( i'-il ) 



Larva and cbrysalis unknown. 



IJab. Rosery Mine, Spanish Hondnras, 3(H)(l to 4U0U ft. ; 3 (Jc?, 1 ? (Mus. Tring), 



A ? from the same locality in coll. Dognin. 



This may be only a southern form of isfar ; but as the differences in cobjur are 

 very apparent if the two insects are placed side by side, we think it wiser to keep 

 them specitically distinct for the present. It is quite possible that the two occur 

 together and are independent of each other, and differ also essentially in the earlier 

 stages. 



lol. Hyloicus lauceolata. 



(?) Sphhu: leuophaeala Clumcns, .Juiirii. Ac. X. Sci. Philad. iv. p. 1G8. n. 63 (1850) (Texas) ; 

 Schaus, Ei(t. Xiirs vi. p. 14:'. (1895) (probably laiiccohita). 



*Sp/iii(.r lameolala Boisduval, Cons. Lep. G'tiiit. p. 73 (1870) (no descr. ; Guatemala) ; Feld., Belsc 

 Xumrn, Lep. t. 78. f. 3. (1874) (Mexico :— Mus. Tring) ; Boisd., Sper. Gin. Lep. Ilet. i. p. 109. 

 n. 48 (1875) (Mexico) : Bull., Tnma. Znol. Soc. Loud. ix. p. 619. n. Vi (1877) ; Streck., Lep. 

 Hhop. IJet. p. 14-2 (1878) (Panama) ; Druoe, Biol. Cenlr. Amer., Lep. Jlet. i. p. 2.3. n. 4 (188.S) 

 (" not seen ") ; Kirby, (W/. Lep. Met. i. p. 090. n. 1 (1892) (" Honduras " ; Mexico) ; Schaus, 

 !.c. (1895) (common in Vera Cruz) ; Druce, / .-. Siijijil. p. 319 (1896) (Jalapa ; Orixaba). 



Sphhije aerpiiuoctiali.i Boisduval, l.l.c.c. (nom. max. supervacuura !). 



(??. AVe quite agree with Mr. Schaus, who said, I.e., that in his opinion 

 leucophaeata was a northern form of lameolata. The description of leucophaeata 

 fits lanceolata except in one point; the hindwing is said to be "greyish, with a 

 black median band and broad black marginal band," no mention being made of 

 the conspicuous black basal patch present in all specimens of lanceolata. As this 

 patch is wanting in chersis or only vestigial, it seems to ns quite likely that there 

 exists, unknown to entomologists, a Sphinx in Texas and New Mexico which is 

 the true leucophaeata, standing intermediate between lanceolata and chersis. There 

 is certainly a link wanting between these two species, which agree in many respects. 

 This link may differ from lanceolata in being devoid of the black basal patch of the 

 hindwing, and from chersis in having (like lanceolata) a non-spinose midtibia. 

 Another intermediate hypothetical form, wliich may turn out one day to be real, is 

 a Sphinx with the basal patch present and the midtibia spiuose. 



So much is sure, that we cannot with any degree of certainty say whether 

 lanceolata is a synonym of the unknown quantity named leucophaeata, or whether 

 the two are distinct, or whether they are geographical forms of one species. The 

 beneiit of the doubt remains with lanceolata, which name we must employ for the 

 present insect. 



Boisduval did not describe the insect in 1870 ; he simply cited Felder's plate— 

 of which he had received a copy in advance— and only remarks that the species was 

 larger than the largest specimens of tctrio (= asdrubal). Whether the very l)ad 

 J'emale from (iuatemala was really this species, or perhaps our praelonyus, we cannot 

 tell. All the specimens examined by us were from Mexico. Kirby gives Honduras 

 as locality withont authority ; but Strecker, I.e., records it from Panama. 



The s])ei-ies stands more isolated than its congeners, differing from the preceding 

 lli/loicm in tlie chersis-Mka forewing and penis-sheath, from the following ones in 

 the non-spinose midtibia. It represents a type from which chersis and allies have 

 dcvelojied by accjniring sjiinose midtibiae. There is some rather obvious individual 

 variation in the distinctness ol tlic transverse lines of the forewing. The meso- 

 tiioracical tegidae have no black mesial line, but only a black ujtper border, as 

 described liy (Uemcns in leucophaeata. Butler's identification as leucophaeata of 



