( 491 ) 



c? $ . Intermediate between rifis and satellitia, bearing:; a ratlier close re- 

 semblance to Ph. satellitin po.s//C(ifi/f< from Cuba. The fiirnre of the ? given by 

 Mt'iietries is not very exact, and misled Grote as well as Rothschild to redescribe 



the species. Forewiug, uppersitle : a ]>ale subbusul and a pale discal band as in 



litis, stigma divided as in ritis ; ]>ale longitudinal band vestigial in basal half ; 

 sidimarginal area nearly as in postiratux ; a pale curved band from apex to R^, 



followed before hinder angle by a pale jiatch. Hiudwing of the same type as in 



ritis, black discal line less obvious, submarginal baud much narrower. Under 



surface vinaceous-red with brown border. First segment of hindtarsns nearly as 

 long as tibia. 



S. Tenth tcrgite pointed as in sntrllitia. Dorsal margin of clasper almost 

 straight, slightly concave ; liarpe nearly as long as in michemolus, slenderer, tip 

 more ]iointed and curved upwards, intermediate betweeu anchemohis and ritis. 

 Process iif jienis-sheatli hnig, jiointed, about five times as long as tlie sheath 

 is liroad. 



HkIj. Haiti and < 'ubn. 



In the Tring Museum 1 S from Haiti. 



41s. Pholus vitis. 



Merian, Metum. his. S/iri>i. t. 47. fig. sup. (I , ji.. i.) (ITO."!). 



Sj/hhi.1- rilh Linne, 81/sl. Xat. ed. x. p. 4',ll. n. 14 (17s) ; id., .^fus. Lml. Uli: p. 3.i4 (17G4) ; Houtt., 

 ^\lturl. Hist. i. 11. p. 438. n. 14 (17{i7) (partini) ; Linne, Syst. Nat. ed. xii. p. 801. n. IG (17G7); 

 Mull., Xaltirs. v. 1. p. 640. n. IG (1774) (partini) ; Fabr., Sy.'<l. Eiit. p. 542. n. 19 (1775) 

 (partim); Cram., Paj). E.rnt. ii. p. 138. t. 268. f. E (1780) ; Burm., AM. Nat. Ges. Hulle p. 64 

 (1854) ; Weym., Stett. Eiit. Zeit. xxxvi. p. 46 (1875) ; Auriv., Kongl. Sv. Vet. Ak. Uandl. xix. 

 5. p. Hi.') (1882) (recensio critica ; special, typ. praeserv.). 



Ihipi, nlis, Hiibuer, Vn-z.heh. Schm. p. 137. n. 14GG (1822). 



I'hihimpelns hornherkhin'i Harris, in Sillini., Journ. Sc. Art xxxvi. p. 299 note (18.'59) (St. Thomas). 



Philampelus vitis, Walker, List Lep. fns. B. ^f. viii. p. 176. n. 4 (1S5G) (partim). 



Philampelus liimei Grote & Robinson, Pi-nc. Ent. Soi'. Philad. v. p. 157. n. 51. t. 3. f. 3 ( ? ) (1865). 



We cannot quite understand how it is possible that anybody, after the clear 

 statements of Weymer (1875) and Aurivillius (1882), could any longer follow 

 Messrs. Grote and Robinson in considering as Linne's ritis the species with red 

 distal and abdominal borders to the hindwing. The authors of linnei were wrong 

 in tlieir interjiretation of Linne's descrijjtion, not to say careless, being probably 

 misled by a wrongly coloured copy of Merian's Met. Ins. Surin. There remains not 

 the shadow of a doubt about wliich insect is the real ritis, if one has compared 

 Merian's figure and Linne's description. The true ritis is the vine-feeder with only 

 tlie abdominal margin of the hindwing red and the stigma of the forewing divided, 

 and not the species which feeds ou Jus-vena and has a simple stigma on the forewing 

 and red abdominal and distal borders to the hindwing. If the descriptions of 

 Liinie', Fabricius, etc., were all as clear as that of ritis, there would be no disagree- 

 nu'ut as to the ajiplication of their names. "Why nearly all authors adhere to the 

 "pinion of Grote and Robinson we cannot imagine, but they are really more to 

 blame than the authors of the muddle themselves, considering that the error has 

 been jiointed out several times. John Smith (1888) goes even so far as to say, 

 " Messrs. Grote and Robinson have given a very full history of the two forms 

 [ritis and linnei], satisfactorily straiglitening out the confusion theretofore 

 existing. It will be sufficient to refer the student to this bit of careful study, and 

 to note my full concurrence in their views." iSurely, I'rof. Smith cannot have 

 compared the original descriptions or Merian's figure. 



