Though a variety of information respecting the history of cochineal
and kermes may be found scattered in the works of different authors,
I shall venture to lay before the public what I have gathered on the
subject; as I flatter myself with the hope of being able to rectify
some errors of my predecessors, as well as to supply deficiencies which
they have left; and as it will undoubtedly be agreeable to many readers
to see collected in one point of view whatever is most important, with
the addition of a few explanatory observations and notes.
Cochineal and kermes, as they appear in commerce, are small grains,
shaped almost like those small dried grapes without stones, which
are called currants. They are sometimes of a deep and sometimes of a
fainter reddish-brown, or violet-brown colour, are often covered with a
gray dust or mouldiness[1152], appear full of wrinkles, as succulent
bodies generally do when dried, and for the most part are a little more
raised on the one side than on the other. When these grains are chewed,
they have a somewhat bitterish and astringent taste, and communicate to
the spittle a brownish-red colour. They are employed in medicine, but
their principal use is in dyeing.
It is now well-known that they belong to that genus of insects
called _Coccus_, and that they are principally the dried impregnated
females. Numerous species of these insects have been described by
entomologists[1153], who have most frequently named them from the
plants on which they occur; for the present object, however, it will be
sufficient to take notice only of three kinds.
The first is the real American cochineal, or that which at present is
most used, but which at the same time is the dearest. By Linnæus it is
called _Coccus Cacti_. The second kind is found chiefly on a species
of oak, the _Quercus Ilex_, in the Levant, Spain, France, and other
southern countries, and is therefore called _Coccus Ilicis_, _Coccus
arborum_, and often also kermes. The third comprehends that saleable
cochineal found on the roots of several perennial plants, which is
known commonly under the appellation of Polish or German cochineal;
though it is not certain whether those insects produced upon the
perennial knawel (_Scleranthus_), bears-breech (_Uva-ursi_) and other
plants, be the same species. They are often distinguished also by the
name of _Coccus radicum_.
That the second species has been mentioned by the ancient Hebrew,
Greek, Latin and Arabian writers cannot be denied; and those who know
that our information respecting the nature of this commodity, which is
perhaps even yet imperfect, has been in modern times procured after
much labour and research, will not be surprised to find their accounts
mingled with many falsehoods and contradictions. The ancients must
have been under more doubt and in greater ignorance on this subject,
the less they were acquainted with the propagation of these insects;
but we should be too precipitate were we to reject entirely everything
they have said that may deviate from the truth; and I think it would
be no difficult task to produce writers of the seventeenth and of the
eighteenth century, whose information on this point is as dubious and
incorrect as that to be found in the writings of the ancients.
All the ancient Greek[1154] and Latin writers agree that kermes, called
by the latter _coccum_, perhaps also _coccus_, and often _granum_, were
found upon a low shrubby tree, with prickly leaves, which produced
acorns, and belonged to the genus of the oak; and there is no reason
to doubt that they mean _Coccus Ilicis_, and that low evergreen oak,
with the prickly leaves of the holly (_aquifolium_), which is called
at present in botany _Quercus Ilex_[1155]. This assertion appears more
entitled to credit, as the ancients assign for the native country of
this tree places where it is still indigenous and produces kermes.
According to the account of Dioscorides, kermes were collected in
Galatia, Armenia, Asia, Cilicia and Spain. Most commentators suppose
that there must be here some error, as that author first mentions
Galatia and Armenia, and then Asia in general. Some, therefore,
understand by the latter, the city of Asia in Lydia; others have
altered or rejected the word altogether; and Serapion, in his Arabic
translation, seems to have read Syria. Professor Tychsen, however,
assured me that _Asia proconsularis_ is here meant, to which Cilicia
did not belong; and in this particular sense the word is often used by
writers contemporary with Dioscorides. Of this difficulty Salmasius
takes no notice.
We are informed by Pliny[1156] that kermes were procured from Asia and
Africa; from Attica, Galatia, Cilicia, and also from Lusitania and
Sardinia; but those produced in the last-mentioned place were of the
least value. Pausanias says that they were to be found in Phocis. As
the _coccus_ is mentioned likewise by Moses and other Hebrew writers,
kermes must have been met with at that period in some of the remote
countries of the East[1157]. Bochart has quoted passages from the
manuscript works of Arabian authors, which undoubtedly allude also to
kermes; and I shall class among these, without any hesitation, the
account of Ctesias, which has been copied by Photius, Ælian, and the
poet Phile, though in more than one circumstance it deviates from the
truth. It has already been considered by Tyson and Delaval as alluding
to kermes, or rather the American cochineal, which Tyson, however,
seems to confound with the genus of insects _Coccinella_, in English
called the lady-bird[1158].
