islands have been specified
with more or Jess comprehensiveness by—(1)
Barker-Webb and Sabin Berthelot (1840); (2)
V. Perez and P. Sagot (1867); (3) R. Lowe
(1868) ; (4) P. Jose de Viera y Clavigo (1899) ;
(5) R. Pitard and L. Proust (1908); (6) I. H.
Burkill (1911) ; (7) M. Burkill, Miss (1912) ; and
others. They are as follows :—

1. Opuntia ficus-indica,* Mill, named as such

by Webb and Berthelot, by Perez and
Sagot, by Pitard and Proust, and by M.
Burkill; O. tuna by Lowe, Cactus
cochinelifera by de Viera y Clavigo, and
Nopalea cochinelifera by Brown (1901,
p. 278). It is designated amongst the
inhabitants of the Canary Islands,
according to de Viera y Clavigo,
Higuera, Chumbra, Higuera de Indias,
Tunera or Roque, and Nopalera or
Palatera.

2. Opuntia dillenii, Haw., named O. tuna by
Perez and Sagot and by Pitard and
Proust ; Cactus cochinelifera by de Viera
y Clavigo, and O. dillenii by Lowe and
M. Burkill.

3. Opuntia robusta, Wendl.

4. Opuntia monacantha, Haw.

5. Opuntia tomentosa, Salm-Dyck; the Tu-

nera de Terciopelo (fide Perez and
Sagot).

__ _* It is different to the common species in South Africa,
its segments being more symmetrical, resembling in this
respect those of the Barbary fig of the Mediterranean

coasts for which Mr. Burkill (1911) uses the name O.
- decumana.

Tn addition to the foregoing, Miss Burkill has
recorded—(6) an Opuntia from Grand Canary,
‘‘a plant with rather long dark thorns’’; (7) an-
other Opuntia (from Teneriffe) with straight
spines; and (8) Opuntia brasiliensis, Haw., as a
garden plant at Orotava, Teneriffe. These last
three species were not, however, met with by the
Commission, it evidently not having visited the
spots where they are known to occur.

The first-mentioned is related to the most
prevalent ‘‘ pest pear’’ of South Africa, while
one growing near Rockhampton, Queensland, may
be a variety of it. The fourth one, O. monacantha,
has already been referred to as being widely
distributed in Australia. The fifth, O. tomentosa,
is the Tree-pear of the Central area of Queens-
land and the Helidon district.

By far the most generally spread and pre-
valent species in the two islands visited is O.
ficus-indica, a plant of large and robust habit, and
one that is to be distinguished by its orange or
flame-red flowers and oblong-ovoid fruit of a yel-
lowish-green colour and with greenish-white pulp
(Lowe). In the Canary Islands, as in South
Africa, we find commonly both a less copiously
and shorter-spined form which is almost unarmed,
and a more spinous one. R. Lowe, who has well
described this plant (1868, I., p. 314) does not
admit that the two varietal forms are distinct.
He mentioned that the less spiny form passes
gradually into the more spiny variety, and that
both conditions may be met with on the same
plant at different periods and even in different
parts of the one plant at the same period. Perez
and Sagot (1867, p. 21) referred to the diminu-
tion of the spiny conditions as a result of careful
cultivation of this cactus.

The third kind of Prickly-pear referred to—
1.¢., O. robusta, Wendl.—is one of even coarser
habit than is the last. It was found to be quite
prevalent at Teneriffe, along the road between
Santa Cruz and Orotava, as well as at various
localities in the north of Grand Canary. It is
readily distinguished from the species above-
named by its larger, more discoidal, and more
greyish-green stem-joints and by its yellow
flowers. It is the plant referred to by Drs.
V. Perez and P. Sagot (1867, l.c.) as one having
large rounded joints, a smooth epidermis devoid

of spines or only possessing small ones, and red
edible fruits.

The awl-spined Prickly-pear—O. dillenii,
Haw.—was also locally prevalent, usually along
the boundaries of different tenements, both
43 a

at Teneriffe and Grand Canary. It was found
growing wild in many places in both of these
islands, more especially in the latter. It was
observed to have the outer petals of its flowers
commonly rufous, especially when growing in
drier situations, as near Las Palmas, in the latter
island. On the high ground to the west of the
latter city, this Prickly-pear was found possessing
small shortly-pyriform, deep-purple fruit re-
- sembling that of the commoner Gayndah (Queens-
land) Prickly-pear that has, too, been regarded
as a form of the species under notice.

O. monacantha, Haw., was observed only on
Teneriffe, and appeared to occur quite locally at
a spot near Laguna.

O. tomentosa, Salm-Dyck.—This tall dark-
green velvety species was observed near Orotava.
as well as in isolated localities in the north of
Grand Canary.

The time at the disposal of the Commission
for investigations in the Canary Islands being
necessarily short, only a limited survey was
practicable.

The facts regarding the prevalence of
Prickly-pear (O. ficus-indica) on the two islands
visited confirmed the opinion formed from the
investigations in South Africa—that there is
grave danger that, under the conditions of soil
and climate existing in Queensland, especially in
the Central district, plants belonging to the
varieties included under the abovenamed species
may become widely spread and constitute a very
formidable pest. Our experience in the Hawaiian
Islands also confirms that opinion, since, in Oahu,
a species closely resembling the ‘‘ Westwood ”’
pear has become firmly established. Hence those
growing at large in the Rockhampton area should
receive the attention of the authorities.

NATURAL ENEMIES.
DISEASE.

No individual plants of any of the several
kinds of Prickly-pear mentioned as growing in
these islands were observed to be dead or even
dying as the outcome of disease of any kind,
parasitic or otherwise. In certain limited areas,
where the climate was more arid, many had failed
to thrive; a remark that especially applies to 0.
ficus-indica and O. robusta, and even to 0. dillent,
which is able to withstand very dry conditions.

Our inquiries as to the occurrence of local
Prickly-pear maladies were equally barren of re-
sults. Owing to their temporary absence it was
impracticable to interview two of the authorities
on Grand Canary, who, is was expected, might
throw light on this question; but the districts in
which they respectively reside were traversed
and inspected with negative results.

Insect ENEMIES.

The insects noticed feeding on Prickly-pear

were :—

1. The common widely-distributed Opuntia
Seale Insect (Diaspis, sp.), already met
with in the Brisbane district. This was
observed on the single plant (0. robusta)
at Orotava, and evidently produced little
jll-effect on its host.

2. Opuntia Aphis found on a plant of the
species named, growing near Orotava
also.‘ It was restricted to the tender
shoots and flower buds, but apparently
inflicted no noticeable injury. This in-
sect is apparently identical with one
already met with by a member of the
Commission on O. inermis at Westwood
and Goondiwindi, where also its presence
is unattended with ill-effect to the plant.
It apparently is referable to a species
that is not restricted to a single host, as
happens with so many kinds of Aphide.

3. Precious Cochineal Insect (Coccus cacti,
Linn., typical).—The species of Prickly-
pear on which this insect will thrive
having been already introduced to the
Canary Islands for the sake of its fruit,
the Precious Cochineal was imported in
1826 (Benitez, 1912, p. 17c) and estab-
lished upon it. This importation led to
the creation of an industry which for a
time, at least, was most important.
However, in some districts its introduc-
tion was opposed, notably at Guimar,
Teneriffe (Barker-Webb and Berthelot,
1840, pp. 208-9 ; Lowe, 1868, p. 316), for
the alleged reason that the insects
destroyed the crop of fruit through ren-
dering the plants sterile. It was sought,
then, to discover to what extent the
Precious Cochineal Insect injured the
Prickly-pear plant with which it was
associated; but, although apparently
stunting it and retarding its growth to a
small extent, the injury due to its pre-
sence was almost unappreciable. Some-
times, in spots where the insects had
densely congregated, there occurred a
dark and more or less superficial dis-
coloration. This absence of injury was
noticed in cases where insects lived in
the open and had spontaneously distri-
buted themselves amongst plants growing
uneared for, as well as when it existed
in Nopalries, where both it and the host
plants were sedulously looked after, and
where the insect, indeed, had developed
to such an extent as to whiten the
Opuntia with which it had become
associated. However, the Precious
Cochineal Insect, even were it injurious
to the Prickly-pear, is restricted in its
dietary to certain species, amongst which
the Queensland ‘‘pest species ’’ are not
ineluded.

Wild Cochineal (Coceus, sp.).—None of
the insects coming within the definition
of Grana sylvestre was observed.

UTILISATION.

No instance of the prosecution of any
procedure for utilising the Prickly-pear involving
its destruction came under notice. Available
literature relating to the Prickly-pears of the
Canary Islands makes no mention of any such
employment. Dr. G. V. Perez, of Orotava, Tene-
riffe, stated that locally in the drier regions,
where very little water was available, Prickly-
pear (OQ. ficus-indica) was used as a food for
cattle, the few spines present being rubbed off or
removed by singeing. It, at least, was found to.
keep alive cattle that received it.
4A

Methods of utilisation not involving its
destruction may be bricfly alluded to—

(a) Fruit Production—The fruit of the
commonest species, which is referred to
as O. ficus-indica, enters largely into the
dietary of the people, and is a common
marketable commodity, being used fresh
and in a dried state, after the manner of
ordinary figs. In fact, this kind of
Prickly-pear was extensively cultivated
formerly for its fruit production alone.

(b) Cochineal Industry.—-Since the introduc-
tion of Coccus cacti, L., from America,
in 1826, the business of raising cochineal
attained very great prorhinence, the
insect being carefully farmed on special
areas, named ‘‘Nopalries,’’ devoted ex-
clusively to the growth of this particular
form of O. ficus-indica. In fact, for a
time the cultivation of the vine, inter-
fered with by numerous ‘‘ troubles”’
affecting the plant, was in great measure
superseded locally by it. A writer in the
‘‘ Diecionaria Enciclopedico Hispano-
Americano’”’ (1890, p. 357) stated that
in 1850 the exportation of cochineal
from Teneriffe to England , alone
exceeded 800,000 lb. In 1869 the
enormous total exportation of 3,000,000
kilogrammes was reached (Benitz, 1912,
p. 17c); and Sir Samuel Brown stated
that, as late as 1893, £50,000 worth of
cochineal was despatched from a single
district—Orotava (Ward, 1903, p. 56)—-
the price then being as much as ds.
per lb.

De Nobrega (1849) and Martins (1855) have
given an account of the cultivation and prepara-
tion of cochineal.

Shortly after the discovery of the aniline
colours, the industry of raising cochineal declined
in the Canary Islands as elsewhere, although even
at the time of the Commission’s visit it was still
being maintained to some extent on both islands,
but more particularly at Arucas, on Grand

Canary, the industry for preparing the ‘‘Grana’”’
heing a still noticeable feature at Agaete. Major
Swanston, Vice-Consul at Las Palmas, stated that,
as recently as 1911, 68,803 lb., valued at nearly
20,000 dollars, had been despatched from that
port to the United States of America. The lucra-
tive banana industry is now replacing the raising
of cochineal.

The conditions inseparable from successful
cochineal production finding no place in Aus-
tralia, the suggestion that the Prickly-pear plants
of Queensland might be used for this purpose need
not be entertained.

Tn connection with the industry, two kinds of
Opuntia plants, in addition to the one on which
the insect is raised, are employed—viz., O.
tomentosa, used as a nurse plant for the growing
insect, and OQ. dillenti, whose stout thorns are
employed for attaching the tissue containing
the egg-laden females in the process of estab-
lishing the Coccus cactt on fresh plants.

The latter Prickly-pear is used locally as a
hedge plant, this mode of employment accounting
for its presence and for its persistence.

Occasionally, where Prickly-pear has to be
exterminated to make way for some special crop
plant, it is the custom simply to dig it out and
destroy it. Owing to the habit of bringing almost
every foot of ground that will support the growth
of one economic plant or another under cultiva-
tion, the Prickly-pear, or indeed any other weed,
is little likely to ever become a pest in these
islands.

SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATIONS IN THE
CANARY ISLANDS.
Neither disease nor insect enemies having

any value as destroyers of Prickly-pear appear
to be present.

The methods of utilisation are not such as
would lead to the destruction of the plants.

V.—EUROPE AND THE MEDITERRANEAN AREA.

During the stay in England, the Commission
made its headquarters at th office of the Agent-
General for Queensland, where Sir Thomas
Robinson as well as Mr. Dillon and the mem-
bers of his staff did all they could to assist us in
carrying out our inquiries.

Several visits were made to the Royal
Botanic Gardens, Kew, whose Director, Sir
David Prain, afforded us every opportunity to
consult the botanists connected with this famous
institution and study the collection of Cactacer
in the herbarium as well as those growing in the
garden. The fine library was also made use of.

Under the guidance of Mr. N. Brown, who is in
charge of the collection of succulent plants, some
progress was made in clearing up the nomen-
clature of the naturalised prickly-pears which had
already been met with in India, South Africa, and
the Canary Islands, as well as in our own State.

Mr. G. Massee, the well-known plant patho-
logist and mycologist at Kew, informed the Com-
mission that he had not given any attention to
the diseases of Opuntia.

It was at Kew that Mr. Alwyn Berger was
first interviewed. This botanist, who is one of
the leading authorities on Opuntias, extended an
invitation to visit Lady Hanbury’s Gardens at
la Mortola, Ventimiglia, famous for its collection
of prickly-pears and other succulents growing in
the open, Mr. Berger being the Curator.

Tn addition to the collection of Cactacex in the
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, that in the Univer-
sity Botanic Gardens, Cambridge, in charge of Mr.
Lynch, and the fine Darrah collection in the
Alexandra Park, Manchester, controlled by
Professor Weiss, were examined. Various
scientific institutions were visited, and the advice
and assistance of many prominent workers in
 

 

 

ee aL aaa ae
PLES tise pit tir sips tii iiis Ju

 

 

Fig.

Photo., Dept. Agriculture, Brisbane.
Segments and fruits of O. aurantiaca, from Roma. This low-growing brittle
ee 5 5
prickly pear is the notorious “Jointed Cactus ’’ of South Africa

24.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photo. by Dr. Britton, Director, New York Botanic Gardens.
Fig. 25.—O. inermis (identified by Dr. N. Britton). Boat Key, Florida.

 
45

entomology, botany, and plant pathology were
sought, but as this group of plants has not
received much attention from scientists in the
mother country, little information of value
relating to the inquiry was obtained. The
libraries of the British Museum and the Linnean
Society of London were made full use of by the
Commission.

Sir David Prain was kind enough to furnish
the members of the Commission with credentials
to scientific workers and institutions in various
parts of the world, while Sir Thomas Robinson,
Agent-General for Queensland in London, pro-
cured from the British Foreign Office the neces-
sary letters of introduction to diplomatic and
consular representatives of His Majesty’s Govern-
ment in foreign countries which it was proposed
to visit.

Owing to the fact that one or more kinds of
Opuntia had been growing for a long period in
the Mediterranean area, especially in Spain and
more particularly in Italy, and had not spread
in such a way as to constitute a pest, it was
thought that there might exist in those countries
some controlling factor which, if parasitic, could
be of use in the struggle against the prickly-pear
in Queensland. Hence it was deemed important
that, in pursuance of the work of the Commission,
inquiry should be instituted in this area, more
particularly in Italy. In order to save time the
members separated after traversing Spain, one
proceeding direct to Italy and Sicily, where there
was reasonable hope of obtaining scientific assis-
tanee, while the other visited the Barbary States,
Malta, and Syria (wé Egypt), returning to
London through Italy and Germany.

Whilst in Madrid, a visit was paid to the
Minister for Agriculture, who, after consulting
some of the senior members of his department,
recommended that visits should be made to
Seville, Valencia, Jerez, and Murcia, as well as
Melilla in Morocco, letters of introduction to the
director of the local experiment stations and pro-
minent residents being courteously supplied by
him. It was found practicable to visit only
Seville, Jerez, Cadiz, and Granada, the last-
mentioned locality being known to have a con-
siderable development of naturalised prickly-
pear.

In the search for natural enemies, not
only were the species found growing naturalised
examined, but, owing to the possibility of the
introduction of diseases or insects along with the
host-plants from their native home, the chief
public and private gardens also received atten-
tion. Amongst the more imiportant of those
visited were the collections in the Botanic Gar-
dens at Palermo (by courtesy of Professor
Borzi) ; Rome (Dr. Pirotta) ; Monaco; Bortighera
(L. Winter); La Mortola, Ventimiglia (Lady
Hanbury); Darmstadt (A. Purpus); Berlin
(Prof. Urban and Dr. Vaupel) ; Tangier (J. Gof-
fart); and Algiers. The study of the extensive
collection at La Mortola was particularly help-
ful, more especially as its Curator, Alwyn Berger,
is a well-known worker on the Cactacee.

Certain countries such as Cyprus, Greece,
the Balearic Islands, Sardinia, and Corsica were
not visited, on account of the amount of time
required and the small chance of gaining addi-
tional information by doing so, and many of the
scientific men with whom the Commission had

hoped to come into touch were absent from their
institutions on summer vacation.

The following is a sketch of the itinerary in
Italy and Sicily :—

The Commissioner landed at Naples, and,
after consulting H.B.M. Consul, 8S. T. A.
Churchill, proceeded to Palermo, Sicily, where
he interviewed Sig. A. Romano, Prof. Lojacomo
Pojero, Prof. T. de Stefani Perez, and Dr. C.
Tropea, of the University; Prof. G. E. Mattei,
Royal Botanical Gardens. Sig. Romano men-
tioned the possibility of utilising the fibre of
prickly-pear in paper manufacture, and also
referred to a local disease, which was apparently
the ‘‘male dicancro’’; while Prof. de Stefani
Perez gave information regarding certain enemies
of Opuntia. In company with Prof. Lojacomo
Pojero, prickly-pear plantations at La Favorita

-were examined, and a special disease inquired

into there, and visits made to the Villas of
Messrs. T. L. and R. Whittaker, where Cactaces
were grown.

A return was made to Naples and a visit
paid to the Royal Agricultural College, Portici,
which was found to be in recess. Its Director,
Prof. Comes, was absent at the time, but Prof.
F. Silvestri, the well-known entomologist, and
Dr. G. Leonardi were met. They had not, how-
ever, given any special attention to the insects
of Opuntia, though Dr. Leonardi stated that
he had found Diaspis echinocactt in Italy on
O. dillenn.

The journey to Reggio, in South Calabria,
and thence to Arcireale, in Sicily, was under-
taken, and at the latter place, Prof. L. Savastano
was interviewed. In company with this investi-
gator, Catania was reached, where it was hoped
that a disease previously described by him as
‘‘e] marciume’’ would be seen, but the quest
was unsuccessful, owing no doubt to the malady
being at the time in a dormant condition.

Rome was then visited, and it was found that
the British Ambassador had approached the
Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs with a view
to obtaining assistance for the Commission
during its inquiries in Italy. By courtesy of
the Department of Agriculture, help was afforded
by some of its officers. The Chief Inspector of
Viticulture, Dr. M. Carlucci, was interviewed,
and a visit was paid to the Vegetable Pathological
Station, but most of its officers were found to be
absent on vacation. :

The International Institute of Agriculture
was also visited, and its Director, Dr. A. Hermes,
Dr. J. M. Saulnier, and also Dr. V. de Tivoli
were met. Dr. A. Bruttini and Dr. E. Borghesini,
two of the members of the staff, had published
papers regarding paper manufacture, but, owing
to their absence at the time, their advice could
not be received. Dr. Saulnier supplied a list of
Italian investigators whose technical knowledge
he though would probably be of use to the Com-
mission, if there were an opportunity to inter-
view them. Dr. de Tivoli referred to the com-
mercial manufacture of aleohol from prickly-
pear in Catania, and also to Dr. Sotyia’s investi-
gations in Sardinia regarding the use of the
plant as a cattle fodder.

At the Gabinetto Botanico, the Director
(Dr. R. Pirotta) and Dr. C. Spegazzini were
met. The latter, a well-known botanist, who
was then on a visit to Italy from Argentina, gave
46

much useful information regarding prickly-pears,
their diseases and natural enemies in the Argen-
tine, and strongly advised that an investigation
should be carried out there. Though many of
the facts referred to by him had already been
published in Australia (Tryon, 1911), yet their
confirmation by him was deemed of value. The
subsequent visit to South America was largely
due to his offer to render every assistance. In
company with him, the collections of Cactaces in
the Royal Botanical Gardens were carefully
examined.

At Florence, Prof. A. Berlese, Director of
the Royal Entomological Station, was inter-
viewed. It had been hoped to have met at Pisa
Prof. Giglioli, who had devoted considerable
attention to the chemistry of 0. ficus-indica, but
matters could not be conveniently arranged at
the time.

The Museum and Library at Genoa were
visited, and thence the journey was undertaken
to Ventimiglia, where the well-known Hanbury
Gardens (La Mortola) are situated. It was
there that, through the courtesy of Lady Han-
bury and under the guidance of its able curator,
Mr. Alwyn Berger, some time was spent in
studying the large collection of living cacta-
ceous plants, so many species of which it
was expected that the Commission would meet
with in America. The neighbouring gardens at
Monaco and Bordighera were visited.

The return journey to England was made
vid Milan, where a number of principals of firms
interested in paper and ‘‘board’? manufacture
were interviewed regarding the possibility of
utilising prickly-pear fibre in that way.

SPECIES PREVIOUSLY REPORTED AS
NATURALISED IN EUROPE AND THE
MEDITERRANEAN COUNTRIES.

Mr. Burkill (1911, pp. 287-8) has given a
brief resumé of the distribution of Opuntias in
this area. He mentions that Q. nana Visiani,
occurs naturalised in Central Europe, Switzer-
land, Tyrol, and North Italy ; while the Mediter-
ranean coast of France, Italy, and Sicily is said
to contain O. nana, O. ficus-indica of Gussone and
most authors, O. dillenii, O. imermis, and O. amy-
clea, Tinore. He appears to agree (p. 289) with
Berger (1903, p. 93) in regarding the last-
mentioned species as being merely a form of O.
decumana, which name he prefers to use rather
than O. ficus-indica (p. 288). O. decumana is
stated to be grown for its fruit on the Riviera,
in Italy, Malta, Sicily, and elsewhere. His short
account of it (p. 289, footnote) shows that he is
referring to the smooth-jointed species known
along the Mediterranean coasts as the Barbary
or Indian fig. He goes on to say that Spain con-
tains this species and apparently O. nana, while
North Africa possesses both of these Opuntias,
introduced, no doubt, by the Moors on their ex-
pulsion from Spain into Morocco.

Dr. Schumann (1899 a, p. 84) had referred to
the presence of O. nana under the names OQ.
vulgaris and O. vulgaris, var. nana, at Bozen
(Tyrol) and in certain parts of Southern
Europe (e.g., Dalmatia). He also mentioned
that O. inermis and O. lentocaulis may often be
met with in quantity in Southern Europe, the

former species occurring in South France, Cata-
Jonia, and the Balearic Islands. In his mono-
graph (1899) published in the same year he
repeated the above information regarding the
European distribution of O. nana (p. 715) and
O. inermis (p. 718), but O. leptocaulis is not men.
tioned as being found wild in Europe. 0. ficus-
indica is given (p. 719) as the name of the com-
mon species cultivated in Spain, Italy, Sicily, and
Greece for the sake of its fruit.

The various Opuntias above referred to have
been quoted under these or other names by earlier
writers on the botany of the Mediterranean
countries (Gussone, Tinore, and others).

Holmes (1903, p. 24) has recorded the pre-
sence of O. decuwmana (i.e., O. ficus-indica) in
Algeria; while Gennadius (1898) referred to the
occurrence of the spiny form in Cyprus, and
Bourde (1894) to its presence in Tunisia,

SPECIES NOW KNOWN TO _ OCCUR
NATURALISED IN THE MEDITER-
RANEAN REGION.

Ten or eleven species have been recognised,
some of them being common and widespread,
others being quite rare. In no case were these
plants so far beyond control as to constitute a
serious pest, though in a few localities one species
might oceur in moderately dense patches.

The following is a list of the Opuntias met
with :—

O. monacantha, Haw.

O. tomentosa, Salm-dyck.

. bergeriana, Weber.

. robusta, Wendl.

. spinulifera, Salm-dyck.

. nana, Vis.

. dillenti, Haw.

. nermis, DC.

Common Indian or Barbary Fig, known
under various local and scientific names.
It will be referred to in this report as 0.
ficus-indica, Linn. Many varieties of
this species are known.

10. The white-spined Barbary Fig (0. amy-

clea, Tinore).

11. Nopalea cochinelifera, L.

£9 ND Oe oo bo
eoooe9g

1. O. monacantha, Haw.—This species, which
has been referred to earlier in this report, and
which is one of the pest pears of Queensland, was
seen growing wild, but sparingly, in the neigh-
bourhood of Nice and Monaco in Southern
France. The plants were evidently derived
originally from local gardens. Risso (1844, p.
295) mentions that this species occurred as an
introduced plant as Nice.

2. O. tomentosa, S.D.—A few plants belong-
ing to this species were seen growing wild near
San Remo in the French Riviera, but, like the
above-mentioned O. monacantha, were evidently
garden escapees.

3. O. bergeriana, Weber.—According to Mr.
Alwyn Berger, this species, though locally abun-
dant, oceupies a very restricted area in the
Riviera. It was seen in that region by the Com-
mission. It was originally a garden escapee.
47

4. O. robusta, Wendl.—This variable species,
with large rounded grey joints and purplish-red
fruits, was met with occasionally in a few locali-
ties in the south-west of Spain—e.g., Jerez,
Seville, Cordova. It does not appear to have
spread to any extent.

5. O. spinulifera, S.D.—There was seen near
Seville and Jerez, in Spain, a species of pear
identical with that met with by us at a few spots
in Capetown and near Fort Beaufort in Cape
Colony. This Opuntia, which is related to the
Westwood pear of Queensland, appears to have
a quite local distribution and is not at all abun-
dant.

6. O. nana, Vis. This low-growing species,
possessing small rounded transversely wrinkled
joints, thrives under colder conditions of climate
than any of the other Opuntias met with in this
region. It is known under various names, Schu-
mann (1899, p. 714) calling it O. vulgaris,
Mill., and quoting amongst its synonyms, Cactus
opuntia, Linn., O. italica, Tinore, and O. opuntia,
Coulter. This author regards O. nana, Visiani,
as being merely a variety of O. vulgaris. If this
species is the same as that described by Linnzus
—and of that there can be little or no doubt—
then the correct name is O. opuntia as stated by
Coulter. Linneus (1753, p. 468) referred to
the occurrence of his O. opuntia in Spain and
Portugal, while Miller (1768) mentioned its pres-
ence (as O. vulgaris) along roadsides in Spain,
Italy, and Sicily. Visiani named specimens from
Dalmatia as O. nana. Tinore called it O. stalica,
using the name vulgaris for a very different
plant, viz., O. ficus-indica. It is figured by Dr.
A. Fiori (1896-8, plates fig. 1066). Risso (1844,
p. 295) recorded two varietal forms of it, O.
parviflora and O. latifolia.

Schumann (1899 a, pp. 29, 34; 1899, p.
715) stated that this species had run wild in
Central Europe, more particularly at Bozen in
the Tyrol and in parts of Switzerland as well as
in Dalmatia, its native home being the eastern
portion of the United States of America, from
Massachusetts to Georgia and Florida. Mr. A.
Purpus, of Darmstadt, informed us that this
prickly-pear is to be found commonly in Tessine,
Switzerland. Burkill (p. 289) has referred to the
apparent occurrence of this species in Spain,
quoting Boissier (1839) as his authority.

7.0. dillenti, Haw—This West Indian
species, which has been already referred to in
this report as being naturalised in Ceylon, India,

and the Canary Islands, is known to occur along=

the Mediterranean coasts of France, Italy, and
Sicily (Burkill, p. 288). In 1872 Insenga men-
tioned its presence in the maritime regions of
Messina, Catania, and Syracuse, in Sicily.

The Commission found it growing quite
commonly on the low-lying country in the neigh-
bourhood of Algeciras, Cadiz, Jerez, and the
mouth of the Guadalquivir River, in South-
western Spain; in Calabria, in Southern Italy;
in isolated spots from Messina to Palermo in
Sicily ; and at Beirut, Syria.

8. O. inermis, DC.—This species is closely
related to the pest pear of Queensland and New
South Wales, and resembles in some ways the
species which is now so widely spread in the
Punjab, India, and has been referred to already
as the ‘‘ Punjab Pear.’’ Its presence in a natu-
ralised state in South France, Catalonia (North-

F

east Spain) and the Balearic Islands has been
recorded by Schumann (1899 a, p. 30; 1899, p.
718). Some of his material from the last-named
locality was seen in the herbarium of the Berlin
Botanie Gardens. This author has included
amongst its synonyms O. stricta, Haw., a form
cultivated in Europe* ; 0. acrampo, Mill., a Peru-
vian species; and O. vulgaris, var. balearica,
Weber. The habitat was unknown to him though
he had seen dried specimens from the West
Indies. Tussac believed that Haiti was its native
home.

The species differs from the common pest
pear of Queensland and New South Wales in
several particulars, as has been already stated by
Mr. J. H. Maiden (1912, p. 716). The latter
plant has a more shrubby habit, while its joints
are larger, relatively thinner, and of a much
lighter green colour.

Though not uncommonly met with as a gar-
den plant and occasionally growing wild in parts
of Europe, it has not spread in such a way as
to constitute a pest as its relative has done in
Australia.

9. The common Barbary Fig, O. ficus-
indica, L.—This species is very widely spread
around the Mediterranean littoral, where it is
known generally as the Barbary Fig or Indian
Fig (figue de Barbarie; fico di India). In Spain
it is usually called the ‘‘ Tuna castiliana,’’
‘‘ Tuna malagana,’’+ or ‘‘ Higo chumbo,’’ while
Arabs often call it ‘‘ Al hindi.’’ In Sicily it is
also known as ‘‘ Fico d’India mansa,’’ 1.¢., the
domesticated Indian Fig. The scientific name
commonly applied to it is O. decumana (see Bur-
kill, 1911), though the names O. vulgaris and O.
ficus-indica are also frequently used.

It is almost spineless and resembles the
Kaalblad (?0. decumana, Haw.) of South Africa
in many ways. An obvious difference is in the
form of the joints, which in the former are
practically symmetrical and relatively wide,
while in the Kaalblad they nearly always have
one side less curved than the other, so that their
shape is almost broadly lanceolate. Then again
the flowers of the Barbary Fig are generally
yellow, orange-coloured fiowers being the excep-
tion, whereas in the Kaalblad the reverse is the
case.

Schumann (1899, p. 719) retains Miller’s
name O. ficus-indica for the plant, and quotes as
synonyms Cactus ficus-indica, Linn., 0. vulgaris,
Tinore, and Cactus opuntia, Gussone. He also
mentions that Weber regards O. decumana,
Haw., and certain other species as additional
synonyms. A distinct form, 0. amyclea, Tinore,
the spiny Barbary Fig, has been regarded by
many authors as being merely a variety of the
above Opuntia (e.g., Berger, 1903, p. 93). Bur-
kill (p. 288) uses the name O, decumana in pre-
ference to O. ficus-indica, Linn., on account of
the confusion regarding the identification of the
plant named by Linneus. Mr. Berger (1912)
has recently proposed a new name, O. ficus-bar-
barica, for the same reason.

 

* O. stricta, Haw., is a different plant whose native
home is probably in the southern half of South America.
It closely resembles, and is, perhaps, identical with O.
anacantha, Speg., of North-eastern Argentina, and is
apparently the same as the “ Punjab Pear.” O. acrampo
(i.e. O. atrampo) is distinct from either O. stricta or O.
inermis. :

+ The term “ chumbera ” appears to be used in Spain
for either of the “ Indian figs.”
48

Owing to the fact that the plant produces a
large edible fruit, it has been widely cultivated
and distributed, and many varieties of it exist
in the Mediterranean countries.

That it was introduced very early into this
region is evident from the writings of P. A.
Mattioli, who stated that the plant was called
an Indian fig because it was brought from the
West Indies (1570, p. 211), while in an Italian
edition of his work published apparently in 1604
it is remarked that the species was introduced
during his time, «¢., 1500-1577.* It may be
remarked here that in some of his editions the
figure indicates the presence of spines on the
plant, while in other editions the Opuntia is
drawn as if unarmed. He evidently knew both
the spiny and relatively spineless forms.

It was seen either cultivated or growing
naturalised more or less commonly in the French
and Italian Riviera; Spain (more particularly
in the southern portions, Andalusia, Granada,
Seville, Algeciras, Gibraltar, &c.); Morocco
(Tangier); Algeria (along the coastal region) ;
Tunisia (less common); Malta; Lower Egypt;
and at Damascus in Syria. It was seen to be
present here and there all along the Mediter-
ranean coast of Italy from Mentone to Calabria,
and also throughout Sicily. In the latter region
O. ficus-indica is used quite commonly as a hedge
along the railway lines, and in localities, ¢.g., at
Mt. Pellerino, near Palermo, is very common,
even growing spontaneously.

This species is cultivated not only for the
sake of its fruit, but also on account of its joints,
which are widely used as fodder for stock.
Owing to the importance of this plant one is not
surprised that the literature referring to it is
somewhat extensive.

10. The Spiny Barbary Fig, O. amyclea,
Ten. (or perhaps more correctly, O. ficus-indica,
var. amyclea, Ten.).—This Opuntia is very wide-
spread in its distribution in the Mediterranean
and was seen, sometimes cultivated but more
usually either wild or growing as a hedge-plant,
in Southern Spain; Italy (especially in Calabria
and Apulia) ; Sicily; Morocco; Algeria; Tunisia;
Beirut and other localities in Syria. It occurs
commonly in Cyprus, in Palestine (Jaffa, Haifa,
Acre, &c.) and in parts of Asia Minor (Smyrna).
Gennadius’ account. (1898) leaves little doubt
that the species found in Cyprus is O. amyclea.
In Tunisia and Morocco it is much more common
than ficus-indica, while along the coast of Syria
and Palestine it appears to be the only species
usually met with. Its wide distribution is
probably due partly to the presence of well-
developed spines which protect the plant from
most stock and make it a more suitable hedge-
plant, and partly to the fact that its fruit is
edible, being scarcely inferior to that of the
ordinary ‘‘ Indian fig.’’

The main difference which one can readily
recognise between these two species is the
presence of stars of white spines on the joints of
O. amyclea, while O. ficus-indica is almost
unarmed. ‘The shape of the cladodes is practi-
eally the same, the flowers are similar and the

 

* There is little doubt that various species of Cactacese
were introduced into Spain very shortly after the discovery
of the West Indies and adjacent parts of the mainland of
America,

fruits very much alike at first sight, though in
amyclea the last-mentioned are usually somewhat
smaller and possess more seeds.

The Spaniards term this species the ‘‘ Tuna
americana,’’ while the Moors of Morocco gene-
rally use the name ‘‘Al hindi’ for both species.
Sicilians know it as ‘‘ Fico di India mascolino,’’ or
“Fico di India selvaggio.’? The Syrians use the
name ‘‘Sbyr’’ or ‘‘Sobbeyr’’ or else the French
term ‘‘Figue de Barbarie,’’ no distinction being
made between the two kinds of prickly-pear.

It has been mentioned above that this
Opuntia is regarded by many authors as being
merely a variety of the smooth-jointed Barbary
Fig. Though Mattiolus (1570, p. 211) had long
ago already distinguished these two kinds, it was
not until 1826 that Tinore (1826, p. 15) named
the spiny form as O. amyclea. Archangeli (1882,
p. 248), Labouret (1850, p. 468), and Schumann
(1899 b, p. 719) thought it a distinct species.
Cupano and Bonanno (quoted by Biuso, 1879,
p. 25) have named it O. major, while Fiori
(1896-8, p. 328) refers to it as his variety maxima
of O. tuna, Linn. On the other hand A. Berger
(1903, p. 93) believes O. amyclea to be merely
a cultural variety of his 0. ficus-barbarica (i.e.,
O. ficus-indica), a name which he has given
(1912) to the smooth-jointed Barbary Fig.
Berger’s view is supported by Biuso (1879, p. 24)
and by Eichlam (1910, p. 68).*

It is a coincidence that in South Africa also
one meets with two common species side by side,
viz., the ‘‘ Kaalblad’’ and the ‘‘ Doornblad,”’
which have the same shape of joint and similar
flowers and fruits, but the former is practically
unarmed, while the latter is armed. Intermediate
forms may be seen, so that one is led to believe
either that there are two species capable of hybri-
dising, or else that there is one variable species,
the latter view being held by us in regard to the
South African prickly-pear. |

11. Nopalea cochinelifera is met with occa-
sionally in certain of the warmer parts of the
Mediterranean, e.g., Southern Spain, in a more
or less cultivated condition.

While studying the rich collection of Cac-
tacee at La Mortola, certain prickly-pear plants
were observed which possessed characteristics re-
calling, those presented by the two commonest
species in Queensland. They were as follows :—t

(1) ‘‘Opuntia, sp—Cuba.’’ This is
evidently identical with our common-
est Opuntia, O. inermis.

(2) ‘‘O. inermis, DC.—Florida (Dr. J. N.
Rose).’? The same remark applies to
this one also.

(8) ‘‘O. inermis, DC. (Hort. Mortol., p.
411)—Mexico.”’

(4) ‘‘O. tuna, West Indies.’’ Evidently

the same as our O. inermis.

 

* The following observations by one of us (H.T.) may
be worth noting :—Though the spineless form almost
invariably grows true to type, both when propagated
from stem-joints and when raised from seed deposited by
birds, as on Mt. Pellerino, yet at La Favorita, Palermo, a
series of spine-bearing joints corresponding to the typical
O. amyclea form were observed growing from discarded
cladodes of the spineless variety.

+ It must not be concluded that the names used repre-
sent Mr. Berger’s final conclusions regarding their nomen-
clature.
‘siveg A[portg ,, pelquioog ,, pue ,, perqyeeyy,, eyz Jo sduinjo Sutaoys odvospuvl uvolyy Y}OG WY—"9G “SNL

 

 

 
(5) ‘0. elata, Lk. and Otto—from
Dr. Weber, Paris—thorn-bearing
variety.’’ *

(6 “‘O. elata, L. and O.—from Vienna
Botanical Garden.’’ This and the
foregoing recall our spiny pest pear,
now naturalised in the Burnett Valley
(Gayndah, Degilbo, etc.).

‘0. stricta, Haw., syn. O. anacantha,
now referred in ‘‘ Hortus Mortolen-
sis’’ (p. 411) to O. inermis, DC.

The commoner Queensland _prickly-
pear represented by a plant labelled
O. inermis, DC.—from New South
Wales.

In the Palermo Botanical Gardens, plants
evidently identical with our commonest pest
species (O. inermis) were labelled as QO. glau-
cophylla.

(7)

(8)

DESTRUCTION BY INSECT AND OTHER
ENEMIES.

No destructive insect was found, nor did in-
quiry reveal the presence of any which produced
perceptible injury on the attacked plants.

Diaspis.—A species of Diaspis was seen mors
or less commonly and plentifully on 0. ficus-
indica and O. amyclea in Spain and Italy, and
on the latter in Syria and the three Barbacy
States visited, but, even though heavily infested,
plants did not show any ill effect. It was also
met with on O. monacantha in some English col-
lections. This insect was seen more commonly
in Italy in garden collections than on plants
growing in the field. It is referred to earlier in
this report and has already been recorded as
oceurring in Queensland (Tryon, 1911 b, p. 18).
Fernald (1903) has mentioned the presence of
Diaspis echinocacti, Bouché, in Europe and
Algeria.

Coccus spp.—The true cochineal insect
Coccus cacti, similar to that raised in the Canary
Islands, was seen growing well on cultivated
plants of O. tomentosa in the Jardin d’Essai at
Algiers, but not on the smooth Barbary Fig
plants (0. ficus-indica) growing in abundance
close by. O. tomentosa is the species used in the
Canary Islands as the ‘‘nurse plant’’ for the
young insects, and is identical with the tree-pear
occurring at Helidon and elsewhere in Queens-
land. No detrimental effect was noticeable. Tra-
but (1910) has referred to the presence of this
insect in Algiers. Coccus cacti was formerly
cultivated in the warmer parts of Spain, but, as
far as known, does not occur there now. In-
quiry in the various districts failed to gain any
information regarding its existence there at the
present, time.

* A mealy bug (Rhizococcus, sp.) was occa-
Sionally seen on Opuntias, especially O. mona-
cantha, in European green-houses, but from
information received, it is known to be a general
feeder.

Kuhlgatz (1898) and Hirscht (1899) have

given an account of certain Coccids, e.g., Rhizo- , :

coccus multispinosus Kuhlg., and Dactylopius,.;
longifilis Comstock, which are known to wher

cactus plants in European glass-houses, where
artificial conditions exist.

49

According to Prof. Stefani Perez, an-
other coccid, Icerya purchasi, occasionally attacks
O. ficus-indica in Sicily.

_ Diptera.—M. J. Goffart informed the Com-
inission that a smal]l reddish insect larva at times
attacks the ripening fruit of O. ficus-indica near
Tangier, Morocco, but none was found, nor were
signs of insect injury to any part of the plant
detected at the time of our visit. No observa-
tions as to the character and life-history of the
larva were made by this botanist. It is probably
a Cecidomyiid.

Prof. Perez, Palermo, referred to the fact that
a fruit-fly, Ceratitis capitata, attacks the fruit of
O. ficus-indica; but it scarcely, if at all, injures
the plant, except as a crop-producer. Even if it
were injurious to Opuntias, its introduction into
Queensland could not, for other reasons, be advo-
cated.

Red Spider.—Hirscht (1899, p. 797) gives
an account of the ravages of the so-called ‘‘ red
spider,’’ Tetranychus telarius, which causes the
formation of yellowish, reddish, or rusty spots
which soon extend so widely as to cover the sur-
face of the infested plant. As a result of the
injury, growth ceases and eventually the attacked
portions may fall to the ground. This mite is,
however, not restricted to the Cactacex, but is
a general feeder.

Snatls—A small species of snail (? Helix
pisana) known locally as babbaluci, has been
referred to by Biuso (1879, p. 104) as feeding
on the edges of young tender joints of O. ficus-
indica in Sicily. It occurs most commonly in
districts whose soils are rich in lime, and is
especially evident after heavy rain. Biuso states
that these molluses are collected and destroyed
before the time of egg deposition. Prof. Perez,
of the University of Palermo, mentioned that
this snail was at times a serious pest to the cactus
in the neighbourhood of that city. As the animal
attacks other plants, its introduction into Aus-
tralia need not be considered.

DESTRUCTION BY DISEASE.

Near Tangier, Morocco, a few clumps of
very old prickly-pear (O. ficus-indica) were.
found to be suffering from a disease which caused
many of the plants to die. An examination of
the affected plants, which were all close together,
led to the belief that the condition was probably
due to deficient root action. Most of the dis-
eased pears were, however, producing young
joints quite vigorously at the time of the Com-
missions’s visit. The malady is probably the
same as that referred to later as ‘‘ cancer,’’ the
symptoms being similar.

Much more attention has been given to
prickly-pear diseases in Italy than elsewhere in
the Mediterranean area, but an examination has
shown that none of these would be of much value
in controlling the pest pears of Queensland.
They are termed—(1) Male nero; (2) Rot or
gangrene (Male di cancro; Marciume, or Krebs) ;
(3) Male di verme; (4) Leaf scab.

Male Nero.

This malady was brought under notice by
Sig. A. R. Ragusa, of Palermo, who mentioned

that the name was applied to it on account of
the presence of a dark, tear-like fluid which
issued from the affected parts. The disease,
which was not regarded as being very detrimen-
tal, was usually seen on older plants, more especi-
ally during seasons of low temperature. Sig.
Ragusa thought that the condition was due to a
root-malady, and was probably identical with
the ‘‘ cancer ’’ described by Buiso (1879, pp.
102-3) under the name of ‘‘ Male di cancro.”’ A
grower at La Favorita, near Palermo, used the
term ‘‘ Male nero ’’ for a similar, if not identi-
cal, disease whose presence was indicated by the
death and decay of individual joints or portions
of a joint, from the edges inwards, the alteration
being often accompanied by the exudation of
drops of dark, sticky material. Low tempera-
tures and rainy weather favoured the develop-
ment of the malady. The symptoms and effects
of this trouble are similar to those described as
oceurring in Queensland (Tryon, 1908, p. 143;
1911, p. 6) in plants suffering from ‘‘ dry rot,’’
a disease which is suggested as being due to un-
suitable soil conditions interfering with healthy
root action. It is not, however, a malady which
can be utilised in destroying prickly-pear in
Australia.

Cancer.

This disease, which has been referred to by
Biuso as Male dt Cancro, by Savastano as Mar-
ciume, and by Sprenger as Krebs, was noticed
near Palermo. Affected plants were chlorosed,
showed no signs of growth, and possessed little
or no fruit. On being pushed it was observed
that there was a tendency to topple over, thus
indicating that root decay had set in. Those
which were attacked died, as also did those
planted to replace them, and the disease tended
to spread outwards from infected situations. An
examination of the roots and base of the stem
showed that there had occurred a decomposition
of the tissues between the woody structure and
the epidermis, these becoming translucent and
yellow, changing to dark brown.

Although the affected plants of O. ficus-
indica examined near Palermo did not present
general symptoms corresponding in all particu-
lars with those described as occurring in speci-
mens of the Queensland pest pear suffering from
“ sleeping sickness ’’ (Tryon, 1908, p. 143; 1911,
p. 7), there is little doubt that the two diseases
are the same, and are probably caused by a
root-destroying organism, which later unpub-
lished investigations indicate to be a species of
Pythium.

Biuso (1879, pp. 102-3) has given an account
of a contagious malady which seems to be the
same disease as that just referred to. He men-
tions that the gangrene produced usually mani-
fests itself in the basal portion of the stem, gener-
ally in spring or autumn, as an alteration of the
woody tissues, extending gradually to the more
internal tissues, which decompose into a fetid
yellowish-green mass.

The same malady is describéd by Savastano
(1897, p. 110) under the name ‘‘ Il marciume,”’
ag occurring near Catanzaro (Calabria) and in
Sicily. An English summary has already been
published by one of the members of this Com-
mission (Tryon, 1908, p. 148; 1911, p. 15). It
is stated that the disease travels rapidly from
the roots along the vascular region of the trunk
and branches to the joints. Here the cellular

50

structures undergo alteration so as to become
translucent. Besides, there is a formation of
tubercles in groups along the course of the con-
ducting tissues, each tubercle being composed of
transparent cells surrounded by other cells with
thicker walls so as to form a capsule. No exter-
nal swellings are noticeable, however. The dis-
ease is regarded by Savastano as being due to a
bacillus, which on inoculation is capable of repro-
ducing the disease under certain conditions, but
it was found that healthy plants on imoculation
did not contract the malady. He did not regard
soil-water as a necessary agent for its transmis-
sion.

Sprenger (1901, p. 78) has referred to a
disease under the name ‘‘ Krebs,’’ occurring in
South Italy, which is probably the same as that
referred to above. The rotting of the whole plant
is the result of its activity.

Mr. Berger related the symptoms of a
disease formerly attacking prickly-pear plants,
9 or 10 years old, at La Mortola. It was prob-
ably the same malady as that just mentioned.

Male di Verme.

Insenga (1879) has given attention to a
disease which is known in Sicily under this name.
Biuso (1879, p. 101) states that it is locally be-
lieved to be due to the attacks of an unidentified
caterpillar—hence the name given to the malady
—and that the appearance of affected plants
suggests the reasonableness of this idea. He goes
on to say that Insenga has proved it to be due
to a fungus which invades the joints and arrests
the activities of the conducting tissues, thus pro-
ducing chlorosis and other evidences of plant
starvation.

Minor Diseases.

Leaf Scab.—This disease is regarded as being
due to a fungus (Phyllosticta opuntie, Sacc. and
Speg.), but it is suggested that this organism only
becomes established on injured areas. It is local
in its distribution on the plant and has very little
effect except when it covers a great portion of
the surface of the joints. Comes (1891, p. 53);
Voglino (1905), p. 2382); Briosi and Cavara
(1890) ; and Sprenger (1901, p. 78) refer to it.

This fungus is widely distributed through-
out the Mediterranean coasts, being commonly
seen on O. bergeriana, in a plant now naturalised
in the Italian Riviera. A similar, if not identi-
eal, organism is met with on the pest pear in
Queensland.

Phytophthora cactorum, Leb and Cohn, a
serious pest of Cactacex, especially young plants,
occurs in some European greenhouses, where it
causes a rotting that commonly ends in the death
of the infested host, the decay usually extending
upwards from the lower portions of the. plant.
An account of the parasite, which was not met’
with by the Commission, is given by Hartig, by
Prillieux, and by Hirscht (1899, p. 795). P. cac-
torum is allied to many dangerous enemies of
economic plants, and its own attacks are not
restricted to the Cactacer.

The black wart fungus, Diplodia opuntie,
Sacc., has been recorded as a parasite of cultivated
Opuntias in Europe. Cooke (1905, p. 125; 1906,
p- 168), in referring to the occurrence, mentioned
that the injury is sometimes severe (Tryon,
1911 b, p. 16). It is not, however, likely to be of
much use in controlling the Australian pest pears.

Phoma torrens, Sacc., has been referred to
by Saccardo as an enemy of Cactaces in the Rome
Botanic Gardens, but its effects do not appear
to be sufficiently serious to justify its introduction
into Australia.

Certain minor maladies were met with at La
Mortola. Amongst them was a ‘‘ sun scald ’’
affecting O. bergeriana and other species,
especially when grown in exposed situations.
The joints were yellowish and spotted with pale
rusty-brown markings, which later became larger
and greyish, when the perithecia of a fungus re-
lated to Mycoprion were to be observed within
the diseased area. As a rule, no further results
were brought about, though occasionally the
affected segment ceased to produce new growth.
The condition resembled one met with on prickly-
pears at Gayndah, in our own State.

A few plants showed the presence of pale
brown areas with lighter coloured centres,
individual spots coalescing to form large dis-
coloured patches with a simple wavy outline.
Ultimately the superficial tissues may die, when
the perithecia of a fungus make their appearance.
This malady appears to be unimportant.

A single specimen of O. megacantha, S8.D.,
was found to have some of its segments affected
by a malady for which the name ‘‘ zone spot ’’
may be employed. There were well-defined red-
brown concentric areas, which were of a lighter
colour at the margin of each ring. These patches
may continue to widen and eventually coalesce
with other spots, so that discoloured areas several
inches across may be produced. The affected
epidermis may become grey and flake off, expos-
ing brownish scars, but the underlying tissue does
not seem to be injured to any degree, so that the
malady is not of any importance there.*

The occurrence of etiolation and chlorosis in
Opuntias has been referred to by a few writers
such as Meyen, Hallier (1868, p. 100), and
Hirscht (1899, p. 796). These affections, which
are also met with in Queensland (Tryon, 1911 b,
p. 17) do not appear to be the result of parasitic
agency.

Besides these, various other fungi have been
recorded by Saccardo, Rolland, and other mycolo-
gists, as attacking O. ficus-indica and other
prickly-pears in Southern Europe.

 

* F. von Thumen, when dealing with the fungi of
fruit trees (1887, p. 70) enumerates the following fungi as
occurring on O. ficus-indica :—

On the fruit.— Aspergillus africanus, Dur. and Mntg.

On the stem joints.—Diplodia opuntic, Sace. ; Nec-
tria jucunda, Mntg. ; Phyllosticta opuntic, Sacce.
and Speg.; Spheria cacti, Schweinz.

On the stem.—Diderma vaccinum, Dur. and Mntg. ;
Didymospheria opulenta, Dut. ; Leptospheria
sicula, Sacc. and Beltr.; Mycoprion licatense,
Sacc.; Perisporium wrightii, Berk. and Curt. ;
Phoma cacti, Berk., var. Opuntic, Sace. Pleu-
rotus opuntie, Dur.; Rhytisma cacte, Schweinz ;
Sclerotium cactearum, Speg.; Teichospora invere-
cunda, Sace. ; Apospheria fibrisequa, Sace. ; and
Rosellinia horridula, Sacc.

51

DESTRUCTION BY MECHANICAL
MEANS.

Of the species occurring wild in the Medi-
terranean littoral, only two are really common.
Owing to the value of their fruit and joints as
food they are widely cultivated, and the question
of destruction is not often raised. There are
several factors which control to a large extent the
spread of Opuntias in this region, one being the
relatively large agricultural population engaged
in relatively small areas, another being the hot,
dry climate which is experienced during a con-
siderable part of the year, more particularly in
Spain, Southern Italy, Sicily, Northern Africa,
Syria, and Palestine.

When destruction is deemed necessary the
plants are cut down by manual labour, allowed
to dry for a few days under the influence of the
hot sun, and then burnt. Occasionally a trench
is dug, the plants are thrown into it, and on
decay serve as manure. Even if cut down during
the summer and left alone, few of the joints grow
oe in the Barbary States on account of the dry

eat.

It is worthy of remark that, although the
fruits are so much used as food and the seeds thus
distributed widely, one very seldom meets with
seedling plants. This may be due to a destruc-
tion of the germinating power of the seed by the
intestinal juices, or to the detrimental effect of
the summer climate.

DESTRUCTION BY UTILISATION.

Just prior to our leaving Europe for the
United States, there was received from Mr. J.
C. Briinnich, the Chemist to the Department of
Agriculture, Queensland, a tabulated statement
of the result of his analyses of specimens of—(1)
green plants, (2) air-dried plants, and (3) the
fruit of the various kinds of prickly-pear occur-
ring in Queensland. This report, which was
kindly prepared by him at the request of the
Commission, was asked for so that we might be
acquainted with the amount of fibre, galactan,
sugars, ete., present in our commoner naturalised
Opuntias, and therefore in a better position to
discuss with those technically interested the
possibility of utilising these constituents in the
arts or industries. Owing to its value, it is
printed in extenso at the end of this section of our
report.

UriuisATION aS Foop For Maw.

As O. ficus-indica and O. amyclea are not
naturalised in Australia, and more especially since
the remarks would not necessarily apply to the
pest pears there, there is no need to enter exten-
sively into the matter of the utilisation of these
plants in the Mediterranean zone as articles of
food for man. The fruits of both species are
esteemed as an article of food by the peoples of
the Mediterranean littoral, and since the plants
are usually readily grown and vield abundance
of fruit during certain seasons, it is not surprising
that these Opuntias have a considerable economic
value there. In drier reglons—e.g., Egvpt.
Algeria, and Tunisia, as well as in parts of
Morocco and Andalusia, O. ficus-indica is care-
52

fully propagated from joints; irrigation, cultiva-
tion, and manuring being often resorted to in
order to produce good plants. In Syria it is a
common practice to renew the plants every five
to ten vears, since older specimens are regarded
as being less efficient fruit-bearers. In some
places—e.g., in Italy, Sicily, and Damascus
(Syria), this species is planted out and cared
for in much the same way as an orchard. In some
parts of the Barbary States men are employed
to guard the ripening fruit against thieves. It
is not uncommon in Algeria to see plantations of
this cactus, intended mainly for cattle fodder,
but also for fruit-production, surrounded by a
hedge of the spiny O. amyclea or of thorny
mimosa as a protection against stock. O. amy-
clea is generally grown as a_ fruit-producing
hedge.

In the Mediterranean countries, especially
Spain, Italy, and Sicily, there are numerous well-
established varieties of O. ficus-indica, the fruits
having certain characteristics and varying in
value according to their edible qualities.

Fruits are sold in great quantities and at
a very low cost for about four months of the
year. They constitute a very important part of
the food supply, especially of the poorer people.
Many are eaten at a time, the seeds being swal-
lowed, sometimes with ill result. At Jerez
(Spain), according to Senor P. Gonzales, of that
city, and no doubt elsewhere, there have been
many cases of intestinal obstruction, necessitating
medical treatment and even surgical operations
as a result, and death has followed in some
instances.

It is worthy of note that large quantities of
prickly-pear fruit are being exported from Italy
to the United States.

Owing to the very important place held by
the Indian or Barbary Fig as a cheap and abun-
dant article of diet, a good deal of literature has
been written regarding its cultivation, uses,
varieties of fruits, &., the most important per-
haps being the works of Biuso and Guastella.

UTILISATION AS FopDER FoR STooK.

As already mentioned, both species are com-
monly used in nearly all the Mediterranean coun-
tries as fodder for animals, very little use being
thus made of them, however, in Italy and Sicily.
Of course, the smooth-jointed O. ficus-indica is
preferred, and is usually fed without any treat-
ment to cattle, goats, sheep, pigs, and camels,
whereas the spiny species, O. amyclea, can be
fed only to camels unless the spines be first
scorched off, as is done in Cyprus, a few parts of
Spain, and the Barbary and Syrian coasts.
Though utilised all the year round, it is during
seasons of drought that these plants have a
particular value—a fact already known to Aus-
tralian stock-owners. The summer in the Medi-
terranean region is a relatively rainless period,
and it is not an uncommon sight to see both
species of Opuntias more or less shrivelled or
even killed as a result of the very hot, dry cli-
mate, this being especially the case in the Barbary
States, where these plants are confined to the
coastal and lower upland regions.

Professor L. Trabut, Director of the Botani-
cal Service of Algeria, has endeavoured to im-
prove the feeding properties of prickly-pears. A

spineless species, O. anacantha, Speg., was for-
warded from Argentina by Dr. C. Spegazzini_ for
use in that country as a cattle fodder. In Tunisia,
the matter has also called for attention, Mr. P.
Bourde dealing with it in a paper published in
1894. Amongst others, Baillaud (1910), Jehanne
(1904, 1906), and Perkins (1912) have referred
to this method of utilising prickly-pears in Medi-
terranean countries.

As it is generally recognised that cacti do
not possess a sufficiently high nutritive value to
be used as a complete ration for stock, Professor
Tucci, of Palermo, in 1890 formulated a number
of cattle rations for use at different times of the
year, various substances of higher nutritive value
being suggested as additions to the Opuntia.
Chemical data relating to O. ficus-indica have
been published by Ferrero (1874) and Mancuso-
lima (cf. Guastella, 1913), and calorific equiva-
lents of the different constituents by Giglioli in
1903, while the value of prickly-pear as a stock
food has been considered by Chicolo (1871, 1874),
Biuso (1879, pp. 152-174), and Guastella (1913,
pp. 48-54). Sotyia (1898, pp. 118-167) has also
dealt with this latter aspect in its application
to Corsica and Sardinia, where the same two
species of Opuntia are also met with. Bourde
in 1896 advocated the use of prickly-pear as a
forage plant in Tunis, and suggested the employ-
ment of equal parts of the cactus and chaff.
Biuso (1879, pp. 162-3) has given a description
of a special cutting machine devised for reducing
prickly-pear to a state suitable for cattle feed.

Dr. G. Sotyia’s work has reference to the
utilisation of the local Sardinian prickly-pear
as fodder for milch cattle in an island where
drought conditions are by no means uncommon.
The animals are compelled to subsist for some
months on stubble and dry grass stalks scorched
by the hot sun, and, as a result, their milk yield
decreases, and may even cease, especially during
August and September. Dr. Sotyia points out that
this is caused by. a deficiency in albuminous
matter in the ration, brought about by the
absence of succulence in the fodder, and quotes
Wolff to the effect that it is due to this fact that
even hay of the best quality will not maintain a
high milk yield unless some succulent food be
present, on account of influence of the latter
in increasing the absorption of water and album-
inous matter, both of which are favourable to
abundant lactation.

The prickly-pear, which was used finely cut
up, was found to have an average food value in
protein substance, fat, and other carbohydrates,
which fell below the standard ration and was
therefore supplemented by an adequate amount
of bran or dry grass of known composition, so
that the constituents of the mixture corresponded
approximately in amount to Wolff’s standard
ration for milch cows, viz., protein, 1.250 kg.;
carbohydrate, 6.250 kg.; and fat, .200 kg. per
500 kg. of live weight. On this basis, the amount
of ‘‘ pear ’’ used varied for individual cows from
24.37 to 31.25 ke. daily. The ration was readily
eaten by the animals.

The milk yield was examined daily, and the
results compared with those obtained both before
and after the experiment, and in one instance
with that yielded by animals which had been de-
prived of their quota of prickly-pear, although

given a ration generous in other respects. In
 

 

 

 

 

Photo., J. H. Maiden, Sydney Botanic Gardens.
Fig. 27.—The “Indian Fig ’?’—0O. ficus-indica—from a specimen in Sydney Botanic Gardens. This
species produces edible fruit largely used in the Mediterranean countries and elsewhere.

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 28.—0. ficus-indica. Granada, Southern Spain.
addition to comparing the amount of milk
obtained in a given time, there were estimated
the density of the milk andsof the whey as well
as the proportionate amounts of butter-fat, total
solids, water, casein, milk sugar, protein, ash,
albuminoids in the total solids, nitrogen in the
total solids, albuminoids in the milk, and nitrogen
in the milk.

As a result of many analyses it was found
that, although the composition of the milk varied
in accordance with several factors which
ordinarily determine such variation, ¢.g., race,
individuality of cow, time in period of lactation,
hour of milking, health, etc., there was little or
no influence exerted on it by the pear contained
in the ration. On the other hand, there was a
marked increase in the quantity of milk produced,
and since the composition remained the same,
except for normal differences just indicated,
the aggregate amount of butter-fat and other
constituents of the milk was correspondingly in-
creased.

