T70 



SOME NOTES AND QUERIES ABOUT MOTHS. I. 



By a. R. Grote. 



Recently, in conversation with Mr. Henry Edwards, I spoke 

 about some curiously neglected species of our moths, and my 

 friend suggested that 1 should write out my remarks for " Pa- 

 PILIO." This must be my excuse for the present gossipy paper, 

 and I thought that its appearance now might be opportune in 

 connection with the issue of the " New Check List," in the 

 preparation of which I went over the literature concerning the 

 species here mentioned. Some things which I find occasion to 

 say may explain the synonymy of the ''List" and supplement 

 notes given in its pages ; so upon this and other accounts it will 

 be best to arrange my remarks under the heading of the different 

 Families of moths. 



L SphingidtE. 



Ninety-one species of this family are cited in the check list 

 and one of doubtful value : Cahlci. Of this number one, Procne, 

 will have to go, being probably founded on an example of the 

 East Indian Liicasii. Instead, it is probable that Dr. Clemens' 

 Lyncea is not the male of Fictis, as he suggested, but a distinct 

 form. As we have Ficus from Key West, it is probable that its 

 companion Syces {= Inornata, of Clemens and Fi^s of Menetries) 

 will also occur in our territory. I have not identified Cupressi of 

 Boisduval. The figure leads me to suspect an Ellcma and per- 

 haps we have to do with a variety of Conifcraruni. The odd 

 series of abdominal marks are not like Ellcma. To the genus 

 Hemaris must be probably referred two species described by Dr. 

 Boisduval as Etolus and Pyrnnms\ the latter, as Mr. Hy. Edwards 

 suggests is probably= Uniforuiis, which \s=Riificai(dis, Kirby, ac- 

 cording to Mr. Walker. Mr. Walker's determination I am will- 

 ing to consider correct, although Kirby's description has certain 

 points of difference when compared with our species. Gracilis is 

 a totally different species and does not belong to the same group 

 with Uniformis. Mr. Hulst claims to have bred Uniformis and 

 Thysbe from the same larvae. He further unites Biiffalocnsis as a 

 small and Floridensis as a large form or variety of the same 

 species. As to Biiffalocnsis he takes no note that Prof. Lintner 

 describes the larva, and also that the cell of forewings gives an 

 apparent distinctional character. Biiffalocnsis is always a smaller 

 insect than Uniformis, whether bred or captured specimens are 

 considered, and a dwarted Uniformis would still be distinguish- 

 able from Biiffalocnsis. The species are all near. Gracilis being 

 the most easily identified, and they must be the subject of 

 careful study before pronouncing decided opinions on the dif- 

 ferent forms, which are of extreme interest. The species of 

 Hemaris will always be of uncertain standing until the larvae 

 are well understood. There was a distinct necessity for naming and 



