( 491 ) 



c? ? . Internieiliate between ritis anil satellltia, bearinj!; a rather close re- 

 seml)lance to Ph. mtcllitia posticKtKs from Ciilia. The fi,i,mre of the ? given by 

 Menetrie's is not very exact, and misled Grote as well as llothschild to redescribe 



the sjiecies. Forewing, Kpperside : a pale snbbasal and a pale discal baud as in 



ritis, stigma divided as in ritis; pale longitudinal band vestigial in basal half; 

 sidjmarginal area nearly as in jtosticatus ; a pale curved band from apex to R^, 



followed before hinder angle by a pale patch. Hindwing of the same type as in 



ritis, black discal line less obvions, submarginal band much narrower. Under 



surface vinaceous-red with brown border. First segment of hindtarsns nearly as 

 long as tibia. 



S. Tenth tcrgite pointed as in sutrllitici. Dorsal margin of clasper almost 

 straight, slightly concave ; harpe nearly as long as in anc/iemolt/s, slenderer, tip 

 more pointed and curved upwards, intermediate between ancliemolus and ritis. 

 Process of penis-slieath long, pointed, about five times as long as the sheath 

 is broad. 



Ilah. Haiti and ( 'nba. 



In the Tring Museum 1 S from Haiti. 



418. Pholus vitis. 



Merian, Melam. Iiia. Surin. t. 47. fig. sup. (I , p., j.) (1705). 



Spkhu Hlis LinDB, Si/.il. Nat. ed. x. p. 4III. n. 14 (17.'8) ; id., .Vus. Liul. Ulr. p. ,354 (1764) ; Houtt., 

 Naturl. Hht. i, 11. p. 488. n. 14 (1707) (partim) ; Linne, St/xl. Nat. ed. xii. p. 801. n. IG (17G7); 

 Miill, Naliirs. v. 1. p. 640. n. 10 (1774) (parlini) ; Fabr., Syxl. Evt. p. 542. n. 19 (1775) 

 (partim); Cram., Pap. Exul. ii. p. 138. t. a08, f. e (1780) ; Burm., Abh. Nat. (?«.-. Halh p. 64 

 (1854) ; Weym., Hielt. Ent. Zeit. xxxvi. p. 46 (1875) ; Auriv., KmujL Sv. Vet. Ale. Uandl. xix. 

 5. p. 135 (IKKi) (recensio critica ; specim. typ. pi-aeserv.). 



Diipv ritis, Hiibner, Verz.hek. Sclim. p. 137. n. 1466 (1822). 



J'liiliiiiijieliiK himilierkiawi Harris, in Sillira., .fourn. Sc. Art xxxvi. p. 2fl9 note (1839) (St. Thomas). 



I'liilamjifliis viti.t, Walker, List Lap. Ins. R. M. viii. p, 170. n. 4 (1856; (partim). 



I'hilamjiehis Hiwri (irote & Robinson, Proc. Ent. Soi: Phihul. v. p. 157. n. 51. t. 3. f. 3 ( ? ) (1805). 



We cannot (piite understand how it is j)ossible tliat anybody, after the clear 

 statements of Weymer (1875) and Aurivillius (1882), could any longer follow 

 Messrs. Grote and Robinson in considering as Linne's ritis the species with red 

 distal and abdominal borders to the hindwing. The anthors of linnei were wrong 

 in their inter})retation of Linntj's descrijition, not to say careless, being probably 

 misled )iy a wrongly coloured copy of Merian's Met. Ins. Surin. There remains not 

 the shadow of a doubt about which insect is the real ritis, if one has compared 

 Merian's figure and Linne's description. The true ritis is the vine-feeder with only 

 the alidominal margin of tlie hindwing red and the stigma of the forewing divided, 

 and not the sjiecies which feeds on .fiissiexn, and has a simple stigma on the forewing 

 find red abdominal and distal borders to the hindwing. If the descriptions of 

 Liiine, Fabricius, etc., were all as clear as that of rilis, there would be no disagree- 

 ment as to the ajipjication of their names. Why nearly all authors adhere to the 

 opniion of Grote and iiobinson we cannot imagine, but they are really more to 

 hlaine than the authors of tlie muddle themselves, considering that the error has 

 hiMMi pointed out several times. Jdhii Smith (|s«S) goes even so far as to say, 

 " Me^Hrs. (irote and Robinson liave given a very full history of the two forms 

 [ritis and /i/i/iri], satisfa<'torily straightening out the confusion theretofore 

 exiHting. it will be sullicient to refer the student to this hit lA' careful study, and 

 to note my full eonciirrence in their views." Surely, i'rof. Smith cannot have 

 compared the original descriptions or .Merian's figure. 



