ON SOME N. AMERICAN SPHINGID.E IN A. G. BUTLER'S REVISION. 141 



The most striking point of difference is in the absence in P. Slrenua of the broad pale band that crosses the upper surface of pri- 

 maries lengthwise from base to the great pale mesial band in P. Linnei, also in tiie absence of the paler border of exterior margin. 



No. "3, Philampelus hornbeckiana, Harris, Cat. N.-Am. Sph. Sill. Journ. p. l!99, (1839). "St. Thomas, West Indies." Ilmris. 

 Apparently allied lo the preceding." 



It is quite likely that this and P. Linnei are the same species but as Dr. Harris' type is not to be found and his de.scription 

 not fully agreeing with P. Linnei it will have to remain one of those plagues to I-epidopterists, a description without a type, unless per- 

 chance time or some ai'cident solves the riddle. 



Page 575, Xo. " 9, PiriLAMrELUS pandorus. Daphnis pandorus, Hnbner." 



The author should have added to his synonyms of this species Philampelus Satellitia, Harris, instead of eiting the latter as = 

 Sphinx Satellitia, Linn. 



Page 578, No. "19, Philampelus labrusc.e. Sphinx labrnsaz, Linnaetis. Mus. Lud. Ulr. p. 3-y2, (17G4)." 

 This .species has to my knowledge twice been taken in the United States — once in New Jersey and once in Florida. 



Genus 18, No."l, Pachylia ficus. Sphinx Jicns, Linnjeus, ^lus. Lnd. Ulr. p. 352, (1704)." 

 Has been captured in S. W. Texas. 



With the Smerinthus Mr. Butler has taken the same if not more liberty than did Grote, making out of every group a separate 

 genus, though sometimes the species even in these limited genera are not happily grouped. I cannot possibly see why Smerinlhus 

 Quenus, W. V., should be associated in the genus Mimas with S. Titice, L. and .S'. Decolor, Wlk., neither of which does it in any 

 way closely resemlde, wliilst such species as 5. Dyras, S. Oaschkevitschii, S. Albicans, etc., which it closely resembles, are made to consti- 

 tute the genus rcipto^en, and I fear it is tript and tript again all through in these Hubnerian — Groteian — Butlerian coitus-generic 

 arrangements which .seem to be the only excepliimable points of any moment in the work I am now examining. In the aforesaid genus 

 Triptogen is placed our S. Tl/odes^a, of which the author says " this is unquestionably the proper place for this sjiecies," lo which no 

 particular objection can be made as it is as near to the Dgras group or nearer than to any other, but why, I would again ask, is S. 

 Qaercns, which resembles Dyras and allies much more than does Modesta, removed so far away, with four genera intervening? 



Page 590. Is described under the name of Cressonia Robinsonii, what issuppo.sed to be a new sjiccies allied to S. Juglandis, Ab.-S. 

 The author says : " We have a pair of what seems to be a second s)iecies; it is of a greyer tint and half as large again, the transverse 

 lines wider a[)art, and the primaries wtih central band not darkened on the inner margin ;" and further suggests " it is quite possible 

 that the above may be a large form of C. Jaglandis ; but it differs noticeably from our si.x examples of that species." 



I do not know of anything agreeing with the above description in any American collection. Is Mr. Butler quite sure that 

 "New York" is the true locality of this tyiie? 



No. "3, Cres-sonia fallens. 9 Smerintlms pollens, Strecker, Lep. Ehop. & Het. pt. 7, p. 54, pi. vii, fig. 14, (1873), Texas." 

 To which is appended the following foot note: "Mr. Grote is conSdent that this is only a variety of C. jmjlandis. 1 1 looks 



quite distinct." 



Mr. Butler's only ground for stating that "it looks quite distinct" is from examination of my figure, he being in England and 



the type having never left my 'cabinet. But how Grote came to be so confident as to a-ssert the species was only Juglandis is a marvel 



it being impossible for him ever to have seen the type as none but gentlemen enter my house. 



Mr. Butler says on page 590, " I find that dissimilarity in the outline of wings is almost always accomp.anied by modification of 

 the discocellular nervelets, which would be sufficient in the eyes of any Lepidopterist to warrant generic separation," and on same Jiage 

 commences his genus Paonias, comprised of two species, Eiccecatus and Myops. showing about as much dissimilarity in the outline of 

 wings as can probably be found between any of the species among all the Smerinthus. 



Page 591, Aslylas, wliich is closer to Myops than any other species, is placed in another genus, the Calasyinbolus of Grote. In 

 regard to my figure the au'hor says, "Strecker's figure of this species has the two opposite primaries rather different in outline; but 

 jutlgiug from Drury's figure, I have little doubt as to its genus." As regards this dill'erence of outline he is correct; so was 1 in my 

 drawing, for on examining the example from which I drew tlie figure I find the same difference in outline exists as in the figure which 

 I faithfully copied. 



In this same genus Calasymbolus a.\cing with Astylus are placed Geminalus, Cerysii, Coecus and Kindermanni, which four species bear 

 no particular resemblance lo Astylus in outline of wing, colour, or anything else e.xcept in the common fact that all have an ocellus on 

 hind wings. This extension of Calasymbolus was too much for even Grote who in Can. Ent. IX, p. 132, says: "I am not now prepared 

 to accept the extension of Ca/a.si/iH6o/u.s ; " but to make amends he immediately after makes a new genus which he calls Eusmerinthus 

 for the reception of Oemina'us, in order that he can .s.ay Eusmerinthus Geminalus, (Trote, instead of iSni. Geminatns, Say. 



In his arrangement of species Mr. Butler has No. 2 Geminalus, No. 3 Cerisii, and No. 4 Oecus. Why Cerysi was placed between 

 Geminatns and Ccecus 1 cannot imagine, as Cmcus is so close to Geminalus that were it not for the difference in the first principal trans- 

 verse line or shade on primarie.s, which is strongly angulated in the latter, they might be considered identical. 



The variety of Geminatns figured in Drury and there named Jamaicensis, Mr. Butler has cited erroneously as a synonym of S. 

 Myops. 



Page 603, No. " 3, Dilophonta merian.e. Erinnyis meriance, Cxrote, Proc. Ent. Soc. Phil, v, pp. 75 and IGS, pi. 2, fig. 2, (1865). 



"Tropical insular and continental districts!" {Grote)." 



I have received examples of the above bred from larvfe found in S. W. Texas near San Antonia and New Braunfels. 



Page 618, No. "2, Sphinx le\u:>phdeata, Clemens, .Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil. 1859, p. 168. Sphinx lugens (part.). Walker, Lep. 

 Het. viii, p. 219, No. 11, (1856). Oaxaca, Mexico, (Harlweg)." 



S. Leucophceata is unknown to American Lepidopterists further than by Clemen's description. For my part I have little 

 doubt but that it is a synonym of 5. LugerK, Wlk., although of this latter Mr. Butler say.s, "although coming from the same locality as 

 the preceding, and very like it in its general character, I believe this species to be quite distinct. It is altogether shorter, broader and 

 darker, and has the pale bars of secondaries much narrower and whiter." 



By whom were the examples in the Britisli Museum, cited by Mr. Butler as Leucophceata, identified? 



