SMERINTHUS. 53 



The diflerence in the shape of the wings is of no possible moment, and from the fact that Mr. Grote does not mention Iiow much more his genus 

 difiers from Paoniaa in the shape of the primaries than in that of the secondaries, we are unpleasantly led to suspect that perhaps the 

 genus Calasymbolus was reared without its architect having the proper material at hand for a solid foundation to build it on, i. e., the 

 necessary examples of Astylus, Myops, &c., &c., for comparison : Astylus certainly differs from the others more in the shape of the outer 

 margin of the primaries than in that of the secondaries ; and should any one be inclined to follow the plan adopted by Mr. Grote and 

 found genera on such trivial grounds as the shape of the wings, he would be constrained to separate Jlyops from Exeaecata on account 

 of the dissimilarity in shape of primaries, and to join it to Geniinatus on account of their close resemblance in this respect, whilst 

 Opthalmicus, Cerisyi and Geminatus ought each to be placed in separate genera on account of each having a different outline of wing, 

 and vice versa Quercus should be placed with Cerisyi, and Tiliae with Geminatus. And in fact it will be seen by comparison that there 

 are scarcely any two, except Juglandis and Fallens, which could be placed in one genus if uniformity of shape in the wings were taken 

 as the basis thereof; and it would be indeed a new era in natural science when the forepart of an insect belonged to one genus and the 

 hindpart to another, thus, supposing .Vstylus to have the " antennal structure " and primaries the same as Exeaecata or Myops, the two 

 composing Paonias, whilst the secondaries are different from those of that genus and like those of Smerinthus, as we are to infer from 

 Mr. Grote's language,* especially when taken with reference to the position of the genus Calasymbolus in his Catalogue above referred 

 to, then we would have the anomaly of an insect in which the antenna? and primaries belonged to the g?nus I'aoniasand the secondaries 

 to Smerinthus, a comjiound only equalled l)y Mad. Merian's lower figure, on t. xlix,t and for which we would propose the name of 

 Paoni — S — merinthus Astylus, the dash meaning that the head and body are left out until some other aspirant for Entomological dis- 

 tinction shall place them in a third genus. 



Mr. (irote has been, to judge from his productions, in an alarming state of indecision regarding the Smerinthi, ever since he commenced 

 to massacre them in 18<i5. In the Cat. N. Am. Sph., then compiled by himself and his colleague Mr. Robinson, Jamaicensis, Geminatus, 

 Cerisii, Optlialmicus, Pavoninus, E.^caecatus, Myops, Astylus and Modestus, nine species, are placed in Smerinthus, and Cressonia was 

 created for Juglandis, the authors entirely ignoring the previous sonorous Amorpha dentata Juglandis, which had been conceived and 

 bestowed on the unhappy insect by Ilubner, whilst Mr. Grote was yet an impalpability disporting through space. 



In the accompanying notes to the above mentioned catalogue it was hinted that Modestus might at some future time be also separated, 

 a threat which Mr. Grote has since fulfilled. 



In Sep. 1868 appeared List of the Lep. of N. Am. by the same authors, (containing the Sphingidae and Bombycidae,) a work so 

 replete with errors and inaccuracies that to eliminate them all would leave it in much the same condition as the result of that arith- 

 metical problem where " nothing from nothing and nothing remains. " In this stupendous work Jamaicensis has silently stolen away 

 without any apology for such a piece of impoliteness, and Pavoninus has been degraded to a synonym prefixed with an ?, which with 

 regard to Pavoninus was perfectly correct, all except the ?. Af.er tlie appearance of this work there was a pause of five years, when 

 Mr. Grote's last great literary eflbrt appears in his Cat. Sph. X. Am., in which the unfortunate eight species represent five general 



In this Pavoninus, after a modest retirement of eight years, is again allowed to occupy a position as a true species, with a dash( ) 



behind it, which is the author's mode of informing his readers that he knows nothing about the insect, which seems very strange for we 

 certainly should think that knocking a species in and out of place for a term of eight years ought to give opportunity of forming some 

 acquaintance with its true status, and besides, how could the learned author thus define its generic position with so much certainty if he 

 were entirely unacquainted with it ; in such cases it is usual to place the doubtful species at the end of the sub-family or genus, as is 

 done in Kirby's great Catalogue of Diurnae. 



It would be difficult to find two species more closely allied than Myops and Astylus, and if they are to be placed in different genera, 

 then all wc have to do is to give each of the Smerinthi a genus to ilself, and in order to let posterity know to whom they are in- 

 debted for such a great work, the authors should perpetuate the genera thus created by bestowing on them their own names and those 

 of their patrons. 



The two species perhaps most dissimilar in appearance, Ocellata and Populi, are known to hybridate, which fact ought to be of 

 some value in establishing intimate relationship. 



Altogether, I do not think a much more compact group exists, and any attempt at division can only be made with violence and result 

 in the increase of worse than useless .synonyms. And if separation were to be insisted on, the shape of the wings ought to be the last 

 point considered, for were that taken as a generic base Lepidopterology would be lost amidst a host of endless Princeps — Heroicus, 

 Laertias, Zetides, AchiUiades, Iliades, Menelaides and Fiddle-de~de-d(^dees, the same as disfigured the great works of Hubner, and 

 from which we can but appeal in the language of the Litany and pray "Good Lord deliver us." 

 Sei)t. 187:3. 



SMERINTHUS JUGLANDIS. abbot & Smith. 

 Insects of Georgia, Vol. I, p. o7, ( 1797. ) 



( PLATE VII, FIG. 12 c?, 13 ?. ) 



Male. Expands 2^ inches. 



Head and thorax flesh colored, a brown dor-sal ridge on tlic latter ; palpi brown ; abdomen brown with 

 edges of .segments flesh color, the anal segment with a terminal and side tufts. 



Upper surface, flesh colored ; primaries with transverse brown lines and shades, and a small discal mark 

 of like tint. Secondaries have two transverse lines accompanied by brownish shades, and are heavily clothed 

 at the ba.so with pale yellowish hair. 



Under surface, warm reddish brown ; primaries with two parallel transverse lines, between which and the 

 external margin is an irregular band of flesh color ; costa and apical part same tint. Secondaries, two median 

 lines with the space between them flesh colored ; ciliae white and brown. 



Female. Expands 21 to 3 inches. 



*Tlie genus differs from Paonitis in tlie shape of the secondaries, and from Smerintkus in antennal structure. Grote, Bull. Buff. Soc. Nat. Sc 

 I, p. 23. 



tMetamorphis Insectorum Surinamcnsium. 



