Remarks on the Sphingidce of Cuba. 197 



plare nicht verschieden ; der scharfer gezackte Saum der Vfl. 

 in Z. 2 tiefer ausgeschnitten, und der ganz gerade Schragstreif 

 bei I der Yfl. {camertus, Cr.), gehen unraerklich in den weni- 

 ger gezacktcn Saum und den geschwungenen Schragstreif, wie 

 er bei H. Z. f. 595, gezeichnet ist, liber." Corr. Blatt, p. 57 

 (21), 1865. I am quite satisfied, however, that E. lugubris 

 and E. camertus are distinct and valid species ; and, having 

 studied the figures in the Zutraege to which Dr. Tlerrich-Schaef- 

 fer alludes, I am assured that these do not represent E. lugu- 

 bris, but E. gorgon, Cramer, sp. (2). Thus the characters 

 which are regarded as intermediate between E. lugubris and 

 E. camertus, by Dr. Herrich-Schaeffer, are partly those that 

 distinguish E. gorgon. I feel satisfied, however, that these 

 should be regarded as distinct ; the habitus of all three species 

 being different, that of E. lugubris approaching E. danum, a 

 species readily distinguished by the ornamentation of the 

 secondaries, but. which is perhaps regarded as a variety of E. 

 lugubris in the British Museum collection, as I have elsewhere 

 noted. 



The reference to ITubner's figures of E. lugubris, in the 

 " Zutraege," should thus be transferred to the synonymy of E. 

 gorgon. Mr. Walker is then the first to place the Sphinx lugu- 

 bris of Linnaeus and Drury, in its proper genus, since Hiibner 

 in the " Yerzeichniss" (1816), refers to the species under an 

 adaptation of Cramer's subsequent trivial name, Fegeus {Eegens, 

 Walk., Clem.). 



A thorough investigation into the synonymy of the species 

 I have determined as Philampelus vitis, undertaken by Mr. 

 Coleman T. Bobiiison and myself — the results of which are 

 published in the Proceedings of the Entomological Society of 

 Philadelphia' — has shown that this determination is correct. 

 This species is first described by Linnaeus, who refers to a figure 

 of M. Merian's, which, although rude, must be accepted as repre- 

 senting this species, afterwards accurately figured by Drury in 

 1770, since, in the colored copies of the "Ins. Sur.," a pink 



