THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 191 



species, quoting the universally-accepted names as synonyms, 

 and gives no reason whatever for so doing; he constantly 

 gives his own MS. names preference to the descriptions of 

 others; he quotes Catalogue lists of undescribed species, 

 thus conveying to the mind of the unwary student the 

 impression that his species have long been characterized ; 

 and, in addition to all this, he hopelessly confounds together 

 subfamilies and genera whose larvae are utterly distinct. In 

 proof of the recent publication of this w^ork (dated 1874) I 

 feel compelled to subjoin an extract from a letter which I 

 recently received from the author, dated 18 Fevrier, 1875: — 

 'Le species des Sphingides, Sesiides et Castniides sera mis 

 au vente Lundi prochain chez M. Roret editeur, Rue Haute- 

 feuille a Paris.'" 



Remarks on the genus Terias, — The Rev. R. P. Murray 

 communicated the following remarks: — "The species of 

 Terias forming the Hecabe group have long been a source of 

 perplexity to me, and for some time I have entertained a 

 suspicion that most of them were referable to but one species, 

 T. Hecabe, Lin?i. I think I am now able to bring forward 

 proof that T. ^siope, Men., at least, is only a form of Hecabe, 

 and some evidence that the same is probably the case with 

 T. Brende, Doithl., Hew., and T. Sari, Horsf. I have 

 frequently received from Mr. Miskin, of Brisbane, specimens 

 of typical T. Hecabe from Rockhampton, and also others of 

 T. ^siope from Brisbane, these forms being common in their 

 respective localities, while it is by no means common to find 

 them intermixed. So far the only evidence in favour of their 

 forming but one species was afforded by the large number of 

 specimens intermediate in character which came from Rock- 

 hampton. But I now learn, by letters received from Mr. 

 Miskin, that he has succeeded in breeding both forms from 

 larvae found on the same plant (Indigofera, sp.), and that he 

 is now convinced that both forms belong to the same species. 

 The curious distribution of the forms would tend to prove 

 that the difference in markings is not sexual, but dependent on 

 certain conditions as yet unknown to us. Both forms appear 

 to be equally common in N.W. India, from whence I have 

 received them in considerable numbers. I have never 

 received the form T. ^siope. Men., from Japan, where 

 typical Hecabe is common, but curiously enough I have 



