MACROGLOSSA RUFICAUDIS. Kihbv. 



{Seaia B.) Fauna Boreali Americana, Vol. IV, p. 303 (1837). Walker, C. B. M., Vol. VIII, p. 82 (1856). Moiris, Cat. Lep. N. Am., 



p. 17 (I860;) Synopsis Lep. N. Am., p. 149 (1862). Couper, Can. Ent., Vol. IV, p. 205 (1872). 

 Hcemorrhagia Rufic.audis, Grote ci Robuison, Proc. Ent. Soc, Phil., Vol. V, pp. 149, 17.5 (1865). 

 HcBmorrhagia Ilujj'alomsis, Qrote cfc Robinson, Ann. Lvc. Nat. Hist. N. Y., Vol. VIII, (1867) ; Li.st Lep. N. Am., p. 3 (18G8). Grote 



Bnll. Biitr. Soc. Nat. Sc, Vol. I, p. 18 (1873), Vol. II, p. 224 (1875). 

 Sesia Unifonnis, Grote d Robinson, Trans. Am. Ent. Soc, Vol. II, p. 181 (1868). Lininer, 23d Keport X. Y. State Cabinet Nat. Hist., 



p. 172 1 1872). 

 Hamorrkagia Uni/ormis, Grote & Robinson, List. Lep. N. Am., p. 3 (1868). Grote, Bull. Bull'. Soc. Nat. Sc, Vol. I, )>. 18 (1873) : 



Vol. II, p. 224 (1875). . . i m 



(PLATE XIII, PIG. 1, c?.) 



"Body yellow-olive, underneath pale yellow. Antenna? black ; primaries reddish-brown, hyaline in the disk, with the hvaline 

 part half divided towards the base, with a costal bar, covered with yellow olive hairs at the base ;" underneath the costa, the posterior 

 margin and the nervurcs are dark ferruginous ; there is also a yellow stripe on the inner side of the base; secondaries hyaline in the 

 disk ; base externally an<l costa yellow ; internally the base is ferruginous ; underneath the dark part of the wing is ferruginous, and 

 the base pale yellow ; two first segments of the body yellow-olive, two next black, the rest ferruginous with pale vellow lateral spots. 

 This species appears to be the American representative of Sesia fwiformis which it greatly resembles, but difl'ers in the colour of the 

 tail and the base of the secondaries." 



No figure accompanied the above description of Kirby's, but there can be little doubt that a species allietl to Thysbe was in- 

 tended. 



Walker, in C. B. M., says : "This is probably a mere variety of 5. Thysbe," and states tluat specimens were received from "Uni- 

 ted States, Trenton Falls, New Y'ork, and Orilla, West Canada." 



_ Dr. Clemens, in his monograph of the Sphingidae, published in the Journal Academy Natural Sciences, Philadoli^hia, 1859, also 

 cites it as a synonym of Thysbe. 



Cirote and Robinson first stated it to be distinct from Thysbe in Proc. Ent. Soc, Phila., Vol. V, p. 149, and placed it in their genus 

 Hcemorrhagia ; on page 175, 1. c, they give Kirby's description above cited, and remark "were we .satisfied as to the species Kirbv in- 

 fended by S. Facijormis, the present species miglit be regarded as related to S. Diffiais, Boisd. sp. .\s it is, we think that a species of 

 Hcemorrhagia is meant, while the species has not been since identified," and further on "a mutilated specimen from the most northern 

 parts of Canada West is before us, which evidently forms a distinct specie.-i from H. Thysbe. In this species, which is altogether slen- 

 derer than its congenor, the inner luargin of the terminal band of anterior wings is nowhere denticulate in the interspaces, but is medi- 

 ally, somewhat inwardly, produced.;! We are not indisposed to regard this as Kirby's species, but the inferior condition of the specimen 

 prevents all conclusions. The discal cell is crossed by a longitudinal scale line, the species belonging to the more typical group of the 

