The Cambridge natural history, Vol. 06 (of 10)Sharp, David
Science
The Cambridge natural history, Vol. 06 (of 10)
Sharp, David
Animals
MANDIBLES.—Savigny, Westwood, and others considered the parts of the labrum
recently designated pilifers by Kellogg to be the rudimentary mandibles,
but Walter has shown that this is not the case.[165] The mandibles are
usually indistinguishable, though they, or some prominence possibly
connected with them,[166] may frequently be detected in the neighbourhood
of the pilifers; they are, according to Walter, largest and most perfectly
developed in _Eriocephala_, a genus that was not distinguished by him from
_Micropteryx_ and was therefore termed "niedere Micropteryginen," _i.e._
lower Micropteryges. The opinion entertained by Walter that _Micropteryx_
proper (his "höhere Micropteryginen") also possesses rudimentary mandibles
is considered by Dr. Chapman, no doubt with reason, to be erroneous.[167]
The mandibles, however, in the vast majority of Lepidoptera can scarcely be
said to exist at all in the imago; there being only an obtuse
projection—without trace of {309}articulation—on each side of the labrum;
and even this projection is usually absent. Meinert recognised these
projections as mandibles in _Smerinthus populi_, and Kellogg in _Protoparce
carolina_, another large Sphinx moth. They appear to be unusually well
developed in that group. In _Castnia_ they are even more definite than they
are in Sphingidae.
The MAXILLAE are chiefly devoted to the formation of the proboscis. Their
basal portions are anatomically very indefinite, though they exist very
intimately connected with the labium. Each usually bears a small tubercle
or a segmented process, the representative of the maxillary palpus. The
proboscis itself consists of the terminal, or outer, parts of the two
maxillae, which parts are closely and beautifully coadapted to form the
spirally coiled organ, that is sometimes, though incorrectly, called the
tongue. The exact morphology of the Lepidopterous proboscis has not been
established. The condition existing in the curious family Prodoxidae (see
p. 432), where a proboscis coexists with another structure called a
maxillary tentacle, suggests a correspondence between the latter and the
galea of a typical maxilla; and between the proboscis and the lacinia or
inner lobe of a maxilla: but J. B. Smith is of opinion that the tentacle in
question is a prolongation of the stipes. The condition of the parts in
this anomalous family (Prodoxidae) has not, however, been thoroughly
investigated, and Packard takes a different view of the proboscis; he
considers that "it is the two galeae which become elongated, united and
highly specialised to form the so-called tongue or glossa of all
Lepidoptera above the Eriocephalidae."[168] The proboscis in some cases
becomes very remarkable, and in certain Sphingidae is said to attain, when
unrolled, a length of ten inches. In some cases the maxillary lobes do not
form a proboscis, but exist as delicate structures, pendulous from the
mouth, without coadaptation (_Zeuzera aesculi_, the Wood-leopard moth). In
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account