That the kermes-oak still grows and produces kermes[1159] in the
Levant, Greece, Palestine, Persia and India, is sufficiently proved by
the testimony of modern travellers. Bellon and Tournefort saw kermes
collected in the island of Crete or Candia[1160]; the former saw them
also between Jerusalem and Damascus[1161]; and he informs us that the
greater part of them was sent to Venice. That they are indigenous in
Persia, is expressly affirmed by Chardin. The kermes of Spain are so
well known that it is not necessary to bring proofs of their being a
production of that country. Dioscorides says that the Spanish kermes
were bad[1162]; and we are expressly told by Garidel, that they are
still of less value than the French.
With the real nature of kermes the ancients were not acquainted. By
the greater part they were considered as the proper fruit of the
tree; and although they remarked the insects, it was a common opinion
that they were produced from putrefaction without propagation; and on
this account they did not perceive their real origin. They imagined
that the insects were the effects of corruption; and Pliny speaks as
if he conceived that certain species were liable to this fault more
than others. They were therefore named _scolecion_, and less valued.
But in another passage he calls kermes, not improperly, a scurf or
scab of the tree, _scabies fruticis_. Dioscorides says that the kermes
appeared on the tree like lentils, a comparison with which Matthiolus
is highly displeased; but it cannot be altogether unnatural, as many of
the moderns, who never read the writings of the Greeks, compare them
also to lentils or peas. The account, that a kind of kermes in Sicily,
like small snails, was collected by the women with their mouths, seems
to be attended with more difficulty. The comparison of snails, which
may not be altogether inconsistent, I shall admit; but the gathering
with the mouth is too much contrary to common sense not to be disputed.
Commentators, therefore, have proposed various emendations, which
seem to be drawn from the different readings; but the common one
alluded to must be very old, as it has been adopted by Serapion in
his translation[1163]. Marcellus and Cornarius are of opinion that a
word must be inserted, expressive of the time when the kermes were
gathered; and that instead of “with the mouth,” ought to be read “in
summer[1164].” For my part, I think a word signifying some instrument
employed by the women in collecting them would be more proper; for
the Grecian women, according to Bellon’s account, use still for that
purpose a small instrument shaped like a sickle. In France[1165] and
other countries, the women suffer the nails of their fingers to grow,
in order that they may assist them in their labour[1166]. However this
may be, both Dioscorides and Galen ascribe to kermes an astringent,
bitter taste; but I shall leave to the examination of physicians the
medicinal qualities for which they have extolled them. I shall remark
only, as a technologist, that kermes was used formerly in dyeing
purple to give what is called the ground; but our dyers employ it to
communicate a scarlet colour, which, without doubt, excels the purple
of the ancients.
The first-mentioned use of kermes in dyeing seems to have been
continued through every century. In the middle ages, as they are
called, we meet with kermes under the name of _vermiculus_ or
_vermiculum_; and on that account cloth dyed with them was called
_vermiculata_. Hence the French word _vermeil_, and its derivative
_vermilion_, as is well-known, had their extraction; the latter of
which originally signified the red dye of kermes, but it is now used
for any red paint, and also for finely pounded cinnabar. In France
and Spain, at present, kermes, as soon as they are gathered, are
besprinkled with vinegar and dried in the sun; but it appears that
in the middle ages they were not dried sufficiently, and that they
were put into leather bottles to prevent them from making their
escape[1167]. In preparing the liquid dye, dyers used Egyptian alum,
the only kind then to be had, and also urine[1168]. This dye seems to
have been known in Germany so early as the twelfth century; for among
the productions of the country which Henry the Lion sent as a present
to the Greek emperor we find _scarlata_[1169].
