The Grape Phylloxera
Oc
.( Its
O~
'"
E HUMANS, obsessed as we are with time, go from one anniversary
W
EDWARD
H. SMITH
to
another seeking to rclive events and to distill some truth from the dregs
of history. For 1992, the event is the five hundredth anniversary of
the miscalculated voyage of Christopher Columbus.
The Columbus Day celebration of 1992 (12 October) was vastly different from
that of even a hundred years ago. Then, our young republic was proclaiming with
unabashed pride the fruits of conquest. The primeval forest of the Northeast had
given way to cultivated fields, albeit of transient sustainability (Cronan 1983). The
western habitat previously dominated by grasses and the American bison had been
largely replaced by agriculture-grain
and cattle. The passenger pigeon that had
darkened the eastern skies with its flights was gone. Public attention was riveted on
expansion and progress. Agricultural progress paved the way for urbanization, and
an infrastructure
of railroads and canals assured the flow of goods and services
through the network. These were the achievements being celebrated. In 1992, the
mood is somber and questioning. What honor is due Columbus? What of the
environment and the role of the human species in nature? The next centennial may
recognize in this one a turning point, the time at which our interdependency
with
other living organisms was recognized and a call was made to stop the irreversible
annihilation of species. This is the challenge of E. O. Wilson's (1992) book The
Diversity of Life.
Opposite: The statuette awarded to
C. V. Riley by the wine-growers of
France (1892) in gratitude for his
work on phylloxera and mildew
contro/'
212
Within the larger drama of the Columbus Centennial are the minidramas in
each biological discipline. They proceed largely unheralded by the multimedia and
TV documentaries that shape public opinion. One of these, the grape phylloxera,
seems particularly revealing of the nature of biological systems, the time frame of
biological processes, and human folly in their management.
The visitor to ESA headquarters
is impressed by the singular beauty of a
statuette in the foyer. The bronze, 55 cm statue by Rousseau depicts the flower of
youthful French viticulturists, a man and woman, engrossed in the abundance of the
grape harvest. It is an artistic rendition of the spirit of hope and optimism that
permeated the French people as catastrophe was averted in the struggle with the
grape phylloxera. This essay traces the events leading to the presentation of this
work of art to C. V. Riley in 1892.
AMERICAN
ENTOMOLOGISr
Charles Valentine Riley (18431895) conducted pioneering studies
of the grape phylloxera in the
United States and placed his
knowledge at the disposal of his
French colleagues. (Courtesy
Smithsonian Institute Archives.)
214
The intense, driven, ambitious young Riley viewed
his role as Missouri State Entomologist in the broadest possible context. He was the entomological
guardian of the state of Missouri, the United States,
and beyond. The breadth of his vision had been
shaped by residence in England, France, and Germany as prerequisites to his apprenticeship on a
livestock farm in Kankakee, IlL, beginning at age
17. From there he went to The Prairie Farmer in
Chicago as entomological advocate for farm families of the region west of the Mississippi. Now 27
years old and Missouri State Entomologist, he
sounded an alert regarding the grape phylloxera.
"He who ... would patiently and persistently devote his time for a few years to its study, and with
candor and accuracy give to the world the results;
will doubtless be rewarded by new and important
discoveries and will render valuable service to the
cause of science and economic entomology" (Riley
1870,84). This declaration was inspired by reports
that the grape phylloxera had become established in
the grape growing region of France and posed a
threat to the nation's wine industry. Although the
species was native to North America, little was
known of it, however, it was not believed to be of
economic importance in its native habitat. Riley's
sensitivity to the problem in France arose from
several considerations. The problem would thrust
economic entomology into the spotlight of international events, and the solution would require the
kind of biological sleuthing he so enjoyed. Lastly, it
provided an opportunity for him to come to the aid
of the French people and thereby repay his debt of
gratitude to them. It was in Dieppe, France, as a
schoolboy of eleven that he discovered his scholarly
predilections, mastered the French language, and
came to appreciate their culture.
