mari^in  ;  in  the  ?  instead  of  this  is  only  a  short  raised  semi-oval  curve.  Forewings
•with  II  or  12  nenures,  i  free,  2--7  at  equal  distances  out  of  cell,  8  out  of  7,  9
c'ivided  near  apex  of  winjj  when  12  nervuies  are  present ;  in  the  latter  case,
therefore,  10  is  from  9,  11  from  top  of  cell,  12  free  ;  if  nenure  o  be  not  forked
10  arisen  from  front  edge  of  cell  and  1 1  is  free ;  hind  wings  with  9  nervures,  I
free,  the  following  all  with  tolerably  equal  interspaces,  4  from  apex  of  cell,  5
as  a  continuation  of  one  of  the  weak  dividing  nervures  of  cell  (the  fold?)  or  even
further  on  towards  the  costa,  6  and  7  on  a  short  footstalk,  8  from  base  sending
back  an  oblique  ner\'ure  to  middle  of  front  margin  of  cell.
He,  however,  did  not  get  beyond  genera  in  his  subdivisions,  his
table  of  the  latter  working  out  as  follows  :

I.  Antennae  with  the  apex  pencillated,  hooked.
1.  Abdomen  with  sides  and  anal  segment  barbed       . .     Macroglossa.
2.  Abdomen  with  sides  and  anal  segment  not  barbed.
a.  Abdomen  with  anal  segment  acute     ..         ..     Sphinx.
b    Abdomen  with  anal  segment  obtuse  ..  ..     AcHERONTlA.
II.  Antennae  neither  pencillated  nor  hooked  . .         .,         . .     Smerinthus.
This  division,  as  far  as  it  goes,  is  a  natural  one,  but  is  neither
better  nor  worse  than  that  of  Stephens,  both  being  meagre  in  the
extreme,  and  not  dealing  with  the  superfamily  from  a  sufficiently
broad  standpoint.
For  comparison  with  Herrich-Schaffer's  diagnosis  of  the  super-
family  we  append  Meyrick's  {Handbook^  &c.,  p.  292)  which  reads  :

Imago  :  Head  with  dense  appressed  hairs.  Ocelli  absent.  Eyes  glabrous.
