394 BRITISH LEPIDOPTERA. 



in question we were struck by the great similarity between Acherontia 

 and the Ethiopian Sphingid, Coelonia fulvinotata. In fact, Acherontia 

 is nothing else but a derivation from Coelonia ; it is a Coeloftia with 

 a short and stout tongue.* This conclusion, derived from the 

 comparison of the structure and the wing-pattern, is borne out by the 

 caterpillar, which has, in both Acherontia and Coelonia, the well-known 

 tubercular < — * -shaped horn. Coelonia shows close affinities in the 

 pattern and structure of the imago with Xanthopan ... a genus 

 of Sphingicae, in which even the peculiar structure of the inner 

 surface of the second palpal segment is indicated rudimentarily, and 

 the relationship of Xanthopan with other genera of Sphingicae, 

 e.g., with Panogena and Cocytius is unmistakable. We have, 

 therefore, a gradation from the Sphingicae through Xanthopan and 

 Coelonia to Acherontia, the latter being the most highly 

 specialised of this series. Hei'se (convolvuli, cingulata, &*c.) 

 is an offshoot from this branch, and so is Megacorma (obliqua), 

 both of which agree with the other two genera of Acherontiicae 

 closely in the specialisation of the second palpal segment. In 

 Herse and Acherontia a further specialisation obtains, which is 

 largely observed again among the Sphingicae, viz., the reduction 

 of the pulvillus of the tarsal claw-segment. The paronychia, too, 

 lose their ventral and long lateral flaps in Acherontia. The humped 

 thorax of the larva of Coelonia is very significant. We shall see 

 that among the lower Sphingicae, from which the Acherontiicae are 

 derived, a similar structure of the larva occurs." We do not ask 

 for a better justification than this of our table (anted, p. 273). We 

 have there isolated the Agriidi (Herse) from the Sphingidi 

 Phlegethontiidi and Cocytiidi, and Jordan distinctly (supra) places 

 Coelonia fulvinotata (a species that we have hitherto considered a 

 Phlegethontiid) as an ally of the more specialised Manducidi on 

 the one side and the Cocytiidi on the other. The only real differences 

 between us and these authors appear to be largely the terminology 

 employed, and the degree of relationship to be admitted. 



We have already discussed (anted, pp. 264 et sea.) our views 

 of the Manducid relationships. The larva is structurally more 

 distinctly Sphingid than Agriid, witness the similarly swollen 

 thoracic segments, the Sphinx attitude, &c. The pupa is distinctly 

 allied to that of the Cocytiids, agreeing in form, outline, callosities 

 and spiracular flanges, but specialised away from them in that 

 the long proboscis-case has receded f again, and is now soldered 

 throughout its length, preserving a file-like rough area, representing 

 the proboscis-horn of the higher Sphingids, the rest of the maxillae 

 being, as in them, smooth, whilst the peculiar imaginal specialisations 

 of the antennae, maxillae, legs, abdomen, and wing-scaling have 

 been repeatedly noticed. For Chapman's definition of the group 

 reference must be made to vol. iii., p. 367. 



* Chapman observes (antea, p. 264) that, pupally, Manduca is an Amphonyx 

 (i.e., Cocytius) in which the proboscis-case has receded again. 



f Reaumur expresses (Mimoires, ii., p. 296) his astonishment at the length 

 of the pupal maxillae compared with the length of the imaginal tongue, and says : 

 " La trompe paroissoit aussi longue ct aussi effilee que les trompcs plates, qui se 

 roulent en un grand nombre de tours, . . . mais apparemment que, lorsque 

 la trompe se tire de ses enveloppes, elle se raccourcit, et qu'elle grossit de ce 