The phylloxera saga started from that well-known
point of departure, confusion in identity. The ambiguity was helped along by the big names of American entomology. It was Riley's old friend Asa Fitch
of New York, the nation's first state entomologist,
who described the species in 1856 (Fitch 1856). The
matter lay dormant for a decade. In 1866, Henry
Shimer and B. D. Walsh both published on it (Shimer 1866, Walsh 1866). Shimer,
of Mt. Carrol, Ill., was one of that hardy breed, MDs who practiced medicine for
a livelihood and entomology between house calls. He and Walsh disagreed. Walsh
contended that the insect was a scale insect (Coccidae), while Shimer held that it was
a plant louse (Aphidae). Shimer won this point but went on to establish a new family
and genera to receive it, although a valid one already existed. The stage was set for
Riley. He delighted in waiting for the dramatic moment and then bringing order out
of chaos. With journalistic flurry he offered rebuttal to the errors of Fitch, Walsh,
and Shimer (Riley 1870, 95).
Having resolved the confusion on this side of the Atlantic, he turned his attention
to the situation in Europe where entomologists had been creating their own
confusion. Curiously, the phylloxera appeared in both England and France in 1863.
In retrospect, the surprise is that it had not been introduced earlier, importation of
American grape stocks having begun as early as 1629. The species appeared near
London and came to the attention of the entomologist J. O. Westwood of Oxford
AMERICAN ENTOMOLOGIST
University. Although this occurred in 1863, he
considered it merely an entomological curiosity and
delayed publishing a description until 1868. Meanwhile, across the channel, Professor J. E. Planchon
of the School of Agriculture, Montpellier, France,
named the species Phylloxera vastatrix. (The specific name meaning "destroyer.") Atthis point, the
species had four names, which led towranglingover
priority and validity (Riley 1873, 30). That pastime
has continued to the present time through over
thirty name combinations and synonyms (Russell
1974). The species has the official name Daktulosphaira vitifoliae Fitch (Stoetzel 1989), -not
universally used, to be sure. Such is the course of
insect taxonomy.
r
To the Aid of the French
In 1871, Riley visited France at the invitation of
French authorities. He was received with great
enthusiasm as the most knowledgeable person on
the phylloxera and as one sympathetic to the French
people in their crisis. The organizational structures
within the government and industry to deal with the
problem were just taking shape. Riley became acquainted with their leaders, and together they formulated plans for coordinating
work on both sides of the Atlantic. Among the personalities Riley met was
Planchon, mentioned earlier, who was to become a great ally in the effort. Riley
visited regularly for years thereafter to follow the progress of their joint effort.
Riley had an opportunity to witness the emerging threat posed by the phylloxera.
The feeding of the insects on the roots led to decline and death of the vines. The
spread was rapid, and at that time not even the major features of the pest's life cycle
were known. In addition to the blight of the vines was the blight of ignorance. Despite
Darwinism, the belief lingered that such plagues were God's punishment for sin.
The government offered a grand prize of 300,000 francs for a remedy, but with
no organized program of research the awards committee was faced with reviewing
measures that were the outgrowth of superstition and ignorance. It refused to award
the prize. In time, a program of systematic assessment was undertaken considering
chemical and biological control. Although some success was achieved with flooding
the roots with water and fumigating with carbon sulfide, the conclusion was
reached that flooding had many limitations in availability of water and problems
of dirccting it to the plants. Chcmical treatments were likened to "a sick man kept
alive by constant stuffing him with medicine" (Ordish 1972, 103). The solution was
believed to lie in biological and cultural controls.
Riley did not overlook biological control with parasites. In 1873, he sent a native
parasitc, Tyroglyphus phylloxera, to Planchon. It becamc cstablishcd but apparcntly had insignificant effect on the population dynamics of its host. In turn, Riley
arranged for thc introduction of a predaccous noctuid for control of thc black scalc
of olive in Southcrn California (Riley 1893). The Atlantic bridge was for two-way
traffic.
