96 PROC. ENT. SOC. WASH., VOL. 21, NO. 4, APR., 1919 



in Compsolechia he adds: "undoubtedly populella and inocuella 

 are closely allied to the niveopulvella and rhoifructella group, 

 constituting the true phylogenetic connection between the two 

 genera, but they are quite clearly distinguishable by structure." 



Large series, carefully bred from Populus both in eastern and 

 western United States have proven that niveopulvella is merely 

 a color variety of inocuella, exactly corresponding to the color 

 variations of populella, in Europe. It is in fact very doubtful 

 whether the American form can be separated specifically from the 

 European species; the male genitalia are identical, while other 

 closely allied species of the genus have very distinct specific 

 differences in these organs, and the somewhat larger size of the 

 average American specimen may well be due to the warmer 

 climate; specimens as small as any of the European are common 

 especially from the North West. 



We have thus the old joke realized of having one species be- 

 longing in two genera. 



The genus Anacampsis Curtis, should be retained in its usually 

 accepted entity with Compsolechia Meyrick, and Agriastis Mey- 

 rick, as synonyms. 

 Stomopteryx Heinemann; Aproaerema Durrant. 



The genus Aproaerema Durrant, was erected with anthyllidella 

 Hiibner, as type [(Ent. Mo. Mag., vol. 33, p. 221, 1897), Schutzeia 

 Spuler (Schmett, Eur. vol. II, p. 373, 1910) with the same type, 

 is a synonym)]. 



The genus Stomopteryx Heinemann, was a monotypical genus 

 (type: detersella Zeller), (Schmett, Deutchlands, vol. II, p. 324, 

 1870). Heinemann expressly separated it from the anthyllidella 

 group and the genus has been so separated by all subsequent 

 workers until Meyrick in the discussion of Anacampsis without 

 any explanation or proof asserts that the name Stomopteryx 

 Heinemann, is available for the anthyllidella group, superseding 

 Aproaerema Durrant (Exotic. Microlepidoptera, vol. II, p. 138, 

 1918). 



Here again different opinions may of course be maintained 

 on the value of characters for generic separation and Meyrick 

 may have intermediate forms which will excuse such generic 

 lumping, but in the absence of any reason given, the two genera 

 should not be merged by a mere assertion, clearly separable as 

 they are on the form and venation of the hindwings, as well as in 

 general appearance. 



Actual Date of Publication, May 2, ipl<? 



