OF WASHINGTON. 45 



of the types. I have ten specimens in the collection under this 

 label, Palatka, Fla., on pecan, issued May 27, 1903; Olustee, 

 Fla., June, 1904; Black Jack Springs, Tex. (through Dr. Wm. 

 Barnes) ; Cairo, Ga., issued June 6, 1903 ; Blacksburg, Ga., on 

 pecan, issued May 28, 1902 (W. R. William) ; Washington, 

 D. C, on walnut, issued June 7, 1903 (Aug. Busck) ; Chicago, 

 111., July, 1900 (Coll. W. D. Kearfott). The specimens pos- 

 sess the white thorax and base of fore wings, but the white 

 is more or less grayish and grades into the color of the fol- 

 lowing species. I expect it will be found that palliolclla is 

 not more than a variety of nebulella Riley. They differ in no 

 other respect. 



Acrobasis nebulella Riley. ( i 



This name is listed as a variety of Mineola indigenella 

 Zeller, but Riley's type before me is clearly an Acrobasis and 

 differs from palliolella only in the gray color of thorax and 

 ,base of fore wings. Minimella Rag., made to replace Hulst's 

 nigrosignella by Ragonot and referred to the synonymy of 

 caryce Grote by Hulst, will find place here as a synonym. It 

 was described from females and so can not be positively re- 

 ferred, but it contradicts this species in nothing, and its small 

 size favors the reference as this is the smallest species before 

 me. Ragonot's figure agrees well with specimens of nebulella, 

 and the locality is consonant. I have 23 specimens before me, 

 4 bred by Doctor Riley on hickory and walnut, including the 

 type of nebulella; Atlanta, Ga. (W. M. Scott) ; Texas (Jacob 

 Boll), this specimen submitted to Ragonot by Riley in 1886 

 and marked " Acrobasis, too poor to name " ; also submitted 

 to Dr. Hulst in 1900 and labelled " probably Mineola nebu- 

 lella;" Kerrville, Tex., at light, May 30 to June I, 1906 (F. 

 C. Pratt) ; Blackshear, Ga., on pecan, issued June 12, 1902 

 (Dept. Agr., No. 8637) ; Rhinebeck, N. Y., July 27, 1888 (H. 

 G. Dyar), the latter a female and the reference therefore less 

 certain. 



Acrobasis latifasciella, n. sp. 



Agrees entirely with the description of A. eliella above; the same 

 words might be repeated. It differs, however, in lacking all traces 

 of sexual markings on the wings beneath in the male. 



One male, New Brighton, Pa., Aug. 4, 1903 (H. D. Mer- 

 rick) ; three males and one female, Plummers Island, Mary- 

 land, July 9, August 3, and 10 (Busck, Schwarz, and Barber) ; 

 one female, June 22, 1886, bearing the number 2504 (pre- 

 sumably Doctor Riley's) and determined by Hulst as Aero- 