The phylloxera could not have struck France at a more inopportune time. The
fortunes of war and the misfortuncs of horticulture coincidcd. Louis Napoleon's
(Napolcon III) arrogance and miscalculations led to the Franco-Prussian War of
1870-1871, in which the total dead numbered 600,000. The Frcnch emerged with
thc indignity of loss of territory and an occupying army that would not bc
withdrawn until opprcssive rcparations were paid (Ordish 1972, 138). Winc was
the symbol of hope-first, as a sourcc of rcvcnue to pay reparations and, second,
as the measurc of national pride. Thc fortuncs of war werc bcttcr understood by
Winter 1992
Sketch of C. V. Riley working with
his French colleagues in studies of
the grape phylloxera. (Courtesy J. M.
Dent, London.)
215
Riley when advised by his colleague, M. V. Signoret, that, caught in the siege of
Paris, he was reduced to eating dog meat, but his culture of phylloxera was thriving
(Riley 1870, 86).
Riley seized upon the plight of the French to wave the flag for them and the field
of economic entomology:
The last German soldier has been removed-at terrible cost it is true-from French
soil, but the phylloxera army remains; and if another five milliard francs ... could
extricate the last individual of this Lilliputian insect from the soil "la bell France"
would be cheaply rid of the enemy. Had the world, twenty years ago, possessed the
knowledge we at present have of this insect and of its dangerous power, a few francs
might have originally stayed the invasion of that great vine-growing and wine-making
country. Need there be any more forcible illustration of the importance of economic
entomology? (Riley 1873, 65)
To appreciate the impact of the phylloxera, one needs to keep in mind that before
the phylloxera crisis almost six million acres were devoted to wine production,
providing livelihood for one-sixth of the French population
and representing a
quarter ofthe nation's agricultural income. When the phylloxera had run its course,
eighty percent of the French vineyards had been replaced. In the process, there were
sharp declines in both quantity and quality of wine. Desperate measures were taken
to produce wine from raisins and to import wine for domestic consumption. Sharp
decline in production began about 1877, with the worst years in the late 1880s, thus,
there was approximately a decade of heavy loss. It was generally accepted that the
loss to phylloxera was twice the loss by military reparations (Ordish 1972, 138).
No matter how economic loss was reckoned, it could not properly reflect the
impact of these events on the national spirit. First was the tragic loss of life. This was
followed by the indignity of occupation. The streets of Paris reverberated to the
cadence of German boots as the victors patrolled the streets. Then came the
phylloxera, which turned the available wine bitter and forced imports purchased
with scarce currency. The mettle of France was severely tested. This was the plight
of France that registered on the emotional Riley.
Home Work
216
Riley returned from France deeply committed, filled with ideas, and anxious to
put them to the test. In the effort that followed, Riley had little interaction with
fellow entomologists in the United States. There were able colleagues, but without
organized viticulturists clamoring for help and with no incentive to aid the French,
the phylloxera took a low priority. The chinch bug, the plum curculio, and the
armyworm took center stage for the several state entomologists.
The federal
program was frozen by the preoccupation
and ineptness of its only entomologist,
the ailing Townend Glover.
Riley was impressed that although the phylloxera commonly occurred on both
wild and cultivated grapes in the United States, he had never observed the death of
vines as was occurring in France. He reasoned, "The phylloxera has always existed
on our vines and those varieties which in the past have best withstood its attacks will
be very likely to do so in the future" (Riley 1871, 70). This observation was the clue.