Dr. Sotyia estimated that the average daily
appetite of a cow for ‘‘ pear’ (O. ficus-indica)
might be taken as 25 kilogrammes, which would
contain about 0.135 kg. of protein, 0.032 ke. of
fat, and 0.650 kg. of other carbohydrate. In order
to bring this up to Wolff’s standard ration for a
cow weighing 500 kg., he would add 1.115 kg.
protein, 0.168 kg. fat, and 5.600 kg. of carbo-
hydrate, these amounts being yielded by about
14 kg. of good meadow hay. In view of the
abundance in Sardinia of such succulent food as
prickly-pear, this author believed that his investi-
gations had shown how the difficulties
experienced there regarding milk production
might be overcome.

UTILISATION FOR ALCOHOL PRODUCTION,

In Algeria the juice of the fruits is often
fermented to make a low-grade liquor used by
some of the poorer Arabs. Mr. J. L. Abrines,
of Gibraltar, informed the Commission that the
manufacture of alcohol from prickly-pear was
tried in Granada (Spain) some years ago, but,
owing to the heavy excise imposed by the Spanish
Government upon all alcohol, the venture did not
become a commercial success. Bourde (1896, p.
652) made a brief reference in 1896 to the distil-
lation of prickly-pear fruit in Spain.

Considerable attention has been given to the
question of using the ‘‘ Indian Fig ’’ in this way
in Italy and Sicily, Biuso (1879, pp. 139-151)
Sprenger (1901), and Guastella (1913, pp. 55-59)
dealing with it. Biuso (p. 116) quoted an analy-
sis by Manecuso-Lima (1878, p. 51), in which the
amount of glycogenic matter as produced in ripe
fruit of O. ficus-indica is given at 36-64 per cent.

Ulpiani and Sareoli (1901, p. 57) found that
the juice expressed from its crude pulp con-
tained 12-8 per cent. of sugar; the pulp itself,
containing the seeds, 10-34 per cent.; and the
complete fruit when dried, 7-9 per cent. They
found that the ferment (Saccharomyces opuntie)
ordinarily associated with the fruit does not
bring about the production of the full amount of
aleohol theoretically possible from the quantity
of sugar present. Another yeast (Saccharomyces
pastorianus) was ascertained to be quite effective
if allowed to act on sterilised fruit, but if acting

53

along with 8. opuntiw its action became inhibited.
It was recognised that the expense incurred in
sterilising the fruit to destroy S. opuntie before
the addition of S. pastorianus would not be justi-
fied when regarded from a commercial point of
view.

Guastella has given an account of V. Florio’s
establishment in 1856 at Catania (Sicily) of a
distillery to extract potable spirit from the fruit
of O. ficus-indica, the imposition of a heavy excise
by the local municipality being the cause of the
failure of this undertaking, though an average of
about 8-6 litres of alcohol was produced from each
kilogramme of fruit. An attempt made by
Messrs. P. and A. Atanasio at Palermo proved a
failure, partly on account of their using an
unsuitable variety, and partly on account of the
high price of the fruit, due to a strong demand
for it as an article for human consumption.

Sincé Ulpiani and Sarcoli carried out these
experiments, other Italian investigators have
given attention to the question of alcohol pro-
duction from the fruit of O. ficus-indica. In 1908
A. Sanna (1908, pp. 550-561) published addi-
tional analyses of the fruit, and described a
method of preparing from it a spirit correspond-
ing to a true cognac.

Within a few weeks of the Commission’s
visit, Prof. 8. Cettolini (1918, p. 456-9) furnished
an account of further investigations, the follow-
ing summary of this work being published by
the International Bureau of Agriculture, Rome
(19138, p. 1295).

The writer recalls the experimental results
obtained some years ago by Dr. Sanna
and Colladel, of Cagliari, in their attempt to
distil prickly-pears, which grow in Sardinia,
without any cultivation. The fruit was small but
heavy, averaging 3.6,0z. each, owing to the large
number of seeds and the consistency of the pulp.
When peeled, crushed, and submitted to pressure,
432 lb. yielded 26.8 gallons of a somewhat viscous
juice having a density of 1.0548. Skins repre-
sented 87.64 per cent. of the weight, and seeds
4.2 per cent., leaving a little under 59 per cent. for
the material to be used for alcohol extraction.
The analysis yielded the following results :—
Whole fruit—albuminous substances, 6.75 per
cent.; oily substances, 0.278 per cent.; cellulose,
1.342 per cent. Juice—extractable material,
15.54 per cent.; acidity, 0.0102 per cent.; ash,
0.692 per cent.; saccharine substances, 11.20 per
cent. It was remarked that the saccharine sub-
stances were essentially aldehydic in character
and present in sufficient quantity to be distilled
economically, whereas the acidity was insufficient.

After a series of trials the best results were
obtained by crushing the unpeeled fruits and
putting the pulp thus obtained into bags and
subjecting it to high pressure. The lack of
acidity was then corrected by the addition of 0.32
oz. of tartaric acid per gallon, and the liquid
inoculated with a good alcoholic ferment in a
very active condition. The fermented liquid con-
tained 5.98 per cent. of alcohol, showing that
the saccharine material was well utilised. By
distillation and subsequent rectification, there was
obtained a spirit with a pleasant ethereal odour,
which would render it unsuitable for various in-
dustrial purposes. It is estimated roughly that 100
lb. of the fruit of this prickly-pear would produce
0.6 gallons of alcohol, and taking 120 ewt. of fruit
54

ag an average yield per acre, 80 gallons of alcohol
may be obtained per acre. The cake, consist-
ing of the refuse after pressing, could be used
as a stock food. When one considers that this
matter of so utilising O. ficus-indica has been 1n-
quired into in Italy, where the fruit has a com-
‘mercial value as an article of food, and is there-
fore not a waste product, it seems that research,
from the same standpoint, into the potentialities
of the fruits of Queensland prickly-pears, which
are certainly waste products from our point of
view, should merit some attention, particularly
as our pest pears, especially the ‘‘ Gayndah
pear,’’ are so prolific in their fruit production.

Whilst in England the advice and assistance
of Professor W. R. Dunstan, Director of the Im-
perial Institute, London, were sought in regard
to the question of the utilisation of Opuntias or
of their constituents in the industries. He in-
formed the Commission that the matter’had been
brought before the institute on various occasions
previously by the Governments of Australia,
South Africa, and St. Helena. Neither he
nor Dr. T. Henry, the Superintendent of the
Laboratories, was favourably impressed with the
commercial possibilities. Their investigations led
them to believe that Opuntia fibre could not com-
pete with other cheap fibre plants which were
more suitable for paper-pulp making; nor could
the plant compete with other substances as a
possible alcohol producer. The possibility of
making use of the mucilage had not been taken
up by the institute. ~

Professor Dunstan kindly furnished the
Commission with a report dated 27th June, 1913,
the following part dealing with the question of
alcohol production :—

‘In 1908, the remarkable announcement
was widely published that a chemist in Brisbane
had discovered valuable commercial possibilities
for the prickly-pear, which led him to conclude
that, instead of the plant being ruthlessly de-
stroyed, its cultivation ought to be encouraged.
The principal claims put forward were—(1)
That from one ton of prickly-pear seven gallons
of aleohol could be prepared at a cost not exceed-
ing 38s. 6d. per gallon, whilst the refuse could be
made into a nutritious cattle-food; (2) that the
plant yields an excellent sugar, two tons of
prickly-pear yielding as much sugar as three tons
of sugar-cane, and of equal quality; and (38) that
the fibrous nature of the material renders it suit-
able for the manufacture of paper, strawboard,
and other articles, and that these could be more
cheaply produced from prickly-pear than from
any product now used for the purpose.

‘“ The suggestion with regard to utilising the
plant for the manufacture of alcohol is not new.
Proposals of this kind have been made previously
in New South Wales, Mexico, Spain, India, and
other countries, but it does not appear that alco-
hol has ever been obtained from this source on
a commercial scale. The juice of the fruit con-
tains saccharine matter, and undergoes spon-
taneous fermentation; the alcoholic liquid thus
obtained is used by the natives of Mexico and
‘other countries as a beverage. It seems impro-
bable, however, that this liquid could be profit-

ably employed as a source of alcohol, for the
following reasons :—

‘* Aleohol of 90 per cent. strength can be
manufactured from cheap materials, such as
maize and potatoes, at a cost of from 6d. to 1s.

per gallon, depending on the market price of the
raw materials and other local factors. It is evi-
dent, therefore, that the production of spirit
from prickly-pear juice could only be remunera-
tive in a country which had no other crops avail-
able for the purpose, and which had a heavy duty
on imported alcohol. Moreover, the researches
of Ulpiani and Sarcoli in 1902 have shown that
not only would the manufacture of aleohol from
prickly-pear juice be unprofitable, but also that
is it scarcely practicable. These chemists found
that the juice of the fruit of the prickly-pear
contains 12-8 per cent. of sugar, which consists
not of sucrose (or cane-sugar), but of a mixture
of glucose and fructose. The spontaneous fer-
mentation of the juice is due to the action of a
natural yeast which occurs on the fruit, and has
been termed Saccaromyces opuntie. This yeast
does not ferment cane-sugar, but only glucose
and fructose. The fermentation takes place very
slowly, and even after a long time the proportion
of alcohol is not equivalent to the amount of
sugars originally present. Added yeast, however,
is rapidly suppressed by S. opuntia, and it would
therefore be necessary to kill the latter by steri-
lising the juice before introducing the ordinary
yeast. On account of the expense of sterilisation,
it is regarded as desirable to find a yeast capable
of producing alcohol rapidly in the presence of
the natural yeast (S. opuntiw), as only in this
way could the manufacture of alcohol from the
juice become practicable.

‘With regard to the manufacture of sugar
from the prickly-pear, it is obvious that, if the
contention of Ulpiani and Sarcoli that the juice
contains only glucose and fructose is correct, no
cane-sugar could possibly be obtainable. . ..”’

However, the opinion embodied in this re-
port, notwithstanding experimental data, would
seem to point to an opposite conclusion.

UTILISATION OF THE FiBpRE FOR MAKING PAPER
Pup, Boarps, &¢."

Don P. Gonzales, of Jerez (Spain) mentioned
that the thick trunks of the common species of
Opuntia, O. ficus-indica and O. amyclea, had
been tried as possible materials for paper-mak-
ing, but had not proved a success. Further
particulars were wanting.

Whilst in Italy, one member of the Commis-
sion devoted considerable attention to the pos-
sibility of utilising prickly-pear fibre in this way,
visiting the chief centres for the manufacture of
paper pulp. A journey was made to Milan, the
most important Italian centre of the paper
manufacturing industry, where visits were paid
to the Milan house of Ambrozio Binda and Co.
Sig. A. Binda stated that the technical manager,
Sig. L. B. Donzelli, thought that it would not be
practicable to use the woody fibre of the local
prickly-pear for paper pulp, owing to the great
deal of refining that would be necessary for it
to undergo, and that even for making ‘‘ boards ”’
it would not be likely to compete with the
cheap material already in use there. Interviews
were also held with the city representatives of
the following companies or paper mills:—Car-
mignano Mill, Brenta-Padova; J. Sesana and Co.,
Crusinallo; Bagatella and Co., Milan; The Rossi
ate Milan; Sig. E. Pirola, of Pirola and

0.
The material used in the Italian paper and
strawboard mills was either ‘‘ reorganised ’’ old
paper or else wood pulp, mogt of which came
from Germany, where it was made from poplars
and pines. The technical experts visited were
generally interested in the possibility of a new
source of fibre for this purpose, but the absence
of samples from the Australian plants prevented
them from giving an expression of opinion as to
their value. Owing to their absence from Rome
at the time of the Commission’s visit, Dr. G.
Borghesani and A. Bruttini, of the International
Institute of Agriculture, both of whom have
written on certain phases of wood-pulp making,
could not be consulted.

Professor Dunstan’s Report (June, 1913),
previously referred to, also deals with this mat-
ter, and runs as follows :—

‘‘ With reference to the utilisation of the
prickly-pear for paper-making, experiments at
the Imperial Institute have shown that a pulp
can be prepared by the process of heating the
fibre of the plant with caustic alkali under pres-
sure, but that the product so obtained consists of
very short fibres (about gs-s5 inch long), and
would therefore be of comparatively low value.

“* Samples of the fibre of a South American
species (Opuntia dillenit), which occurs in India,
were shown at the Colonial and Indian Exhibi-
tion which was held in London in 1886. Paper-
makers who examined these samples, however,
regarded them as worthless in comparison with
other cheap and plentiful materials. It is prob-
able that the collection of the raw materials would
be a costly operation. Moreover, a little consid-
eration will show that an immense quantity of
the plant would have to be dealt with in order
to produce a comparatively small amount of
paper pulp. Analyses of various parts of the
prickly-pear at different ages in the United States
of America (Bureau of Plant Industry, Bulletin
No. 102, Part I., United States Department of
Agriculture, 1907) have shown that, on the
average, the fresh plant contains 84-3 per cent.
of water and 2-4 per cent. of ‘ crude fibre.’ Ex-
periments at the Imperial Institute have proved
that 100 parts of dry prickly-pear fibre yield
about 42 parts of dry paper pulp. Hence from
2-4 parts of the crude fibre about 1 part of pulp
could be obtained. It is true that the ‘ crude
fibre’ of the analysis was extracted by a different
process from that used in the preparation of the
fibre employed in the Imperial Institute experi-
ments, but this would not greatly affect the re-
sults arrived at.
for the manufacture of one ton of paper pulp it
would be necessary to cut about 100 tons of the
fresh plant. When to the cost of collecting and
handling this mass of material is added that of
the chemicals and labour required for the extrac-
tion of the fibre and its conversion into paper
pulp, it seems evident that the project could not

vo

It is evident, therefore, that,

5

possibly be remunerative, especially as the pro-
duct is of low quality and would not in any case
be worth more than a few pounds per ton.

‘* Tn conclusion, it appears that the only
purpose for which the prickly-pear could be used
successfully is as a cattle food. Opinions with
regard to the value of the material for this pur-
pose are, however, very conflicting, and, at best,
it would constitute a product of low nutritive
value, and could only be used in conjunction with
richer feeding stuffs, such as wheat, bran, or
cotton-seed meal,’’

In regard to the account published above it
should be noted that some of the species exam-
ined are not named. This renders it more diffi-
cult to form a correct estimate of the value of
the common Australian species, as different Opun-
tias (and even different parts of the same plant)
vary in composition. It may be remarked, how-
ever, that the O. dillenii, whose paper-yielding
qualities were not favourably regarded, is related
to the pest pear of the Rockhampton, Gayndah,
and Brisbane districts, as well as to the common
pest pear of Queensland and New South Wales.

A report (May, 1909) on Queensland samples
made by Mr. J. S, Remington, a technical chemist
in Liverpool (England), was not of a very en-
couraging nature. Fresh material was sent, its
composition being determined as—Water, 87-16;
dry matter, 12-84; fibre, 2-98; and ash, 2-01. It
was stated that ‘‘ the large amount of water and
the small amount of fibre would preclude its use
as a paper-making material, as no material would
be economically suitable unless it contained at
least 80 per cent. of fibre and even in that case
would be considered a very poor, third-rate
article. On finding the material was unsuitable
for paper-making purposes, we hydrolysed some
with 2 per cent. sulphuric acid and the substance
yielded under this treatment 3 per cent. of reduc-
ing sugar, which only partly fermented. On boil-
ing the original substance with water for two
hours and straining, a liquid was obtained which
partly gelatinised on cooling, showing the pres-
ence of substances of the nature of pectin.

‘These facts are quite sufficient to show
that the prickly-pear is unsuitable for either the
manufacture of paper or the production of alco-
hol on a commercial scale. It might be to the
advantage of someone living in the colony to in-
vestigate this material, as regards its gelatinis-
ing or pectin properties, as possibly some indus-
trial use might be found from this point of view.
As a paper-making material it is, however, abso-
lutely useless.’’

This report expresses an opinion as to the
value of the whole prickly-pear plant rather than
of its constituent fibre as a paper producer, or its
fruit as an alcohol producer. It must not be
overlooked that any treatment for the destruc-
tion of Opuntia which will rob the plant of its
high water-content must increase the percentage
of fibre in the remainder. The value of this
fibre, if found suitable for manufacturing paper,
strawboards, &¢., would then lower the total cost
of destruction of the plants. It may be added
that the original suggestion to employ the woody
fibre of prickly-pear for the purpose under con-
sideration actually emanated from a technical
paper, the ‘‘ World’s Paper Trade Review,’’ of
1909, published in the interests of paper pro-
duction. (Fide Imperial Trade Commissioner,
F, Finucan.)

When the plant has died or been killed, and
its contained water dissipated by evaporation,
the material remaining is largely composed of
ligneous tissue and other dry substance. This
remains as a ‘‘ waste material,’’ after the carry-
ing out of any of the methods in vogue for
destroying the plant, and is of no value on the
spot, in fact, costing money for its removal, for
which there is no return.

In the industries identified with paper manu-
facture in the most general acceptation of the
term, and more particularly in those manufac-
turing processes which turn out the pulp needed
for these industries, enormous quantities of lig-
neous tissue are used, principally derived from
wood, some forty different kinds of trees being
drawn upon for this purpose. To give an idea of
the extent to which wood-pulp is employed, it
may be stated that in 1907, amongst the materials
for paper manufacture, England alone imported
no less than 500,000 tons (Cross, Bevan, and Sin-
dall), an amount that has continuously received
a large annual increment. Again, the United
States, in the year ending 30th June, 1910,
imported 423,721 tons. This, however, was only
17 per cent. of the quantity manufactured in
that country during the year 1909 (Forest Pro-
ducts, Bureau of the Census, U. 8. Dep. Com. and
Lab., 1911), which thus must have totalled
2,457,581 tons.* The United States itself pro-
duced 2,533,976 tons in 1910.

At the present rate of consumption of wood
for this paper-making, the devastation of forest
areas has become so serious a matter that the
Governments of the various countries in which
these forests exist, are taking vigorous steps in
‘the first instance to prevent their absolute destruc-
tion, but further to secure a systematic upkeep
(Cross, Bevan, and Sindall). This fact has been
emphasised as regards the United States by the
Bureau of Plant Industry, which mentions that
by 1950 it will be impossible to supply local re-
quirements in wood-pulp from its own forests, if
the continuous increases in its use now in vogue
are continued. (C. J. Brand, Physiologist, Cir-
cular 82, Aug., 1911, No. 19.)

Aecordingly, not only is afforestation urged
in the interests of these requirements all the
world over, but attention is actually turned to

 

* Short tons—2,000 lb.

56

the expediency of growing agricultural crops to
meet the requirement, and the suitability of corn-
stalks, brown millet stalks, sugar-cane megass,
cotton-hull fibre, &¢., has been urged for this
purpose (C. J. Brand, op. cit., p. 16, &c.) ; and it
has been pointed out that they can be probably
grown at a profit to both the grower and the
manufacturer. To meet the necessities of the case,
however, the paper manufacturer or pulp manu-
facturer not only wants suitable materials, but
‘“some assurances upon the subject of adequate
supplies before he is disposed to try a material
on an extensive scale, for he knows perfectly that
there are many wood fibres from which he could
make paper provided they can be obtained in
sufficient quantity to make the enterprise a finan-
cial success’? (Clayton, Beale, and Stevens,
Journ. Bd. Agr., 1914, p. 915).

Certain descriptions of paper and pulp are
manufactured from the crudest materials. Thus
‘“ naper-board ’’ for boxes which now figure so
largely in trade,* is made of materials, including
not only old paper of all descriptions that is
‘‘reworked’’ for the purpose, but refuse from
pulp-mills, screenings, straw, old rope, old bag-
ging, low-grade wood-pulp, &c. The same
materials are used for other forms of boards,
&e.—e.g., roofing-boards, mill-boards, leather-
boards, trunk and portmanteau boards, panel-
boards, straw-boards, &¢., &e. Accordingly it
has been considered advisable, in the interests
of this inquiry, to discover whether this waste
material yielded by prickly-pear can in a measure
fulfil this demand and be manufactured into
some kind of brown pulp. It is not a ques-
tion of whether prickly-pear can be profitably
converted into paper-pulp, but whether the lig-
neous fibre available can be manufactured into
a commodity that may fetch a price that will be
an adequate set-off to the cost of destroying the
plant. Much less is it a question of manufac-
turing a high-class wood-pulp or paper such as
that on which these words are printed.

In approaching manufacturers and dealers
in the raw materials employed in the manu-
facture of the various kinds of paper-boards and
of the coarser and tougher varieties of paper
(e.g., mill-boards, leather-boards, tip, trunk, box,
panel, drawing, fibre boards, &c.), in order to
ascertain how far the ligneous tissue yielded
by the prickly-pear might, if available in suffi-
cient quantities, fulfil the conditions demanded
of, and possess the essential features embodied
in such substances, the drawback of having
no samples of this to submit to them militated
against any success from the inquiry, for they
beforehand knew nothing regarding the char-
acteristics of the prickly-pear yielding substance

 

* The manufacturers of fibre-boxes (alone) in the United
States use approximately 116,000 tons of fibre-board a
year (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Cir.
No. 177, May, 1911).
“Auojog edeg ‘asnoyyooy *(94?|
‘Auopoy odey ‘oyuep, “teog Appoutg ,, pepquioog ,,—"ge “Bi Wo) BSOUTIPT PUL ,, PU[GUIOOT ,, “FYB uo ,, PrqVEyy ,,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

? “Luojog edeg
‘uopog edeg ‘esnoyyoog wor ,“prpqeey,, eYT—‘0e “Sq ‘BMgoppyt “eed ATU| ,, PUGLEY, eYZ—GS “Buy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
57

referred to, nor were there any ascertained
facts regarding it available for submission to
them. Under these circumstances, and recog-
nising their willingness to promote eur inquiry,
several of them were invited to furnish us
with specimens of the various so-called wood-
pulps with which, if possible, to institute com-
parison—the other material, ¢.g., waste paper,
old ropes, &c., being already known to us.
Amongst these thus approached were the follow-
ing London firms :—Messrs. Churchill and Sons;
W. G. Taylor and Co., Ltd.; Andrews and Co.,
Ltd.; Castle, Gottbeil, and Overton; and Alsing
and Co. These submitted samples of mechanical
and kraft pulps and chemical pulps, including
sulphite pulp bleached and unbleached, and sul-
phate pulp bleached and unbleached.

Further, the manufacturers of the different
papers alluded to were themselves asked similarly
to assist, and replies were received from the
British Paper Company, Hempstead, Herts. ;
Garwood and Muddiman, Ltd., London; T. and
J. Makin, Manchester; Johnson’s Millboard and
Paper Co., Ltd., Walworth; Thames Paper Com-
pany, Ltd., Purfleet, Essex; the West Drayton
Millboard Mills, Ltd., Middlesex; and G. H. Hed-
ley, Ltd., Hedge Mill, Londwater, Bucks. Inter-
views were also held with the principals in some
instances. From all of these it was elicited that
there was always an opening for any new
material, even if it were not superior to those
already in use, providing it was available in quan-
tity and of fairly uniform quality, and the cost
compared favourably with them. It must, how-
ever, possess the special features that alone could
establish its utility in manufacture, and regard-
ing these, only those conversant with the. pro-
cesses of manufacture and with the exact methods
of estimating these features could pronounce the
extent to which they were present.

The value of the ligneous tissue of our
prickly-pears being still then an open question,
it was suggested that Mr. R. W. Sindall, of
Messrs. Sindall and Bacon, London, the well-
known specialists in these matters and authors
of several treatises on paper technology should be
consulted. This course was especially urged by
Mr. Jackson, of Jackson’s Millboard and Paper
Co., Ltd., Bucks., and by the director of the
Thames Paper Co., Ltd., of Essex, two of the
largest British manufacturers of the classes of
vegetable fibre matters referred to.

At this time samples of the material referred
to as being derivable from the prickly-pear were
not to hand, although requisitioned some time
previously. Nevertheless, the advice was acted
on, and Mr. Sindall was interviewed.

Mr. Sindall, who is a recognised authority
on matters connected with the manufacture- of
wood pulp and paper, emphasised the fact that,
before expressing any opinion regarding the use

of prickly-pear fibre in the arts, it would be
necessary for the material to be examined and
its qualities ascertained, both pulp and paper
being made if found necessary. He referred to
the various uses to which the material might be
put, if not suitable for paper making, e.g., book-
binders’ boards, trunk boards, friction boards,
&c. Boards were commonly made of waste paper,
as it was cheaper to work up than ropes, cocoanut
fibre, old rags, spinners’ waste, &c., which were
available for the purpose. Where a very short
fibre was needed, esparto was used, this possess-
ing the shortest fibres that were of any value.
In pulp-making, the fibre generally had to be
reduced to a specific length,* but esparto fibre
was so short that the process of reduction did not
reduce it any further. Any raw substance that
yielded a shorter fibre than esparto would be
available for use only as a filling material, and
even then only if its cost was very low. The cost
of converting the fibre into pulp would also have
to be taken into consideration. If found suitable,
he thought that the pulp should be made in Aus-
tralia.

He went on to state that his firm was pre-
pared to carry out the necessary examination and
to report upon the value of the material and the
uses to which it could be put. In order to carry
out this inquiry it would be necessary for the
firm to be supplied with not less than two or
three pounds of the woody fibre of any one species
or variety of prickly-pear. This fibre should not
have undergone any chemical treatment whatso-
ever, but should have been carefully dried at an
ordinary temperature. The material should not
be decayed or in process of decay.

In regard to the question of utilising the
mucilage, Mr. W. Bacon (Mr. Sindall’s partner)
stated that the firm was prepared to examine
that also. The material sent should not have
been coagulated or prepared by any reagent, but
should be the residuum of evaporation at a com-
paratively low temperature. He mentioned that
a 2 per cent. solution of galactan was then worth
£6 per ton.

After this portion of our inquiry had pro-
ceeded to the length indicated, the specimens of
ligneous tissue asked for by us were received from
Queensland. The material had evidently under-
gone a certain amount of decay. Selected speci-
mens, however, were submitted for examination
to the technological branch of the Imperial Insti-
tute, pending the carrying out of the proposal
outlined by Mr. Sindall when better material
should be available. This latter business was
referred to the Agent-General for Queensland,
since the Commission, being about to leave Eng-
land for the United States, could not undertake
it.

Dr. Henry, who took charge of these speci-
mens, stated that the fibre appeared to him to be

 

* 0-5 to 3:0 mm., “for the majority of paper ; a length
of 1-2 mm. is a working optimum” (Bevan and Sindall).
58

a much better sample than those submitted from
Queensland some years ago. The report (dated
19th November, 1913), kindly suppled by the
Director, Dr. W. R. Dunstan, is as follows :—

“Description of Sample.

‘* Pibre—This consisted of 23 Ib. of dried
and withered cactus. The joints of the stem
measured from about 6 inches to 1 foot in length
and from about 3 to 5 inches in diameter; in

many cases the cuticular and pithy matter had
been more or less removed, leaving a ‘woody fib-
rous skeleton. No information was furnished as
to the origin of this material, but it was assumed
to be merely prickly-pear cut and allowed to dry.

“‘Results of Examination.
‘« The ‘ fibre ’ was examined with the follow-
ing results, compared with corresponding figures
for commercial esparto grass :—

 

Present cane of Prickly | Esparto Grass from Oran,
Pear. Algeria.

 

Moisture in air-dry material (on heating at 100°-110° C.) .
Ash (expressed on the material dried at 100°-110° C.)
Yield of unbleached pulp dried at 100°-110° C.—
(a) Expressed on the air-dry material is 7
(0) Expressed on the material dried at 100°- 110° C.
Loss of weight of pulp on bleaching

Yield of bleached pulp dried at 100°-110° C. (expressed 0 on the material

dried at 100°-110° C.)
Length of ultimate fibres

Per cent. Per cent.
12°9 88
11:8 3-0
215 29°5 Et
24:7 32°3 a
23-0 (approx.) Q1-37 24
18°0 32°0

 

0014 to 0°04 inch:
average, 0°029 inch

0°012 to 0°12 inch:
average, 0°045 inch

 

 

‘* The ultimate fibres of a specimen of prickly-
pear fibre from New South Wales previously
examined at the Imperial Institute measured
from 0-012 inch to 0-032 inch, with an average
of about 0-028 inch.

‘“‘The material was readily converted into
pulp, which was dark brown in colour with darker
specks. It was bleached with some difficulty to
a cream colour.

‘* Laboratory trials showed that the paper
made from the pulp was coarse and of poor
strength. Samples of the paper are enclosed with
this report.

‘‘ The foregoing results confirm the state-
ment in the Bulletin of the Imperial Institute,
vol. VIII. (1910), p. 46, that prickly-pear would
be of comparatively low value as a paper-making
material, owing to the low yield of pulp and the
inferior quality of the product. It would cer-
tainly not be remunerative to produce the pulp
in Queensland for export to the United Kingdom,
and it seems very unlikely that it could even be
profitably used locally in admixture with ma-
terials of better quality. This latter point, how-
ever, could only be decided by actual trials on
the spot and a consideration of the results in
connection with the prices of chemicals and of
labour in Queensland.’’

UtinisaTION OF PRICKLY-PEAR MucILAGE.

Samples of ‘‘mucilage’’ were submitted to
the Imperial Institute at the same time as the

fibre, and that portion of the report forwarded
by Dr. Dunstan (November, 1913) dealing with
the examination is as follows :—

7 Description of Samples.

me Mucilage. ’—Two samples of the mucilage
were supplied: (1) a small greyish mass of soft
coagulated mucilaginous matter in alcohol, and
(2) about 8 oz. of a clear yellow viscous fluid
with a dirty grey deposit. No particulars were
furnished to the Imperial Institute regarding the
method employed in preparing these samples.

“Results of Examination.

‘* The liquid gum, as received at the Imperial
Institute, had an acid reaction and a fairly strong
smell; it thus seemed probable that fermentation
had occurred. In view of this and of the small
quantity of material supplied it was not con-
sidered that a detailed examination of the samples
would furnish results of practical value.

“Tt is certain that the gum obtained from
prickly-pear could not be sold in Europe in com-
petition with other gums which are available in
large quantities at low rates. There seems little
prospect even of finding a local use for the
material in Queensland, though this point could
only be determined satisfactorily by the investi-
gation of fresh samples on the spot.

‘‘ If as the results of such further investiga-
tion it were found possible to obtain the gum in
59

large quantities, and not only of pale colour, but
free from foreign matter and without any un-
pleasant smell, it might perhaps be possible to
utilise it as a sizing material in the textile indus-
try; but if it had to be transported any consider-
able distance for this purpose it would have to be
evaporated to a solid condition, and the cost of
this would probably :be prohibitive, unless on
technical trial the gum were found to have special
properties which would make it a desirable substi-
tute for starch and other cheap sizing materials,
which seems unlikely.’’

Minor Usszs.
In addition to the abovementioned uses there
are a few others in the Mediterranean littoral
which may be mentioned.

As Hedges and Fuel.—-The use of O. ficus-
indica, and especially O. amyclea and occasionally
O. dillenvi, as hedge-plants is very widespread.
In Morocco, villages are often surrounded by O.
amyclea in such a way as to remind one of a
similar condition seen commonly in India. In
many localities, old stems are used as fuel.

As Manure—In many parts, e.g., Algeria,
Spain, and Sicily, the plant is used as a green
manure, a very valuable addition in the case of
poor, dry soils such as are met with in many
localities. The moisture contained in the joints
is gradually set free, and of course humus is also
added to the soil by their decomposition. In
parts of Spain it is used in this way to improve
soils on which vineyards are being raised. The
Arabs in Morocco and in Algeria frequently dis-
tribute the joints underground about the roots
of trees for the same purpose. They also com-
monly place them in holes in which it is proposed
to plant fruit trees or sow melons a little later,
the result being said to be decidedly advanta-
geous. Biuso has referred to similar practices
in Sicily, where arenaceous soils seem to receive
more benefit than clay lands. C. Casey* has
mentioned that he saw the joints of prickly-pear
used as a ‘‘leaf’’ manure near Naples.

As a Dye—The colouring matter derived
from the fruit of O. dillenii is used in Sicily for
colouring toys and various articles of basket
ware (Sprenger, 1901, p. 80). It is almost iden-
tical with that contained in the fruit of the two
common prickly-pears of Queensland.

SUMMARY.

Of the many kinds of Opuntia occurring in
the Mediterranean, only two are commonly met
with, and even these are regarded by many
authorities as being varieties of one species,
O. ficus-indica.

* Agrestia ligustica—Riviera Edit. 2, London, 1903,
p. 190.

They are not considered as a pest in any por-
tion of this region, while the Barbary or Indian
Figs (0. ficus-indica and O. amyclea) are
regarded rather as valuable plants capable of
producing fruit for human consumption, the
stems and joints themselves being used for the
feeding of stock.

The prominent place given to Prickly-pear
(O. ficus-indica) in stock-feeding in Algeria,
Tunis, Sardinia, and Corsica should not be
without significance for Queensland, especially
in view of the prevalence of drought conditions.

No insect pest or disease was met with whose
introduction into Queensland would be desirable.

Alcohol production from the fruit proved
to be a commercial success in this region, until
fiseal changes interfered with the industry. In-
vestigations are still being prosecuted in Italy.

The mucilage was not examined in a detailed
manner. It is suggested by the Imperial Insti-
tute that the gum, if obtained in a sufficient quan-
tity and pale in colour, might perhaps be of use
commercially in local textile industries as a sizing
material, but would not be able to compete abroad
with other gums. It should be mentioned that
the samples submitted had apparently undergone
some decomposition. We think that this possible
use of mucilage in the arts is worthy of special
inquiry.

The low percentage of fibre, the shortness of
individual fibres, and the poor quality of the
paper produced from the pulp all seem to indi-
cate that prickly-pears cannot be considered as
paper-pulp producing plants from a commercial
point of view. There are, however, other fabrics
of value which may be made from a pulp which
would produce only a poor paper or be unsuitable
even for any paper.

Although Professor Dunstan has stated that
the pulp produced would not be worth more than
a few pounds per ton, yet when we consider that,
as a result of certain processes of destruction,
the fibre is left in a condition more or less
suitable for pulp-making, the possibility of pulp
being made on a commercial scale from what is
really a by-product is greatly increased. The
profits derived from the sale of such dried pulp-
producing fibre would lessen the net cost of clear-
ing the land infested with prickly-pear. The
opinion of an expert is necessary if we are to
regard the matter from this point of view.

APPENDIX TO SECTION V.
Mr. J. CG. Briinnich’s analyses of prickly-pears
naturalised in Queensland.
60

"ST6L ‘AVI 136g ‘ouUBqSLIg,
‘emynonsy jo yuourgredeq,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“asTareq
‘HOINNNU ‘0 *£ aoe
-Aqrpiow pus reBns jo eFaqucored Moy
Aron Ayqeqorg -pidisur eqsey, “por ysopT
*mmoyjoo ur uealr “poateoor qmay Moy 40 ee ae ahs ee oe oe ae oe oe o%. oe ee ee es . ae aie cH oe IBogq ory, uopreH
: (nsafejouryooo
‘e[QIpeur pus ]yeuUIs yMAF oe o. oe o- we oe oe ae oe oe o- . o oa . oe on wapodo v7) Iewegq eel, preiouny
“snoulsepon yy : (180g
"pidisut ‘qooms oqsey, “pomhojoo pox ymiy | g9- ogg- | OL: “" | 99-8 | gG- 16- | "009-93| # —] 8 + | BE- coz: |.F6-9 | 0€-6 | 9-0L | FES | 0-9 | POOA4SeAA) TBOIKE_T Poy FOBT
“MOUISEIONYL “ploe-19A0 ;
qOU pus qooms oysBy, “sTUIIeprde 07 pornoroo
per ymMig = “peuyurexe osoyy jo opdures yseq ou, | 09: ge9- | LET | O9-T | 99-9 | 98- TN [O 98] @2%— | e— | 98: 91S: | F9°6 | OF BT} 9-EL 9-96 (sxunaus *Q) reeg seq BooBTN|
‘snoulseponyy = ‘prow Ajdzeys | -
eye, = ‘stmmeprde 09 per Ayumoyram yqmag | OL- pos: | 00-1 | 9O-T | 68S | 6-1 1 STS 0 88! GL-| e+ | THT | G99- | 86-L | Sh-OL| H69 | 96T . OTT °° a reeg yseg Auidg
% | % | % | % | % 1% | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | %
= 8 na R Oat
aye BSE oes Oe sty |omgesed | -paqzea | ‘oor ao 93.9 | ,
BPE Age ‘gsy | uy | BEE | oe ge “wey | -Uy eome | x N =| ‘sprog | ‘sprog |-noi0g
— 8 2] QL jeantog) mol | oa ge | Rs jo | ujozOrg | OTQUTOS | 18}0L | aqipa | ‘1aea | ‘pass “AQOLIBA
5 = BS SB sg | 8g ‘SNOLLVSIAV'I0d AUPIOV ;
: ‘NOILYOT TIdIay {O NOWIS0aWON ,
‘LINUA AVA ATHOIAd JO SISATVNV
(qyMorH [etUICUqy)
oe ste: oe ee oe ee ee ee a8 ae oe oe 69-9 00-001 on ee 80: ee oe oe oe oe oe oe . . oe eal 6-81 T-18 189g 4seg goosnqg
| BIGT “(ypMoIH [eu
+> | gge.| -: oa o .- . . os ei oe ‘+ lot-ttloo-001| °° -- | qo] °° ae os . ae ae . . 6F-1| 2-81 | £98 "wONy) soa. shod sooeIn CL
906T
‘ousqsug) “IBA Ssoy
i TPT] €8:) £9 | TLE] * GIP) °° |St-T] 7° “* 1 @-L8 |00-00T| °° “* | 6LO-| LPO: | 88- | 96- “* | 98-3} 99- | 08- ; - | eg-T | 9-9 | 26-46 | -ourds ‘uvorxepy query
(psoquautog
ZOL- | 6Z8- | 609: | IN [Z9-€T |LG-OT |9F-ZF |0s-9 |09-ZT |Z8-11 | 89-1 | 6E-F |Te-08 [3F-96 |sa-g || gF0- | E90- | 6eO-| EN | #8- | 89- | EL-sl Ee | T8- | OL- | OT | 8Z-| FET | 03-9 | 08-86 | 0) Hog oor, Cae
-yaury09 ~=vapypdo pz)
GOL: | SFB | S6T- |86-9 |S9-L J0Z-OT |S9-9E |TF-6 [84:6 [63-6 | GL: | 6E-F |LE-91 |LF-96 [EG-E |] 9L0- | 160- | 1ZO-| OL | S8- | T1-T | 88-E} O-T | 9O-T | 10-T | LO- | LF- | O8-T | OF-OT | OS-68 /Tee_ COLL prerouryy
(rvoq poom4se )
GLO- | 888- | OOE- |SF-S /SS-TT [08-ST [08-6F |FF-9 |9F-ZS 00-9T | 00-1 | SS-F [66-62 [92-96 |GL-E |) 6GO- | 9LO- | SEO- | OS- | 9O-T | 99-T | 8E-F | GS- | 90-G | LF-T | 60 | LE- | 29-6 02-8 | OG-16 | TeorxopT Pea
ZOG- | GFL- | TPE: PLS |96-O1 |LF-ST \OF-ZS |60-FT [zF-6 [ET-8 | IL-1 | 39-€ |6s-FI |0G-z6 |0g-L)| Z90- | e80-| seo: | 9- | Zz-T | 09-1 | ze-g | 99-1 | 90-1] T6- | SI- | 6E-| 89-T | O8-OT | 02-68 | ‘O) 1e0a Yea
PLO- | FLL | G88: [TL-O1leF-9 lov-Gt log-6¢ \z6-FT loe-8 cu-8 | ¥9- | ss l9e-8 lot-z6 |o6-4/| get | eet: | 920- | 00-8 | 22-1) F0-8 | T8-2 | 96-3] 99-1 | aL-T | OT | e8-| o9-T | OZ-8T | 08-18 | ‘teeaq yseq «= Ady
bie iS) Hl SD! S|SH)/%),%1|%)% 1% 1%] % | Si %) M1 %M1%)/ S/S BM)BVIN|H|%MI%) % |] % | %
Sibi ae8 a) el Sete je le iy ESTP Se] el Bla] elie te) BLS Pee | ee
5
s 7 m | oe 2 a = 8 > a a on Ee 9 5 2 a nm | ae ~ a nm & eS BR as 1 QB] > 9 5
4 we | && os ay], & 3 2. o 5 ts II & < . a ¢ we. | Ba 2 ag | 2 & eg | o& Sion) & <q :
Big jsei|Se/e FF ie i> te Le i> fee]? z 1s |se/S8 |S |EF 1 Ee | - * | é Mg | 3
es |/8 (gs)°2/) 8 (38 | & F & a = 2 | |\82172 | 2 z = F s y = “AyOUIA
Pp ode | ele le F E a P| |e | LE Ie s g a
‘INVId AUC WIV ‘INVId NETUD
‘UVa ATWOId AO SISATVNV
 

 

 

 

 

Photo., Dept. Agriculture, Brisbane.
Fig. 33.—The Opuntia White Scale—Diaspis echinocacti—on a joint of the pest pear, Brisbane.

 

 

 

 

 

Photo., Bureau of Entomology, Dept. Agriculture, U.S.A.

Fig. 34.—Diaspis echinocacti cacti on an Opuntia, Texas.
61

VI. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
*

INTRODUCTORY.

The Bureau of Entomology of the United
States Department of Agriculture has devoted
considerable attention to the study of the insect
enemies of cacti, particularly in Southern Texas.
Moreover, some investigations regarding the
prevalent diseases of prickly-pear in the latter
region had been carried out by Mr. F. A. Wolf.

The Cactacee of the United States have re-
ceived considerable attention from European
euthors such as De Candolle, Schumann, and
others, but particularly from local botanists who
have studied them in the field, amongst the latter
being Engelmann, Bigelow, Griffiths, Britton,
Rose, Coulter, Thornber, Wooten, MacDougall,
Cannon, Wolf*, Mackensen, and Toomey. The
economic side of the group has been carefully
studied by Griffiths (1905-1913), Hare (1906-
1911), Thornber (1911), Wooten (1911), and
Vinson (1911), especially by the two first named.
The chemical side has received much care at the
hands of Dr. Hare (1906-1911), while Goss (1895,
1903) has also published some data. Mr. Luther

Burbank has devoted a great deal of attention to,

the raising of varieties of Opuntias with a view
to increased succulence and size of joints, and
a diminution of their spininess, to make them
more valuable as a cattle-fodder. He has also
succeeded in improving the fruit production of
certain kinds.

Itinerary.—The Commission arrived in New
York on 10th October, 1913. At this city con-
siderable assistance was rendered by the Director
of the Botanic Gardens, Dr. N. L. Britton, who,
in collaboration with Dr. J. N. Rose, of the
Carnegie Institute, Washington, is actively
engaged in the study of Cactacex. Since both of
these naturalists had studied this group of plants
in various parts of North America and the West
Indies, their help and advice were much appre-
ciated.

Visits were then made to the parasitological
laboratory of the Bureau of Entomology at
Boston, controlled by Dr. A. F. Burgess, and to
Albany, where the New York State Entomologist,
Mr. E. P. Felt, was consulted, this investigator
being an authority on a group of insects, some
members of which are known to be serious para:
sites of prickly pear.

At Washington, D.C., the Commission re-
ceived every assistance from Hon. H. F. Houston,
Seeretary for Agriculture; from Dr. L. O.
Howard, Chief of the Bureau of Entomology,
and his assistants, particularly Messrs. W. D.
Hunter and W. D. Pierce; from Dr. Taylor,
Chief of the Bureau of Plant Industry, and Dr.
D. Griffiths, Dr. W. A. Orton, and Miss E. C.
Field, members of his scientific staff; Dr.
Merriam (former Chief), Messrs. H. W. Hanshaw
(Chief) and V. Bailey, of the Bureau of
Biological Survey; and from Dr. Dyar and
Messrs. F. Knab, E. A. Schwarz, A. Busck, O.
Heidemann, and A. Caudell, of the entomological
staff of the National Museum. Some of these

* Wolf (1912 a, 1912 b) has given some account of
the anatomy of one of the prickly-pears, O. lindheimert.
Solereder many years ago published a good deal of infor-
mation regarding them, and in his work quotes from the
labours of many other botanists regarding this group of
plants. Quite recently in our own State, Dr. Shirley and
Mr. Lambert (1914) have examined anatomically some of
the species naturalised in Queensland.

 

men, notably Dr. Griffiths, Mr. Hunter, and Mr.
Pierce, have had considerable experience with
certain phases of Prickly-pear questions, their
work being referred to later in this report.

In order that the Commission might utilise
its time to the best advantage, Dr. Griffiths kindly
outlined an itinerary which was in the main
followed, the only modifications being those sug-
gested by Dr. Howard, and those which were
found to be advisable during the journey. Dr.
Howard very generously placed at the disposal
of the Commission, during its work in Texas, the
services of one of his officers, Mr. J. D. Mitchell,
who has had a very long experience of prickly-
pears in the field, and who, in conjunction with
Messrs. Hunter and Pratt, is the author of a

ee

paper on ‘‘ The Principal Cactus Insects of the
United States.’’? His assistance is gratefully
acknowledged.

The journey to Texas was made v4 St. Louis.
Here Dr. Rose was interviewed, and a visit was
paid to the ‘‘ Shaw ’’ Botanical Gardens, where
Dr. 8S. T. Moore, the Director, and Dr. J. M.
Greenman, keeper of the herbarium, were con-
sulted. Dr. Engelmann’s types of Opuntias are
located in this institution.

The itinerary in Texas included the follow-
ing districts:— Dallas, San Antonio, Laredo,
Alice, Robbstown, Brownsville, and Sinton.

At Dallas, a visit was paid to the Entomolo-
gical Experiment Station, under Mr. F. C.
Bishopp, where the greater part of Messrs.
Hunter, Pratt, and Mitchell’s work on cactus
insects was carried out. Mr. W. Sinclair’s farm
near San Antonio was inspected, since it was at
this place that Dr. Griffiths carried out much of
his experimental work regarding the feeding of
cactus to dairy cattle. Mr. B. Mackensen’s col-
lection of Opuntias was also examined during our
stay in San Antonio. It was at this city that Dr.
F. Chittenden, of the Bureau of Entomology,
was interviewed. While at Brownsville, the
assistance of Mr. M. Vickery, Entomologist at
the Plant Introduction Garden of the Bureau of
Plant Industry, was sought. It is here that Dr.
Griffiths has one of his large experimental cactus
plantations.

In addition to visiting the abovenamed in-
dividuals and institutions, the Commission exam-
ined the Cactacex in the surrounding country as
far as circumstances allowed.

From Texas the journey was made west-
ward to Mesilla Park in New Mexico, where Pro-
fessors R. F. Hare, D. E. Merrill, and H. S.
Hammond were interviewed. Dr. Hare has de-
voted considerable attention to the chemistry of
the prickly-pears, and in conjunction with Dr.
Griffiths has published much information, while
Mr. Merrill has given some notice to the insect
fauna of local Opuntias.

At Tucson in Arizona, very willing assistance
was given by Professor J. J. Thornber, of the
University of Arizona, who is interested not only
in the purely botanical side, but also in the
matter of using Opuntias as a stock-fodder. The
published work of himself and his colleague, Dr.
A. E. Vinson, is referred to later. A visit was
paid to the Carnegie Institute’s Desert Labora-
tory, near Tucson, where Dr. D. T. MacDougall,
its Director, Dr. Cannon, and others are carrying
62

out physiological experiments with many plants,
including the Cactaces.* The surrounding
country with its rich cactus flora was examined.

In California the following localities were

visited :—Riverside (Botanic Gardens), Los
Angeles (East Lake Park), Palo Alto, San
Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, Chico, and

Santa Rosa.

At Palo Alto, a visit was paid to Prof. V. L.
Kellogg, who had had some experience regarding
the destruction of prickly-pears by insect enemies.
At San Francisco, a number of workers were con-
sulted in reference to our inquiry, amongst them
being Messrs. F. Maskew, chief deputy quaran-
tine officer, and G. Compere, chief inspector, Cali-
fornia Horticultural Commission ; Prof. C
Woodworth and Dr. E. C. van Dyke, University
of California; F. E. Blaisdell, J. R. Slevin, and
Mr. Fuchs. Mr. Maskew and Mr. Compere kindly
offered to facilitate the transportation of any
cactus insects whose introduction into Australia
this Commission might think fit to recommend.

San Diego was visited as a result of informa-
tion tendered by Dr. van Dyke and Mr. Blaisdell,
the local thickets of flat and cylindrical Opuntias
being carefully examined for the presence of cer-
tain injurious insects. Messrs. E. O. Essig and
E. J. Vossler, of the California Horticultural
Commission, were interviewed at Sacramento,
but it was found that they had not given any
attention to the insect fauna of prickly-pears.
At Chico the Plant Introduction Garden belong-
ing to the Federal Department of Agriculture
was visited, and in company with Messrs. Beagles
and Krieger, Dr. Griffith’s large cactus planta-
tion was examined. Mr. Luther Burbank, the
well-known plant-breeder, was seen at his
nursery in Santa Rosa.

The return journey to Washington, D.C.,
was made vié Kansas, in the western portion of
which State field work was undertaken as a result
of information tendered by Mr. C. H. Popenoe,
of the Bureau of Entomology, during our stay
in Laredo, Texas. At Washington further inter-
views were held with officers of the Bureaux of
Entomology, Plant Industry, and Biological
Survey, as well as with members of the staff of
the National Museum, in reference to prickly-
pear enemies. From Washington the Com-
mission travelled southwards to Florida, where
one member carried out some investigations while
the other proceeded to the West Indies to initiate
inquiry there. The following localities were
visited in that State:—Key West, Crescent City,
and Lake Worth. é

Species of Prickly-pear Examined.—The
chief species which were examined by the Com-
mission in South-Eastern Texas were the O. lind-
heimert and O. ferruginispina, groups of species
(including O. cacanapa, O. texana, O. leptocarpa,
and their allies), O. leptocaulis, and certain low-
growing forms (Echinocereus, spp.) known col-
lectively by Mexicans as pitalla. In the dry
regions occuring in Arizona and New Mexico,
attention was given mainly to the various species
of Cylindropuntia—the so-called tree cacti—such
as O. fulgida, O. arbuscula, O. mammillata, O.
versicolor, O. spinosior, ete.,-to the flat Opuntias,
0. engelmann, O. arizonica, and their allied
species, and to the giant cactus Carnegica gigan-
tea. Others, such as O. wootoni, O. chlorotica,

* Ann. Rep. Director of Botanical Research, Carnegie

Institution of Washington, Year-book No. 12, for 1913
pp. 57-87. :

and O. levis were also examined. In Southern
California, the species of prickly-pear (0. occt-
dentalis, E. and B.; 0. prolifera, Eng.), occurring
commonly on uncultivated lands, were over-
looked, while in Kansas the low-growing 0.

muissourtensis received most attention.

At Key West, Florida, an Opuntia was
met with which differed from the typical
form of O. dillenit* growing in the same
locality. It was a glossy green plant, whose
spines were rather longer, being commonly
4.5 to 5-5 em. in length, rarely curved, more
gradually attenuated, and, when young, were
wholly reddish coloured, but became brown
with age. The spines were less numerous, each
areole bearing from one to three, whereas in the
ease of O. dillenii, there may be as many as eight.
This Opuntia, which was not in flower or fruit
during the time of our visit, attained the stature
of OQ. dillenii when the soil was rich in lime, but
not otherwise. It was found to be less common
than the latter. At Lake Worth (Palm Beach)
both O. dillentt and another prickly-pear were
seen, the latter resembling a stunted form of
the above-mentioned Opuntia met with at Key
West. A short visit to Crescent City failed
to reveal the presence of prickly-pear. It was in
‘this locality that Opuntias were stated to have
been destroyed by a burrowing moth caterpillar,
Melitara prodenialis, Walker (Hubbard, 1895,
p. 129). The site of this former activity was
visited, but no cacti were seen there, though it
was afterwards ascertained that similar effects
were still being produced in a neighbouring
district. At Boat Key, which we did not have an
opportunity to visit, there occurs an Opuntia
which Dr. N. L. Britton has indentified as
O. inermis, and is quite distinct from any of the
prickly-pears seen by us in Florida.

Localities in which prickly-pear was said to
be abundant, but which were not visited for want
of time, were the Indian River, near the sea, and
at Fort Pierce. Dr. Britton informed us that
a tuberous-rooted species, O. austrina, grew
thickly in areas in Southern Florida.

In addition to the various species mentioned
above, any others which came under notice were
also examined, among them being O. bentoni,
Griffiths (1912 b, p. 26), an Opuntia from the
Southern States (Florida to Texas) very closely
resembling the Queensland O. inermis.t Various
species or varieties included under the name of
“« Mission Pear ’’ were met with along the south-
ern border of the United States, but always in
a state of cultivation or semi-cultivation. Atten-
tion was given to the collections of Cactacee in
the botanie or other public gardens in New York,
Washington (D.C.), St. Louis, San Antonio
(Texas), Riverside (California), and Los Angeles
(Cal.), and in the plant introduction gardens at
Brownsville (Texas) and Chico (California).

__*A-variety of O. dillentt was met with in Florida,
with spines paler and somewhat more slender than those
occurring in the typical plant. It evidently approached
in character Opuntia tuna as interpreted by Britton. It
grew along with the typical form of O. dillenii,
and was apparently indistinguishable from it except in
respect to the character mentioned. O. opuntia is more
commonly known under the name C. vulgaris, Mill.
Mr. Burkill (1911, p. 287) refers to it as O. nana, Visiani,
and mentions, apparently in error, that its home is Central
America, instead of Eastern U.S.A.

+O. allairii, Griffiths (19090, pp. 83, 84), from
Eastern Texas, also seems to be related to our Dulacca
pest pear. Specimens of O. bentonii were seen in the New
York Botanical Gardens,
63

FUNGOID ENEMIES OF THE PRICKLY
PEAR.

‘“‘Buack Rot’’ or ‘‘SHOTHOLE.”’

These are two different manifestations of a
disease produced by the fungus Gleosporium
lunatum, Ellis and Everhart (1891, p. 82). It
has been briefly referred to by Dr. Griffiths
(1908 a, p. 28) and by Messrs. Hunter, Pratt, and
Mitchell (1912, p. 17), the causal fungus being
indicated by them as a Perisporium. It was the
most destructive prickly-pear malady noticed by
the Commission, though its full effect was not
seen, as its attacks are particularly dangerous to
its host-plant during spring, more especially if
weather conditions be humid during that season
of the year. Dr. Griffiths, Mr. Hunter, and Mr.
Mitchell, all of whom have had long experience
in prickly-pear matters, regard this Glceosporium
as being capable of doing more damage than any
other fungus which they have seen attacking
Opuntias.

The disease, which occurs quite commonly
in Texas, was first seen by the Commission on
Mr. W. Sinclair’s farm, near San Antonio,
Texas, where it was found to attack the various
Texan species of Opuntia, O. lindheimeri, O.
ferruginispina, and their allies. Here, as elsc-
where, a gummy exudate was commonly found
associated, but it does not seem to be a necessary
symptom or effect of the malady. No serious
effects were seen during the visit of the Com-
mission (October, November, 1913).

It usually manifests itself by the presence
of greyish areas of dead plant tissue extending
through the joint, these portions being cut off
from the living tissues of the Opuntia by a layer
of corky material. Not infrequently the diseased
piece drops out, and then one observes the ‘‘shot-
hole’’ effect produced on the attacked segment.
These holes may be few or numerous; they may
be quite small or they may reach an inch or more
in diameter.* The malady may be associated
with the presence of small spots which are gener-
ally confined to one surface. Each of such spots
is seen as a rounded, sunken, grey area on whose
dry surface there may usually be seen abundant
tiny, dark, fruiting bodies (acervuli) of the fun-
gus. When these ‘‘spots’’ are very numerous
they. do not extend deeply into the plant tissue,
whereas when they are relatively few they pene-
trate the joint, the fungus mycelium readily
finding its way through the segment, its lateral
ramifications being usually limited by the layer
of corky material which is produced ‘by the host
tissues in response to the injury.t In some cases
the fungus was found to have developed too
rapidly for the plant tissues to prevent the
advance, and in such cases the ‘‘black rot’’ stage
had taken place. It is this condition which is
produced in humid weather during spring.

Some dead and dried joints were placed
under moist conditions, and it was found that
the diseased areas soon produced abundance of
salmon-coloured conidia or spores, differing from
those generally met with in Gleosporium in that
they were uniseptate. The mycclium is appar-
ently able to survive in the dead tissues, and to

 

* Dr, Griffiths’s photograph of O. pachona shows the
presence of a large “ shot-hole” evidently produced by
this Glceosporium (1910, plate 22).

+ The development of this protective layer is brought
about by mechanical injury also.

Ga

a

produce crops of spores when the more favour-
able conditions of springtime return.

Dr. Wolf has published a good account of
the malady, which he had under careful observa-
tion for a long time (1912a, p. 116). He men-
tions that the disease at first causes the forma-
tion of soft, sunken, brownish areas on which in
a few days abundance of flesh-coloured acervuli
appear. A few weeks later these areas become
dry and hard and the acervuli blacken. When
infection occurs late in the season or upon old
joints, the formation of conidia in these acervuli
does not occur. He goes on to say that under
favourable conditions of temperature and mois-
ture young segments are readily attacked, rot-
ting setting in very rapidly, and from a single
centre of infection only a few days may be
necessary for the fungus to produce a decay
extending through the joint. Infection was found
to occur in the spring, and to depend entirely
on the climate and on the age of the segment.
He did not observe the occurrence of new infec-
tion in the field on old joints, and stated that the
fungus was able to gain admission only while the
plant tissues were quite young and _ scarcely
differentiated. Rainy or cloudy days in spring
were found to be favourable to the growth of the
fungus as well as the Opuntia, and it is on such
days that the Gloosporium is able to invade the
host and produce a serious rotting. The effect
is thus to destroy the young growth. Even on
old infected segments, the fungus is capable of
developing further during rainy weather, and
may bring about the destruction of the joint.

Wolf made repeated attempts in greenhouses
and in the laboratory to inoculate segments of
various ages by planting mycelium on the surface
of the joint, as well as by applying conidia by
means of a spraying apparatus. These were all un-
successful, but if a wound were made with a
scalpel or needle infection followed, the fungus
developing very rapidly, and penetrating through
the segment in the case of young joints, but
spreading slowly and not penetrating deeply in
the case of older segments. He also enclosed
some cactus bugs Chelinidea -vittigera, Uhler,
under a belljar along with healthy and diseased
young segments, but there was no evidence that
the insects had infected the former. However,
he thinks that they may be the cause of some of
the infection in the field, especially since they
are abundant during the spring. Mr. Hunter
(1912, p. 17) also believes that Chelinidea may
act in this way.

Dr. W. Orton and Miss E. C. Field of the
Division of Pathology, Bureau of Plant Industry,
Washington, D.C., kindly made cultures of this
Gleosporium from specimens forwarded by the
Commission from San Antonio, Texas, and found
the cultural characters of the fungus to fully
agree with the account given by Dr. Wolf (pp.
118, 119). The latter failed to attain the ascig-
erous condition in his cultures, even after three
years, but commonly found it in the field about
a mouth after the formation of the areas (p.
122), the perithecia occurring on both surfaces
of the joint, and arising from the stroma of the
old acervuli. This stage was recognised as
Spherella opuntie, Hillis and Everhart. Miss
Field was unable to find the ascigerous or Glome-
rella stage of the Glcosporium, but found a
species of Colletotrichum fruiting in abundance
jn one of the specimens sent from Texas.
64

In forwarding cultures of the fungus grown
on string-bean agar, Miss Ficld wrote as
follows :—

‘‘T have grown this organism on the follow-
ing media:—Corn-meal mush, corn-meal agar,
Irish potato cylinders, Irish potato agar, rice,
synthetic agar, and wheat-heads. I find that it
fruits best on string-bean agar, wheat-heads, and
Irish potato agar. The following is the formula
we use in making up the string-bean agar :—

‘To each 500 grams of clean string-beans
(rinsed in tap and distilled water) add 1,000 c.c.
of distilled water. Steam one hour. Filter
through paper. Let cool, add 20 grams of
agar-agar to each liter of solution, let stand till
powder is moist, stir and steam for one-half hour.

‘ Stir, tube, plug with cotton and sterilize
for 15 minutes at 11 Ib. pressure.

‘‘The wheat-heads are simply placed in
tubes, water added and sterilized for 20 minutes
at 11 lb. pressure.’”’ ‘

These cultures have been handed over to
Dr. White, the officer in charge of the Prickly-
pear Experiment Station at Dulacca.

Sun Scab.

A disease very commonly met with in
prickly-pear regions in Texas is that known as
Sun Seald, which is usually confined to the older
parts of the plant. Affected joints give rise to
quite healthy segments.

The symptoms, which are described by Wolf
(1912a, p. 128), are as follows :—Discolouration
commences around the areoles as well as else-
where, and then a series of more or less concen-
trie brownish zones makes its appearance around
each of these areas, frequently extending in such
a way as to meet other ‘‘spots’’ so that quite
commonly the whole segment may be ‘‘scalded’’
and greyish-brown in appearance. The surface
becomes sealy, and on some of these scales one
may recognise small dark areas indicating the
presence of fungi. A cursory examination made
by us revealed the presence of dark-brown
hyphe as well as a few spores of a Cladosporium
or Macrosporium type of fungus, but it appears
doubtful whether the condition is due to the
presence of fungi as Wolf suggests. It seems
probable that the popular idea is correct—
1.e., that the disease is due to unfavourable
climatic conditions. These would tend to cause
the development of corky tissue below the epi-
dermis in order to prevent excessive loss of mois-
ture. The fungoid infection would thus be
secondary.

