14 Journal New York Entomological Society. [Vol. vi. 



EusmerintJms Grt, 1877. Copismerinthus Grt., 1886. 



Type : E. geminatus. Type : C. cerisii. 



1. kindermanni Led. I. eel lata Linn. 



2. cacus Men. v. atlanticus Aust. 



3. planus Walk. 2. cerisii Kirb. 



argus Men. opthalniicus Boisd. 



4. geminatus Say. vancouverensis Butl. 



? jamaicensis Dru. 3. ? saliceti Boisd. 



The classificator must rely in great part on the body characters, the 

 pattern of ornamentation, and, so far as I see, will run no great risk of 

 being contradicted by the neurational features overturning his group- 

 ings. Nevertheless, when taking the question of specialization in hand, 

 the neuration will afford him valuable hints which he will do well to re- 

 spect. As to the name for the above genus ( Copismerinthus) Kirby has 

 adopted my former and original opinion that ocellata was the type of 

 Smerinthus, an opinion I retained in my "Hawk Moths of North 

 America." But, from my notes of Latreille, I believe populi may be 

 really the true type of his genus. Whichever way the matter is settled, 

 by reference to the original works, I have at least here sorted out the 

 species accordingly as the front tibiae are or are not armed. The North 

 American genera Paonias (for exececatus), Calasymbolus (astylus) seem 

 to me on other grounds distinct from each other and from the above. 

 (Consult an article on the frenulum of the British species of Smerinthus, 

 by Geo. C. Griffiths, Ent. Record. VI, 250.) 



Saturniades. 

 In the " Saturniiden," p. 6, I figured the first larval stage of the Silk- 

 worm, Bombyx mori, showing, from the arrangement of the tubercles, 

 that this larva was related to the large group circumscribed by Dyar and 

 which I had called Agrotides. The Silkworm has therefore to be ex- 

 cluded from the Emperor Moths. The Saturniades, cleared of this 

 foreign element, have been taxonomically defined by Dyar by the 

 presence in the larva of a system of subprimary tubercles, wanting in 

 the Sphingides, as here accepted.* The pupa gives the moth within the 

 cocoon. The Citheronian habit is not recorded. A nearer relation- 

 ship, such as we can show for the Sphingides, with the Tineides is not 

 yet indicated. There exists a temptation to regard the Ptochopsychidse 



* Mr. Grote has misunderstood me. I separate the Saturniides and Sphingides on 

 the position of tubercle iv ; neither group has distinguishable sub-primary tubercles. 

 Endromis is a Bombycid except for the absence of sub-primary tubercles in stage I, 

 which I do not regard as a strong character at present. I shall return to this point 

 elsewhere. — H. G. Dyar. 