 genus Hcemorrhagia." Three years later they re-described the species as Sesia Thysbe, variety unifonnis, thus: "As Sesia thysbe, a 

 unifonnis nob., we will record the Sesia ruficaudis of Mr. Walker. This is not Kirby's species to judge from the description of that au- 

 thor. This is a form of S. thysbe, occurring in both sexes, in which the external border of the primaries is not dentate inwardlv on 

 the interspaces."* 



Although another specific synonym was here created on the assumption that Grote & Robinson knew more about Kirby's species 

 than himself, still their fictitious genus Hcemorrhagia was for the time, sensibly enough, suppressed by them, for after a rhodoiiiontade of 

 thinly-veiled and confused excuses in reference to Hwmorrhagia, they s.ay "which latter we can, therefore, no longer consider sufficientlv 

 distinct from Sesia to be retained as a genus." And it was only after Mr. Robinson's death that Grote again attempted to restore it in 

 one of his innumerable and ever-changing spasmodic Lists of N. Am. Sphingida;, etc., wliich, like mushrooms, spring up in every 

 issue of the Bufl^alo Bull, and kindred publications. 



There can be little doubt that the species I have figured, ^fhicli was the one redescribed by Grote & Robinson as Uni/ormis, is the 

 one meant by Kirby in his description of Ruficaudis. The older authors did not lay the same stress on elaborately decorated descrip- 

 tions as do .some of the present day, hence there are frequently trifling omissions or vague sentences in their descriptions, and in some 

 instances, as in Sm. Opthalmieus, Bdl., a line or two sufficed to describe the insect, and although said description would apply to almost 

 any of the eyed Smerinthi having rosy hind wings, no one would endeavour on this account to question or ignore Boisduval's species. 



Ruficaudis occurs in various parts of the Middle and New England States, and more plentifully in Canada and the neighboring 

 island of Anticosti, as also in S. Labrador. 



The most prominent point of distinction between this and Thysbe is the inner edge of marginal band of primaries which is 

 toothed in the latter, whilst plain in Ruficaudis, though increased inwardly in the middle, as in Thysbe. 



Between Ruficaudis, Kirby, ( Uni/ormis, G. & R. ) and Buffaloensis, G <St R., I cannot find any specific diflferenees by 

 ■which to separate them into distinct species. In concluding the description of Buffaloensis the authors say : "This species is 

 clcsely allied to H. thysbe O. & R., from which it may at once be separated by its smaller size and the non-dentate inner 

 margin of the terminal band of the primaries in the male. We have elsewhere drawn attention to the character aflbrded by the inner 

 margin of the terminal band in H. thysbe ; it is, however, in the males alone that it is prominently dentate on the interspaces."! Con- 

 sequently there would be nothing to separate it from Ruficaudis, (their Uni/ormis), which is also without indentations on inner edge of 

 marginal band, excepting its "smaller size," which also ceases to be a distinction, as an example which 1 received from Mr. Grote himself 

 in May, 1873, is quite as large as that of Ruficaudis figured in the accompanying plate. 



The authors finally state in connection with their published figures: "We figure a variety of the female, in which the usuallv 

 wholly vitreous fields of the wings are spar.sely and evenly clothed with scales. We have observed a similar variation in specimens 

 of H. thysbe." 



This makes the attempt of placing Bu^atoensis, G & R., as a distinct species further objectionable, as the authors were ignorant that 

 Thysbe and all allied sjiecies have, on emerging from the pupa, the transparent space of the wings lightly covered with scales, which 

 80on disappear under the action of flight or by exposure. 



*Trans. Am. Ent. Soc, Vol. II, p. 181. 



f About two years later the authors discovered their error, and became aware that the females of Thysbe, (the commonest of all 

 the N. Am. species,) had the inner edge to the marginal b.and of primaries dentate as well as the males ; and then it was that Ruficaudis, 

 Kirby, was bisexed and again synonymized as Uni/ormis, G. & R. 



109 