Our ancestors, in all probability, procured their kermes from the
southern part of France, or rather from Spain. The Arabians, who from
the earliest periods had been acquainted with this production in
Africa, found it in Spain, and employed it there for dyeing, and as
an article of commerce; and on this account, as appears, the Arabic
name _kermes_, or _alkermes_, became so common[1170]. Salmasius
thinks that the Arabs borrowed this word from the Latins, and that it
is formed from _vermes_[1171]; but even if we allow that it is not
an original Arabic word, it is perhaps more probable that it is of
Celtic extraction, as is the opinion of Astruc[1172]. _Guer_ or _quer_
signified in the Celtic language a green (evergreen) oak; and in Lower
Languedoc, uncultivated land on which the kermes-oak grows is still
called _garrigues_. From this _guer_ or _quer_ Astruc is inclined to
derive also the Latin word _quercus_, the etymology of which is nowhere
else to be found. This conjecture is of the more importance, as _mes_
in some parts signifies the fruit of the oak; so that _guermes_ or
kermes would be the acorns, _les glands du chesne_. Although kermes are
not acorns, we cannot reject this appellation as improbable. Having
requested the opinion of Professor Tychsen, as being well-acquainted
with the Arabic language, on this subject, he readily complied with my
desire, and I have given it in the note below, in his own words[1173].
It deserves to be remarked, that _carmesin_, _carmin_, _cramoisi_ of
the French, and _charmesi_, _chermesino_ of the Italians, and other
like words, hence derive their origin.
The coccus found on the roots of some plants, as far as I know, has
not been mentioned by the ancients. That these insects however were
collected in Germany in the twelfth century, was first proved, as I
think, by J. L. Frisch[1174]. We are told that in this, and at least
in the following century, several monasteries caused their vassals to
collect this _coccus_, and bring to them by way of tribute[1175], and
that those who could not deliver the production in kind were obliged
to pay, in its stead, a certain sum of money. The measure by which
it was delivered was called _coppus_, in German _Kopf_, which word
signified formerly not only a globular drinking-vessel, but also a
measure both for dry and liquid things. It is still retained in the
latter sense in Zurich, Aachen, Regensburg, Austria, and several other
places[1176]. As the _coccus_ was gathered at midsummer (St. John’s
day), it was called St. John’s blood; probably because the clergy
wished by that appellation to make this revenue appear as a matter of
religion; and that name is still continued among the country people. As
the monks and nuns carried on at that time various trades, particularly
that of weaving, they could employ the St. John’s blood to very good
purpose[1177].
At later periods I find mention of the _coccus_ only in the works
of naturalists, such as those of Cornarius[1178], Scaliger[1179],
and others; but how long the use of it, and the collecting of it for
religious houses, continued, I cannot determine; perhaps longest in
Poland. From that country, even at present (1792), a considerable
quantity of it is sent every year to Venice; and I am inclined to
believe that some of it is collected still in the county of Mark, and
other parts of Germany. The following, as far as I can find, are the
reasons why this indigenous production has lost its value. First, the
root-kermes contain less colouring matter than the kermes of France and
Spain. Secondly, the collecting of the former is more laborious as well
as more tedious; and after they ceased to be paid _in natura_ to the
monasteries, they became too dear to stop the sale of those of France
and Spain. But when the American cochineal, which is undoubtedly a far
superior pigment, was in latter times made an article of commerce,
and was sent to Europe in large quantities for dyeing, as it could
be procured at all times, and in abundance, at a price which, if not
low, was at least moderate, considering its excellent quality, from
Mexico, where labour was cheaper[1180], and where it was cultivated
in plantations formed on purpose, the French and Spanish kermes were
entirely forgotten, as appears by a French ordinance of 1671 respecting
dye-stuffs: and this was the case much more with the German, which, in
all probability, will never turn to great account, though some have
entertained a contrary opinion.
Mexico, or New Spain, the original country of the cochineal, which
word appears to be the diminutive of _coccus_[1181], was discovered by
the Spaniards in 1518 and the years following. Who first remarked this
profitable production, and made it known in Europe, I have not been
able to discover. Some assert that the native Mexicans, before they had
the misfortune of being visited by the Christians, were acquainted
with cochineal, which they employed in painting their houses and
dyeing their clothing[1182]; but others maintain the contrary[1183].
The Spaniards, who had long used kermes in their own country, could
not fail soon to observe the superiority of the American; and I find
by Herrera, that the king in the year 1523 desired to be informed by
Cortez, whether what he had been told was true, that kermes were to be
found in abundance in Mexico, and if they could, as was supposed, be
sent with advantage to Spain. He requested him, should this information
be true, to pay attention to it, and to cause them to be collected with
diligence. This commodity must soon after have begun to be an object
of commerce; for Guicciardini, who died in 1589, mentions cochineal
among the articles procured then by the merchants of Antwerp from
Spain[1184]. The plant on which the animal lives, belongs to the genus
_Cactus_, and in Mexico is called _nopal_ or _tuna_, though several
plants of the same kind seem to be comprehended under the latter name.
