172 



is a dimorphic form of Thyshe {Pelasgus). Among the species in 

 the typical group o{ Hemaris not examined by me are Senta, Str. 

 and Metathetis, Butl. As catalogued by me, I think the species 

 are correct so far as our knowledge goes ; I regret that I placed 

 Floridensis as a variety of Uniformis, until more material is re- 

 ceived. Our type is, I think, in Central Park collection, A spec- 

 imen I received from Florida had the margin of the band like 

 Floridensis, but the abdomen like Fuscicaudis. Was this a dimor- 

 phic form oi Fuscicaudis, equivalent to Uniformis? 



When Clemens wrote, Anipelophaga, Boisd., was an unknown 

 species ; but I found that this was the equivalent of Pandorus, 

 wrongly called Satellitia by Harris. Clemens has left us another 

 query, viz : What x's, Deilcphila oxybaphi? described by him in 

 the larval stage only. Kirby's species in Coleoptera, no less than 

 Lepidoptera, do not seem easily recognizable from his descrip- 

 tions. He has described a Deilephila intermedia, that most au- 

 thors seem to think cannot well be our common Chamoenerii. 



On pages 44 to 45 of our Synonymical Catalogue we give 

 the names of the doubtful species. Some of the species, such 

 as Scyron and Japix, had been merely wrongly credited to our 

 fauna by older writers. The debatable names at present are : 



Deilephila intermedia^ Kirby. Paonias pavoninus^ Geyer. 



" ■ oxybaphi, Clemens, . Macroglossa Etolus, J. Leconte. • 

 Pachylia Lyncea,C\tv[\&r\s. Macroglossa Pyramus, Bo'isd, ■ 



Sphitix Cupressi, Boisd. 



Dr. Clemens' species of ChcBrocampa, described from speci- 

 mens no longer in the Collection of the Academy at Philadelphia, 

 are all extra limital. His Macrosila Instita, as published on 

 page 14 of our Catalogue, is the same as Ochus of Klug, a 

 species curiously neglected by Walker in the British Museum 

 Lists. 



With regard to the genera adopted in the •' New Check List," 

 they have been thoroughly tested so far as priority is concerned. 

 1 cannot find an objection to one of them and I think they stand 

 upon a strong scientific basis and ought not to he disputed with- 

 out grave cause. That in a few cases, as the genera allied to 

 Svicrinthus and CJioerocampa, certain of them are of subgeneric 

 rather than generic value, may be still a matter of dispute. I 

 think the student will find that this can only be properly ques- 

 tioned of two or three, and that, although there may be some 

 prejudice against them, more will be lost than gained in lumping 

 the species all together again. As they stand, they fall in with 

 what has been observed by a student of the Sphinxes of the 

 world, such as Mr. Butler, and, in great part. Dr. Boisduval. 

 Where I differ from Mr. Butler, as in adopting Dilophonota, nearly 



