NORTH AMERICAN LEPIDOPTERA. 119 



Grote afterwards (1865) separated tlieiii again, giving the features 

 in which tliey differed as lie thought. Previously, Burnieister had 

 referred fadns Cram., as a variety of titan lacking the :d)d(iiniiial 

 white band. Grote considers this an error and restores j(/(/(/.s to rank 

 as a species. Butler finally refers titan as a synonym of /«(?/^s, and 

 places tantalus as a distinct species. Mr. Butler is not usually a 

 lumper of species, and I must confess I am puzzled to know why he 

 makes these references. Judging from Cramer's figures and descrip- 

 tions I should have considered /arfws as unquestionably distinct from 

 titan, while on the other hand I cannot, on comparing the figures 

 with what specimens I have seen separate tantalus from titan. I feel 

 very sure that titan and tantalus are identical, while I am very doubt- 

 ful, indeed, of the identity of titan with fadus. But Mr. Butler has 

 had access to many more specimens than I could examine, and his 

 careful study of the litei-ature induces me to follow his synonymy, 

 though I must express my doubts as to its correctness. Maassen 

 makes fadus and tifa)i, both synonyms of ta)italus, and perhaps he is 

 nearest right. 



I have examined the genitalia of tantalus, and they are as peculiar 

 as the superficial appearance of the species would lead one to imagine. 

 The side piece is narrow, subequal, the tip oblique ; there is a very 

 small, straight, corneous spur from its lower edge. The penis sheath 

 is very heavily armed with long spinules. The supra anal plate and 

 hooks are unique ; seen from above the plate is divided at liase, 

 united by a distinct piece in the centre, then again separated and 

 bending downward into two divaricate and slightly curved hooks ; 

 <c'cn from below it will be seen that after the separation of the plate 

 b -low its point of secondary union it divides into two distinct hoops 

 so i)laced that they cannot be recognized as distinct from above. 

 The figures on plate 4 will easily explain this peculiar structure, 

 while description is not without difliculty. The differences between 

 the si)ecies are hereafter pointed out. 



80 far as I am aware the immature forms of the species are not 

 known.* 



A. ra<lu!« Cram., Pap. Ex. i, 95, pi. 61. fig. C, Sphinx; Fabr.. Ent. Sy.st. iii, 1. 

 'i7><. S'ci'Jrt ; Hiib., Verz. 131, JEUopos ; Burni., Sph. Bi-az. 17, an var. titnn ; 

 Wlk., C. B. M. Lep. Het. viii, 89, Macroglossn ; But!., Tr. Zool. So(-. Loud. ix. 

 530, jElIopos; Maassen, Stett. Ent. Zeit. 1880. v, 41, p. 52= tantalus. 



■•■• Since the above was written Mr. Hy. Edwards has described the larva of 

 tantfiliis in Ent. Anicr. iii, 1()3. 



