ON SOME N. AMERICAN SPHINGIDJE IN A. G. BUTLER’S REVISION. 
141 
The most striking point of difference is in the absence in P. Strenua of the broad pale band that crosses the upper surface of pri- 
maries lengthwise from base to the great pale mesial band in P. Linnei, also in the absence of the paler border of exterior margin. 
No. “3, Philampelus hornbeckiana, Harris, Cat. N.-Am. Sph. Sill. Journ. p. 299, (1839). “St. Thomas, West Indies.” Harris. 
Apparently allied to the preceding.” 
It is quite likely that this and P. Linnei are the same species but as Dr. Harris’ type is not to be found and his description 
not fully agreeing with P. Linnei it will have to remain one of those plagues to Lepidopterists, a description without a type, unless per- 
chance time or some accident solves the riddle. 
Page 575, No. “9, Philampelus pandorus. Daphnis pandorus, Hubner.” 
The author should have added to his synonyms of this species Philampelus Satellitia, Harris, instead of citing the latter as = 
Sphinx Satellitia, Linn. 
Page 578, No. “ 19, Philampelus labruscle. Sphinx labruscce , Linnaeus. Mus. Lud. Ulr. p. 352, (1764).” 
This species has to my knowledge twice been taken in the United States — once in New Jersey and once in Florida. 
Genus 18, No. “1, P achylia ficus. Sphinx ficus, Linnaeus, Mus. Lud. Ulr. p. 352, (1764).” 
Has been captured in S. W. Texas. 
With the Smerinthus Mr. Butler has taken the same if not more liberty than did Grote, making out of every group a separate 
genus, though sometimes the species even in these limited genera are not happily grouped. I cannot possibly see why Smerinthus 
Quercus, W. V., should be associated in the genus Mimas with S. Tilice , L. and S. Decolor, Wlk., neither of which does it in any 
way closely resemble, whilst such species as S. Dyras, S. Gaschlcevitschii , S. Albicans, etc., which it closely resembles, are made to consti- 
tute the genus Triptogen, and [ fear it is tript and tript again all through in these Hubnerian — ■ Groteian — Butlerian coitus-generic 
arrangements which seem to be the only exceptionable points of any moment in the work 1 am now examining. In the aforesaid genus 
Triptogen is placed our S. Modesta, of which the author says “ this is unquestionably the proper place for this species,” to which no 
particular objection can be made as it is as near to the Dgras group or nearer than to any other, but why, I would again ask, is S. 
Quercus, which resembles Dyras and allies much more than does Modesta, removed so far away, with four genera intervening? 
Page 590. Is described under the name of Oressnnia Robinsonii, what is supposed to be a new species allied to S. Juglandis, Ab.-S. 
The author says : “ We have a pair of what seems to be a second species; it is of a greyer tint, and half as large again, the transverse 
lines wider apart, and the primaries wtili central band not darkened on the inner margin ;” and further suggests “ it is quite possible 
that the above may be a large form of O. Juglandis-, but it differs noticeably from our six examples of that species.” 
I do not know of anything agreeing with the above description in any American collection. Is Mr. Butler quite sure that 
“New York” is the true locality of this type? 
No. “3, Cressonia pallets. Smerinthus pollens, Strecker, Lep. Rhop. & Het. pt. 7, p. 54, pi. vii, fig. 14, (1873), Texas.” 
To which is appended the following foot note: “Mr. Grote is confident that this is only a varietv of C. juqlandts. 1 1 looks 
quite distinct.” 
Mr. Butler’s only ground for stating that “it looks quite distinct” is from examination of my figure, he being in England and 
the type having never left my cabinet. But how Grote came to be so confident as to assert the species was only Juglandis is a marvel 
it being impossible for him ever to have seen the type as none but gentlemen enter my house. 
Mr. Butler says on page 590, “I find that dissimilarity in the outline of wings is almost always accompanied by modification of 
the discocellular nervelets, which would be sufficient in the eyes of any Lepidopterist to warrant generic separation,” and on same page 
commences his genus Paonias, comprised of two species, Excaecatus and Myops, showing about as much dissimilarity in the outline of 
wings as can probably be found between any of the species among all the Smerinthus. 
Page 591, Astylus, which is closer to Myops than any other species, is placed in another genus, the Calasymbolus of Grote. In 
regard to my figure the author says, “Strecker’s figure of this species has the two opposite primaries rather different in outline; but 
judging from Drury’s figure, I have little doubt as to its genus.” As regards this difference of outline he is correct; so was I in my 
drawing, for on examining the example from which I drew the figure I find the same difference in outline exists as in the figure which 
I faithfully copied. 
In this same genus Calasymbolus along with Astylus are placed Geminatus, Cerysii, Ccecus and Kindermanni, which four species bear 
no particular resemblance to Astylus in outline of wing, colour, or anything else except in the common fact that all have an ocellus on 
hind wings. This extension of Calasymbolus was too much for even Grote who in Can. Ent. IX, p. 132, says: “I am not now prepared 
to accept the extension of Calasymbolus ; ” but to make amends he immediately after makes a new genus which he calls Eusmerinthus 
for the reception of Gemina'us, in order that he can say Eusmerinthus Geminatus, Grote, instead of Sm. Geminatus, Say. 
In his arrangement of species Mr. Butler has No. 2 Geminatus, No. 3 Cerisii, and No. 4 Ccecus. Why Cerysi was placed between 
Geminatus and Ccecus I cannot imagine, as Coccus is so close to Geminatus that were it not for the difference in the first principal trans- 
verse line or shade on primaries, which is strongly angulated in the latter, they might be considered identical. 
The variety of Geminatus figured in Drury and there named Jamaicensis, Mr. Butler has cited erroneously as a synonym of S. 
Myops. 
Page 603, No. “ 3, Dilophonta merianje. Erinnyis meriance, Grote, Proc. Ent. Soc. Phil, v, pp. 75 and 168, pi. 2, fig. 2, (1865). 
“ Tropical insular and continental districts!” {Grote).” 
I have received examples of the above bred from larvae found in S. W. Texas near San Antonia and New Braunfels. 
Page 618, No. “2, Sphinx leucophceata, Clemens, Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil. 1859, p. 168. Sphinx lugens (part.), Walker, Lep. 
Het. viii, p. 219, No. 11, (1856). Oaxaca, Mexico, ( Hartweg ).” 
S. Leucophceata is unknown to American Lepidopterists further than by Clemen’s description. For my part I have little 
doubt but that it is a synonym of S. Lugens, Wlk., although of this latter Mr. Butler says, “although coming from the same locality as 
the preceding, and very like it in its general character, I believe this species to be quite distinct. It is altogether shorter, broader and 
darker, and has the pale bars of secondaries much narrower and whiter.” 
By whom were the examples in the British Museum, cited by Mr. Butler as Leucophceata, identified? 
