( 1>'54 ) 



TiiinE Sphingulicae nov. 



cJ ?. End-segment of antenna slioit, not ]irijloni,'e(l into a thin filiiorni process. 

 Tongue lialf tlie length of the body, or shorter. Sjiinnhition of altiUnnen weak, 

 spines of sternites absent, or as weak as scales. No patch of friction-scales on 

 clasjier. Mesotarsns without basal comb. Paroiiycliinm witli two lolies at each 

 side, (ir without lobes, never witii one lobe. 



ll'ih. Oriental Keuion. 



This small group of genera shows many afHnities witli tiie Amhidicinftc in tiie 

 imago state as well as in the larva and pupa, and takes an intermediate position 

 between tlie tribe Spliini/icae and the subfamily Amb/ilin'/inr. Of special interest 

 is the peculiar development of tlie claw-segment in this tribe. As in the Sphinyicae, 

 tlie paronychium has in the lower genera two lobes at each side ; while, however, 

 in the SpliiiK/icac the next stage in the retrogressive development of the paronychium 

 is represented by a great number of genera with the ventral lobe aborted and tlie 

 subdorsal lobe preserved, no such stage is found in the Sjilnngulicde, where both 

 lobes disappear at the same time, as exemplitied by Sphiiuiulus. Another remark- 

 able foct is illustrated by this latter genus. Among the Sjjhingicae the pnlvillxs 

 disa])pears always he/ore the lobes of the i)aronychium ; there is no species of 

 Spliingiaic which has a inilvillus and is devoid of a ])aronycliial lobe. In Sjiliinyidus, 

 however, the ])arouychial lobes become obliterated, hffore the pnl villus shows any 

 sign of reduction.* That is to say, we find exactly the ojijiosite line of development 

 in the two tribes. If this holds good for all the Sphingulicae, as we believe it does, 

 then Dolbinopsis and Ilopliocnema, which are both without pulvillus and paro- 

 nychia! lobes, have first lost the paronychia! lobes and then the pulvillus. The 

 intermediate stage between Si/noecha and Ilopliocnrma, and between Dolbina and 

 I lolljiitopsis, had pnlvilli but no paronychia! lobes. Such a stage, corresponding to 

 SpliiiKjiilHs, is not known, or, we are inclined to say, not yet known. 



In the diagram inserted opposite, the genera are tabulated according to the 

 relationship. It will be noticed that the whole tribe is divided into one group of 

 genera with the fore- and midtibiae spinose, and another group with the tibiae 

 not spinose. The latter group consists of two branches, of which the two more 

 generalised genera Dolbina and Kentochrysalis are very closely allied, while the 

 s])ecialised genera Spfiingulus and Dolbinopsis, which head the two branches, are 

 widely diflerent from one another. Dolbinopsis, though clearly a derivation from 

 Dolbina, agrees in several characters with the most specialised genus Hopliocnema 

 of the branch with spinose tibiae, namely in negative characters which are the 

 outcome of the retrogressive development so often referred to among the Spltinginae 

 and Ambulicinae. Both Dolbinopsis and Ilopliocnema are devoid of pnlvilli and 

 paronychia! lobes, and have the foretibia armed with a thorn (not a spine). 

 This similarity is the result of parallel development, and does not at all indicate 

 close relationsliij). Further, we find the bristles of the pilifer in a normal state 

 in Tctrachroa and Si/noecha, while they are reduced in number or developed 

 to hair-scales in Ilopliocnema and all the genera of the branch with non-spinose 

 tibiae. We meet with the same peculiar modification also among the Amhidicinae. 

 This again does not mean closer relationship between the genera with scaled jjilifer. 



The larva and pupa, so far as known, agree in many respects with those of the 

 typical Ambulicinae. 



* The same is the case in some Amhiiliciiiac. 



