162 
HYBRIDS OF SPHINGIDAE. By B. Gehlen. 
euphorion. 
tykaci. 
euphogros¬ 
sei. 
pseudo- 
grossei. 
rosea. 
josephi. 
casteki. 
srdinkoi. 
identical with those of euphaes but the anal spot is larger and whiter. Underside more brightly red than in 
euphaes. 
if 
C. hybr. euphorion Hornstein ( G. hybr. pernoldiana Aust. x C. hybr. epilobii B. 9) closely resembles 
hybr. vesperdiana. Antennae white. Body grey-green, darker towards middle, beyond the 2 black-white lateral 
markings there is still a third small black-brown spot. Ground colour of fore wings grey-olive-green with faintly 
lighter central area. The large costal spot appears to be darker and merges with the outer costal spot in an 
indistinct mark. The oblique band has a dark edge with dentate outer border. Stigma blackish with pale 
circumscription. Wing contour longish with pointed apex. Hindwings rose like vespertilio with wide black 
submarginal band. Outer marginal stripes grey-rose and narrow, but wider than in vespertilio. Anal spot suffused 
with rose. (In the single specimen on which the description is based, the right hindwing is albinotic.) 
C. hybr. tykaci Vlach (C. euph. euphorbias L. $ x G. hybr. kindervateri Kys. 9) is a reciprocal cross 
to hybr. ebneri Gr. and corresponds to same, except for the underside which in tykaci is more or less reddish. 
C. hybr. euphogrossei Gunther ( C . euph. euphorbiae L. x C. hybr. grossei Dso. 9) can partly not 
be distinguished from grossei , but it has a more reddish underside. Other specimens vary between euphor¬ 
biae and galiphorbiae with an inclination towards euphorbiae. In these the underside is also often red. 
C. hybr. pseudogrossei Gunther ( G. hybr. galiphorbiae Dso. q X 0. hybr. euphogrossei Gunth. §). Wing 
contour as euphorbiae. In all specimens the central area of forewings is duskily suffused. This shade is however 
almost always edged by the atavistic line and it is only occasionally that it extends beyond same. Some 
9$ were obtained occasionally with yellow central area. 
C. hybr. euphaes rosea Fischer ( G. euphorbiae ab. grentzenbergi Stgr. $ x G. hybr. euphaes Dso. < 9). 
Actually under this name the products of two different crosses are grouped, viz: the result of the above named 
parents and that from the crossing of G. euph. vandalusica Eibbe G X G. hybr. euphaes Dso. 9- As however 
the author does not deem e. vandalusica to be a race of euphorbiae and therefore considers the red e. vandalusica 
specimen utilised, only to be an e. ab. grentzenbergi, he holds the two hybrids to be equal to one another. 
Nevertheless it is clear from the original descriptions that the two results are different and therefore do not 
favour his standpoint. The crossing of ab. grentzenbergi x euphaes was achieved in 1924, whilst that of subsp. 
vandalusica x euphaes was in 1926. The original description reads as follows: “The reversionary cross of 1926 
with a deep carmine-red <$ of the andalusian grentzenbergi race (!), which in its glow of colour seems to exceed 
the form occurring at Capri, gave a different result from that of 1924. Whilst in this latter a distinct grouping 
of the forms resulted, the one inclining strongly towards euphorbiae L., the other equally to hippophaes Esp., 
whilst the rest resembling the intermediary form euphaes Dso., in the 1926 brood all the specimens had a 
distinct euphaes character. The hybrid therefore, except for the usual moderate variation, which is natural, 
remained constant in its markings in spite of the reversionary crossing. Only the general tone of the colour 
differed in that it was interesting to observe, the red of grentzenbergi Stgr., proved not to be a volatile super¬ 
ficial characteristic, but, as I had hoped, was transmitted throughout to the hybrid progeny. As was only 
natural the rosy red tone lost some of its brilliance by intermixing with the pale grey to dull yellow ground 
colour of euphaes and as in nearly all individual specimens a whitish line occurs on inner edge of the olive-green 
oblique band, this new combination again reminds one of just that variation that C. Ribbe had actually 
intended under the denomination vandalusica. Therefore I should like to name this nice hybrid form euphaes 
rosea Fischer. Its size considerably exceeds that of euphaes Dso. <$ 7 — 7.5 ems, 9 7-5 — 8 ems expanse).” 
C. hybr. josephi Hornstein ( G. hybr. pernoldiana Aust. <$ X G. euphorbiae L 9) is a reciprocal crossing 
of euphorion Hornst. and can scarcely be distinguished from euphorbiae L. The marginal band of hindwings 
is narrower, the underside is much paler with larger and more intensive central spot. 
C. hybr. casteki Grosse ( G. hybr. galiphorbiae Dso. <$ X G. hybr. kindervateri Kys. 9); This hybrid, 
which is described from a single differs from all other hybrids of the gallii and euphorbiae group by the 
almost completely vespertilio like, moderately grey-blue shading of the central area of forewings. Antennae 
and body like galiphorbiae. Dorsal line is absent. Wing contour more like euphorbiae. Costal zone like gali¬ 
phorbiae with indistinct markings. Stigma distinct and large. The shading of the central area only outwardly 
of the narrow atavistic line pale yellow. Oblique band like euphorbiae, descending steeply to hind margin. 
Outer area grey-lilac. Hindwings deep red as euphorbiae. Outer band expanding towards the base with dusky 
shading. Marginal area reddish grey. Underside reddish. 
C. hybr. srdinkoi Obertli. ([ G. hippophorbiae Dso. A X G. euphorbiae L. 9] o X G. hybr. hippophorbiae 
Dso. 9) differs from a large euphorbiae 9 only through the median band of hindwings, which is not so clearly 
red, but rather a dusky carmine. Marginal stripe narrower (described from a single specimen). 
