162 



THE PSYCHIDJE. 



The remarkable work of M. Siebold, upon "A True Partlienogenais in 

 Moths and Bees," which was during the year 1856, translated by Mr. Dallas, 

 has no doubt been read by most naturalists in this as well as other countries. 

 It would be idle to attempt to cast any doubt upon the startling facts con- 

 tained in M. Siebold's work, at all events in the present state of the question. 

 M. Siebold is one of the best observers in modern days; and this is saying 

 much. "VVe are not at present aware that his views have been called into 

 question, or his facts doubted by any person of authority. That the subject 

 is still incomplete, and that it offers a very wide field for further observation, 

 (we would fain have added further confirmation,) M. Siebold himself admits.* 



It may be interesting to our readers to know what were the opinions of 

 M. Siebold, and the best authority on the economy of the PsychidcB, M. 

 Bruand, only four years ago. M. Bruand, who opposes the theory of a 

 Parthenogensis in the Psychidce, quotes triumphantly as his highest authority 

 M. Siebold himself. The latter in the preface to his work admits his former 

 scepticism, but adds, that modern histological investigations have given a much 

 greater assistance to his later inquiries. 



We copy the following from M. Bruand's monograph on the Psychidce, 

 trusting that it may induce some of our readers to look out for species in 

 this country. Stainton (Manual) gives six species as inhabiting Great Britain, 

 and places them among the Bombyccs. M. Bruand has described and figured 

 most beautifully eighty -two species; he places them among the Tineidce. — Ed. 



Translated from the Introduction of M. Th. Bruand's Monograph on the 

 Psychidce. — This is one of the tribes most puzzling; one of those in which 

 there are many errors, and errors difficult to establish by proof. The perfect 

 insects in many species resemble each other strongly, especially the femalep, 

 in whom the likeness is so strong, that even with the lens we can discover 

 no sensible differences. As to the larva?, the most exact figures can scarcely 

 give an idea of the slight variations which distinguish them. The synonymes 

 it is almost impossible to unravel, and we can readily imagine this, when we 

 know that ancient authors in describing one of the species of this genus, did 

 not suspect the existence of many other allied examples. Their descriptions 

 are so vague that they may be applied indifferently to four, five, or six 

 species. Add to this that the figures of Hubner are very incorrect, those of 

 Duponchel deficient, and the others altogether imperfect. In such a position 

 I had only one course to pursue, and that was to compare with each other 

 the Psychidce of different collectors of authority; then by giving a drawing 

 perfectly exact, to stop all doubts for the future. This is what 1 have done, 

 and my obligations are due for much information upon the subject communicated 



* Any of our readers interested in this subject, would do well to read in addition to M. 

 Siebold's little work, "The Alternation of Generations, or the Propagation and Development 

 of Animals through Alternate Generations;" by J. J. S. M. Steenstrup, translated by Busk; 

 hay. Soc., 1844. Also on "Parthenogensis, or the successive production of Procreating 

 individuals from a single Ovum;" by Professor Owen, 1849. 