One species is the _Opuntia_, which has become indigenous in Spain,
Portugal, and Italy, and which is not scarce in our green-houses. A
second species is the _cochinillifera_. Oviedo[1185] described and
gave figures of two kinds of _tuna_; but of the cochineal he makes no
mention. He speaks however of an excellent dye which the Americans
prepared from the fruit, and formed into small cakes; but he afterwards
acknowledges that he had received no authentic account on this subject.
I nevertheless suspect that these cakes were made of cochineal; for
Hernandez says that such were made in his time.
With the first cochineal, a true account of the manner in which it was
procured must have reached Europe, and become publicly known. Acosta
in 1530, and Herrera in 1601, as well as Hernandez and others, gave
so true and complete a description of it, that the Europeans could
entertain no doubt respecting its origin. The information of these
authors, however, was either overlooked or considered as false, and
disputes arose whether cochineal was insects or worms, or the berries
or seeds of certain plants. The Spanish name _grana_, confounded with
_granum_, may have given rise to this contest; but there is not,
perhaps, in all natural history a point which can be so fully cleared
up as this can by the most undoubted testimony. A Dutchman, named
Melchior de Ruusscher, affirmed in a society, from oral information
he had obtained in Spain, that cochineal consisted of small animals.
Another person, whose name he has not made known, maintained the
contrary with so much heat and violence, that the dispute at length
ended in a bet. Ruusscher charged a Spaniard, one of his friends, who
was going to Mexico, to procure for him in that country authentic
proofs of what he had asserted. These proofs, legally confirmed in
October 1725, by the court of justice in the city of Antiquera, in the
valley of Oaxaca, arrived at Amsterdam in the autumn of the year 1726.
I have been informed that Ruusscher upon this got possession of the sum
betted, which amounted to the whole property of the loser; but that,
after keeping it a certain time, he again returned it, deducting only
the expenses he had been at in procuring the evidence, and in causing
it to be published. It formed a small octavo volume, with the following
title, printed in red letters: The History of Cochineal, proved by
authentic documents[1186]. These proofs sent from New Spain are written
in Dutch, French, and Spanish.
It may be readily supposed, that the high esteem in which this
production was held would soon induce people to endeavour to
convey these insects to other countries in order to breed them.
This the Spaniards did every thing in their power to prevent; and
notwithstanding the severity of the means which they employed, attempts
were made for that purpose. When Rolander, a scholar of Linnæus,
was in America, he sent to Upsal, at the request of that celebrated
naturalist, a plant, with the insects upon it. The plant arrived in
the year 1756, when Linnæus was engaged with his pupils. The gardener,
who was not acquainted with the nature of it, cleared it from what he
thought vermin, and planted it; so that Linnæus, when he returned
from his class, did not find a single insect alive. This circumstance,
which he has mentioned in his Systema Naturæ, I was told by himself. I
am however of opinion, that this was not the real cochineal, but the
other kind spoken of by Sylvester; as the former, according to the
latest information, can scarcely be procured even with more labour
and expense than Rolander could bestow, and would hardly stand such a
long voyage to the northern regions. The spurious kind were sent from
Jamaica to England, on the _Opuntia ficus Indica_, which was planted by
Miller[1187], but the insects did not live above three or four months.
Thiery, a young French naturalist, brought the real cochineal to St.
Domingo in the year 1777, at so much hazard that he deserves a place
in the martyrology of the naturalist; but after his death, which soon
followed, the insects perished through the avarice or negligence of his
successors; and in that island there are none now to be found but the
spurious kind[1188].
