MONOGRAPH OF CHINESE CICADIDAE

中華蟬譜

劉淦芝(LIU KAN-CHIH)

《臺灣省立博物館季刊》 31卷1&2期 (1978/06) Pp. 1-184

https://doi.org/10.6532/QJTM.197806_31(1_2).0001

摘要

This paper consists of an historical account of what the Chinese knew about the cicadas as compared with that in Europe and a systematic study of the materials on hand in order to ascertain the affinity of the Chinese Cicadidae with that of the neighboring countries. In addition, attempts were also made with modern knowledge to identify these insects as they appear in Chinese Classics. There is no question that Chinese knowledge of these insects is far ahead of that of European. We find for instance that, long before the Christian era, in addition to an embryonic attempt on cataloguing these insects, the way of sound production was even proposed as a principle for classification. Again we find that the detailed process of ecdysis was carefully described before the tenth century. These purely entomological facts, however, are less interesting and significant when compared the two points, mentioned below, which emerge automatically from these comparative studies. (1) The growth of human mind seems to follow a similar course both in the East and in the West. In the East there was a long period of intellectual somnolence, which separated our modern scientific period from the old golden age before the Christian era. The same thing happened in the West. This transition from one to the other seems to be a natural process; namely, when the scholasticist found that their blind faith in authority would not lead them anywhere and that their verbal pedantry would never settle any controversy, the only thing for them to do is to appeal to facts themselves. If this conclusion is true, then it follows that China would come to her modern stage of scientific panorama even without the impact from the West. (2) There are so many conceptional reactions to the cicada common between the East and the West that one could not see any explanation better than the one that human brain, qualitatively made of the same material, would exhibit the same reaction when subject to the same stimulus, in this case, the cicada. True some of these similarities between the East and the West may be traced to the same origin, for instance cicada in decoration. But it is difficult to imagine that this ＂common origin＂ would be able to explain all of them, at least not in the case of taking cicada as food. The study also discovers that the cicada, Huechys sanguinea, of the European writers is not the same medicinal cicada of the Chinese Pentsao, as it is generally believed. It may be pointed out that the word Huechy is a direct romanization of the Chinese which is a fulgorid, Lycorma delicatula White. Among Chinese cicadas, Huechys sanguinea is the only one which has received exhaustive study by European chemists, especially the French. The systematic section includes 39 species and 17 varieties, all with full description and detailed distribution. Most of these specimens were collected by the writer in China. There are many new species and new records. There are also many corrections on old species. For the benefit of Chinese students, keys for tribes, genera and species are also prepared. As to the faunistic affinity of the Chinese Cicadidae, although our present knowledge of this group of insects in China is still much limited, yet an analytical study of the materials already known tends to show that the cicada fauna of China is predominantly oriental. The present writer is inclined to think that, so far as the Chinese cicadas are concerned, they might be originated from the southeastern slope of the Himalaya range.