Wolf (1918a, p. 128) found on O. lind-
heimeri a fungus associated with this condition,
and has identified it as Hendersonia opuntia,
Ellis and Everhart, which was originally
described in 1902 from QO. ficus-indica from
Alabama. This fungus, which he regards as
being the cause of the disease, is said to gain an
entrance through the stomata, ramifying through
the epidermal cells and eventually blocking the
stomata, giving rise to the scalded appearance.
As a result of the presence of the parasite in the
epidermal tissue system, the cuticle and the
upper part of the epidermal wall become

ruptured and pushed up, allowing air to entet—
hence the grey colour and flaky appearance of
the diseased areas. Besides, there 1s a forma-
tion of corky issue by the plant,* the fungus
thus being prevented from invading the deeper
portions of the joint. — The pycnidia _ are
developed in the aggregations of fungoid tissue
in the stomata. He goes on to say that this is a
very serious disease of the prickly-pear, since
the fundamental tissues gradually disintegrate,
and the segment dies as the result of the for-
mation of fungoid plugs in the stomata and of
the corky layers below the epidermis, all
photosynthetic activities being prevented.

The fact must not be overlooked, however,
that unfavourable weather conditions may
account for all the symptoms of sun scald, the
fungi being then regarded as secondary. In a
later paper, Wolf (1912 b, p. 295) seems to have
modified his opinions slightly, as he states that,
though Sorauer is of opinion that it may be due
to unfavourable atmospheric conditions, it ‘‘may
also be due in part at least. . . . to the presence
of a fungus, Hendersonia opuntie.”’

Heald and Wolf (1912, p. 101) briefly refer
to sun scald, and mention that a species of Rhab-
dospora may sometimes be associated with the
Hendersonia, but that it is apparently only of
secondary importance.

Buiack Spot DISEASE.

This malady, which is due to the presence of
a fungus, Perisporium wrightii, Berk. and Curtis,
is not serious, nor is it as commonly met with as
the other two diseases of prickly-pear. It was
seen on various species of flat Opuntias near
Robbstown, Brownsville, and San Antonio, in
Texas. As already mentioned, Dr. Griffiths
(1908a, p. 28), as well as Messrs. Hunter, Pratt,
and Mitchell (1912, p. 17), refer to the Gleo-
sporium disease under the name of Perisporium.

In its early stage the black spot malady
resembles that caused by Gleosporium, both
appearing as small, rounded, smoky areas. below
the epidermis of the joint. Later on these spots
become quite dark, on account of the formation
of abundance of black-fruiting bodies or peri-
thecia which become elevated above the general
surface of the joint. These perithecia may be
readily scraped off the surface, when a smoky
area is seen below, indicating the presence of dark-
coloured mycelium within the plant tissues, the
fruiting portion of the fungus having developed
through the stomata. Surrounding each ‘‘ black
spot ’’ is a yellowish or chlorosed zone. Later
on, there appears in the diseased area a brown
discolouration somewhat similar to that seen in
sun scald, and this is no doubt due to the forma-
tion in each case of a cork layer below the in-
jured tissues. As a rule by this time the black
spot condition has disappeared. One may find
all stages on the same segment, and even when

abundant no appreciable damage appears to be
done to the plant.

* Wolf allowed some segments to partially dry out in
the laboratory, and found that a cork fiver a deveined
ag a means of checking the loss of water, this layer being
similar to that found in joints affected by “Sun Scald.”
He suggests that the fungus, by destroying part of the
cuticle and epidermis, exposes the underlying tissue, and
in order to prevent excessive evaporation the plant
protects itself by interposing a layer of corky tissue.
 

 

 

 

 

Photo., Bureau of Entomology, Dept. Agriculture, U.S.A.
Fig. 35.—Joint of an Opuntia from Marble Falls, Texas, showing the work of Marmara opuntiella.

 

 

 

 

36.—An Opuntia Moth-borer—Melitara prodenialis—which attacks Prickly Pear in parts of the United
States and the West Indies. a, larva; ce, cocoon; f, pupa; g, moth. (Reproduced by Mr. O. Swezey,
H.1.S.P.A., Honolulu, from the original in the Proc. Entomol. Soc., Washington, ii., 1896, p. 132).

 
Dr, Wolf (1912 a, pp. 124-7), who gives some
good figures relating to this disease, mentions
that new infections may occur on the segment
regardless of its age, entry of spores probably
taking place through the stomata.

Movu.p.

Professor Hammond, of the New Mexico
Agricultural College at Mesilla Park, referred,
during an interview, to the presence locally of
a black mould, a Phycomycete, which caused
damage to O. arborescens, one of the Cylindro-
puntias.

Diseases OF UNCERTAIN ORIGIN.

In addition to the abovementioned diseases,
there are some others whose cause is not known.
Dr. Griffiths informed the Commission that in
the spring (April) in the vicinity of San An-
tonio, Texas, after a period of vigorous growth
followed by astretch of cold wet weather, prickly-
pear plants may lose 70 per cent. of their joints,
but he could not suggest a satisfactory explana-
tion. He has referred to it in one of his publica-
tions (1908a, p. 30).

Gumming.—A Gummosis was seen frequently
in South-Eastern Texas, where it did not appear
to be accompanied by either fungoid or insect
injuries. In other parts of the United States
one often meets with gumming associated with
the activities of the larve, and occasionally adults,
of certain beetles (Gerstackeria and Moneilema)
and moths (Melitara), But in the Brownsville
area definite insect injuries were not found to be
connected with the condition, though in some cases
there seemed to be indications of bug punctures.
Near San Antonio, gumming was seen to occur
along the extremities of 0. monacantha (culti-
vated) and O. lindheimert. In some cases no
other condition was found to occur along with it,
though in others either Gloeosporium disease or
‘* scald ’’? might be present. A casual microscopic
examination failed to reveal the presence of any
organisms in the exudation, which was found to
be confined within the plant to certain vessels of
the vascular bundle.

In the Brownsville district the gummosis was
seen more commonly and was associated with
other maladies. Its earlier stages could be
detected by the presence of small disc-like swell-
ings whose yellowish colour showed through the
translucent overlying tissues. On puncturing
them, a quantity of yellowish-white gummy fluid
oozed out quite readily. These apparently burst
under certain conditions, the wounded area
becoming infected by various organisms, Gloo-
sporium being one of them. Mbisture seemed to
favour the malady. Certain species, e.g., O.
robusta and its allies, appeared to be more sus-
ceptible and to be more injured by the succeed-
ing infection, death of the joints occurring in
many cases observed, as .a result of the rot which
set in. ,

In some instances very early stages were
found in which the first indication seen in section
was the presence in the central tissue of the joint
of a watery-looking isolated area. The normal
parenchyma became converted into a clear trans-
lucent tissue which degenerated into a gum-like
substance, the latter being surrounded and limited
by a well-marked callus formed by the surround-
ing plant-tissues. The central parts of the dis-
eased area became brown. When the gum was

65

able to exude, the injury was slight, and the part
healed over or else a cavity formed and the
progress of the disease was arrested. The gum
after escape hardened and commonly blackened,
as a result of the attacks of saprophytic fungi.

Sometimes the swellings were very consider-
able, and suggest those described by Messrs.
Tlunter, Pratt, and Mitchell (1912, p. 25) as
being caused by the presence of the larva of a
moth, Melitara junctolineella, Since it appeared
to be quite local on the plant, it is suggested that
this gummosis, which was insufficiently investi-
gated, may in part be due to the introduction of
some ferment by a plant bug. It may, in part at
least, be due to excessive root pressure during wet
seasons, aS the so-called ‘‘ fat pear’’ is. The
Commission saw cases of the latter in South-
Eastern Texas, the segments being considerably
swollen in their mid-region. The fact that
escape of the excess of fluid is generally followed
by a return of the plant to a healthy condition
tends to confirm this opinion.

Many fungi, some of which are said to be
pathogenic, other than those referred to above,
have been recorded from North American
Opuntias. These have been listed by Farlow and
Seymour (1888, 1891). One of us has already
published an extended list (Tryon, 1911, p.
16-17).

DESTRUCTION BY RODENTS.

It was noticed that in certain districts in
Texas, e.g., near Alice, Brownsville, and Sinton,
more or less damage had been done to species of
Opuntia by a so-called ‘‘ blue rat’’ or ‘‘ wood
rat,’’ more commonly known locally as the ‘‘ pear
rat.’? A captured specimen has been identified
for the Commission by Mr. V. Bailey, of the
United States Bureau of Biological Survey, as
Neotoma micropus, Baird.*

The ‘‘ house ’’ is a characteristic structure
piled up around the roots of an Opuntia or of
a mesquite tree (Prosopis glandulosa), and con-
sisting of a mass of dead twigs and prickly-pear
débris such as fibre, spines, and dead joints. In
addition one may notice the presence of cotton,
horse and cow dung, and any available rubbish.
The mound varies in height from a few inches
up to three or four feet, and may be a few feet
in width. Below the ‘‘ house ’’ is an excava-
tion which may be roofed over with earth or
debris to form a tunnel with several entrances,
and it is in this chamber that the nest is located.
The latter is carefully lined with grass or
mesquite leaves, though other plants and even
cotton wool may be used as well. In order to
still further protect the rat against its numerous
enemies such as hawks, owls, snakes, and
carnivora, prickly-pear spines may be strewn
around and above the entrances as well as for
a short distance along the paths leading to the
“ house.’”? At Brownsville and elsewhere, it was
noticed that the animals had carefully gnawed
around the areoles of certain spiny species in
such a way that the spine clusters were removed,
and these were then distributed around the
entrances to the nest so as to afford an efficient

* e rodents are spoken of as ‘‘rats,”
and con ene ie Murida, their babi ts, as stated by
Mr. Bailey (1905, p. 111), are quite different from the

‘mals to which the term rat is generally applied. These
cue rats are very clean and feed on vegetable food.

Their flesh is said to be very good eating.
66

defence.* Fragments of the small-jointed cactus
(O. leptocaulis) were also used for the same
purpose. Oceasionally partly eaten prickly-
pear segments were scen close to mounds built
around mesquite stumps, and had evidently been
brought from a distance hy the rat, as’ there
were no Opuntias near by.

Joints are readily devoured in situ, and,
as just mentioned, some may be carried a consider-
able distance to the ‘‘ house.’’ The stomach
contents of a captured animal appeared to
consist entirely of cactus pulp. Some weeds
close to a nest were found to have been eaten
down by some rodent, presumably a pear rat.

This animal gnaws into the stems and bases
of the plant around which the house is built,
often entirely ringbarking them. Sometimes the
injury does not extend inwards beyond the
woody cylinder, but at other times the branch
may be almost or entirely cut through. In spite
of the rapidity with which the Cactacew can
form a hard callus to protect an injured surface,
it often happens that decay sets in which may
lead to the destruction of the entire branch.
More usually, however, the branch bends over,
allowing the distal parts to reach the ground,
where they may strike root, and thus it is quite
a common sight to see a cactus clump with the
centre entirely destroyed and often containing
a conspicuous rat mound, while the surrounding
mass really consists of a large number of
independent but intermingled plants which
have originated in this way. Thus the animal
may act as a distributor of prickly-pear.
However, many instances were met with where
it had been a very efficient destroyer. It was
quite common to see areas near Alice where
scarcely an Opuntia remained alive, though the
presence of abraded stumps and numerous ‘‘nests’’
told of former activity of these rodents. In this
locality, within a radius of about 30 feet one
could frequently count nearly twenty such
stumps. Though extensive damage was seen at
Brownsville, the most marked results were
noticed in the more open country which was
lightly timbered with mesquite trees—e.g., near
Alice and Sinton.

In order to become fully acquainted with
the food habits of the Neotoma, local inquiry
was made at each of the Southern Texas towns
visited. Some observers referred to the wide-
spread destruction of prickly-pear by rats at
certain times, the animals migrating in large
numbers at intervals of some years. Some Mexi-
can farmers stated that they found these rodents
oceasionally attacking cultivated plants, more
especially beans, but that they generally confined
themselves to a diet of Opuntia. Another stated
that they ate house refuse and also grain such as
maize, invading the barns for the latter. Mr. R.
I. Moore, a farmer near Sinton, informed the
Commission that these pear rats fed on cactus
and mesquite, but occasionally entered his barn
end took away some corn, though they did not do
any appreciable damage, nor did they attack his
growing crops as far as he knew. They would,
however, take cotton bolls, use the seeds, and

 

* Certain other wood rats have a similar habit, ¢.g.,
Neotoma mexicana, Baird, in and about whose nest Dr.
Merriam (1890, p. 67) has mentioned that cactus spines
are distributed in abundance, no doubt as a protection
against coyotes and skunks.

distribute the cotton on their mounds. He did
not think them capable of exterminating the pear,
theugh they greatly injured it. Another farmer,
however, was positive that they had eaten out the
cactus completely from his farm. Another
farmer, Mr. J. J. Love (from Alice district),
referred to the great destruction of prickly-pear
occasioned by the periodical visits of swarms of
these animals, whose presence he considered benc-
ficial on account of their activity in eliminating
cactus, though they might take grain or cotton.

Prof. D. E. Merrill, of the New Mexico
Agricultural College at Mesilla Park, referred to
the occurrence of an allied species, Neotoma albi-
gula, Hartley, known locally as the ‘‘pack rat’’
on account of its habit of constructing a mound
resembling that of N. micropus referred to above.
This rodent fed on the joints and fruit of both
flat end cylindrical Opuntias, and would enter
granaries in search of grain, sunflower seeds, &e.

In company with Prof. J. J. Thornber, of the
University of Arizona, the Commission visited
some localities near Tucson, and found that this
species, N. albigula, was not uncommon. Its
habits were seen to be similar to those of its
Texan relative, though the destruction of prickly-
pear was not nearly so great. The stem-joints
and fruit of both flat and cylindrical Opuntias
were attacked, though the most damage appeared
to be occasioned to such shrub-like species as O.
arizonica.

Rats, probably belonging to a species of Neo-
toma, were seen occasionally amongst clumps of
O. occidentalis near San Diego in Southern
California.

Mr. Vernon Bailey, in his ‘‘Biological
Survey of Texas’’ (1905), referred to the distri-
bution and habits of certain wood rats (Neotoma,
spp.) in that State. The nests or mounds of all
are, as a rule, similar to that of N. micropus
referred to earlier, though some species—e.g., N.
albigula, N. mexicana, and others—prefer to build
in gullies and along cliffs. The species and
varieties referred to by Mr. Bailey are—(1) N.
floridana rubida, Bangs, (East Texas and Loui-
siana) ; (2) N. floridana baileyt, Merriam (North
Texas and Oklahoma to North Nebraska); (8)
N. floridana attwateri, Mearns (West Texas) ;
(4) N. micropus, Baird (Western and Central
Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and parts of
Mexico and South Texas); (5) N. albigula,
Hartley (West Texas and New Mexico) ; (6) N.
mexicand, Baird (Texas). This enumeration
does not include all the species of Neotoma
occurring in the United States, since Dr. Merriam
(1899, p. 94) mentions two wood rats, N. fuscipes
and N. cinerea, as occurring in the northern
part of California. The food of the various
species mentioned by Bailey consists of acorns,
green leaves and berries of various kinds, wild
grapes, walnuts, fruits, stems and joints of
Cactacee, seeds, nuts, mesquite bean-pods, and
grain of any kind.*

_ In an interview, Mr. Bailey referred to the
diversified character of their food, which in-
cluded, in addition to those already mentioned,
maize, cotton-seed, pine-nuts, melon-seeds—in
fact, any kind of wild or cultivated seed which

_ _* At least one species, N. drummondii, Richardson,
lives in the far north-west of Canada and British Columbia,
beyond the regions where Cactacem occur. (Preble, 1908,
p. 176.) This species has been removed from the genus
Neotoma and made the type of the genus Teonoma Gray
(Palmer, 1909, p. 859).

 
could be stored up for winter use. He also
stated that these animals fed dargely on cactus
during dry seasons, depending ‘on it for much of
their supply of moisture. In his work (p. 112)
he mentioned that ordinarily these rats were of
little economic importance, owing no doubt to
their spread being controlled by their natural
enemies, e.g., hawks, owls, rattlesnakes, and car-
nivora. During the interview he stated that in
some parts of Texas and Arizona wood rats had
become sufficiently numerous to lead to the
receipt by the Bureau of Biological Survey at
Washington, D.C., of requests for information
regarding means for their destruction, this result
being no doubt due to the diminution in the
number of carnivora and snakes frequenting those
localities.

Both Mr. Hanshaw, the Chief of that
Bureau, and Mr. Bailey were of opinion that the
introduction into Australia of any of these rodents
would be dangerous, since they would not confine
would be dangerous, since they would not confine
their attention to prickly-pear, nor would they
destroy it except locally during seasons when
other food was scarce, so that the total injury
which they might occasion would be quite in-
sufficient justification for such action.

Dr. Merriam, formerly Chief of the Bureau,
also stated that reliance could not be placed on
the ecacticidal habits of any of these rodents,
and moreover, that these animals occasionally
served indirectly to spread prickly-pear.

Though prickly-pear enters very largely into
the diet of certain species, it will be recognised
that the introduction of these rodents could not
be recommended on account of the probability
of their becoming a nuisance.

Besides the various species of Neotoma, other
rodents such as jack rabbits, cotton-tail rabbits,
and some gophers, were mentioned by Professors
Thornber, Merrill, and Hammond as_ being
destructive to prickly-pear, particularly the less
spiny species, during winter and early spring,
and especially during dry seasons, more suitable
food being scarce during such times. Mr. J. D.
Mitchell had observed the same result in Texas,
while the Commission noticed injuries to Opun-
tias caused by various rodents in Texas, New
Mexico, Arizona, California, and Kansas. Dr.
Griffiths (1909a, p. 19) and also Dr. Wooten
(1911, pp. 14-17) referred to their destruction of
young and relatively spineless plants.

Mr. Bailey in the work mentioned earlier
(1905) has stated incidentally that he found
parts of prickly-pear, especially the fruits or
seeds, in the alimentary tract of certain squirrels,
Ammospermophilus interpres (p. 83), Citellus
variegatus buckleyi, Slack (p. 85), C. variegatus
grammarus, Say (p. 86), and C. tridecimlineatus
pallidus, Allen (p. 87).

Amongst the rodents which may utilise
prickly-pear plants for shelter and occasionally
for food are the Texan cotton rat, Sigmodon hes-
pidus texanus, Aud. and Bach. (p. 115) ; certain
gophers, Thomomys aureus lactuquilla, Bailey (p.
134), and 7. perditus, Merriam; Dipodomys ela-
tor, Merriam (p. 148), and D. merriami (p. 150) ;
the jack rabbits, Lepus texanus, Waterhouse (p.
153), and L. floridanus chapmant, Allen (p. 156) ;
as well as the so-called prairie dog, Cynomys
ludovicianus, Ord. It must be remarked that the
above list of rodents refers to the species found
in Texas, and would doubtless be greatly

67

lengthened if work similar to that carried out by
Mr. Bailey were undertaken in other parts of
America. The common jack rabbit of Arizona,
which is known to feed on prickly-pear when
other food is scarce, is Lepus arizonie.

_ Mr. Bailey (1905, p. 75) found parts of
prickly-pear plants in the digestive tract of the
mountain sheep, Ovis mexicanus Merriam.

DESTRUCTION BY INSECT ENEMIES,

In December, 1912, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture published a bulletin by Messrs.
Hunter, Pratt, and Mitchell, dealing with the
principal cactus insects of the United States.
It contains a short account of some of the more
important of them, as well as some fine illus-
trations of the insects and their work. It also
includes a list of injurious species, together with
their known parasites, and of the scavengers and
other insects more or less incidentally associated
with cacti. This work has been freely used in
the writing of this portion of the report.

__ The chief enemies of the prickly-pears are
either beetles, plant-bugs, moths, or diptera.

Tue CoLEoprerous PEsts.
Cactus Longicorns, Moneilema, spp.

The members of this genus of ‘‘ Cactus
Longicorns ’’ are rather large, wingless, generally
black beetles (C.I., pl. 1),* which in the adult
stage feeds on the segments of Opuntias, but
which in the larval condition bore down into the
joints and stems and even the roots, feeding on
the internal tissues, a large tunnel being formed.
The presence of larve is often indicated by the
occurrence of a hard, black, gummy-like exudate
from the plant at the point of entry of the larva
(C.L., pl. 2). Pupation takes place in an im-
perfect cocoon, generally just below a joint lying
on the ground. This cocoon, in the case of M.
crassum at least, is made of fibre of the food-
plant and covered externally with sand. There
is said to be one generation per season. The
adults (of M/. crassum) are commonest in April
and May, and again in September (C.L., pp.
13-14), or even later according to our observa-
tions. This suggests the occurrence of two
broods.

It is stated that eight species are known to
affect the roots and stems, but some of these are
recorded only from Mexico. The common species
in Texas are M. crassum (Le Conte) and M. ulkea
(Horn), M. spoliatum (Horn) being less common.
In Kansas there oceur M. anulatum (Say) and M.
semipunctatum, Le Conte (Popenoe, 1877, 1878).
The abovementioned species are recorded as in-
juring Opuntia, M. crassum, attacking Echino-
cereus also. Hubbard (1899) found M. gigas (Le
Conte) to be an enemy of the giant cactus (Car-
negica gigantea) in Arizona. Schwarz (1896,
1899) has also referred to some of these species
of Moneilema as injuring cacti.

G. H. Horn in his monograph (1885, pp.
180-190) refers to the following species:—M.
anulatum, Say (Colorado, New Mexico, Texas) ;
M. appresswm, Le Conte (Arizona, New Mexico) ;
M. gigas, Le Conte (Arizona) ; ML. semipunctatum,
Le Conte (Lower California); 3 lavigatum,

* The abbroviation “ C.1.” is used to indicate Messrs.
Hunter, Pratt, acid Mitchell’s paper on “The Principal
Gaatua Insects of the United States,’ 1912,
68

Blanch. (New Mexico) ; M. armatum, Lee (Colo-
rado, Texas) ; VM. oblusum, Lee (Utah) ; M. spolr-
atum, Horn (Lower California) ; M. forte, Lee;
M. subrugosum (2), Blanch. (Lower California) ;
M. wlkei, Worn (Texas); M. variolare, Thoms.
(Mexico); 4. albopunctatum, Lee; M. crassum,
Lee (S.W. Texas).

They are often gregarious and may be met
with in large numbers. Individuals may reach a
considerable size, an example of M. armatum col-
lected at Tucson, Arizona, measuring 32 mm. in
length and 23 mm. in breadth.

The Commission saw no definite evidence of
the action of this genus of beetles during its
investigation in the cactus belt in the United
States (October, November, and early Decem-
ber), though individual adults of M. crassum
were taken near Sinton, Texas, on O. lindhei-
meri, and of M. armatum, near Tucson, in Ari-
zona, under plants of O. arbuscula, O. spinosior,
and O. fulgida, apparently overwintering under
the latter circumstances. Fragments of a Monei-
lema were found under O. missouriensis at
Wallace, in Kansas. Injuries resembling those
described and illustrated (C.I.) were seen in the
stems of O. fulgida and allied Cylindropuntias,
but the larva whenever met with, which was
seldom, was found to be a Melitara (vide infra).
Being wingless and therefore endowed with
but indifferent means for extending its range,
its size and local prevalence would suggest that
it might prove highly destructive within a
circumscribed area.

Prof. D. E. Merrill, of the New Mexico
Agricultural Station at Mesilla Park, kindly
supplied the following information regarding
the local species, M. armatum, which he found
to attack O. arborescens, O. whipplei, and allied
species of Cylindropuntias, but not, as far as he
had observed, any of the flat Opuntias. An
adult, under experiment, was found to feed on
any species of Opuntia, but under natural con-
ditions the Cylindropuntias constituted the food-
plants. The eggs (85 to 50) are laid in June
and July, each one being placed in a slit made
by the female in the upper edge of a joint, the
larve, on hatching, boring their way down into
the stem-joints. They commonly come out of the
plant near the ground, the stalk being frequently
killed as a result of the attack. The insect passes
through winter as a larva. The chrysalis period
is short, amounting apparently to some two or
three weeks. The adult breeds out during the
latter part of June, and will remain alive for
many months. On account of these facts, he
suggested that the adult would be the best stage
for transportation should it be decided to send
living specimens to Australia.

Mr. C. H. Popenoe, of the Bureau of Ento-
mology, referred to the widespread destruction
of the common prickly-pear, O. missouriensis,
caused by M. armatum near Wallace, in Eastern
Kansas. A visit was paid to the locality early
in December, but only a few fragments of the
insect were seen. Though a great deal of injury
had been caused to the Opuntia, at least a great
part of it was due to a species of moth, Melitara
dentata (vide infra).

Mr. E. A. Schwarz, the Coleopterologist at
the National Museum, Washington, D.C., stated
that the genus Moneilema was restricted to the

Cactacex, and occurred in the United States in
every section of the dry cactus belt, its species
being important enemies of this group of plants.
Monetilema spp. could be safely introduced into
any other country, though he did not know whether
they would prove to be effective there. The
stunting of the plant was a common result of
the attack.

Mr. W. D. Hunter, the senior author of the
bulletin mentioned above (C.L, 1912), referred
to the fact that Moneilema in its adult condition
may act as a planter on account of its habit
of congregating on young joints, which are often
caused to fall to the ground, where they may take
reot.

Mr. J. D. Mitchell, who accompanied the
Ccmmission during its tour in Southern Texas,
and who is also part author of the bulletin on
Cactus Insects, stated that Moneilema is not
sufficiently abundant in Texas to cause much
destruction of Opuntias there.

No parasites of the genus are listed by
Messrs. Hunter, Pratt, and Mitchell.

Dr. Merrill mentioned the occurrence at
Aicsilla Park, New Mexico, of an unidentified
Cerambycid about two-thirds of the length of
Moneilema and attacking the same species of
Opuntia.

Cenopeus palmeri, Le Conte.

Horn (1889, p. 162) bred out the adult from
Opuntia bernardina (Southern California),
within whose joints the larve feed. It is not re-
ferred to in the text of the bulletin on Cactus
Jusects, so that it may be assumed that it had
not come under. official notice as a serious enemy.
My. Sehwarz, however, when interviewed, stated
that this large longicorn breeds readily in the
jcints and could be easily transported. He had
seen it at times in great numbers at Fort Grant,
Arizona.

A second species of this genus, C. niger,
occurs at San José, Southern California, accord-
ing to information tendered by Mr. Schwarz, but
its food-plants were unknown to him.

The Commission did not have an oppor-
tunity to investigate the habits of either of these
beetles.

Allorhina mutabilis, Gory.

This scarabeid is reported to attack com-
monly the fruits of Cereus in Arizona, but as it
is destructive to various other fruits (C.L., p. 35),
its introduction need not be considered.

Disonycha varicornis, Horn.

Both adults and larve of this flea-beetle are
found in Texas on O. leptocaulis and 0.
arborescens, but are not known to attack any of
the flat Cpuntias. They are surface feeders, and
may occur in such numbers as to kill the host-
plant (C.L., p. 22, pl. 4)..

As the greater number of Queensland prickly-
pears are flat Opuntias, and as O. imbricata, an
ally of O. arborescens, is very locally distributed
in that State, the introduction of Disonycha
would be of little value.
 

 

 

 

Fig. 37.—A Cactus Longicorn Beetle—Moneilema crasswm—which, in Texas, feeds on the joints of cacti, the
larva destroying the internal tissues of the attacked plant. (From “The Principal Cactus Insects of
the U.S.A.,’’ Bulletin 113, Bur. Entomol., U.S.D.A., 1912, plate 1.)

 

 

 

 

 

Photo., Bureau of Entomology, Dept. Agriculture, U.S.A.
i i i ack ik i > Tes of attack by the larva of
Fig. 38.—Echinocercus, showing a black gum-like exudation, the result }

Moneilema crassum, which lives within and destroys the tissues.

 
69

The Cactus Weevils, Gersteckeria, spp.

This group of weevils, which feed exclusively
on cacti, has received the special attention of Mr.
W. D. Pierce, of the Bureau of Entomology
(1907, 1911). The genus consists of about
twenty-two species—eleven in the United States
and eleven in Mexico and Central America.

The adults feed more or less superficially
here and there on the joints, whilst the larvee live
within them.* The latter do not cause much
injury, as they derive their food-supply from the
neighbourhood immediately surrounding the spot
where they were hatched, the larva undergoing its
transformation into the adult within the cavity
which it has made in the segment. They do not
produce any serious effect on the attacked joint,
as a callus is formed by the plant tissue. In the
case of the larva of G. porosa, which breeds in
the flat portion of the joint, the injury may extend
from one surface to the other, and then a ‘‘ shots
hole’”’ effect may be produced. At times, the
injury may be aggravated by the presence of
scavengers, more especially files, but this does not
appear to happen often. Hibernation takes place
under fallen joints (Pierce).

G. (Philopuntia) porosa, Le Conte. —G.
porosa is a wide-spread species, being recorded
from Colorado to Arizona, Texas, and New
Mexico (C.L, p. 30, Pierce, 1911, p. 165). Eggs
are deposited singly in or on the surface, the larva
on hatching living within the flat portion of the
segment. Eventually the grub makes a smail
oval cocoon, about 8 mm. long, from agegluti-
nated fragments of excreta, where it undergoes
its transformation. The injuries caused by the
insect or its larva were found by the Commission
on O. lindheimeri at Laredo and San Antonio,
while at Wallace, Western Kansas, injuries
similar to those caused by the adult weevils were
noted. In the last-named district the species was
prohably either (. porosa or G@. basalis, judging
from its known distribution. Adults of @. porosa
were taken near Tucson, Arizona, on O. arizonica,
O. fulgida, O. spinosior, O. mammillata, and O.
arbuscula. Myr. Pierce, who identified the speci-
mens, mentioned that this species was greatly
parasitised by undetermined hymenoptera, a
statement which we were able to confirm by per-
sonal observations at Laredo, Texas, where several
hymenopterous larve were collected from a cocoon
of this species.

_ G. (Philopuntia) nobilis, Le» Conte-—This
species is rather larger than the former, and mea-
sures about 7 mm. in length. Its eggs are deposited
singly at the base of an arcole preferably on the
upper edge of a joint. Hence the larval injuries
are more or less terminal, and associated with
them there is, in addition to the insect excreta,
a black exudation of the hardened mucilage of
the plant. The latter is said (C.I., p. 30) to
interfere with the development of new growth.
The blackening is due to the growth of fungi.

The adult and larval stages were seen by
us near Sinton attacking O. lindheimeri and
related species. The adult is black, clothed with
brownish-coloured scales and with five conspicu-
ous patches of white scales. The elytra have

 

* This remark does not apply to G. hwbbardi according

to our observations, ae

Seven coste. ‘The larva is a small, white, oblong,
footless grub with a glossy brown head and with
transverse folds or wrinkles on each body-seg-
ment, there being isolated short brown hairs on
each side of the last two segments. In the Bul-
letin on Cactus Insects (p. 48, and Pierce, 1911,
p. 164) the host is quoted as O. engelmanni, and
the distribution given as Southern and Eastern
Texas (p. 30). Since O. engelmanmi does not
occur in those districts, the name evidently refers
to O. lindheimeri and its numerous allied varie-
ties and species commonly met with in that
region. It is figured in CLL, p. 30, fig. 3.

G. (Opuntiaphila) hubbardi, Le Conte.*—In
a@ conversation, Mr. E. Schwarz referred to
extensive destruction of the common Opuntia at
Lake Worth and Crescent City in Florida, and
Selma, Alabama, which he said was caused
by this species, whose larva breeds in the joints.
The host-plant is recorded by Le Conte as O.
vulgaris (C.1., p. 30). In the Bulletin on Cactus
Insects (pp. 30, 43) it is mentioned that the
weevil appeared to follow the work of a moth,
Melitara prodenialis.

A visit was paid to Florida, and the beetle
found on prickly-pears, probably O. austrina at
West Palm Beach. The attacks of the Melitara and
G. hubbardi were seen to cause serious injury to
infested plants, some of them having been killed.
The sparse distribution of the Opuntias in the
locality may have been occasioned by insect
devastation. In all observed cases the moth and
the weevil were associated.

 

* The insect is a very stout-bodied beetle, 8mm. long
and nearly 6mm. broad, and when seen from above has
an ovoid profile. It is of a general black colour with
numerous brown scales, the small areas on the surface
where these are absent appearing as black points.
Commonly individuals appear almost black, owing to the
loss of their white scales by abrasion. Conspicuous
patches of white chalk-like scales are disposed as follows :—
One pointed above on forehead and extending downwards
between the eyes; an elongated one on each shoulder
uniting with the suture, the two forming the commence-
ment of the firstmentioned ; a sinuate band crossing the
elytra at their declivity ; and a band also on their hinder
slope. The femora, tibia, and tarsi of the legs are variously
spotted with patches of these white scales. The elytra are
coarsely ribbed, the interstices containing large punctures
and transverse rings. The rostrum is curved, and when
folded under the insect reaches just beyond the anterior
coxa. The thoraxis much narrowed and coarsely punctured,
and has a single longitudinal dorsal keel occupying the
anterior two-fifths.

The eggs are laid singly each in a perforation made
in the tissue of the joint. These injuries, arising from
oviposition, result in the formation of a well-defined grey
circular spot. The egg is smooth and oval, of a dull
yellowish-white colour, and measures 2 mm. in length by
about 1 mm. in breadth.

The larva is an elongate, transversely wrinkled, footless
grub with a glossy brown head and piceous mandibles.
There are three rows of low conical tubercles on each side
below tho level of the spiracles. Small solitary brown
hairs occur on the hinder segments. The larva feeds
within the joints, and appears to be able to carry on its
operations in moist, discoloured, and even semi-fluid

broken-down tissues.

oon is a pale yellowish oval body 15 mm. long
by a wide, of fia consistency, having a rough
anterior end, and composed of dry plant tissues ene
which pupation takes place usually. It is ee ark.
coloured, a circumstance that is due to the larva ne
fed on the dark disorganised tissue of the gine nae “i i
commonly does. Again, when it has been formed on the
ground, it may have fine particles of sand interwoven in
its walls, and be accordingly of a hard consistency.
G. (Philopuntia) clathratus, Le Conte——In
1903 Prof. Townsend referred to the finding of
this species in abundance in Southern Texas,
breeding in the ends of joints of O. leptocauls.
The larva eats out the tissues, killing the part
affected, and then forms a cell in which it
pupates. Its range is given (C.1., p. 30) as
Colorado to Brownsville (Texas) and Arizona.
Mr. Pierce (1911, p. 165) stated that a clump-
ing of the branches takes place if the infesta-
tion be heavy. Though the ‘‘ witch’s broom ”’
condition of O. leptocaulis was seen by the Com-
mission near San Antonio (Texas), the weevil
was not found.

Other species of Gersteckeria mentioned in
the list given in the Bulletin on Cactus Insects
(pp. 43-44) or in Mr. Pierce’s paper (1911), as
occurring in U.S.A., are G. bifasciata, Gerstec-
ker, reared from larve infesting Echinocactus
setispinus (San Antonio, Texas); G. basalis, Le
Conte, from Colorado and Nebraska; G. tur-
bida, Le Conte, and G. alternata, Pierce, from
Arizona; G. opuntie, Pierce, and G. cactophaga,
Pierce, from Southern Texas; G. fasciata, Pierce,
from Florida; G. tessellata, Pierce, from Colo-
rado; G. profusa, Casey, from Texas, and G.
dilitata, Casey (probably a variety of G. hub-
bardi), from Florida.

The Black Cactus Weevils, Cactophagus, spp.

These are large black weevils allied to Calan-
dra and Sphenophorus. Dr. C. Riley (1888, p.
199), in his article on the ‘‘Food Habits of
North American Calandrin®,’’ stated that, as
far as known, C. validus was restricted to
Opuntias.

The Commission found beetle larvae, corre-
sponding in size and appearance to those of a
large Sphenophorid, feeding in the roots of the
common low-growing prickly-pear (O. missou-
riensis), near Wallace, in Western Kansas. In
one instance the plant had almost succumbed to
its attacks. :

Mr. F. Blaisdell, a Californian entomologist,
was understood to say that he had found C. vali-
dus in great abundance around the bases of
prickly-pear near San Diego in Southern Cali-
fornia. A visit to the locality failed to reveal
the presence of this or any other weevil associ-
ated with Opuntias there (November, 1913).

Cactophagus spinole, Gyll. (syn. G. validus,
Le Conte) has been recorded from California
end Arizona. C. hubbardi, Schwarz, which forms
tunnels in the giant cactus Carnegiea gigantea,
in Arizona (Hubbard, 1899; Schwarz, 1899), is
capable of living for at least four years, accord-
ing to observations recorded by Schwarz (1901,
p. 368; p. 431).

T. L. Casey published in 1892 a systematic
arrangement of the genus Cactophagus.

_ Sphenophorus acupunctatus, Gyll., was
stated by some local entomologists to have been
found associated with prickly-pear in the region
between San Bernardino (Southern California)
and Arizona, but Mr. Blaisdell said that both
this species and its ally, 8. yucca, Horn, were
associated exclusively with Yucea plants. Speci-
mens were not found by the Commission during
ite short visit to the San Diego district,

70

Even if these Sphenophorids were cactus
destroyers, their introduction into Australia
would be unwise, as one species of the group
feeds indifferently on palms, bananas, and
sugar-cane, and another on the two last-
named plants. Some, however, appear to be
restricted in their dietary to one plant—e.g.,
those infesting Yucca spp.

Other beetles.
Other beetles which have been mentioned
(C.L, pp. 42-44) as enemies of cacti are the
following :—

Onychobarius mysticus, Casey, on O. lepto-
caulis in Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico, and on
O. fulgida in Arizona.

Trichochrous texanus, Le Conte, sometimes
injures the flowers of Opuntias in New Mexico
and Texas to such an extent that fruiting is

prevented, but it is probably not confined to the

Cactacex for its food (C.1., p. 32).

THE LEPIDOPTEROUS ENEMIES.

Amongst the moths which feed on prickly-
pears, there are some which are very serious
enemies—viz., Mimorista and the various species
of Melitara.

Mimorista flavidissimalis, Grote.

This small yellowish or  straw-coloured
Pyralid moth is briefly described, and an illus-
tration of its work given, in the Bulletin on
Cactus Insects (p. 21, plate 3). From one to
seven eggs are placed by the female moth on the
upper edge of the stem-joint. On hatching, the
minute grubs make tiny holes through the skin
ef young segments of the host-plant, and so
bore their way into the interior. The cater-
pillar is a smooth, glossy, yellowish-white insect
which when fully grown measures about 11 mm.
There are a few long white hairs occurring
sparsely on the anterior segments especially. The
head and cervical shield are yellow, the latter
bearing two very small black spots. When full-
fed, the larva emerges from the joint and forms
a cocoon resembling paper, within which it
transforms into a shiny, light-brown chrysalis
about 9 mm. long.

The site of this injury is marked by an
exudation of the cell-sap, which, becoming mixed
with silky threads and excreta from the insect,
forms a protecting cover beneath which further
damage is executed. In cases where the wounds
have healed, this foreign matter persists on the
injured areas as dry brown or grey flakes. If
only a few larvee be present, the injury caused by
them is likely to heal, a deformed segment being
the result. If, however, several larve attack,
then the death of the joint is usually the result,
as decay sets in and the part blackens, dries,
and falls. Their importance in checking the
growth of prickly-pear depends upon the fact
that they will attack the youngest shoots as well
as those which are rather older.

_ Since there are several broods in a season,
this moth is a serious enemy to Opuntias. Mr.
Mitchell has estimated that from 50 to 75 per
cent. of all new growth is destroyed through its
ageticy over considerable areas in Southern
Texas, It is stated that in the restricted region
71

where it occurs it is by far the most injurious
cactus pest, and with the exception of the bugs
Chelinidea, spp., is the most déstructive enemy
of the prickly-pear in the United States. It is
' found commonly in Southern Texas, being abun-
dant from May to September, but is rare in
riore westerly localities as far as Arizona.
Mimorista is parasitised by a hymenopteron,
Eiphosoma texana, Cresson (C.I. pp. 20-22, 44).

The work of this moth was seen commonly
on O. lindheimeri and allied species near San
Antonio, Alice, and Brownsville, where there
were noticed dead and occasionally deformed
joints showing typical injuries on the distal end
of one surface (November). Our personal
inquiry in the United States did not lead us to
regard it as being so important an enemy as
Messrs. Hunter and Mitchell did. This may be
explained by the fact that our visit was made
during late autumn when there was little insect
activity. <A little later, one member of the Com-
mission saw considerable damage caused by an
insect, apparently belonging to the same species
which was destroying the buds and very young
growth of Opuntia dillenit, near Guantanamo,
in Cuba.

As far as known, this insect feeds exclusively
on Cactacee, this opinion being held by Dr.
Dyar, of the National Museum, Washington, a
leading authority on American Lepidoptera.

The Cactus Moth Borers, Melitara, spp.
(Phycitide).

This genus of Pyralid moths consists of
several species, all of which are restricted to the
Cactacer, the caterpillars feeding on the inter-
nal tissues of the joints and stems, and usually
bringing about their destruction, being fre-
quently assisted in doing so by the larve of
various scavenging diptera, as well as by the
invasion of micro-organisms.

The genus has been described from a syste-
matic standpoint by G. D. Hulst (1902, p. 429),
in Dr. G. H. Dyar’s ‘‘ List of American Lepi-
doptera.’’ The entomologists interviewed were
unanimous in their opinion that Melitara, spp.,
are restricted to the Cactacer, especially to
Opuntia and Cereus, spp. However, it should
be mentioned that Mr. Hulst, in 1890, stated
that M. prodenialis is a borer in Yucca and
Agave, and that M. dentata lives in Yucea, but,
strange to say, he does not include the Cactacee
in their dietary. However, neither the evidence
of entomological literature nor that of those
investigators competent to express an opinion
with regard to this matter, supports him in
regard to this matter, nor do our own obser-
vations.

As a rule, each species feeds on more than
one kind of cactus, though certain Opuntias
seem to be favoured as food-plants, the species
or group of species, of course, differing in dif-
ferent regions.

In the Bulletin on Cactus Insects (pp. 25-
29), four of these moths are treated of, viz.,
M. junctolineella, Hulst, M. dentata, Grote, M.
prodenialis, Walker, and WM.  fernaldialis,
Hulst. The observations of the authors, how-
ever, refer only to the first named. In addition
to these four there is M. parabates, Dyar, from
Mexieo, The genus extends at least as far south as
Curagao, since Hulst has mentioned that M,

prodenialis had been received‘by Dr. Snellen
from that island. Moreover, we have observed
inland from Barrahona, in South-western San
Domingo, plants of Opuntia dillenti, as well as
of another species, which presented the charac-
teristic injuries occasioned by Melitara, spp.,
and from some of these their larve were taken.
Similar injuries were seen also in Barbados,
where an Opuntia allied to O. dillenii was the
victim.

From what has been recorded, and from
what we have seen, it would appear that these
insects are competent to very seriously injure
and even kill prickly-pear plants. Since they
are often heavily parasitised, their destructive
activity is in such cases not as fully exercised
as it would be were parasites absent. In the
Bulletin on Cactus Inseets (p. 46) there is given
a list of those known. Of the three mentioned,
one is a beetle, one a hymenopteron, and one a
dipteron. Besides these, two hymenoptera are
mentioned which are perhaps parasitic.

The following species may be referred to
in more detail.

Melitara junctolineella, Hulst (1900, p.
173).—The adult* is a large greyish moth hav-
ing an expanse of about 114 inches, while the
larva is at first a whitish but later a deep blue;
caterpillar about 114 inches long, which becomes
marked dorsally with brown bands before pass-
ing into the pupa stage. There is said to be
only one brood each season. The larve on
hatching from the cylindrical chain of eggs,
which are fastened by one end to a spine (C.L.,
plate 7, fig. 1), penetrate the joint and feed on
the internal tissues, forming large excavations
which may extend from joint to joint downwards
into the stems. As only one or two are found
in a joint, it has been suggested that they may
be cannibalistic. Sometimes the plant tissues
react to the presence of the insect in such a way
that proliferation occurs to such an extent that
swellings appear on both sides of the segment,
the larva at times becoming enclosed. Occasion-
ally no larve are found in such swellings,
although evidence of their work is present (C.L.,
pp. 25-26). Though not abundant in any par-
ticular locality, it is widely distributed in Texas.

It is suggested (C.L., p. 27) that there may
be two forms, one from South-eastern Texas and
a more westerly variety, since, in addition to
certain differences in the structure of the cocoon
there are also differences in the method of work-
ing. The larva of the former packs the excreta
in the cavity formed, and does not make an aper-
ture, while that of the latter gets rid of the
excreta by means of an opening made through
the epidermis of the infected segment.

A Tachinid fly, Phorocerca comstocki, Wil-
son, is known to parasitise this Melitara (C.L,
pp. 25-27).

Melitara dcntata, Grote (1876, p. 158; 1882,
p. 29).—Prof. Kellogg (1892, p. 40) has given
an account of the various stages of this moth,
which he recorded as attacking O. missouriensis
in Eastern Colorado. He stated that the large,

* Hulst mentions that M. junctolineella is distinguish-
able from other species of Melitara by the presence, on the
pagal line of the front wing, of an outwardly directed
dentation, while on the outer line there is 4 similar one
directed inwardly, the two dentetione fiesting in the
middle portion of the wing,
72

naked, bluish larve fed on the internal tissues
of the segments, bringing about a withered,
brown, dying condition. The cavity in the joint
was nearly filled with irregularly shaped trans-
lucent casts. Hulst (1890, p. 7) has also given
an account of the adult.*

In the Bulletin on Cactus Insects (p. 28)
there is given a figure of a hymenopterous para-
site, Chelonus laticinctus, bred out from mate-
rial from Colorado.

Melitara prodenialis, Walker.—This moth
was bred by Riley (1891, p. 256) from an Opun-
tia from Florida, and by Smith (1891, p. 243)
from New Jersey material. Both Hubbard
(1895, p. 129)t and Smith (1892, p. 208) have
given an account of some of its habits.

Its importance as a prickly-pear destroyer
will appear from the following introductory para-
graph in Hubbard’s paper (pp. 129-130) :—
‘‘Owing to the attacks of the larve of Melitara
many of the more delicate species (of prickly-
pear), including most of our native Floridan
Opuntias, cannot be grown successfully in that
locality. I have observed that our most widely
distributed species, Opuntia vulgaris, is so much
subject to their attacks that large clumps of the
plant are rare in internal Florida, and are to be
found only near the coast, and upon small islets
in the island lakes, and thus a plant which would
otherwise probably form one of the most strik-
ing objects in the flora of the State is held in
check and reduced to insignificant clusters and
scattered isolated parts which are seldom per-
mitted to attain the normal size and never to
produce a numerous colony. Only the wonderful
vitality of the Opuntia saves it from complete
extinction at Crescent City and elsewhere, yet
thanks to its recuperative power it remains, there
as elsewhere, one of our commonest types.’’

Referring to its depredations on Opuntia
when acting in conjunction with a cactus weevil,
Gersteckeria hubbardi, Le Conte, Mr. E. A.
Schwarz informed the Commission that it had
quite exterminated prickly-pear around Crescent
City, Florida. He, however, believed that the
ss part of the damage was occasioned by the
weevil.

This Floridan Melitara, according to Hub-
bard’s account, is a large moth with its wings
partly fuscous and partly light-grey, conform-
ing in general appearance to the other species of
Melitara. It has a wing expansion attaining 52
mm. (2 in.) and a body length—palps included
—of 27 mm. (1% in.).t ‘‘Its neutral colour is
highly protective, and the difficulty of detecting
it is increased by the attitude it assumes when
at rest—with its wings closed and bent sharply
downwards while the abdomen is curved upwards
ae these slanting organs.’’ (Hubbard, p.

* According to Hulst and Kellogg, this moth differs
from its nearest ally M. prodenialis, from Florida, in being
of a much lighter colour—whitish or light grey—and in
possessing stronger dentations on the outer line. Besides,
the basal line has a larger outward dentation in the middle.

} In the Bulletin on Cactus Insects (pp. 28-29) there
a polished some of Hubbard’s notes regarding the
moth.

4 As Hulst’s diagnostic description (1890, p. 171
M elitara prodenialis, Walker, is poe eae evidiabie ‘i a
here given :—Forewings fuscous at bage, half along inner
margin, and on outer part except towards apex; rest light
grey; whole wing sprinkled with black and marked with
black on veins; hind wing pellucid whitish to fuscous.

 

This insect attaches its eggs to the minute
true leaves or to the spines of its host-plant in a
manner similar to other Melitaras. There are
generally 45 or 50 eggs in each ‘‘egg-stick.’’ The
latter, which may be 80 mm. long, are fixed by~
one extremity and directed obliquely upwards
from this support (Hubbard, fig. 6). The young
caterpillars, after hatching out, feed for a time
externally on the bud-like leaves of Opuntia, but,
later, penetrate into the segment. From the
wounds caused by them, there may exude a
gummy fluid which, on drying, forms a scab-like
crust. Under this the larve live more or less
gregariously until about one-third grown, when
they burrow deeply into the succulent substance
of the stem-joints where they remain until full-
grown, their length then being about 40 mm.
The caterpillars when young or while feeding
superficially are brown, but after burrowing into
the plant-pulp and having nearly attained full
size, they become deep blue as in the case of the
larve of the other species. When full-fed, they
issue from the food-plant, gain the surface of the
soil, and spin each a relatively large cocoon,
2 inches in length, and of an open texture, usually
below a fallen stem-joint. The chrysalis is brown
and measures 22 mm. in length. Hubbard men-
tions that there are two broods of the insect
during the year, the moths appearing in June
and July and again in October.

The injury caused by M. prodentalis is simi-
lar to that brought about by M. dentata and M.
fernaldialis. The attacked segment is generally
eaten out before the caterpillar proceeds to the
next. The wounds are often aggravated by;
various secondary organisms, and as a result a
much more rapid destruction is caused (Hub-
bard, p. 180).

Besides Florida, New Jersey and Missis-
sippi are mentioned as being included in the
range of this species (C.L., p. 45).

The adult is a large moth with a wing
expanse of 2 inches and with an outline and
colouration resembling that of other species.
Grote (1890, p. 172) informs us that the hind
wings are pellucid fuscous, with an iridescent
sheen, and are whitish towards their base; the
basal line is fine and black and runs half-way
out along the wing beyond its disc. This species
has been recorded by Schwarz (1899) and Hub-
bard (1899) as breeding in Cereus in Arizona
and New Mexico.

Alclitara sp. larvee which were found by Mr.
Pratt in O. engelmanni at Tucson, and which dis-
charged their excreta from openings in the seg-
ments in the same manner as that referred to as
occurring in the case of the Western Texan form
of M. junctolineella, probably belong to M. fer-
naldialis. In one locality in New Mexico about
30 per cent. of the plants of O. arborescens were
more or less injured by larvee which were regarded
as belonging to this species (C.I., p. 29).

Melitara spp. Very little of the work of these
boring moths was seen by the Commission during
its stay in Texas. In only one instance was a larva
of Melitara (M. junctolineella) found—viz., at
Brownsville—the insect infesting a swollen joint
whose interior contained the hard proliferous
tissue referred to by Messrs. Hunter, Pratt, and
Mitchell. The exereta were tightly packed in
the cavity. Several instances of swollen joints
(‘‘fat pear’’) were met with, but in no other
 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 39.—Segment of an Opuntia showing the work of the larva of a moth, Mimorista flavidissimalis, a
serious enemy whose attacks cause a great destruction of young joints in Texas and elsewhere in
America. (Reproduced from “The Principal Cactus Insects of the U.S.A.,’’? Bull. 113, Bur. Entom.
U.S.D.A., plate 3.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 40.—Gersteckeria nobilis, one of the Cactus Weevils. The larva lives eee se joint (see Fig. 43).
(Reproduced from Bull. 118, Bureau Entomol. U.S.D.A., p. 30, fig. 3.)
73

case was the larva found, though sometimes a
dead, brown area was seen within each of them.
This latter condition is mentioned earlier in the
report under the heading of ‘‘Gumming.’’

In the dry cactus-belt—e.g., Arizona, New
Mexico, and Western Kansas—as well as in
Florida, the destructive work of the Melitara
spp. was commonly seen. In all these cases the
injury was of the same type as that described
(C.L, p. 27) as being caused by the Western
Texan form of M. junctolineella, though the
species were different, the moth from New Mexico
and Arizona being probably M. fernaldialis; the
Kansas species, MW. dentata; and that in Florida
M. prodemalis.

At Mesilla Park, New Mexico, Melitara
larvae were found boring down into the stems of
O. whipplei, while near Tucson, Arizona, they
were seen to attack other Cylindropuntias,
including O. arbuscula, O. fulgida, O. spinosior,
and O. mammillata. Frequently no indication of
the presence of these large grubs was to be seen
externally, beyond the presence of a small
blackened area with or without a mass of black-
ened gum, which marked the upper end of the
tunnel in which the larva lived. Sometimes the
affected stem was sickly in appearance, and not
infrequently death was the result.

The effect of the same or an allied species
of Melitara larva was seen to be much more
marked in the case of the flat Opuntias. At
Mesilla Park, Dr. Merrill directed attention to
the results of their activity on O. dulcis, O.
chlorotica, and O. blakeana (?) growing in the
grounds of the Agricultural College at Mesilla
Park, New Mexico. In one joint no less than
thirty small brown larve were found by us to
be present, while attached to a spine subtending
the spot where the entry had been effected was
a string of eggs. Dr. Merrill believed that the
loeal species attacked only the flat Opuntias. As
already described, the larvee hollow out the in-
fested segments, which then generally dry up.
An aperture is made through which a large part
of the excreta is voided. Several caterpillars,
Dr. Merrill stated, might be found in one joint.
After working their way downwards, sometimes
reaching the base of the plant, they bore their
way out of the Opuntia and may pupate at some
distance from it, the adults emerging during late
August. He regarded this insect as being more
destructive than the cactus beetle, Moneilema, and
offered to assist, if desired, in obtaining specimens
for transportation to Australia. He thought that
the eggs would perhaps be the best stage to
send, but failing them, then the pupa might be
utilised. The only parasite which he had
observed was an Ichneumonid.

Besides the typical Melitara first referred to,
Dr. Merrill stated that he had observed another
insect whose larva acted in exactly the same way
in attacking flat Opuntias, but only one at a
time was found in a joint, and apparently the
grub confined itself to one segment instead of
passing down into others. He observed that it
pupated in the ground in a breeding cage, the
moth being larger than Melitara, which it closely
resembled. The insect probably belongs to this
genus.

Near Tueson, Arizona, Melitara injuries

were noticed by us occasionally in joints of a
flat Opuntia, O. arizonica.

Near Wallace, in Kansas, they were
observed very commonly in OQ. missouriensis,
caused by a Melitara which was probably
M. dentata, whose destructive work in Eastern
Colorado was referred to by Kellogg in
1892. Dead, hollow joints, each with one or
more apertures associated with insect excreta,
were very frequently noticed, and it was not an
uncommon sight to see whole plants destroyed.
Occasionally the small Mammillaria occurring in
this locality was found to be hollowed out and
killed. The injury extended from joint to joint
in the case of the Opuntia. Sometimes the unat-
tacked distal segments grew after reaching the
ground, the insect thus acting as a planter in the
Same way as has been noted in regard to Monei-
lema. A few cocoons and pupex of Melitara were
found under fallen joints and adjacent grass and
in hollowed segments.

This locality was visited by the Commission
through information received from Mr. E. Popenoe,
of the Bureau of Entomology, who stated that
a beetle, Moneilema armatum, had caused con-
siderable destruction of prickly-pear there.
Though fragments of a Moneilema were found by
us, there is no doubt that the greater part of the
damage seen was caused by Melitara, yet it is
quite probable that the beetle assisted.

Visits were paid to two localities in Florida,
indicated by Mr. Schwarz, where the work of
Melitara prodenialis might still be seen in pro-
gress. These were Crescent City and Lake Worth
(West Palm Beach). In the neighbourhood of
the former, with the exception of a few plants of
the low-growing O. opwntia (O. nana) no prickly-
pear was met with during the short stay there.
At Lake Worth, however, on the sandy ridges, on
the east side of Palm Beach township, the weevil
Gersteckeria hubbardi, as well as the Melitara,
was found to be feeding on it. Hubbard had
previously recorded the presence of these two
enemies (1895, p. 130), but did not consider that
the beetle and moth were associated in causing
the destruction of Opuntia in this district, but
that the cavities excavated by the caterpillars
served as ‘‘lurking places for the weevil Acalles
hubbard,”’ as it was then called. We sometimes
found both insects present in the same plant,
while at other times one or other was met with.
Prickly-pear was growing sparsely, and the
species appeared to be on the verge of local exter-
mination. The plants were stunted, all those
examined either having been damaged or else
being then attacked, especially by the caterpillars
of Melitara prodenialis. Partial or complete
destruction was the result of the infestation, the
injuries resembling those produced by M. dentata.

Unidentified bluish-green larvee were found
in tunnels in the fruit of O. versicolor at Tucson,
Arizona.

Melitara, sp.?—Dr. Merrill (Mesilla Park,
New. Mexico) informed the Commission that he
had observed the presence of a small unidenti-
fied moth which laid its eggs in a naked mass on
the outside of the flat Opuntias. The young
larvae, on hatching, at first clustered around the
egg-mass and lived under a thin web, feeding
on the surface of the young leaves. Later on
they bored into the tissues, where they acted like
the Melitara caterpillars, passing downwards from
joint to joint, and ultimately pupating and
hatching at the same time as Melitara, but the
adult was a much smaller insect.
The Joint Miner, Marmara opuntiella,
Busck.

This small Tineid moth, which was described
by Mr. Buseck in 1907, is figured in C.L., p. 31.
It is referred to as the ‘‘leaf miner,’’ a fine illus-
tration of its work being shown in C.I,, plate 6.

The eggs are deposited below the epidermis,
where the tiny orange-coloured larvee on hatching
begin to make small tunnels or galleries which
may cross or coalesce, and which appear through
the epidermis as whitish areas. The damage is
not serious, as the insects do not penetrate deeply
into the segment (C.I., p. 31).

The work of. this insect was seen at San
Antonio, Alice, Robbstown, and Brownsville, in
Texas, where the common pear (0. lindheimert
and its allies) were found to be attacked. The
spiny Mission Pear was seen to harbour this
insect at Alice.

Since Marmara does not do any appreciable
injury to Opuntias, its introduction need not be
considered.

An unidentified green lepidopterous larva
was found very commonly at Sinton, Texas,
within the joints of O. leptocaulis. <All the tissues
except the epidermis were eaten out, and a hollow
joint or series of joints remained. As a result
of its attacks, plants were practically stripped of
all their lateral branches. It was quite common
to see whole plants killed by it. Since its attacks
were confined to O. leptocaulis, none of the flat
Opuntias being attacked, although growing along-
side, its introduction into Australia need not
be considered.

Many other Lepidoptera are recorded in the
list of Cactus Insects (pp. 44-45), but they are
not regarded as important, and some of them
moreover, attack other plants.

THE HEmMiptERous ENEMIES.

The most important of these are species of
Chelinidea and Narnia, and the Wild Cochineal
Insects, all of which are restricted to the
Cactaceex.

Chelinidea, spp. (Coreide).

Chelinidea vittigera, Uhler—An account
of C. vittigera is given in C1. p. 15.
These insects, which are usually nocturnal in
their habits, may occur gregariously, feeding on
the joints of Opuntia and allied Cactacen.
Attacked joints show the presence of lighter-
coloured circular spots, a concentric pattern of
alternating green and light-coloured areas being
sometimes seen. Each spot marks a point where
feeding has taken place. These zones enlarge,
and ultimately the jomts may assume a sickly
appearance. Exceptionally the whole plant is
affected, becoming weakened to such an extent
that it may fall over, the jomts drying np or
else becoming the seat of infection by scaven-
gers which bring about destruction. The young
and adult bugs migrate from these chlorosed
plants and resume their activities on a fresh
plant. Rooting of fallen segments may take
place.

The breeding habits and life-history are
described and a figure of the adult given by
Messts, Hunter, Pratt, and Mitchell (GL, pp.

74

17-19). There is continuous breeding through-
out the summer and autumn, but during winter
the insects hibernate under fallen joints, the
roots of grass, &c., in the neighbourhood of an
Opuntia. It is stated that they do not seem to
travel far from the plant upon which they were
produced. This species prefers Opuntias to any
other Cactaceous plant. Its range includes
Texas, California, Utah, Colorado; in fact, the
Western and Southern States of the United
States generally, as it is also known from
Louisiana, Alabama, North Carolina, and Vir-
gina (C.L, p. 17). Riley and Howard called
attention to its presence in Texas (18938, p. 345),
and Uhler to its occurrence in Southern Cali-
fornia (1894).

Chelinidea tabulata, Westwood, is said to be
found in company with the preceding species in
Texas, but this Mexican species is much less
common (C.I., p. 19).

Chelinidea, sp.—An unidentified species of
Chelinidea, smaller than C. vittigera, is recorded
as attacking O. arbuscula, O. versicolor, and O.
fulgida in Arizona.

In the Bulletin on Cactus Insects (p. 16)
it is stated that Chelinidea and its allies are by
far the most important insect pests of Opuntias
in the United States, on account of their wide
distribution, though the moth Mimorista is prob-
ably more destructive in the limited area where
it occurs. It is suggested that, in addition to
the injury directly traceable to these bugs, they
may act as carriers of the Shot-hole Fungus,
Gleosporium lunatum. Dr. Griffiths mentioned
during an interview that these bugs caused a
more or less marked chlorosis, but that, as a
rule, the plants recovered.

