( 127 ) 



Liirva and chrysalis unknown. 



Ilab. Uoscry Mine, h^panish Hondnras, 3(HM) to 411011 ft. ; 3 c?c?, 1 ? (Mas. Tfing), 

 t'lpe : S. 



A 9 from the same locality in coll. Dogniu. 



This may be only a southern form of istur ; but as the diflerences in colour are 

 very ai)))arent if the two insects are jdaced side by side, we think it wiser to keep 

 them specifically distinct f(U- the jjresent. It is quite possible that, fiie two occur 

 together and are independent of each other, and diil'er also essentially in the earlier 

 stages. 



inl. Hyloicus lanceolata. 



(?) .s>/i/».«,- Ifucviilinmta Clemens, .Jouni. Ac. X. Sci. Philad. iv. p. 1G8. n. 63 (1859) (Texas); 

 Schaus, Ent. X(ii:s vi. p. 143 (1895) (probably hinceolahi). 



*Sjthiiu- lam-eolata Boisduval, Con.<. Lip. Guat. p. 73 (1870) (no descr. ; Guatemala) ; Feld., Reise 

 Novara, Lep. t. 78. f. 3. (1874) (Mexico :— Mus. Tring) ; Boisd., S/jec. Gen. Lip. Hit. i. p. 109. 

 n. 48 (1875) (Mexico) : Butl., Traw. Zool ,Sof. Loud. ix. p. 619. n. 12 (1877) ; Streck., Lep. 

 Rhnp. Ilet. p. 14-2 (1878) (Panama) ; Druce, Bhl. Centr. Amei:, Lep. Jlet. i. p. 23. n. 4 (1883) 

 (" not seen ") : Kirby, Vat. Lrp. Het. i. P- 600. n. 1 (1892) (" Honduras " ; Mexico) : Schaus, 

 /.('. (1895) (common in Vera Cruz) ; Druce, / ''. Stqi/il. p. 319 (1896) (Jalapa ; Orizaba). 



Sphhi.r aequhioctialis Boisduval, l.l.c.c. (nom. max. supervacuum !). 



c??. AVe quite agree with Mr. Schaus, who said, I.e., that in his opinion 

 leucophaeata was a northern form of lanceolata. The description of lettcophaeata 

 fits lanceolata except in one point; the hindwing is said to be "greyish, with a 

 black median band and broad black marginal band," no mention being made of 

 the conspicuous black basal patch present in all specimens of lanceolata. As this 

 |)atch is wanting in ckersis or only vestigial, it seems to us quite likely that there 

 exists, unknown to entomologists, a Sphinx in Texas and New Mexico which is 

 the true leucophaeata, standing intermediate between lanceolata and chersis. There 

 is certainly a link wanting between these two species, which agree in many respects. 

 This link may difier from lanceolata in being devoid of the black basal patch of the 

 hindwing, and from chersis in having (like lanceolata) a non-spinose midtibia. 

 Another intermediate hypothetical form, which may turn out one day to be real, is 

 a Sphinx with the basal patch present and the midtibia spinose. 



So much is sure, that we cannot with any degree of certainty say whether 

 lanceolata, is a synonym of the unknown quantity named leucophaeata, or whether 

 the two are distinct, or whether they are geographical forms of one species. The 

 benefit of the doubt remains with lanceolata, which name we must employ for the 

 prese.nt insect. 



Boisduval did not describe the insect in 1870 ; he simply cited Felder's plate — 

 of which he had received a copy in advance — and only remarks that the species was 

 larger than the largest specimens of tetrio (= asdntbal). Whether the very bad 

 female from Guatemala was really this species, or perhaps our praelongas, we cannot 

 tell. All the specimens examined by us were from Mexico. Kirby gives Honduras 

 as locality without authority ; but Strecker, I.e., records it from Panama. 



The species stands more isolated than its congeners, differing from the preceding 

 Hi/loicus in the chersisAika forewing and penis-sheath, from the following ones in 

 the non-spinose midtibia. It represents a type from which chersis and allies have 

 developed by acquiring spinose midtibiae. There is some rather obvious individual 

 variation in the distinctness of the transverse lines of the forewing. The mcso- 

 thoracical tegulae have no black mesial line, but only a black upper border, as 

 described by Clemens in leucophaeata. Butler's identification as leucophaeata of 



