na fina) specifically different from the cotton or wild cochineal (grana silvestre), or is the latter the primitive stock of the former, which consequently would only be the produce of a degeneracy, originating in the care of man? This problem is as different to decide as the question, whether the domestic sheep descends from the ovis ammon, the dog from the wolf, and the ox from the aurochs. Whatever relates to the origin of species, to the hypothesis of a variety become constant, or a form which perpetuates itself, belongs to problems in zoonomy, on which it is wise to avoid pronouncing decisively.

The fine cochineal differs from the wild one. not only in size, but also in being mealy and covered with a white powder, while the wild one is enveloped in a thick cotton, which prevents its rings from being distinguished; but the metamorphoses of the two insects are the same. In those parts of South America where for ages the wild cochineal has been reared, it has never yet lost its down. It is true that in the nopaleries established by M. Thiery at St. Domingo, it was thought to be observed, that the insect under the care of man increased in size, and underwent a sensible change in the thickness of its cotton covering; but Mr. Latreille a learned entomologist, who is inclined to look upon the wild

cochineal, as a different species from the fine one, believes that this diminution of down is merely apparent, and that it must be attributed to the thickness of the body of the insect. The rings on the back of the female being more dilated, the hairs covering this part must appear less close and consequently clearer. I was informed by several persons who had long lived in the environs of the town of Oaxaca, that sometimes among the small coccus recently brought into the world, individuals are observed covered with very long hair. One might be tempted to consider this fact as a proof, that nature when she deviates from her primitive type, returns to it from time to time. In this way the seed of the fragaria monophylla of M. Duchêsne, constantly produces some common strawberries with parted leaves. But But we must not forget that the fine cochineal, on leaving the body of the mother is wrinkled in the back, and covered with twelve silks frequently very long, which disappear when it becomes adult. Those who have not attentively compared the offspring of the fine cochineal, with that of the wild cochineal, are naturally struck with the presence of these hairs. The fine cochineal appears powdery ten days after its birth, when it frees itself from its fringy dress of small silks, whereas the wild cochineal is

more and more covered as it gets older, its down thickens, and the insect resembles a small white flake, at the period which precedes the conjunction of the two sexes.

It is sometimes observed in the nopaleries of Oaxaca that the winged male of the fine cochineal couples with the female of the wild cochineal. This fact has been cited as an evident proof of the identity of the species; but we commonly see in Europe coccinelles couple together, essentially different in their form, shape, and colour. When two species of insects are in the same vicinity, we ought not to be astonished at their coupling together.

Are the fine cochineal and the plant on which it feeds, both to be found in a wild state in Mexico? M. Thiery thought himself warranted in answering this question in the negative. This naturalist appears to admit that the insect and the nopal of the plantations of Oaxaca, have been insensibly modified in their form by means of long culture. This supposition however appears to me equally gratuitous with that which would pronounce grain, maize, and the banana, to be degenerated plants, or, to take an example from the animal reign, the llama, which is not known in a wild state, to be a variety of the Peruvian sheep, (vicuna) of the Upper Andes. The coccus cacti has an infinite number of enemies among

the insects and birds. Wherever the cotton cochineal propagates of itself, it is not to be found in any abundance, from which we may easily conceive that the mealy cochineal must have been still more rare in its native country, because it is much more delicate, and not being covered with down, is more sensible to the cold and humidity of the air. In discussing the question, whether the fine cochineal would propagate without the care of man, the subdelegate of the province of Oaxaca, Ruiz de Montaya*, cites a very remarkable fact in his memoir, "that at seven leagues distance from the village of Nexapa, "there is a place, where, favoured by parti"cular circumstances, the most beautiful grana fina is to be found, on very high and very prickly wild nopals, without any pains having ever been bestowed in cleaning the

66

66

86

66

plants, or in renewing the offspring of the "cochineal." Besides we are not to be astonished that even in a country where this animal is indigenous, it should seldom be found in a wild state, from the time that it began to be in request among the inhabitants, and to be reared in nopaleries. It is probable that the Toultecs, before undertaking so troublesome a species of cultivation, collected the fine cochineal on the nopals,

* Gazeta de literatura de Mexico, 1794, p. 228.

which grew spontaneously on the sides of the mountains of Oaxaca. Gathering the females before laying, the species would soon be destroyed; and to obviate this progressive destruction, and prevent the mixture of the cotton and mealy cochineals on the same cactus, (the former depriving the latter of all nourishment,) nopaleries were established by the natives.

募

The plants on which the two species of cochineal are propagated, are essentially different; and this undoubted fact is one of those which indicate a primitive and specific difference between the grana fina, and the grana silvestre. Is it probable if the mealy cochineal was merely a variety of the cotton cochineal, that it would perish on the same cactus which serves for nourishment to the latter, and which botanists designate by the names of cactus opuntia, C. tuna, and C. ficus indica? M. Thiery in the work already frequently referred to by us*, asserts that in the plain of Cul-de Sac in Saint Domingo, the cottoncochineal does not live on the cactus, tuna, but on the C. pereskia, which he classes among the articulated Indian figs. I am afraid that this naturalist has confounded a variety of opuntia, with the true pereskia, which is a tree with large and thick leaves, and on which I never yet found any cochineal. I look upon

* P. 275-282,