78 JOHN B. SMITH. 



SPHINGINiE. 



Amphonyx, Cautethia Dilophonota, Macrosila, Protoparce, Da- 

 remma, Dolba, Dilndia, Hyloicus, Sphinx, Lintneria, Ceratomia, El- 

 lema, Lapara. 



The genus Arctonotus was unknown to Mr. Butler, and is placed 

 among the doubtful Sphingidce. 



Mr. Butler does not define the generic terms used by him. except 

 when new, so that except for the aggregation of the species it is not 

 easy to know what Mr. Butler's ideas of the limit of the terms are. 



At all events the paper is an important one, and I have followed 

 it closely in the synonymy where unable to verify it myself, believing 

 that Mr. Butler would not suppress a species without good cause. 

 His material, too, was j)robably much larger in the case of the sub- 

 tropical forms than that at the command of any jDrevious author. 



In 1877, in the third volume of the Buff. Bull., Mr. Grote gave 

 yet another list, retaining the main divisions and general arrange- 

 ment of the previous list, and adding species since described. In 

 the Caudiberbes, ChamcBsesia is added for gracilis, referred to 

 Hcemorrhagia in the previous list. In the Eumorphte, Elibia is 

 used for versicolor, previously referred to Darapsa, and Everyx is used 

 for the other species of Darapsa. 



In the Phaljenoides, Calasymbolus now contains also myops; 

 Eiismerinthus is added for geminatus and cerisii, and Triptogon re- 

 places Amorpjha. 



In the Manduc^e, Phlegethontius replaces Macrosilo.; Lethia is 

 included in Sphinx, as is also Agrius lugens, while Lintneria is sub- 

 stituted for Agrius eremitiis. 



These changes, as Mr. Grote says, were induced by a study of the 

 works of Boisduval and Butler, and are partly explained in foot- 

 notes. Evidently no personal study was made and no reason is given 

 for separating such closely allied forms as lugens and eremitus. In 

 fact nothing in this, or in the previous lists indicates that any but the 

 most superficial study of the family was ever attempted by Mr. 

 Grote. 



Worthy of mention here is a paper by P. Maassen Stett. Ent. Zeit. 

 1880, V, 41, pp. 49-72, reviewing Mr. Butler's work in the Sphingidse. 

 The author professes to be an admirer of Boisduval, and roughly 

 criticises Butler for his disagreement with that author. He makes 

 many notes on American species and their synonymy, some of them 