Chelinidea spp.—In spite of the fact that the
investigation was made at a time when most of these
bugs were hibernating, the Commission saw Cheli-
nidea and its work on O. lindheimeri and allied
Opuntias in Texas, at Alice, Laredo, Sinton,
and Brownsville, as well as on plants of 0.
stricta cultivated at the last-named locality. Its
presence was noted at Chico, in Northern Cali-
fornia. In Texas, attacked plants were more or
less chlorosed, but the extensive injury recorded
above was not observed. Hibernating specimens
were found near Tucson, Arizona, in tunnels
made by Moneilema or Melitara in stems of 0.
versicolor and O. fulgida; and near Wallace,
Kansas, in hollowed joints of O. missouriensis as
well as under fallen joints and under débris and
grass around the base of this species.

At Tucson, plants of one of the Cylindro-
puntias, O. spinosior, were found to have dis-
eased areas on some of the costs which occur on
the stems. These areas were dull black, and
from many of them a mucilaginous exudation
was evident. No insects were detected in either
case inhabiting the parts which had undergone
these changes or even on other external parts of
the affected plants. However, Chelinidea bugs
were discovered in small numbers amongst dead
and dry fallen stem-joints on the ground beneath
the plants exhibiting these symptoms.

Though little was seen at the time of the
Commission’s visit which would lead to the
belief that Chelinidea was such an injurious
enemy, pe the strong opinions held by both Mr.
W. D. Hunter and Mr. J. D, Mitchell, entomo-
logists who have had a long experience in Texas,
must be regarded as possessing weight. More-
over, Mr. O. Heidemann, who has charge of
the hemipterous collection ,in the National
Museum, Washington, informed the Commission
that neither Chelinidea nor its ally Narnia was
known to attack any plants other than Cactacea,
this statement being confirmed by other ento-
mologists.

Narma, spp. (Coreide).

These gregarious fruit-sucking bugs, though
somewhat more slender insects, resemble Cheli-
nidea in their general appearance, size, and
habits. Their attacks are directed against
the fruit, which is often destroyed, the com-
mon species of Narnia not being recorded as
injuring the joints. The commonest species in
Texas is N. pallidicornis, Stal., which is illus-
trated and fully described in C.I., p. 33, pl. 7,
fig. 4. It is said to occur throughout the season
(p. 41). N. femorata, Stal., a rather larger
species, is also common in Texas, but is much
more widely distributed.

N. pallidicornis is found in Southern Texas,
its range extending into Arizona, California, and
Mexico. It attacks the fruits of Cereus as well
as those of prickly-pears. N. inornata, Distant,
occurs in Mexico and California, and N. snow?
in New Mexico.

Specimens of Narnia were seen feeding on
the fruit of O. lindheimeri, O. ferruginispina,
and allied species, at Alice and Robbstown in
Texas, but in far too few numbers to be capable
of causing much damage, fruits on which they
occurred exhibiting merely local superficial skin
injuries. At Mesilla Park (New Mexico), Tuc-
son (Arizona), and San Diego (Southern Cali-
fornia), species of Narnia were found beneath
prickly-pear plants and their débris. At Tuc-
son it was also found hibernating associated
with Chelinidea in cavities in the stems of Opun-
tias.

In view of the destruction of fruit which
species of Narnia are said to cause, the introduc-
tion of these insects, which feed exclusively on
Cactacess, is recommended.

Stylopidea picta, Uhler (Capside).

This small Capsid bug is briefly referred to
in C.L, p. 22. It was seen in great numbers on
plants at Robbstown, San Antonio, Brownsville,
Sinton, and Alice, and frequently the entire
plant was chlorosed and had a very sickly appear-
ance on account of their attacks. This was, no
doubt, due to the large numbers present. It is
not recorded as being one of the serious enemies
of prickly-pears, its place on the list given in
C.L., p. 13, being after that occupied by the leaf-
miner, Marmara.

Marlatt referred to its occurrence on
Opuntia in 1896, under the name Labops hespe-
rinus. The Commission was informed by Mr.
Heidemann that its correct name is Hesperola-
bops picta, Reuter. Since their influence is so
slight and since it is not restricted, to the Cacta-
cex, having been found on a variety of plants
(C.1, p. 23), its introduction need not be
considered.

Sixeonotus luteiceps, Reuter (Capside).

This small Capsid bug is not a true Cactus
insect, preferring Yuccas to Opuntias and Echi-
nocereus, both of which it commonly attacks
(C.L, p. 36); hence it need not receive further
attention.

75

The Cochineal Insects (Coccide).

Coccus cacti, L., or Dactylopius coccus, Costa.
—The true cochineal insect is recorded from
California and Florida by M. Fernald (1903),
but Messrs. Ifunter, Pratt, and Mitchell (p. 23)
state that it does not appear to occur in the
United States of America, and that these records
probably refer to importations.

Coccus (or Dactylopius) confusus, Cock-
erell.—This wild cochineal insect occurs through-
out practically the whole of the cactus region of
the United States, being abundant in the south-
ern parts of Texas (C.L, p. 24, pl. 5), but
appears to be held in check by a great number of
predatory insects which prevent it from becom-
ing a very important enemy of the prickly-pear.
In spite of these, however, it is capable of doing
damage to the plants. On account of the presence
of dense white cotton-like waxy masses under
each of which several coccids live, the name
‘“‘eottony cochineal’’ has been applied to this
species in the Bulletin en Cactus Insects. The
insect was described by Cockerell (1893, p. 366;
1896, p. 34), and an account of it is given by
Green (1912, p. 89).

The localities given include some in Arizona,
Texas, Florida, and California, and, besides, the
species is found in hothouses throughout the
United States. It is not restricted to any par-
ticular species of Opuntia as its host-plant (C.L,
p. 42). Mr. Green mentions Mesilla Park, New
Mexico, as an additional locality.

The value of the pigment derived from this
coccus has been compared with commercial
cochineal obtained from Coccus cacti, and with
that from C. tomentosus, another form of wild
cochineal. If C. cacti be taken as 100, then the
same weight of C. tomentosus would be equi-
valent to 80 and C. confusus to 16, thus showing
that the last-named has very little commercial
value (Cockerell, 1896, p. 35; Green, 1912, p.
81).

Coccus confusus is subject to the attacks of
many insect enemies. In 1899 Riley (p. 28)
referred to his breeding of three from it—viz.,
Leucopis bellula, Williston; Drosophila quinaria,
Loew; and Dakruma coccidivora, Comstock (=
Laetilia coccidivora). Coquillet had previously
(1897) reared the first-named fly from specimens
from New Mexico. The list given in the Bulletin
on Cactus Insects (pp. 24, 46) includes eight
species of Coleoptera and three of Lepidoptera.
They are as follows :—

Coleoptera; Ezochomus latiusculus, Casey
(Texas) ; E. marginipennis, Le Conte
(Texas); Cycloneda munda, Say
(Texas) ; Chilocorus cacti, L., (Mexi-
co); Hyperaspis trifurcata, Schaeffer
(Texas, Mexico); H. cruenta, Le
Conte (New Mexico, Texas); Scym-
nus loewti, Mulsant (Texas, Mexico) ;
and 8. hornit, Gorham (Mexico). Lepi-
doptera: Letilia coccidivora, Com-
stock (Texas); Zophodia dilatifas-
ciella, Ragonot (Texas) ; and Saluria
ardiferella, Hulst (New Mexico).
Diptera: Drosophila punctulata,
Loew. (Texas) ; D. ampelophila, Loew.
(California) ; Leucopis bella, Loew.
(Texas and California); DL. bellula,
Williston (Texas, New Mexico, Mexi-
co). The beetle Bothrideres cacto-
phagi, Schwarz (C.1., p. 46) also at.
tacks Coccus confusus.
C. confusus newsteadi, Cockerell—This sub-
species of the cochineal insect was named by
Cockerell (1898, p. 675; 1899, p. 284) after Prof.
Newstead, who gave a description in which he
noted that it differed from C. tomentosus (1897,
p. 75). Newstead’s specimens came from Opuntia
fulgida, from Arizona. Cockerell (1898, p. 675)
gives Arizona, Texas, and Mexico as localities,
while Green (1912), who gives an account of it
(p. 90), adds Colorado. An allied variety, the
wild cochineal of Cape Colony, has been named
by Green (p. 91) as C. confusus capensis,
samples of which were forwarded by the Com-
mission from Capetown to Queensland.

Coccus tomentosus, Lamarck.—This species
of wild cochineal resembles the latter in most
respects, but instead of each mass of waxy secre-
tion covering a number of individuals, each insect
of C. tomentosus is separately covered.

It is recorded from O. fulgida, from Mexico,
New Mexico, and Arizona (C.I., p. 42). Green
(1912, p. 87) gives an account of it and mentions
the same localities. He regards C cacti, var.

opuntiw, Cockerell (1896, p. 385) as a synonym, |

and believes that all the wild forms—z.e., C.
indicus, C. confusus, and sub-species, have been
derived from C. tomentosus (Green, p. 80). The
relative value of this species and C. confusus as
dye-producers has been referred to above.

The Commission saw species of wild cochineal
at Laredo, Brownsville, Alice, Robbstown, and San
Antonio (Texas) feeding on O. lindheimeri and
related prickly-pears, while near the last-named
town it attacked O. ferruginispina also. It was
seen at Mesilla Park (New Mexico) on O. chio-
rotica, where it was apparently parasitised by a
small moth; at Tucson (Arizona) on O. arizo-
nica, O. discata, O. levis, and O. linguiformis,
the last-named form being a Texan species in
cultivation; at San Diego, Southern California,
on O. occidentalis; at Wallace (Kansas) on O.
missourtensis ; and on some low-growing undeter-
mined species of Opuntia under cultivation at
Chico, California. In some of the Texan
localities, a ladybird was seen preying on C.
confusus.

Though some joints were found to be very
heavily infested, it was rare to find any other re-
sult than amore or less well-marked chlorosis. Dr.
Griffith’s experience is similar, as he informed
the Commission that he had never seen a plant
appreciably affected by the local species of cochi-
neal. Messrs. Hunter, Pratt, and Mitchell, how-
ever, have stated (p. 24) that the insect sometimes
becomes so abundant as to destroy parts of the
plant and occasionally to kill the entire plant,
and that much greater injury would be occasioned
were the cochineal insect itself not held in check
by various predatory enemies.

In the neighbourhood of San Diego, South-
ern California, a small colony of Coccus confusus
was found to be almost completely destroyed by
the caterpillar of a moth.

These wild cochineal insects are evidently
controlled to a great extent by various predators
and parasites, and therefore the Commission did
not see the full destruction that they might cause
had these controlling agents been absent.

76

White Seale, Diaspis, spp.

Besides the cochineal, other coccids—viz.,
certain scale insects (Diaspis, spp.) were met
with. A list of those known from the United
States is given in C.L, p. 42. It ineludes Diaspis
echinocacti cacti, Comstock, from New Mexico
and Arizona, where it oceurs on O. fulgida, O.
arborescens, and O. engelmanni; from Texas, on
O. leplocaulis and O. lindheimeri; while Fernald
adds New York and Massachusetts (green-houses)
and Iowa. A figure of this species is given in
C.I., plate 5.

Other species are D. echinocactt, Bouché,
which Fernald records from Mexico and New
York; and D. echinocacti opuntie, Cockerell,
from Texas, on O. arborescens and O. elongata.

Species of Diaspis were seen by the Com-
mission in the St. Louis Botanical Gardens on O.
dillenti, O. leucotricha, and Nopalea cochineli-
fera; at Tucson (Arizona) on O. fulgida; and at
Los Angeles (California) on O. decumana and O,
monacantha. In no case was any perceptible
injury caused.*

Aphis.

Dr. Griffiths (1913, p. 20, pl. 7) has recently
referred to the proliferation of certain parts of
O. puberula caused by the attacks of the ‘‘black
Opuntia louse,’’ which congregates on the tips
‘of young flower-buds, preventing their opening
and rendering them sterile. These infested parts
proliferate to give rise to buds which are normal
and fertile unless they, too, become attacked and
rendered sterile by these insects. A similar result
is brought about by the agency of a small
cecidomyiid fly, Asphondylia opuntie.

Various other Hemiptera are named in the
list in C.I. (pp. 40-42), Aphis medicaginis, Koch,
from Arizona (Texas), being included. They
are probably unimportant.t

Tue Dirrerous ENEmies.—THEe GatL Migs.

Among the Diptera there are certain small
insects belonging to the Cecidomyiidse which
injure the prickly-pear. Three of the species
belong to the genus Asphondylia and one to
Itonida.

Ttonida opuntie, Felt. -

This species was first described by Felt
(1910, p. 10) as Cecidomyia opuntie, but he has
recently transferred it to the genus Itonida.
His material came from Dr. N. Britton, Director
of the New York Botanical Gardens, who found
that it was a very destructive pest of the Opun-
tias in the hot-houses. Since the insect had mani-
fested itself soon after the receipt of a consign-
ment of prickly-pears from Italy, it was suspected
that the fly had been introduced from Southern
Europe. So troublesome had the pest become
that Dr. Britton was obliged to fumigate his col-
lection of Cactacee regularly and frequently.
At the time of the Commission’s visit, the insect
had been controlled by him, and a search for
the adult as well as an attempt to rear some
from plants showing the presence of injuries
eaused by the larva were unsuccessful.

 

* Diaspis is already established in Queensland, but
has not as yet proved to be of much value as a cacticide.
_. t An aphis has been found in abundance associated
with prickly-pear near Goondiwindi in our own State,
but it does not do much damage. (Tryon, 1911, p. 17.)
 

 

 

 

Photo., Bureau of Entomology, Dept. Agriculture, U.S.A.
Fig. 41.—Part of a joint of an Opuntia showing three pupal “ cells ” of a Cactus Weevil, Gersteckeria turbidus.

 

 

 

 

 

Photo., Bureau of Entomology, Dept. Agriculture, U.S.A.

Fig. 42.—The same (Fig. 41) cut open so as to show the “cell’’ cavities with their pupa-cases within them.

 
ay

The larva gains an entrance at an areole
and mines into the surrounding tissues, stimu-
lating them to activity so that there is produced
a small tumour rather paler in’colour than the
general plant surface. Some of the attacked
joints had, in spite of the presence of galls, main-
tained normal growth, while in the case of others
a decay had set in which either might be local
or might spread from the site of insect attack so
as to involve the entire segment. Occasionally
a similar decay was seen in joints which did not
contain any galls. Under the conditions of the
glass-house, death commonly follows. Owing to
the ravages Dr. Britton had lost about 150 plants
—all of them flat Opuntias or Nopaleas, any of
which seemed to be susceptible to attack, though
no other plants were observed to have been
infected. An examination of the bundle of
labels, which belonged to dead prickly-pears,
showed that amongst others the following species
had’ succumbed :—O. tomentosa (which is the
Helidon tree-pear in Queensland); O. inermis
(the common pest pear of Queensland); 0.
streptacantha (a species related to the ‘‘ West-
wood Pear’’ of the Rockhampton district,
Queensland) ; O. dillenit and O. tuna (both rela-
ted to O. inermis) ; O. microdasys and O. nigri-
cans (both of which occur naturalised in New
South Wales); and Nopalea cochinelifera (one
of the tree-pears at Gayndah).

Since this insect had proved itself to be so
destructive to prickly-pears in cultivation and
was, a8 far as known, restricted not only to the
Cactacee, but to the flat Opuntias within that
natural order, a visit was paid to Albany in order
to consult Mr. E. P. Felt, the New York State
Entomologist, who is a recognised authority on
the Cecidomyiide, and who is the author of the
ee description of the insect (1910, p. 10;
914),

With regard to the general food relations of
the Cecidomyiide, Mr. Felt referred to two
papers—(1) ‘‘ A Summary of Food Habits of
American Gall Midges’’ (Annals Ent. Soc.
America, 4, 1911, pp. 55-62), and (2) ‘‘ Hosts
and Galls of American Gall Midges ’’ (Journal
of Economic Entomology, Oct., 1911, pp. 451-
475)—in which the information relating to this
subject is condensed. The observations of him-
self and of other specialists in this insect group
pointed to the fact that these flies, in establish-
ing relations with plants, either confined their
attention to single plant-species or to the mem-
bers of single genera. When, exceptionally, this
was not so they attached themselves to closely
allied plants in a single natural order. Thus
Asphondylia monacha attacked the flowers of
two Composite, Aster and Solidago, while Ceci-
domytia (Phytophaga) destructor confined its
attacks to the two grasses, Hordeum (barley) and
Triticum (wheat).

Four kinds of Cecidomyiid flies attacked
prickly-pear—i.e., three species of Asphondylia
that were fruit-lovers and the one that is now
under notice. These four gall-midges were quite
distinct from any other insects of the group, and
it was almost a certainty that no plants other
than the Cactacese would serve as hosts for them.
Of the eight or nine hundred different kinds of
Cecidomyiide in North America, Mr. Felt had
examined specimens of most of them, and of
these he had reared about five hundred himself.
His opinion is thus based upon a wide knowledge
of the gall-midges and their plant relations.

The group Itonida, which included the New
York prickly-pear midge, was a fairly large one,
and in the majority of cases its members laid
their eggs in and developed in the buds of plants.
The species of the type genus Itonida itself, as
shown by his recorded rearings, had very varied
plant connections, but notwithstanding only
three species were associated with any of the
cultivated or economic plants of Australia—viz.,
Itonida tritici, found in the heads of rye and
wheat; 7. cucurbitw, on rough squash; and I.
manthot, forming small leaf-scales on Cassava.

‘Cecidomyiids formed swellings on twigs,
galls in or on leaves, &¢., and sometimes injured
terminal buds, but, as a rule, they did not destroy
plants. The Hessian fly and sorghum midge were
exceptions.

He concurred with the Commission in con-
cluding that whatever injury to the prickly-pear
accompanied the presence of Itomda opuntie
was most probably due to the action of fungoid
or bacterial organisms whose presence and
development were made possible by the insect
attacks, simple galls being formed, but no further
lesions or abnormalities being caused in the
absence of these organisms.

Influenced by these and other general con-
siderations he remarked that he did not see how
anything adverse could develop from these insects
when in Australia, and that faced by a similar
problem to that which confronted the Commis-
sion he would not hesitate at all in attempting to
establish it there. At the same time, he could
not definitely predict any advantageous outcome
resulting from such procedure, since it was a
matter for experiment. The climatic conditions
that this Opuntia gall-midge would encounter on
its introduction to Queensland might or might
not be favourable to its development and to its
destructiveness. He would not expect it to
destroy prickly-pear there unless relatively moist
climatic conditions were prevalent. On the other
hand, it might meet with circumstances to which
it might react by ataining great vigour and
undergoing such numerical increase as to become
very plentiful. He considered that the Commission
was quite justified in deciding to advocate the
introduction into Australia, and the maintenance
there under proper safeguards for the time being,
of any insect which fed on Opuntia, and which
was not at the same time associated with, much
less an enemy of, any of the economic plants
that were already grown or might be grown there.
He doubted, however, if any man could predict
from observations in the field alone how an insect
would comport itself under novel conditions.

Owing to the special interest that attaches to
this particular gall-midge by reason of its
destructiveness under certain conditions, the fol-
lowing account taken from the Annual Report of
the New York State Entomologist for 1913 (not
yet available) may be appended :—

Cactus Midge—Itonida opuntie, Felt.

‘Species of Opuntia, the flat-leaved, oval
Cacti, not the columnar forms, may be injured
by the deep-red larvee of this midge and most
seriously affected by a bacterial or fungous
trouble which gains access to the inner tissues
through the injuries. The fungus or bacterium
is by far the most destructive, and is apparently
dependent for favourable media, so far as Cacti
are concerned, upon the work of the midge larvae.
‘* Signs of Injury.—Infestation is first indi-_

eated by an indistinct swelling, usually at the
base of a spine, preventing so few characteristics
that the party in charge of the plants, and there-
fore familiar with the work of the insect, could
not be certain of the presence of maggots without
eutting into the tissues. This swelling gradu-
ally becomes somewhat larger, and eventually an
opening appears. The maggots work themselves
out and either crawl down the plant or drop to
the ground. The desertion of the Cacti is fol-
lowed by an infection which results later in a
copious exudation of a mucilaginous fluid or sap
which hangs in irregular masses an inch or so in
length. This infection is followed by the slow
death of the affected lobe, and may eventually
result in the destruction of portions of the plant
or even entire plants. In some instances the work
of the maggots is inhabited by a small Ptinid
beetle belonging to the genus Calorama.

“Barly Iistory.—This pest was first brought
to our notice in 1909 by Mr. George V. Nash, head
gardener of the New York Botanical Gardens.
The species, according to his statements, occurs
in Opuntia hanburyana from Italy and an Opun-
tia from the British West Indies. Not much fur-
ther was heard of this insect until 1913, at which
time it was characterised as a very serious pest
in a valued collection of Cacti, Earlier it was
thought that this midge might be American, since
the original distribution of the host-plant is
limited to America, though subsequent statements
would seem to indicate that this insect may pos-
sibly be Italian in origin. Mr. Becker, connected
with the New York Botanical Garden, states that
some recent cuttings received from Italy and
kept in a house well separated from previously
infested material were found after a few weeks
to be infested by this midge. This is suggestive,
though not necessarily conclusive, evidence as to
the immediate source, but not to the original
home of the insect.*

“Tafe History—Conditions in the Cactus
house indicate that this species may breed almost
continuously throughout the summer months, and
there would seem to be no reason why this pro-
cess might not continue during the winter if
the plants were not exposed to too low tempera-
tures. The midges may be observed in the green-
houses, flying around the plants and alighting on
the pots or the Cacti. They do not seem to make
their way to the windows, and there was no evi-
dence of their being captured in spider-webs. A
Cactus lobe, apparently in a healthy condition,
was cut into, and the interior found to be fairly
honeycombed by the maggots. The larve, on
attaining their development, emerge from the
plants and may be found lying on the surface
of the soil in the pots or in the coal-ashes cover-
ing the benches. The transformation to the pupa
and emergence of the adults occur in these situa-
tions without any difficulty.

‘An effort was made to ascertain the dura-
tion of a life cycle but without much success,
since the midges do not appear to thrive under
ordinary cage conditions, although a small green-
house is well adapted to their requirements.
Infested Cacti were received and placed in a large
breeding-jar, March 10, adults emerging there-
from as follows:—April 15th, 1; 21st, many;
23rd, 12; May 9th, 8; 10th, 10; 12th, 5; 16th,
3; 17th, 4; 19th, 12; 21st, 5; 22nd, 3; 23rd, 24;

* If Itonida opuntie is restricted to opuntias, then its
original home must be in America.—T.H.J.; H.T.

78

27th, 8; 2th, 2; 2th, 4; 31st, 11; June 2nd,
4; 4th, 9; 5th, 5; 7th, 4; 9th, 3; 11th, 2; 13th,
7; 25th, 2; 26th, 1; July 11th, 6; 12th, 3; 14th, 4.

‘A distinct periodicity will be noted in the
appearance of the midges, in that they were
much more abundant April 21 and 23, May 19
and 23. There was apparently no breeding in
this jar, aside from the larve already in the soil
and the plants attaining maturity. If this be the
case it would appear that under certain condi-
tions a generation may extend over a period of
four months, the flies issuing at irregular inter-
vals. This periodicity in the appearance of the
midges was also observable in the green-houses,
and in at least one case numerous midges
appeared in both at the same date. There may
be a period of nearly three weeks between the
time the larva leaves the plant and the issuing
of the imago, since on March 14 one larva and
a pupa were placed in a tumbler with a little
sand, and on the 3rd of April a midge issued.
It is possible that this period marks the dura-
tion of the pupal stage.

“The larva is about $ of an inch or 3 mm.
long, rather stout, deep red, and with a well-
developed bidentate breastbone.

“‘The midges are delicate, dark reddish
brown flies, the male having a length of about
1 mm., the female 2 mm. Technical descriptions
of both sexes have been published* by the
author.”’

Asphondylia, spp.

Asphondylia opuntia, Felt (1908, p. 376). —
This insect attacks both the joint and fruit, more
especially the latter, which as a result either are
rendered infertile or else shrivel and die. In
the former case the seeds are destroyed while
the seed receptacle elongates, assumes more or
less the character of a small joint, and may give
rise to one or more segments which are of some-
what smaller size than normal. The insect thus
does not seriously injure the attacked plant, but
decreases the seed production and thus tends to
restrict the spread of Opuntias by seed. A
figure showing a number of puparia projecting
from a shrivelled fruit is given in C.I. (p. 35).
The distribution is stated to be from Texas to
San Luis Potosi in Mexico, and to Arizona and
California, being very common in the last-named
State (C.1., p. 34). Records in the Bureau of
Entomology, Washington, D.C., show the receipt
of the same species from O. occidentalis from
Southern California, and O. arborescens from
Arizona.

A cecidomyiid, presumably this insect,
was met with by the Commission, as a tiny
orange-coloured larva in ‘‘fruits’? of O. fer-
ruginispina, O. convexa, O. leptocarpa, and 0.
lindheimerit at San Antonio, and in the last-
named species at Sinton (Texas), as well as in
O. monacantha at Los Angeles (California). The
time of the year in which the inquiry was prose-
euted was unfavourable for the observing of the
more pronounced effects of the insect’s attack.

It was in the cactus garden of Mr. B.
Mackensen, of San Antonio (Texas), that many
species of Opuntia were found to have been
attacked, the infested fruit either becoming
elongate or else proliferating so that they were
not normal. Mr. Mackensen, in his descriptions
of certain new species, O. leptocarpa (1911, p.

* Felt, Ann. Rep., New York State Entomologist
1914.
142) and O. convera (1912, p. 291), referred to
to the fact that their fruits are sometimes proli-
ferous, but did not suspects the cause of the
alteration.

These larvae were seen crawling amongst the
gall-like bodies that represented the ovules
formerly present when insect attack had com-
menced. Their occurrence was noticed even in
altered ‘‘ fruits ’’ which had already, in the
course of vegetative growth, given rise to fairly
large stem-joints. Since there were no signs what-
ever of recent fly attack or of insect emergence,
the presence of these insects in such cases must
be accounted for either by padogenesis such as is
known to occur in another Cecidomyiid genus,
Miastor, in Europe (Wagner, Meinert) and North
America (Felt, 1912, p. 753), or by the occur-
rence of a very protracted life, extending over
many months. Dr. Griffiths believes the latter to
be the true explanation. He has given some
attention to this parasite (1913, p. 20), and dur-
ing an interview informed us that the eggs are
deposited from February to April, the larva
living in the fruit and, after pupating, emerging
as an adult next spring just about the time that
the prickly-pear blossoms; also that the joints
or fruits, which develop on the parasitised and
deformed ‘‘fruit,’’ originate during the year that
infection has occurred. The Commission’s obser-
vations of the occurrence of the larva were made
in November and December, which would thus
point to a ten or eleven months’ duration of the
larval state.

The proliferation of the fruit would in most
cases give rise only to a single joint or a single
plant, whereas if seminal development had not
been frustrated by the insect, a large number of
new plants would perhaps have been produced
from the seeds. The effect of this parasite, then,
is such that the chances of an increased area of
distribution of the plant are greatly lessened.

Subsequent to the Commission’s investiga-
tions in the United States, Mr. EH. P. Felt, in a
letter dated February, 1914, has tendered the
following information :—‘‘Mr. E. O. Essig, Secre-
tary of the State Commission of Horticulture,
Sacramento, California, forwarded specimens of
Asphondylia opuntie, accompanied by the state-
ment that practically every fruit in a large
district was absolutely ruined by this insect,
many of them having several hundred in each.”’
He. further adds that it should be comparatively
easy to introduce this insect into Australia if it
is desired.

Two other species of Asphondylia are
known to infest prickly-pears—viz., A. betheli,
described by Cockerell (1907, p. 324), from mal-
formed ‘‘fruit’’? from Colorado, and A. arizo-
nensis Felt, recorded as producing a fruit-like
gall in a species from Arizona (Felt, 1908, p.
378; 1908b, p. 294). An account of the former
is also given by Felt (1908, p. 376; 1912, p. 6).
In regard to the latter, Mr. Felt has informed
us that it attacks the fruit, causing the forma-
tion of a gall half the size of a man’s head, one
being figured in ‘‘Nature’’ (23, 1882, p. 77).

Other Diptera.

Various other diptera are found associated
with prickly-pears and other cacti, but are mainly
scavengers. They may be important since, when
opportunity offers, they increase the injury
caused by-other insects such as Melitara and
Moneilema, or even Chelinidea and Gersteckeria.

H

79

The chief of these scavengers in the United
States (C.L, pp. 37-38) are—Copestylum margi-
natum, Say; four species of Volucella, two of
Hermetia, and Stictomyia longicornis, Bigot.

Waitt ANTS.

The galleries of Termites or white ants were
seen rather commonly in parts of Texas on the
roots and stems of prickly-pears, especially those
which had been injured by ‘‘ pear rats ’’ and other
rodents. It has been stated (C.I., p. 40) that
Termes flavipes, Kollar, may attack young
Opuntias and Cereus in Texas, forming covered
galleries on the segments, while the nest is not
infrequently made in decaying joints.

SumMary or Evivoence Reearpina Insect
ENEMIES oF PRICKLY-PEAR IN U.S.A.

In the Bulletin on Cactus Insects (p. 18)
there is given the following list of the principal
species in the order of their importance as
prickly-pear pests in the United States:—(1)
Chelinidea, 3 species; (2) Mimorista flavidisst-
malis; (8) Narnia, 4 species; (4) Melitara, 4
species; (5) Moneliema, 8 species; (6) the Wild
Cochineal Insects, Coccus confusus and C. tomen-
tosus; (7) Marmara opuntiella; (8) Asphon-
dylia, 3 species; (9) Stylopidea picta; (10)
Diaspis; (11) Orzamia ludicalis; (12) Platy-
nota rostroma; (13) Polistes, 3 species. Nos.
11, 12, and 13 are Hymenoptera, which feed on
the fruit. It will be noticed that in this list the
Cactus weevils (Gersteckeria, spp.) are not given
a place.

The period of the year during which the
investigations were carried out in the United
States was the atitumn, and naturally insect
activity was not at a maximum. The destruction
caused by many of the pests which are regarded
by Messrs. Hunter, Pratt, and Mitchell as being
of prime importance—e.g., Chelinidea, Narnia,
and even Mimorista—was not as evident as that
caused by Melitara, which seems to be the most
destructive and one of the most wide-spread of
all the genera of cactus insects in the, United
States. It should be remembered that the investi-
gations of the Bureau of Entomology were carried
out mainly in Texas, where Melitara appears
to do very little damage. Monetlema, spp., though
wide-spread, do not seem to be sufficiently
numerous to cause any great destruction. Judg-
ing from the results noticed in the New York
Botanical Gardens, Itonida opuntie should
occupy a prominent position amongst the
destroyers of prickly-pear.

As a result of the investigations in the
United States, the Commission considers that the
following insects are the most effective enemies
of prickly-pear there:—Melitara, spp.; Mimo-
rista flavidissimalis; Monetlema, spp. Ceno-
paus palmert; Chelimdea, spp.; Narnia, spp. ;
Gersteckeria hubbardi; Itonida opuntie; and
Asphondylia opuntiw.

Proposep INTRODUCTION OF Cactus INSECTS
INTO QUEENSLAND.

The advice of Dr. Howard, the Chief of the
Bureau of Entomology, and one of his senior
officers, Mr. W. D. Hunter, was sought regarding
the introduction of these into Queensland. : Neither
of these entomologists foresaw any likelihood of
the above-mentioned insects attacking plants other
than Cactacee. They would not, however, advise
the introduction of the Calandrid weevils, Cacto-

phagus, SPP-
In regard to the question as to what species
should be introduced, Dr. Howard stated that,
except in the case of any insect known to be
undesirable, it was the custom of his Bureau to
import all insects, whether destructive in their
native home to the object against which they
were to be used or not, as long as they were
injuriously related to it in their habits of life.

He generously offered to co-operate in any
effort to bring about the introduction into Aus-
tralia of such species as the Commission deemed
suitable for its purpose. It was agreed upon that
Queensland should be prepared to pay any
expenses incidental to the collection and trans-
mission of such insects. He stated in effect that
his Bureau would be responsible for and super-
vise the work in the United States, and place it
in the hands of one of its officers, Mr. J. D.
Mitchell, who is joint author of the bulletin on
“‘The Principal Cactus Insects of the United
States,’? and who, as we know from personal
experience, is well suited for such responsible
duties. However, his services could be granted
only up to a certain point, and this would be
done, not as a matter of ordinary official proce-
dure but as one of international courtesy. The
extent to which his services would be available
must depend upon Mr. Mitchell’s official superior,
Mr. Hunter. He might be authorised to employ
such boys as might be necessary to assist him in
the work.

Mr. Hunter submitted another scheme, which
would cost more than the latter but would be more
satisfactory. He suggested, with the concurrence
of Dr. Howard, that Mr. Mitchell should super-
vise and generally control procedures, the Bureau
of Entomology setting aside temporarily a suit-
able trained officer to assist him and to preserve
continuity in what was undertaken. This would
enable the matter to be prosecuted in a compre-
hensive manner. The officer, Dr. Howard stated,
would be one of the regular men now working
under Mr. Bishopp at Dallas, and would be fur-
loughed for the purpose. Mr. Hunter added that
this course would involve an expenditure on our
part of 200 dollars per month (about £40), made
up of 100 dollars for salary and the remainder
for expenses. He thought that much could be
done in this way, even in one month.

_ Dr. Howard offered to exercise his authority
in arranging for concessions being granted to
allow the passage of living insects in suitable
receptacles over the railways to the port of em-
barkation. In the event of the material being
transmitted vid San Francisco, Mr. Hunter stated
that it could be handled by Mr. F. W. Maskew,
who, besides being the Chief Inspector of the
Board of Horticultural Commissioners, was also
an officer of the Bureau of Entomology.

Both Dr. Howard and Mr. Hunter were
emphatic in pointing out that procuring these
useful insects and transmitting them to Queens-
land was only half the work necessary. On
arrival they had to be controlled, multiplied, and
distributed. Accordingly, suitable and adequate
B eoretions must be made in good time in our

ate.

These officers considered it preferable to raise
a large stock in Queensland from comparatively
few imported insects than to stock up from
the United States by the sending of numerous

‘transmitting packages.

80

consignments. This course was expedient if the
admission of parasites to the useful insects was
to be prevented.

Mr. Mitchell informed us of his willingness
to assist in every way that he could, if instructed
by Mr. Hunter to do so.

Whilst in San Francisco, one member of this
Commission interviewed Mr. Maskew with a wiew
to obtaining a promise of his assistance, more
especially as he is located at that port which is
the main avenue for egress from the United
States to Australia. Mr. G. Compere, the Chief
Quarantine Officer, who has had a very wide
experience of parasites in the field, and their
transmission and utilisation, was also present.
They considered the introduction into Queensland
of the insects referred to quite feasible, and would
be prepared to assist in the undertaking
by receiving, taking safe custody of, and
The latter should be
securely packed in the receptacles in which their
transmission was to be effected, and should be
conspicuously addressed with the name and
address of the consignee in Australia. They
should also each have an external movable cover-
ing bearing the official address of the San Fran-
cisco Quarantine Officer, California State Com-
mission of Horticulture, Ferry Building, San
Francisco, which might be detached prior to their
despatch to Queensland. Such packages should
be forwarded so as to arrive at the Quarantine
Office not later than twenty-four hours before the
time of departure of the steamer by which their
transmission to Australia was to be effected. It
was suggested that, in order to do this, the officer
responsible for the initial despatch of the several
consignments should keep in touch with the San
Francisco Quarantine Office, while the latter
would on its part keep such officer posted in
regard to the time and date of sailing of different
boats from that port to Australia.

Under special circumstances, Mr. Maskew
added, consignments might be sent vid Van-
couver, where there was stationed Mr. Hichorn,
a capable man, who would no doubt be found
willing to assist if asked to do so.

No question of any monetary grant was
raised, as Mr. Maskew expressed himself anxious
to help in every way without regard to any such
consideration.

In discussing details, it was agreed that the
temperature of the butter-room as generally main-
tained on ocean-going steamers would comply
with the conditions of cold storage suitable for
transmission of any prickly-pear insects.

Professor Thornber of the University of
Arizona, Tucson, and Prof. Merrill of the New
Mexico Agricultural College, Mesilla Park,
expressed their willingness to assist in any way
desired, under the direction of the Bureau of
Entomology.

Acting on the suggestion of Dr. L. O.
Howard, the Commission held another conference
with him, after it had visited the chief prickly-
pear regions of the United States and seen some-
thing of the effects of the natural enemies of
Opuntias, and consulted scientific investigators
and others during the journey. We informed
him that it was proposed to recommend to the
Government of Queensland that these enemies,

wre a
 

 

 

 

 

Photo.. Bureau of Entomology, Dept. Agriculture, U.S.A.
engelmanni, showing a black exudation from some of the areoles, due to the presence of the
larva of a cactus weevil, Gersteckeria nobilis (see Fig. 40).

Fig. 43.—0.

 

 

 

 

 

Photo., Bureau of Entomology, Dept. Agriculture, U.S.A.
i i i is reyish : aranc some parts of the
Fig. 44.—Wild Cochineal—Coceus confusus—on an Opuntia. The greyish appearance of some parts of t
segments is due to attacks by a cactus bug, Chelinidea vittigera.
with certain exceptions, should be introduced
and that Dr. Howard’s generously proffered
assistance should be availed* of; but that the
work could not be immediately entered upon
without its approval and authority. Besides, it
would be necessary for the Queensland Govern-
ment to provide the necessary insectary and ento-
mological staff for handling in our State what-
ever insects should be received.

Tus ‘‘ Rep Sprper,’’ TETRANYCHUS OPUNTIA,
Banks.

Besides the numerous insect enemies enume-
rated above, there is an arachnid, Tetranychus
opuntie, Banks (1908, p. 36), which Dr. D.
Griffiths regards as a serious pest of both wild
and cultivated Opuntias, but particularly of the
latter. He has given an account of the work
attributed to it (1908, pp. 29, 30). The parts
around the areoles are first attacked, a yellowish,
corky tissue being formed on the surface by the
plant as a result of the injury. This discoloured
area may extend over the greater part of the
joint. Owing to the cracking of this callus, a
mucilage may escape from the joint. Dr.
Griffiths states that no plants were observed to
have been killed by this ‘‘red spider,’’ which is
said to be most abundant in the winter, about
March. The ‘injury is more commonly seen
where the Opuntias are crowded together.

The condition referred to by Dr. Griffiths
was seen on O. lindhewmeri under cultivation at.
San Antonio, as well as at Brownsville. The
Curator of the Plant Introduction Gardens at
Chico, California, stated that Tetranychus was
very common in the greenhouses during March
and April, and, on account of the injury caused
by it, fumigation had to be resorted to in order
to control the pest.

According to Hirscht (1899, p. 797), 7. tela-
rius is a formidable enemy of the Cactaceare in
European collections. It causes the formation of
yellow, reddish, or red-brown spots which soon
extend over the surface of the whole plant,
followed by a cessation of growth, and even a
dropping to the ground of the upper parts of
the plant.

As ‘‘red spiders’’ are not restricted in their
dietary to the Cactacew, their introduction need
not be considered.

UTILISATION AS FOOD FOR MAN.

Comparatively little use is made of the
prickly-pear or its fruit as food for man in the
United States, while in the neighbouring Repub-
lie of Mexico the fruit especially forms a very
important article of diet (Griffiths and Hare,
1907b). This is due to the fact that the species
found indigenous to the former country do not
produce fruit comparable as a food with those
derived from the various Opuntias occurring
wild in the Mexican highlands. Certain species
grouped under the term ‘‘ Mission Pear ’’ have
been long introduced from Mexico into the
warmer parts of the United States,.and these are
partly cultivated by the Mexican population there
for the sake of the fruit, for which there is a local
demand. Among the indigenous species whose
fruits are occasionally utilised in this way are

81

Carnegiea gigantea, Opuntia dulcis,* and the
group of cacti (Hchinocereus, spp.) known col-
lectively as pitalla or Mexican strawberries. A
detailed analysis of the rind, pulp, and of the
fruit (minus the peel and seeds) of some prickly-
pears native to the United States has been pub-
lished by Drs. Griffiths and Hare (1907 b, pp. 15,
16, 32-42).

In order to meet the demand for edible
prickly-pear fruit made by Southern European
immigrants (chiefly Italians) in the United
States, a steady importation of the fruit of O.
ficus-indica into New York goes on from Italy
and Sicily (Griffiths, 1905, p. 41).

The fruits of some of the indigenous species,
e.g., O. dulcis, are occasionally made into pre-
serves. The pulpy central mass of the ‘‘nigger-
head’’ or barrel cactus, Echinocactus wislizent,
Engelm., and its allies is commonly used in Ari-
zona and Southern California in the manufac-
ture of a product termed ‘‘cactus candy,’’ this
portion being cut into pieces which become infil-
trated with sugar by being boiled in syrup. The
candy may be variously coloured.

Mr. Luther Burbank, of Santa Rosa, Cali-
fornia, has given careful attention to the improve-
ment of the fruit-bearing and stock-feeding capa-
bilities of certain varieties belonging to the O.
decumana group of species.

UTILISATION AS FOOD FOR CATTLE.

A great deal has been written in the United
States on this subject, particularly by Dr. Grif-
fiths and Dr. Hare. Amongst others who have
devoted much attention to this economic aspect
are Dr. Wooten (1911) in New Mexico, and Prof.
Thornber (1911) in Arizona. One of the earliest
to publish the results of his analyses of prickly-
pear was Harrington (1888, 1895). Goss (1896,
1903), Forbes (1904), and Vinson (1911) have
added further information, but the greatest
amount of work along the lines of chemical
analyses, followed up by feeding tests, has been
carried out by the two first-named authors,
Griffiths and Hare.

Ag the conditions of growth of prickly-pear
in the United States of America are so different
to those in Australia, a summary of the work
done will suffice.

Prickly-pear as a Farm Crop.—The Federal
Agricultural Department at Washington, D.C.,
as well as those of New Mexico and Arizona, are
endeavouring to induce people to plant out cactus
as an emergency fodder against times of drought.
In fact, Dr Griffiths advocates the growth of
many species of prickly-pear as farm crops
(1908 a, 1908 e¢, 1909 a, 1912 a), and states what
conditions of climate are necessary for their
proper development.

In his paper on ‘‘The Prickly Pear and
other Cacti as Food for Stock’’ (1905), Dr. Grif-
fiths referred to various methods of singeing and
chopping the pear. He pointed out its value dur-
ing drought, especially if some more concentrated
food be added. Its succulence was found to be

 

 

* Referred to by Griffiths and Hare (1907 b, p. 62) as
O. levis ?, Coulter

+ Mrs. B. L. de Graffe (1896, p. 169) has referred to
the chemical properties of prickly-pear as well as to some
methods of utilisation of the fruit.
82

of value in the case of a ration for dairy cattle,
from 40 to 70 lb. of pear being used along with
plenty of other nutritious food for each animal.
He stated that cattle, sheep, and goats soon become
accustomed to singed Opuntia, though scouring
ig apt to occur. In Texas, cotton-seed meal is
generally added to a pear diet, while in Colorado
the cane cactus (Cylindropuntia, spp.) is usually
fed alone.

Next year there appeared his bulletin giving
the results of his feeding experiments (1906),
both beef cattle and dairy cattle being used. The
milk yield was found to be in no way adversely
affected by the use of a roughage of prickly-pear.
Animals fed on chopped Opuntia together with
cotton-seed meal were found to have gained in
weight.

In the same year (1906) Griffiths and Hare
published a long article entitled ‘‘Prickly Pear
and other Cacti as Food for Stock, II.’’ In it
are abundant data regarding the chemical
analyses, as well as short accounts, of a large
number of species examined, amongst them being
some which occur in Queensland, viz., O. inermis,
O. monacantha, and O. imbricata. It was found
that the stems of the low-growing Texan species
were of more value than those of the tall tree
forms from Mexico, as they were far less woody
and more succulent. However, it was also found
that the old stems of the commonest Texan
species, O. lindheimeri, contained less water and
more crude fibre and had a less food value than
the younger growth, but the lower water content
of the stems was a decided advantage when deal-
ing with such succulent feed. Though the fruits
of cacti were usually found to possess more fat
and protein than the stems, yet it was noticed that
the seeds contained nearly all the food material
of the fruit, and as they are passed through cattle
undigested, this food was not available. Of
course those fruits which are rich in sugar have
considerable nutritive value. The cane cacti were
found to have a greater relative food value than
the flat Opuntias, as they contained more pro-
tein, fat, and nitrogen-free extract. They were,
however, generally drier and contained more
fibre, and were therefore less suitable for
ordinary feeding.

The question of forming a balanced ration
for cattle is also discussed. Assuming that the
coefficient of digestion for O. lindheimeri is the
same as that of immature green fodder, the nutri-
ents in that species were calculated as protein .47
per cent., fat .26 per cent., carbohydrates 7.85
per cent., the nutritive ratio of the plant being
1:18. The ratio for a standard ration varies
between 1:4 and 1 :12 according to the animal
and to the object of feeding, whether for work,
beef, or milk. Hence prickly-pear alone would be
too wide a ration. It is pointed out that in order
to produce milk the ratio should be from 1 : 5.5
to 1:7, and to provide the necessary digestible
fat, protein, and carbohydrate a cow would need
to eat about 400 Ib. of pear, whereas not more
than 50 or 60 lb. should be fed daily on aeceount
of the scouring which follows. The Opuntia could
be used as part of a fairly balanced ration thus :—
40 lb. cactus, 10 lb. of wheat bran, and 12 Ib.
of corn stover—a ration with a nutritive ratio of
1: 7.7. Another ration suggested is as follows :-—
60 lb. cactus, 14 lb. brewer’s grain, and 1 Ib.
cotton-seed meal—the nutritive ratio being 1 : 4.5.
This could be readily widened by the addition of

coarse dry fodder. A balanced ration consisting
of prickly-pear and cotton-seed meal could not
be prepared, as too much cactus would have to
be fed, though it is usually got over by feeding
excess of the meal which becomes utilised by the
animal to supply the deficiency in carbohydrates
—an expensive methcd of supplying carbohy-
drates, and one which could be justified only
where the meal is cheaper than more starchy
foods. This paper was summarised the next year
(Griffiths and Hare, 1907 a).

In an article (1908 a) dealing with ‘‘ The
Prickly-pear as a Farm Crop,’’ Dr. Griffiths again
referred to the value of cactus in dairy farming,
on account of the succulence and of the ease with
which a diet containing cactus as a roughage
could be balanced up by the addition of some
concentrated food, this succulence being available
at a time when other juicy fodder was not obtain-
able. Cattle, sheep, and goats were all found to
become fond of it. It was noted that O. lind-
heimert under cultivation produced annually
about 23 tons per acre, which would provide
enough roughage for a bovine.

Dr. Hare carried out some ‘‘ Experiments
on the Digestibility of Prickly Pear by Cattle,’’
publishing his work in 1908. He used O. lind-
heimeri and found its average composition to be
as follows :—Water, 83-41, ash 3-48, protein 0-75,
ether extract 0.31, crude fibre 2.64, nitrogen-
free extract 9-41, total organic matter 13-11 per
cent. As a result of his observations on feeding
it to steers, he determined the coefficient of diges-
tion to be—Protein 58.25 per cent., fat 67.90,
erude fibre 41-32, and nitrogen-free extract
82-59. The digestive nutrients (obtained as the
product of each nutrient by its coefficient) were
found to be—Proteids 0-45, fat 0-21, carbo-
hydrates 7.77—Nutritive ratio 1: 18.3, which falls
far below both the European (1 :5.4) and
American (1: 6.5) standard ratio for milch cows.

In comparing the results obtained when
using the pear with those obtained with green
corn as a fodder, it was seen that the prcteids of
the former were not quite as digestible as those
of the latter, though the fats were about the same
in each instance, and the nitrogen-free extract
more digestible in the case of the pear, but the
eruae fibre less so. The total digestive nutrients
were thus about the same in both, though slightly
in favour of the cactus. He also found that when
pear was fed along with cured fodders or grains
the digestibility of both seemed to be increased.
In one experiment the animals gained weight, but
in another set of experiments the beasts lost
weight. As a satisfactory ration for a 1,000-Ib
milch cow he suggested 50 Ib. pricklv-pear, 10 lb.
wheat bran, and 10 Ib. lucerne, this having a
nutritive ratio of 1:5.46. The tendency to.
scour, as a result of feeding on a ration of
prickly-pear and cotton-seed meal such as is com-
monly used in Texas, could be checked either by
giving some coarse feed in addition or else by
allowing cattle the run of a dry-grass pasture.

As early as 1895 Goss (p. 49) had suggested
that lucerne should be added to prickly-pear diets
in order to increase the amount of nitrogen in the
ration.

Uncultwated Prickly-pear as Fodder.—in
a bulletin entitled ‘‘ Cacti in New Mexico,’’
E. O. Wooten (1911) attempted to awaken
the interest of New Mexican ranchmen in
83

regard to the value of prickly-pear as a reserve
fodder against times of drought. He recapi-
tulated the results of Griffiths and Hare, and
gave botanical details regarding many of the local
species.

In the same year J. J. Thornber, of the
University of Arizona, published the results of
his efforts in an article on ‘‘The Native Cacti as
Emergency Fodder Plants’’ (1911). The native
species were found to be able to withstand the
rigorous climate of Arizona much more satisfac-
torily than the various spineless forms experi-
mented with. It was shown that sheep, if fed on
cactus alone, undergo nitrogen starvation, but
when the prickly-pear fodder was balanced by
the addition of a small amount of food rich in
protein, then the ration had a decided nutritive
value. These plants are looked upon by him solely
as an emergency fodder and as a range crop,
not as a farm crop. Hence the planting out of
Chollas (Cylindropuntia) and_prickly-pear
(Platyopuntia) in the open country in Arizona
was strongly advised. Details as to the prepara-
tion of each for fodder were given, singeing
being the method recommended.

When visiting Arizona, the Commission’s
observations led to the conclusion that certain
indigenous species of Cylindropuntia—the
Chollas—supplied a very considerable part of
the dietary of. cattle who fed on the abundant
green perennial fruit, areas in which Chollas
were abundant and in which there was little
if any grass being fenced off for grazing pur-
poses.

The nutritive value of Cholla fruit (0. ful-
gida)* was investigated by Dr. Vinson (1911),
who used sheep as experimental animals. He
found that as a ration for maintaining sheep in
a fair state of nutrition it would be necessary
to supply an animal with an amount of fruit far
beyond its capacity, at least 45 Ib. daily being
needed. Besides. this would contain excessive
mineral salts. The fruit alone appears to be
inadequate to maintain the nitrogen equilibrium
for any lengthened period. The addition of half
to three-quarters of a pound of lucerne hay to a
diet of 6 or more Ib. of cholla fruit would
probably preserve life in the case of a 120-Tb.
sheep. and there would perhaps be some gain
in weight. It was suggested by him that similar
results might be obtained with range cattle by
using quantities increased proportionally to the
live weight—i.c.. about 4 to 6 lb. alfalfa or its
equivalent and 50 or more Ib. of cholla fruit daily
(p. 518). It was found that sheep in confinement
could not be forced to eat other forms of cactus
except the fruit, but ate the latter quite readily
when the supply of Incerne was limited. Range
cattle eat considerable quantities of cactus,
especially their succulent acid fruits.

The information obtained by the Commission
from various sources pointed to the fact that
prickly-pear was generally regarded as a nuisance
if abundant. and as a plant possessing some
value only during times of drought when other
stock food was scarce. The Mexican teamsters
in Texas are in the habit of giving cactus to their
animals, which generally haye to find most of
their own food. Stockmen occasionally make use
of the pear after burning off the spines by means
of a brushwood fire or a torch. In one place,

* QO. imbricata, which occurs sparingly in New South
Wales and Queensland, is allied to O, fulgida,

 

prickly-pear was seen to be cultivated, the plants
being singed and dairy cattle then turned in to
feed on the cactus as a roughage. This was at
Mr. Sinclair’s farm near San Antonio, and it
was here that Dr. Griffiths carried out some of
his experiments.

The experience in the United States in regard
to using prickly-pear as a stock fodder is thus
fairly similar to that in Australia, though the
cactus there is relatively less abundant, being
largely controlled by climate and to a consider-
able extent by various natural enemies.*

Farmers get rid of the cacti by cutting them
down, and either burning them after partial dry-
ing, or else ploughing them into the soil.

UTILISATION FOR THE MANUFACTURE
OF ALCOHOL.

Professor Hare and his colleagues, 8. R.
Mitchell and A. P. Bjerregaard, have published
(1909) a paper dealing with the question of
obtaining denatured alcohol from Opuntias. They
found that about 10 per cent. of the total
weight of a prickly-pear plant consisted of carbo-
hydrates, mainly plant mucilage and soft cellu-
lose tissue, there being no starch except in spring.
Since the amount of sugar present at any season
was quite small, there was consequently very little
material available for the production of alcohol,
and hence the possibility of obtaining that pro-
duct commercially from the plant as a whole was
negligible.

In regard to the utilisation of the ripe fruit
for the manufacture of alcohol, it is pointed out
that the fruits of many species are used largely
by Mexicans as articles of food, their value being
due to the high sugar-content—mainly dextrose—
which in the best varieties amounts to from 10 to
15 per cent. Where prickly-pear (0. lindhet-
meri) had been cultivated, as near San Antonio,
Texas, the fruit obtained averaged 8 tons per
acre, from 10 to 12 tons being obtained some-
times; but in New Mexico the plants when wild
did not grow sufficiently close to make fruit col-
lection for alcohol manufacture profitable.
Besides this, the cost of hauling the fruit to a
distillery would have to be considered. Then,
again, it was estimated that if fruits have 10 per
cent. of sugar about 140 lb. of fruit would be
required to produce a gallon of alcohol, and this
would necessitate considerable labour being used,
only hand labour being available in New Mexico.

Tt was found that various types of yeast could
be employed, but substances other than alcohol
were also produced, e.g., acetic acid, &., whereas,
by using pure cultures of an active distillery
yeast, practically all the sugar was converted into
alcohol, The details of the method are described
(pp. 36-40). The addition of Pasteur’s mineral
nutrient did not increase the amount obtained.
Tt was suggested that the sterilisation of the fruit,
or the fruit-juice, followed by cooling before add-
ing the ferment, would probably be beneficial. It
was found that the fruit-juice if evaporated to a

* 1913, p. 975) has recentl published some
eae peas to ie United States.
He believes that the spread of prickly-pear there depends on
a sufficiency of moisture and an absence of frosts. The fact
that grass-fires are much less common now than formerly
has led to amuch more rapid spread of cacti. Distribution
by cattle is also a factor in the spread. Mr. J. D. Mitchell,
who accompanied the Commission in Texas, held the same
views regarding the cause of the increase in Opuntias in
parts of that State,
84

thick syrup would not ferment, but would do so
if diluted. Evaporation would, however, be an
expensive matter.

The conclusions of these authors may be
stated briefly. In order to make aleohol manu-
facture from prickly-pear fruit a profitable under-
taking, the following conditions would seem to be
necessary:—(1) The production of a large
amount of fruit from small areas averaging about
10 tons of fruit to the acre; (2) Some rapid
method of collecting fruit, as hand-picking even
with Mexican labour is too expensive.*

It should be mentioned, however, that these
findings have reference to the manufacture of
raw spirit, and not to an immediately potable
beverage which, as already known, prickly-pear
fruits may be made to yield.

UTILISATION OF THE MUCILAGE OF
PRICKLY-PEAR.

Dr. Hare (1911), in his ‘‘ Preliminary Study
of the Carbohydrates in the Prickly Pear and its
Fruits,’’ deals with the mucilage contained in the
stem-joints as well as in the green fruits. This
substance disappears from the latter as ripening
progresses, and is absent from mature fruits,
being replaced by sugars, largely ‘‘glucose and
fructose with small amounts of sucrose and per-
haps a pentose in small amounts, but no galac-
tose.’’ His analysis of the mucilage from the
stem showed that it contained galactant and a
pentosan. The carbohydrates of the stem were
found to consist mainly of this mucilage together
with small quantities of gum, sugar, and starch,
the latter being present during summer, but scarce
or absent at other times of the year. Dr. Hare
thought that O’Sullivan’s view that mucilages
and gums are not polysaccharides as usually
believed, but are glucoside derivatives of certain
organic acids—the latter being different for each
mucilage—was the correct one in the case of
Opuntia.

The prickly-pear mucilage was observed to
be insoluble in water, as its ‘‘solution’’ in water
will not pass through unglazed porcelain, though
if dilute it will pass through filter paper. It was
also found that this substance could be separated
by certain treatment with alcohol into two con-
stituents, one of which contained a high percen-
tage of pentosans while the other was free from
them, but was easily hydrolised to produce
hexoses. The composition of the dried mucilage
‘‘when separated by precipitation with alcohol
from a 2 per cent. solution contained 15 per cent.
of galactan, 31 per cent. of pentosan, and 12 per
cent. of ash,’’ whereas the juice of the ripe fruit
contained 1.57 per cent. of pentosans, and only
traces of galactan, but considerable quantities of
fructose and glucose (p. 28).

In regard to the question of utilising the
mucilage, Prof. Hare found that though a 10 per
cent. solution was very viscous, its adhesiveness
was very poor. He mentioned that experiments

* Mexican labour is obtained at an extremely cheap
rate in Mexico and the neighbouring parts of the United
States, when compared with the cost in such a country as
Australia (see Griffiths, 1905, pp. 42-43).

_{ K. Yoshimura, in his “ Note on the Chemical Com-
position of some Mucilages,”” in the Bull. Coll. Agricul. Imp.
University, Tokyo, Japan, (2, 1895, pp. 207-8), found that
the mucilage from the stem of prickly-pears consisted
chiefly of galactan, whereas Ladd (New York Agric. Exp.
Station, 6th Ann. Rep.) thought it contained pectins, his
ie a being doubted by Griffiths and Hare (1907 b,
p. 40). ; =

carried out by a manufacturing firm to test the
usefulness of prickly-pear mucilage as a glaze for
paper showed that it was unsatisfactory on
account of the feebleness of its adhesive qualities.
Mr. Luther Burbank informed the Commission
that he believed that the substance had been used
to some little extent in the United States of
America as a glaze for cheap cotton stuffs.

The mucilage obtained from O. engelmanni
in Southern California is used as a dressing for
canvas tents employed in fumigating fruit-trees.
Joints are chopped up and then soaked in water
for twenty-four hours, the mucilage obtained
being thickened by the addition of ochre or vene-
tian red and then applied to both sides of the
canvas.*

The industrial arts may, however, furnish
other opportunities for the use of prickly-pear
mucilage, an instance of this being given in the
section of the Report dealing with India, where
the substance is utilised in the making of a kind
of plaster (chunar).

THE COLOURING MATTER OF PRICKLY-
PEAR FRUIT.

The fruits of many prickly-pears contain a
bright’ magenta colouring, which in the case of
O. dulcis has been investigated by Dr. Hare
(1911).+ He first removed the mucilaginous
material from the juice by the addition of one
or two volumes of alcohol. The addition of two
volumes of acetone to the filtrate precipitates the
magenta pigment in a syrupy condition. The
latter can be dried and its colour is permanent.

Experiments were made with wool, silk, and
cotton, mordanted and not mordanted, but it was
found that the colour did not form a sufficiently
fast dye. As an article for colouring foods and
drugs, it was proved unsatisfactory in cases where
it was necessary to keep the colour in solution in
the presence of oxidising agents or light, but was
found to give quite satisfactory results when used
to colour ice-cream, beverages, candies, and fruit
preserves. —

He believed that on account of the cheapness
and abundance of the fruit, and the ease with
which the pigment could be separated and concen-
trated into a harmless paste suitable for use in
colouring certain foodstuffs, its introduction to
the trade would be justified.

SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATIONS IN THE
UNITED STATES.

The Commission visited the main cactus
areas and obtained advice and assistance from
various scientific workers and others who had
given attention to prickly-pear matters.

In regard to destruction by disease, there is
one malady, anthracnose or ‘‘ shothole,’’ caused
by the fungus Gleosporium lunatum, which,
under certain conditions of climate, is capable of
causing considerable damage, the ‘‘ black rot’?
which then sets in bringing about the destruction
of attacked segments. Cultures of this fungus
have been brought to Queensland by the Com-
mission. :

 

* Year book of Agriculture, U.S.A., 1896, p. 230.

_ tA short preliminary account was published by
Griffiths and Hare (1907b, p. 62), the species being
identified as O. laevis ?, Coulter, ‘
 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 45.—Wild Cochineal—Coccus confusus Newsteadi—on Nopalca cechinelifera,
Antigua, West Indies.

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 46.—The Cape Wild Cochineal—Coccus confusus capensis—
on O. monacantha. Capetown, South Africa.

 

 

 

 

Photo., E. O. Essig, State Commission of Horticulture of California.

Fig. 47.Wild Cochineal on Opuntia. Bonita, Southern California. The tubular coverings of the male
insects are recognisable.
85

Certain rodents, especially species of
Neotoma, are capable of doing a great deal of
damage to and not infrequently destroy prickly-
pear plants, but their dietary is not restricted
to the Cactacee.

In regard to the action of insects as
destroyers of prickly-pears, a large amount of
evidence has been collected. The most destruc-
tive are the beetles Moneilema spp., Cenopeus
palmert, and Gersteckeria spp.; the moths
Melitara spp., and Mimorista flavidissimalis ; the
hemiptera Chelinidea spp., and Narnia spp.; and
the diptera Asphondylia spp., and Itonida
opuntie. All of these are stated to be restricted
to the Cactacez.

