March, 189S.] GROTE : CLASSIFICATION OF LePIDOPTERA. 13 



Still, it reappears more or less evidently and constantly not only in the 

 Chrerocampians but in the Eyed Hawk Moths; an indentation appears 

 in. Sphinx ligustri and Hyloicus pinastri and is replaced by a broad ex- 

 cision between Vi and VII in Dilina Mice. It appears less evidently in 

 elpenor and lineata. There seems then mainly the movement in the 

 branches of the Media, which simply affords a criterion for the relative 

 specialization. Judged by this, Acherontia atropos is more specialized 

 than the majority of the Smerinthoid types, although it is overlapped by 

 tilice and nearly reached by Smerinthus populi* The shape of the 

 secondaries in the Eyed Hawk Moths varies much. This differs even 

 in Calasymbolus astylus and Eusmerinthus geminalus, while Copismer- 

 inthus ocellata and the allied North American species are distinguished 

 by the tibial claw. 



On the whole, then, the neuration of the Sphingidae offers apparently 

 no opposition to the general sequence of Kirby, which is that adopted 

 by me in the Buffalo Catalogues, except that I gave the Eyed Hawk 

 Moths a central position. But, for probably the true reason, viz., that 

 I regarded the Smerinthinse as nearer a more original Sphingoid type, 

 from which the present groups have emerged in different directions. I 

 was much struck by the resemblance of Ambulyx with Smerinthoid 

 genera, and fancied that the Chaerocampians might have had a separate 

 and nearer connection with the stem which the Eyed Hawks represent. 

 Hence I gave these a central position. The discovery of Ambulyx sexo- 

 culata Grote, strengthened this view of the case. But the arrangement 

 of the genera adopted by Kirby is open to betterment in the light 

 thrown by the details of the neuration. This is, however, a matter 

 for the future student and need not to be here discussed. 



From an examination of Siberian and European examples I would 

 here simply correct Kirby's list of the species of Smerinthus and Eus- 

 merinthus (Cat. pp. 711, 712). Copismerijithus is not a synomym of 

 Eusmerinthus Kirby, as wrongly cited (p. 712) but of Smerinthus 

 Kirby. This author has not understood the character and mixed the 

 species. Eusmerinthus wants, Copismerijithus has, a tibial claw. 



* From a note made by me when examining Lalreille's works, populi is indi- 

 cated as the type of Smeriiithiis, by being once solely cited. I regret that my note 

 is not definite and that I have been unable, despite several efforts, to again consult 

 all of Latreille's publications. Kirby prefers Dilina of Dalman, 1816, for tiluc, and 

 this is probably correct. 