I am inclined to believe that the art of employing kermes to dye a
beautiful red colour was discovered in the East at a very early period;
that it was soon so much improved as to excel even the Tyrian purple;
and that it contributed to cause the proper purple to be at length
abandoned. From the costly red dyes extolled so much by the Hebrew
writers, and which, according to the opinion of learned commentators,
were made from kermes, I shall not venture to adduce any proofs, as
I am not acquainted with the Oriental languages to examine their
accounts with accuracy; but I have found a passage in Vopiscus[1189],
which seems to render my conjecture very probable. That author informs
us, that the king of Persia sent to the emperor Aurelian, besides
other articles of great value, some woollen cloth, which was of a
much costlier and brighter purple colour than any that had been ever
seen in the Roman empire, and in comparison of which all the other
purple cloth worn by the emperor and the ladies of the court appeared
dull and faded. In my opinion, this cloth, which was of a beautiful
purple red colour, was not dyed with the liquor of the murex, but
with kermes. This idea was indeed not likely to occur to the Romans,
who were acquainted only with the purple of the murex, and who had
less experience in the arts in general than in that of robbing and
plundering, or who at any rate in that respect were inferior to the
Orientals. The Roman emperors caused this supposed purple to be sought
for in India by the most experienced dyers, who, not being able to find
it, returned with a vague report that the admired Persian purple was
produced by the plant _Sandix_. I am well aware, that some commentators
have supposed that the _Sandix_ was our madder[1190]. Hesychius,
however, says, very confidently, that the _sandix_ is not a plant, but
a kind of shrubby tree which yields a dye like the _coccus_[1191]. The
Roman dyers, perhaps, prejudiced in favour of the murex, made that only
the object of their search; and their labour proving fruitless, they
might have heard something of kermes, or the kermes-oak, which they did
not fully understand. Our dyers, even at present, believe many false
accounts respecting the dye-stuffs which they use daily.
In later times, when it was known that the beautiful Oriental
kermes-dye was not properly purple, it was no longer called by that
name, but was considered as a new dye, and acquired a new appellation.
Cloth dyed with it was called _scarlata_, _squarlata_, _scarleta_,
_scarlatina_, _scharlatica_. That these words have an affinity to our
scarlet, every one allows, but it may be difficult to discover their
origin. Pezronius[1192] affirms that they are of Celtic extraction,
and have the same signification as _Galaticus rubor_. Astruc, as I
have already shown, derives kermes from the same language, which,
however, like the Egyptian history, is often employed to explain what
people cannot otherwise explain, because so little is known of both
that much contradiction is not to be apprehended. Others wish to make
scarlet from the _quisquilium_, _cusculium_, or _scolecium_ of Pliny.
To some the word appears to be composed of the first half of kermes
and lack, with the addition of only an S, and every one is left at
liberty to determine at pleasure, whether lack is to be understood as
the Arabic for red, or the German word _lacken_ cloth. In the first
case it signifies the same as _vermiculare rubrum_; in the latter
_pannus vermicularis_. Stiler[1193] says _scarlach_ is entirely German,
and compounded of _schor_ the fire, and _lacken_ cloth, so that its
real signification is fire-cloth, fire-coloured cloth. Reiske, on the
other hand, asserts, that the word is originally the Arabic _scharal_,
which means the kermes-dye[1194]. Which of these conjectures is most
agreeable to truth, cannot with certainty be concluded; but that
the word is older than Dillon affirms it to be, on the authority of
a Spaniard, can be proved. Dillon says that it was first used by
Roderick, archbishop of Toledo, who finished his history of Spain
in 1243[1195]. Vossius[1196] has quoted several writers who use
_escarletum_ or _scarletum_. The oldest is Cæsarius, who lived about
the year 1227. Matthew Paris, who wrote about the year 1245, used the
word in referring to the year 1134. But I find that the emperor Henry
III. in the middle of the eleventh century, conferred upon the count of
Cleves the burg-graviate of Nimeguen, on condition of his delivering to
him yearly three pieces of scarlet cloth made of English wool[1197].
The word may be often found in the twelfth century. It occurs in
Petrus Mauritius[1198], who died in 1157, and also in the writings of
Arnold, who, in 1175, was the first abbot of Lubeck.
Of the preparation and goodness of the ancient scarlet we certainly
know nothing: but as we find in many old pieces of tapestry of the
eleventh century, and perhaps earlier, a red which has continued
remarkably beautiful even to the present time, it cannot at any rate be
denied that our ancestors extolled their scarlet not without reason. We
may however venture to assert, that the scarlet prepared at present is
far superior, owing principally to the effects of a solution of tin.
This invention may be reckoned among the most important improvements of
the art of dyeing, and deserves a particular relation.
