(■ X ) 



ill l^To, j^iivi' (lc's^.•l•iJlli(lll^ lalvi'ii tVniu lii> own s|ii'(iiuciiN iuid ii|i[ilieil the bei'ure- 

 luc'Utioiieil iiiiiiuisi'ri|il iiiuues to spucics wliirli In' liclievcd to Iju iIiu insects 

 JR! liiul SO luiiiicil ill the lii'itish IMusi'uiii, lull wiiicli were (jt'tcii iiol llu; siuuc. 

 Moreover. I'»iisilii\;il raiicil lo ieeo,^nise luany of I lie W'aikei'iaii species, and 

 descrilied llieiu auaiii iiiuler new iiaiiie>. 'I'lie eonriisioii liiii> occasioned luis, 

 we lio[ie, lieen siicce.s.sfull \ cleared n|i in I In' |iresenl, Kevisioli. 



'I'liere are '.'>* species conlained in this Kevision. Of these \vv. have iiol 

 seen llie iollowiiiL;- : — 



ll'lliiirii.s, /riiiii/;i, \k \'-\-i : known lo lis iVoni llic descrijil ion. — Kansas. 



LiijKirn iiiiuinii, p. I.ij : known lo lis IVoni the de>criplion and ligures. — 



N. York. 

 Lnimni. /iiilii-nnuKc, p. l.')o ; luiown lo lis iVoni liic description and figure. — 



Florida,. 

 I'ol'ijifi/i-h'i.'i (jiiiiili, p. '^Ah ■. known to ii> I'roiii I he description and tigure. - 



\V. Africa. 

 SiHci i nth alas {'^) i/ciiiniins, |i. :iii:J : known lo n.s IVoiii the descriplion and a 



sketch.— iSikhiiu. 

 S"ta.sj>ct< riljljci, p. -JT4: known lo lis I'roiu llie description and lii;iin'. — ('elelie^. 

 I'lujiroscrpiniis cutn-pc, p. lil.i; known lo us lixuu the descripl ion. — ( 'alitbriiia. 

 Arctonotas tcrlooi, p. (i'Hi ; known to us I'roiu the descrijition and ligiire. — 



W. Mexico. 

 Jlijijiotiou Ijutkri, \). 7GU ; known to us from the description und ligiire. — 



Madagascar. 



The names of wliich we have seen the tyjies are marked with an asterisk 

 (*) in the bililiography. 



Since Linue and Fabricius the Sphiiujida.c of the glolie have been five times 

 ckissitied, revised, or catalogued. Hiibner, in his Ver. bcIi. SchinettUmii: (about 

 l>i2'l), was tlie hrst to propose a detailed classitication of Lepidojitera. Tiie work 

 was, in sjiite of all its glaring mistakes, far in advance of the time, and was 

 therefore almost entirely neglected by the contem]iorary entomologists, and sub- 

 sequently forgotten or treated as not being worth consideration. \\'e do not 

 see any reason for rejecting the generic names j)ublished by Hiibner in the 

 Verzeichnisa. The deliuitions are insufficient and often incorrect, and the species 

 considered geuerically the same belong often to widely diilerent groujis, while 

 close allies stand widely separated. That is ipiite true : but the Ijadness of the 

 classitication and of the definitions is — perha|is unfortnnately--no valid argument 

 against the adoption of the names. if it were, we should likewise have to 

 reject a multitude of names proposed b\ more recent authors, whose definitions 



