THE PSYCH ID,E. 1G3 



to me by M. Boisduval, M. Lederer, M. Boyer de Foscolomben, M. Bellier 

 de la Chavignerie, and M. Milliere de Lyon. 



The tribe whicb will occupy our attention presents great difficulties. On 

 the other band, the observing naturalist will find it a very interesting and 

 attractive study. In reality there are few groups of insects in which infinite 

 variety is more remarkable, or where Providence has more multiplied bis 

 admirable resources. 



If it were only the mystery which some naturalists have thrown around the 

 reproduction of the Psychidce, it would add another attraction to the observer. 

 In reality some entomologists bave held that the reproduction takes place 

 without a conjunction of the sexes. Pallas and Degeer bave made known 

 and defended this opinion. Others without going this length have affirmed 

 that frequently the eggs of the different species produce at one time entire 

 broods of males, and at another of females. These two questions have been 

 the subject of an able and very conscientious memoir by M. D. Siebold. This 

 naturalist, to refute the lovers of the marvellous, has appealed principally to 

 anatomy, and has demonstrated triumphantly to my mind that the study of 

 the generative organs in the two sexes, (parts quite distinct from those of 

 reproduction,) must necessarily lead to the conclusion that the fertilization of 

 the egg is the result of a conjunction of the sexes in the genus Psyche, just 

 as it is in other genera of lepidoptera. I must, however, be permitted to 

 find fault with M. Siebold. He places Beaumer among the authors who 

 admit reproduction without contact with the male. Now these are his words : 

 — "Would the males and the females of the Tineidce be moths without wings? 

 It is more likely that the male and winged moths, by which the female or 

 females are fecundated, have escaped my notice; which may have happened 

 from a variety of circumstances." — (Ins. Ill, p. 153, Paris, 1737.) 



This phrase seems to lean rather to an opinion contrary to that which is 

 attributed to him by M. Siebold. And I may take this opportunity of 

 remarking that Beaumer was rarely deceived in his observations; that he 

 examined and studied with a remarkable truthfulness and extraordinary patience ; 

 and that in his memoirs are to be found very precise observations upon insects 

 which authors have thought they were noticing for the first time, more than 

 one hundred years afterwards. I may notice among others Carpocapsa splen- 

 dana, Ins. 77, p. 501-4; Eudopisa pisana, Guen, same vol., p. 483; Gracillaria 

 syringella, same vol., p. 242; Psyche helicinella, Ins. Ill, pi. 15, f. 20-22. 

 Psyche triquetrella, same vol., pi. 15, f. 7, 8. M. Guenee, Ind. Europe, Micro- 

 lepidop, says this figure is so course and large that we cannot recognise it. 

 I own I think it very exact, and that it cannot cause the least doubt. 



As to the second question, it is quite true that sometimes a brood produces 

 one or two females only, to twenty or thirty males. At another time it 

 will be quite contrary. It may happen that the entire batch only produces 

 individuals of the same sex, without that circumstance bringing the least 

 proof into the discussion; for if one batch of eggs only produces males, the 

 next may furnish only females. We cannot therefore conclude anything from 

 an isolated brood. 



I can certify that I have observed many sets of eggs which have not 



