( xi ) 

 clu lint a|i|ily 1(1 tlii; s[icoii's geiienciilly ilcliiicil, coiihiiiiiug iTi-diuums mid .jiiili,' 

 iiiisl(Miliii,u slalumcnts, nr whose geiiiTa contain very lieLfrdyciu'oiis uleiueiits, as . 

 lid, tor instance, many of \\'aliver's genera. Tliougli, in llie original ilednitiun of 

 I'roloparcc (tyjie : ni.slirn), Jjunueisler staled tiiat tiie jJiiiia liad no [irojeeting 

 longue-case (wliiuli it lias) ; lliougli iSlaiidinger crroneiinsly said of his new geuils 

 Holljiiiii. that it, iiad only (»//<■ s|mr to tin; liiinlliiiia, and liiiwe made a similar 

 mistake in the detinition of SiitrruilhulKs ■, and though the' detinition of Moore's 

 llathid is so vagne as to a]iiily to a host of other Sphiiujiddc as well (as many 

 ol' Moore's definitions do), — these names can and will not be rejected on that 

 aeeount. There is no line to draw between good and bad detinitions, sntlieient 

 and iiisnlKeieiit descriptions ; and every deseriiition is iiieomjjlete. 



The lirst al'fer Hiibner to treat again npou all the •SjiIiimiiilKi: was Walker, 

 who, in the List oj Lepnioptcrtx, llctei-ocera, of /he Ijritish Museum vol. viii. 

 (ISo'i), gave descriptions of all the known genera and species and nnmerons 

 new ones. His bibliogniphy is genei'ally good, but his descriptions are often 

 so liad thai it is inijKjssible to recognise the species without seeing his 

 specimens, lie has been much attacked on the Coiitiiient, and his names have 

 lieen ignored to a certain extent by a few authors. Walker did not attempt 

 a classification of the Sphiiajidae. lie simply described the genera iu the 

 order he thought jiroper, without bringing them into gi'oups. His genera are 

 very often as unnatural as many of Hubuer's. 



Boisduval followed in February of l^To with a monograph of the family, 

 containing more exhaustive descriptions of the species and genera. The 

 Sphinijidac are divided in tliis work into a number of subfamilies, of which 

 detinitions are given, rather a rare occurrence in lepidopterologieal works of 

 that time. In the nomenclature of the subfamilies he followed the old French 

 custom of employing scientific terms in a galliuised form — a bad custom, which 

 was formerly in vogue also in the nomenclature of species and genera. The 

 monograph, though f'ai- above that of Walker, had two great drawbacks : it did 

 not contain all the species described up to lis74, and names already employed 

 by Walker were used again for other species (see above). AV'e mention inci- 

 dentally that Hoisduval's names have priority over those of Butler which were 

 published iu the I'rot: Zuol. '"ioc. Loud, of 1875. 



The Revision of Spkiiujii/ai: by IJntler — which came out early in 1877, not 

 ill l87r,, as is (pioted by some authors— is scarcely more than a synonymic list 

 with occasional remarks. The genera are grouped into four subfamilies, but not 

 deliii(!d, excrjit the new ones. Though the definitions of the subfamilies are 

 based almost entirely on the ([uite imperfectly known early stages, the grouping 

 is, nevertheless, an advance on IJoisduval's elassilication. The work would have 



