142 ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. [May, 



C/auis iinperiaiis Druce, B. Cent.-Amer. Heb. i, t. 3, f. i (1883). 

 Oryba imperialis Druce, Amer. Nat. Hist. (6), v, p. 213 (1890). 



Amphonyx. 



In Novitates Zoologicse, vi, p. 91, the Hon. Walter Roths- 

 child has added to the confusion already existing, in regard to 

 the species of this genus, by failing to compare Boisduval's de- 

 scriptions with the fig. on pi. v, of the Sphingidae. In the index 

 to plate V, fig. i, is said to represent A. godartii, whereas in 

 reality it is an excellent representation of ^. beelzebuth, agreeing 

 with the description and the type itself which I have examined in 

 Mr, Oberthiir's collection ; the species therefore stands: 



Amphonyx beelzebuth Bd., Sp. Gen. Het. i, p. 63, t. 5, fig. i (wrongly 



named godartii in the index to plate). 

 Amphonyx rivu/aris Druce, (nee. Butl.) B. Cent.-Am. Het. i, t. iii, f. 4. 

 Amphonyx rivularis Butl., is a very distinct species, ranging 

 from Mexico to southern Brazil. 



Amphonyx godartii. 



Amphonyx godartii Bd., Sp. Gen. Het. i, p. 65 (1875). 



Cocytius affinis Rothsch., Nov. Zool. i, p. 92. 

 In a long series of specimens from Mexico, Venezuela and 

 Brazil, I can distinguish no difference. Possibly A. godartii is 

 a synonym of A. duponchelii Poey, but I have no Cuban material, 

 and the specimens so named in the B. M. seem distinct. 



Amphonyx medor. 



Sphinx medor S^oW, Pap. Exot. iv, t. 394, A. (1782). 



Amphonyx tapayusa Moon, Pr. Liverpool Soc. xxxvii, p. 245 (1883). 

 Typical specimens of A. tapayusa are in the coll. of E. D. 

 Jones, Esq., and cannot be separated from specimens of A. 

 medor, which I obtained ex larva at Jalapa, Mexico. 



Amphonyx walkeri. 



Amphonyx walkeri Bd., Sp. Gen. Het. i, p. 67 (1875). 



Amphonyx staudingeri Druce, Amer. Nat. Hist. (6), ii, p. 237 (1888). 



Cocytius magnificus Rothschild, Nov. Zool. i, p. 92, pi. vii, f. 21 (1894). 

 Several specimens including the type of this fine species in the 

 coll. of Mr. Oberthiir agree perfectly with A. stauditigeri and C. 

 magnificus. 



Protoparce nicotianae. 



Sphinx nicotiancz Bd., Sp. Gen. Hist, i, p. 75 (1875). 

 Protoparce jamaicensis Butl. Tr. Zool. Soc. Lond., ix, p. 608 (1877). 

 I have examined both types and find they represent the same 

 species. 



