THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 19] 
species, quoting the universally-accepted names as synonyms, 
and gives no reason whatever for so doing; he constantly 
gives his own MS, names preference to the descriptions of 
others; he quotes Catalogue lists of undescribed species, 
thus conveying to the mind of the unwary student the 
impression that his species have long been characterized ; 
and, in addition to all this, he hopelessly confounds together 
subfamilies and genera whose larve are utterly distinct. In 
proof of the recent publication of this work (dated 1874) I 
feel compelled to subjoin an extract from a letter which [ 
recently received from the author, dated 18 Fevrier, 1875 :— 
‘ Le species des Sphingides, Sesiides et Castniides sera mis 
au vente Lundi prochain chez M. Roret editeur, Rue Haute- 
feuille a Paris.’” 
Remarks on the genus Terias.—The Rev. R. P. Murray 
communicated the following remarks:—“ The species of 
Terias forming the Hecabe group have long been a source of 
perplexity to me, and for some time I have entertained a 
suspicion that most of them were referable to but one species, 
T. Hecabe, Linn. I think I am now able to bring forward 
proof that T. Asiope, Mén., at least, is only a form of Hecabe, 
and some evidence that the same is probably the case with 
T. Brende, Doubl., Hew., and T. Sari, Horsf. I have 
frequently received from Mr. Miskin, of Brisbane, specimens 
of typical T. Hecabe from Rockhampton, and also others of 
T. Zsiope from Brisbane, these forms being common in their 
respective localities, while it is by no means common to find 
them intermixed. So far the only evidence in favour of their 
forming but one species was afforded by the large number of 
specimens intermediate in character which came from Rock- 
hampton. But I now learn, by letters received from Mr. 
Miskin, that he has succeeded in breeding both forms from 
larve found on the same plant (Indigofera, sp.), and that he 
is now convinced that both forms belong to the same species. 
The curious distribution of the forms would tend to prove 
that the difference in markings is not sexual, but dependent on 
certain conditions as yet unknown to us. Both forms appear 
to be equally common in N.W. India, from whence | have 
received them in considerable numbers. I have never 
received the form T. Asiope, Mén., from Japan, where 
typical Hecabe is common, but curiously enough I have 
