sphinginae. 273 



stirps Manducae, and it appears to us remarkable that he was able, at so 

 early a date and with so little material, to arrive at detailed conclusions 

 regarding their relationship much more accurate than any author who 

 has since written on the subject. This is particularly the case in his treat- 

 ment of the Erinnyids [i.e., the Pseudosphingids ( Pseudosphinx tetrio) 

 and Dilophonotids (Erinnyis ello)\ the former of which has always 

 been placed with the true Sphingids, near Hyloicus, by authors who 

 have followed him, but this view is open to great doubt, considering 

 the larva of Pseudosphinx tetrio and the general imaginal structure. 

 It is remarkable that the peculiar double thoracic tuft of Erinnyis 

 (ello) and the crenate hindmargin of the wings are repeated in 

 Pseudosphinx (tetrio), and one concludes that the Pseudosphingids in- 

 clude the Dilophonotids or vice versa. The Erinnyids (Pseudosphinx, 

 Tsognathus, Cautethia, Dilophonota, Anceryx, Grammodia (caicus), 

 &c.) also have the ocellar tufts of the metathorax developed differently 

 from those of the Sphingids (sens, restr.). It is to be observed, as we 

 have just said, that the Pseudosphingids have, since Hiibner's time, 

 always been placed among the true Sphinges, but, whilst it is true 

 that the general appearance of the imago, particularly the abdomen 

 thereof, is very Sphingid, it has also to be remembered that the larva 

 is peculiarly Eumorphid in most characters, and that the pupa is 

 without a tongue-horn and has a general Philampelid or almost 

 Eumorphid structure. It is probable, therefore, that these Sphingids 

 should be grouped outside the true Sphinginae, as, indeed, was 

 substantially done by Hiibner so long ago. It is impossible, with 

 the space at our disposal, to enter into a consideration of the relation- 

 ships of the various tribes in the subfamily, but the following summary 

 represents the conclusions at which we have arrived, and gives the 

 names of what we consider to be the chief Sphingine (sens, restr.) tribes, 

 of which the first two are the most generalised, the ist leaning to the 

 Amorphids, the 2nd to the Sphingids (sens, restr.). These tribes are — 



1. Kentrochrysalidi *— Kentrochrysalis streckeri. 



2. Ceratomiidi f — Ceratomia amyntor, Daremma undnlosa, D. catalpae. 



3. Dolbidi — Dolba hylaeus. 



4. HVLOICIDI — Hyloicus pinastri, ? Meganoton casuarinae. 



5. Sphingidi — Sphinx ligustri, S. drupiferarum, S. kalmiae, dr'c. 



6. AGRIIDI J — Agrins coiivoItuU, A cingulata. 



7. Phlegethontiidi — Phlegethontius rustica, Carolina, celeus, Coelonia 

 fulvinotata. 



8. Cocytiidi (Amphonygidi) § — Cocytius (Amphonyx) antaeus (medor) , 



duponcheli, cluentins. 



9. Euryglottidi— Eury glottis aper. 

 10. Manducidi — Manduca atropos. 



It will be observed that the four British species referable to 

 the Sphinginae fall into four of the different tribes into which the 

 species of the subfamily may thus be grouped, viz. — (1) Hyloicidi — 

 Hyloicus (pinastri). (2) Sphingidi — Sphinx (ligustri). (3) Agriidi — 

 Agnus (convolvulij. (4) Manducidi — Manduca (atropos). 



Tribe : Hyloicidi. 



The Hyloicids are, so far as the pupal and imaginal characters 



* Rather Amorphid, pupal dehiscence also Amorphid. 

 t Generalised form, pupa with eyes facing ventral, and labrum ventral. 

 J Highly specialised labial palpi, which differ markedly from those of 

 Phlegethontiids. 



§ Imagines with tendency to clear hindwings. 