The larva of Moneilema forms tunnels in the
joints, stems, and roots, while the adult feeds
on the young segments. Cenopeus acts similarly.
The cactus weevils, Gersteckeria spp., occasion
more or less damage in the larval stage, the in-
juries caused by the adult being unimportant.
The larvee live within the joints.

The species of Melitara are the most destruc-
tive of the natural enemies of the prickly-pear,
the larvee hollowing out the joints and sometimes
even the stems and roots, totally destroying the
plant. They are assisted by the larvae of scaveng-
ing flies and by invading micro-organisms.

Mimorista commonly causes the destruction
of young segments and is therefore a powerful
factor in controlling the spread of prickly-pear.

The bugs Narnia and Chelinidea attack the
.fruit and stem-joints respectively and are said
to be at times a serious menace to the health of
the host plant. It is also suggested that the
latter may act as the transmitting agent for the
shothole fungus Gleosporium.

The species of Asphondylia cause the more
or less complete destruction of the ovules and
developing seeds of prickly-pears, the resulting
deformed ‘‘ fruit’’ giving rise to a joint or to
a ‘‘ fruit’’ which in its turn is likely to become
infested. Hence Asphondylia is capable of
acting very efficiently in preventing the spread
of Opuntias by seed.

Itonida causes gall-like swellings in the stem
joints and has been the cause of heavy loss
amongst greenhouse Opuntias. Its native home
is not known.

Many: other insect enemies are known, but
they are either not restricted in their dietary
to cacti or else their influence in destroying or
controlling prickly-pear is not of much im-
portance.

*

Dr. Howard and Mr. Hunter, of the Bureau
of Entomology, Washington, D.C., have sug-
gested certain means by which the introduc-
tion of desired insect enemies could be most
satisfactorily brought about, and other scientists
in California, New Mexico, and Arizona have
offered to co-operate.

In regard to utilisation of prickly-pear as
stock fodder, a considerable amount of work
has been done, the growing of Opuntias as a
farm crop being recommended. It is admitted,
however, that prickly-pear, whether grown as a
farm crop or as a range crop, is only a roughage
and needs to be supplemented by the addition
of some more nutritive fodder such as cotton-
seed meal, lucerne, bran, &. Amongst the many
rations suggested ag suitable for cattle, the fol-
lowing may be mentioned as one for a 1,000-1b.
milch cow:—50 Ib. of pear, 10 Ib. wheat bran,

and 10 Ib. lucerne daily, the nutritive ratio being
1:5.4.

In regard to utilising prickly-pear or its
constituents in the industries, investigators have
been at work in the United States to test the
possibility of manufacturing alcohol. The plant
mucilage, and the colouring matter contained
in the fruits of certain species, have also been
examined with a view to determining their
usefulness.

It has been ascertained that if fruits have
an average of 10 per cent. of sugar then 140 lb.
of fruit are needed to produce one gallon of
alcohol. In order to render this a profitable
undertaking it is necessary (1) that there should
be a large production of fruit per acre, about
10 tons per acre being needed; and (2)that there
should be some rapid and cheap means of col-
lecting the fruit, as gathering by hand, even
using cheap native labour, is far too expensive.
Then, again, proximity to the distillery is a con-
sideration. This does not exclude its use as a
source for immediately potable alcohol.

The plant mucilage contains galactan and
a pentosan. A 10 per cent. ‘‘solution’’ is very
viscous, but possesses very poor adhesive qualities
and has not been found satisfactory as a glaze
even for cheap paper. However, it may serve the
needs of other industrial purposes.

A bright magenta colouring matter is obtain-
able from the fruits of certain kinds of prickly-
pear, but it does not form a sufficiently fast dye
for cotton, silk, &c. It is not suitable as a
colouring medium for foods or drugs if sub-
jected to light or to oxidation. It is, however,
of some use as a colouring matter for ice-cream,
beverages, and confectionery. Its extraction does
not involve any difficult technical process.
86

VII. MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA.

Owing to the unsettled state of Mexico,
particularly the prickly-pear regions, the British
Ambassador at Washington, D.C., and the
Officials of the Department of Agriculture at
Washington, as well as those along the Texan
border, strongly deprecated any attempt on the
part of the Commission to enter that country.
As the Mexican Highlands, especially the north-
ern portion of it, possess a particularly rich
Cactus Flora, it is to be regretted that oppor-
tunity did not allow of systematic search and
inquiry being made there. The Commission had
to content itself with a few visits to certain
northern towns just within the Mexican frontier.

The following report is mainly a compila-
tion of information gained from various sources
during the course of inquiry in the United States
of America.

Since more species of Prickly-pears occur
indigenously in Mexico than in any other part
of America, the Index Kewensis enumerating
upwards of fifty nominally described endemic
species, the literature referring to Mexican
and Central American Opuntias is very exten-
sive. Earlier work, based largely on specimens
cultivated in European gardens, is included in
Schumann’s Monograph (1899-1903). Since then
Dr. Griffiths (1908-1912) and Dr. Rose (1890-
1913) have been working steadily at the sys-
tematic side of the group.

Some of the Mexican species have become
naturalised in Australia, ¢e.g.: —

(1) O. tomentosa, the tree pear of Heli-
don, Rockhampton, Gayndah, and
other districts in Queensland ;

(2) The ‘‘Red Mexican’ or ‘‘ Westwood
Pear’’; and

(3) The ‘‘Yellow Mexican”’ species, both
found in the Rockhampton district;

(4) O. microdasys, which Mr. Maiden has
stated is now to be found in the Pil-
laga Scrub (N.S.W.) ;

(5) O. imbricata, which occurs in scat-
tered situations in New South Wales
and in one locality in Queensland ;

(6) Nopalea cochinelifera, which is found
at Gayndah and Emerald, is probably
a native of Mexico.

DESTRUCTION BY FUNGOID
DISEASES,

Dr. Griffiths (1908, p. 28) gave a short
account of the ‘‘shot-hole’’ disease, whose range
is stated to be from Texas to Mexico City, and
whose causal agent was identified as Perisporium
Wright. As pointed out by Wolf (1912) the
parasite is Glaosporium lunatum, P. Wrightii
being a comparatively harmless enemy of the
Prickly-pear in those regions. This ‘‘shot hole’’
is referred to at some length in the report on the
investigations in the United States. Perisporium
Wright also occurs in Northern Mexico.

DESTRUCTION BY RODENTS.

The range of several of the rodents, such as
Neotoma spp. and others, whose activity in
attacking and even destroying Prickly-pear in
Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, has been men-
tioned in the report on the Commission’s work
in the United States, extends into Mexico, As

already stated in that section of the report, these
animals are general feeders, whose introduction
could not with safety be recommended (see
Bailey, 1905).

INSECT ENEMIES.

Since most of the insects mentioned below,
or else species allied to them, have been referred
to in the report on the investigations in the
United States, there is not any need to dwell
on them again. The geographical range of
many of them extends from Texas, Arizona, and
New Mexico into the Republic of Mexico. Besides
these there are others not represented in the
United States, though related species may occur
there. Many are recorded in the Bulletin on.
Cactus Insects (C.I., 1912) from localities on
the Northern bank of the Rio Grande, e¢.g.,
Brownsville, Laredo, Eagle Pass, and El Paso,
the range of at least some of them, no doubt,
extending across that river into Mexico. The
effects produced by the various insect enemies
have been described earlier in the report.

COLEOPTERA.

Amongst the cactus beetles belonging to the
genus Moneilema are certain Mexican species,
M. variolare, Thomson (Dugés, 1886), and M.
levithoraz, White (Dugés, 1901). Horn (1885)
has recorded the following as occurring in Lower
California:—M. semipunctatum; M. subrugosum
Blanch.; M. spoliatum Horn.

Cactophagus spinole, Gyllenhal (syn. C.

validus Le Conte), is recorded by Dugés (1886),

Champion (1910), Tryon (1911, p. 19), and
Messrs. Hunter, Pratt, and Mitchell (p. 44), as
infesting certain Mexican species of Opuntia.
Champion (1910, p. 84) mentions that Cacto-
phagus striatoforatus, Gyllenhal, attacks Cereus
in Costa Rica.

The Cactus weevils have received attention
lately from Mr. W. D. Pierce (1912), in whose
paper several Mexican and Central American
species are referred to. They belong to the
genus Gersteckeria, which has been subdivided
by him into a number of subgenera. They are G.
(Xenosomina) inflata, Champion, from Guate-
mala; G. (Xen.) turpis, Champion, also from
Guatemala; G. (Gersteckeria) bifasciata, Ger-
stacker, from Mexico; G. (Philopuntia) leseleuci,
Champion, from various Mexican localities; G.
(Philop.) lactt, Champion, from Southern
Mexico; G. (Philop.) cruciata, Champion, from
N.E. Mexico; as well as G. (Phil.) curvilineata,
Champion; G. (Phil.) tolucana, Champion; and
G. (Phil.) lineatocollis, Champion, from various
localities in Mexico. Besides these there are
many species from the Mexican border of Texas,
e.g., G. clathrata, Le Conte, G. cactophaga, Pierce,
and G. nobilis, Le Conte.

LEPIDOPTERA.

_ No serious Lepidopterous parasites of
Prickly-pear are quoted in the Bulletin on Cactus
Insects as occurring in Mexico. Since certain
species of Melitara are to be found in Arizona, ’
New Mexico, and Texas near the Mexican frontier,
it is not unlikely that the range of some of them
extends into Northern Mexico. One, M. para-
bates Dyar, has been recorded from the Republic,
Hemirtera.

Amongst the hemiptera recorded in C.J
( 1912, pp. 33-40, &e.) as infesting Cactus plants
in this region, are representatives of the destruc-
tive genera Narnia and Chelinidea. N. femorata,
Stal., whose range extends into Texas, is found in
North-Eastern Mexico, where it is reported as
attacking the fruit of Opuntias and Cereus. N.
imornata Distant, feeds on the joints of Prickly-
pear at Durango. Chelinidea tabulata West-
wood is found in the same Mexican localities as
the last-named. Other plant bugs—e.g., CO. vitti-
gera,. Uhler, Stylopidea picta, Uhler, Sixeonotus
luteiceps, Reuter, and Narnia pullidicornis, Stal.,
are recorded from the Texan frontier. Cory-
thuca decens, Stal., has been taken on Opuntias
near Aguas Calientes (C.L., p. 41).

_ Another important group of Hemiptera—
viz., the Coccide, which includes the Cochineal
insects, is well represented in Mexico on Cac-
tacee.

The true cochineal Coccus (or Dactylopius)
cacti, Linn., is a native of Mexico. On account of
its commercial importance in former times a con-
siderable amount of literature has accumulated
regarding it. A good description of this ancient
industry was given by A. Von Humboldt (1811),
and many other writers, prominent amongst
whom are M. de Russcher, Lopez, and Thierry de
Menonville. Many of the accounts have been
based on Alzate’s treatise published in 1794 in
the ‘‘Gazeta de Literatura’’ of Mexico. The bulk
of the world’s supply was exported previously
from Vera Cruz, but the industry is now confined
almost entirely to the Canary Islands, though a
small quantity is still being raised in Guatemala,
Central America (Green, 1912, p. 84).

Several species of wild cochineal have been
found in Mexico as well as in the adjacent poz-
tions of the United States. Coccus tomentosus,
Lamarck*, infests Opuntia fulgida in Northern
Mexico (C.I., p. 42), while C. confusus and C.
confusus newsteadi, Ckll., have also been recorded
from North Mexican localities (Cockerell, 1896,
pp. 34, 35). Tryon (1910, p. 188), Burkill (1911,
p. 304), and Green (1912, p.86), all refer to the
introduction by G. A. Prinsep of a wild cochineal
(C. indicus, Green) from Mexico into India, via
England. The native home of this lastnamed
insect is, however, as yet, not known, unless it be
identical with that mentioned in the footnote.t

* When dealing with Coccus tomentosus Lam. obtained
on plants of Opuntia fulgide imported from Arizona into
’ Kew Gardens in 1896, Newstead (1903, p. 225) stated that
Mexico was apparently the home of the species, as Curtis
and Dugés had collected specimens of it in that country.
+ The occurrence of a wild cochineal insect in Mexico
was announced as early as 1725, its presence in various
places in the neighbourhood of Oaxaca, Yxtala, &c., being
incidentally mentioned in accounts of the habits and mode
of farming the more precious insect. As an instance, one
may cite the following testimony of Matheo de Ognero
y Mier, contained in Melchior de Russcher’s ‘ Natuerlyke
Historie van de Couchenille bewezen met Authentique
Documenten ’”’ (Amsterdam—H. Uytwerf—1729) :—
There is still another kind of cochineal which resembles
the fine but which is named the sylvestre or wild, since,
without being an object of care, it provides for itself on
other kinds of Nopals which are more spiny and rough.
When crushed between the fingers, a reddish coloured fluid
escapes from the body. This cochineal has neither the
fineness of the other nor is it as abundant 3 besides, it has
a bad odour and damages the fine cochineal if mixed with
it. On account of its being of little value, it is not an
object of trade, although it may be put to other uses.

(Translation of pp. 182, 133.)

87

One member of this Commission has adduced
emphatic evidence of a wild cochineal insect
prevalent in Mexico and destructive to opuntias
there. Thus he writes: ‘‘ Regarding this more
vigorous cochineal insect, Thierry de Menonville
states: ‘ They multiply themselves so rapidly as
to exhaust and destroy the plants, on which
account in Mexico they are almost all collected at
the end of every two months and the plants
perfectly cleansed by wiping them with wetted
cloths.’’’ (Giberne, G., 1836.)

Again, in a report published by the Royal
Cadiz Economic Society, it is remarked: ‘‘ The
cultivators of Oaxaca sedulously destroy the
sylvestre, saying that it weakens and destroys the
Nopals.’’

Thierry de Menonville’s observations were
made in Mexico in 1777, but the destructiveness
towards prickly-pear plants exhibited is still
exercised by them there now. Thus in a work,
‘‘Tuas Plagas de la Agricultura,’’ published in
Mexico in 1902, p. 202, it is stated that ‘‘ The
wild cochineal is a terrible enemy of the Nopal,
and can accomplish its destruction, unless steps
be taken to prevent its doing so.’’ (Tryon, 1910.)

A number of parasites of the wild cochineal,
C. confusus, are quoted in the list given in the
Bulletin on Cactus Insects, as occurring in Mexico
(C.L, pp. 46-47). They are Chilochorus cacti,
L., Hyperaspis trifurcata, Schaeffer, Scymnus
loewt, Muls., and 8S. hornit, Gorham, amongst the
Coleoptera; and Leucopis bellula, Williston, a
dipteron. The last-named, which parasitises Coc-
cus confusus in the United States, was reared by
Coquillet (1898) from a Mexican coccid Acantho-
coccus sp. (C.L, p. 47). Other parasites of the
wild cochineal are recorded from localities along
the Texan frontier.

Amongst the less important coccids known
to attack Cactacee in Mexico are Pseudoparla-
toria parlatorioides, Comstock, and Opuntiaspis
philococcus, Ckll. (C.1., p. 42), as well as certain
species of Diaspis—e.g., D. echinocacti, Bouché
(Fernald, 1903), and D. echinocacti opuntie,
CkIL, the latter variety infesting O. arborescens
and O. elongata (C.1L, p. 42).

DiIpPtTERA.

A Cecidomyiid fly, Asphondylia opuntia,
Felt, which is widely distributed in the southern
portion of the United States, extends as far south-
ward as San Luis Potosi, in Mexico (C.L, p. 34).
This enemy of Prickly-pear, which attacks the
fruit causing it to develop into a short joint, is
referred to in the report on the investigations in
the neighbouring Republic.

Many Mexican species of Opuntia, growing
in the New York Botanical Gardens, were found
to be destroyed by another Cecidomyiid, Itonida
opuntie, Felt., whose native home is not yet
known.

A long list of scavengers found in Cacti in
Mexico is given in C.L, pp. 47-49.

ACARIDA.

Tetranychus spp. Though not insects, these
acarids may be conveniently referred to here.
Dr. Griffiths has given an account (1908, pp.
28-30) of a disease caused by a “‘ red spider,”’
Tetranychus opuntie, Banks, the condition
being somewhat similar to that produced by
the attacks of an allied species in European
collections of Cactacee (Hirscht, 1899). The
malady, which is referred to earlier in this report,
extends as far south as Mexico City. Mexicans
regard it as a serious disease, particularly where
Prickly-pears are growing in a more or less
crowded state. It is said to be more prevalent
during dry weather.

UTILISATION AS Foop ror Man.

Drs. Griffiths and Hare, in their paper on
“The Tuna as Food for Man’’ (1907 a), have
given an interesting account of the uses to which
Prickly-pear, especially the fruit, is put by the
Mexicans. The following is a summary of the
information contained in their article.

The fruits or tunas form a very important
constituent of the diet of the poorer classes. Some
of the relatively spineless species of Prickly-pear,
known as ‘‘mansa’’ and related to O. ficus-indica
naturalised in the Mediterranean region, receive a
certain amount of cultivation, whith generally
consists of planting cuttings and protecting them
from cattle by surrounding the plants with a
fence or a hedge of spiny Opuntias or columnar
Cereus. Certain spiny forms, such as ‘‘Cardona’”’
—0O. streptacantha (an ally of our ‘‘ Westwood
Pear’’)—are also propagated, as they yield a
fruit much appreciated by the Mexican. The
production of fruit is the first consideration,
stock-feed being secondary.

The spinules are removed in various ways
and the skin or rind separated off as is done in
the Mediterranean littoral. In the case of certain
fruits (O. leucotricha) both pulp and rind are
eaten. Seeds are generally swallowed, though it
is recognised that those of the ‘‘mansas’’ cause
indigestion, while those of the ‘‘tapon’’ (0.
robusta) may cause serious intestinal obstruction
which has been known to end fatally. The
‘‘cardona’’ (O. streptacantha) is said to be
the favourite as an article of diet, and there is
an absence of ill-effects after eating freely of it.

Analyses of the fruit rind and pulp, as well
as of fruit from which the peel and seeds had
been removed, have been published by these
workers, nearly all the species examined being
from Mexico (pp. 15, 16, 32-42). It was found
that the Mexican samples averaged 9-53 per cent.
sugar, while the fruits which were analysed from
species growing in the United States averaged
5-61 per cent., certain Mexican species found
there in a naturalised state being included, their
inclusion considerably increasing the average
sugar content. Samples of indigenous Opuntias
from San Antonio, Texas, were found to average
less than 3 per cent. Amongst the Mexican
Prickly-pears examined were the ‘‘tuna ama-
rilla,’’ ‘‘eardona,’’ ‘‘chavena,’’ and the fruit of
O. imbricata. The three first-named are allied to
the ‘Yellow Mexican’”’ and ‘‘Westwood’’ pears
of Queensland, and the last-named species occurs
in parts of New South Wales and Queensland.
It may be remarked that practically no sugar
was found in fruits of O. imbricata.

In addition to those used in a fresh state,
vast quantities of Prickly-pear fruits or tunas
are dried for use. These are prepared mainly
from those of the cultivated species, since they
are larger and paler in colour, the popular ‘‘car-
donas’’ being less suitable as they are rather

88

too small and possess too many spinules, and,
moreover, their red colour becomes altered to
black—regarded as an objection by the Mexi-
cans—during the process of drying. The fruits
are thinly peeled, and the remaining rind and
pulp is set out in the sun on a framework for
from ten to fifteen days, a yellow deposit of sugar
and mucilage forming on the outside as drying
progresses. They are then packed loosely in
erates for about six months to allow further
evaporation. The ‘‘tuna amarilla’’ is especially
suitable for drying on account of its size, flavour,
and sugar content. Dried tunas are used as food
after being cooked in a similar manner to the
ordinary dried fruits of commerce—e.g., apricots,
&e.

Schumann (1899) in his account of various
Mexican cacti mentions in many cases that the
fruit is edible. In addition to certain species of
Cereus, Pilocereus, Echinocereus, and Phyllo-
cactus, the following Opuntias are mentioned :—

Opuntia leucotricha—the durasnillo; 0.
ficus-indica, Lu.; O. streptacantha—the cardona;
and O. robusta, Wend—the tapona. In addition,
the fruits of certain species of Mamillaria (p.
570) are sold in Mexican markets under the name
Chilitos, on account of their resemblance to small
chillies (cayenne peppers). The fruits of Cereus
trigonus are recorded by Schumann (1903, p. 57)
as being used in Costa Rica. A. Weber (1902)
has referred to the high opinion which Mexicans
jhold regarding the durasnillo on account of the
flavour of the fruit. R. Gosselin, in 1904, briefiy
described the fruits of eight Opuntias of Mexican
origin, grown in the French Riviera near Nice.

In the Catalogue of the Darrah collection of
cacti in the Alexandra Park, Manchester, in
addition to those mentioned by Schumann, the
fruit of many other Mexican and Central Ameri-
can species of Cereus is said to be used for food.

Prof. Hare (1911, p. 26) has stated that the
natives of Mexico and of South-Western U.S.A.
make richly coloured preserves from the fruits of
O. dulcis, the evaporated juice containing from
30 to 60 per cent. of glucose, but apparently free
from pectin substances, since it will not jellify
unless it be mixed with plenty of other fruit-
juices rich in pectins. A preliminary account of
the aleohol precipitates from Prickly-pear fruit
pulp was published earlier by Griffiths and Hare
(1907 a, p. 40). It was found that the average
amount in all the pulps examined was only -29
per cent., that in the rinds being about four
times as much—viz., 1-29 per cent, These authors
were unable to make jelly from either the pulp
or the rind, there being apparently little, if any,
pectin present in the fruits. Forty per cent. of
the alcohol precipitate from the rind, and 25 per
cent. of that from the pulp, was found to consist
of ash. The ash from the whole fruit amounted
to about -29 per cent., whereas in the stems it
is very considerable, 33 per cent. of the dried
stem being found to consist of ash in one instance.
Salts of lime and potash constitute the greater
part of it, phosphates being very low, only 1-39
per cent of phosphoric acid being found as the
average of 28 samples examined.

Roderiquez (1912, p. 207) has recently stated
that the amount of sugar in the fruit can be con-
siderably augmented by selection and good culti-
vation, and that it is possible to obtain a juice
with as much as 24 per cent. of sugar.
"[ROUNPO PLLAL 9}

UO pUNOF BULA IYI[-1O}}OO ay JO 9f}}P AoA Sossossod
OD). ROSSI. TUS PO) UeLL. SUG ES

 

 
 

“Ip IDd x

 

 

 

 

-yuryd ysoy sy uo

Bysyp Aa

       

IDI SNIIO,)

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘unozoduy
‘youz}ze «yoosut of} JO YpMset vo sv UWoa[ef aavtp [orpar

sjutol prop Jo Surjstsuo0d sliqop fo ssvur vi st qued otp}
J SNIVIOD) *[VEUItNo,)

 
 

Jo oseq oy} punorpy ‘sastodpa snsnf
prea odeg Aq pozsosur vyplDapirou -~) JO twowbDedy —"GF “‘SIyT

 

 

“punodlsyovg ol} UL UIezUNOTY efqug,
‘TMOULYpOY p[EAy edey oz Aq poysoyur Aptavay oie szuryd
aL “unojodey ‘osropy diy aq “PYypMonUEW “Q— gp “Sty

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
89

Various food products—e.g., ‘‘miel,’’ ‘‘mel-
cocha,’’ ‘‘queso,’’ and ‘‘colonche,’’ are manu-
factured from the fruits by Mexicans by means
of extremely primitive machinery, which is
described by Griffiths and Hare (1907 b, p. 21),
who also give an interesting account of the
products.

Miel.—In the preparation of this syrup or
‘‘ honey’’ the fruits are not usually seeded. After
being peeled they are boiled in kettles for some
time, when the seeds drop to the bottom and are
strained off. The syrup is evaporated for some
hours until it possesses the consistency of honey,
and is then drawn off and cooled in wooden
troughs, constant stirring being resorted to in
order to hasten the process. After the ‘‘Miel’’ is
set, it is bottled, becoming in time completely
candied.

Melcocha.—The fruit is peeled, seeded, and
then boiled in fruit juice, which gradually
thickens until a certain degree of consistency is
reached. The syrup is then cooled rapidly in a
trough by being well stired, After having been
left alone for a day it is thoroughly worked up
in a manner similar to dough, and flavourings
may be added. The material is stored in wide-
mouthed jars. After a time crystallisation begins.

Queso—This product is made in a similar
manner to ‘‘Melcocha,’’ but the evaporation is
carried further and the puddling is done more
thoroughly. The queso or ‘‘cheese’’ is moulded
into various forms and may be covered with tin
foil. It keeps indefinitely if dry, becoming
harder but never crystallising.

Colonche.—This is a fermented drink made
from the liquid obtained by slowly boiling and
evaporating to a certain degree the unseeded
pulp of almost any species of Prickly-pear. After
being cooled and drained the juice is allowed to
ferment, some old ‘‘colonche’’ being sometimes
added to initiate the fermentation. The resulting
liquid is a violent intoxicant, which does not
keep, probably on account of imperfect sterilisa-
tion. Colonche is sometimes distilled in order to
procure a spirit. Formerly the peelings were
allowed to ferment and were then distilled, but
the resulting spirit had such ill-effects that other
materials, such as maguey (Agave), are now
being used instead.

UTILISATION AS FODDER FOR CATTLE.

As in other countries where Prickly-pear
plants and other Cactacee form an important
element of the vegetation, so also in Mexico they
have been used generally as a large contributor
to the sustenance of cattle both as an emergency
food in dry weather and as a substitute for other
aliment in the winter season. In a special
Bulletin (Ramirez, 1907) issued by the Agricul-
tural Experiment Station of Juarez, Chihuahua,
- on Nopal and Sotol. Dasylirion Wheelert) as
winter fodder, it was concluded that when
Prickly-pear was given to cows in such quantity
as they could consume with facility, the yield of
milk from them was maintained, notwithstanding
the lowering of temperature, and so in some cases
in winter the use of more expensive foodstuffs
might thus be avoided. Its use also would
correct defects arising from a regimen of dry
pasturage. It might therefore take the place of
ensilage in feeding milch cows.

*

Again, the French writer, Léon Diguet,
when treating of certain Mexican plants em-
ployed as forage (Diguet, 1911), refers to the use
of both the flat-stemmed and cylindrical Prickly-
pears in the district north of Sonora and else-
where, and of the various species of Echinocactus
—the “‘ visnagas’’—in the region southwards
from Sonora through Central Mexico to Oaxaca,
He states that in these desert regions of the
republic one encounters a certain number of
different kinds which can be regarded there as
forage plants. Owing to their marvellous
adaptation for overcoming the exigencies of the
hottest and driest climate, they are able to survive
when all trace of herbaceous vegetation has
disappeared, and in consequence constitute an
appreciable adjunct which is the means of saving
many valuable animals that would otherwise dic
during the many months of famine. He mentions
that all species are evidently not suitable for this
purpose. Use is made of the fruit of some, the
stem joints of others, the entire plant of certain
others, while in some cases (e.g., Cereus) the
flowers are used. He goes on to state (p. 246)
that in the preparation of some cacti (e.g. Echino-
cereus) for fodder, a cutlass-like instrument, the
machete, is used; while for the Cylindropuntias,
a machine providing a combined blast and rotary
movement is employed in order to remove the
numerous spines.

Besides, in Mexico, spincless prickly-pears
are being cultivated for stock-feeding purposes,
the Department of Agriculture there having
issued recently two separate bulletins on the
subject—one by E. Roderiquez (1912, pp. 203-
207), and the other by M. Calvino (1911). The
latter, which is well illustrated, describes and
advocates a special method of propagating spine-
less prickly-pears by grafting.

Griffiths and Hare (1905, 1906, 1907 a) have
given considerable attention to the question of
utilising Prickly-pear as fodder for stock, their
work being summarised in the section of the
Commission’s report dealing with the United
States. In these papers there are references to
Mexico, and the result of the analyses of-some
Mexican species is given (1906, 1907 a, p. 16).
Since the trunks of many of these Opuntias are
woody and tree-like, it is mainly the young
growth which is fed to cattle. Though all species
of flat Opuntias are fed to cattle, especially where
fodder is scarce, apparently only one Cylindro-
puntia, O. imbricata, is used to any extent
(1907 a, p. 12). Occasionally Echinocactus
orcuttii is used in this way in Lower California.
‘The average Mexican peon* cannot afford to
feed to stock what he himself can use so profit-
ably in other ways. The Prickly-pear is to him
primarily an article of human food, and _ its
place cannot be taken by any other plant’’—
hence only such parts are fed to cattle as can be
spared from tuna culture (1907 a, p. 15). The
fruit rinds are fed to pigs, dairy cattle, and
donkeys (1907 b, p. 13), while native species
form a food supply for working oxen during the
season when other fodder is scarce.

Dr. Vinson (1911, p. 519) has mentioned that
in Sonora, a State in North-Western Mexico,
cattle exist on cactus and furnish a small amount
of milk, but no doubt some legumes are also
picked up during feeding.

* A Mexican peasant,
Minor UsEs.

The tuberous roots of Echinocereus
tuberosus Rumpl, are said to be steeped in
alcohol and the decoction applied externally by
Mexicans as a remedy for rheumatism.

Amongst minor uses made of cacti in Mexico,
it may be mentioned that young joints of Opun-
tias are boiled and used as a vegetable, or even
made into pickles; the pulp is often employed
for making poultices (Griffiths, 1905, p. 41),
while the pith of certain bulky Echinocacti is used
in the making of cactus candy, as indicated
earlier in the report.

The juices expressed from segments of Opun-
tia are utilised in Mexico for mixing with white-
wash (Griffiths, 1905, p. 41). The ‘‘wool,’’
which ig produced in abundance at the top of
Echinocactus ingens, Zuce., is made use of by the
inhabitants of the highland regions as a material
for stuffing cushions (Schumann, 1903, p. 4). The
dry fruits of Cereus pecten aboriginum, Engelm.,
are used by the native population as combs or
rather hair-brushes (Schumann, 1899, p. 75).

The stems of Cylindropuntias—e.g., O. im-
bricata and its allies, are utilised as fuel in
Mexico and the adjacent dry parts of the United
States of America (Schumann, 1899; Griffiths,
1905; Griffiths and Hare, 1907 a, p. 15), where
vegetation more suitable for this purpose is
scanty. Cereus pringlei Wats. is used similarly
in Lower California.

Some species are still used as hosts for the
true cochineal insect, and have accordingly an
economic value,

90

Drugs may be obtained from certain species.
Ewell (1896) has examined the alkaloids present
in the Mexican genus, Anhalonium—+.e., Ario-
carpus, whose species are regarded as being
poisonous.

Various species of Opuntia and Cereus, as
well as a Pereskia are used as hedge plants in
Mexico, Cereus aragonus Web. being employed
for the same purpose in Costa Rica.

SUMMARY.

The Commission was unable to make inquiry
in Mexico. From information received elsewhere,
however, it appears that the biological conditions
in that country, at least in its northern portions,
resemble those in Texas, Arizona, and New
Mexico, though the cactus flora is more abundant.

The recorded parasitic insects and fungi are
the same as, or closely related to, those found in
the United States of America, but except in the
case of certain of the wild cochineal insects, whose
pernicious influence had already been brought
under notice by one of us, information as to their
effects on the host-plants was not obtained.

The Mexican methods of utilisation, save
possibly those subserving special stock-feeding
purposes, would not be of much service in our
State in the efforts to subjugate the commoner
pest species. The fruit of the Prickly-pears
naturalised in Queensland is less suitable, Aus-
tralian labour is much dearer than Mexican, and
there would not be much demand for such pro-
ducts.

VIIT. WEST INDIES.

In order to cover ground more expeditiously,
it was decided that one member of the Commis-
sion should conduct the inquiry in South
America, while the other carried out the neces-
sary investigations in the various West Indian
Islands. The itinerary pursued was the ‘outcome
of advice received from Drs. Britton and Rose,
who had made several visits to the West Indies
in order to assist themselves in their study of
the local Cactacer, and from Dr. Francis Watts,
C.M.G., the Commissioner of the Imperial De-
partment of Agriculture, who controls agricul-
tural matters in the Lesser Antilles. The par-
ticular islands visited, as well as the time spent on
each, was largely influenced by the nature of the
communication between them—often little and
irregular. On this same account several which
possess a rich cactus flora, e.g. Curacao, Tobago,
and the Grenadines, had to be omitted from the
tour.

Each member of the Commission paid a short
visit to Cuba; Barbados was examined by both,
Jamaica and Trinidad visited by one, while the
remaining islands, viz., the Lesser Antilles
(Dominica, Guadeloupe, the Saints, Antigua,
St. Kitts, Nevis, St. Thomas, and the Virgin
Islands), Porto Rico, Haiti (San Domingo), were
visited by the other during the time that his col-
league was travelling in South America. A more
detailed examination of Cuba was also made at
this time, =

In addition to the officials and others
named below in this section of the Report, we are
indebted to the following for services rendered :—
Rev. M. Fuestes, botanist, San Domingo; Dr.
J. F. Roig and Dr. E. Cuesto, Cuban
botanists; H.E. Sir Hesketh Bell, the Governor
of the Leeward Islands; Mr. J. L. Roxburgh,
Administrator, St. Kitts; Mr. M. Gomez, Acting
Administrator, Virgin Islands; Mr. W. J. Howell,
Nevis; Dr. W. V. Tower, Entomologist, Board of
Commissioners of Agriculture, Porto Rico; Mr.
J. T. Crawley, formerly Director of the Experi-
ment Station of the Porto Rico Sugar Producers’
Association; Dr. J. F. Morse, Guanica, Porto
Rico; R. F. Cambioso, San Domingo; Capt.
Hardy and Dr. H. Tambourini, Azua, San
Domingo; J. F. Hatton, Barahona, San Domingo;
as well as H.M. Consular representatives in the
various foreign islands visited.

Previous to the visit of the Commission, very
little information was available regarding the -
possible occurrence of disease, or of injurious in-
sects affecting Opuntias in the West Indies.
Berkeley and Cooke had reported the existence of
the fungus Perisporium wrightii on O. macrorhiza
in Cuba (Cuban Fungi, No. 987). One of the
wild cochineal insects, Coccus (Dactylopius) con-
fusus newsteadi, Ckll., had been recorded from
Jamaica and Antigua, and a scale insect, Diaspis
echinocacti, Bouché, was known to occur com-
monly in the region, Miss Fernald (1903) record-
ing it from Porto Rico. A variety of this latter
species, D. echinocacti opuntic, Ckll., is known to
be present in Jamaica (C.L, p. 42). A species of

_ Coccus near C. confusus is recorded in C.I. (p.
42) as coming from Barbados. From informa-
tion obtained by the Commission it was ascer-
tained that the specimens on which this record
was based were obtained in Antigua and sent to
Washington, D.C., vid Barbados. A species of
Margarodes, identified by Cockerell as M. formi-
cartum, was taken on the roots of Cereus sp. in
Montserrat (C.I., p. 41). “The true cochineal,
Coccus cacti, L., was at one time introduced into
the West Indies (C.L., p. 42), but its occurrence
there at the present time is not noted.

JAMAICA.

A very short visit was paid to Kingston, the
capital of the island, where Mr. Cousins, the
* Director of Agriculture, and Mr. Wm. Harris, the
Government Botanist, gave assistance.

The prickly-pears* seen growing commonly
in the neighbourhood of the city were O. dillenti
and O. tuna, the former being more abundant
nearer the sea. These two species are closely
related, but the latter possesses rather long
straight thorns, which soon become white, whereas
those of O. dillenti are usually curved and remain
yellow, though they may darken somewhat with
age. Schumann (1899, p. 724) regarded them as
being the same, but Dr. Britton has satisfactorily
differentiated them. They are readily distin-
guished from one another in their native habitat,
both commonly growing side by side. In addition
to these two, there is a third and rarer species, O.
jamaicensis, Britton and Harris, specimens of
which were pointed out in the Botanic Gardens
by Mr. Harris. It resembles O. tuna in many
of its characters, but possesses a definite stem.
Nopalea cochinelifera grows wild on the island.

Grisebach in 1864 (p. 301-2) mentioned the
occurrence in Jamaica of a Rhipsalis, several
species of Cereus, and of the following .Opuntias
-—0O. tuna, O. ficus-indica, O. cochinelifera, and O.
spinosissima, Mill., the last-named being reported
as common on the dry southern savannas.

Destruction by Insect and Fungoid Enemies.

Mr. Harris was not aware of the presence of
any pest controlling the spread of Opuntias. Shot-
hole, due to the fungus Gleosporium lunatum,
was seen by the Commission on the following
—O. tuna, O. dillenit, and O. jamaicensis, but in
no instance was it causing any serious injury to
the attacked plants.

Wild cochineal, Coccus confusus newsteadt,
was found in some abundance on Nopalea cochi-
nelifera in the Botanic Gardens, where it pro-
‘duced a local chlorosis, though its full activity
appeared to be prevented by the presence of
various parasites. Scale insects (Diaspis sp.)
were found on the Nopalea as well as on O. dil-
lentt, but, as elsewhere, did not exert any marked
harmful effect except when very numerous, and
then a local chlorosis was observed. Injuries
resembling those caused in Texas by Mimorista
flavidissimalis were seen on joints of O. dillenii

 

* Cactacee other than prickly-pears were seen on
nearly all the islands visited, but, as a rule, little attention
was given to them.

91
and O. megacantha in cultivation, the latter
species being closely related to the ‘‘Westwood”’
pear of the Rockhampton district, Queensland. In
segments of the former species there wag noted
the presence of tunnels, due to some unidentified
boring insect.
Cacti were not utilised in the island in such
a way as would destroy them. A tall native
Cereus, Lemaireocereus hystriz, called the
‘‘Dildo,’’ is sometimes used for making hedges.

TRINIDAD.

The few hours that the steamer stayed in
Port of Spain did not allow of investigations
being carried out. The northern and more moun-
tainous part of the island has a moist climate,
such as is unsuitable for the development of a
rich Opuntia flora. The southern regions are
much drier, but there was no opportunity to visit
those localities. In the neighbourhood of the
capital, the only prickly-pear seen growing was
Nopalea cochinelifera, all the plants noticed being
in cultivation.

BARBADOS.

Interviews were held with the Commissioner,
Imperial Department of Agriculture, Dr. Francis
Watts, C.M.G., as well as two members of his staff,
Mr. H. A. Ballou, the Entomologist, and Mr. F.
N. South, the Mycologist. Besides, personal in-
vestigations were prosecuted in the country im-
mediately around Bridgetown, and at spots along
the sea-coast of the island.

The Commissioner himself, who had already
been interviewed in London, had not hitherto
directed his observation to the subject of prickly-
pear plants and their enemies. He, however,
called attention to certain literature bearing on
the distribution of the different species in the
West Indies—the Windward Island especially—
drew up an itinerary for visiting several of them,
and arranged for assistance on the part of mem-
bers of his staff resident on those islands whose
agricultural interests were the concern of his
office.

The Entomologist, Mr. Ballou, stated that he
had especially examined prickly-pear plants for
the presence of scale insects, especially the wild
cochineal Coccus confusus newsteadi, but had not
found it. The only parasite which he had seen
was a species of Diaspis. Mr. South, who had not
been long on the island, had not observed the
occurrence of any disease on local Opuntias.

The island of Barbados is almost entirely
devoted to agriculture, so that little of the native
vegetation is still to be found. Within the culti-
vated area one may see occasional plants of Nopa-
lea cochinelifera and a species resembling O. dil-
len, the former grown apparently on account of
its reputed medicinal value, and the latter used
as a hedge plant and seen at times as an escapee.
All along the rocky easterly coast the latter
species may be seen growing more or less after
the manner of native vegetation. At the extreme
north of the island there are small but dense
patches of this Opuntia growing on the barren
soil which thinly covers the coral rock. This plant
is very like O. dillenii, and has been regarded as
belonging to that species. It seems, however, to

4
be distinct, differing from it in possessing more
numerous areoles, these being more elevated and
bearing spines which, though generally curved,
were of a deeper yellow and were more widely
divaricate than in O. dillenti. These spines be-
come a dirty white when old. The flowers also
differed from those of O. dillentt in being orange
or orange-red in colour. The fruits appeared to
be shorter and less pedunculated.* It is called
the ‘‘Flathand Pimploe’’ by the islanders.

Injury by Insect and Fungoid Enemies.

A brown sealy condition of the epidermis of
O. dillenti (2%) sometimes associated with a more
or less dried appearance of the affected joints was
probably due to uncongenial soil conditions. Some

injuries suggestive of the presence of the shot-

hole fungus, Glw@osporium lunatum, were seen on
this species of prickly-pear.

Near the village of Crane, there were seen
oceasional injuries in joints of O. dilleni (7?)
exactly like those produced in the drier parts of
U.S.A. by species of Melitara. Dead hollowed-out
segments or parts of segments were noticed, each
with one or more small round openings, and con-
taining rounded insect excreta. The borers were
not found (December).

The only insect pest noticed was a species
of Diaspis. It has been mentioned that a wild
cochineal near Coccus confusus has been recorded
from Barbados (C.L., p. 42), but it has been
ascertained that the specimens were collected in
Antigua and forwarded through the Agricultural
Department at Barbados to the Bureau of Ento-
mology, Washington, D.C.

MARTINIQUE.

A very brief stay at Fort de France, and
observations made with a field-glass in skirting
the coast to the north of it, whilst aboard a small
steamer, served only to reveal the presence of a
broad-leaved Opuntia growing sporadically there.

Subsequently, however, opportunities occurred
for consulting Rey. R. P. Duss, the author of the
‘‘ Plore Phanérogamique des Antilles Fran-
caises,’’ whose plant investigations on the island
had covered a period of upwards of twenty
years. He confirmed what he had already stated
(1897, p. 318), that Opuntia tuna, Miller (evi-
dently referring to O. dillenit, Haworth) grew
abundantly in certain parts of the island, where
it was known under the name of Raquette au
bord-de-mer or Raquette a@ piquants, and that
Nopalea cochinelifera, Miller—the Raquette sans
piquants—grew there also, but less abundantly.

Although he had very commonly observed
them under different modes of occurrence, he had
not found that any natural check of the nature
of disease or insect had served to control their
spread. A special local inquiry appeared then
unealled for.

 

* R. Schomberg (1841, p. 619) also mentions three
kinds as growing there, viz., O. tuna, Mill. (= O. dillenii,
Haw.), O. curassavica, Mill. (‘‘ Orange-flowered Opuntia”),
O. coccinelifera, Mill. (= N. cochinelifera), assigning to them
as native homes—(1) Brazil; (2) West Indies (Leeward
Islands); and (3) South America respectively. The first-
mentioned he designated Pimploes, Hughes; the second
“* Pincushion.”’

92

DOMINICA.

Of the 291 square miles contained in this
island, a very small portion indeed supports any
growth whatever of prickly-pear, a fact no doubt -
due to its relatively high rainfall and the preva-
lent humid conditions that characterise it. Opun-
lia spp. are, however, to be met with along the
west coast in proceeding from Roseau northwards,
especially at the Grand Savanna near the Batalie
River. In the portion of the area traversed, inl
which these plants grow, only O. dillenit was met
with. This plant occurred in fairly large clumps
on the foreshores, and was not affected by disease
or other natural enemy. In the course of the
limited investigation that was practicable, the
two other species of Opuntia—z.c., O. catacantha
and O. catacantha taylori—which we were in-
formed by Dr. Britton, grew on Dominica, were
not encountered.

Again, the Curator and Assistant Curator
of the Botanic Gardens, Messrs. HE. J. Jones and
G. A. Jones, as well as other local residents, stated
that they had not found that the prickly-pear
plants were controlled in any way by natural
enemies on Dominica.

GUADELOUPE AND THE SAINTS
ISLANDS.

The explored portions of these islands in-
cluded the west coast for some miles on each side
of Basse Terre, the east coast from Les Trois
Riviéres to Point 4 Pitre, and the interior; also
the mountainous island Terre de Haut. With
the exception of a few isolated plants of O. dil-
lenu that grew on the east coast, Opuntia spp.
were, so far as our observations extended, re-
stricted in their occurrence to the first and last
of the areas mentioned. However, it was elicited
from the veteran botanist, Rev. R. P. Duss, who
most generously identified himself with the work
of the Commission throughout the period occu-
pied in Guadeloupe, that these plants not only
occurred on the small island named, but were
more or less prevalent on the Saints group gener-
ally, being especially abundant at Desirade on
the arid rocky savanna that stretches between
La Broserie and the sea.

The kinds of prickly-pear present were—(1)
O. dillenti (O. tuna, Mill., Duss, 1897, p. 318);
(2) O. triacantha, Willd. (O. spinosissima, Mill.,
Duss, lc.) ; and (3) Nopalea cochinelifera, Mill.
Of these the first-mentioned grew generally wher-
ever prickly-pear plants occurred, whereas 0.
triacantha was met with only on the Saints
islands and to the north of Basse Terre in ap-
proaching Vieux Habitants, on the rocky foot-
hills near the sea. The red-flowered thornless
prickly-pear N. cochinelifera was restricted to
gardens adjacent to dwellings or to spots that
had once been cultivated as gardens. As a rule
the plants of all three kinds grew isolatedly;
but in certain places O. dillenit and O. triacantha
formed small thickets, especially where the soil
in which they grew was unsuitable for agricul-
ture and therefore little liable to be disturbed.

Insect and Fungoid Enemies.

_ The only insect enemy noticed was Diaspis
echinocacti, Bouché.

Examples of retarded growth were seen, but

such result was evidently not in any way due to
parasitic invasion.

ie ee
 

 

 

 

 

Photo., Burcau of Entomology, Dept. Agriculture, U.S.A.
Fig. 52.—Segment of a Prickly Pear showing injuries attributed to a so-called “red spider,’’ Tetranychus
opuntie. The fruits show numerous pupee of a Cecidomyiid fly, protruding from apertures (see Fig. 53).

 

 

 

 

Photo., Burcau of Entomology, Dept. Agriculture, U.S.A.
at numbers of pupe of a Cecidomyiid fly, regarded by the
as Asphondylia opuntic. The larve live within the
in order to pupate (see Fig. 54). Texas.

Fig. 53.—Fruit of 0. engelmanni showing gre
. +a

Bureau of Entomology, Washington, DCs US Aw
fruit and destroy the seeds. They come to the surface

 
93

_ Near Vieux Habitants a small patch of
prickly-pear (0. triacentha) was noticed to be
badly attacked by a fungus related to and per-
haps identical with Glwosporiwm lunatum, Ellis
and Ever., which produces an anthracnose dis-
ease or ‘‘ shot-hole ’’ in O. lindheimeri and other
species In Texas. Within the area, the plants
are very commonly less than a foot in height,
the majority being seedlings or young plants
which had risen from seeds or segments of plants
that had been killed by the parasite. The symp-
toms were similar to those described by Wolf
(1912 a, p. 124), and met with by the Commis-
sion during its investigations in Texas. In addi-
tion, the presence of shot-holes and erosions of
the edge of affected segments—the “‘ black rot ”’
stage—was also evident; death of the attacked
joint being the result. It appears to be especi-
ally virulent at a certain period of the year
(rainy season), a fact already referred to by
Wolf in his account of the malady in Texas.

The species of prickly-pear (0. triacantha)
victimised being strikingly different from any of
the commoner Australian naturalised prickly-
pears, it would not be surprising if the disease-
producing organism whose distinctness from
Gleosporium lunatum, Ellis and Ever., might be
physiological only, would prove wholly ineffective
in damaging any of them. This is indeed sug-
gested by the observation that plants of O. dil-
len, a species more nearly related to our intro-
duced forms, although growing only a few feet
from affected plants of O. triacantha, had re-
mained wholly unattacked by the malady so
prejudicial in this instance to the last-mentioned
species.

ANTIGUA.

This island of the Leeward Group, 108 square
miles in extent, is one of the drier of the West
Indies, and is generally favourable to the growth
of plants of the prickly-pear group.

The investigations made there included a
plant survey of (1) each side of St. John’s Har-
bour, on the west coast, and the country between
it and Five Islands Harbour, south therefrom;
(2) of the country adjacent to Falmouth and
English Harbours, on the south coast; and (3)
of Parham and Belfast Bay districts, on the
north-east coast.

The species of prickly-pear encountered
were :—

(1) O. dillemi, Haw.

(2) Opuntia sp. allied to O. dillenit.
(3) O. triacantha (Willd.), D.C.
(4) O. catacantha, Link and Otto.
(5) Nopalea cochinelifera (L).

Of these the second mentioned is identical
with the Opuntia already referred to as growing
commonly at Barbados, and the fourth is a plant
having very elongate stem-joints, and attaining
the dimensions of a small tree. Grisebach (1864,
p. 302) refers to two of them as being known to
him as Antiguan plants, viz., No. 1, that he names
O. tuna, and No. 3, that he correctly designates
as above.

O. dillenii was found to be the most pre-
valent species, and although—as was the case
of one or more of the other kinds—often absent
where it might be expected to occur, was some-

times met with in fairly dense masses, especially
where unaffected by disease and favoured by
soil-conditions. Its orange-flowered ally com-
monly occurred growing with it, but was com-
paratively rare in the Parham and Belfast Bay
districts. Both it and O. dillenii had been used
extengively as a hedge plant. O. triacantha
often formed large, impenetrable, low patches
adjacent to Falmouth and English Harbours,
and was said to be spreading. O. catacantha was
noticed on ridges and in rock-faces at the eastern
end of the island.

Disease Occurrence.

(1.) Wild Cochineal Insect (Dactylopius
confusus newsteadi, Ckll.):—It had been re-
corded that a special kind of wild cochineal insect
was to be met with on prickly-pear at Antigua,
but it appeared to be rare, having been found
only on a single plant here in 1901; Mr. Bailou,
the Entomologist of the Imperial Department of
Agriculture, stating that he had not succeeded
in rediscovering it. Again, Mr. T. Jackson, the
Curator of the Botanic and Agricultural Ex-
periment Stations, had not seen this natural
enemy, although conversant with the Opuntia-
infested areas of the island. However, in the
small village on the south side of St. John’s
Harbour, adjoining the capital, N. cochinelifera,
which occurs there either as a hedge plant or as
a garden-escapee, is, in many instances, so white
by reason of the presence of the insect that its
abnormal appearance is discernible for a con-
siderable distance. On nearer approach the en-
tire surface of the infested plants was found to
be covered with a flour-like dust, and large con-
spicuous whitish patches of the insects themselves,
congregated together, were seen on many of their
stem-joints. Their presence was attended with
little or no injury to the host-plant, a superficial
brown discolouration being sometimes discernible
when the parasite was removed from the spot
where it had been feeding.

Two other species of prickly-pear (O. dil-
lenit and its gilvous-flowered ally, Opuntia sp.)
grew commonly near where the plants of the
species favoured by it occurred, but as far as
could be observed they had wholly escaped in-
festation by it.

(2.) Anthracnose or Shot-hole Disease
(Gleosporium lunatum, Ellis and Ever.).—In
the same locality plants of the gilvous-flowered
prickly-pear (Opuntia sp.) were seen to exhibit
the chaarcteristic injury attendant on the pre-
sence of this disease. The malady was, however,
in a non-active condition at the time of the
inquiry and was restricted to one or two plants
only, and even these it had but little checked
in their growth. Injuries of old standing else-
where on the prickly-pear plants suggested that
during certain seasons of the year the disease
might be more marked.

What appeared to be a similar disease, if not
one originally of bacterial origin, was pointed
out by Mr. Jackson as causing considerable in-
jury to a plant of O. robusta, growing in the
Antigua Botanic Gardens under his management.

(3.) Zone Spot Disease-—This disease was
found exclusively associated with O. dillenii,
Haw., and was remarked also in the neighbour-

a BEL cs
hood of St. John’s and in other parts of the
island. It causes the plant affected to become
stunted in habit, and indeed parts may perish,
brown spots with zoned markings gradually
covering the entire green surface of all parts of
the plants victimised, and so interfering with
important functional activities.

As it does not appear to have been generally
noticed, some account of its outward features
may be given. It commences with the develop-
ment of small, slight raised, sub-cireular spots,
each 2-3 millimetres in diameter, having a pale-
brownish colour with a distinct nucleus of a
darker hue. ‘These spots increase in size and
meanwhile lose their circular outline, their mar-
gins, however, maintaining an irregularly waved
pattern. They are now from 5 to 10 mm. in dia-
meter and are better defined on the general green
stem-joint surface than previously, having be-
come buff-coloured, resembling blotches of yellow-
ish-white paint. They are usually bordered by
a paler and more translucent encircling zone, indi-
cating the fact of their gradual extension to form
larger spots. Meanwhile, innumerable greyish-
black, densely distributed points have appeared,
these being arranged in lines or bands running
one within the other, following the outline of the
spot—hence the term ‘‘zone-spot.’’ These spots
often merge, but their general concentric
character and independent origin are always
manifest.

The points when viewed under the lens are
seen to be short, racemose, grey-coloured, raised
figures, with minute linear fissures exposing a
blackened interior, evidently indicative of fungus
growth. They occupy the affected surface with
less or greater completeness, according no doubt
to the time that has elapsed since the spot
originated. Meanwhile these zone-spots become
larger and larger until they may attain indi-
vidually a diameter of 5 centimetres or even more,
their dark, striated appearance being now very
noticeable. Usually, before the dimensions stated
have been attained, neighbouring spots have
coalesced, but the separate origin of adjoining
spots is, however, still shown in those that have
become so confounded. Thus a larger and larger
area of the stem-joint may be involved, until this
may be outwardly wholly affected, more or less
numerous originally isolated spots contributing
to this result in different cladodia.

With regard to the effects produced where
these spots occur, the epidermis of the stem-joint
often dies, and so the surface implicated may
become fissured. For a while the segment which
has been attacked remains alive, but under some
circumstances—perhaps rainy weather—evidently
often realised, gradually dies, becomes decayed
internally, and ultimately dries up, there being
left a mere shell, still exhibiting the original
surface areas of fungus.growth.

This peculiar disease, which occurs also on
other West Indian islands as will be subsequently
seen, was found to oceur exclusively on O. dil-
lenii, even when related kinds of prickly-pear
were growing adjacent to affected individuals of
this species.

No natural enemy was observed in associa-
tion with the low-growing O. triacantha, but,
many cactus areas on the island having remained

94.

unvisited by the Commission, it cannot safely be
concluded that this plant everywhere maintained
this healthy character. The remark applies also
to other Antiguan species of Opuntia.

ST. KITTS.

On this island the high and rugged unceuiti-
vated country to the south of Basse Terre was
examined, and the road along the foreshore all
around the island traversed. In the rocky and
dry brush-clad situations, prickly-pear (0. dil-
lenti and O. triacantha) was very plentiful, being
sufficiently dense in some places to impede one’s
progress. Along the seaboard outside the agri-
cultural land, apparently only the former of these
species occurred, and then grew sometimes in
clumps but more commonly as isolated plants.

The Agricultural Superintendent, Mr. F. R.
Shepherd, stated that the prickly-pear could never
obtain any hold in the agricultural areas as it
was the custom to extirpate and burn it, and
on certain lands where no cultivation had been
carried on it apparently was choked out by other
vegetation. He also stated that, although he had
not paid close attention to the local Opuntias,
no natural enemy affecting the plant had come
under his notice—not even the cochineal insect.

The only disease noticed on this island was
the Zone-spot Disease occurring sparingly on 0.
dillenti, and the White Diaspis Scale of Cacta-
ceous plants.

NEVIS.

On visiting this island the more or less bar-
ren area along the new road, that extended for
some miles, was examined; also the interior
between the town and Gingerlands. The circuit
of the island by the coast road was also made.

The kinds of prickly-pear endemic on Nevis
are (1) O. dillenit, (2) O. triacantha, and (3) a
peculiar hybrid combining the characters of these
two, of which specimens had been pointed out to
us in the New York Botanic Gardens by Dr.
Britton, who, in company with Dr. Rose, discov-
ered the hybrids on St. Kitts.

(4.) In addition, Nopalea cochinelifera was
met with as a garden plant. The first two of
these Opuntias grew in abundance, especially to
the west of the town and in much of the arid and
barren country traversed by the new road.

As bearing on the question as to whether
prickly-pear plants have always been a compo-
nent of the island’s flora, or whether they were
introduced at some remote period, it may be men-
tioned that whereas Smith, in his ‘‘ Natural His-
tory of Nevis,’’ printed in 1745, makes mention
of several other plants, he omits all reference to
such curious members of the vegetable world as
are the Opuntias.

Disease Occurrence.

Plants of O. dillenii were commonly affected
by the Zone-spot Disease, and the action of the
latter in rendering its host-plant stunted with a
great arrest of growth was very noticeable,
especially along the roadside in approaching
Gingerlands.
At a spot along the new road there were seen
a few prickly-pear plants (O. dillenit) that had
almost succumbed to some illness, the following
features being exhibited by, them. Individual
branches of the affected plant were dying back,
as might happen were some root trouble present.
The terminal stem-joints were apparently the
first to become injured. Those on which the
discase was noticed presented the following symp-
toms :—FPale yellowish patches had arisen, having
an irregular waved outline, well marked on the
general green surface. Within these altered areas
that would gradually involve the entirely stem-
joint, grey, more or less circular, blotches ap-
peared, and these had sprinkled over them minute
black specks, the reproductive organs of some
epiphyllous fungus. Ultimately the entire sur-
face became mottled with grey and pale olivace-
ous brown. In addition there was present another
fungus with the fruiting bodies exceptionally
large and more widely separated; alsu a third
fungus sparingly developed, resembling that asso-
ciated with Zone-spot Disease. Some or all of the
organisms were probably saprophytic. Notwith-
standing the presence of these features, the stem-
joints remained alive for a while without produc-
ing any new growth; but in those in which the
trouble had proceeded to its full length, the
internal tissue had died, disintegrating into a
semi-liquid pulp, only the fibrous skeleton re-
maining intact. Specimens submitted to micro-
scopical examination exhibited no additional
features such as might throw light on the etiology
of this prickly-pear malady.

ST. THOMAS.

This island, whose annual rainfall is com-
paratively low, has evidently been cultivated to
a much larger extent formerly than at present.
This may account for prickly-pear plants not as
yet occupying the flats near the coast and for
their occurrence elsewhere as isolated plants only.
O. dillenié and O. catacantha occur along the sea-
board and on the arid foothills overlooking it,
the central mountain ridge extending east and
west being devoid of prickly-pear.

In addition to the species mentioned, 0.
curassavica, var. Taylort is very common, often
extending in the direction of the roads, as might
be expected from its portability owing to the
readiness with which it becomes attached to stock.
It usually oceurred on the steeper stony slopes.
It is distinguished from O. triacantha (Willd.),
DC. (0. spinosissima, auct.) in possessing spines
which when young are reddish-purple, not lemon-
yellow. 0. catacantha, the tree-like Opuntia,
grows on the steep rocky foreshores at the south-
east extremity. Nopalea cochinelifera was found
exclusively in the precincts of dwellings.

Investigation was prosecuted along the south
coast, throughout the central elevated country,
and at the eastern extremity (Smith’s Bay).

Disease Occurrence.

The plants seen were not affected by any
natural enemy except in the case of O. taylori,
that occasionally harboured Diaspis enchinocactt,
but with little injury to itself.

I

95

THE VIRGIN ISLANDS (TORTOLA, VIRGIN
GORDA, AND ANEGADA),.

1. TorToLa.

The parts of this island visited were the en-
tire southern seaboard, the western extremity,
and the portion of the central mountain ridge
lying east of the town of Broad Town. Gener-
ally speaking, the island is made up of rather
steep declivities, the level area being compara-
tively small in extent. Although its, rocky
nature would suggest its unsuitability for agri-
culture, the soil is good and the island was for-
merly almost entirely devoted to agriculture
(cotton, sugar-cane, &c.).

The kinds of prickly-pear found growing on
it were—(1) O. dillenii; (2) O. catacantha (both
spineless and spiny forms) ; (3) O. curassavica
var. Taylori; and (4) a natural hybrid between
Nos. 1 and 3. Of these, the first was prevalent
throughout the coastal region, usually forming
isolated patches, and competing with the second
for a decidedly maritime location as a site for
abode, especially along the southern coast, where,
erecting its tall stem amongst the débris at the
bases of the steep rocky escarpments, it was
almost laved by the sea. O. taylori was exceed-
ingly common in the lower foothills, growing
almost everywhere and often forming an impedi-
ment to walking owing to its readily detachable
stem-joints armed with long, stiff, penetrating
spines.

Disease Occurrence.

The Commissioner (the Hon. Leslie Jarvis),
the Agricultural Instructor (Mr. C. Fishlock),
and Mr. J. P. Romney, an agricultural settler of
long standing, deposed that they had not noticed
any natural enemy, either disease or insect, asso-
ciated with prickly-pear plants at Tortola. Per-
sonal investigation led to the same conclusion
with this exception: that some plants of O. dil-
lenii were damaged by the Zone-spot malady,
more particularly referred to in dealing with
observations at Antigua. In the different patches
of the natural hybrid between this pear and 0.
taylori examined, no instance of the occurrence
of this disease was remarked.

2. ANEGADA.

This small coral island, measuring about 10
miles in length, and elevated but a few feet
above sea-level, is situated about 38 miles from
Broad Town, Tortola. It is difficult of approach,
being almost surrounded by dangerous reefs. » 0.
dillenti occurs abundantly on it in a more or less
sporadic manner, especially near the settlement,
its fruit being gathered as food for pigs.

Disease Occurrence.

Growing under conditions so peculiar, for some
of the plants seemed to spring almost from the
bare, level, coral rocks, arising as they did from
mere soil-filled chinks in them, it was expected
that a special disease might be induced. How-
ever, two known diseases were alone met with,
viz., Prickly Pear Anthracnose or Shot-hole, and
Zone-spot Disease. The latter had apparently
exercised some check on the plant it had attacked,
but, generally speaking, natural enemies had had
little influence in controlling its ‘spread, condi-
tions of growth being alone adequate to accom-

plish this.