The tincture of cochineal alone yields a purple colour, not very
pleasant, which may be heightened to the most beautiful scarlet by a
solution of tin in aqua regia, or muriatic acid[1199]. M. Ruhlenkamp at
Bremen, one of the most learned dyers of Germany, and who has studied
with great care every new improvement of his art, gave me the history
of this scarlet dye, as I have already related in my Introduction to
Technology[1200]. The well-known Cornelius Drebbel, who was born at
Alkmaar, and died at London in 1634, having placed in his window an
extract of cochineal, made with boiling water, for the purpose of
filling a thermometer, some aqua regia dropped into it from a phial,
broken by accident, which stood above it, and converted the purple dye
into a most beautiful dark red. After some conjectures and experiments,
he discovered that the tin by which the window-frame was divided into
squares had been dissolved by the aqua-regia, and was the cause of this
change. He communicated his observation to Kuffelar, an ingenious dyer
at Leyden, who was afterwards his son-in-law[1201]. The latter brought
the discovery to perfection, and employed it some years alone in his
dye-house, which gave rise to the name of Kuffelar’s-colour[1202].
Becher calls him Kuffler. Kunkel, in a passage which I cannot again
find, makes his name Kuster, and says that he was a German. In the
course of a little time the secret became known to an anabaptist called
Gulich, and also to another person of the name of Van der Vecht, who
taught it to the brothers Gobelins in France. Giles Gobelin, a dyer
at Paris, in the time of Francis I. had found out an improvement of
the then usual scarlet dye; and as he had remarked that the water of
the rivulet Bievre, in the suburbs of St. Marceau, was excellent for
his art, he erected on it a large dye-house, which, out of ridicule,
was called _Folie-Gobelins_[1203], Gobelin’s-Folly. About this period,
a Flemish painter, whom some name Peter Koek, and others Kloek, and
who had travelled a long time in the East, established, and continued
to his death in 1550, a manufactory for dyeing scarlet cloth by an
improved method[1204]. Through the means of Colbert, one of the
Gobelins learned the process used for preparing the German scarlet
dye from one Gluck, whom some consider as the above-mentioned Gulich,
and others as Kloek; and the Parisian scarlet dye soon rose into so
great repute, that the populace imagined that Gobelin had acquired
his art from the devil[1205]. It is well known that Louis XIV. by the
advice of Colbert, purchased Gobelin’s building from his successors
in the year 1667, and transformed it into a palace, to which he gave
the name of _Hôtel Royal des Gobelins_, and which he assigned for the
use of first-rate artists, particularly painters, jewellers, weavers
of tapestry, and others. After that time the rivulet was no longer
called Bievre, but Gobelins. About the year 1643, a Fleming, named
Kepler, established the first dye-house for scarlet in England, at the
village of Bow, not far from London; and on that account the colour was
called at first, by the English, the _Bow-dye_[1206]. In the year 1667,
another Fleming, named Brewer, invited to England by king Charles II.
with the promise of a large salary, brought this art there to great
perfection[1207]. All these accounts, however, and the names of the
persons, are extremely dubious.
[Mr. Ward states in his Mexico in 1827, vol. i. p. 84, that the
plantations of the Nopal (_Opuntia cochinillifera_), on which the
cochineal insects feed, are confined to the district La Misteca in the
state of Oaxaca, in Mexico. The animals are domesticated and reared
with the greatest care. When the females have become fecundated and
enlarged, the harvest commences. The insects are brushed off with
a squirrel’s tail, and killed by immersing them in hot water, and
afterwards drying them in the sun, or by the heat of a stove. Three
harvests are made annually; the first being the best, since the
impregnated females alone are taken; in the second the young females
are also collected; and in the third both old and young ones, and skins
are collected indiscriminately. Before the rainy season commences,
branches of the nopal plant loaded with young insects are cut off and
preserved in the houses to prevent the animals being destroyed by
the weather. It is stated in a letter from Mr. Faber to Dr. Pereira
(Chemical Gazette for January 15th, 1845), that the more extensive
cultivators never kill the insect by immersion, but only by the baskets
being placed in heated rooms or stoves.
Three kinds of cochineal are now met with in the English market: the
black, silver, and foxy. Silver cochineal is the impregnated female
insect, just before laying eggs; black cochineal is the female after
laying and hatching the eggs. That technically known in London as
“foxy” cochineal is composed of the insects of silver cochineal which
have been killed by boiling water. They are thus burst, and acquire a
peculiar reddish colour, very different from the fine transparent red
which forms the finest black. It is said that on the average one pound
of cochineal contains 70,000 dried insects. The quantity exported from
and consumed in England in 1844, amounted to no less than 1,569,120
lbs.!]