1894. | NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. 59 
Superfamily SPHINGINA. 
Tubercles all remote, v. moved up in front of the spiracle.* All 
the primary setz disappear or become obscured at the first 
moult. Tubercles i. on 8th abdominal segment are borne on the 
apex of a long process (‘caudal horn”), but they are entirely 
Fic. 4. Lert Stpp, THoRAcIC SEGMENTS, STAGE I oF A Laecles imperi- 
alis and B Ceratomia amyntor. 
unconsolidated. Includes the family Sphingidze. The consid- 
eration of the first larval stage shows plainly that the Sphin- 
gide are not related to the Saturnina, but rank as a separate 
division. Prof. E. B. Poulton’s supposition} that the thoracic 
* Dr. W. Miiller’s figure (zo6l. Jahrbiicher, 1886, p. 672) of Dilophonota in stage I 
shows tubercle iy higher up than y. I have not examined the genus and consequently 
cannot prove what I suspect, namely, that the figure is not quite accurate, as this point 
was, doubtless, not especially noted. Dr. Miller homologizes the horn of the Sphingi- 
dae with thealorsal tubercle of the Saturniidae, as Prof. Poulton has done. He says: 
“So erscheint es berechtigt, fiir das Schwanzhorn der Sphingide die gleiche Genese 
anzunehmen wie fiir den unpaaren Dorn der Saturniade auf 11. [abdominal segment 8] 
Beide sind entstanden aus den Stiitzgebilden der beiden Borsten iauf Segment 11.” The 
analogy is certainly close, but I was led to suspect that the structures were not homo- 
logous before the condition of tubercles ivy and y proved to me that they were not. Dr. 
Miller seems not to appreciate the nature of tubercle vi. This is not surprising, as he 
has worked almost entirely with the most highly specialized family of Lepidoptera. In 
Dilophonota he has mistaken yii for vi. 
+I fell into a sad muddle concerning this family before I appreciated the secondary 
nature of tubercle vi. See Ann. N. Y, Acad. Sci., viii, 232, note. 
} Trans. Ent. Soc.. Lond., 1888, p. 571. 
