March, 1898.] GROTE : CLASSIFICATION OF LEPIDOPTERA. 13 
Still, it reappears more or less evidently and constantly not only in the 
Chterocampians 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 tilice. 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, Axherontia 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 Ccilasymbolus astylus and Eusmerinthus geminatus , while Copismer- 
inthus ocellata and the allied North American species are distinguished 
by the tibial claw. 
On the whole, then, theneuration 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- 
mennthus (Cat. pp. 711, 712). Copismerinthus 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, Copismerinthus has, a tibial claw. 
* From a note made by me when examining Latreille’s works, populi is indi¬ 
cated as the type of Smerinthus, 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 tilice , and., 
this is probably correct. 
