180 [November 



macula nigra in disco, et fascia nigra postice." The Plate of M. Me- 

 rian's referred to, represents two distinct species. The lower figure 

 on the Plate seems to us to represent Philampelus It/cnou Grote. The 

 upper, and the one probably intended by Linnaeus, while neither figure 

 is numbered, represents the species which we intend here as P. vifis. 

 The figure is gross, and in the uncolored copies might be readily mis- 

 taken for a second species which we describe here as PhilampphiH 

 Linnei, which has been figured by Cramer on Plate 2GS, figure E, a 

 figure which has been confounded with that on Plate 267, fig. C, by Mr. 

 Walker and Dr. Clemens. M. Meriun evidently mistook the two spe- 

 cies which she figures, for sexes of one and the same species. We 

 quote: "een schoner Uil voortquam, gruen en rood met ligte leverwige 

 streepsen, haar smuit en hornjes waren gout geel, die Mannetjes wareu 

 schoonder als die Wyftjes." The upper figure has the pink terminal 

 band, which is characteristic of PJt.ilamprlus vifis, nob, and this feature 

 is decisive as to the species intended. Drury, in 1770, is the first En- 

 tomologist after Linnasus to figure and describe Linnaeus' Sphiux vitis. 

 His figure, which is very satisfactory, represents the slighter species 

 with the terminal pink band, and this figure is mistakenly quoted with 

 Cramer's Plate 267, fig. C, and Abbot & Smith's Plate 40, by Mr. 

 Walker and Dr. Clemens, in the synonymy of the species figured by 

 Cramer on Plate 268, fig. E, and which these authors determine as 

 Sphinx vitis Linn. In 1776 the authors of the Wiener Yerzeichniss 

 figure Sphinx vitis Linn, on the two colored Frontispieces to their work. 

 The figures agree with Drury's. In the same year Sulzer figures the 

 same species as Sphinx /nsciatus Sulzer, a name which is therefore a 

 simple synonym of Sphinx vitis Linn., while, without having seen the 

 work, Mr. Grote has hastily supposed that Sulzer's figure represented 

 the second species, misled by the incorrect synonymy of Mr. Walker 

 and Dr. Clemens. Cramer next, in 1782, figures the *S'. vitis of Lin- 

 ngeus correctly on Plate 267, while mistakenly figuring on Plate 268, 

 and for the first and only time, the second species — Philampelus Lin- 

 nei, nob — as the female of S. vitis. Cramer criticizes, on another page 

 of his work, the course of Sulzer in re-describing Linnaeus' ,S. vitis 

 under the new name of /S'. fasciatas. In 1797, Abbot & Smith figure 

 Sphinx vitis. Their excellent figure represents the same species given 

 by Drury, the W. V. and Cramer (Plate 207). Both 3Ir. Walker and 

 Dr. Clemens quote the figure of Abbot k Smith's in the synonymy of 

 their P. vitis, which, as already stated, is not tliat of Merian, Linn,, 

 Drury, " W. V.," nor of Abbot & Smith. Dr. Clemens adds to the 



