﻿26 
  BRITISH 
  LEPIDOPTERA. 
  

  

  exhibited 
  (Ent. 
  Mo. 
  Mag., 
  xxi., 
  p. 
  115) 
  hybrids 
  between 
  Antheraea 
  

   roylei 
  and 
  A. 
  per 
  nyi, 
  and 
  Sam.ia 
  cecropia 
  X 
  calif 
  'arnica 
  [ceanotlii). 
  The 
  

   first-named 
  hybrid 
  had 
  been 
  described 
  in 
  1882 
  by 
  Kirby 
  (Proc. 
  Ent. 
  

   Soc. 
  Lone!., 
  1882, 
  p. 
  vii), 
  whilst 
  Moore 
  described 
  the 
  reciprocal 
  cross 
  

   (Ent., 
  xxix., 
  p. 
  237). 
  Here, 
  too, 
  Wailly 
  gives 
  (op. 
  cit., 
  pp. 
  235 
  et 
  

   seq.) 
  a 
  full 
  account 
  of 
  Antheraea 
  hybr. 
  roylei 
  xpernyi, 
  stating 
  that 
  the 
  

   hybrids 
  are 
  perfectly 
  fertile 
  inter 
  se, 
  and 
  notes 
  that, 
  at 
  the 
  end 
  of 
  three 
  

   years, 
  they 
  showed 
  no 
  signs 
  of 
  degeneracy. 
  Wallace 
  cites 
  (Darwinism, 
  

   1889, 
  p. 
  163) 
  from 
  Quatrefages, 
  a 
  case 
  of 
  fertility, 
  inter 
  se, 
  in 
  Attacus 
  

   cynthia 
  xarrindia. 
  This 
  Watson 
  attempted 
  to 
  discount 
  (Ent., 
  xxvi., 
  

   p. 
  174) 
  by 
  stating 
  that 
  arrindia 
  (which 
  he 
  calls 
  ricini) 
  is 
  the 
  Burmese 
  

   local 
  many-brooded 
  variety 
  of 
  the 
  common 
  cynthia, 
  but 
  we 
  believe 
  that 
  

   it 
  is 
  the 
  Burmese 
  local 
  form 
  of 
  lunula 
  not 
  cynthia 
  (Kirby, 
  Cat., 
  p. 
  748). 
  

   He, 
  however, 
  notes 
  (op. 
  cit., 
  p. 
  176) 
  that 
  Antheraea 
  mylitta 
  crossed 
  with 
  

   yamamai 
  and 
  A. 
  pernyi 
  with 
  mylitta, 
  but 
  gives 
  no 
  details 
  of 
  eggs 
  or 
  

   larva?. 
  Records 
  of 
  many 
  other 
  unsuccessful 
  crosspairings 
  are 
  made 
  by 
  

   Heyer 
  (Soc. 
  Ent., 
  xiii., 
  pp. 
  137-138 
  and 
  quoted 
  antea, 
  vol. 
  iii., 
  p. 
  291). 
  

   At 
  the 
  meeting 
  of 
  the 
  Entom. 
  Society 
  of 
  London, 
  July 
  7th, 
  1886, 
  

   Wailly 
  exhibited 
  some 
  remarkable 
  hybrids 
  between 
  Platysamia 
  cecropia 
  

   and 
  P. 
  calif 
  omica 
  (ceanotlii) 
  , 
  a 
  fuller 
  account, 
  however, 
  of 
  the 
  hybridisation 
  

   of 
  the 
  American 
  species 
  being 
  published 
  later 
  (Ent., 
  xxvi., 
  pp. 
  176-177; 
  

   Proc. 
  Ent. 
  Soc. 
  Lond., 
  1895, 
  pp. 
  xxxiv-xxxv) 
  . 
  An 
  account 
  of 
  five 
  of 
  these, 
  

   with 
  descriptions, 
  is 
  given 
  antea, 
  vol. 
  iii., 
  pp. 
  292-293. 
  These 
  are 
  

   Platysamia 
  hybr. 
  griffithsi 
  (cecropia 
  x 
  yloveri), 
  P. 
  hybr. 
  ivatsoni 
  (cecropia 
  

   X 
  ceanotlii), 
  P. 
  hybr. 
  heyeri 
  (ceanotlii 
  'x 
  cecropia 
  j, 
  P. 
  hybr. 
  awerieana 
  

   (Columbia 
  x 
  cecropia), 
  Actias 
  hybr. 
  mortoni 
  (luna 
  x 
  selene) 
  . 
  Heyer 
  notes 
  

