30G ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY 



NOTE ON A WRONGLY IDENTIFIED SPECIES OF TOR- 

 TRICID^E. 



{Phthinolophus indentanus, n. gen. and sp.) 

 By HARRISON G. DYAR. 



Two years ago I described* the larva of Cerorrhirieta\ 

 calidana Zeller, identified by Prof. Fernald with a query, the 

 larvae on Eugenia from Florida. Another specimen in the 

 collection of Mr. Philip Laurent, of Philadelphia, collected at 

 Mt. Airy, Pennsylvania, bears Prof. Fernald's label, in his own 

 handwriting, this time without the query. Mr. Laurent has 

 other specimens from Anglesea, New Jersey, and I have a series 

 bred on wax myrtle {Myrica cerifera) at the Department of 

 Agriculture under the number 3422, June, 1884, from Fortress 

 Monroe, Virginia. In all 41 specimens are before me. The 

 Myrica specimens were submitted to Lord Walsingham in 1884 

 and labelled u Pcedisca, n. sp." Prof. Fernald has a specimen 

 sent him in 1898 and still unreported upon except to the effect that 

 it was not the Florida species. In my opinion, however, there is 

 but a single species before me, and that with but a small range 

 of variation. 



I feel reluctantly compelled to dissent from Prof. Fernald's 

 determination. Zeller described Cerorrhineta\ as "Die erste 

 bekannte Wicklergattung in welcher die mannlichen Fiihler, wie 

 bei Pempelia und Nephopteryx, doch ohne Krummung der 

 Geissel, dttrch rauhe Schuppen zu einem langlichen Knoten ver- 

 dickt sind," and ; 'Beim tf derganze Vorderrand bis nahe an die 

 Spitze zuriickgeschlagen ist." In the specimens before me there 

 is no knot-like thickening of the cT antennas as in Nephopteryx, 

 but a long, slight thickening with a notch near its end as in 

 Tmetocera. The $ costal fold does not reach over half the 

 length of the costal margin. In the specific description of 

 calidana, Zeller does not describe any of the characteristic mark 

 ings of the specimens before me. If further proof were needed, 

 Walsingham's discussion and figure of the venation show a 

 very different insect, belonging to the TortricinaB and allied to 

 Capua, whereas the form before me belongs to the OlethreutinaB 

 near Tmetocera. 



*Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash., iv, p. 468, 1901. 



f Written Cerorrhincta by a typographical error. 



J Hor. Ent. Soc. Ross., xm, p. 116, 1877. 



Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1891, p. 499, PI. XLI, fig. 2, where he changed 

 the name to CeratorrJiineta, inadmissibly, I believe, and Proc. Zool. Soc. 

 Lond., 1897, 133. 



