76 THE entomologist's record. 



Smei-inthines are more primitive than the Sphingines ; the pupa of 

 Smerinthines has a suture down the prothorax, that opens on emer- 

 gence, but in all the rest of the Sphingids has become obsolete. The 

 use of this character brings the Sphingulicae into the Smerinthines, a 

 position to which we unhesitatingly assign them. In ihe Revision they 

 are placed in the Sphingines, but with qualifying remarks to show that 

 they would be about as well placed in the Smerinthines. So that 

 we really are to no serious extent at issue with the Revision in so 

 modifying their positions. Our ignorance of early stages is abundant 

 enough to make it very possible for exceptions to this distinction, 

 even large ones, being yet discovered ; at present we do not know of 

 any, but, if so, it would still be at the same level as nearly all other 

 distinctive characters in the family. This position of the Sphintiulicac 

 had not been recognised, we believe, before the publication of the 

 Revision. Our having independently arrived at the same conclusion, 

 makes it tolerably certain that it is a sound one. It used to be 

 regarded as closely related to Hyloicus or Dolba, 



The Revision divides the Sphingines (Acherontiinae) into three 

 tribes, Acherontiicae, Sphiwiieae and Sphin(/tili(-ae. This last we have 

 already referred to ; we are equally in agreement with the Revision in 

 refusing subfamily rank to Achevontia, but we think that, in separating 

 it with a few other genera from Sphini/icae as a separate subfamily, the 

 authors are still affected by the traditional idea from which we freed 

 ourselves by very slow gradations. We are still, indeed, so far 

 dominated by it, as to think, that if Achevontia is of tribal value in the 

 sense of the Revision, then Achevontia by itself is more separable from 

 the others here associated with it under Acherontiicae than these are 

 from many other Sphingicae. In short, if Achevontia is to be separated 

 tribally, say from Protoparce or Hyloicus, then Sjihingicae must be 

 divided into a number of tribes. If this be not done, then Achevontia 

 is merely a genus of Sphingicae, but one that might have a separate 

 tribe to itself without much misrepresentation of its true position. 

 To place Hevse (Agvius [convolvuli]) in the same tribe with Achevontia, 

 and leave out all the genera that follow in the Revision down to 

 Cocytius, and even Protoparce and Kuryglottis, on the ground of the 

 very peculiar specialisation of the second palpal joint (why did not 

 Megacornia have a tribe to itself by virtue of its first palpal joint), 

 seems to us to do violence to the actual phylogenesis of the group, 

 tierse appearing to be near the common ancestor of all these, and not 

 a recent modification as Achevontia is. Many of the species in 

 Sphingicae show traces of this peculiar cave and dome of the palpus, 

 which are more likely to be recessions of the structure found in Herse, 

 than examples of its earlier stages. Nevertheless, the interpretation of 

 the facts that the /iVcisiot. adopts, is perhaps more calculated than any 

 other to call attention to the true place oi Achevontia, which is as a deri- 

 vation from the higher Sphinges after they were well elaborated, and not 

 like the Sphingulicae and Smerinthines, a branch from a fairly basal 

 position. The imago may suggest, the pupa almost proves, that a very 

 recent ancestor of Achevontia had a proboscis quite comparable in 

 length with that of Cncytius or Herse. It is curious that the shortening 

 and thickening of the proboscis, which was probably the selective 

 point, should be accompanied by a shortening and thickening of legs 

 and other parts. 