,
3. Virgin GorDA.

This island is about 15 miles east of Tortola.
A visit was made to that part of it most remote
from Tortola and opposite Anegada, the country
at the back of North and South Sounds being
explored. Isolated patches of two kinds of
prickly-pear were met with, namely, O. dillenu
and O. curassavica taylori. No disease or injuri-
ous insect was remarked as being present.

In approaching North Sound, Prickly Pear
Island was skirted, and the same two species of
Opuntia noticed growing on it as on the main
island, of which it is an outlier.

Similarly, in sailing for Tortola near ap-
proach was made to Great Dog Island and also
to Beef Island. On both of these O. dillenit was
noticed growing on exposed, steep, rocky declivi-
ties under circumstances that would seem to ex-
clude any suggestion that it was not a native
plant.

ST. JOHN.

Coasting near this island, plants of two
species of prickly-pear proper to maritime situa-
tions were seen, viz., O. dillenit and O catacantha.
W. C. Fishlock, late Instructor in Agriculture
for the Virgin Islands, when traversing the island
in the interests of this inquiry, and examining
whatever prickly-pear plants he encountered, no-
ticed an example of O. dillenii exhibiting a very
unhealthy appearance. Specimens secured on
the occasion and afterwards submitted by him
for inspection served to show that he had before
him an instance of a common _ physiological
disease, Dry Rot, already known in Queensland.

PORTO RICO.

It was the intention of the Commission to
make two visits to this island, one in proceeding
to, the other while returning from, the Domini-
can Republic. Unforeseen contingencies, how-
ever, rendered one of these alone practicable;
hence the inquiry was not as exhaustive as it
had been hoped. The localities visited were the
neighbourhood of San Juan and Guanica, as well
as certain coastal districts in the north, west, and
south of the island.

Urban, in his ‘‘ Flora portoricensis ’’ (pp.
432-4), records the following species from the
island :—O. catacantha, Link and Otto; 0. repens,
Bello; O. curassavica, Miller; O. tuna, Mill.; O.
guanica, Sch. and Gurke, and Nopalea cochineli-
fera, L. Messrs. Britton and Rose have examined
the Porto Rican species, but have not fully adop-
ted Urban’s identifications. 0. repens; Bello
(not Karw.), is regarded by Schumann (1899,
p. 749) as a synonym of O. curassavica, while Dr.
Britton has shown that it is O. stevensiana, Brit.
and Rose. Urban’s O. catacantha is the variety
Taylori Br. and Rose, while O. guanica is the
typical O. catacantha (fide Britton). His O.
tuna is really O. dillenti. The locality assigned
to these species by Prof. Urban is the dry coastal
region near Ponce, which is evidently the main
cactus area.

_ Of the Porto Rican prickly-pears men-
tioned, O. catacantha, O. stevensiana, and O. dil-
lenit were found growing at Guanica, whilst two
naturalised species. Nopalea cochinelifera and O,

96

ficus-indica, L., were observed in or adjacent to
gardens in various parts of the island. 0. dil-
icmti was also seen to occur in large clumps at
Arccibo on the north coast.

Occurrence of disease.

When interviewed, the Entomologists and
Mycologists attached to the Sugar Experiment
Station and the Board of Commissioners of Agri-
culture stated that they were not aware of the
presence of any diseases occurring locally.

The diseases met with in the Guanica dis-
trict (Ponce Division) were Shot-hole and the
Zone Spot Disease, both occurring on O. dillenii.
A rusty appearance of segments catised by un-
suitable conditions was seen occasionally.

Two coccids were met with in the same dis-
trict, one of them Diaspis echinocacti, Bouché,
being quite prevalent near Guanica on all kinds
of prickly-pear, as well as on two species of
Cereus seen there. In some places it had
seriously injured the Cereus spp., but was evi-
dently assisted in its destructive work by the
very arid conditions prevailing there.

In this locality there was found a much
more conspicuous coecid, one which had not been
previously met with. In places, plants of O. dil-
lenti were whitened by the presence of this
large active insect, whose body, when ecdysis had
recently taken place, was brownish dorsally with
lines of bright red circular spots, whilst at other
times it was covered with a dense mealy excre-

‘tion which was also plentifully sprinkled over

the green surface of its host plant. The small
male insects in their larval and pupal conditions
were present in much larger numbers than their
consorts.

This peculiar coccid had attacked, in addi-
tion to O. dillenii, two Cereus plants growing
where it occurred, but in neither case did it ap-
pear to occasion any marked injury. It was,
however, evidently parasitised by some hymenop-
terous insect; a fact that would, of course, serve
to lessen the injuries that might otherwise result
from its presence. In some cases it was found
associated with Zone-spot Disease, and at times
under conditions that might suggest that it had
served as the inoculating agent, since it, like other
coccids, punctures its host-plant and then extracts
its juices. As this parasite does not seem to have
been treated of in entomological literature relat-
ing to prickly-pear, specimens were submitted to
Dr. L. O. Howard, Chief of the Bureau of Ento-
mology, Washington, D.C., for an opinion as to
its identity and its plant relationship, but no in-
formation has as yet been received. It was
evidently related to Icerya, differing from it,
however, in not producing an ovisae.

SAN DOMINGO.

Although the ocurrence of prickly-pear (0.
dillenti) is reported from many points along the
lengthy coastline of the Republic of San
Domingo, there are special districts where
Opuntie and other Cactaces are especially preva-
lent. Two of these are Monte Christi near the
western, and Matanzas towards the eastern ex-
tremity of the north coast, and the other is be-
tween Bani, Azua, and Barahona, on the south
coast. The latter of these only was explored by
 

 

 

 

Photo., Bureau of Entomology, Dept. Agriculture, U.S.A.

Fig. 54.—Transverse section of a fruit of O. engelmanni showing the burrows and pupa-cases of a Cecidomyiid

fly regarded as Asphondylia opuntice. Note the destruction of the seeds. (See also Fig. 53.)

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 55. A spineless Opuntia—V. ficus-indica—showing the presence of galls at the areoles, the pulls being
caused by the larva of a Cecidomyiid fly—Itonida apuntic—a very destructive enemy of prickly pears
in the greenhouses of the New York Botanic Gardens, where the photo. was taken.

 

 

 

Fic. 56.—A view of a gall in 0. streptacantha, New York Botanic Gardens.
g. 56.—/
97

the Commission, being reached vid Romana, San
Pedro de Macroris, and San Domingo City, i.e.,
by a route that enabled the general aspect of the
vegetation between the first-named place and the
port of Azua to be examined from the decks of

the small coastal steamers in which the journey
was effected.

_ 2. M. Mocoso incidentally refers to different
kinds of prickly-pears growing in this large island
in his ‘‘ Las Familias Vegetales ’’ (1897, p. 79),
which has been issued as a preface to a larger
work ‘‘ Botanica Flora de Sto. Domingo’’ that
apparently has not yet been published. These he
names Opuntia tuna, Mill. the ‘‘ Tuna brava ’’;
O. spinosissima, Mill., the ‘‘ Alpargata’’; O. tria-
cantha, Haw., the ‘‘ tuna de perro ’’; and O. ficus-
mdica, the ‘‘ Alquitira’’ (cultivated), (Alcaqui-
tira = Nopalea cochineltfera, fide Cambioso).

Dr. N. L. Britton, who with his colleague, Dr.
J. N. Rose, has given especial attention to the
Cactacer of San Domingo, specified for our infor-
mation in the following list the Opuntias that are
to be met with there, viz.:—Opuntia dillenn Haw.
(the O. tuna of Mocoso) ; O. hattoniana, Brit. and
Rose; O. cubensis, Brit; O. domingensis, Brit.
and Rose; O. catacantha, Link and Otto; and O.
ficus-indica (L.),; whilst for O. taylori, Brit., and
O. haitensis, Brit., syn. O. microcarpa, Sch. (not
Engelm.), he assigns Haiti as a locality.

The following species were seen in San
Domingo in the course of the present inquiry :—
1. Opuntia dillenit, the ‘‘ Tuna espina ’’—evi-
dently the O. tuna of Mocoso—found growing in
San Domingo city and adjacent coast to the
north, Azua, Barahona, and the Valley of Yaquey
River, in the latter case being very scattered.

2. Opuntia (cubensis, Brit. ?) An Opuntia
that is probably this species was met with com-
monly at Azua and between that town and the
River Tabura, and sometimes forming more or
less extensive patches. When growing side by
side with O. dillenti it was to be distinguished
by its different general colour, being greyish or
purplish-brown, by its smaller and narrower stem-
joints which were oval, somewhat obliquely nar-
rowed basally and with the border entire, by its
acicular and nearly straight spines of a pale
yellowish-grey colour (never banded), and by its
slightly drooping habit. Neither flowers nor fruit
were present.

3. Opuntia sp.—‘ Alpargata,’’ included in
the genus Consolea of Lemaire. A tree-like
Opuntia with a tall, stout, unbranched trunk
measuring 30 em. or more in diameter above the
ground; having elongate parallel-sided stem-joints
that are dull greyish-green colour; the areoles
in oblique lines of nine, each situated at the
distal end of an oval polygonal figure defined by
an impressed line with similar lines dividing the
space between the areoles into polygonal tenssere
of different sizes; spines on stem-joint disappear-
ing with age, pale yellow on the younger growth
but whitening with age, those on the disc about
2 em. long, those on the border 4 cm. to 4.5 em. ;
spines on the trunk in rosettes usually inclined
downwards, the longest attaining a length of 8
em. arising from a cushion of pale yellowish
‘wool’? amid deeper yellow spinules, each 12 to

:

en F ae ’
15 mm. long. At Azua, it forms a conspicuous
ob Ject amongst the low, brush-like vegetation
growing on level, stony ground.*

+. Opuntia spinosissima, Mill—‘‘ Alpargata’”’
(Mocoso). Included also in the genus Consolea
of Lemaire. It is a tree-like Opuntia with a tall
stout unbranched trunk, 15 to 20 em. or more
in diameter at a short distance from the ground,
with stout primary branches, the thin oval vivid
green joints are from 14 ec. to 16 em. long and 6
em. broad. The areoles, if present, are very indis-
tinct, and without the inscribed surrounding
figure and interareolar tesselation. The lower
half of young spines is pinkish-purple. Those on
the trunk radiate in all directions, forming a
rosette arising from a cushion of whitish tomen-
tum without the spinules of the previous species.
The spines on stem-joints disappear with age.
Flower-buds are reddish-brown, the flowers being
small with the interior perianth lobes abbreviated,
coneave and yellowish-red. This species was
seen on the left bank of the Yague River near
Oya, in serubby country between Yague and
Barahona, and at Barahona in level coral-lime-
stone country to the east of town.

5. Opuntia sp. (one of the cacti designated
‘‘Tuna perro’’). It is a dark-green prickly-pear
of lowly habit, having rather small eliptical stem-
joints with three or four areoles in each linear
oblique series, each areole bearing white acicular,
straight and long, spines. Flowers are yellow.
This species is very common on loamy level
country on left bank of the Yague River, near
Barahona.

6. Opuntia sp. (another of the Opuntias
designated ‘‘ Tuna perro’’). A _ dark-green
prickly-pear of very humble habit, the stout seg-
ments being curved over horizontally at a level
of a few inches from the ground. The pubescent
stem-joints are elongate-oblong 6-8.5 cm. long by
2, em. to 2-5 em. wide and 1-1 em. to 1-2 em. thick,
with three areoles in each oblique series. Spines
are straight and acicular (the longest being 3-5
em.) and arranged in groups of 2 or 3. Spinules
are almost absent. The fruit is small (4 em. or
more long) with large tuberculate areoles. The
species occurs commonly at Canoa and Alpar-
gatu, on the left bank of the Yague River,
Barahona.

7. O. hattoniana, Brit. and Rose—Curassa-
vica group—a prickly-pear of prostrate habit, the
eolonies attaining a height of 9 or 10 inches,
covering at times several square feet. The
pubescent stem-joints are circular or shortly oval
in section (1-5 by 1 cm.) the terminal ones cir-
cular. Spines are pale purple when young. The
pinkish-red fruit is small (4-5 em. long), the end
being truncate and possessing a deep concavity.
It grows near Oya, Fundacion, and Canva on
the left bank of the Yague River, Barahona,
resembling a tangled mass of some small, green,
rope like article. The terete cladodia, a feature
in this plant, are very unusual in West Indian

prickly-pears.

 

* A photograph of this species has been published in
Dr. MacDougall’s report for 1913 (Carnegie Institution of
Washington) Plate 2, Fig. Cc.
98

8. Opuntia domingensis, Brit. and Rose—
the ‘‘Guazabarra.’’ This is a copiously branching
Opuntia with reddish-brown sheathed spines
which oceurs very commonly at Azua, forming in
places often large patches in loamy country on
the left bank of the Yague River, Barahona.

9. Opuntia ficus-indica, Lin.—'‘ Alquitira ”’
or ‘‘Alcaquitira.’’ It has been suggested that
this species, which was seen growing in or near
cultivations, is a native of San Domingo, growing
wild there. Moeoso, on the other hand, regards it
as being a cultivated plant, and Mr. R. O. Cam-
bioso, the veteran naturalist of San Domingo city,
states the same as the outcome of observations
made during his extensive travels. Tambourini,
of Azua, who designates it Tuna di Espana, re-
gards it as an indigenous prickly-pear, naming
three localities, on the Oregano and Arroyo
Salado, on the Yague River, and Tubano, a small
town to the north of Azua—where it grows.

10. Nopalea cochinelifera occurred here and
there as a cultivated plant.

11. In approaching the River Tabura by the
trail that leads from Azua to Barahona, an
Opuntia of the Curassavica group may be seen
growing sparingly, also clumps of one resembling
a natural hybrid between O. dilleni and O. cata-
cantha. ‘

Disease Occurrence.

No natural enemies of prickly-pear of special
significance were seen in the island of San
Domingo, though, however, a more extended ex-
ploration might have led to the discovery of some.
Those remarked were as follows :—

1. Caterpillars of a large moth (? Melitara
sp.) were found feeding internally in the stem-
joints of both O. dillenii and another Opuntia
(No. 5) on the left bank of the Yague River,
12 to 16 miles from Barahona. The following
account will serve to describe the appearances
due to the attacks of this insect, in the case of
the former kind of prickly-pear. The plant was
of normal size and had developed vigorously, but
had not produced flower or fruit, nor was there
any indication of their former presence. Many
of the stem-joints, especially the terminal or
younger ones, were badly injured or were quite
killed. A typically injured segment presented on
one face three large blotches, almost black, but
greyish and scarious in places where tissue be-
neath had been quite consumed. Several holes
were also present—usually within the area of
the lighter coloured blotches. On the opposite face
of this stem-joint were also holes, and through
these had issued a mucilaginous matter; now dry
and appearing like strings and bands of gum
tragacanth. In addition to the stem-joints
affected as described, many half-grown terminal
segments were quite dead and dry; and of these
many had already become detached, whilst others
still remained hanging down on the plant. It
was obvious that in this instance the insect im-
plicated served to arrest any further growth on
the part of its victim and to stop its natural
reproduction.

2. Wild Cochineal. A single plant of O.
catacantha slightly affected by some kind of
Coccus was observed along the trail between Azua

and Barahona, on the steep face of a hill ascended
after first reaching the Yague River. It had evi-
dently oecasioned but little injury.

3. Opuntia Weevil. The tree-like Opuntia
at Azua commonly presented the characteristic
injury associated with the attacks of the weevil
beetle, Gersteckeria sp. On the green surface of
the stem-joint numerous grey perforated spots of
dead tissue were seen, each about 4 mm. in dia-
meter. Other stem-joints had dark spots where
the surface had been eroded. A single speci-
men of the weevil was observed, but, simulating
death in fall, eluded observation and capture.

4. Flower-consuming Caterpillar. At Bara-
hona the small yellow-red blossoms of the tree
prickly-pear O. spinosissima, Mill, were almost
without exception damaged by some small cater-
pillar. This insect not only consumed the peri-
anth lobes, but also ate or damaged the stamens
and pistil, and thus rendered the flower perfectly
sterile, and, in consequence of this, every tuber-
culated receptacle became compressed and 4s-
sumed the character of a small stem-joint, when
it fell and soon started to grow and give rise to
a new plant.

Diseases.—Prickly-pear diseases of any kind
appeared to be wanting. In the absence of
adequate checks of this kind, the Opuntias in
some places—as in the neighbourhood of Azua—
were sufficiently prevalent to make the passage of
a pedestrian through the country occupied by
them very difficult. On the Yague River, wild
pigs, apparently, kept the large kinds in check by
consuming the roots.

HAITI.

It may be of interest to point out that from
the adjoining Republic of Haiti the following
Opuntias have been noted:—Opuntia taylori,
Brit.; O. haitensis, Brit., (O. microcarpa, Sch., not
Engelm.), as we are informed in a communica-
tion from the author of these species. More-
over, F. R. de Tussae (Flora Anttllarum, IL., p.
34) records O. inermis DC., as being met with
there between Artibonite and Gonaives. This is
a matter of interest, since the commoner Queens-
land prickly-pear is usually regarded as O. iner-
mis DC., also.

CUBA.

The ports of Cuba visited included Havana,
Monte Tinaja (north coast), Pinar del Rio
towards the west, and Santiago and Guantanamo
(south coast) towards the eastern extremity of
the island.

The Opuntias have quite a local distribution
in this island and are seldom, if ever, met with
far from the sea-shore or the immediate influ-
ences of the sea-breezes, so much so that the local
botanist, Dr. Eugenio Cuesta, even suggested to
us that the prickly-pears now growing natur-
alised in Cuba had been derived from outside
sources borne over intervening seas by wind and
tide.

Writing on the plants of Cuba in 1745, D.
Ramon de la Sagra (1745, pp. 311, 313) especially
refers to certain Cactacem then growing there.
He, however, makes no mention of Opuntias,
99

excusing his omission with the statement that it
was difficult to preserve specimens, if there, and
that he dealt in his work only with those plants
that were before him.

The species enumerated by A. F. Sauvalle
(1868, p. 59) are Opuntia tuna, Mill. ; O. triacan-
tha, Haw.; O. macracantha, Griseb.; and 0. hys-
trix, Griseb. The list of J. T. Roig y Mesa (1912,
p. 38-43) comprises the following :—Opuntia
macracantha, Griseb., O. nicrocarpa, Schumann,
0. dillenti, Haw., O. twna, Mill, and Nopaleu
dejecta, Salm-Dyck; but although his memoir
nominally embraces Cuba in its entirety, the
localities given as habitats for the several species
‘described are West Cuban only.

Dr. Gomez de la Maza (1897, pp. 270-271)
mentions only two species of Opuntia growing in
‘the district of Havana, 4.c., O. dna, Mill. in the
grandispinose group of Haworth, and O. vul-
garis, Mill, in the parvispinose division of the
same author.* Schumann, 1899, p. 752) gives
Cuba as the habitat of Nopalea auberi, 8.D.

Dr. N. L. Britton kindly furnished us with a
list of Cuban species known to him—Opuntia dil-
len, Haw., O. inermis, DC., and O. cubensis,
Brit. (all belonging to the dillenie group), O.
«macracantha, Griseb. (spinosissime group), O.
militaris, Brit. and Rose (curassavica group),
and Nopalea dejecta, S.D.

The following observations relate to the
species of Opuntia which came under notice :—

O. dillenii, Haw. This plant was found
growing in the precincts both of Havana and
Santiago de Cuba. It occurred commonly in the
country between Guantanamo City and Guanta-
namo Bay (South-east Cuba) from Novali Junce-
tion onwards. Here it grew in the open and
light-brush country, often in dense masses of
considerable extent, but the individual plants
were more or less isolated where the scrub was
composed of larger growth. Much of it had, how-
ever, already received a considerable check in its
growth owing to the attacks of certain naturai
enemies. The same species was also found grow-
ing through the lightly timbered country on
Monte Tinaja near Quebra Hacha, on the north
coast to the west of Havana. Here again it was
being subjected to the ill-effects due to disease.

O. cubensis, Britton.—A few plants of an
Opuntia resembling both O. dillenii and O. tuna,
as defined by Dr. Britton, were seen a few miles

‘inland from Santiago de Cuba. The thorns were
; Straight and rather long. The species was doubt-
(less O. cubensis, Brit. The name ‘‘tuna brava’’
is applied locally to O. dillenit as well as to this
prickly-pear.

 

* O. hystrix, Gris., according to Schumann (1899,
p. 784), is identical with O. tunicata, Lk. and Ot., which
is a Mexican and not a Cuban species. Nopalea dejecta,
Salm-Dyck, is not known to be a native of Cuba, although
that is the type locality, but is a species in cultivation
there. O triacantha of Sauvalle may be Messrs. Britton
and Rose’s O. militaris. O. tuna, Sauvalle, and O. tuna,
Roig, offer some difficulties. Dr. Gomez’s O. tuna is pro-
bably O. dillenii, Haw., and Dr. Roig’s O. tuna, which he
distinguished from O. dillenii, is apparently O. cubensis,
Brit. and Rose. Finally, O. vulgaris, Gomez, may be
O. inermis, DC. ;

O. cubensis, Brit. (ined.), is an Opuntia belonging to
the Dilleniw group, whose author distinguishesit from his
O. tuna of South Central Jamaica by its longer spines, and
from O. dillenit, Haw., by the character of its fruit and
by its terete or acicular (not basally compressed) spines.
This species, he informs us, grows in South-east Cuba.

»

O. macracantha, Griseb—A  prickly-pear,
probably referable to this species, was found
growing at the back of Guantanamo Bay on the
drier scrub-clad ground, where it attained the
dimensions of a small tree, having a thick trunk
and stout main branches. The bark was com-
posed of large, brown, flaky scales, one super-
imposed on another. It is armed with rosettes
of numerous long, pale spines that spring from
a whitish tomentum. The elongate, parallel-sided
stem-joints hang downwards. They are dull and
greyish, but never possess inter-areolar tessela-
tion, even in very old plants, the young spines
on emerging having their lower halves purplish-
pink, those on the'older growth being white,
straight, acicular, and very long, sometimes
attaining 9 em. in length.

O. malitaris, Brit. and Rose.—This low-grow-
ing brittle plant, we were informed, grew at
Guantanamo Bay in a locality which it was not
convenient to visit. Living examples of the
species in the New York Botanic Gardens had
narrow elongate, rather glossy green stem-joints
with 3-4 areoles in each oblique series, and the
spines on these, white with translucent tips.

UO. inermis, DC.—This species was originally
named by P. de Candolle when figuring it in his
Plantes Grasses (1799, tab. 188), and character-
ised in the volume of his Prodromus Regni Vege-
tabilis dealing with the Cactaceae (1831, III.,
473). Since it is the commoner of the natural-
ised prickly-pears of Queensland, it is of interest
to learn that O. inermis also is a plant to which
Cuba, along with Haiti and Florida Keys, has
been assigned as a habitat. With the exception
of de Tussac’s statement (p. 34) that it grew
between Artibonite and Gonaives, in Haiti, and
Schumann’s (1899, p. 718) that he had seen two
dried specimens from the West Indies, there has
been until lately no suggestion as to its native
home.

Descriptions having been based on examples
of this plant which had become naturalised and
had ‘‘ run out ’’ in other countries, or had been
cultivated in gardens (cf. Weber, 1893-1899, p.
894; Griffiths and Hare, 1906, p. 49; Maiden,
1912, p. 713),* Dr. N. L. Britton, in the course of
our inquiry, tendered the definite information
that it grew on one of the Florida Keys and also
in Western Cuba, and he, moreover, pointed out
three plants'in the New York Botanic Gardens
labelled as having been derived from these two
localities ; but it does not appear that any descrip-
tion of the West Indian O. inermis has been pub-
lished, based on specimens derived either from
Florida or Cuba. On visiting Western Cuba, a
journey was made to Pinar del Rio, Dr. Britton
having stated that it was to be met with between
that city and the hills to the north. Dr. Emilio
Cuesta, the well-known Cuban botanist of Pinar
del Rio. indicated localities within a few miles of
the city where he had collected O. inermis. The
few plants seen by us, on visiting some of the
places indicated, appeared to be garden escapees.

 

 

 

 

* That Opuntia inermis was very early disseminated
we may infer from the fact that, according to Dr.
Schumann (1899, p. 715), it is now growing wild in the
South of France, in Catalonia, and the Balearic Islands.
The plants now occurring in the insular region last men-
tioned Dr. Weber named Opuntia vuljaris balearica (Bois,

Dict., 894).
100

The following description of O. inermis, D.C.,
is based on field notes made while examining
specimens of the plant growing at Colonna and
Ceja Negro, Pinar del Rio, respectively. Gen-
eral colour rather dark dull green. Stem-joints
oval but somewhat obliquely narrowed towards
the base; measurements of terminal segments, 16
em. x 8 em., 16 em. x 7 em., 15-5 em. x 8 em., 12.5
em. x 12 em. Intermediate joints larger, 23 ce.
x 9 em. to 30 cm. x 9 em. Areoles, 4 to 5 in an
oblique row. Leaves about 4 mm. long, small,
conical, tipped with greenish-red. Spines often
absent, generally wanting in young stem-joints
when present, 2-3 em. long, straight, somewhat
suddenly narrowed distally, often flattened to-
. wards the base, the lower parts yellowish, then
gradually passing from pale yellowish-brown to
reddish-brown distally. Spines never present
in quite young stem-joints and few on the older
ones persisting—these singly in twos and 2-5
em. to 4 em. long. Spinules (glochidia) on a
yellowish coloured brush at the distal end of
areole, each about 5 mm. long, springing from a
little pale tomentum. These spinules may in-
crease with age, but are generally evanescent.
Flower-receptacles with a few weak spines on
the upper areoles, distal end somewhat festooned
and slightly costate also at each areole. Flowers,
yellow suffused with red towards the base of each
perianth segment—these being glossy and trans-
lucent. Pistil: Stigma cream coloured, 7 lobed;
stipes pale purplish-pink. Fruit not seen.

This plant, as may be inferred from a com-
parison of descriptions, has much in common with

Dr. Roig’s O. tuna (1912, p. 39), which he con-.

trasts with Q. dillenti, and which he states is very
abundant in the Playa de Marianao, in Puentes
Grandes and Calabuzar, and in other places in
Cuba.

Nopalea cochinelifera. This species was
commonly seen cultivated in various parts of the
island.

Disease Occurrence.

O. inermis, D.C., being so nearly related to
the Queensland prickly-pear—the Gayndah
variety especially—the plants found representing
it in the Pinar del Rio district were all carefully
examined in the hope of finding injurious in-
sects, &¢., specifically related to it, and, there-
fore, more likely to be useful in coping with our
pear than the insects associated, perhaps exclu-
sively, with other kinds not represented in Aus-
tralia. However, nothing resulted from the
search,

Bud-destroying Lepidopterous Caterpillars.
In the Guantanamo district, in the neighbourhood
of Novali railway station, although the prickly-
pear plants (0. dillenti) were very numerous,
their growth had evidently come to a temporary
standstill through the action of the caterpillar
of a small moth, related to if not identical with
Mimorista flavidissimalis, a serious enemy of
Opuntia in the United States. These insects had
attacked the growing shoots when they were still
quite young, with the result that they had with-
ered and decayed, the dry, shrunken, blackish
buds occurring on all sides, still on the plants,
or already fallen to the ground. Sometimes only
about half the shoots on a plant had been vic-

timised, at other times almost all, so that green
shoots could be discovered only with difficulty.
As an instance of typical injury of this kind, that
had not proceeded as yet to its full length, we
may instance one affected shoot amongst many
similarly affected. Its terminal or free end was
shrunken and blackened. On both surfaces small
holes and patches of eroded tissue with a greyish
coloured surface were present. Three yellowish,
diminutive, lepidopterous larvee were discovered,
two on one face and one on the other, protected
by a delicate web which covered them; one larva
being partly buried in the subjacent tissue.

In examining a-young green shoot to dis-
cover how the injury had been started, small ex-
cavations were found behind the true leaves (still
attached) in two places. In each of these were
two small pallid larve that had evidently recently
hatched from eggs. In another instance, five of
these minute caterpillars were found gnawing at
the tissue behind a single leaf. Of course, to such
attacks as these the infested bud soon succumbs
under ordinary conditions. Sometimes, however,
after considerable surface damage is done, the
insect that has occasioned it disappears, having
possibly been removed by a wasp or other preda-
ceous insect, the young shoot then recovering,
but always showing subsequently. irregularity in
its outline. At times a young shoot is eaten quite
down to its thorny cushion-base in the areole from
which it has sprung. When older stem-joints,
especially terminals, are attacked, they remain
stunted with their borders more or less scarious
and indented, while scales or ribbons of blackish,
dry, gum-like matter may be present. It is very
evident that a marked effect may be exerted by
these insects in preventing the growth of the
plants which they have once assailed.

Melitara sp. Injuries exactly resembling
those produced by Melitara prodemalis and its
allies in the United States of America were seen
in joints of O. dillenti growing along the seashore
near Santiago. A considerable amount of de-
struction had been occasioned, numerous dead
hollowed-out segments with insect excreta within
them and near them testifying to former activity.
M. prodenialis is the species occurring in the
adjacent peninsula of Florida.

Chelinidea sp.? Cireular chlorosed areas
found on segments of O. dillenti at Santiago sug-
gested the presence of a plant bug, the injuries
being similar to those caused by Chelinidea spp.
in Texas.

Leaf-eating Ant. A single instance of an
old plant of O. dillenti completely arrested in.
growth through the action of an ant addicted to
consuming vegetable tissue, was met with near
Novali in scrub country. In this case the young
shoots were almost entirely eaten, so that the
fresh internal tissue became exposed, the ants
themselves being seen in operation. Older shoots

that persisted were small and stunted, and very

irregular in outline—a condition suggestive of
their having been damaged at an early stage in
their growth. The ant itself was a large one of
very lethargic habits, having two thorns on each
side of its cordate occiput and six arming the
crux, those of the prothorax being curved and
directed forward.
 

 

 

 

 

Fig.

Photo., Burcau Entomology, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
57.—A large “ shot-hole’’ in a prickly pear joint, caused by the fungus Glvosporium lunatum. Texas.
g I YE J 3 g Pi

 

 

 

 

Photo., Dept.

Fig. 58.—‘ Black Spot’ on O. dillenit caused by the fungus Perisporiwm wright.

Agriculture, Brisbane.

Antigua, West Indies.

 
101 .

_Zone-spot Disease. This fungus-malady, first
noticed at Antigua, was prevalent both in the
Guantanamo district and that of Monte Tinaja,
near Quebra Hacha; in both instances affecting
O. dillenti only and causing a stunted habit as
well as bringing about the destruction of some of
the stem-joints.

Superficial Black Spot (Perisporium wrightir) .
This malady was observed associated with OQ. dil-
lenti in the latter locality, as well as at Santiago
de Cuba. It had but little prejudicial effect on
its host-plant, producing merely a scarious sur-
face in spots where it was situated.

Shot-hole (Glesporium lunatum, E. and E.).
This disease was seen to attack, though not
scriously, both O. cubensis and O. dillenii at
Santiago.

ISLANDS UNVISITED.

For reasons already mentioned it was found
impracticable to visit many of the West Indian
Islands. The more important of these and their
Opuntia flora are now referred to :—

CURACAO.

This has been spoken of as an exceedingly
dry island, and as one very rich in cactus growth
(Austen Clark). Dr. N. L. Britton, as the out-
come of personal investigation, has informed us
that the species to be met with there are Opuntia
curassavica (L.), Mill.; O. tunoides, Brit. and
Rose, ined.; and O. elatior, Mill. The last-
mentioned, he informs us, is distinct from that
recorded under this name by Burkill as occur-
ring in India. At Curacao there are both spine-
bearing and nearly spineless forms. Boldingh
(1909, p. 142) mentions that Nopalea cochineli-
fera is cultivated on this island. Hulst has re-
ferred to the occurrence of the destructive prickly-
pear moth, Melitara prodenialis, on this island.

MarGaBITA.
Prickly-pear is said to grow in plenty here
(A. Clark—List of Flora in Proc. Boston Soe.
Nat. Hist.).
TOBAGO.

““ Cactus’’ occurs plentifully on this island
(List—A. Clark).

GRENADA.

““Cactus’’ occurs on the dry southern end
(List—A. Clark).

St. Vincent, St. Lucia, AND MONTSERRAT.

No information obtained. The two first-
named have a rather moist climate—a condition
unsuitable for most Opuntias.

MarrTINIQUuE.

The Rev. R. P. Duss has informed us that
O. tuna (Mill.), Duss (= O. dillenti, Haw.),
grows abundantly on this island; that O. cochi-

uelifera, Mill, occurs there also, but that O.
spmosissima, Mill., Duss (=O. triacantha, Link
and Otto), is wanting.

Dutcu Leewarp Isuanps (St, Martin, St.
Eustatius, and Saba).

Boldingh (1909, p. 141, 2) records O. triacan-
the, Taw. (? 0. taylori, Britton) ; O. tuna, Mill.
(= 0. dillenii, Haw.) ; and O. ficus-indica, Mill,
as occurring on all three islands, and O. spinosis-
soma, Mill (= O. triacantha) as being found on
the two first-named of the group.

St. Croix,

; Boldingh (p. 141) has mentioned that O.
spinosissima, Mill., is to be found on this island
as well as on St. Martin and St. Eustatius.

Tur BAHAMAS.

According to the researches of Dr. N. L. Brit-
ton and Dr. J. N. Rose,- these islands contain
Opuntia lucayana, Brit. and Rose; O. nashi,
Brit.; and O. millspanghii, Brit.

TuRK’s ISLAND.

These same authorities have informed us that
O. darrahi and O. weberi belong to this island.

Tue BERMUDAS.

This island harbours O. dillenii, which not
infrequently is thornless under shade conditions
(fide Dr. Britton).

SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATIONS IN THE
West InpIEs.

A large number of islands were visited, and
their prickly-pear flora examined as fully as cir-
cumstances permitted.

In regard to the occurrence of destructive
insect enemies, only a small amount of evidence
was obtained. Various coccids, such as certain
wild cochineal insects and Diaspis, were met with
on some of the islands, but were not found to
injure the plants to any marked degree. Certain
lepidoptera, apparently species of Melitara and
Mimorista, oceur in some of the islands, and have
the same destructive effects on prickly-pear as
do their allies in the United States. They, how-
ever, appear to be rather uncommon in the West
Indies.

The chief maladies met with were the An-
thracnose or ‘‘Shot-hole’’ disease caused by Gleo-
sporium, and another apparently previously un-
described, which we have termed the ‘‘Zone-spot
Disease.’’ Certain climatic conditions seem to
be necessary before these fungi can exercise their
maximum effect. The former disease is similar
to that met with in the United States. The
““Zone-spot’’? disease not infrequently brings
about the destruction of the attacked stem-joints.

The methods of utilising cacti in the West
Indies would not be of much service in Queens-
land in counteracting the spread of prickly-pear.
102

IX. SOUTH

One member of this Commission (Tryon,
1911, pp. 15, 19) had already drawn attention in
Queensland to the presence of two serious enemies
of Prickly-pear in Argentina, viz., the ‘‘ gan-
grena blanca’’ due to a fungus parasite, and the
‘‘ agusanamiento ’’ an insect borer. Moreover,
while making inquiry in Italy, he met in Rome
Dr. C. Spegazzini, the well-known botanist of La
Plata, who has written extensively on the Cac-
tacee and fungi of the Argentine Republic. Dr.
Spegazzini stated that there was a rich cactus
flora in that country. In regard to the possibility
of using insects or disease in destroying prickly-
pear, he thought that Argentina should be
searched for such enemies, and called attention
to some that he had met with there. Amongst
the insects were the following :—(1) A Coccus or
Pseudococcus related to C. cacti and which was
common on indigenous species of Opuntia, but
apparently not fatal to any of them, though it
appeared to be capable of checking the plant’s
growth; (2) a Diaspid scale insect which he
regarded as a serious enemy of Cereus, but not
so injurious to Opuntias; and (3) the caterpillar
of a lepidopteron, which burrowed into the stem
joints and with which there was associated the
larva of a fly. In regard to diseases, he referred
to a serious malady caused by a fungus,
Sclerotinia opuntiarum, which was capable of
attacking all kinds of Cactacew, but especially
Opuntia decumana (ficus-indica) and Pilocereus
formosissimus. The stem joints, roots, and fruit
becoming infected during the winter months.

In view of such information, it was deemed
advisable to carry out investigations in South
America. In order to economise time, it was
decided that this should be carried out by one
member of the Commission, while the other was
engaged in studying the Cactacese and their
enemies in the various West Indian islands.

COLOMBIA.

On the voyage from Jamaica to Barbados,
the steamer called at Cartagena and Puerto
Colombia, two ports on the North coast of the
Republic of Colombia, affording a brief oppor-
tunity to inspect the Cactacer. Between Puerto
Colombia (Savanilla) and Barranquilla one may
see various kinds of Cereus, including C. ptero-
gonus, Lem., and, in addition, a low-growing
Opuntia closely resembling the Jamaican O. tuna
in the general characters of the plant, par-
ticularly the spines. This latter species was
especially abundant in the low sandy country
around the mouth of the Magdalena River.

SOUTH BRAZIL.

A journey was made from Barbadoes to Rio
de Janeiro, at whose Botanical Gardens Dr. J.
C. Willis (the Director) and Dr. A. Loefgren
were interviewed. These botanists suggested
that that portion of the State of Bahia which is
near the valley of the San Francisco River should
be visited, as that region is very dry and supports
an abundant cactus flora, one of the species, O.
imamena, Schum. (they believed), closely
resembling the pest pear of Queensland. Al-
though certain other indigenous Brazilian species

AMERICA.

such as O. monacantha and O. nigricans* oceur
naturalised in Eastern Australia, yet they are
found only in scattered situations in the moister
parts of South-Eastern Brazil which are not
readily accessible. The adjacent States of Ceara
and Pernambuco also have dry tracts with a
cactus flora similar to Bahia.

It was decided to visit Bahia on the return
journey from Chili and Argentina and to omit
visiting certain other countries—e.g., Peru,
Northern Chili, and Bolivia, on account of the
amount of time which would be necessary to
make even a casual examination of the Prickly-
pear of those regions.

ARGENTINA AND CHILI.

After arrival at Buenos Aires a visit was
paid to the Botanical Gardens at Palermo and
also to the neighbouring city of La Plata, where
much assistance was rendered by Dr. C. Spegaz-
zini, whom the Commission had met in Rome, and
who, as already mentioned, has given considerable
attention to the fungi and Cactaccer of Argentina.
The collection of Opuntias at La Plata was
examined and certain enemies were pointed out
by this botanist. From him it was ascertained
that though species of Opuntia occurred in the
moist wooded regions near the Paraguayan and
Brazilian frontiers, yet the chief Prickly-pear
region was in the West and North-West of the
republic, along the foothills of the Cordillera,
particularly in the States of Mendoza, Salta,
Jujuy, Tucuman, Catamarca, Santiago d’Estero,
La Rioja, and Cordoba, where arid conditions
prevailed. As Mendoza is situated on the trans-
continental railway line from Buenos Aires to
Valparaiso, it was decided to examine the region
surrounding that city on the return journey from
Chili.

While crossing the Andes, it was noticed that
abundant low-growing Prickly-pears (0. sul-
furea, Gillies) and Cereus (Eechinopsis leucan-
tha, Walp. ; Pilocereus rhodacanthus, S.D.; Cereus
candicans, Gillies; C. strigosus, S.D.; and others)
were present in the lower altitudes, but that
they all disappeared from the flora after an eleva-
tion of about 6,000 feet had been reached, C.
strigosus, a plant of about 4-6 feet high, extend-
ing to a somewhat higher altitude than the others.
On the Chilian side, after the 6,000-feet level has
been passed on the downward journey, one meets
with great numbers of a tall species of Cereus,
presumably C. chilensis, Colla, whose range
extends to the coast, this plant growing at
Valparaiso. O. ficus-indica may be seen fairly
commonly in parts of Chili such as Los Andes,
Llaillai, Santiago (de Chili), and Valparaiso,
where it is grown for its fruit just as in Southern
Europe.

A visit was paid to Dr. Soehrens, Director of
the Botanical Gardens at Santiago, where a small
collection of Cactacex is housed. Amongst them

* Dr. Loefgren stated that O. nigricans is met with as
a rather rare plant near Itabira de Matto Dentro in the
State of Minas Gereas; and that O. monacantha was to be
found as scattered plants in wooded country in the States
of San Paulo, Minas Gereas and Rio Grand de Sul. 0.
brasiliensis was also to be found in tho latter localities.
Schumann (1899, p. 728) thought that the home of O.
nigricans was probably Mexico.
103

is the type specimen of O. airampo, Phil.,* a
species which Schumann (1899, p. 718) con-
sidered to be a synonym of O.#inermis.{ They
are distinct though they bear certain resemblance
in their habit and in the characters of their fruit
and joints. The specimen of O. airampo came
from Arequipa, Peru. The term ‘‘airampo”’ is
applied by the inhabitants of parts of Peru,
Bolivia, Northern Argentina, and Northern
Chili to any Opuntia whose fruit possesses a red
juice.

As Dr. Soehrens stated that Opuntias are
rarities in Chili, except in the extreme northern
part—a very arid region—the return journey to
Mendoza was made. Mendoza is situated at an
elevation of about 2,500 feet in an arid zone
which extends northwards along the Andean foot-
hills on the Argentine side. The whole of this
dry area contains an abundant flora belonging to
the Cactacex, especially to the genera Opuntia,
Echinocactus, Echinopsis, Cereus, and Pilocereus.
The more northern parts of the region are richer
in individual species, as may be seen.from Dr.
Spegazzini’s work (1905) on the Cactacex of
Argentina and Uruguay. On the hills close to
the city, both O. sulfwrea, Gillies, and O. (Teph-
rocactus) diademata are extremely common
(Schumann, 1899, pp. 692 and 745; Spegazzini,
1905, p. 518; p. 510). Besides these there are a
thin, semi-prostrate species of Cereus; an Hchi-
nopsis; a small Hchinocactus (74. intricatis-
sima, Speg.); and two very common forms of
elumpy Cereus, one of which is probably C. bau-
mann. Spegazzini (1905) mentions a large
number of species of Cereus and also Opuntia
(Tephrocactus) acracantha as occurring in the
neighbourhood of Mendoza, some of them being
seen by us on the higher lands on the transandine
journey.

On reaching Buenos Aires, it was found that
there was not sufficient time to allow of an
examination of the Opuntias occurring near Mon-
tevideo, in Uruguay. It is in that locality that
there occurs indigenously O. aurantiaca, Gillies
(Spegazzini, 1905, p. 514), a plant which is the
notorious ‘‘jointed cactus’’ of Cape Colony, and
which has become naturalised near Roma and
Warwick, in Queensland.

NORTH-EAST BRAZIL.

The field investigations in Brazil were carried
out in two localities, Bomfin (Villa Nova) and
Barrinha (Angico), situated in the dry ‘eatinga
country in the State of Bahia and near the valley
of the San Francisco River. The following forms,
indicated by their local names on account of the
uncertainty of scientific indentification of some,
were met with at the latter place, cacti being
rather more abundant there than at the former.

1, Esprinua vE Sao Anrronio (Sr. ANTHONY’S
Tuorn).—This Peireskia is also recorded for
Bahia by Schumann (1899, p. 760) under the

* This name has been published in Schumann’s mono-
graph as O. acrampo, and it is under this latter name that
Mr. Maiden (1912) has referred to it when comparing it
with the pest pear of Queensland and New South Wales.

+ Schumann also includes both O. stricta, Haw., a
cultivated form, and O. levis, Coulter, from Arizona as
synonyms of O. inermis. They are both distinct from it,
O. stricta apparently being related to the group of species
which occur in North Eastern Argentina—e.g., Q. retrorsa,
Speg., O. chakensis, Spog., &e. O. inermis ie a West
Indian plant (Cuba).

 

name P. aculeata, Mill., with P. brasiliensis as a
synonym. As it is a Linnean species (Cactus
petreskia, L.) its name should be P. peweskia, a
combination used by Spegazzini (1905, p. 521)

in recording the occurrence of ‘the plant in
Argentina.

aa 2. CaBeca DE FRApE (THe Prigsr’s Heap) .—
This plant is Melocactus depressus, Hook (Schu-
mann, 1899, p. 457), the names MW. pentacentrus
Lem., and M. gomodacanthus, Lem., being evi-

dently synonyms. M. oreas, Mi ‘i
also be included. » Mliq., should probably

_ 38. Manpagaru pg Facno.—A very tall tree-
like Cereus, which somewhat resembles Cereus
perwvianus m general appearance, and commonly
attains a greater height than any of the surround-
Ing vegetation. The branches are practically
round, with numerous low ridges armed with
small spines. The term ‘‘mandagaru’’ is used for
tree-forms of Cereus in both localities visited.

4, MANDAGARU bE Bol—This is also a tall
Cereus, but it is much commoner and appears to
be more widely distributed in the State of Bahia
than the preceding species. The stems are greyish
or greenish and have typically six ridges, each
of whose areoles has one long and several short
spines, the former reaching 6 inches in length. It
is known simply as Mandagaru in Bomfin. — It
appears to be C. jamacaru, D.C. (Schumann,

1899, p. 112), whose specific name is said to be its
native name.

; dD. CHIQUECHIQUE VERDADEIRO.—This Cereus
Is a very spiny form reaching up to eight feet in
height, and whose stem bears nine ridges closely
beset with spines from one to nearly four inches
in length. It forms a clump whose individual
Stei.s may lean over and become more or less

prostrate. It is more common at Bomfin than at
Angico. The term chiquechique is applied to

those species of Cereus, Pilocereus, &¢., which do
not form trees.

6. Carxa CUBE; CHIQUECHIQUE DE RABO DE
CacHorra (THE Dog-TatL CHIQUECHIQUE).—This
slender branching species of Cereus is known by
the former name in Angico and by the latter in
Bomfin, where it is much more common. Its
branches reach a length of 3 or 4 feet.

7. At Angico there may be met with occa-
sionally a greyish, semi-prostrate, branching
Cereus resembling No. 6 in habit, but whose stem
is about an inch in diameter and bears three or
four prominent ridges with areoles about 11
inches apart and bearing five or six long brown
spines. The tendency to form joints is quite
noticeable. There does not appear to be any
local name for this species.

8. CHIQUECHIQUE DE Riso DE Raposa (THR
Wox-rtam, CHIQUECHIQUE).—This species of
Cereus is also a semi-prostrate branching plant
possessing a diameter of 1144 to 2 inches, with
a jointed stem, the joints being separated by a
mass of rather long, red-brown spines. The
round stem bears numerous small ridges whese
closely set areoles are well supplied with small
spines. It is rather thinner than the Caixa Cube.
‘The joints are capable of growth and remind
one a little of some of the Cylindropuntias. Its
appearance suggests Schumann’s series “* clava-
tae’? of Opuntia, all of which are natives of
Mexico and the adjacent regions. This plant was
seen only at Angico.
104

9. CHIQUECHIQUE DE CaBEcA BRANCA;
CasecA Branca (THE WHITE-HEADED CHIQUE-
cHIQUE).—This species of Cephalocereus is
extremely common between Bomfin and Angico
and at the latter place, though it does not seem
to oceur at Bomfin. It branches at the ground to
form numerous tall, simple round stems from 6
to 10 or more feet in height, each stem bearing
abundant small ridges with very numerous thin
yellowish spines an inch long, as well as a great
quantity of ‘‘wool,’’ especially on the distal
portion.

10. Between Jaguarary and Bomfin in the
schist country, one may see from the train a very
tall, thin, straight Cereus with a rounded stem.
With the exception of an occasional tree-cereus
(Mandagaru de boi), cacti were not evident in
that type of country.

11. Panmapora (THE Spiny PaLMADORA).—-
The name palmadora is often applied to any
Opuntia, but in the districts visited, it is generally
used to designate a species with rather small,
thin joints armed with abundant brittle, white or
pale yellowish spines (darkening with age) four
to six on each areole, the longest being about an
inch in length. It is an erect plant and seems to
prefer shade conditions, where it may reach a
height of 8 feet, its usual height being about 5
feet. The green fruit on reaching the ground
readily grow. This Prickly-pear is very common
and is far less restricted in range than the next
species to be mentioned.

12. Curpa (the Palmadora without evident
spines).—This very low-growing plant, O. cuipa
Web. Syn. O. inamena, Sch. (1899, p. 742; 1890,
p. 806) is common near Angico, though it is also
to be met with occasionally near Bomfin in drier
situations. In the former locality it is known as
Cuipa, whereas in the latter it does not seem to
have received a special name. Weber has attached
the name to a plant of quite similar habit, but
armed with two or three weak spines in each
areole (Schumann, 1903, p. 162). The edible
fruits are orange or yellowish in each case. Its
locality is stated to be Pernambuco. In O. ina-
mena one may find one or two very small spines
on each areole as described for O. cuipa, but they
readily fall off. This explains Schumann’s
description of the species as unarmed. The two
names are synonymous, O. cuipa possessing
priority.

13. PauMaporaA Granpz.—This plant, which
is not indigenous, resembles the Mission Pear (0.
castille, Griffiths) of South-Western United
States of America, and probably belongs to that
species or to O. ficus-indica. The young plants
have abundant white spines and resemble O.
amyclea in appearance, but the spines generally
drop off later. It is more or less cultivated for
the sake of its joints, which are fed to stock.

Schumann (1899, p. 718) in his account of
Pilocereus exerens, Sch., mentions that it occurs
in the States of Bahia and Pernambuco and that
it is called ‘‘ Fascheiro’’ by the natives. As
detailed descriptions of the various species met
with were not taken, the identification of this
Pilocereus with any of the above is not attempted.
The same author refers to a few other cacti from
Bahia, e.g., O. monacantha, Rhipsalis, &e., but
they probably belong to the moister and more
wooded areas of that large State.

DESTRUCTION BY DISEASE.

No fungoid or bacterial disease of any value
in controlling the spread of Prickly Pear was
seen during the investigations in South America.

Shot Hole Disease—The Shot Hole Fungus
(probably Gleosporium lunatum) was encoun-
tered in widely separated localities. The injuries
produced by it have already been referred to in
the section dealing with our work in the United
States of America. The black rot which it causes
under damp weather conditions in Southern
Texas, does not seem to occur under the more arid
climate of Western Argentina and Bahia. It was
found on the Uruguayan species O. arechavaleta,
Speg. (allied to O. monacantha) and on O.
chakensis, Speg., at La Plata; on O. ficus-indica
in Buenos Aires; at Bomfin and Angico on both
O. cuipa and the spiny Palmadora. Occasionally
gumming was associated with the injury.

Wolf (1912, p. 112) refers to the presence of
a Gleosporium, G. opuntie, Ell. and Ever., on
O. brasiliensis, which is a South American species.

White Rot; Sclerotium Disease—What is re-
garded as a much more serious fungoid disease
is that caused in Argentina by Sclerotium opun-
liarum, Speg. (1898, p. 354), whose perfect stage
is Sclerotinia opuntiarum, Speg. (1899, p. 18).
In his description of the latter stage of this fungus
Dr. Spegazzini states (p. 19) that the parasite is
a formidable enemy of all Cactacer, especially
during winter. A white cotton-like mass of
mycelium becomes developed below the epidermis
in the parenchyma, which becomes destroyed and
putrefies. Sclerotia are produced and then
liberated, and from them develops the asco-
pore stage in the following autumn. A search
in company with Dr. Spegazzini failed to reveal
its presence at La Plata (Jan., 1914). This
botanist in 1910 recorded the occurrence of the
Sclerotinia stage, 8S. opuntsarum, in rotten trunks
of Pilocereus formosissimus, Lab. (= Cereus
posacana, Weber, in Schumann, 1899) near
Mendoza.

The same malady is referred to under the
name of gangrena blanea, 1.¢., the white rot, by
an anonymous writer in the Chronica Agricola
(Buenos Aires), 1908, pp. 147-8, who calls the
fungus Sclerotinia cactorum. In order to decrease
the ravages, he suggests the frequent inspection
of plants and the destruction of those found to
be infected.

The introduction of this Sclerotinia into
Queensland is not at present recommended.

In 1898 Dr. Spegazzini (1898, p. 353) gave
an account of another Sclerotium, S. cactorwm,
but has not included it as such in his later work
on the Argentine fungi. Perhaps it is synony-
mous with his 8. opuntiarum.

Other fungi have been described as occurring
parasitically or saprophytically on South Ameri-
can Cactacee by Spegazzini, but they are of little
or no economic importance.

Amongst these are Perisporium men-
dozanum, Speg., 1899, p. 227, found on P.
aoracantha near Mendoza; Afcidium opun-
tie, Magn., found by Magnus (1898, p.
151) on a Bolivian Opuntia and by
Spegazzini on O. digitalis in Argentina
(Speg., 1909, p. 321) ; Trulla nigerrima on
 

 

 

 

k ; Photo., Dept. Agriculture, Brisbane.
Fig. 59.—Joint of O. dillenti showing stages of the “ Zone Spot Disease.’’ Note the concentric areas.
Antigua, West Indies.

 

 

 

 

Photo., Dept. Agriculture, Brisbane.
on O. dillenii, showing destruction of the superficial

i ee . of “ t Disease’
Fig. 60.—Later stage of Zone Spot Diseas ae

tissues 1n progress.

   

 

 
105 .

Rhipsalis lorentziana at La Plata (Speg.,
1910, p. 407); Macrophoma phyllocacts,
Speg., on cultivated Phyllocactus at La
Plata (1910, p. 349); Pyrenochata cerei-
cola, Speg., on Cereus haenkeanus in
Misiones, North Argentina (1910, p. 358) ;
Spheropsis cereicola, Speg., on Cereus
triangularis cultivated at La Plata (1910,
p. 361); Didymocheta opuntiicola, Speg.,
on fruits of O. diademata, (N.W. Argen-
tina (1910, p. 369); Diplodia ceret-trian-
gularis, Speg., on Cereus triangularis cul-
tivated La Plata (1910, p. 370) ; Stagano-
spora opuntiw, Speg., on O. auwrantiaca at
Mendoza (1910, p. 372); Didymella acan-
thophila, Speg., on spines of O. awrantiaca
at Mendoza (1912, p. 538); Montagnella
opuntiarum, Speg., var. minor, on Rhip-
salis lumbricoidis at La Plata, and var.
microcarpa on Cereus candicans near Men-
doza (Speg., 1909, p. 422; Rosellima
opuntucola, Speg., on O. ficus-indica ia
Argentina (1909, p. 338); Ophiocheta
cereicola, Speg., on Cereus lamprochlorus
salinicola, cultivated La Plata (1902, p. 73)
and- en Echinopsis from Santiago del
Estero (Speg., 1909, p. 403; Pyrenocheta
spinicola, Speg. (1902, p. 81) on O. aoru-
cantha; Teichospora cereina, Speg., ou
Cereus spegazzini, cultivated La Plata
(1909, p. 396) ; Broomeia congregata, var.
argentinensis, Speg., on dead Opuntias in
Western Argentina (1912, p. 15) ; Phoma
rhipsalidicela, Speg., on Rhipsalis lorent-
siano——cultivated La Plata (1912, p. 112) ;
Uromyces peireskia, Diet., on Peireskia
sacharose from Salta, Argentina (Speg.,
1909, p. 313).

INSECT ENEMIES.

The most important insect enemies seen dur-
ing the investigations in South America were the
two allied moths whose larve bore into the joints
of certain Prickly Pears and other cacti and
eventually bring about their destruction. One of
these is Zophodia cactorum, Berg. (1885, pp.
13-14), belonging to the Phycitidee, the other—
“the Mendoza moth-borer’’—being not yet
identified, though apparently also a Phycitid.
Our attention was drawn to the former by Dr. C.
Spegazzini, at La Plata.

ZoPHODIA CACTORUM, Berg. (The Argentine
Moth Borer).—The larva when mature Is a
yellowish or orange-coloured grub about 34-inch
in length. It has a dark, shining head and there
are usually dark, sharply-defined, transverse
bands on part of the dorsum of each segment.
A rather thin cocoon is spun, generally on the
ground under fallen joints. Specimens which
were being transported to Queensland by the
Commission passed through the pupa stage in
about three weeks. The grey moth is about two-
thirds of an inch in length and has a wing
expanse of from one to nearly one and a-half
inches. Eggs are laid in a long single row
which is attached by one end in a similar manner
to those of Melitara referred to in the section of
this report dealing with the work in the United
States of America (Hunter Pratt and Mitchell,
1912, plate 7, fig. 1).

The young on hatching are very active and
begin to bore into the segment under cover of a
delicate silky web, many of them entering
through one aperture. One or more holes are
made and once an entry is gained the fleshy
parenchyma of the joint is rapidly eaten, severat
grubs being usually found at work there. The
débris is moist and bright green—the colour of
the plant pulp—and is rejected through one of
the apertures made in the segment. If left to
themselves the result of their invasion is the
eating out of all or most of the tissues, merely
the epidermis being left. The larve can fre-
quently be seen quite readily in the tissues, which
become translucent during the attacks. They are
very active and travel from joint to joint and
begin work again. Berg mentions that the
flowers are also attacked. The injury caused by
the Zophodia is greatly increased by the invasion
of lowly organisms and of scavenging Diptera
which breed in the affected joint, the larve of the
latter soon reducing the rest of the tissues of the
segment to a dark-coloured fetid liquid which
may remain in the dead hollowed-out joint for a
long time, as the epidermis forms a bag.

The insect was noticed at work at La Plata
and in the Botanical Gardens, Buenos Aires,
during January and February, 1914. No plant
other than Cactacese was known to be affected by
it. Amongst the Prickly Pears seen to be attacked
in these two localities were the following :—

1. Opuntia quimilo, Sch.—cultivated at La
Plata. This is an arborescent species
with a few long spines indigenous to
the North-west of Argentina and allied
to the spineless O. anacantha, as well
as to O. stricta, both of which are very
closely related.

bo

. O. anacantha.

CO

. O. decumana—cultivated at La Plata.

He

. 0. maxima (=O. robusta)—a Mexi-
can species cultivated at La Plata.

5. O. argentina—cultivated at Buenos
Aires—allied to and regarded by Schu-
mann (1899, p. 657) as identical with
the common Southern Brazilian tree-
pear, O. brasiliensis, though Spegaz-
zini (1905, p. 508) believes that they
are distinct.

6. O. monacantha—cultivated at Buenos
Aires. This is one of the Queensland
pest pears (Suttor River, Rockhamp-
ton, &e¢.).

O. chakensis, Speg.—cultivated at La
Plata. This arborescent species closely
resembles QO. stricta in regard to its
joints.

8. O. ficus-indica—cultivated at Buenos

‘Aires. This species is widely cul-

tivated in Argentina and Chili, parti-

eularly in the drier zones, for the sake

of its fruit (Speg., 1906, p. 512)--

hence the suggestion in the ‘‘ Chronica

Agricola’’ that all parts found to be

attacked by the borer should be re-

moved and burnt. The Westwood and
particularly — the Yellow Mexican,

Prickly Pears of Queensland are re-

lated to this species.

=
106

9. O. emoryi—cultivated at Buenos Aires.
A plant under this name in the
Palermo Botanic Gardens was found
to be attacked. The specimen ap-
peared to be a typical O. aurantiaca,
which is a native of Uruguay and
oceurs naturalised near Roma, Queens-
land. O. emoryi as described by Schu-
mann (1899, p. 664) is a different
plant whose habitat is Northern
Mexico and the adjacent dry parts of
Arizona.

10. It was found experimentally that it
would feed on O. cuipa, from North
eastern Brazil, though not partial to it.

11. The pest pear of Oahu (Hawaiian
Islands) is readily attacked and since
this white twisted-spined species is
related to the O. ficus-indica group and
is very much like the Westwood pear
of the Rockhampton district, there is
no doubt that it will prove an eneny
to it as well as to the related Yellow
Mexican pear which oceurs sparingly
in the same district.

12. Since arrival in Queensland it has been
found to be able to attack the common
pest pear of the Brisbane district.

Berg, in his original account, mentioned that
the larva of Zophodia cactorum was taken rhe)
flowers of Rhipsalis luwmbricoides, S.D., in
Uruguay and on Opuntia sp. in Buenos Aires.
He stated that this species was closely related to
Z. bolls Zell, and was indigenous to Uruguay and
Argentina. Dr. Spegazzini, who indicated to the
Commission the presence of this insect at La
Plata, mentioned that it was more common in the
former republic.

The account given by an anonymous writer
in the ‘‘ Chronica Agricola’’ for 1908 (p. 147——
quoted by Tryon, 1911, p. 19) of a boring insect
enemy of the Prickly Pear shows that the same
organism is being referred to. Its destructive
effects on Opuntias are there regarded as being
sufficiently serious to give rise to a suggestion
that measures should be taken to cope with it.

Zophodia cactorum, as far as we have been
able to ascertain, is restricted to cactaceous plants
for its food supply.

Tt should be mentioned that another species
of Zophodia, Z%. dilatifasciella, Ragonot, has been
identified from various localities in Texas, where
it is said to feed on Coccus confusus, the common
wild cochineal of that region. (Hunter, Pratt,
and Mitchell, 1912, p. 46.)

A considerable number of more or less fully-
grown caterpillars and a supply of O. decumana,
one of its food plants, were collected at La Plata
towards the end of last January, and about a
week later many of them had pupated. A fair
proportion, however, failed to do so, this being no
doubt due to injury during transportation. As
already stated above, about three weeks was spent
in the chrysalis stage. Some of the moths laid
‘‘ege sticks,’? and it was from these eggs that
the specimens which the Commission brought to
Queensland were hatched.

