(3N SOME N. AMERICAN SPHINGID.E IN A. Li. BUTLER'S REVISION. 143 



reason wliv it slioulil imt be; even if llic insect ia allied to an Asiatic species, is it more wonderful to find a species of C hmrocampa 

 on tlie Pacitic coant allied to an Asiatic one than to Knd such closely allied things as Smerinthus Gecus and 5. Oeminnlus, the ilrst in 

 Asia, the latter in the Atlantic United States, or Parnassius Intermedia^ and P. Sminlheus, which I believe are identical, the former in 

 the Altai Mts. and the latter in the Mts. of Colorado? 



Page 642, " Hyloicus saniptei. Sphinx Saniptri, Strecker, Lep. Rhop. and Het. i, pi. xiii, tig. 18 (1876J." 



I am now cimvinced this is identical with Sph. Pinasiri. My principal grounds, apart from its being found in the United Stales, 

 which is of small moment, was the absence of the broad dark transverse shade of primaries, but 1 have since received examples from 

 Germany which are also destitute of this band or shade. 



Attached to this monograph are five coloured plates representing various species, mostly new, of Sphingidae, and aNo a number 

 of larvse. 



1 cannot say I am enamoured with the frightfal number of genera adopted, which is the one objectionable feature lo this other- 

 wise e.xcellent work, but it apjiears Mr. Butler has equal want of a}li?ction for the paucity of genera accepted by myself, for he alludes 

 pleasantly on p. G2I to " Mr. Strecker's imcomprehensible atli'ction for unmanageably extensive genera." 



But in truth it is greatly to lie dephu-ed that the plan (insanity offspring of Grote's vanity) of dividing and subdividing so 

 natural a genus .as ,Smerinlhus should be here adopted; but I have treated fully this subject on pp. 62, 53, as well as elsewhere in this 

 volume. What better proof of thecoTnpactness of a genus is required than the knowledge that two of its most dissimilar-looking species 

 will copulate and produce hybrids as in the case of S. Populi and S. Ocellata. 



In speaking on p. 61S of Diludia Brontes, Dru., {Sphinx Cubensis, (irote, is a .synonym,) the author expresses himself in the fol- 

 lowing langiuigc which eertauily will meet the sincere approval of all true lovers of .science. He there says: "I cannot but regret that 

 Mr. (irote has thought it necessary to add to the synonymy by pro|josing names for species before they were required. It is true that he 

 might otherwise have been suiierscded ; hut as a fact it docs not matter who names a species, so long as the name given be euphonious, 

 whilst on the other hand a cumbrous synonymy is a great evil." 



In the Can. Enl. l.\, p. 130-133, Grote save what he calls a " Notice of Mr. Butler's Revision of the .Sphingidie," though^ as 

 usual it i.-. a dissertation on himself, in which the tirst seven lines are devoted to praising Mr. Butler, being prefatory to the renuiining 

 seventy odd which are mainly devoted to the highly gratifying and instructive (lurpose of praising himself. 



Novendjer, 1877. 



