158 ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY 



NOTES ON SYNONYMY AND LARVAE OF PYRALID^E. 



By HAKRISON G. DYAR. 

 Euzophera gigantella Ragonot. 



Enzophera gigantella Ragonot, Nouv. gen. Phyc. and Gall., p. 32, 1888. 

 Euzophera ifigantella Ragonot, Rom. Mem., vin, p. 51, 1901. 

 Honora cinerella Hulst. Journ. N. Y. Ent. Soc., vui, p. 223, 1901. 

 Honora cinerella Hulst, Bull. 52, U. S. Nat. Mus., p. 433, 1902. 



Hulst's 9 type is before me. It has not the contrasts of black 

 shades shown in Ragonot's figure,* but these shades are barely 

 mentioned in the text and not at all in the original description, so 

 it appears that the figure is either over colored or made from an 

 unusually dark specimen. The species belongs to Euzophera 

 rather than to Honora as the cell of the hind wings is long, beino" 

 nearly half the length of the wing. 



Vitula serratilineella Ragonot. 



Vitula serratilineella Ragonot, Diag. N. A. Phjcit. and Gall., p. 115, 



1887. 



Vitula serratilineella Hulst, Trans. Am. Ent. Soc., xvn, p. 179, 1890. 

 Eccopisa set rattlineclla Ragonot, Rom. Mem., viu, pp. 33, 560, 1901; 



PI. XLIX, fig. 23. 



Vitula serratilineella Hampson, Rom. Mem., vin, p. 83, 1901. 

 Eccopsia serratilineella Hulst, Bull. 52, U. S. Nat. Mus., p. 430, 1902. 

 Vitula serratilineella Dyar, Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash., v, p. 104, 1903. 

 Not Vitula serratilineella Hampson, Rom. Mem., vm, PI. XLII, fig. 

 12, 1901. 



The species belongs to Vitula as originally placed by Ragonot, 

 since the ^ has none of the peculiar characters described for 

 Eccopisa Zeller. Hampson places it positively in this genus, f but 

 without good reason, for he had no ^, as the citations in the text 

 show. The figure (PL XLIX, fig. 23) is a fair representation of 

 the species, but the second figure (PI. XLII, fig. 12) is quite a dif 

 ferent insect, apparently belonging to another genus, and a male, 

 if the drawing is to be trusted. The generic term Eccopsia is 

 due to a misreading of Dr. Hulst's manuscript or to a clerical 

 error of his; he evidently intended to write Eccopisa Zeller. I 

 had to supply the authors' names and the references and, not find 

 ing Eccopsia, thought it one of the new names being proposed 

 by Ragonot in Vol. VIII of the Romanoff Memoirs, not then 

 available. The term Eccopsia (Ragonot) Hulst will be cited as 



*Rom. Mem., vin, PI. xxv, fig. 25. 

 f Rom. Mem., vin, p. 560, 1901, 



