ON SOME N. AMERICAN SPHINGID^ IN A. G. BUTLER’S REVISION. 143 
reason why it should not be; even if the insect is allied to an Asiatic species, is it more wonderful to find a species of Chcerocampa 
on the Pacific coast allied to an Asiatic one than to find such closely allied things as Smerinlhus Ccecus and S. Geminalus, the first in 
Asia, the latter in the Atlantic United States, or Parnassius Intermedins and P. Smintheus, which I believe are identical, the former in 
the Altai Mis. and the latter in the Mts. of Colorado? 
Page 642, “ Hyloicus saniptri. Sphinx Saniptri, Strecker, Lep. Rbop. and Het. i, pi. xiii, fig. 18 (1876).” 
I am now convinced this is identical with Sph. Pinastri. Mv principal grounds, apart from its being found in the United States, 
which is of small moment, was the absence of the broad dark transverse shade of primaries, but 1 have since received examples from 
Germany which are also destitute of this band or shade. 
Attached to this monograph are five coloured plates representing various species, mostly new, of Sphingidse, and also a number 
of larvae. 
I cannot say 1 am enamoured with the frightful number of genera adopted, which is the one objectionable feature to this other- 
wise excellent work, but it appears Mr. Butler has equal want of affection for the paucity of genera accepted by myself, for he alludes 
pleasantly on p. 621 to “ Mr. Strecker’s imcomprehensible affection for unmanageably extensive genera.” 
But in truth it is greatly to be deplored that the plan (insanity offspring of Grote’s vanity) of dividing and subdividing so 
natural a genus as Smerinthus should be here adopted; but I have treated fully this subject on pp. 52, 53, as well as elsewhere in this 
volume. What better proof of the compactness of a genus is required than the knowledge that two of its most dissimilar-looking species 
will copulate and produce hybrids as in the case of S. Populi and S. Ocellata. 
In speaking on p. 613 of Diludia Brontes, Dru., ( Sphinx Cubensis, Grote, is a. synonym,) the author expresses himself in the fol- 
lowing language which certainly will meet the sincere approval of all true lovers of science. He there says: “ i cannot but regret that 
Mr. Grote has thought it necessary to add to the synonymy by proposing names for species before they were required. It is true that he 
might otherwise have been superseded; but as a fact it does not matter who names a species, so long as the name given be euphonious, 
whilst on the other hand a cumbrous synonymy is a great evil.” 
In the Dan. Ent. IX, p. 130-133, Grote gave what he calls a “Notice of Mr. Butler’s Revision of the Sphingidse,” though as 
usual it is a dissertation on himself, in which the first seven lines are devoted to praising Mr. Butler, being prefatory to the remaining 
seventy odd which are mainly devoted to the highly gratifying and instructive purpose of praising himself. 
November, 1877. 