Riley was well aware that despite the remarkable diversity of cultivated grapes
in Europe, they were derived from the single species Vitis vinifera. By contrast, the
native grapes of North America of horticultural
potential were represented by
numerous varieties, all of which had co-evolved with the grape phylloxera. Despite
this diversity, cultivated varieties were drawn chiefly from Vitis labrusca, there
being hundreds of named cultivars. Riley pointed out that the different response of
American and European vines to phylloxera was an example of Darwinian natural
selection, although few of his contemporaries
had yet come to accept such practical
implictations of the Darwinian hypothesis (Riley 1870, 95).
On theoretical grounds, Riley was convinced that the solution to the problem
was in plant resistance. He rejected chemical control, at least for American growers:
"I greatly fear that no direct remedy for such an underground enemy will ever be
AMERICAN
ENTOMOLOGIST
discovered that will not entail too much labor and
expense touse toany great extent" (Riley 1873,49).
Riley's immediate priorities were two-fold. First,
he wanted to solve the mystery of the species' life
cycle, the complexity of which had defied understanding. Second, he would determine the degrees
of susceptibility represented in the various species
of American grapes.
The biological studies proceeded on both sides
of the Atlantic with the related European oak
phylloxera, Phylloxera quercus, providing valuable leads. In the process, Riley received a singular
honor. His French colleague and specialist of
phylloxera taxonomy, J. Lichtenstein, named the
American oak phylloxera
Phylloxera riley. By
1874, Riley could report the mystery solved. The
phylloxera had one of the most complicated life
cycles of Class Insecta. Its occurrence in nineteen
forms accounted for root and leaf feeding forms,
winged and wingless forms, and parthenogenic
and sexual forms.
A partial picture is provided by Riley's drawing. Winged forms were disseminated by wind,
while wingless forms migrated over soil. All of
these forms were intricately responsive to environI'll'
lholu("OI.A:-4.
hU\\"1I11\':llllh)
l'CHti II, (HU' 1111 \\hkh
Iht' lh'c nl' \\l,rL..ill)l. "'lJrt 'Iltlu tilt
knot
t\ll<l '"" elllll"
('Ull
I hy flwlr IHIlU'lUt'\:. ; r U "")1 Ih,' hu 1"14."'11 ((.' ..••..·rtt .•l h, Ilu'lU,
ulul "ht't'\
mental cues and physiological conditions of the
lh~ rootlet
h 't.' CHIUUh.'1U't'.IIO ,h'l'IW: d. d, d, l 10\\ Illl" thl' 11.••.·"1
fuulIll 1I11tht, 1.1t')n'r ••noll'; fl,
n.·In\.l1 j)UIY, Illln-ot
,'it"" ; /t Illt.', -\tllllr.11 \ h'\\ ; '1. \\"IUJ.(t'tt t.'l\l tit·, I(Hr-.1 \ It'" i lit
nw,' ('nlral
host plant, remarkable adaptations for survival.
vlt.·w; 1 In umlllt'41 nnh'nn:i or" )ullt"!l ill...•
·'·1 t j, ,..I.lt, \ Il'" ur lilt' "tll~1
ft·IU',iJt·,
lu\ lUIf t'.:JC ,~n
n..oL; k, how hI)" lll\" 1"llll't1l1~" or lht' Ih'l' t' HL•.t'lllt'lu
'r ruult4 In 1'\.1,
'
No wonder the pest had been mistaken for two
species and its mode of dispersal to new areas was
a mystery (Riley 1874, 90).
One of C. V. Riley's many original
Regarding the species of grapes, Riley had intensively studied the native and
sketches depicting the complexities
cultivated varieties of grapes in the vicinity of St. Louis. While he observed different
of the life cycle of the grape phyllevels of resistance in both, he lacked the botanical knowledge to establish the
loxera with its nineteen stages.
relationship between plant species and resistance. For this input he turned to George
(From 6th Missouri Report, State
Englemann, M.D., a well-known personality in St. Louis scientific circles. After
Entomologist, 1873.)
becoming wealthy delivering babies for the prosperous
families of the city,
Englemann turned to his first love, botany. He had been a classmate of Louis
Agassiz's in Germany before emigrating to the United States. In the United States,
he became a colleague of the nation's best-known botanist, Asa Gray at Harvard,
a principal antagonist of Agassiz in the Darwinian debate. Although the brash
young Riley had challenged the elder Englemann's anti-Darwinian
stand in debates
before the St. Louis Academy of Sciences, they could lay aside the controversy to
consider problems of mutual interest such as phylloxera resistance and insect
pollination of the Yucca plant (Riley 1871, 60).
