214 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF 



Nepticula Zeller. 



N. rubifoliella. Head dark luteous. Palpi somewhat paler luteous- 



Antennse luteous, basal joint silvery white. Fore wings blackish-brown, 

 with a rather narrow, curved silvery band about the middle of the wing. The 

 band is concave toward the base of the wing, and shows a tendency to be 

 interrupted in the middle. Cilia whitish. Hind wings grayish, cilia the 

 same. 



I have very carefully compared this insect with the description and delinea- 

 tion of N. anguli fas c iella, of Stainton, in the first volume of the Nat. 

 Hist, of the Tineina, and though unwilling to believe the fact, I cannot resist 

 the conclusion, that it is the same species. I have not named the species in 

 accordance with this conviction, because as yet I have secured but a single 

 specimen. 



The larva mines the leaf of blackberry in September. It makes a blotch 

 mine on the upper surface of the leaf, beginning as a slender gallery, extend- 

 ing quite a distance, usually along a vein of the leaf, before being enlarged 

 into a blotch. The body of the larva tapers posteriorly, the terminal rings 

 being attenuated ; color pale green, with a bright dark green vascular line ; 

 head greenish-brown and small. The larva was not taken from the mine for 

 description. It leaves the mine very early in October to spin an oval, very 

 dark reddish brown cocoon, and appears as an imago during the latter part 

 of May or early in June. There is, therefore, in all probability, a summer 

 brood, which may be found in July and August, if the conjecture is correct. 



I have no doubt that subsequent observation will prove this insect to be the 

 same as angulifasciella, and I am no little astonished to find so mi- 

 nute a creature common to the continents of Europe and America. During 

 the coming season I will endeavor to record minutely the history of the pre- 

 paratory states of the American species. 



PHALENITES. 

 Dokyodes Guenee. 



I would notice this genus here merely to express my ideas respecting its 

 classification. M. Guenee says of it, that the insects belonging to it have so 

 doubtful an aspect that he is uncertain not only in what family, but in what 

 division to place it. He notices its superficial resemblance to Crambus, or 

 Chilo, and to the genera Senta and Meliana of his division Noctuelites, but 

 says that from the form of antennae and labial palpi, the absence of ocelli, 

 (herein, however, M. Guenee is in error, for they are not absent), and from 

 some other characters, not designated, it cannot be mistaken for one of the 

 Noctuelites. While acknowledging the very notable differences between this 

 genus and those with which it is associated, he does not inform us what ruling 

 considerations induced him to prefer for it a place in his division Phalenites, 

 (Geometrina) and the family Ligidae. 



In my own view, this genus has few or no structural characteristics of the 

 Geometrina, and its neuration just as undoubtedly places it in Guenee's group 

 Noctuelites, (Noctuina); this, too, is a position justified by its general struc- 

 ture. If the subpectinated antennae of the tf, and the comparatively slender 

 body, are considerations sufficient to overrule the position of the wings in re- 

 pose, the partial folding of the hinder pair, the structure of the legs, the pre- 

 sence of ocelli, and the purely noctuiform neuration, then indeed does the 

 lesser amount of evidence overbalance the greater. Had M. Guenee not over- 

 looked the presence of ocelli, his decision might have been different, for these 

 organs are always absent in the Phalenites, and the possession of geometriform 

 antennse is not enough to neutralize their presence or to determine the place 

 of the genus. 



In the hope that some of the entomological students of New England, where 

 one of the species of this genus certainly is found, may be able to make out 



[June, 



