hand, «;/.f//c. )mes nearer lo cxacca/us in the form nf the DUler margin 

 of the fore wings than either of the others. 



Without enumerating further points of agreement or difiference, it 

 seems to me that we must either accept Paonias, Calasymbolus and Smer- 

 inlhus or else unite them all under the one genus Smerinlhus. Which 

 will be most "convenient"? 



Mr. Smith states as follows in his remarks under "Darapsa'", "I 

 CA\\i\oi?,&T^2iX2iiQ A mpelophaga versicolor from this genus". Not feeling 

 quite w^illing to take this ex cathedra statement without question, 1 exam- 

 ined mv material [choeriliis, myroii and versicolor), with some degree ol 

 care and find the following points of agreement. The head is small 

 with the scales forming a central ridge or tuft between the antennae; pro- 

 boscis about half the length of the body; palpi of medium size and 

 length, curving up and pressed against the front; eyes of medium size, 

 hemispherical and slightly ciliated; ocelli wanting; antennae slim, fusi- 

 form, prominently hooked at the end, biciliate in the males but simple 

 in the females; thorax short and stout, but little advanced in front of the 

 base of the fore wings, vestiture smooth; abdomen large, cylindrical, 

 tapering rather suddenly on the last segments, without anal or side tufts, 

 segments destitute of spinules along the hinder edge; tibiae not spinose 

 (fore and middle tibiae spinose in choerilus), middle tibiae with one pair 

 of comparatively long, unequal spurs, the hind tibiaj with two pairs. 



The fore wings have eleven veins (vein lo wanting), the apex falcate 

 or the outer margin excavate from the apex to the end of vein 4, and 

 rounded beyond. The hind wings have the outer margin excavate be- 

 tween veins lb and 3, but nearly straight beyond, or they appear to be 

 somewhat produced at the end of vein ib; costa of all the wings arcuate; 

 frenulum and loop present in the males, loop wanting in the females but 

 the frenulum is represented by a cluster of very short fine bristles. 



Why these species should ever have been separated is more than I 

 can conceive. As shown above, they belong to the genus Everyx. If 

 any separation is to be made, it would seem that choerilus %\\o\\\dL be the 

 one separated from the other two, because of its spinose tibia;. 



Mr. .Smith says that Deikphila has "the fore tibii« at the tip and the 

 tarsi at the sides furnished wath longer claw like spines", but by a careful 

 examination often examples of //«^.//a and fourteen o{ chamcEnerii, I find 

 the fore tibiiE entirely free from spines but there is a row of longer anti 

 larger, somewhat curved spines on the outside of the fore tarsi only. 



When W2 find Darenima, Diludia. Phlegethontius, Dolba and Hylou- 

 us by one stroke of the pen all united under Sphinx, is it not time to 

 call a halt.' Why not have put Ceratomia into the same lol.^ Did those 

 four little thorns on the larva inspire fear.^ Surelv Ccralovna is more 



