Most of the primary sources I consulted made little or no distinction between “Anaheim disease” and phylloxera, and some actually identified the blight specifically as phylloxera. I did a little more reading, however, and you appear to be right–”Pierce’s disease,” not phylloxera was the blight that affected Southern California’s crops. The confusion would make sense because both are insect-related diseases, and without expertise, it might be hard to differentiate between them. Writers at the time often simply identified Pierce’s disease as “a blight.”

In any case, I have corrected the article accordingly, and appreciate your expertise on this subject. Take care, and thank you so much for reading my blog!

Indeed, the probable reason why we DON’T have phylloxera around here (yet), is because the vines were mostly wiped out by Pierce’s disease before phylloxera had a chance to spread this far south. To this day the phylloxera hasn’t spread further south than Santa Barbara. Although with the increase of new wine plantings lately, that is likely to change eventually — if a new Pierce’s disease epidemic doesn’t strike them down first. (Vignerons in Temecula, which is blessed with a soil type unsuitable for phylloxera, still must struggle with Pierce’s disease constantly.)