The monophyly of the five genera comprising subtribe Acherontiina was demonstrated by Kitching (2002, 2003). This status was corroborated by the analysis of five nuclear genes by Kawahara et al. (2009: Figure 2), who showed that the sister-group of subtribe Acherontiina was a group comprising genera Notonagemia (as Meganoton), Macropoliana and Psilogramma. Zolotuhin & Ryabov (2012) stated that "The tribe Acheronthiini [sic] Boisduval, 1875, is separated on minor morphological characters, such as the modification of palps in Acherontia and some other genera, but is not supported by other morphological characters". This is a misrepresentation of the results of the two phylogenetic analysis of Kitching (2002, 2003), where the monophyly of subtribe was supported by 10 and 13 characters respectively. Of these, the modification of the pilifer and labial palps into an ultrasonic auditory organ, which is otherwise found only in the genus Xanthopan and subtribe Choerocampina of tribe Macroglossini, subfamily Macroglossinae, cannot be simply dismissed as "minor". Zolotuhin & Ryabov (2012) then continue, stating "paraphyly of Sphingini pointed out by Kawahara & al., 2009 will be avoid [sic] if to widen the limits of the tribe Acherontiini on all genera of the cluster that is proposed here", which is to say, expanding the concept of Acherontiina to include Notonagemia, Macropoliana and Psilogramma. However, in so doing,, Zolotuhin & Ryabov (2012) provided no diagnostic characters for their new tribal concept and only succeeded in replacing a concept of Acherontiina that was well diagnosed with one that was undiagnosed. Consequently, their concept is rejected here. Instead, Notonagemia, Macropoliana, Psilogramma and their relatives are placed in an informal "Psilogramma genus-group" (q.v.), for which a new subtribe should be erected in due course.