171 



separating the different forms. Before we wrote upon them, all 

 the different forms were called either " Z>/^/;;> " or" TJtysbe" 

 and though now there may be too many names, they must be 

 carefully studied before being all thrown together again as varie- 

 ties. 



I close my notes on these Sphingidce, by again explaining Dr. 

 Boisduval's remark as to Phaeton, that we gave the name to the 

 insect first in 1865, some two or three years before receiving 

 specimens from himself, and that we were under the impression 

 when we published this name that it was a MSS. one of his, 

 which it now appears it was not, although the name given to an 

 unpublished plate of the species when we described the insect in 

 our Synonymical Catalogue. We again described the species 

 and genus from Dr. Boisduval's specimen before the appearance 

 of his name of Erato, which name, in his final work, Dr. 

 Boisduval withdraws, and calls the insect Phaeton, which is its 

 correct designation. The singular antennae of this little Sphinx 

 remind us ot those organs in the still more aberrant form, Arctono- 

 tus oi Boisduval,* and which I am the first to locate among the 

 Macrogiossians, I believe ; in his last work Boisduval follows this 

 example. The genus Cautethia replaces Oenosanda of Walker, 

 there being already a genus Oenosandra when Walker published 

 his name. 



It contains three species, apparently, viz.: the type Noctui- 

 formis, from St. Domingo, which I have examined, and which is 

 certainly different looking from our South Florida insect, Grotei 

 of Mr. Edwards. The Cuban species was identified by Dr. Her- 

 rich Schaeffer as Noctiiifonnis, and he has figured it as such, but 

 it is the same as our Florida form, very probably. The third 

 species is Boisduval's Spuria from Mexico, larger but much like the 

 other two. With regard to the queries as to our Sphingidca, we 

 have to find out the species described by Boisduval as Pyramus, 

 Etolus and Ciipressi, while the probability is that we have all three 

 forms under other names. Mr. Butler's surmise that we did not 

 know Ltigens is incorrect, for at once I recognized its re-descrip- 

 tion as hreviitoides by Mr. Strecker. The student of the liter- 

 ature of the group will find that we were the first to recognize the 

 character of the adhering scales on the vitreous fields of the wing 

 in Heinarts, and that Mr. Strecker's account of the changing char- 

 acter of our views is fanciful. We were at first doubtful about 

 the value of the character of the inner edge to the outer band on 

 forewing, and hesitated to form species upon it. Now it is found 

 that this character is reliable, but whether it characterizes dimor- 

 phic or true species is not clear. In the case of Uniformis we 

 must admit, until Mr. Hulst's discoveries are contradicted, that it 



*Incorrectly attributed to me in the Brooklyn List. 



