hand, cerisii comes nearer to exccscalus in the form of the outer margin 

 of the fore wings than either of the others. 



Without enumerating further points of agreement or difference, it 

 seems to me that we must either accept Paonias, Calasymbolus and Smer- 

 inthus or else unite them all under the one genus Smerinlhus. Which 

 will be most "convenient"? 



Mr. Smith states as follows in his remarks under "Darapsa". "I 

 cannot separate Ampelophaga versicolor from this genus". Not feeling 

 quite willing to take this ex cathedra statement without question, I exam- 

 ined my material {choerilus, myron and versicolor), with some degree of 

 care and find the following points of agreement. The head is small 

 with the scales forming a central ridge or tuft between the antennae; pro- 

 boscis about half the length of the body; palpi of medium size and 

 length, curving up and pressed against the front; eyes of medium size, 

 hemispherical and slightly ciliated; ocelli wanting; antennae slim, fusi- 

 form, prominently hooked at the end, biciliate in the males but simple 

 in the females: thorax short and stout, but little advanced in front of the 

 base of the fore wings, vestiture smooth; abdomen large, cylindrical, 

 tapering rather suddenly on the last segments, without anal or side tufts, 

 segments destitute of spinules along the hinder edge; tibiae not spinose 

 (fore and middle tibiae spinose in choerilus), middle tibiae with one pair 

 of comparatively long, unequal spurs, the hind tibiae with two pairs. 



The fore wings have eleven veins (vein 10 wanting), the apex falcate 

 or the outer margin excavate from the apex to the end of vein 4, and 

 rounded beyond. The hind wings have the outer margin excavate be- 

 tween veins ib and 3, but nearly straight beyond, or they appear to be 

 somewhat produced at the end of vein ib; costa of all the wings arcuate; 

 frenulum and loop present in the males, loop wanting in the females but 

 the frenulum is represented by a cluster of very short fine bristles. 



Why these species should ever have been separated Is more than I 

 can conceive. As shown above, they belong to the genus Everyx. If 

 any separation is to be made, \t would seem that choerilus should be the 

 one separated from the other two, because of its spinose tibiae. 



Mr. Smith says that Deilephila has "the fore tibiae at the tip and the 



irsi at the sides furnished with longer claw like spines'', but by a careful 



examination often examples of lineata and fourteen of chamcenerii, I find 



the fore tibiae entirely free from spines but there is a row of longer and 



larger, somewhat curved spines on the outside of the fore tarsi only. 



When we find Daremma, Diludia. Phlegethontius, Dolba and Hylou- 

 itx by one stroke of the pen all united under Sphinx, is it not time to 

 call a halt? Why not have put Ceratomia into the same lot? Did those 

 four little tli< 'ins on the larva inspire fear? Surely Ceratomia is more 



