( 300 ) 



ON THE SPECIES OE CRICULA, A GENUS OE 

 SATURNIIDAE. 



By K. JORDAN, Ph.D. 



IVyTONSIEUR E. ANDRfi, of Milcoii (France), informed me early thi.s year 

 -'-*-L that he had been suecessfnl in breedinij from ovae laid by specimens 

 obtained from imported pnpae (from North India, ])resQmabIy Assam), a species 

 of CricHla which differed conspicuonsly, especially in tlie larva, from the Javan 

 insect known to him as Cricida triffnestmta. As several names had been 

 published for varions forms of Cnciilti, Monsienr Andre sent me a c?, a cocoon, 

 and a very fine inflated fnll-grown larva of the insect he had bred, and asked rae 

 to ascertain which name, if any, applied to this species. 



The insect is nndonbtedly the one figured by Westwood as Satiirnia zule.i/m. 

 As this name cannot stand, for reasons given below, I have the pleasure of naming 

 Monsieur Andre's species. 



Cricula andrei nom. nov. 



In the course of this summer, Mr. J. Henry Watson, of Withington, Man- 

 chester, who takes a great interest in Saturnids, also supplied me with the same 

 species (imagines, live cocoons, full-grown live larvae and fertile eggs), as well as 

 with young larvae, fertile eggs, live cocoons, and imagines of Cricula trifenesfrata, 

 the original cocoons of both species having come from Assam. This kind assistance 

 on the part of Mr. Watson will enable us, we hope, to compare and de.scribe all 

 the stages of C. andrei and trifenestrata before the year closes. 



Although an examination of the genitalia alone would have convinced ns of 

 the distinctness of awrfm from tri/enestrala, the evidence from breeding is especially 

 welcome in a case like this, where the imagines are not always very easy to 

 distinguish by their external appearance, and are mixed up in collections as mere 

 colour-varieties of one species. 



It is evident from the pattern and structure of the two species that the fact 

 of the similarity being greater between the imagines than between the larvae is 

 not due to secondary convergent development. On the contrary, the imagines 

 appear to have preserved the facies of the common ancestor, whereas the 

 larvae have become very different. As the various stages in the life of the 

 individual have different functions, it is not surprising that in the phylogeny of 

 the species these stages march at a different pace, and that the advance made 

 in the larva may not be noticeable in tlic imago, or the inverse. In this respect 

 the stages in the life-history of the individual may be likened to the varions 

 organs of a species, which as a rule vary independently of each other, one organ 

 or part of it deviating very strongly from that of the nearest allied sj)ecies, while 

 iincither organ has remained stationary or has jirogressed but slowly. 



Among Satiirniif/iir, it is of quite common occurrence that closely allied sj)ecies 

 differ much in the earlier stages. This fact should be borne in mind wlien dealing 

 with classification, lest undue weight be laid on such differences. 



