184 [November 



to be eliminated, judging from what Mr. Walker remarks, and, in case 

 this should prove to be Cramer's licaon, the present will receive the 

 name of PJu'Iampelus postirafus Glrote. Hubner's figure, as remarked 

 by Dr. Herrich-Schajifer, is rather dark, but this seems to be a general 

 feature of all the figures of Sphingidae given in the '' Samm. Exot. 

 Sch.," while the course of the lines and the roseate anal patch leave no 

 doubt that this is the species intended. Both Mr. Walker and Prof. 

 Burmeister wrongly refer Dr. Harris' P. satelUtla to the present species. 

 The former has, in addition, given a citation of a species under the 

 name of, P. ampelophatja Harris, which (vide Clemens) does not ap- 

 pear to exist. 



Philampelus Achemon. 



The habitat of Cramer's S. Grantor is, we believe, erroneously given 

 as " Indes Orientales." The figure adequately corresponds to our spe- 

 cies, which had been previously figured and described by Drury under 

 the specific name we have here adopted. 



Pachylia ficus. 



Linnaeus' description reads as follows: "S. alls fusco-nebulosis: pos- 

 ticis angulo ani albis. Alae superiores in media puncto fusco ; macula 

 pallida ad apicem anticum ; inferiores supra fasciis 2 fuscis." He refers 

 to Merian's Pate No. 33. On this Plate M. Merian represents both 

 the present species and its larva and also P. inornata Clemens, imago 

 and larva, while the description separates two species to which diff"erent 

 dates are given for the escape of the imagos from the pupae. Linnaeus' 

 description conclusively refers to the larger species with banded secon- 

 daries, which is represented by M. Merian with wings extended. The 

 second species, P. inornata Clemens, is represented poised on a brunch- 

 let, the primaries partly covering the secondaries, which latter are 

 plainly nearly unicolorous and dark; the triangulate, costal, median, 

 paler patch, and the totality of the characters, leave no doubt as to the 

 species represented by this figure. The larvae are represented as very 

 distinct in ornamentation. We do not give, purposely, any references 

 to M. ]\Ieriau's work, or to those of authors anterior to Linimeus. In 

 the works of these early Entomologists proper scientific nomenclature 

 is not given, and, if we study theni too critically, we can only lose a 

 veneration which is evolved from the consideration of the early times 

 in which the authors wrote, without reference to their ideas, which 

 are too often erroneous, or to tiieir figures, which are very generally 

 defective. We see no propriety, then, in adopting the course of M. 

 Meuetries, in the matter of the synonymy of these two species, while 



