THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 193 



America, and two of these ( instabiliella and radiatella) were already known 

 in Europe. Trie genus thus seems to be confined to the Pacific Coast in 

 this country. 



His Lordship gives some valuable notes upon the genus Depressaria. 

 Thus he thinks that D. georgiella Walker belongs to the genus Trichotaphe 

 Clem., and would more properly be included in Gelechia than in Depres- 

 saria. D. clatisella Walker is D. cmereocostella Clem., and D. confertella 

 Walker is Cryptolechia ( Alachiniia) teutoriferella Clem. " It has since 

 been described by Mr. Chambers under the name of Depreisaria fer- 

 ?ialdel/a. I am assured by Prof Fernald that he is well acquainted with 

 the species " (fenialdelia ? ) " and that it agrees with a specimen of the 

 true C. teutoriferella which I received from him for comparison with Mr. 

 Walker's D. confertella. But I am aware that Mr. Chambers himself still 

 doubts their identity." I have never had an opportunity to compare 

 fernaldella with teutoriferella, but as stated in the U. S. Geol. & Geog. 

 Survey, I described fernaldella as distinct from tentot'iferella because I 

 could not recognise it in Dr. Clemens' description of the latter, though 

 there admitting the fact that they might nevertheless be the same. Lord 

 Walsingham mentions that D. ? pallidochrella Cham., D. ? rileyella Cham, 

 and D. 1 versicolorella Cham, are by me doubtfully referred to Gelechia. I 

 now think that whether these species are properly referable to Gelechia or 

 not, they do not belong to Depressaria, and after eliminating these, " we 

 have then eleven unquestioned species of Depressaria, viz., D. atrodorsella 

 Clem., cinereocostella Clem., clausella Walker, eupatoriella Cham., grotella 

 Robinson, helaclina De G., hilarella Zell., nebulosa ZtW., pulvipe?iiiella Clem. 

 (pulvipumella in Lord W.'s paper is no doubt a misprint), robiniella Pack, 

 and scabiella Zell." So says Lord Walsingham, and probably he is right, 

 though I have some doubts about robi?iiella,\\\\\ch, however, I have not seen. 



Passing on to the genus Glyphipteryx, the species are all undoubtedly 

 new except perhaps G. Californice, which will probably prove to be 

 identical with that described by me as G, viontisella from Colorado. 

 There are specimens of moutisella in my collection in Cambridge Museum 

 and in some other collections, but I have none now at hand for com- 

 parison. I think it highly probable, however, from my recollection and 

 notes of that species, which is very variable, that Calif ornicR will prove to 

 be the same species. I will state here that I described G. exoptatella as 

 new because I was unable to recognise it in Dr. Clemens' description of 

 his G. impigritella. Neither yet now am I able to do so. Recently, 