This introduction of the insect to Queens-
land has not, however, resulted in its establish-
ment there. This apparently is the outcome of
certain of its habits being unknown and accord-
ingly not taken into consideration. The cater-
pillars in question had originally issued from eggs
about the end of March just before the arrival
of the Commission at Honolulu, and were fed on
segments of O. monacantha, O. cuipa &e., until
that port was reached, when they were given
joints of the Opuntia prevalent there to feed
upon. This they partook of with characteristic
activity. On arrival at Sydney at the end of
April they were still in the caterpillar condition
and feeding. ‘Thence they were transmitted to
Queensland. Here the employment of the Hono-
lulu Prickly-pear was continued for awhile, but
it having been meanwhile found that they would
feed on the common local Opuntia (O. inermis)
this was soon substituted, and they proved only
slightly less partial to it than the Honolulu pest
pear. However, they constantly emerged from
the interior of the stem-joints, and wandered
around spinning a little silk as if to pupate. They
did not, however, on these occasions turn into the
chrysalis condition, but gnawing into fresh
‘‘pear’’ resumed their feeding. This they did
again and again. It was evidently, from what
was afterwards inferred, the display of an attempt
on their part to overwinter, but the temperature
experienced during our so-called cold months
was evidently not sufficiently low to promote the
condition of lethargy that for their overwintering
as caterpillars was essential. It was considered,
however, that their temporary abandonment of
the Opuntia joints was due to decay of the tissue
surrounding that in which they subsisted in
accordance with the requirements of a habit com-
monly pursued, and accordingly they were not
provided with especially cold quarters. Under
the circumstances they became weaker and weaker
and died off one after another, usually outside
the plant in which they had thrived. Two even-
tually spun cocoons but were not able to trans-
form to chrysalides, and succumbed within these,
becoming dried up. However, they had lived
several months, and now (8th October) after this
protracted period of activity the forty examples
brought to Brisbane by the Commission have
been reduced to three. This has resulted notwith-
standing the fact that the insects had been cared
for by one of the Commission personally and by
two of his assistant entomologists since their
arrival here.

It has, however, been established that Zopho-
dia cactorum will feed upon the common ‘‘Pest
Pear’’ of Queensland and is destructive to it,
possibly to the extent exercised on other Opuntias
in its native country, but that under our condi-
tions it apparently would undergo very slow
numerical increase.

Dr. C. Spegazzini, La Plata, Argentina, has
kindly offered to assist, if desired, in forwarding
specimens of this formidable enemy of so many
of the Cactacez.

Tur MenvozaA Mors Borer.—The injury
produced by the larva of this moth is similar
to that caused by Zophodia. The excreta, how-
ever, are yellowish or brownish and are dry.
The rotten condition previously noted, together
with abundant fly infection, is very common.
107

The joint may become hollowed out to such
an extent that only the spines and epidermis
are left either dry or as a bag containing a
putrid dark fiuid. At othem times a black,
more or less spongy mass remains in the place
of the tissues. It is quite common to see whole
branches, or even entire plants, killed. Sometimes
the attacked joint collapses and then the distal
segments may come in contact with the ground
and grow. The effects of this moth, assisted no
doubt by the scavenging diptera, can be seen very
commonly in the arid country surrounding Men-
doza and extending up the Andes for many miles
on each side of the transandine railway line.

The effect ‘on the invaded segment and the
appearance of the insect excreta reminded one
strikingly of what was found as a result of the
attacks of Melitara spp. on Prickly Pears in the
dry zones of the United States.

The host-plants are O. sulfurea especially,
and quite commonly both species of Cereus which
abound on the Cerro Pilar, near Mendoza, are
attacked. It is exceptional to find O. (Tephro-
cactus) diademata invaded, this being perhaps
due to its tougher epidermis. The Cereus spp.
are hollowed out in a similar manner to the O.
sulfurea. In the latter case the injury commonly
extends from joint to joint and may involve the
portions below ground. Old and young joints
alike are attacked.

At Mendoza no plants other than Cactacew
were noticed as being attacked in a similar man-
ner to that described above.

A prolonged search of several days failed to
reveal more than a few of the grubs at work
(early February, 1914). They were seen to
resemble the Zophodia larve in size, but lacked
the colouring and transverse bands of the latter.
Two cocoons with pupx# were found, one in a
hollow joint of O. sulfurea and the other under a
segment lying on the ground. One of these bred
out into a grey moth of the same size and naked-
eve appearance as the Zophodia.

Undetermined Larva.—A small insect larva
about 14-inch in length, with a cream-coloured
body and a reddish-brown head was found on a
few occasions on O. sulfurea near Mendoza, living
in a cavity or tunnel which it had eaten out
underneath a mass of cochineal in each case.
The base of a joint was the situation which
seemed to be preferred. A loose web was also
present. As dead cochineal insects were seen 1n
each instance and as the head of the larva was
sometimes stained with cochineal dye, it may
be that the larva was predatory on that insect.
Sometimes the tunnels were fairly extensive and
then the débris was like that produced by the
Mendoza moth. Whether the larva belonged to
the latter or whether it was an enemy of the
coccid, was not satisfactorily determined.

(Eceticus PLATENSIS, Berg.—This small
larva, which livés in a conical ‘‘ house : and
is popularly known in Argentina as bicho
de canasto,’? was found feeding on the sur-
face of joints of O. decumana cultivated by
Dr. Spegazzini at La Plata. It commonly causes
the destruction of young segments, but those
which are rather older recover, the injury healing
over and a scar being produced exactly like that

>
eaused in Texas by Wimorista flavidissimalis,
Grote, on O. lindhcimeri and other species. On
account of the destruction of young joints this
insect, like the Mimorista, evidently assists im
controlling the spread of Opuntias.

Sunilav injuries were scen on O. sulfurea near
Mendoza, and the same remark applies also to O.
cuipa and the ‘‘ spiny palmadora”’ at Bomfin and
Angico (Bahia), where a considerable destruction
of young joints had evidently taken place, especi-
ally in the case of the last-named plant. However,
in these instances no insects were found associated
with the condition and there is no direct evidence
as to the kind of insect producing them.

‘WILp CocHINEAL, Coccus spp.—A species of
wild cochineal was found to be rather common
on O. sulfurea in the neighbourhood of Mendoza.
Though sometimes found in abundance on a
segment of O. sulfurea, no injury beyond a slight
chlorosis was recognisable. It should be men-
tioned, however, that the coccids were being
preyed on by other insects. A description of
Coccus argentinus, Dominguez, 1907, which is
said by Autran to feed on O. ficus-indica and O.
aurantiaca, was not available for comparison.
Dr. Spegazzini informed us that a wild cochineal
occurs also at Santiago del Estero, but he did
not mention the host species.

Another species of cochineal insect which
seems to be rare, was found at Angico in the
State of Bahia, in North-west Brazil, on the spiny
Opuntia which is frequently encountered there.
It has the woolly appearance common to all ‘‘ wild
cochineals,’’ as distinct from the true Coccus cacts
L. No injury appeared to be occasioned by the
presence of the insect. From specimens obtained,
there have bred out a hymenopterous parasite
(Ichneumonidie) as well as diptera belonging to
the Stratiomyiide. Hempel, in his work on
Brazilian Coecids (1900), does not refer to the
last-mentioned cochineal, but mentions only
Coccus cacti, Lin., as occurring in Brazil.

_ One member of this Commission has shown
that the Wild Cochineal (Coccus indicus, Green),
which has been so destructive to O. monacantha in
India and Ceylon, was first introduced into India
by a Captain Neilson, who brought it from Brazil
(Tryon, 1910, 1911). This matter has since been
referred to in the Commission’s report on the
investigations in India, as well as in a paper by
Mr. E. E. Green (1912, p. 87). Inquiry in Rio
de Janeiro failed to gain any information regard-
ing the occurrence of any Coccus on O. mona-
cantha, a plant indigenous to Southern Brazil
and adjacent wooded country in Uruguay and
Argentina. In India and Ceylon the insect is
found to live only on that species, while the
allied variety, C. capensis, from Cape Colony,
attacks only that species and Nopalea cochineli-
fera, It would thus seem reasonable to believe
that O. monacantha is at least one of the host
plants. Perhaps a careful search in Southern
Brazil (Sao Paulo and Rio Grande do Sul) might
reveal its presence. The Argentine species from
Mendoza would not make any attempt to leave
its special host-plant in order to feed on segments
of O. monacantha placed in the same box. There
is the possibility that C. indicus* is not a South
American species at all, but that it may have

 

* This matter has been referred to earlier in the
sections dealing with India and Mexico.
108

been introduced just as the true cochineal (C.
cacti) evidently has been. The insect from Bahia
is probably a distinet species which has not yet
received attention.

The true cochineal insect (Coccus cacti, L.)
was introduced long ago into Peru (Hunter,
Pratt, and Mitchell, 1912, p. 42). Hempel (1900,
p. 380) has recorded its presence in Rio Grande
do Sul in Southern Brazil.

Insects Propucine Minor Insurmes.—A few
segments of O. cuipa from Angico (Bahia)
were found to be attacked by a larva living
in tunnels just below the epidermis. The in-
jured portion was apparent as a series of inter-
crossing white tracks, the tissues above which
later became cuticularised or suberised and then
appeared as brownish areas. The injury is similar
to that produced in Texas by Marmara opuntiella.

At Angico (Bahia), the foxtail chiquechique
(Cereus sp.) was found to be attacked by a
boring larva (lepidopterous or coleopterous?)
whose tunnels were seen to pass down into the
stems alongside the vascular bundle, and passing
from joint to joint. At the point of entry (exit?)
a small dark decayed area was found in each ease.
Sometimes the injury was less extensive and no
tunnel was produced, merely a small hollowed-
out area being the result. The insect, specimens
of which were not found, frequently attacks the
stem near the junction of joints and may kill
the part, though the distal portions of the branch
continue to grow—probably only until the store
of food becomes used up. No excreta were found
at the aperture leading into the cavity, but other-
wise the injury reminded one of that caused by
the larvee (Moneilema and Melitara, spp.) found
in Cylindropuntias in Arizona, United States of
America.

In joints of the ‘‘ spiny palmadora’’ at
Angico, there was found on very few occasions, a
clean aperture leading into a large cavity where
some insect larva had evidently been at work,
the débris being tightly packed along one side of
the cavity in such a way as described for certain
species of the cactus moth Melitara in Prickly
Pears (O. lindheimeri, &c.), in Texas. The at-
tacked joints were not destroyed, the formation
of a tumour being the main result.

Another larva was sometimes found which
burrowed into the joint of this Opuntia forming
a fairly large cavity, but which did not kill it.
Green excreta were deposited outside the aperture
(Angico).

A small larva was found on one occasion
destroying a flower-bud of this same species
(Angico).

A beetle, Cactophagus striatoforatus, Gyllen-
hal, is recorded by Champion (p. 84) as attacking
Cereus in Colombia.

Various species of grasshoppers were seen
making small lesions by feeding while resting on
Cereus spp., and O. sulfurea at Mendoza, and on

O. cutpa and the ‘‘ spiny palmadora’’ at Angic
and Bomfin (Bahia). eo

A plant-bug resembling a large Narnia was
found _to attack both O. cuipa and the spiny
Opuntia at Angico and Bomfin, as well as the
tall Cereus (Mandagaru de boi). Like the plant

bugs Narnia and Chelinidea in the United States,
it is gregarious. It produces effects on segments
similar to those caused by Chelinidea.

Another plant bug, resembling the common
green hemipteron met with on cultivated crops,
was seen on a few occasions on the spiny Opuntia
at Angico (Bahia)—perhaps an _ accidental
association.

Mussel scale, Mytilaspis sp., was found on a
cultivated specimen of O. chakensis in Dr.
Spegazzini’s garden at La Plata.

The common Opuntia scale insect, Diaspis sp.,
was scen on Cereus sp., at La Plata, and on O.
monacantha, O. decumana, and O. argentina in
Buenos Aires. Its effects were unimportant.
Fernald (1903) quotes Brazil as a locality for
D. echinocacti, var. cactt, Comstock. Demerara
(British Guiana) appears to possess two forms,
viz., D. cchinocacti, var. opuntiw, Ckll. (Hunter,
Pratt, and Mitchell, 1912, p. 42) and D. opunti-
cola, Newstead.

In 1882 Ernst (p. 77) described an abnormal
fruit of O. ficus-indica from Caracas, Venezuela,
which Hunter, Pratt, and Mitchell (p. 35) believe
to have been the result of attack by a cecidomyiid
fly, probably <Asphondylia opuntiw, Felt, an
insect referred to in the report on the investiga-
tions in the United States.f

UTILISATION.

As Food for Man.—The fruit of O. ficus-
indica is used to some extent as a food
for man in the States of Rio Janeiro and
Sao Paulo in Brazil, as well as in various
parts of Chili, plantations being seen at
Llaillai, Santiago, Los Andes, and Valparaiso.
It is grown also at Mendoza in Argentina.
Spegazzini (1905, p. 512) quotes a list of Argen-
tine localities where this species is cultivated for
its fruit. In the State of Bahia, the fruits of
certain species of Cereus such as the mandagaru
de boi, the chiquechique verdadeiro and the caixa
cube, as well as the small fruits of O. cuipa, are
used for human consumption. Schumann (1899)
mentions that amongst others, the fruit of Cereus
forbesii (p. 112) and Echinopsis schickendantzit,
Web. (p. 237) are used as food in Argentina and
those of Opuntia geisset in Chili (p. 152). The
fruit of Cereus defictens, Otto, is similarly used
in Caraccas, Venezuela.

During times of drought, the pith of the
chiquechique verdadeiro, the caixa cube, and the
Melocactus are used as food in the State of Bahia.
The spines and the cortex are cut away and the
remainder roasted. Schumann (1899, p. 760)
states that Peireskia is used as a vegetable. Melo-
cactus is used medicinally in Bahia.

As a Dye.—Phillippi (p. 493) mentions that
the fruit juice of O. atrampo is used in Arequipa
(Peru) for colouring food. Dr. Soehrens, when in-
terviewed, stated that the fruit of this species and
of others which produce fruit with a red juice,
was sold in North-western Argentina, and ad-
jacent parts of Bolivia and Peru for colouring
food, water (as a drink) and wine, the name

+ According to Dr. A. Loefgren, of the Botanical
Gardens, Rio de Janeiro, rats occasionally prove trouble-

some to hedges of O. monacantha in Sao Paulo by gnawing
the stems.

 
 

 

 

 

Fig. 61.— Millenia hose si Caray 1e to t Z,
Oo « AWE L se sickly appearance i me r it
0. d ll W e is due to the one Spot Disease.”’ Ar ig 1a.

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 62.—O. dillent showing considerable destruction of its segments as a result of the “ Zone
Spot Disease.’ Antigua.

 

 

 

  

Fig. 63.—An Opuntia which Dr. N. Though growing beside plants of
OQ. dillenii attacked by the “ Zone Spot” (Figs. 51, 62), this species remained unaffected by it. Antigua

Britton regards as a new species.
109

‘‘ airampo’’ being a native term applied locally
to any such Prickly-pear. In addition to 0.
airampo, which is a spineless species, there is a
small low-growing spiny form which Dr. Soehrens
stated was grown on the Andes at Arequipa and
Cuzco (Peru) and also in adjacent parts of
Bolivia for the sake of its fruit, which was used
in the same way as O. airampo. The species is
evidently O. microdasia, Webr., as described by
Schumann (1899, p. 743). Spegazzini (1905, p.
514), in referring to this Opuntia, which occurs
in Argentina on the high mountains in Salta and
Tucuman, states that the red fruit is used by the
inhabitants for staining wool and is ¢alled
airampo.

As Catile Fodder.—Various cacti are used,
as in Australia, Mexico, the United States,
and South Africa, as a fodder for stock
during times of scarcity. In some localities
a few plants may be grown as a stand-by. At
Joazeiro (State of Bahia) there is said to be a
Government plantation of ‘‘ palmadora grande’”’
(the Mission Pear of North America?) and the
local Melocactus (M. depressus), while in other
parts of that State a few individual plants are
not infrequently cultivated by villagers in order
to feed their animals. Those most commonly used
in Bahia are, naturally, those found wild. Both
indigenous species of Opuntia (O. cwipa and the
spiny palmadora), the Melocactus, both species of
mandagaru, the chiquechique cabeca branco and
verdadeiro as well as the caixa cube, are all used
as fodder for cattle, sheep, goats, and donkeys.
Mules do not take to the diet. The thorns are
burnt off the spiny species and then the animals
eat the standing plants. Tall forms, such as the
mandagaru, are cut down. Since the spines are
small and soon fall away from the mandagaru de
facho, burning is not necessary and cattle eat the
branches as they lie on the ground. No other
fodder is fed to stock during times of drought,
so that they must live on the cacti and such other
food as they can pick up. In Argentina, O. ficus-
mdica is thus used and no doubt native species
are also made use of, for the same purpose.

An unarmed species, O. anacantha, Speg.,
occurring in Northern Argentina, was sent by
Dr. Spegazzini to Algeria, where it has been
cultivated as an accessory stock food. _ This is
closely allied to O. retrorsa and O. stricta and
possesses long, narrow green joints with pro-
minent areoles bearing neither spines nor spinules.
It is quite distinct from the Burbank cactus
known as ‘‘ anacantha,’’ which is a large-jointed
form with very few small spines, and is
apparently a variety of O. decumana.

A chemical examination of some South
American Opuntias has been made by Guthrie
(p. 671), who dealt with O. monacantha and O.
nigricans from New South Wales under the name
O. brasiliensis and O. elatior, respectively; and
by Griffiths and Hare (1906), who analysed 0.
monacantha (p. 62). The latter authors also
examined chemically the Mission Pear (pp. 72-3),
which appears to be the same species as that
known ag the ‘‘ palmadora grande’’ in Bahia.

On the hot plains of South America during
the dry season, horses, mules, and even travellers,
at times quench their thirst by using the fluid
obtained by pounding up the fleshy Melocactus
found in those regions. It may be mentioned

that Hchinocactus is similarly utilised in Mexico

and the adjoining dry regions of the United
States.

Limber.—The larger forms, ¢.g., Cereus, Cep-
halocereus, and Pilocereus, spp., supply fuel in
North-eastern Brazil. Timber is obtained from
both mandagaru de boi and mandagaru de facho.
Poles up to 25 feet in length and over 9 inches in
thickness at the base may frequently be got from
the latter species of mandagaru. These are used
very largely as rafters and supports in house con-
struction in the dry regions of Bahia State, where
other straight timber is not easily obtainable.
Both kinds of mandagaru supply wood which is
made into planks and ised for making doors,
window shutters, rough furniture, &e. The nar-
row vascular cylinders of the foxtailed chique-
chique are sometimes used as pipe-stems (Bahia).

Hledges.—Many species of Cereus and
Opuntia are utilised in South America (Colombia,
Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Chili, &c.)
for making hedges as in other parts of the world.
Peweskia amapola, Web., is similarly used in
Paraguay.

SUGGESTED DESTRUCTION BY OVER-
GROWTH OF GRASS, Erc.

Dr. Derby, Director of the Geological Survey
of Brazil, in an interview, suggested that a
Brazilian fodder grass known as a honey grass,
called ‘‘capin mellado’’ in Rio Janeiro and
‘“ catinguero roxo’’ in Sao Paulo, might act as
an exterminator of Prickly-pear without itself
becoming a pest. He stated that this grass is
liked by cattle. It takes almost complete posses-
sion of the ground, particularly if the soil be a
light clay loam.

From an editorial article in the Journal
d’Agriculture Tropicale (No. 12, 1902, p. 167),
it appears that M. Patin, the Consul for Belgium
in Colombia, published in 1900 or 1901 a method
for destroying Prickly-pear by fire, which was in
use in certain regions of South America. The
inhabitants first planted around the condemned
mass of Opuntia a leguminous plant capable of
quickly spreading so as to envelop eventually
every part of the Prickly-pears in a close network
consisting of its very numerous branches. Then
at the proper time the stems of these climbers are
cut, and as soon as the plants are dry they are
set fire to. The Opuntias become so much
damaged that it appeared to M. Patin that a
repetition of the operation would bring about
their complete destruction in a very simple
manner, the only objection to the method being
the length of time required.

SUMMARY.

Investigations were made in certain parts of
Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, and Chili, which
comprise only a small portion of the area where
Prickly-pears exist in abundance.

No disease was seen which appeared to_be
capable of doing much serious harm to Opuntias,
a possible exception being that produced by
Gleosporium which is known to occasion much
destruction in Texas under certain climatic con-

ditions.
110

A serious disease—a white rot—caused by
Sclerotium cactorum has been described as ocecur-
ring in Argentina during the winter. Many
species of Selerotium are not confined to one host-
plant. Its introduction is not at present recom-
mended.

A great deal of destruction of Prickly-pear
was seen to be occasioned in certain parts of
Argentina by the larve of moths, one of which
is the Argentine moth-borer Zophodia cactorum,
while the other—the Mendoza moth-borer—has
not been identified by the Commission though
apparently related to the former. Both of
these are capable of attacking several species of
cactus, including some Opuntias naturalised in
Queensland, and their food supply appears to be
restricted to that family of plants. The former
occurs in Uruguay and the adjacent regions of
Argentina, while the latter is found commonly
in the country surrounding Mendoza, on the
Andean foot-hills. A small number of larve of
the former, bred out during the voyage and free
from parasites, were brought to Brisbane by the
Commission, but most of them have since died.

A considerable destruction of young plants
is caused by other insects in Bahia as well as an
Argentina, but the results of their attack are

xX. HAWAITTAN

The Commission stayed for a fortnight on
the island of Oahu, awaiting a steamer en route
to Sydney from San Francisco.

Prickly-pear was seen to be abundant in
certain rocky parts of the island, especially near
Honolulu and Haleiwa. In places the growth was
found to be quite dense, especially on rocky hill-
sides and other localities unsuited for agriculture,
as well as in certain dry areas. This was due in
part to the fact that the land was not being
utilised and in part to the absence of any con-
trolling agents.

The species which is locally called O. tuna
(Tildebrand, 1888, p. 140) reminds one of the
‘“ Westwood Pear’’ of the Rockhampton district
in Queensland. There are two varieties, the
fruit of the red fruiting kind being eaten by the
native population. The plants reach a height of
10 or 12 feet, and may assume a tree-form by
the removal of the lower branches, or they may
remain more or less shrubby. The greyish joints
are sometimes small but generally very large,
reaching about 14 inches in length by about 7 in
width, though it is by no means uncommon to
see segments nearly 2 feet in length by 15 inches
in breadth. They are almost symmetrical. There
are eight or nine areoles in oblique series, each
bearing from one to seven white twisted spines
arranged in a radiating manner, three or four of
them being usually nearly an inch in length.
The spinules are reddish-yellow or reddish-brown.
The spines vary considerably in number and size
on segments of the same plant or on different

insignificant when ‘compared with those just
mentioned.

The Hemiptera—plant bugs and various
coccids—do not appear to be sufficiently injurious
to warrant the labour which would be necessary
to introduce them from South America. How-
ever, both the Brazilian and the Argentine species
of Wild Cochineal have been transported to this
State. The latter died about the time of arrival
owing to their inability to feed upon the species
of Prickly Pear offered to them after the death
of their proper food plant. The Brazilian Coccus
has established itself here on young growing
plants of its host species, the ‘‘spiny palmadora’”’
of Bahia.

Cactus plants are not utilised in South
America in any manner (except for feeding stock)
which would be of service in Queensland in
destroying them. The feeding of cacti to stock is
carried out only during times of scarcity.

Destruction of Prickly-pear by an _ over-
erowth of a certain quick-growing grass has been
suggested. In the north of the continent, a climb-
ing leguminous plant is used, and when the
Opuntias are quite overgrown, the climber is cut,
allowed to dry and then set on fire, the Prickly-
pear becoming badly scorched. It is suggested
that a repetition of the operation would quite
destroy the cactus.

ISLANDS.

areoles of the same joint. Young as well as
mature joints are often spineless, or almost so.
The stems are spiny.

The flowers are orange, the fruit (in the
edible variety at least) being large and plump
with dark red skin and pulp resembling the fruit
of certain varieties of O. ficus-indica as well as
the Mexican ‘‘Cardona,’’ O.  streptacantha,
though it is much larger than the latter. New
joints are produced laterally from the edge of
older segments in a manner similar to the
Queensland pear already referred to.

The plant differs from our ‘‘ Westwood or
Red Mexican’’ species in possessing a larger and
more cylindrical fruit; a less distance between
the areoles; and the segments rather thinner and
less rounded. Some plants, more especially the
relatively spineless forms, remind one very much
of the Mission Pear of Mexico and Southern
United States, and the Indian Fig of the Medi-
terranean coasts.

The species is evidently near O. streptacan-
tha, Lem., or O. chavena, Griff., and is certainly
not the same as the O. tuna, L., which Drs.
Britton and Rose have identified as the common
Jamaican species, a  low-growing, — straight-
thorned form allied to O. déllenii. Schumann, in
his monograph (1899, p. 723), did not differen-
tiate the two species, but included both under the
name QO. tuna, Mill.

Hildebrand refers to another species which
he thinks may be O. tomentosa, S.D.
111

Insect Enemies.

; A species of Diaspis is very commonly met
with in great quantity on this, Prickly-pear, but
does not seem to have any matked effect,

In the Bulletin on Cactus Insects of the
United States of America (p. 52), it is stated that
Calandra remota, Sharp, is a species commonly
occurring in the stems of bananas and prickly-
pears near Honolulu (Mem. Coleopt, Hawaiian
Islands, p. 183).

The specimens of the Argentine moth borer,
Zophodia cactorum, which the Commission was
transporting to Queensland, fed readily on the
Hawaiian Prickly-pear, attacking it in the same
manner as it does O. ficus-indica and others in
the Argentine and Uruguay.

Fungoid Diseases.

_ The plants as a rule were found to be very
vigorous, though, in a few cases, gumming
together with the decay of part of a joint was
seen occasionally. Though subsequent fungoid
infection was evident, the cause of the condition
was not recognised. It was not of importance in
controlling the spread of the prickly pear,

SUMMARY.

A species of Opuntia resembling the ‘* West-
wood Pear ’’ of our own State occurs indigenously
in the Hawaiian Islands, where it is apparently
not held in check by any insect or fungoid
enemies, and as a result, is spreading,

XI. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN EASTERN
AUSTRALIAN STATES OTHER THAN QUEENSLAND.

._ A great deal of attention has been given in
' Queensland to the prickly-pear question, and
much has been published in the Queensland Agri-
cultural Journal as well as in the Annual Reports
of the Departments of Public Lands and of
Agriculture. It has been deemed advisable to
include in this report a summary of the informa-
tion available in the other States of the Common-
wealth, particularly New South Wales, regarding
it.

The botanical side of the question has re-
ceived a great deal of attention from Mr. Maiden,
who in 1896 brought under Australian notice
Bourde’s article (1894) on the utilisation of
prickly-pear for fodder. Two years later he pub-
lished the result of his preliminary studies (1898),
in which he referred to the Acts regarding
destruction which were in force in New South
Wales, and also gave an account of the species
then known to occur in the continent, as well as
of a few others. The naturalised species were
then ‘regarded as O. tuna, Mill., O. monacantha,
Haw.,'0. brasiliensis, Haw., and O. stricta, Haw.*
The first has ‘since been identified by him as O.
nigricans, the second and third belong to O. mona-
cantha, while the common pest pear is now recog-
nised as a variety of O. inermis, D.C. Mueller’s
O. dillenit, from Victorian localities, is regarded
as being O. monacantha (Maiden, 1898, p. 1003).

In 1911 Mr. Maiden began to publish an
interesting and well-illustrated series of articles
on ‘‘ The Prickly Pears of interest to Austra-
lians’’ (1911, 1912, 1913, 1914), most of which
have appeared in the Agricultural Gazette of New
South Wales since our departure from Australia.
Tle gave a list of eleven species known to him in
1912 (1912 d, p.39). The presence in Queensland
of at least two others was made known through
specimens and photographs which this Commis-
sion took to Sydney at the time of its visit.

O. aurantiaca, Gillies, to which attention has
already been called in the section dealing with
our work in South Africa, is recorded by Mr.
Maiden from Windsor and Scone in New South
Wales and from Goondiwindi and Warwizk in

* It ig evidently from this paper that Mr. Burkill
(1911, p. 292) has compiled his information regarding the
species found in Australia.

K

our State (1911 a, 1912 a, p. 210). We have

referred to its presence at Roma.

O. imbricata, Haw., is reported from Sofala,
Seone, Warialda, and Muswellbrook, New South
Wales (Maiden, 1911b). We have received speci-
mens from the Laidley district.

O. nigricans, Haw., occurs commonly at
Windsor and near Muswellbrook, and is also
found near Yelarbon in Queensland (Maiden,
1912 a).

O. microdasys is a garden escapee which Mr.
Maiden states is now to be met with in the Pil-
laga scrub, N.S.W. (1914 a).

O. tomentosa, 8.D., is the tree-pear of the
Helidon district, and occurs also at Gayndah and
in the district to the west of Rockhampton. Mr.
Maiden (1912 c) reported its presence in at least
two localities in South Australia and at Warwick
and Goondiwindi in this State.

O. ficus-indica, Mill., a species cultivated in
various parts of the world for the sake of its fruit,
is recorded by him (1913 a) as a garden escapee
in certain localities in the Hunter River district
as well as in Queensland.

O. monacantha, Haw., is the most widespread
of all prickly-pears now naturalised in Australia.
It is the Suttor River pear of our own State, and
is to be met with commonly near Rockhampton,
Bowen, and Charters Towers, and occasionally at
Gympie and near Brisbane. Mr. Maiden (1898,
1913 b) mentions as localities Sydney, Windsor,
Scone, and Singleton, in N.S.W.; Melbourne; the
Suttor River, Queensland; and refers to its pre-
sence in cultivation in other States. It is also
found in South Australia. Ewart and Tovey
(1908, 1910) mention its occurrence in Victoria.
where Mueller had previously recorded it under
the name 0. dillenti (fide Maiden, 1898, 1913 d,
p. 1075).

Nopalea dejecta, 8.D., is reported (Maiden,
1913 e, p. 974) as being found in a naturalised
state near Rackhampton.

O. dillenii, Tlaw—Mr. Maiden (1918 d)
identifies as belonging to this species the more
spiny of our two commonest pest pears, which, as
we informed him, occurs in abundance in the
Gayndah, Bundaberg, and Rockhampton dis-
tricts, and less commonly near Brisbane, Mr,
112

Maiden reports its presence at Dutton Bay, in
South Australia. We doubt the correctness of
the identifivation, and prefer to use the name
‘\Gavndah pear’? or ‘‘ spiny pest pear’? for it.
It is certainly related to O. dillenti, but differs
from it notably in the character of its spines and
flowers. We have seen the latter species growing
naturalised in India, Ceylon, and Canary Islands,
and the Mediterranean littoral, and indigenously
in the West Indies.

O. inermis, DC., var.—This is the common
pest pear of Queensland and New South Wales,
and has been referred to under various names,
amongst them being O. tuna, O. vulgaris, and
O. stricta.

Prickly-pear is mentioned as being one of
the plants taken on board the first fleet when it
touched at Rio de Janeiro.* The plant intro-
duced by Governor Phillip in 1788 was referred
to in one account as the cochineal fig, Cactus
cochinilifer, L.+ The early cultivation of the
plant received notice from Mr. J. V. Chataway
(1898, p. 186). It has been assumed that it was
the pest pear which was then introduced. Is it
not possible that O. monacantha, which is a native
of South-eastern Brazil, and perhaps O. nigri-
cans, whose home is some distance inland from
Rio de Janeiro, may have been included?

; The pest pear was taken to Scone about 1839
(Maiden, 1912 b, p. 718), and from that centre
specimens were conveyed to Warwick, whence it
has spread over great areas of Queensland and
Northern New South Wales.

It has been referred to in the account of our
investigations in the West Indies, its home being
probably Cuba (and Haiti) and perhaps the
Florida Keys. A closely allied and perhaps iden-
tical species described by Dr. Griffiths under the
name O, bentoniti, is indigenous to Louisiana and
adjacent portions of the United States of
America.

Opuntia, sp.—tIt is under this designation
that Mr. Maiden has described the ‘‘ Westwood
pear ’’ found in the neighbourhood of Westwood
and Rockhampton.

It is related to the ‘‘ Cardona ’’ (O. strepta-
cantha) of Mexico. Dr. Griffiths, of Washington,
U.S.A., informed the Commission that it was
closely allied to O. megacantha and O. chavena.
The common naturalised species in the Hawaiian
Islands has been already referred to as resemb-

ling it.

Nopalea cochinelifera—Amongst the species
whose presence has not so far been recorded in
scientific literature is Nopalea cochinelifera, L.,

an unarmed tree-pear found at Gayndah and
Emerald. It is not a pest.

Another species apparently uncommon, and
known locally in the Rockhampton district as the
: Yellow-fruiting Mexican pear,’’ resembles cer-
tain spiny forms such as O. amyclwa and other
members of the O. ficus-indica group.

__ Mr. Froggatt (1912, p. 943) has’ collected
evidence regarding the action of birds as distri-
butors of prickly-pear seeds in their droppings.
It is stated that the emu feeds on the fruit and

* Ida Lee. “The Comi iti ia,”
1788-1898." (onde 1008. =, . a British to Australia,

Tt Mr. Maiden (1898, p. 98
ee ( » P. 980) also has reforred to the

assists in scattering seeds of the pest, seedlings
being obtained from the droppings of that bird.
Other fruit-eating birds, not named by him, are
said to act in the same way, as also do horses and
cattle.

Utilisation in the Industries.

Professor Dunstan, of the Imperial Institute,
London, as well as Mr. E. Harris, Editor of the
Agricultural Gazette, New South Wales (1909,

_p. 245), referred to a statement in the Press that

a Brisbane chemist, who had so far remained
anonymous, had discovered commercial possibili-
ties in the prickly-pear, the production of spirits,
feed-cake, strawboard, and sugar being men-
tioned.

The question of producing feed-cake, alcohol,
and sugar from Opuntias has been referred to
elsewhere in this report.

Mr. J. C. Briinnich, the Agricultural
Chemist of our State, examined prickly-pear
with a view to testing the possibility of procur-
ing alcohol, and found that very little was obtain-
able (1909, p..3). Some has been made in a
Sydney laboratory (Harris, 1909, p. 246).

Mr. F. H. Campbell has recently examined
the products derived from the destructive distil-
lation of prickly-pear, his results being published
in the last report of the Australasian Associa-
tion for the Advancement of Science (1914). He
examined the species O. monacantha and O. iner-
mis. From the former he obtained a faintly
luminous gas which was found to be composed
mainly of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and nitro-
gen, with smaller quantities of methane, carbon
dioxide, and oxygen. The liquid distillate con-
sisted of acetic acid and tarry substances.
Ammonia, pyridine, and a trace of phenol were
found, but the amount of methyl alcohol was
shown to be negligible. The crude tar constituted
about 1 per cent. of the original green material.
It had very little tenacity. The charcoal obtained
was clean and porous, and amounted to about 4

- per cent. of the green material examined. The

results from O.inermis were similar. The quan-
tity of acetic acid worked out at 3-45 lb. per ton
of green stuff, crude tar 22 lb., charcoal 89-6 lb.,
the remainder being composed of water and small
amounts of pyridine and ammonia., :

The ash of O. monacantha was examined
and was found to be readily fusible, thus indicat-
ing a high alkalinity. There was 36-67 per cent.
of lime and traces of copper were present. |

Mr. Campbell concludes by stating that if
crude calcium acetate be valued at 8d. per Ib.,
refined pyridine at 4s. 6d. per lb., and charcoal
at 20s. per ton, then the value of products per
ton of green plant is approximately 8s., which
amount he believes would probably not cover the
cost of clearing the land. The value of the gas
produced was not taken into account in making
the estimate, as it would be most profitably used
as fuel for heating the retort.

Mr. Maiden (1913 a, p. 55) believes that the
utilisation of pear as a producer of alcohol, fibre,
&e., is not likely to be a commercial success, but
may help to reduce the cost of clearing pear-
infested land. This opinion is already held by
many in our own State,
 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 64.—O. dillenii. Teneriffe, Canary Islands. This is the
pest pear of Southern India, and is met with elsewhere
in that country, but to a less extent.

 

 

 

 

 

segments and fruit of the “Punjab Pear,”

 

which in its general appearance resembles the pest pear of
Queensland. (Scale in inches.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photo., Mr. Parker, Forestry Dept.. Lahore, India.

Fic. 66.——A hillside at Amber, Central India, covered with O. nigricans. This is the pest pear of the pons z
re Biecdetcy and is commonly met with in parts of Northern and Central India in company with

S 8S] s.1s se 1 , € ‘ in: eas ocality in Que nsland.
li Lt hi ecies is ‘ alis EB » Wales and ina leas one locali : )
O. « ille NU. This species is na uralis din New ou h
113

Utilisation as Fodder for Stock.

_ _As in Queensland, prickly-pear has been used
in New South Wales as an emergency fodder
during times of scarcity (Harris, 1909, p. 242-5),

Mr. Guthrie (1900) made analyses of green
and dry segments of species of Opuntia named
in his list as O. ficus-indica, O. elatior, O. brasilt-
ensis, and O. cochinelifera, but, according to Mr.
Maiden’s later determinations, the second and
third should be 0. nigricans and O. monacantha
respectively. He believed that the feeding value
was fairly high. In other sections of this report
however, it has been shown that the fodder value
is so low that some more concentrated food must
be added to it in order to build up a suitable
ration. Mr. Briinnich, who has carried out
numerous analyses of the species naturalised in
Queensland, has suggested the addition of such
materials as bran, cotton-geed meal, oilcake
molasses, &e. (1906, p. 54; 1909, p. 4). ‘

The pear is usually boiled or steamed to
soften the spines, and some more nutritious fodder
is added (Maiden 1918 a, p. 52; Scott, 1902, p.
1052; O’Shea, 1897, p. 434; &.). It has been
found that pigs eat greedily prickly-pear plants
which have been boiled for some hours with meat
or refuse, as well as those steamed or boiled in
water, if some molasses be added (Gorus, 1896,
p. 658). An account of the method of steaming
is given by Maiden (1918a, p. 53) as well as by
Boyce (1897, p. 260), who used the prepared
material for pigs and dairy cattle.

Though it appears to be possible for some
animals to exist on a diet consisting solely of
prickly-pear (Coggins, 1913, p. 244), they do not
thrive, while on the other hand many die (Keys,
1908). There is no doubt that some addition is
necessary, and this is often obtained by grazing
on whatever vegetation is available (Scott, 1902,
p. 1052). Mr. G. Valder (1902, p. 62) has stated
that bran, chaff, or molasses may be used to
supplement a boiled pear ration, and then a good
fodder for cattle and pigs is obtained.

Attempts have been made to produce an
ensilage in which prickly-pear served as a con-
stituent. A Mr. Boyce (1897, p. 261, p. 504)
used alternate layers of O. inermis and either

“maize or sorghum, some salt being added ‘to
increase the palatability. ‘The thorns. became
softened. Dairy cows were fed successfully on
this ensilage as well as on steamed prickly-pear
and barley, preferring the former to the latter.
Mr. Briinnich (1909, p.p. 3, 20) examined a
four-months-old ensilage made from alternate
layers of pear and maize, and found it in excel-
lent condition, its nitrogen content being higher
than that in green joints, though this, he
suggested, was perhaps due to the absorption of
nitrogen from the maize.

Professor Ewart (1910), in referring to the
work of Drs. Griffiths and Hare in regard to the
use of Opuntias in the United States of America
as fodder plants, shows the futility of growing for
this purpose O. monacantha, the species natural-
ised in Victoria. © oo

Apparatus for scorching the spines and cut-
ting up plants for stock fodder is illustrated and
described in the Queensland Agricultural Jour-
nal (21, 1908, July and August). Coggins (1913)
has also illustrated a prickly-pear torch.

Destruction by Mechanical, Chemical, and other
Means.

More attention has evidently been given to
the destruction of prickly-pear by chemical means
in Queensland than in any of the other States,
the information having been made known by Mr.
Briinnich in official publications in this State.
His latest recommendations have been repub-
lished in New South Wales (1912).

Mr. C. T. Musson (1911, p. 58) has stated
that prickly-pear does not thrive under certain
Australian trees, such as the wild apple, cabbage
gum, and stringybark, but becomes starved and
stunted. He also mentioned that seeds of the
white cedar had been scattered amongst the
Opuntias in India, where the resulting trees had
a detrimental effect on the latter, owing to their
broad leaves cutting off a great deal of the supply
of light. He therefore suggested that the latter
experiment might be tried in Australia.

Mr. Darnell Smith (1918, p. 152) tried to
destroy O. inermvis by means of injections of
various unnamed fungi as well as certain bac-
teria, e.g., B. coli communis, B. proteus vulgaris,
B. lactici, &c., but without success. He also tried
the effect of spraying some plants with a black
liquid in order to cut off the supply of light.

Bruce-Suttor, in 1893, gave an account of a
method of rolling and crushing pear, suitable only
in open or lightly timbered country.

Mr. Valder (1901, 1902) carried out experi-
ments for two years. He injected into the basal
joints a large number of chemicals, including sul-
phuric acid, carbolic acid, oxalate of potash, ferri-
cyanide of potash, arsenite of soda, caustic potash,
salt, sulphate of iron, powdered copper sulphate,
and two proprietary poisons, one of them being
Murchison’s Exterminator, which was found to
be so effective in South Africa. Arsenite of soda
was found to be the cheapest and most effective
of these injections; salt had a considerable effect ;
but the rest of the substances caused only a local
disturbance. The most satisfactory result was
obtained by using a spray consisting of 1 Ib. of
arsenite of soda in about 10 gallons of water, the
most suitable time to apply it being after heavy
rain. Cutting or slashing the plant before spray-
ing was not found to be of material benefit.

Mr. Darnell Smith (1918, p. 152) injected
sodium arsenite, lysol, formalin, carbolie acid,
sulphuric acid, ammonia, a solution of copper
sulphate in ammonia, a solution of cuprous
chloride in ammonia, 20 per cent. copper sul-
phate, and 12 per cent. copper sulphate, the
best result being obtained from the last-named.
He then stabbed the plant and inserted a crystal
of copper sulphate, which caused the death of
comparatively small Opuntias in about four days.
This led him to suggest that the same results
would probably be obtained if the experiment
were tried on a large scale.

An anonymous writer (1910, p. 195) men-
tioned that he had driven copper nails —
Opuntias, but that no serious result was eae
except the decay of the parts surrounding the
injury. oo. ;

i h

The spray used in the experiments whie
have been ed out at Scone, New South vel
is made of 1 Ib. arsenic and 1 Ib. of iam &
dissolved in 20 gallons of water (Maiden, ‘

p. 40).
1901
1908
1912
1910
1914

1895

1895
1813
1870
1794
1789-95
1882
1905
1877

*1872
1909
1905
1910
1908
1840
1839

*1881
1912
1885
1903
1903
1912
1840

1896
1909
1909
*1886

115

REFERENCES TO LITERATURE.

Anonymous ‘i
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
Adam, G.
Abucria
Adriance
Ainslie, Dr. W.
Alfonso, P.
Alzate
Anderson, J. Dr.
Archangeli, G.
Arechavaleta, J.
Arloing
Autran, E.
Baden-Powell
Bailey, F. M...
Bailey, V.
Baillaud, E.
Banks, N.
Barker, Webb, and
Berthelot
Bell, J.
Bello
Benitez, A. J.
Berg, C,
Berger, A.
Berger, A.
Berger, A. aa

Berthelot, 8.
Webb and Barker

Biuso, S. ee
Bjerregaard, A. P.
Boldingh, I.

Bolus

*1839-45 Boissier, E. ite

1894

Bourde, P.

1907 Bowker, D, a
1849 Bory de Saint Vincent and Expbr. Scient. de l’Algérie, pendant les annes 1840-2—Botanique, Paris,

Durieu de Maisoneuve

 

Agr. Gaz., N.S.W., 12, 1901, p. 697.

La tuna sin espinas—La forrajera de neustras regiones aridas. Chronica
7 Agricola, An. 2, pp. 147-8, Buenos Aires, 1908.
El Cacto sin Espinas.” Revista de Agricultura, vit, Num. 2, pp. 56-7,
Republ. Dominicana, 1912,

(Bureau of Microbiology).—Destruction of Prickl Pear, Agr. Gaz., N.S.W.
21, 1910, p, 195. id eee :

The Prickly Pear Problem—Clearing by Gas. South African Agric. Jour.,
__ 7, 1914, pp. 392-5.
Vid. Editorial,

Letter Agr. Journal of Cape of Good Hope, vitr, 1895, p. 447,

Hortus.Regius Panhorinitanus Artz Vulgaris. Anno mpccLxxx, Noviter
extructus, &c. Panormi mpccuxxxrx.
See Harrington, Adriance, and Tilson, 1895.

Materia Medica, of Hindostan, 1813.
Monografia sui Prati Artificali. Palermo, 1870.

Memoria del Insecto grana o Cocchinn, Gazeta de Literatura. Mexico,
1794, and Madrid, 1795.

Letters to Sir Joseph. Banks, &c., on the subject of Cochineal Insects.
Madras (Ford) 1786-7 ; 1788; 1789 ; 1790; and Madras (Martin) 1791.

Compendio della Flora, Italia. Torino, 1882.

“Flora Uruguaya,” tomo um. Anales del Museo Nacional de Montevideo,
1905, pp. 177 et seq.
Rech. Anat., s. le Couturage des Cacteés. Paris, 1877.

Las Cochenillas, Argentinas, pp. 145-200 (Dactylopius argentinus Dom.),
Punjab Products,. 1872.

Comprehensive Catalogue of Queensland Plants, s.v., Opuntia, p. 222.
Brisbane, n.d.

Biological Survey of Texas—North Amer. Fauna, No. 25. Biol. Survey
U.S.D.A., 1905.

“ Observations ‘sur l'emploi des Cactus dans l’alimentation du bétail.”
Journ. Agr. Trop., 1910, No. m1, p. 257-262.

A New Tetranychus. Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 10, 1908, p. 36.

S. See Webb, 1840.

Culture of the Cochineal. Trans. Agr. and Hort. Soc. India vz. Calcutta,
1839.
Ann. Soc. Esp. de Hist. Nat., vol. x, 1881.

Islas Canarias (Attracion de Forasteras: Guia Illustrava de las Islas Cana-
rias). Teneriffe, 1912. : :

Quindecim Lepidoptera Nova. Anal. Soc. Cient. Argent, 19, 1885. Reprint
pp. 1-22.

Gardeners’ Chronicle (3) xxxtv., 1903, p. 93.

Beitrage zur kenntniss. der Opuntien. Engler’s Bot, Jahrb. xxxv, pp.

443-457, 4
Hortus Mortolensis Enumeratio Plantarum in Horto Mortolensi Cultarum,

1912,
"1 {See Webb, 1840.
Monografia sul Fico d’India in Sicilia. Palermo, 1896.

.. See Hare, 1909.

The Flora of the Dutch West Indian Islands St. Eustatius, Saba, and St.
Martin: Leiden, 1909.
Flora of South Africa, 1886.

Voy. Bot, dans le midi de I’Espagne 1839-45—tom. 1, 8.v. Opuntia, p. 25.
j ’Enquéte sur le cactus considéré comme plante fourragére. La

ae 1894. (Translated by Maiden—see Maiden, 1896.)

Letter on Jointed Cactus. Agr. Journal Cape of Good Hope, xxx1, 1907,
1849. Agaricus opuntie, Dr. and Lev. op. cit., Pl. 32, fig. 1, 1a, 1b.

* References marked thus have not been consulted.
1897
1890
1897

1907-

1914
1908

1912
1893
1906
1909
1912

1842
1907
1911

1912
1909
1910
1909
1913
1907
1911
1914
1911
1914
1913
1892
1883
1890
1913
1910
1898
1871
1912
*1857
1893
1896
1898
1899
1907
1913
1891
1905
1906
1898
1835

Boyce, W. L.
Briosi and Cavara

Britton, N. L.

Britton, N. L., and Rose, J. N.

Britton, N. L., and
Rose, J. N.
Britton, N. L., and
Rose, J. N.

Bruce-Suttor, A.

Brimnich, J. C.
Brimnich, J+ C.
Brinnich, J. C.

Buddingh, Dr. 8. A.

Burbank, L.
Burkill, I. H.

Burkill, M.
Burt, B. C.
Burt, B. C.
Burtt Davy, J.
Burtt Davy, J.
Busck, A.
Calvino, M.
Campbell, F. H.
Cannon, W. A.

Cannon, W. A. Lae

Carne, W. M.
Casey, T. L.
Caspari, H..
Cavara and Briosi
Cettolini, Sante
Champion
Chataway, J. V.
Chicoli

Cc. I.

Claus

Cockerell, T. D.
Cockerell, T. D.
Cockerell, T. D.
Cockerell, T. D.
Cockerell, T. D.
Coggins, H. C.
Comes, O.
Cooke, M.
Cooke, M.
Coquillet, D. W.
Costa, A.

116

REFERENCES TO LITERATURE—continued,

Prickly Pears as Fodder. Agr. Gaz. N.8.W. 8, 1897, pp. 260-261; pp. 504-5.
Funghi parassiti Fasc. 118, 1890.

“ Cactaces ” in Mlustrated Flora of the Northern States and Canada, 1897,
pp. 460-465 (edit. 2, 1913, pp. 568-573).

Numerous important papers in Smithsonian Misc. Coll. 1907, 1908; Contr.
Nat. Herb, 1909 t0 1913; Carnegie Instit., Washington, 1913 and 1914.

A preliminary treatment of the Opuntioidea of North America. Smiths.
Mise. Coll. 50, 1908, pp. 503-539.

Undescribed Species of Cuban Cacti. Torreya, 12, 1912, pp. 13-16.

Clearing Prickly Pear (O. vulgaris, Mill.) Agr. Gaz. N.S.W., 4, 1893, pp.
878-880.

Analysis of Prickly Pear (Giant Moxican, Spineless). Q’ld. Agr. Journal,
May, 1906, p. 514.

Ann. Report of the Agricultural Chemist for the year ending 30th June,
1909 (Brisbane).

Destruction of Prickly Pear by means of Arsenical Poison (Summary of
Appendices 1 and 2 to Interim Report of Queensland Board of Advice
on Prickly Pear Destruction). Agr. Gaz. N.S.W., 23, 1912, pp. 406-7.

“ Nopal-kultur en Cochenille-teelt op Java.” Tijds. v. Ned. Indie Jaarg.
9d., Batavia, pp. 361-368, 1842.

The new Agricultural-Horticultural Opuntias. California, 1907.

Determination of the Prickly Pears now wild in India. Rec. Botanical
Survey India, vol. rv, No. 6, 1911, pp. 287-322 (contain references
action Wild Cochineal).

Opuntias in the Canary Islands. Bulletin of Miscellaneous Information,
Royal Botan. Gardens, Kew, 1912, No. 9.

Report of the Agric. Station at Orai (Bundelkund) for the year ending
June, 1909.

Report of the Agric. Station at Orai (Bundelkund) for the year ending
June, 1910.

Prickly Pear and the Spineless Cactus for Stock Food. Farmers’ Bulletin
No. 90, Transvaal Dept. Agric., 1909, 15 pp.

Descriptions and Llustrations of Noxious Weeds. Govt. Printer, Pretoria,
19138, 22 pp.

New American Tineina. Proc. Ent. Soc., Wash., 8, 1907, pp. 86-88.

El Injerto de las Cacteas. Boletino de la Direccion General de Agr., An. 1,,
No. 1, p. 50-51. Mexico, May, 1911.

The Destructive Distillation of Prickly Pear. Austr. Assoc, Adv. Sci.
14, 1913 (1914), pp. 104-7.

The Root Habits of Desert Plants. Publication 131, Carnegie Instit.,
Washington, 1911.

See under MacDougall, 1914.

Studies in Prickly Pear in the Western United States. Agr. Gaz. N.S.W.,

24, 1913, pp. 975-7.

Coleopterological Notices 1v. Annals New York Academy of Sciences,
August, 1892 (Cactophagus).

Zur Kenntniss des Hautegewebes der Cacteen. Halle, 1883.

See Briosi, 1890.

pee degli Agricoltori Italiani, Boll. 5, Ann. xv, 12, pp. 456-459. Rome,

913.

Biologia Centrali Americana. Coleoptera, vol. 4.

Q’ld. Agric, Journ., 1898.

Atti aie ne di Acclimazione e di Agricultura in Sicilia, x1, 1871, and
xiv, 1874.

See Hunter, Pratt and Mitchell, 1912.

Zur Kenntniss von Coccus Cacti. Miuller’s Arch. 1859, pp. 150-154, 1860. °
(Verh. Medic. Physce. Gesellsch.)

Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc., 20, 1893.

Notes and Descriptions of the New Coccide collected in Mexico by Prof.

_ ©. H. Townsend. Bull. 4, Tech. Ser., U.S. Dept. Agr., 1896.

Science L., 1898.

Some Insects of Salt River Valley. Bull. 32, Ariz. Exp. Sta., 1899.

A Gall Gnat of the Prickly Pear Cactus. Canad. Entom., 39, 1907, p. 324.

Prickly Pear Burner. Agr. Gaz. N.S.W., 24, 1913, pp. 243-4.

Crittogamia agraria. Naples, 1891.

Gardeners’ Chronicle, 1905.

Fungoid Pests of Cultivated Plants. London, 1906.

On the Habits of the Oscinide and Agromyzide reared at the U.S. Dept.

Agr., Bull. 10 Bur. Ent. U.S.D.A., 1898, pp. 70-79.
Fauna del Regno di Napoli, Cocciniglie, 1835, pp. 15-16 s v. Dactylopius.

 

* References marked thus have not been consulted.
is96
1913
1893
1877
1799
1829
1841

1865

1911

1907
*1886
*1901
*1897

1903
1902
1907
1909

117 .

REFERENCES TO LITERATURE—continued.

Coulter, J. M. “9
Darnell-Smith, G. P.
Davenport and Holmes

De Bary

De Candolle, A. P.
Deidanddie Be

De Candolle, A. P,
Delbrouck

Deventer, 8. van

Diguet, L.

Dominguez
Dugés, E.
Dugés, E.
Duss, R. P.

Duthie, J. F.
Dyar
Editorial
Editorial

1910a Editorial
1910b Editorial
1910e Editorial

1910
1759
1891

1845-
1850

1856
1882
1909
1837
1891
1909
1910
1908
*1896
1904
1888-
1891
1891
1908a
1908b
1910
1911

Editorial

Hichlam, F.

Ellis, J.

Ellis, J. B., and Everhart, B.

Engelmann, G.

Engelmann, G., and Bigelow,
Ernst, A.
Essig, E. O.
Evans, Dr. G.
Everhart, B., and Ellis, J. B.
Ewart, A. J.
Ewart, A. J.
Ewart, A. J., and Tovey
Ewell, E. E.
Fairchild, Dr.
Farlow, G., and Seymour,
A. B.
Faweett
Felt, E. P.
Felt, E. P.
Felt, E. P.
Felt, E. P.

Contrib. U.S. Nat. Herbarium 3, 1896.

Destruction of Prickly Pear. Agr. Gaz. N.S.W., 24, 1913, p. 152,
See Holmes, 1893.

Vergleich Anat. d, Vegetations organe d. Phanerog, u Fane. Leipz, 1877.

Plantarum Historia Suculentarum, ou Histoire Naturelle des Plantes
Grasses. Paris 1799. 3 vols.
Revue de la Famille de Cact.

Prodromus Regni Vegetabilis 11, Cactez.
Vid. Solereder.

Overzight van de invoeringen en bevordering der Nopalkultur en Koch-

eee teelt op Java. T. sz. Tidjv. Ned. Ind. n.s. 3 jahr. 1, 261, 243,
5.

Notes sur quelques plantes mexicaines employées eventuellement comme
fourrage. Bull. Soc. Nationale @’ Acclimatation de France, Oct., 1911.
ees in L’Agronomie Tropicale 3. Ann., No. 12, Dec., 1911, pp.

(i) Trab. Mus. Farm. Fac. Cienc. Med. No. 17 (1907), and (ii) Boletim Min.
Agr. vit., 3, pp. 148-150. Buenos Aires, 1907 (Dactylopius argentinus).

NS de quelques Coléoptéres Mexicains. Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg.

» pp. 26-45.

Catalogo de la coleccion de Coleopteros Mexicanos del Museo Nacionali
Cat. Mus. Nac. Mexico, 5 (2), pp. 1-148.

Flore Phanérogamique des Antilles Francaises Avec Annotations sur l'emploi
des Plantes par Le Professeur Eduard Heckel. Annales do l'Institut,
Colonial de Marseille, 3, 4th Ann: (1896), Macon, 1897.

Flora of the Upper Gangetic Plain and the adjacent Siwalik and Sub-
Himalayan Tracts (Calcutta), 1903.

See Hulst.

Prickly Pear and Jointed Cactus. Agr. Journal Cape of Good Hope, xxxI.
1907, pp. 137-8.
Agr. Journal Cape of Good Hope, xxxv, Oct., 1909.

The Destruction of Prickly Pear by the Use of Jansen’s Extirpator. Agr.
Journal Cape of Good Hope, xxxvi., March, 1910.

The Destruction of Prickly Pear by the Use of Jansen’s Extirpator. As
Reprint No. 19, 1910.

Destruction of Prickly Pear—Experiments with St. O’Gorman’s Prickly
Pear Exterminator. Agr. Journal Cape of Good Hope, xxxv1, Feb.,
1910.

See also under ‘“ Anonymous.”

Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Kakteen von Guatemala, Monats. f. Kaktenk.
20 Jahr. s, 1910.

Philosophical Transactions of Roy. Soc., vol. 52. [Desc. Coccus, South
Carolina. ]

Proc. Acad. Philad., 43, 1891.

Numerous important Papers in Boston Jour. Nat. Hist., U.S. Senate Misc.
Documents, Mem. Amer. Acad.; Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts, Science ;
U.S. and Mexico Boundary Surveys. :

Pacific Railway Report 4, 1856; Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts, Science 3, 1856.

Nature, Nov., 1882, p. 77. +
Pomona Jnl. Entom. 1, 2, p. 43, fig., 1909. (sv. Pseudococcus obscurus.)

Report on the Quality of Wild Cochineal, &c. Trans. Agr. and Hort. Soe..
India, m1, p. 77-8. Calcutta, 1837.
See Ellis, 1891.

Prickly Pear: A Pest or a Fodder Plant, Journ. Dept. Agric. Victoria,
vit., 1909, pp. 574-577. : ; ;

Prickly Pear: A Fodder Plant for Cultivation ? Jour. Dept. Agric. Victoria,
March, 1910.

Jour, Agr. Victoria, June, 1908.

The Chemistry of Cactacesz. Journ. Am. Chem. Soc., 18 July, 1896
_ (Alkaloids of Anhalonion.)
Singed Prickly Pear as Forage. Agr. Journ. Cape of Good Hope, xxv.,

1904, pp. 124 5.
Provisional Host Index, Pt. 1, 1888; Pt. u, 1891.

Bull. 23, 1891, Dept. Agric., Madras, abstracted in Fischer, 1892a, p. 24, and
1892b, pp. 113-4,

Studies in Cecidomyiide, IT.
307-422. ;

Ann. Rep. N. York State Entomologist, 23, 1908.

Bull. 124, New York St. Mus., 1908, pp.

Two New Cecidomyiide. Entomol. News, 21, 1910, pp. 10-12.

“Cactus Midge—Itonida Opuntie,” Felt. Journ. Een. Entom. 4, 1911,

p. 464,

* References marked thus have not been consulted.
1v14
1903
1874
1896-8
1891la
1891b
1892a
1892b
1857
1892
1886
1904
1912
1847
1902
1894
1842
1898
1839
1903
1885
1890
1893
1897
1896
1895
1903
1905
*1896
1912
1905
1906
1908a
1908b
1908¢
1909a
1909b
1910
1912a
1912b
1913

118

REFERENCE TO LITERATURE—continued.

Felt, E. P.

Fernald, M. E.

Ferrero, Dr. O.

Fiori, Dr. A.

Fischer, A.

Fischer, A.

Fischer, A. ae

Fischer, A. Se ea

Fleming, A. ee e

Fletcher, B. C. ae

Foerster, K. F. i A

Forbes, R. H., and Skinner,
W. W.

Froggatt, W. W.

Froideville, L. M. de is

Gamble aie is

Ganong 6 oa

Gasparini, G

Gennadius, P. oi te

Giberne, G. a sa

Giglioli, Prof. I.

Girard, M, ate

Gomez de la Maza, M.

Gomez de la Maza, M.

Gomez de la Maza, M. oe

Gorus, J. F. Pr Zs

Goss, A.

Goss, A.

Gosselin, R.

de Graffe, Bertha L.

Grandeaux

Green, E. E.

Griffiths, D.

Griffiths, D.

Griffiths, D. x ie

Griffiths, D. ie aie

Griffiths, D.

Griffiths, D. a

Griffiths, D. a

Griffiths, D.

Griffiths, D.

Griffiths, D.

Griffiths, D.

Annual Report State Entomologist of New York, 1913 (1914).

A Catalogue of the Coccide of the World. Bull. 88, Mass. Hatch Agr. Coll.,
1903 (s.v. Coccus, p. 82).

Atti della Societa di Acclimazione e di Agricultura in Sicilia xrv, 1874.

