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



The most striking point of iliirerence is in the absence in P. Strenua of the broad pale band tliat crosses the npper surface of pri- 

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



No. "3, Philampclus honiheckiana, Harris, Cat. N.-Ani. Sph. Sill. .Jmirn. p. 299, (1839). "St. Thomas, West Indies." Harris. 

 Apparently allied to the preceding." 



It is qnite likely that this and P. Linnei are the same species hnt as Dr. Harris' type is not lo be fonnd and liis description 

 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 accident solves the riddle. 



Page .'iTS, No. "9, Piiil.vmpelus PANDORUS. Daphnis pandorus, Ilubner." 



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

 Sphinx Satellitia, Linn. 



Page 578, No. "19, PHiL.ntfELU.s laiirusce. Sphini labnucm, Linnicus. Mus. Lnd. Ulr. p. 3.')2, (1704)." 

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



Genus 18, No. " 1, Pachylia ficus. Sphinx ficus, Linua;us, Mus. Lud. Ulr. p. 352, I17G-1)." 

 Has been captured in S. VV. 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 the.se limited genera are not happily grouped. I cannot po.ssibly see why Smerinthus 

 Qaercus, W. V., should be associated in the genus Mimns with S. Tilim, L. and S. IJecnlor, Wlk., neither of which does it in any 

 way closely resemble, whilst such species as iS. Dijrns, S. Oaschlcevilschii, S. Albicans, etc., which it closely resembles, are made to consti- 

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

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

 Triptogen is placed our <S. il/orfe^/a, of which the author says " this is unquestionably the proper place for this species," lo which no 

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

 Quercus, 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 is supposed to be a new species allied to S. Juglandis, Ab.-S. 

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

 lines wider apart, an<l 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. Juglandis; but it differs noticeably from our six 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 type? 



No. "3, Cressonia pallens. 9 Smerinthus pollens, Strecker, Lep. Rhop. & Het. pt. 7, p. 54, pi. vii, fig. 14, (1873), Texas." 

 To which is appended the following foot note: "Mr. Grote is confident that this is only a variety of C. juglandis. It looks 



quite distinct." 



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



the type having never left my cabinet. But liow Grote came to be so confident as to assert 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 accompanied by modification of 

 the discoeellnlar nervelets, wdiich would be sufficient in the eyes of any Lcpidopterist to warrant genericseparalion," and on same page 

 commences his genus Pannias, comprised of two species, Ejcai'catus anA il/i/op''. showing about as much dissimilarity in the ourline of 

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



Page 591, Astylus, which is closer to Myops than any other species, is placed in another genus, the Culasymbolus of Grote. In 

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

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

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

 I faithfully copied. 



In this same genus Oalasymbolus a.\ong with Astylus are placed Geminatus, Cerysii, Ccecus and Kindermanni, which four species bear 

 no particular resemblance to Astylus in outline of wing, colour, or anything else except in the common fact that all have an ocellus on 

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

 to accept the extension of Caia.'i^m6o/us ; " 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 say Eusmerinthus Oeminalus, Grote, instead of >Sm. Oeminatus, Say. 



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

 Oeminalus and Ccecus I cannot imagine, as Gecas is so close to Geminatus that were it not for the diflerence in the first princii^al trans- 

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



The variety of Geminatus 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 merianm, Cirote, Proc. Ent. Soc. Phil, v, pp. 75 and 168, pi. 2, fig. 2, (1865). 



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



I have received examples of the above bred from larvae found in S. W. Texas near San ,\ntonia and New Braunfels. 



Page ()18, No. "2, Sphinx, leucuphaiata, Clemens, .Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil. 1859, p. 108. Sphinx lugens (part.), Walker, Lep. 

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



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 S. L/ugens, Wlk., although of tliis latter Mr. Butler .says, "allhougli 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 British Museum, cited by Mr. Butler as Leueophmata, identified? 