   (Soc. 
  Ent., 
  xiii., 
  p. 
  137) 
  that 
  attempts 
  to 
  pair 
  P. 
  hybr. 
  ivatsoni 
  and 
  P. 
  

   hybr. 
  heyeri 
  with 
  each 
  other 
  failed 
  to 
  produce 
  a 
  single 
  egg, 
  whilst 
  ? 
  s 
  

   of 
  P. 
  cecropia 
  paired 
  with 
  J 
  s 
  of 
  both 
  these 
  hybrids 
  produced 
  a 
  very 
  

   high 
  percentage 
  of 
  fertile 
  eggs. 
  Standfuss 
  (Handbuch, 
  &c, 
  pp. 
  99-100) 
  

   records 
  the 
  pairing 
  of 
  Saturnia 
  pavonia 
  J 
  with 
  A 
  ctias 
  luna 
  2 
  > 
  obtaining 
  

   nine 
  pairings, 
  and 
  over 
  1000 
  eggs, 
  of 
  which, 
  however, 
  none 
  hatched. 
  

   A 
  crossing 
  of 
  Saturnia 
  pavonia 
  $ 
  with 
  A. 
  isabellae 
  2 
  also 
  took 
  place 
  

   (loc. 
  cit.), 
  the 
  2 
  laying 
  98 
  eggs, 
  of 
  which 
  7 
  hatched, 
  the 
  larva?, 
  however, 
  

   not 
  surviving 
  the 
  first 
  change 
  of 
  skin. 
  

  

  But 
  it 
  is 
  the 
  experiments 
  that 
  Standfuss 
  has 
  carried 
  out 
  on 
  the 
  

   hybridism 
  of 
  Saturnia 
  pavonia, 
  S. 
  spini, 
  and 
  S. 
  pyri 
  that 
  have 
  

   thrown 
  probably 
  more 
  light 
  on 
  some 
  of 
  the 
  problems 
  of 
  hybridity 
  

   than 
  any 
  others 
  (see 
  Handbuch, 
  &c, 
  pp. 
  66 
  et 
  seq., 
  pi. 
  i-iv 
  ; 
  and 
  

   Entom., 
  1900, 
  pp. 
  343 
  et 
  seq., 
  pi. 
  vii-viii), 
  already 
  fully 
  noticed 
  (antea, 
  

   iii., 
  pp. 
  296 
  et 
  seq.) 
  and 
  that 
  may 
  be 
  detailed 
  as 
  follows 
  :— 
  In 
  

   1891, 
  Standfuss 
  crossed 
  S. 
  pavonia 
  $ 
  with 
  pyi 
  i 
  2 
  (the 
  hybrid 
  pro- 
  

   duced 
  being 
  figured 
  Handbuch, 
  pi. 
  i., 
  figs. 
  1-4, 
  and 
  pi. 
  iii., 
  figs. 
  13-14), 
  

   and, 
  in 
  1892, 
  S. 
  pavonia 
  $ 
  with 
  spini 
  2 
  (the 
  hybrid 
  produced 
  being 
  

   figured 
  op. 
  cit., 
  pi. 
  ii., 
  figs. 
  3-5 
  ; 
  pi. 
  iii., 
  figs. 
  9-10). 
  These 
  Standfuss 
  

   named 
  respectively 
  S. 
  hybr. 
  emiliae 
  (with 
  a 
  dark 
  ab. 
  daubii) 
  and 
  S. 
  

   hybr. 
  bornemanni. 
  In 
  1893, 
  Standfuss 
  bred 
  the 
  first 
  of 
  his 
  secondary 
  

   hybrids 
  by 
  crossing 
  5. 
  hybr. 
  emiliae 
  $ 
  back 
  with 
  S. 
  pavonia 
  2 
  . 
  This 
  

   was 
  described 
  by 
  Wiskott 
  (Iris, 
  vii., 
  pp. 
  237-240) 
  as 
  S. 
  hybr. 
  stand 
  fussi. 
  

   A 
  pairing 
  between 
  S. 
  hybr. 
  emiliae 
  $ 
  and 
  S. 
  pyri 
  2 
  was 
  also 
  obtained 
  

   in 
  1893, 
  and 
  eggs 
  obtained, 
  but 
  these 
  were 
  infertile, 
  but, 
  in 
  1894, 
  a 
  few 
  

   larva? 
  hatched 
  and 
  the 
  resulting 
  imago 
  was 
  called 
  5. 
  hybr. 
  risii 
  by 
  

   Standfuss 
  ; 
  the 
  hybr. 
  standfussi 
  is 
  figured 
  in 
  Handbuch, 
  &c, 
  pi. 
  ii. 
  

  

  