( 269 ) 



/'. Fiirewiug below with a large, anterior!}' 

 rather sharply ilefiued, orange-tawny 

 area extending from W to near hinder 

 margin, rest of wing very much 

 darker 232. M. spectahilis. 



Forewing without that patch, or the patch 

 small and clayish tawny, not well 

 defined anteriorly ..... g. 



(J. Body above with a prominentmesial line ; 

 upperside of wings and body very 

 uniform in colour, without distinct 

 pale shades, subanal spot M- uf hind- 

 wing absent or vestigial . . . 231. M. criatata. 



Body without heavy mesial line, or wings 



with pale shades ..... h. 



h. Forewing with the most distal line 

 double, the exterior one of the pair 

 the heavier ..... 233. M. cl>/ras. 



Forewing with the most distal line not 

 double, or the exterior one of the jmir 

 vestigial ....... i. 



i. Forewing below uniformly vandyke- 

 brown, or the basal half much paler 

 than the distal half .... 23.i. .1/. ftMoni. 



Forewing below pale ochraceous-butf or 



cream-colour, much shaded with grey 238. J/, sjierehius. 

 j. Forewing below cream-colour ; apical 



area not tawny ..... 231). M. quercus. 



Forewing below pale ochraceous-butf ; 



apical area tawny, sharply defined . 234. ,1A amhoinicus. 



Butler enumerated these species under Triiitoc/on — except /j//rrc//.f, which he 

 put together with tiliae and decolor into Mimas — and quoted Bremer as author of 

 Triptogon. Moore, when proposing the new name Marumha, said that the type 

 of Triptogon was dissimilis, an insect generically distinct from Martimha. Neither 

 Butler nor Moore had read, we think, what Bremer said in the place which they 

 (piote. He distinctly stated that he placed dissimilis only provisionally into 

 Triptogon— a, nondescript genus proposed in IS.oT by Menetries for some South 

 American Sesiinae — and that he would bring it into a new genus in a later 

 pajter, which intention he did not carry out. How Butler and Moore arrived 

 at the conclusion that dixsiuiilix was the type of Triptotjon we are at a loss to 

 understand. 



Kirliy, in his Catalogue, placed qnevcus into a separate genns, which he called 

 Laotho'' : there is no justification whatever for separating qmrcus from jankoirskii, 

 spercliius, etc. It is needless to show that Butler's Mimas was quite unnatural ; 

 the three species under that name belong to three genera. Collectors of Palaearctic 

 Lepidoptera are, as a rule, contented with placing the species of Marumha together 

 with a motley of other forms under the generic term Smerinthm ; Staudinger and 

 Rebel, in their Catalogue, separating, however, tiliae from the rest as Dilina ! A 