Englemann identified nine species of Vitis represented among the varieties of
horticultural
interest. The taxonomic status of Vitis has undergone significant
change over the years with eighteen species now recognized for North America
(Winkler et al. 1974).
With the taxonomy of grape varieties clarified, Riley organized an extensive
program of field trials with growers and a few professional horticulturists.
These
studies, extending beyond Missouri, revealed that no species was "exempt" from
attack, but there was a wide range of resistance that could be quantified by a
numeric scale. This system came into common use and with many modifications has
continued to the present. A system was thus in place to match resistant roostocks
to desired varieties. Riley was confident that the growers would readily adopt the
system because of the well-established practice of grafting the cultivated pear to
quince roots.
In Riley's years with the Prairie Farmer, he became philosopher, man of letters,
and entomologist to his agricultural clientele. He continued in this mode as State
1
Winter 1992
0..
217
Entomologist.
His literary style and rapport with growers is well illustrated
speculation on using the susceptible variety Clinton as a trap variety.
in
they [the growers] feared that by taking away the Clinton, the lice which now prefer
this variety and flourish and multiply upon it, would be forced to attack other varieties.
They looked upon Clinton, as a protector to the better kinds, by drawing the lice away
from them, arguing, to parody the words of Shakespeare, that
"Tis better far, to bear those ills we have
than fly to those we know not of. "
Now while I admire the cautious argument, I cannot believe there is any logic in
it. The argument presupposes that the louse as a species can suddenly change its
habits and tastes when forced to do so; but to my mind, a new habit is not generally
acquired in a species by the simultaneous change of all the individuals composing
it, but by some aberrant indi vidual first taking on a new habit, and transmitting that
habit to its descendants until a new race is in time produced. (Riley 1870, 91).
This writing was vintage Riley. In a few lines, he touched upon the logic of
growers, invoked Shakespeare, discussed trap varieties, and shared his speculation
on the occurrence of biological races. His views on "new races" accorded with
Darwin's theory of natural selection although, he suspected behavioral change as
the aberration rather than biochemical change in accord with the current view.
Readers seem to have been more impressed with Riley's parody of Shakespeare than
his message. The parody has been termed a misquotation but, with its being labeled
"parody", this seems hardly justified (Shakespeare wrote: "And makes us rather
bear those ills we have than fly to others that we know not of?" [Hamlet III, i, 56]).
Roots from the New World
With evidence at hand that the resistant plan was practical, Riley again turned
his attention to Europe. "If America has given this plague to Europe, why should
she not in return, furnish her with vines which are capable of resisting?" (Riley
1871,62). Toenhancethis effort he invited Planchon to visit the United States, study
the plant diversity, and develop plans for introducing resistant rootstocks. Accordingly, Planchon toured the grape plantings of the eastern seaboard in the late
summer of 1873.
Like his countryman Alexis de Tocqueville, who visited these shores earlier,
Planchon was a keen observer ofthe social scene. He deplored the monotony of our
urban housing, but he reveled in the rugged landscape and the spirit to match. He
took note of the course of the Baltimore and Ohio train which "with American
audacity ... wound around dangerous slopes and pierced all obstacles." It was the
cuisine that was "the very weak side of American life to a Frenchman, especially the
ice water which does not replace wine to advantage."
