212 ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY 



This proves the synonymy with the European Gelechia vidu- 

 ella Fabricius, as suggested in Staudinger and Rebel's Catalogue 

 of the Lepidoptera of Europe. The species must be known under 

 the earlier name. * 



Phyllocnistis liriodendronella Clemens. 



One perfect type, Clemens' No. 177 ; alar exp., 5.5 mm. 



Specimens, bred from tulip tree in the District of Columbia and 

 compared with- Clemens' type, are in the U. S. National Museum. 

 Tisheria quercitella Clemens. 



One type with wings not fully expanded, as described by 

 Clemens; his No. 184; alar exp., 7 mm. 



This species has been treated already under Tisheria citri- 

 pennella Clemens. It is not synonymous with that species, as 

 hitherto considered, but with the subsequently described Tisheria 

 tinctoriella Chambers. 

 Gelechia angustipennella Clemens. 



One type, left wings missing, Clemens' No. 194; alar exp., 

 13 mm. 



This proves to be the species described by the writer as Aristo- 

 telia kearfottella,* which name consequently falls as a syn 

 onym. The species should be known as Aristotelia angusti 

 pennella. Specimens compared with Clemens' type are in the 

 U. S. National Museum. 

 Gelechia apicilinella Clemens. 



Clemens' type No. 195 is lost, and the species must remain, 

 as placed by Riley, a synonym of Aprocerema nigratomella 

 Clemens. 

 Gelechia pullifimbriella Clemens. 



One type, Clemens' No. 191 ; alar exp., 12 mm. 



This proves the species to be a small, inconspicuous, nearly uni- 

 colorous Gelechia, different from any with which I am ac 

 quainted. I have no specimens exactly like the type which is 

 well described by Clemens. 

 Holcocera chalcofrontella Clemens. 



Two types, Clemens' Nos. 201 and 202, the latter marked 

 44 light variety "; alar exp., 15 mm. 



Chambers suggested that his species Holcocera clemensella 

 might be a variety of chalcofrontella, and he later reasserted this 

 opinion. | In Cambridge, Mass., I examined Chambers' type, 

 which is in very indifferent condition, but inasmuch as neither 

 this type nor Chambers' description disagrees with undoubted 

 specimens of chalcofrontella, it seems proper to regard the two 

 names as synonyms. Specimens compared with the types of 

 both authors are in the U. S. National Museum. 



*Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., xxv, p. 803, 1902. 

 t Cinn. Quart. Journ., ii, p. 256, 1875. 



