FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGY.

Otago Witness, Issue 1916, 6 November 1890, Page 5

FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGY.

{There is a .beetle .which destroy a boots and shoes' to a very serious extent; and also attacks leather. It is commonly called the ?? pasta bfcetle," from a abnviction that it is the paste in tie shoes that attracts it, and' ori which it oßiefly feeds j! but its rayageß are not confined ,b r any meana to the paste, as it destroys'tnt .v ather and' strings as well. It is not, however, ,ntn tw 1 intended 'to' enter into the life history of the iQßeofc. Miss Oi'tlierod, the groat English eiorio'tpib entomologist 1 , has 'mentioned in > p ivate latter that her evidence was called n ion to settle questions connected with the habits of this insect whioh involved very heavy oAmmeroial interests;; A large firm in England .bkd befen' exporting heavy 'consignments I ' of s&oes, boota, ,and'9ther leather ware to different parts of the world, and in a number of ci sear "the" 'goods were- destroyed by these iiseots. The 1 would naturally i be, at what stage the ineeots aUaoked T the shoes, and' 1 whether they would be infected or damaged before lea ring the shippers' premises, Where they were under his care,' and 'he' might bb held' responsible for' tf heir condition, 1 or Whether, the attaok .began 'after they' wete shipped as ordered and the shipper could be no lc nger 'held responsible. A somewhat remarkable feature in this case is that, 1 whereas in Bftveral places the Bhoeß.werejJßatroyed, thong aAat to other places jesoaped. Th,e feooda having; bben manufactured in the same, way at the same time and plato, it was argued that the insect nJHat be native to those' colonies where the goods Were attacked;' and ' not 1 to those" where they escaped. This wa's also a point 'for expert evidence, and there was'SEo'ther, as to whether ahd BbW 1 the Beetles donld' have entered' the oases on the voyage from pother goods on the ship. The case, , the writer , believes, was settled out of court, chiefly owing to Miss Ormerod's opinion ; ■ but the result , has not reached him. The point that now 'seams' ,to ba of moßt importance is the general bearing of the question, and it is likely to be a serious one for some of our New Zealand nurserymen. If a London shoe manufacturer is to be held responsible for the loss of a shipment of goods if they can be proved to be affected with a destructive beetle when on hie premises, how will the law stand if ' a nurseryman oan ba proved to have sent out infeoted plants which have caused serious loss ? The case as it stands now in Auckland is a very serious one, and will probably open up some pretty Btiff arguments in ouriaw courts by and bye — when the pending inevitable heavy losses come on from phylloxera-infected vines having been Bold. The nurseryman in many respects stands ih a worse position than the shoe manufacturer. There is little or no excuse for any nurseryman not knowing phylloxera in the' present day when he sees it, and certainly none whatever for continuing for years to send out plants on which it would be very difficult not to see it. But even this does not represent the true state of the case in several instances. There is a gentleman in Auckland whose gardener is supposed to devote his time to his employer's service, bub he started what 'ha called a " private " nursery, from'wbicb, being unable to sell direot, he sold at 'lower rates to nurserymen, who retailed to their customers, and in this way vineß whioh were infected were spread through the country. The excuse is now, that neither the gentleman's gardener nor the nurserymen knew they were infected, and it is a" very poor one. Gardeners and nurserymen who deal in vines should know phylloxera when they have an infeoted root in their hands, under their very noses, and probably using the pruning knife on it But this is not the only question of law. If the owner of a valuable house of grapes orders new vinjs from a oertain nurseryman, he runs" of course a certain risk. Knowing perhaps that man's nurßery to be clean, or thinking so, he it willing to run the, risk, but in the nursery man justified in procuring the vines ordered from himself from another nursery) and thereby causing bis customer to run a further risk, which perhaps he would have declined ? Is ha justified in procuring vines ordered from him* aelf, end therefore presumably from hie nursery,

from aa infected nursery, and eefadihg them home without mentioning the fact, and should the man whose whole valuable vinea are ruined be expected to take for exouse, " I did not know," or *♦ I did not look to Bee ? " This responsibility of nurserymen is one of those questions that should be Bettled. Incalculable mischief is being done by sending infected plants in all directions, and the fruit trade will never prosper, nor insect and fungoid pests be tinder any contiol, until it is put a stop to. It is not the phylloxera alone that is spread in this way. The icerya purchaai is (in the female) a large and very conspicuous insect, pure white, and the size of ft very large pea (or larger). Any one could see it in a hedge driving paßt. It is perhaps the most destructive inseot, and the hardest to kill in the world, and has caused millions of pounds of damage in California, the Cape of Good Hope, and no small sum in Auckland, Nelson, Napier, and elsewhere. Every school boy knows it, and yet there are nurserymen who think nothing of Bending out Slants infected with it, under the impression lat they are not responsible, and do not care, but in all probability the question will now be tested on a large scale.