The feature that impressed
him most was the social and intellectual atmosphere of Boston and Cambridge
where "a traveler, ... a bird of passage ... might see America at its finest." He was
particularly impressed with Louis Agassiz and his spread of laboratories
and
museums at Harvard (Morrow 1960). The new world had surpassed the old.
Planchon, being the gracious Frenchman that he was, praised our fledgling grape
industry and its promise for Europe as well as America. Of course, the prevailing
European view was contempt for American wines made from varieties such as
Concord and Catawba with their "foxy" flavor deemed unsuited for table wine.
This view failed to dampen the popularity of American grapes as expressed by the
poet Longfellow's tribute to Catawba wine:
"There grows no vine
By the haunted Rhine
By Danube or Guadalquivir,
Nor on Isle or Cape
That bears such a grape
As grows by the Beautiful River*" (Ordish
(*meaning of the Indian word "Catawba")
218
1972,24)
AMERICAN EmOMOLOGIST
Although Planchon's visit is best remembered for his engaging reminiscences, he
and Riley studied species diversity and phylloxera resistance and laid plans for
introductions. Planchon returned to the acclaim of his countrymen and assumed the
leadership of the cooperative effort with Riley.
Their early introductions were disappointing. While the plants did not succumb
to phylloxera, they grew poorly because they were not adapted to the chalky,
alkaline soils of France as contrasted to the acid soil of the United States. The
addition of soil scientists to the team and much painstaking research succeeded in
combining insect resistance and horticultural
adaptability.
The success of these
studies in France would in time acrew to the benefit of American viticulturists.
With these advances, the task of "reconstituting"
the French vineyards could be
addressed. This required a vast new infrastructure
to obtain American cuttings,
induce them to produce roots, transport, graft, and finally set them in the vineyards.
The scale of the operation is revealed by a count of vines. In 1880, the grapevines
of France numbered 11,045 million. The cuttings to replace them would require
tons of carefully selected canes. The individuals in the business of meeting this
demand became known as "wood merchants." Riley took note of the lucrative
opportunities this new business posed for him, but he scrupulously declined them
as a conflict of interest.
Despite the magnitude of the reconstituting program, the viticulturists of France
forged ahead with dogged determination.
By the early 1890s, there was good
evidence that reconstituting
was well along and victory was at hand. The mood
changed to one of jubilation. A monument was erected to Planchon in 1894 in the
small railway park in the heart of Montpellier
six years after his death. The
monument depicts a plain working vineyardist presenting to Planchon a luxurious
bunch of grapes. To this simple scene was added the brief inscription, "The
American vine made the French vine live again and triumphed over phylloxera"
(Morrow 1960, 76) Riley had been awarded the grand gold medal and made a
1
Chevalier of the Legion of Honor in 1873. Now the viticulturists of France
expressed their appreciation to him with the statuette depicting the abundance of
the harvest and the vitality of a new generation of viticulturists.2 It is this piece that
stands as a symbol in ESA headquarters.
In matters both social and agricultural, California has often gone its separate
way. Its viticulture is an example. The phylloxera was not native to the region west
of the Rocky Mountains, so California growers initially enjoyed freedom from the
pest. This advantage ended in the late 1850s by the phylloxera's
introduction,
whether from Europe or the eastern United States is not known. (Riley was unaware
of the phylloxera's
presence in California in 1871 and urged their agricultural
leaders to enact legislation to guard against its introduction from the east [Riley
1871, 56J.)More recent speculation holds thatthe phylloxera may have been native
to the valleys east of Sierra, Nevada. Another possibility is that phylloxera occurring
in Mexico were introduced with early rootstock importations.
Another difference between the California and eastern viticulture was their
varieties. While the eastern varieties were native, the California varieties came by
way of Mexico, brought by padres of the Roman Catholic Church as early as 1524.
These stocks in turn were from Europe, therefore, Vitis vinifera with high susceptibility to phylloxera.