Flora Analitica d’Italia, 1, Padova, 1896-8.
Evidence in B.8.C., 1891, pp. 41-5, and also letters in B.S.C., 1891, Appendix.
Notes of the Dept.—“ Prickly Pear.” Agr. Journ. Cape of Good Hope,

tv., 1891, p. 133.
In Report Dept. Agric., Cape of Good Hope, 1891-2 (1892), pp. 17, 24, &e.

In Report in Agric. Journ. Cape of Good Hope, v, 1892, pp. 109, 113, &e.
Jour. Agric. Hort. Soc. India, 9, 1857.

Prickly Pear in Mexico. Agr. Journ. Cape of Good Hope, v, 1892, p. 135,
Handbuch der Kakteenkunde. Ed. Rumplen (1). Leipsig, 1886.

(1) Bull. 51, Arizona Agr. Exp. Sta., 1904. (2) Report for 1904 Arizona Agr.
Exp. Station xv, 1904.
Birds and Prickly Pears. Agr. Gaz. N.S.W. 23, 1912, pp. 943-4.

Bijdragen tot de Kennis van de Nopal-Kultur en van de Cochenille-teelt of
Java, Batavia, 1847.
Manual of Indian Timbers, 1902.

vid. Solereder.
Osservazione intorno alla struttaria dell frutta dell’ Opuntia. 4to. 1842.
Prickly Pear—Opuntia. Agr. Gaz. N.S.W. 9, 1898, pp. 38-40.

Memorandum on the Cultivation of Cochineal. Trans. Hort. and Agr. Soc.
India vi. Append., p. 7-11 Calcutta, 1839.
Malessere Agrario ed Alimentare in Italia, Portici, 1903, pp. 7-11.

Traite Elementaire d’Entomologie, t. 11, 8. Coccus, pp. 927-930. Paris,
1885.

Catalogo de las Periantiades Cubanas, Ann. de la Soc. Espanola de Hist.
Nat., xrx., Madrid, 1890.

Nociones de Botanica sistematica, Havana, 1893.

Flora Habanera—Fanerogamas, Havana, 1897.

Feeding Experiments with Prickly Pear. Agr. Gaz. N.S.W., 7, 1896, pp.
658-9.

Principles of Stock Feeding and some New Mexico Feeding Stuffs. Bull.
17, Agr. Exp. Sta., New Mexico, 1895 (1896).

Ash Analyses of some New Mexican Plants. Bull. 44, Agr. Exp. Sta., New
Mexico, 1903.

L2s Opuntia—Fruits, Comestibles.
pp. 77-8

Opuntia vulgaris, Mill. Amer. Journ. Pharmacy, 68, 1896, p. 169 sqq.
in Maiden, 1898, p. 993).

Journal d’Agr. Trop., 38, Mar., 1904 quoted (Utilization).

Journ. D’Agr. Trop. 45, Mar., 1905,

(quoted

On the Cultivated and Wild Forms of Cochineal Insects. Journ. Econ.
Biol., Sept., 1912, vit, No. 3, pp. 79-93, Pl. 1 (incl. Bibliography)

The Prickly Pear and other Cacti as Food for Stock. Bull. 74, Bur. Plant
Ind., U.S8.D.A., 1905.

Feeding Prickly Pear to Stock in Texas.
U.S.D.A., 1906.

Tho ae Pear as a Farm Crop. Bull. 124, Bur. Plant Ind., U.S.D.A.,

Illustrated Studies in the Genus Opuntia, I. Ann. Rep. Missouri Botan.
Gardens (St. Louis), 19, 1908, pp. 259-272,

Prickly pe its Yield and Uses. Proc. Texas Dairymen’s Assoc., 1908,
pp. f9-d1.

Tho Spineless Prickly Pears.

Bull. 91, Bur. Animal Ind.,

Bull. 140, Bur. Plant Ind., U.S.D.A., 1909.

Illustrated Studies in the Genus Opuntia, II. Ann. Rep. Missouri Botan,
Gardens, 20, 1909, pp. 81-95.

Illustrated Studies in the Genus Opuntia, III. Ann. Rep. Missouri Botan.
Gardens, 21, 1910, pp. 165-174.

The Thornless Prickly Pears. Farmers’ Bull. 483, U.S.D.A., 1912.

Illustrated Studies in the Genus Opuntia, IV. Ann. Rep. Missouri Botan.
Gardens, 22, 1912, pp. 25-36.

Behaviour of Species of Cacti known as Opuntia under cultural conditions.
Bull. 31, U.S.D.A., December, 1913.

1906 Griffiths, D., and Hare, R. F. Prickly Pear and other Cacti as Food for Stock, II. Bull. 60, Agr. Exp. Sta.,

1907a
1907b

Griffiths, D., and Hare, R. F.
Griffiths, D., and Hare, R. F.

New Mexico, 1906.

Summary of Recent Investigations of the value of Cacti as Stock Food.
Bull. 102, Bur. Plant. Ind., U.S.D.A., 1907.

The Tuna as Food for Man. Bull. 116, Bur. Plant. Ind., U.S.D.A., 1907;
also published as Bull. 64, Agr. Exp. Sta., New Mexico, 1907.

* References marked thus have not been consulted.
1864 Grisebach, A. H. RB.

*1868

to).
1891

1850
1913
1827
1907
1908
1900
1868
1860
1908

1911

1909

*1888
#1895
1909
#1842
1819
1821
1908
1912
1900
n.d.
1888
1875
1899
*1903
1893
1885

1914
1889

1893-
1908

1877
1893
1895
1897
1811
1852
1818
1890
1902

119. .

REFERENCES TO LITERATURE—continued.

—

ignior Grisebach, A. H. R. ii

Grobelaar, A. L. wis
Guérin-Meneville, F. E.
Guastella (Dr. G.)

Gussone

Gurke, M.

Gurke and Schumann
Guthrie, F. B.

Hallier, E.

Hardy

Hare, R. F.

Hare, R. F.
Hare, R. F.

Hare, R. F., Mitchell, 8. R.,
and Bjerregaard, A. P.

Harrington, H.

Harrington, H., Adriance and
Tilson

Harris, E. oe

Harting

Haworth

Haworth

Hayman, J. M.

Heald, D., and Wolf, F. A...

Hempel, A.

Herculais, J. K.de ..

Hildebrand

Hill, W.

Hirscht, K.

Holmes

Holmes and Davenport

Horn, H. G.

Horn, E. W., and Mutkekar

Horn, H. G.

Hooker, J. D., and Jackson,
B. D. 4 ae

Hooykaas, J. C., and Du
Rieu, W. N.

Howard, L. O., and Riley, C.

Hubbard, H. G.

Hubbard, H. G.

von Humboldt, A.

von Humboldt, A.

von Humboldt, A.

Hulst, G. D. Bis xe

Hulst, G. D.

Flora of the British West Indian Islands, London, 1864.
Catalogo Flora Cubana.

Paper on Prickly Pear (0. vulgaris) and its eradicati A
Cape of Good Hope, in. 1891, = 246. Sree eros

Notice sur la Culture de la Cochenille i
Puce, Wee nille en Algerie. Soc. Nat. et Centrale

Coltivazione del Fico d’India. Catania, 1913.

(1) Prodromus Flore Sicule, 1, 1827: 1842 (2) Flore Sicule Synopsis.
Monatschrift fur Kakteenkunde, 20 J. ahrg, 5, Nay, 1910.
See Schumann, K., 1908.

Analyses of Prickly Pear. Agr. Gaz. N.S.W., x1, 1900, pp. 671-4.
Phytopathologie.

i
Culture du Nopal et Education de la Cochenille en Algérie. Algéric, 1860.

Experiments on the Digestibility of Prickly Pear by Cattle. Bull. 106,
Bur. Animal Ind., U.S.D.A., 1908; also published as Bull. 69, Agr.
Exp. Sta., New Mexico, 1908.

A Study of the Carbohydrates in the Prickly Pear and its Fruits. Bull. 80,
Agr. Exp. Sta., New Mexico, 1911.

See Griffiths 1906, 1907a, and 1907b.

Denatured Alcohol from Tunas and other Sources. Bull. 72, Agr. Exp. Sta.,
Seis 1909, and in New Mexico Agr. Exp. Stat. Report, 1909,
pp. 18-21.

Report Agr. Exp. Sta., Texas, 1., 1888, p. 28 (Chemistry).

Bull. 35, Agr. Exp. Sta., Texas, 1895, p. 604 (Analyses and Food Value).
The Prickly Pear, its Utilisation. Agr. Gaz. N.S.W., 20, 1909, pp. 237-246.
Anat. de Cact. Tijds. Voor Nat. Geschied. en Phys., pp. 181-242.

Supp. Plant. Suc.

Revue Plant. Suc.

Report of the Cawnpore Agric. Sta., United Provinces (India) for the year
ending June, 1907 (Allahabad, 1908).

A Plant Disease Survey in the vicinity of San Antonio, Texas. Bull. 226,
Bur. Plant Ind., U.S.D.A., 1912.

As Coccidas Brazileiras. Revista do Museu Paulista 4, 1900, pp. 365-537.

Les Insectes s.v. La Cochenille, op. cit., pp. 510-512.
Flora of the Hawaiian Islands, 1888.

Catalogue of the Plants in the Queensland Botanic Gardens, s.v. Opuntia,
pp. 232-233. Brisbane, 1875. é

“ Die Pflege und Zucht der Kakteen » in Schumann’s Gesamtbeschreibung
d. Kakt., pp. 769-808.

Museum Report Pharmac. Soc. Gt. Brit. for 1895-1902 (1903), quoted by
Burkill.

Arsenite of Soda. Agr. Journ. Cape of Good Hope, vi, 1893, p. 64.

Description of some new Cerambycide, with Notes. Trans. Am. Ent. Soc.,
xt, May, 1885, p. 180-190.

The Feeding of Prickly Pears. Agr. Jnl. Ind. rx, 2, pp. 190-196.
Insect Life, 2, 1889, p. 162.

Index Kewensis, Plantarum Phanerogamarum Nomina et Synonyma
Omnium Generum et Specierum, ete., 7 vols. and 3 supp. vols., 1893-
1908. .

Repetorium of de Koloniale Litteratuur. 2.v. Cocchenille, pp. 449-451 and
825-849, Amsterdam,1877.

See Riley, C., 1893.

The Oviposition of M: elitara prodenialis, Walker. Proc. Ent. Soc., Wash.,
3, 1895, pp. 129-132
Insect Found of the Giant Cactus of Arizona. Psyche, 1, Suppl. 1897,
. 1-8. :
Essai Politique sur le royaume de la Nouvelle Espagne. Paris, 1811-2.

Personal Narrative of Travels to the Equinoctial Regions of America, 1799-
1804. Trans. Ross. Lond., 1852, passim. i

Ensaya Politico (sobre) E] Regno de Nueva Espana, vol. I, pp- 417-431.
Madrid, 1818.

Trans, Amer. Ent. Soc. 17, 1890, p. 172.

In G. H. Dyar’s List of American Lepidoptera.

* References marked thus have not been consulted.
120
REFERENCES TO LITERATURE—continued.
i912 Hunter, W. D., Pratt, F.C., | The Principal Cactus Insects of the United States of Ametica. U.S. Dept.

and Mitchell, J. D.
India — Bibliography
Opuntia
1872 Insenga, Prof.G. ..

1879 Insenga, Prof. G.
1904 Jehanne, M. A.
1906 Jehanne, M. A.
1892 Juritz, C. F.
1910 Juritz, C. F.
1894 Kasimir

1892 Kellogg, V. L.
1908 Keys, R. T.

1852 Knox, J. P.

1898 Kuhlgatz

1850 Labouret

1914 Lamont, W. J.
1889 Lauterbach C.
1906 Lee, Ida

1902 Lefroy, H. Maxwell
1895 Lewis, J. P.

1878 Lima

1753 Linnaeus, C.
1911 Lichtenheld, G.

1908 Lindinger, Dr. L.
1907 Livingston, B. E.
1879 Longo

Longo
1897 Longo
1868a Lowe, R. T. G.
1868b Lowe, R T. G.
1909 McColl, J. H.
189la Macdonald, A.C. ..
1891b Macdonald, A. C.
1892a, Macdonald, A. C.
1892b Macdonald, A. C,
1892c Macdonald, A. C.
1893 Macdonald, A. C.
1894 Macdonald, A. C.
1897a Macdonald, A. C.
1897b Macdonald, A. C.
1910 MacDougall, D. T., and
1912 MocDeogeieD
1914 MacDougall, D. T.

Cannon, W. A.

Agr. Bur. Entom., Bull. 113, Washington, D.C., Dec., 1912.
Vid. this Report, section India, passim.

Monografia dell’ Opuntia Dillenii in Sicilia. Annali di Agricultura Siciliana,
1872

Le Cactus dans L’ Alimentation du betail (Etat de la question en Algerie,
Tunis).

“ Mal di Verme ” (Boll. d. Societa d. Sc. Natur. e Economiche d Palermo 10,
1879.

Journ. d’Agr. Trop. No. 33. 4 Mar., 1904 (Utilization, &c.).

La Culture du Figuier de Barbarie. Journal d’Agr. Tropicale No. 57,
31 Mar. 1906 (Utilization, &c.).
Analysis of Prickly Pear Poisons. Rept. Dept. Agric., 1891-2 (1892), p.-15.

A Study of the Agricultural Soils of the Cape Colony, 1910.

“ Cristaux chez Opuntia et Pereskia.” Bull. Herbs, Boissier t 11, pp. 499-500,
1894,
Notes on Melitara dentata, Grote. Kansas Univ. Quarterly, 1, 1892, pp.

9-41.
Prickly Pear as Fodder. Q’ld. Agr. Journ. 1908, pp. 61-62.

A Historical Account of St. Thomas, West Indies. New York (C. Scribner),
1852.
Monatschrift f. Kakteenkunde, No. 11 pp. 166-179 pl, 1898.

Monographie de la famille des Cactacées, Dusacq. Paris, n.d. (1850).

Winter Feed for Stock in the Karoo. South African Agric. Jour., 7, 1914,
pp. 377-387.

Bander Sekret-behalter bei den Cacteen, Bot, Centbl. 1, 1889, p. 257, 289,
329, 369, and 409.

The Coming of the British to Australia, 1788-1829 (London, 1906).

Scale Insects. of the West Indies. West Indies Bulletin m1, No. 3, p. 266,
1902. ‘
Manual of the Vanni Districts, Ceylon. Colombo (by authority) 1895,

Vid. Mancusa-Lima.
Species Plantarum, 1753.

“Uber die Strauffenzucht, Krankheiten der Strauffe und ihre Behandlung ”
Tropenpflanzer. 15 Jahrg. No. 11, Nov., 1911, p. 595 (Prickly Pear as
Food for Ostriches),

Jahr. Hamb. Wiss. Anst. xxv1, 1908 (Asp eglandulosus).

Relative Transpiration in Cacti. Plant World, 10, No. 5, pp. 110-114, Figs.
(1907).
Intorno a Canali delle opunzie. Ann. R. Inst., Bot di, Roma, vu.

Idioblasti nuciferi dell. Cactee, op. cit.
Mucilagine delle Cactee Bull. d. Soc., bot, 1896, p. 50-2.

A Manual Flora of Madeira and the adjacent Islands, s.v., Cactacex, vol. 1,
pp. 313-320. London, 1868.
Botanic Magazine, 1868. Plates.

The Prickly Pear. Journ. Agr. Victoria, 1909, pp. 763-768.

Prickly Pear in South Africa. Agr. Journ. Cape of Good Hope, rv., 1891,
pp. 21-5; also in 1891b and 1897a.

Prickly Pear in South Africa. In R.S.C. 1891, pp. 20-35, and further
evidence in pp. 35-40.

Report in Report Dept. Agric., Cape of Good Hope, for 1891-2 (1892), pp.
21-3—same as 1892c.

Notes of the Dept.—A New Cactus. Agr. Journ. Cape of Good Hope, 1892,
pp. 93-4—same as 1897b.

Report on Chemical Scrub Exterminator in Fischer’s Annual Report. Agr.
Journ. Cape of Good Hope, v, 1892, pp. 112-3—same as 1892a.

Arsenite of Soda as an Exterminator for Prickly Pear. Agr. Journ. Cape
of Good Hope, v1, 1893, pp. 276-7 (see also Palmer, 1893).

meer re of Prickly Pear. Agr. Journ. Cape of Good Hope, vu, 1894,
p. 285.

The Prickly Pear in the Eastern and Midland Districts. Agr. Miscell.,
Cape of Good Hope, 1897, pp. 26-36—same as 189la, 1891b.

The Prickly Pear—A New Species. Agric. Miscell., Cape of Good Hope,
1897, pp. 36-9—same as 1892b.

The Water Balance of Succulents. Publication 141, Carnegie Instit.,
Washington, 1910.

The Water Balance of Desert Plants. Annals Botany, 26, 1912, pp. 71-93.

Annual Report of the Director of the Dept. of Botanical Research, Year
Book No. 12, Carnegie Institution of Washington, for the year 1913.
pp. 57-87. This report includes summaries of papers partly or wholly
referring to investigations into the physiology of the Cactacer.

Root Variation in Desert Plants, pp. 72-73.
1911
1912

Shreve, E. B.
Spoehr, H. A.
Richards, H. M.
Johnson, D. 8.

Britton, N. L., and Rose, J.
N

Mackensen, B.

Mackensen, .B.

1888 a MazOwan, P.

1888 b MacOwan, P.

1890

1891
1897
*1898
1896

1898a Maiden, J.
1898b Maiden, J.
191la Maiden, J.
1911b Maiden, J.
1912a Maiden, J.
1912b Maiden, J.
1912c Maiden, J.
1912d Maiden, J.
1912e Maiden, J.
1913a Maiden, J.
1913b Maiden, J.
1913¢ Maiden, J.
1913d Maiden, J.
1914a Maiden, J.
1914b Maiden, J.

1878
1904
1905
1905
1896

MacOwan, P.
MacOwan, P.
MacOwan, P.
Magnus, P.

Maiden, J. H.

ee

Mancuso-Lima, Profs G.
Mancuso-Lima, Prof. G.
Mancusa-Lima, Prof. G.

Mancusa-Lima, Prof. G.

Marlatt, C.

1892a Marloth, Dr. R.

1892b Marloth, Dr. R.

1906
#1855
1899
1840
1570
1860
1787
1890
1899

Marloth, Dr. R.
Martius, T.

Maskell, W. M. i
Masters, J. W.
Mattioli, P. A.
Méneville

de Menonville, Thierry
Merriam, C. H.
Merriam, CO. H.

121 ‘

REFERENCES TO LITERATURE—continued.

9°

 

Autonomic Movements of Stems of Opuntias, pp. 79-81.

The Photolysis of Plant Acids, pp. 82-83.

Acidity, Gaseous Exchange, and Respiration of Cacti, pp.84-86.

Fruit Development in the Cactacer, pp. 86-87.

The Relationships and Distribution of the Cactacer, p. 87.

Two New Species of Opuntia. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club, 38, 1911, pp. 141-3.

Three New Species of Opuntia, with a discussion of the identity of
O. lindheimeri. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club, 39, 1912, pp. 289-292,

The Prickly Pear and the Kaalblad. Agr. Journ. Cape of Good Hope,
vol. 1., 1888.

Kew Bulletin, 1888.

In answer to a Letter. Agr. Journ. Cape of Good Hope, 11, 1890, p. 61.
On the Introduction of Opuntia tuna into the Colony.

The Prickly Pear and the Kaalblad. Reprinted in Agric. Miscell., Dept.
Agric., Cape of Good Hope, 1897, pp. 1-6.

“ Einneves Aicidium auf Opuntia sp. aus Bolivien.”
Gesell, 1898, p. 151, pt. 1.

Plan of an Inquiry into the Merits of Prickly Pear as a Forage Plant (trans-
lated from the French of Paul Bourde). Agr. Gaz. N.S.W., 7. 1896,
pp. 651-7.

Botanical Notes—Prickly Pear. Agr. Gaz. N.S.W., 9, 1898, p. 38.

Ber. Deutsch Botan.

A Preliminary Study of the Prickly Pears naturalised in N. 8. Wales. Agr.
Gaz. N.S.W., 9, 1898, pp. 978-1008.

The Prickly Pears of Interest to Australians, I. Agr. Gaz. N.S.W., 22,1911,
pp. 321-328.

The Prickly Pears of Interest to Australians, II. Agr. Gaz. N.S.W., 22, 1911,
pp. 696-698. : A

The Prickly Pears of Interest to Australians, III. Agr. Gaz. N.S.W., 23,
1912, pp. 208-210.

The Prickly Pears of Interest to Australians, IV. Agr. Gaz. N.S.W., 23,
1912, pp. 713-716.

The Prickly Pears of Interest to Australians, V. Agr. Gaz. N.S.W., 23, 1912,
pp. 1027-1028.

Note on Opuntia aurantiaca. Agr. Gaz. N.S.W., 23, 1912, p. 888.

Presidential Address. The Prickly Pear. Journ. Proc. Roy. Soc. N.S.W.,
46, 1912, pp. 38-41.

The Prickly Pears of Interest to Australians, VI.
1913, pp. 49-55. .

The Prickly Pears of Interest to Australians, VII.
1913, pp. 863-6.

The Prickly Pears of Interest to Australians, VIII.
1913, pp. 973-4.

The Prickly Pears of Interest to Australians, IX.
1913, pp. 1073-6.

The Prickly Pears of Interest to Australians, X.
1914, pp. 137-8.

The Prickly Pears of Interest to Australians, XI.
1914, pp. 519-520.

(1) La Compagna e gli Annali de Agricultura Sicl., 1879.

Agr. Gaz. N.S.W., 24,
Agr. Gaz. N.S.W., 24,
Agr. Gaz. N.S.W., 24,
Agr. Gaz. N.S.W., 24,
Agr. Gaz. N.S.W., 25,
Agr. Gaz. N.S.W., 25,

(2) Nuovi Annali di Agricultura Siciliana, Ann. xv, fasc. 1, 1904.

(3) Op. cit. Ann. xvi, fase. 1, 1905 (Analysis of Fruits, Seeds, etc.).

(4) Le Stazioni sperimentale Agrarie Ital. Modena. 28, p. 805, 1905.

Proc. Ent. Soc., Wash., 4, 1896, p. 44.

The Prickly Pear in South Africa. Agr. Journ. Cape of Good Hope, V,
1892, pp. 111-2. ;

The Prickly Pear in South Africa.

pp. 18-21.
Evidence in R.S.C., 1906, pp. 15-24.

In Rep. Dept. Agric., 1891-2 (1892),

Culture of the Cochineal in the Canary Islands. Pharm. Journ., 14, 1855,
. 553-6.
(On tigen Cochineal Insect), Indian Museum Notes, rv, 4, p. 212, 1899.

Calcutta Flora—Synopsis of Plants indigenous or cultivated in the vicinity
of Calcutta. Trans. Agr. and Hort. Soc. of India, vu., 1840.

«“ Commentarii”’, etc., Editions 1544 (Italian), 15538, 1558, 1560, 1565, 1570
(Latin).

Vid. Guérin-Meneville.

Traité de la culture du nopal et d l’Educatiun de la Cochenille, &c. In
Voyage to Guaxaca). Paris, 1787.
N = See cats Fauna, Nu. 3, Div. Ornithology and Mammals, U.S.D.A..

1890. .
Results of a Biological Survey of Shasta, California.

* References marked thus have not been consulted.
‘1768
1912
1909
1897

1911
1897
1903

129:

REFERENCES TO LITERATURE—continued.

Miller, P.

Mitchell, J. D., Hunter, and
Pratt

Mitchell; S. R., Hare, and
Bjerregaard

Moscoso, R. M. 34,

Musson, C. T.

Newstead, R.

Newstead, R.

1906a Nobbs, Dr. E.

1906b Nobbs, Dr. E.

1907a Nobbs, Dr. E.

1907b Nobbs, Dr. E.

1908
1849
1907
1892
1897
1893
1909
1912
1912
1834
1867
1894
1906
1911

1908
1891
1877
1878
1912
1908
1839

1908
1907

1888

1889
1891
1893

1844
*1896
1912
1912
1905

Nobbs, Dr. E.
de Nobrega, G. J.
Noel, L. I.
Oliver, H.
O’Shea, J.
Palmer, G.
Palmer, G.
Parker, R. N.
Perkins, A. J.
Perrotet
Perez, Dr. V., and Sagot,
Dr. P
Phillippi, R. A.
Pierce, W. D.
Pierce, W. D.

Pitard, J., and Proust, L. ..

Pojer

Popenoe, EH. A.

Popenoe, E, A.

Pratt, F. C., Hunter and
Mitchell

Preble, E. A.

Prinsep, G. A.

Proust, L., and Pitard, J. ..

Ramirez, R.

Riley, C.

Riley, C.

Riley, C.

Riley, C., and Howard, L. O.
Risso

Riviere and Lecq

Rodriguez, E.

Roig y Mesa, Juan T.
Rolland, L.

Gardeners’ Dictionary, vitt, 1768. 8th Ed.
See Hunter, 1912.
See Hare, 1909.

Las Familias Vegetales. Santo Domingo (Luis A. Weber), 1897. (Described
as being a portion of Moscoso’s La Flora de Santo Domingo ? unpub-
lished.)

Eradication of Prickly Pear—A Suggestion. Agr. Gaz. N.S.W., 22, 1911,

p. 58.
Entom. Monthly Mag., vim, 1897.

Monograph of the Coccidz of the British Isles, 11, pp. 223-6, Pl. LXXII, 8.V.,
Coccus tomentosus, L. London, 1913.
Evidence in R.S.C., 1906, pp. 7-15; pp. 24-30; pp. 37-42.

Notes on the Jointed Cactus. Agr. Journ. Cape of Good Hope, 1906, pp.
812-814.

Experiments upon the Destruction of Prickly Pear, 1907. Agr. Journ. Cape
of Good Hope, Dec. 31, 1907, pp. 676-682.

Experiments upon the Destruction of Prickly Pear, 1907, as Reprint, No.
26, 1907.

Experiments upon the Destruction of Jointed Cactus, 1907. Agr. Journ.
Cape of Good Hope, xxx11, 1908, pp. 341-6—reprinted as No. 12, 1908.

On the Cultivation of Cochineal. Pharm. Journ., 8, 1849, pp. 342-8.

Culture du Cactus inerme en Tunisie comme Fourage et pour le fruit.
Journ. d’ Agric. Trop., 1907, p. 190.
Letter. Agr. Journ. Cape of Good Hope, v., 1892, p. 89.

Prickly Pear. Agr. Gaz. N.S.W., 8, 1897, pp. 434-5.
Letter in Macdonald, 1893.
Index Generum Mammalium. Bur. Biol. Survey, U.S.D.A., 1909.

Notes on Cacti in North-West India. Journ. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 21,
1912, p. 1095. ©

Agriculture in Other Lands—Tunisia. Journ. Agr. South Austr., April,
1912, p. 889 (Utilization).

Annales, Maritimes, Paris, Mar. and Nov., 1834. (Introd. Grana sylvestre
to Senegambia)

La Vegetation aux Iles Canaries. Journ. de l’Agr. des pays chauds,1865-
1866, Paris, 1867.

Plantas Nuevas Chilenas, &c. Anal. Univ. Chili, vol. 85, 1894.

On the Biologies of the Rhynchophora of N. America. Rep. Nebraska
State Bd. Agric. 1906, pp. 249-319.

Systematic Notes and Descriptions of some Weevils of Economic or Bio-
logical importance. Proc. U.S. Nat. Museum, 42, 1911, pp. 155-170.
(Cactus Weevils, pp. 159-170.)

Les Iles Canaries: Flore de l’Archipel. Paris (Paul Klinchsieck), 1908.

Flora Sicula, 1, p. 2, 1891.
A List of Kansas Coleoptera. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci., 5, 1877, pp. 21-40.

Additions to the Catalogue of Kansas Coleoptera. Trans. Kansas Acad.
Sci., 6, 1878, pp. 77-86. ;
See Hunter, 1912.

A Biological Investigation of the Athabasca-Mackenzie Region. North
Amer. Fauna No. 27, Biol. Survey U.S.D.A., 1908.

Account of the Method of Cultivating the Cochineal Insect in the Province
of on 1820. Trans. Agr. Hort. Soc. India, 6, 1839, Appendix,
pp. 73-84.

See Pitard, 1908.

“Kl Nopal y el Sotol como Forrajes de Invierno.” Estacion Agricola
Experimental de Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico, Sect. de
Fomento, Bol., 6 Jan., 1907.

The ae Habits of North Amer. Calandride. Insect Lifo, 1, pp. 198-9,

Notes on the Cochineal Insect. Insect Life 1, 1889, pp. 258-9.
Canad. Entomol., 23, 1891, p. 256.

Insect Injury to Cactus plants. Insect Life, 5, 1893, p. 345.
Flore de Nice, Nice, 1844.

oe dogs de Agriculture Algérion, pp. 218-220, Paris, 1910 (Utiliza-

ion).

El. Nopal sin Espinas (Cactus inermis), Revista de Agr. An. 2. No. 3, Pt. 1,
pp. 203-7, Mexico, Mar. 1912 (Utilization). ;

Cactaceas de la Flora Cubana—tTesis para el Gravo de Doctor en Ciencias
Naturales, Havana (A. Miranda), 1912.

(1) Aliquot fungi novi Gallia. Bull. de la Soc. Mycol. de Fr. xm, 1896.
(2) Revue Mycologigue xx1, 1905 (3), Bulletin de la Soc. Mycol. de
France, t, xxi, pp. 26-7, 1905.

* References marked thus have not been consulted.
123

REFERENCES TO LITERATURE—continued.

1892- Rose, J. N. aA x
1913 .
«+ Rose, J. N., and Britton, N,
L.
1890-1 Rose, J. N., and Vasey, G...

1890 RB.S8.C.

1891 B.S.C.
1898 RB.S.C.
1906 R.S.C,

1729 Russcher, Melichior de
1745 Sagra, D. Ramon de la
1867 Sagot, P., and Perez, V.
1828 Salm-Dyck, P. J. de
1850 Salm-Dyck, P. 8. de
1908 Sanna, A.

1901 Sarcoli and Ulpiani .
1868 Sauvalle, F. A.

1897 Savastano, L.

1910 Savastano, L.

1893 Schenck, H.

1839 Schleiden, J.

1841 Schomburgh, R.
*1856 Schott, A.
1890 Schumann, K.
1899a Schumann, K.
1899b Schumann, K.
1903a Schumann, K.
1903b Schumann, K.
1908 Schumann, K., and Gurke ..
1896 Schwarz, E. A.
1899a Schwarz, E. A.
1899b Schwarz, E. A.
1901 Schwarz, E. A.
1902 Scott, EH. R.
1914 Shirley, Dr. J., and Lambert,
1875 pike Uz

1904 Skinner, W. W.
1707- Sloane, Sir H.
1725

1891 Smith, J. B.
1892 Smith, J. B.

1908 Solereder, Dr. Hans.

1898 Sotyia, Dr. G.

.

1898 Spegazzini, Cc.
1899 Spegazzini, C. oe ee
1902 fpegazzini, Cc.

Various papers in Contr. Nat. Herbar., Washington, 1892 to 1911; Journ.
N. York Bot. Gardens, 1911; Smithsonian Mise. Coll., 1907 to 1913.
See Britton and Rose, 1907-1914, 1908, 1912.

Papers in Contr. Nat. Herbar. Washington, D.C., 1890-1891.
Report of the Select Committee on the Prickly Pear. Capetown, 1891.

Report of the Select Committee on the Eradication of the Prickly Pear
and Poisonous Melkbosch. Capetown, July, 1890.

Report of the Select Committee on the Eradication of Prickly Pear. Cape-
town, Dec., 1898.

Report of the Select Committee on Prickly Pear. Capetown, 1906.

Natuerlyke Historie von de Couchenille bewery en met Authentique Docu-
mentem. Amsterdam, 1729.

Historia Fisica Politica y Natural de la Isla de Cuba—2 Parte, Historia
Natural, tome x, Botanica. Paris, 1745,

See Perez, 1867.

In P. de Candolle’s Prodromus, 11.
Cactese in Horto. Dyckensi cult, Anno, 1849.

Staz. Sper. Agr. Ital., 1908, No. 9-11, pp. 550-561. Abst. Chem. Centbl.,
1909; 1, No. 8, p. 675, and Journl. Chem. Ind. 28 (1909) 5, 255.
See Ulpiani, 1901.

Flora Cubana—Revisio Catalogi Grisebachiani vel Index Plantarum
Cubensium, 1868.

Del Marciume del Fico d’India nel Catanzarese. Boll. Soc. Nat. Napoli,
x1., 1897, p. 110.

Patologia Arborea Applicata. Lezioni, Napoli, 1910, sv. Il Marciume, pp.
209-10.

Vid. Solereder.

Beitrage Zur Anatomie der Cacteen, Mem. Acad. Sci. scr. 6, t. 4,
St. Petersb., fol. 1839, fol. and 4to 1842.

History of Barbados, 1841.

Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Science, 3, 1856.

Cactacee in Martius, “‘ Flora Brasiliensis.”” 1v, pp. 184-334.

Die Verbreitung der Cactacee. Abt. K. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1899.
Published separately, Berlin, 1899.

Gesamtbeschreibung der Kakteen, 1899.

Gesamtbeschreibung der Kakteen, Supplement, 1903.

Keys of the Monograph of the Cactacez, 1903.

Monatsschrift f. Kakteenkunde, xvi, 1908.

Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash., 3, 1896, p. 48.

Descriptions of New Species of Coleoptera. Psyche, 1, Suppl. 1899, pp. 8-13.

Classified List of Species observed by H. G. Hubbard on the Giant Cactus.
Psyche, Suppl. 1, 1899, pp. 13-14.

Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash., 4, 1901, pp. 368-9, 431.

Hand-feeding Stock in the Moree District. Agr. Gaz. N.S.W., 13, 1902,

. 1051-3.
Gants or Prickly Pear. Proc. Roy. Soc. Queensland 26, 1914, pp. 40-47.

Essai sur les Cochenilles. Ann. d. 1. Soc. Ent. d. Fr. (1868-75) s.v.
Coceus op. cit., p. 44 (Bibliography) and 380.

See Forbes and Skinner.
Voyage to the Islands of Madeira, Barbadoes . . - + Jamaica, &c.,

1707-1725.
Habits of Volucella. Canad. Ent., 23, 1891, pp. 242-3.

Entom. News, 3, 1892, p. 208.

t tic Anatomy of Dicotyledons. Ed. and Transl. Boodle, Fritsh and
a Scott. Oxford ‘lar, Press, 1908, Anatomy 1, pp. 406-415, and Litera-
ture Anatomy.

-Studio Chemico-zootechnico circa razionale impiego delle Palette de Fico

d’ India nell’ allimentazione delle Vache di Latte in Sardegna. Le
Stazioni sperimentale agarie italiane XXXII, 2, pp. 113-167, 1898.
Fungi Argentini, Anal. Mus. Nac. d. Buenos Aires, 6, 1898, pp. 81-365.

Mycetes Argentinensis, series I., An. Soc. Cientif. Argentina, 47 and 50,

int, 48 pp- ; :
igsees Aeceah, ser. a An. Soc. Cientif. Argentina, 8, 1902, pp. 49-89.

 

* References marked thus have not been consulted,
1905
1909
1910
1912
1901
1869
1826

1838

1899
1911
1887
1823
1885
1895
1898
*1898
1908
*1903
ee

*1866-7
1910
1908

1910

124

REFERENCES TO LITERATURE—continued.

Spegazzini, C.
Spegazzini, C.
Spegazzini, C.
Spegazzini, C,
Sprenger, C.
Stewart

Tinore, A. V. (Lat. Tineus)..

Tinore, A V. ea ae

Tineus, A. V. [J¢. Tinore]
Thompson, J. L.
Thornber, J. J.

Thumen, E. von wt

Thunberg wie +

Tieghem, van a

Tilson, Harrington, and
Adriance

Tooke, W. H.

Toomey, J. W.

Tovey and Ewart, A. J.

Townsend, C. H.

Trécul
Trimen, H.
Trabut, L.

Tryon, H.

Tryon, H.

1911 a Tryon, H.

1911 b Tryon, H.

1890

1876
1894

1901
(1902)

1901
1902
1890-1
1869
1911
1894
1905
1896
*1893

Tucci, Prof.
de Tussac, F. R.
Uhler, F. R.
Uhler, F. R.

Ulpiani, C., and Sarcoli, L...

Urban, I.
Urban, I.

Valder, G. ee oe

Valder, G.

Vasey, G., and Rose, J. N...

de Viera y Clavigo, De José
Vinson, A. E.

Vochting, H.

Voglino, Dr. P.

Wallace, R.

Walliczek

Cactacearum platensium tentamen, Anales d. Museo Nac. d. Buenos Aires,
11, 1905, pp. 477-523. ;
Mycetes Argent., ser. Iv., An. Soc. Cientif. Argentina, 19, 1909, pp. 257-458.

Mycetes Argent., ser. v., An. Soc. Cientif. Argentina, 20, pp. 329-467.
Mycetes Argent., sor. vi., An. Soc. Cientif. Argentina, 23, 1912, pp. 1-146.

Kultur der Indischen Feigen in Sud Italien. Der Tropenpflanzer, 1901,
pp. 65-82.
Punjab Plants, 1869.

Ad Flore Neapolitano’Prodromum. Appendix quinto, &., 1826 (In A. P.
de Candolle Prod. System. Nat. Reg. Veg.). ,

Flora Napolitana Allas, v, pl. 236, 1838.
Catalogus Plantarum Horti Regni Panormitani ad annum 1827, Panormo
Agr. Gaz. N.S8,W., 10, 1899, p. 891,

Native Cacti as Emergency Forage Plants. Bull. 67, Univ. Arizona Agr,
Exp. Sta., Tucson, 1911, pp. 457-508.
Die Pilze der Obstgewachse. Vienna, 1887,

Flora Capensis, 1823.

Vid. Solereder.

See Harrington, 1895.

Memorandum in RB.8.C., 1898, Appendix, pp. i-vi.
Botanical Gazette 25, 1898.

See Ewart, 1908..

Contribution to a knowledge of the Coleoptera of the Lower Rio Grande
Valley in Texas, &c. Trans. Texas Acad. Soc. 5, 1903, pp. 49-101.

Mucilages. [Ad. ansonia, t. vil, e¢ seg., 1866-7.]
Handbook of the Flora of Ceylon, vol. m.

La Defense contre les Cochenilles et autre Insectes Fixes. Giv. Gen. de
PAlgerie, Direc. del l’Agric. 1910 s.v. Dactylopius coccus.

On Two Prickly Pear Affections. Qld. Agr. Journ., vol. xx1., pp. 143-7,
Brisbane, 1908 (Reprint in Bd. of Advice on Prickly Pear Destruction,
Interim Report I., 1911, pp. 6-9).

The Wild Cochineal Insect, with reference to its injurious action on Prickly
Pear (Opuntia spp.) in India, &c., and to its availability for the sub-
jugation of this plant in Queensland and elsewhere. Qld. Agr. Journ.,
vol. xxv, No. 4, pp. 188-197, Oct. 1910, and reprint Bd. of Advice on
Prickly Pear Destruction, Interim Report I., 1911, pp. 9-14.

Diseases of the Prickly Pear. Bd. of Advice on Prickly Pear Destruction

Interim Report I., Appendix 6, pp. 14-17, 1911.

The Insect Enemies of the Prickly Pear. Bd. of Advice on Prickly Pear
Destruction, Interim Report I., Appendix 6, pp. 17-19, 1911.

Rep. Ministero di A. I. and C. in Nuovi Annali di Agricultura Siciliano, 1890°

Flora Antillarum, IT.

List of the Hemiptera of the region West of the Mississipi, &c., Bull. U.S.
Geol. Survey (2), No. 5, vol. 1, 1876, pp. 269-361

Observations upon the Heteropterous Hemiptera of Lower California, &c.
Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. (2), 4, 1894, pp. 223-295.

Sulla fermentazione alcoolica del Mosta di fico d’ India. Gazz. Chim. Ital.
t. XxXxI, p. m1, 1901.

Flora Portoricensis (Symp. Ant. IV), pp. 432-433.

Symbolae Antillaruam—Nove Species et Genera.

Destruction of Prickly Pear, Briars, and Blackberry. Agr. Gaz. N.S.W.,
12, 1901, p. 1365.
The Eradication of Prickly Pears, Agr. Gaz. N.S.W., 13, 1902, pp. 59-62.

See Rose, J. N.

Diccionario de Historia Natural de las Islas Canarias—Las Palmas de Gran
Canaria. Op. cit. tome m1, 1869.

Nutritive Value of Cholla Fruit. Bull. 67 Univ. Arizona Agr. Exp. Sta.,
Tucson, 1911, pp. 509-519.

Bedentung des Lichtes fir de Gestaltung blattformiger Cacteen. Berl.,
1894 ,

Patologia Vegetale, 1905.

Farming Industries of Cape Colony. London, 1896,
Membranschleim. Pringsheim. Jahrb. Bd. xx1m, p. 262, e¢ seg. 1893.
e

 

* References marked thus have not been consulted,
1903 Ward, Oshert
1914 Warren, E.

1889 Watt, Sir G.

1891 Watt, Sir G.

1908 Watt, Sir G.

1840 Webb, Barker, and

Berthelot, S.

*1893- Weber, Dr. A.

1899

1902 Weber, Dr. A.

1888 Wetterwald

1913 White, Jean
1914 White, Jean

1850 Wight, D.
1912a Wolf, F. A.
1912b Wolf, F. A.

1912 Wolf, F. A., and Heald, D...

1911 Wooton, E. C.
1911 Zimmerman, A.

1910 Zimmerman, A,

125

*

REFERENCES TO LITERATURE—continued.

The Vale of Orotava. London, 1903.

The Prickly Pear Pest. South African Agric. Journal, 7, 1914, pp. 387-391.

Abstract in Review of Applied Entomology, Ser. A. Agricultural, 2
(7) July, 1914, p. 440.

Dictionary of Economic Products of India, vol. 2, 1889.
Dictionary of Economic Products of India, vol. 5, 1891.

Commercial Products of India, 1908.

Phytographia Canariensis: Histoire Naturelle des Iles Canarias, tome m1,
pt. 3, Paris, 1840.
Bois. Dict. d’Hort., 1893-1899.

Etudes sur les Opuntias. Bull. se la Société Nat. d’ Acclimatation, 1902.
Blatt-und Sprossbildung bei Euphorbien und Cacteen. Basle., 1888.

Report of the Officer in Charge of the Prickly Pear Experimental Station,
Dulacca. Appendix 4 Ann. Rep. Dept. Public Lands, Qld., for the
year 1912 (1918).

Report of the Officer in Charge of the Prickly Pear Experimental Station,

Dulacca. Appendix 4 Ann. Rep. Dept. Public Lands, Qld., for the
year 1913 (1914).

Illustrations of Indian Botany u, pt. 114, 1850.

Some Fungous Diseases of the Prickly Pear, Opuntia lindheimeri, Engel.
Annales Mycol. 10, 1912, pp. 113-134,

Notes on the Anatomy of Opuntia lindheimeri. Plant World, 15, 1912,
pp. 294-299.

See Heald, 1912.

Cacti in New Mexico. Bull. 78, Agr. Exp. Sta., New Mexico, 1911.

Report of work at Amani, A.D., W. Africa. Der Pflanzer, Jahr. viu, 1,
p. 231, 1911. .
Die Opuntien als Nahrungsmittel fir Menschen und Tiere. Der Pflanzer,

Jahr. vi, No. 4, pp. 51-64; No. 5, pp. 72-77; Nos. 6-7, pp. 81-84. Tanga,
1910.

 

* References marked thus have not been consulted.

 
126

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES.

(1.) FEEDING CATTLE WITH PRICKLY-PEAR UNDER TEST
CONDITIONS AT KIRKEE, POONAH, BRITISH INDIA.

In the Report (vid. p. 24) reference is made to experiments being prosecuted
to which the above description applies. The account of these investigations
has now been made public in a joint contribution to The Agricultural Journal
of India (Vol. IX. Pt. 2, Ap. 1914, pp. 190-196), bearing the title ‘‘ The Feeding
of Prickly-pear,”’ by Messrs. E,W. Horn and 8. G. Mutkekar, the latter being
Agricultural overseer at Ahmednagar. It is just to hand, and the following is a
summary of it :—

These feeding experiments conducted at the Government Civil Dairy,
Kirkee, by its Manager, E. W. Horn, were commenced in January, 1913, and
had been continued for six months when the report referred to was made.

In the first experiment whose object ‘‘ was to place beyond doubt the
possibilities of cactus as an emergency ration in times of scarcity, to decide
the best method of preparing and feeding it, and the cost of preparation,” six
bullocks were used. These had been purchased in the famine-stricken district
of Ahmednagar for the purpose, and “‘ were in exceptionally poor condition
on arrival, with the exception of one bullock, which was in fair condition.”
This experiment ‘“ clearly demonstrated that the prickly-pear, if properly pre-
pared and mixed with 6 per cent. of its weight of cotton seed, is not only enough
to support life, but will enable an animal to regain condition even after it has
become very poor from semi-starvation, and that the cultivators could save
their cattle in times of famine by feeding the above, the cost of preparation
being very low.”

At the beginning of the experiment there was a loss of weight varying
from 2 pounds to 60 pounds (a very emaciated animal that only commenced
to eat pear at all readily towards the end of the experiment): this, however,
was very soon overcome, and a steady gain in weight was made, until a maximum
was reached, after which the weight was practically constant, the greatest
gain being 70 pounds. The average quantity of pear consumed was 32 pounds
per head per day, varying according as the pear contained more or less moisture.
This average works out to 72 pounds per 1,000 pounds live weight. The
rations as compared with Haeker’s standard (.7 lb. protein, 7 lb. carbohydrates,
and 1 lb. fat), showing a deficiency of .58 lb. of carbohydrates after the surplus
fat and protein had been converted to this nutrient. The pear used was Opuntia
elatior,* a far more spiny species than the Queensland pest pear, and this, after
being singed to remove the “ prickles,” was passed through a Smalley chaff-
cutter.

In the second experiment the object was to find out if the succulence
- of the prickly-pear was of any value for increasing the milk yield when no
other green fodder was available. In this case 19 cows in milk were utilised.
Pear up to 14 lb. per head per day was used, mixed with the ordinary
food, which was proportionately decreased in quantity. The report with refer-
ence to this states: “for various reasons we were obliged to discontinue this
part of the experiment without getting any decided results. This will be tried
later on.”

 

* One of the Commissioners (H. T.) concludes that the Indian Opuntia named in Section II, (India),
O. nigricans is O. elatior, Miller, and thus follows Mr. I. H. Burkill, who has both ably and fully discussed the
question (1911—p. 316-317), and would add that not only does it agree with Miller’s description of O. elatior
(1768, No. 4), but it also accords with Dillen’s figure (Hortus Eithamensis, tab. 194), which Miller cites as
representing the type, and with Dillen’s description of this as having “‘ flowers passing from yellow (flavus). to
purple.” ;
127

Tn the third experiment the dry cattle and young stock of the dairy at
Marjri were used. Thesg were fed with pear and a mixture of cotton-seed hulls,
cotton seed (1 lb.) and molasses (1 Ib.). ‘“ The animals had fallen off condition,
owing to the grazing having become scanty, but when put on the feed above-
named they rapidly regained their former condition. They exhibited no signs
of abnormal looseness of the bowels at any time, neither did they require any
coaxing to eat the mixture, even on the first day. The bullocks did not take
any water worth mentioning, except when salt was added to the pear, but
with the addition of 2 oz. of salt they drank a normal quantity.”

The fourth experiment partook of the nature of a demonstration, and
was made at Ahmednagar whilst famine conditions obtained ; eleven bullocks
were used, which, when taken in hand, were in poor condition. “The consumption
of pear per 1,000 pounds live weight averaged 58 lb., but, in addition to this,
10 lb. of hay per 1,000 pounds of live weight were fed and cotton seed was
added to the ration as at Kirkee.” ‘‘ The animals were given light continuous
work such as harrowing, sowing, and bringing the prickly-pear. They remained
practically in the same condition throughout the demonstration.”

During the course of the demonstration the native graziers had over-
come their prejudice to the use of prickly-pear in stock feeding, so that the camp
at Ahmednagar that had commenced with these eleven bullocks increased by
additional animals being brought in to a total of 800.

Similar demonstrations with like results were made at Lakh and at Miri,
and “‘ when the camps were closed owing to improvement in local conditions, a
number of cultivators at Lakh borrowed the stoves (one of several types of primus
stoves that had been deemed most suitable) and continued to feed the pear to
their cattle at their own expense.”

(2.) INTRODUCTION OF PRICKLY-PEAR TO AUSTRALIA.

With regard to the part alleged to have been taken by Captain A.
Phillip, in introducing in 1788 the prickly-pear into Australia (vid. p. 112),
it may be of interest to cite the testimony of one who saw living plants of
Opuntia in his possession during the course of his memorable voyage hither.

On Phillip calling in at the Cape of Good Hope, Captain John Cox, who
is referred to in this statement, went aboard his vessel and was shown
not only the plants, but also the cochineal insects that were being conveyed
to the new settlement that was to be formed at Botany Bay. “The insect, he
wrote, was fixed on the plant under a very white down, and Commodore Phillip,
who brought both from South America with him, did not wish that either
should be in the least disturbed.”

Previous to this incident, Cox had visited Madras, and whilst there had seen
Opuntia monacantha, Haworth (Roxburgh’s Cactus indicus) that Dr. J. Anderson
had been growing there, with a view also to the cultivation of the cochineal
insect, and ‘instituting a comparison between Captain Phillip’s Opuntia and the
latter, and relying on his memory, Captain Cox wrote, on 27th November, 1787,
to Dr. Anderson regarding the former, that “ the prickly-pear appeared to me
to have more thorns and to be not nearly so luxuriant,” and again on 29th
November, 1787: ‘‘ Having had an opportunity of inspecting both the cochineal,
as well as the prickly-pear on which it is cultivated,” I find that: “‘They
resemble both as nearly as possible that I have seen in your garden, except
that the prickly-pear appeared to me to have many more thorns.” [Anderson
(J.) Letters to Sir Joseph Banks, Madras, 1788. Appendix. ]

L
128

Thus Captain Phillip was taking with him on his voyage to Australia a
plant of South American origin, that possessed thorns, and that supported a
growth of Wild Cochineal. That the latter was not the precious cochineal
insect may be inferred from Dr. De Simcen’s testimony of the quality of Brazilian
cochineal quoted by Dr. Anderson in a previous letter also to Sir J. Banks
(Anderson, J., Letters, 1789, p. 12.)

(3.) ANATOMICAL STRUCTURE OF PRICKLY-PEAR.

As the destruction of prickly-pear by its utilisation may involve con-
siderations relating to its anatomical features, it may be pointed out these have
not been overlooked by botanical investigators. The best summary of their
work is perhaps that contained in Dr. Hans Solereder’s comparatively recent
memoir On the Systematic Anatomy of the Dicotyledons. Of this, the English
translation, edited by Messrs. L. A. Boodle, F. E. Fritsch, and D. H. Scott,
and issued in 1908, devotes nearly ten pages (pp. 406-415) to the consideration
of the subject. Solereder summarises what has been recorded regarding the
stomata, cuticle, epidermis, hypodermis (collenchyma), woody-tissue and its
components, thorns, excretory and secretory structures (mucilage cells and
canals, crystal cells (oxalate of lime), lactiferous vessels, idioblasts, &c., citing
many authorities often with regard to each. Several of these, together with the
particular feature in the plant’s anatomy that has engaged attention, are more
fully mentioned in the references to Bibliography, with which this report con-
cludes. Of the principal writers thus referred to may be mentioned J. Schleiden
(1839), Gasparini (1842), Arloing (1877), De Bary (1877), Longo (1879); H.
Caspari (1883) ; Lauterbach (1889) ; and H. Vochting (1894).

With regard to the oxalate of lime that is so conspicuous a feature in the
group plants under consideration, W. Pfeffer has stated in his “‘ Physiologie”
that “‘in some Cactacez even 80 per cent. of the dry weight ” consists of this
substance (vid. Edition Ewart, vol. I., p. 486, 1900) and Solereder also remarks
that oxalate of lime is sometimes excreted in enormous quantities in this order,
and quotes Schleiden to the effect that ‘as much as 85 per cent. of the weight
of the ash of the entire plant (in Cephalocereus senilis), is composed of it (Op. cit.,

p. 413). In this connection, reference also may be made to Tryon (1911, p. 7)
and Shirley and Lambert (1914, p. 42).

(4.) ADDITIONAL NOTES ON WILD COCHINEAL.
A. QUEENSLAND PEst PEAR AND WILD COCHINEAL.

Our inquiries have led us to conclude that, whereas the several kinds
of Wild Cochineal Insect (Grana sylvestre) attach themselves to different
kinds of prickly-pears, and sometimes with fatal results to their plant-hosts,
there is with regard to some a decided exclusiveness in their dietary. This
especially seems to obtain with Coccus indicus, Green, that is alike so injurious
in India, South Africa, and Queensland to Opuntia monacantha. Again,

there is the association of Nopalea cochinelifera, Linn., and Coccus confusus
newsteadt in the West Indies.

With regard to our particular quest—the discovery of a Wild Cochineal
insect or insects inimical to the growth of, or even feeding upon, our commoner
Queensland pest pears, Opuntia inermis, DC., and the denizen of the Burnett
River Valley that Mr. J. H. Maiden has referred (we deem erroneously) to O.

Dillenti, Haw., it may be added that we met with no satisfactory evidence
pointing to their existence.
129

As regards Opuntia Dillenii the late Sir William Hooker j
Flora of British India, IIT., p. 657-8) has stated that it was ne kind oe
upon which cochineal formerly brought from America multiplied abundantly ;
but this was an error into which he had fallen through identifying the species
named with Roxburgh’s Cactus indicus as Wight had done forty-five years earlier.

In the matter of our more prevalent pest pear (O. inermis, DC.), however
there are grounds for concluding that a wild cochineal insect may still exist in the
os Black Republic ” of the West Indies, although we failed to discover it on
visiting Barahona, near where it unites with San Domingo ; also, that it may
attack not only it but also O. Dillenii, Haw.

We have it on record that de Menonville, on his return to Port au Prince,
Hayti, in 1777, from Guaxaca, Mexico, brought with him not only the Grana
fina (Coccus cacti) or the precious cochineal insect, but also a wild cochineal
insect or Grana sylvestre ; also that whereas the former insect shortly after
this died out, the latter persisted and multiplied, and did so to such an extent,
that shortly after this enterprising man had died (Ob. 1780), a large amount of
this Sylvestre was sent from Hayti to France, especially during the years
1787-88 (Anon : Culture of the Cochineal, Trans. Agr. and Hort. Soc., India,
VI., 1839. Appendix, p. 17).

Moreover, de Menonville stated that at the time when this importation
was made a wild cochineal insect, or Sylvestre, already occurred on Cactus at
Hayti, and this he also pronounced to be the same as that which he had brought
with him.

Some years subsequent to this the French Marine in Paris—the official
body that had exploited this Hayti cochineal business—decided to introduce
the Wild Cochineal to the West African French possession, Senegal.

This introduction was accomplished in 1825, and Mons. Perottet, the
Agricultural Botanist of the French Government, who has incidentally men-
tioned this in a pamphlet detailing methods for freeing the Sylvestre Cochineal
from its downy covering (Annales Maritimes—March, April, 1834, Paris), adds
that the insects, derived from the French Antilles (¢.e., Hayti), were attached
to species of Cactus inermis, DC. Perrotet also mentions that it greatly prefers
this kind, which he names the “Spanish Raquette”’ ; but that it also lives on a
second prickly-pear species which he refers to as the ‘‘ Thorny Raquette” (the
Indian Fig of San Domingo), or the Opuntia tuna of botanists.

Indeed, after its transference to Senegal it had “ increased so much that
the branches (of Opuntia inermis) became quite white at the end of a few months,
and bent by degrees under the weight of their numerous parasites.” With
regard ‘to the living insect itself he states that it is covered with a thick, ex-
tremely tenacious down.

With regard to the identification of its host-plants, Perottet would no
doubt defer in this matter to his compatriot and contemporary, P. De Candolle.
The one to which it was less partial was doubtless Opentia Dillenii, Haworth,
which de Menonville (1787) thus refers to :—‘‘ Le tuna de Dillenius : c'est celle
que les colons de Saint Dominique appele ‘raquette de bords du mer. :

That the other is De Candolle’s Opuntia inermis, and our pest species,
will also appear from Perottet’s description of it. After mentioning that the
“long hard and pointed thorns which, covering Opuntia iuna, do not admit of
touching it without cruelly injuring the hand,” he adds :_ this latter is entirely
devoid of these organs, but is provided with sharp silky bristles (glochidia)
united in numerous clusters, which are excessively troublesome because they
insinuate themselves into the skin with great ease ” (Transl.).
130

This information is embodied in a now obscure publication that has
apparently been overlooked since Perottet’s time. When the Commission was
in parts whence it might have visited Senegal it was not at its disposal, and the
exigencies of travelling did not admit of explorations in the disturbed republic
of Hayti later on.

B. Witp Cocuingeat Insects (Grana_ sylvesire).

The following facts will serve to indicate the many years that the prickly-
pear-loving insects designated ‘“ Wild Cochineal ” or Grana sylvestre, the Coccus
of Ratzeburg, have been known and their habits observed :—

1. West Indian Wild Cochineal (Dactylopius tomentosus Newsteadt,
CkIL.).—Writing with regard to Jamiaca in 1707-1725, Sir Hans Sloane men-
tioned, in describing the Opuntia that we now know as Nopalea cochinelifera
(Linn.), its harbouring a cochineal insect, whence the technical name assigned to
it by Linné in 1736, by which it is distinguished. Sloane does not state that it
occurred there on any other species. It has persisted in Jamaica, as the Com-
mission found, and as is mentioned already by it, is still confined there to its
original host-plant. The latter remark applies, too, to its occurrence in Antigua,
where we found it on the Nopalea referred to but never on any plants of two
different kinds of prickly-pear growing close at hand. From Jamaica the
insect had often been sent to Europe prior to 1818, and its habits observed there
(Humboldt, A.—1818, p. 424).

2. Mexican Wild Cochineal Insect, Melichior de Ruusscher (1729, passim),
writing in 1729 and quoting many authentic Mexican documents dating 1725,
describes the Grana sylvestre as occuring in several parts adjacent to Oaxaca on
Wild Opuntias, but also attacking those on which the Precious Cochineal Insect
(Grana fina) fed, the Opuntia cochinelifer of Miller (probably O. decumana,
Haw.). And, moreover, we find de Menonville stating that in 1777 it was
prevalent at Guaxaca, and that he transferred it therefrom to Port au Prince
(Hayti). Moreover, G. A. Prinsep took it to England from Vera Cruz, Mexico,
established it too at Chelsea, and thence “‘ brought a supply to Bombay in 1821.
A second followed next year, both of which arrived in a living state.” It occurs
in these parts of Mexico mentioned to this day, and both de Ruusscher’s corres-
pondents, and the French naturalist, de Menonville, early made it an object of
special study.

San Domingo Wild Cochineal.—When de Menonville returned to Port au
Prince (Hayti) in 1777, he found a Grana sylvestre there, which apparently was
one that there are grounds for concluding attacked the Opuntia inermis (the
Queensland pest pear), as well as to a less degree Opuntia Dillenit. This appar-
ently was the insect afterwards conveyed to Senegal (vid. supra).

Brazilian Wild Cochineal.—G. A. Prinsep, writing in 1839, stated that a
wild cochineal insect probably existed in more than ordinary perfection in Brazil,
and that he made trial about the year 1787 of some sent thence by way of
Lisbon to England (Prinsep, 1839, p. 26). Also that Captain Neilson conveyed
Wild Cochineal therefrom to India in 1795 (Tryon, 1910).

Western S. American Wild Cochineal_—Alexander A. Humboldt, writing
descriptive of his travels in 1799, stated that in addition to his observations
at Oaxaca (Mexico) he had occasion to observe the Cochenilla silvestre in the
kingdoms of New Granada, Quito, and Peru (Humboldt, A., 1818, p. 424).
131

United States Wild Cochineal Insect.—John Ellis, in 1757, ascertained
from Dr. Alexander Gorden, of Charles Town, South Carolina (U.S.A.), the
fact of a Wild Cochineal Insect occuring there on Cactus opuniia (? Op. nana),
and combined his own description of it and that of the latter in a comprehensive
account of the insect and its habits, describing both male and female individuals.
(Vid. Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society, London, Vol. 52).

Indian and South African Wild Cochineal.—In addition to these, there
are also the Coccus capensis, Green, of South Africa, and C. indicus, Green, of
India and Ceylon, the former introduced about 1832, and the latter in 1795 and
on subsequent occasions. These need not be dwelt on, except to mention that
they and their specific relations to particular kinds of Opuntia have been observed
from time to time since, for they have persistently existed in these countries.

It is obvious to remark that it is not to be inferred that the Cochineal
Insects mentioned under these several different countries are in all cases distinct.

\

Price, 5s. 6d.)

 

By Authority: AnTuony James Cumminc, Government Printer, Brisbane.
CARRE Yty

Shyer
Ae

aT

ft
|
RHE Hi

SAHA et
AT

Mh
Hi a bs
wee iy ne

i

boy
Ath BONNE
if MUU
Hea wits
Nis a aa, ,
Wa TARE ald Pee)
A
Han iis
Het

ayhit
ik
may ned
eae mn
nt wi Atal
ei

Rt

et AiriTiin

HN
i)

RAI

p

att

ae
i Ooh
Ae

en
AE LG
PL tla

Tita
HAT
Aut

H
Dana t

NE
ey