The complexity of insect pest problems is invariably accentuated by human
behavior. Like the French viticulturists before them, the California growers were
reluctant to admit their problem. It was not until 1905 that systematic trials of
rootstocks were undertaken. These, in time, provided a basis for selecting resistant
The California
••••••••••••••
Way
The medal was presented to the Entomological Society of Washington by C. V. Riley's
yrandaughter, Emilie Wenhan-Smith Brash, on the occasion of its Centennial in 1984.
The statuette was presented to the Entomological Society of America in 1962 by Riley's
daughters, Thora and Cathyrn (1963. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 9: 183).
I
Winter 1992
219
rootstocks after the pattern of European viticulturists. Selection of rootstocks was
for both phylloxera
resistance and environmental
adaptability.
A disturbing
development occurred in 1914 when a biotype was reported in Europe and the
phenomenon
was later confirmed from several geographic locations but these
proved to be of little practical consequence (Granet 1985). Biotypes arc races of a
species that arc characterized
by biological adaptations
that confer different
responses to environmental conditions, including interaction with the host plant as
in the case of the grape phylloxera. Despite the alert that biotypes might circumvent
resistance, the principal of grafting to resistant rootstocks was employed on a
worldwide basis resulting in effective control for more than one hundred years.
A development which occurred in Europe about the time of World War I revealed
the nature of the problem. It involved AXR #1 which had become a standard
rootstock, one selected by the French in 1905 from crosses with American stock. Its
resistance to phylJoxera declined and it was discarded in favor of other stocks.
Despite this knowledge, the Californians adopted AXR #1 in the late 1950s because
of its adaptibility to their region. The tradeoff of questionable phylloxera resistance
for other advantages was a calculated risk which the Californians were willing to
take. Their Pacific isolation has been a powerful influence in their reaction to
problems, biological and social.
About 1979, AXR #1 fell prey to a new biotype, B., which is now spreading in
plantings of the famed Napa and Sonoma counties. The problem is fueled by
considerations
of economics, biology, and of course, the mystique of the wine
industry. The immediate problem is one of economics. The cost of replacing existing
rootstocks is one-half to one billion dollars for the 50,000 acres in these two
counties (Anonymous 1992). Should growers clear the vineyards and start over or
interplant in a program of gradual replacement?
The ability of biotype B tocircumvent resistance ofAXR #1 is very specific, other
resistant stocks still being effective. For the immediate problem, resistant varieties
hold the key. The longer run is a different story. The occurrence of biotypes accords
with the Darwinian principle of variability as a feature of germplasm. Variability
in turn, is grist for the mill of natural selection. So despite the alternatives currently
at hand, the threat of biotypes hangs like the sword of Damocles over the grape
industry, not only of California but of the grape regions of the world.
Riley would not have been surprised at this turn of events, having forecast its
likelihood. One can imagine his reaction. Looking the part of an Italian artist as L.
O. Howard described him, with a wry smile and with Victorian flair offering a toast,
"Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow may bring biotypes 'X,' 'Y,' and 'Z.'''
Reflections
220
Reflections are what centennials arc about. The 1992 phylloxera outbreak in
California coincides with the centennial of Riley's award, the statuette at ESA. We
see these events in two very different perspectives: one, the time frame of centennials
celebrated at human whim without regard to biological time, and the other, the
perspective of coevolution between insects and their host plants. In the latter, one
hundred years is but a brief pause in the point and counterpoint
pattern of the
evolutionary process. The time clock of grape phylloxera development is not set to
centennial schedules.
Our reflections touch upon the process of speciation that allotted a single species,
Vitis vinifera to Europe. It was indigenous to the shores of the Black Sea where
civilization later took root. By contrast, the New World is rich in species diversity.
Come Columbus and the Atlantic bridge, the grape phylloxera, aided by human
intervention
was transported
to France, where it disrupted this bulwark of
civilization, which traces its association with the grape to the dawn of human
history. Riley, the individual who pointed the way, drew insights from the land of
his birth, England, then France, Germany, and the United States. Cultural diversity,
like biological diversity, is a rich resource.
Early entomologists of the young American republic had been preoccupied with
pest introductions from the Old World to the New. Traffic across the continental
bridge, as it has developed, moves both ways. Modern commerce and biological
AMERICAN
ENTOMOLOCIST
isolation are mutually exclusive. In practical terms, there is the realization that the
respite of one hundred years won by resistant rootstock has ended. Despite our
vaunted biological knowledge as the 21st century dawns, insects still intrude in
human affairs and the challenge to the intellect is our first line of defense as it was
to patriots such as Riley and Planchon.
To avoid taking ourselves too seriously, we need a Gary Larson cartoon. It might
depict an insect awards ceremony. Time: 1992. Location: Napa Valley, Calif. A
dark, damp, subterranean
niche furnished with roots ofAXR #1. There among
thousands of cheering insects, a single parthenogenic
female of Daktulosphaira
vitifoliae (Fitch) is presented an award which reads: "For demonstrating unusual
biochemical innovation through which the resistant properties ofAXR #1 were
overcome, thereby opening vast areas for propagation which for one hundred years
were denied us."
This essay is dedicated to C. V. Riley's fellow countryman,
George Ordish
(1904-1991)
whose gifted pen together with his insights of humanity and insects
have increased our awareness of the drama of their co-existence.
Dedication
••••••••••••••
The writer expresses his appreciation to Jeffrey Granett (University of California, Davis) and to David J. Hawthorne
(Cornell University) for their efforts to
provide the writer with a feel for the organism, the grape phylloxera. Appreciation
is also expressed to Donna L. Kowalski for her editorial and word processing skills,
to Victor J. Yannacone,
Jr., for continued
interest, and to the staff of the
Smithsonian Institution Archives who revel in making their resources relevant.
Acknowledgment
••••••••••••••
Anonymous. 1992. The Wall Street Journal. August 3.
Cronon, W.1983. Changes in the land. Hill and Wang, New York.
Fitch, A. 1856. Third annual report. State Entomologist of New York. Albany, NY.
Granett,]. 1985. Grape phylloxera biotypes in California.]. Econ. Entomo\. 78: 1463-1467.
References Cited
• •••••••••••••
Morrow, D. W. 1960. The American impressions of a French botanist, 1873. Agric. Hist. 34:
71-76.
Ordish, G. 1972. The great wine blight. Scribner's, New York.
Riley, C. V. 1870. Third annual report; State Entomologist, Missouri.
Riley, C. V. 1871. Fourth annual report; State Entomologist, Missouri.
Riley, C. V. 1873. Sixth annual report; State Entomologist, Missouri.
Riley, C. V. 1874. Seventh annual report; State Entomologist, Missouri.
Riley, C. V. 1893. Insect life, VI, pp. 133-134. Washington, DC.
Russell, L. M. 1974. Daktulosphaira vitifoliae (Fitch). The correct name of the grape
phylloxeron. (Hemiptera, Homoptera, Phylloxeridae) Jr. Wash. Acad. Sci.64(4): 303-308.
Shimer, H. 1866. Prairie Farmer. Nov. 3, Dec. 8. Chicago, II.
Stoetzel, M. B. 1989. Common names of insects and related organisms. Entomo\. Soc. Am.
Lanham, Md.
Walsh, B. D. 1866. Answers to correspondents. Practical Entomo\. 1: 112.
Wilson, E. O. 1992. The diversity of life. Belknap, Cambridge, Ma.
Winkler, A. J., J. A. Cook, W. Kliewer & J. A. Lider. 1974. General Viticulture. California
University Press, Davis.
0
Edward H. Smith isan Emeritus Professor of Entomology at Cornell University. He
and his wife, Janet, are writing a biography of Charles Valentine Riley. (1843-1895).
Winter 1992
221