308 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



both sides, two stalked on one side, separate on the other, and two 

 separate on both sides, though approximate at base. The form of the 

 male genitalia is peculiar and exactly alike in both those specimens with 

 the veins stalked and with them separate. In size and markings they are 

 also inseparable. 



Lord VValsingham remarks about a specimen with veins 8 and 9 

 stalked, in two places in his article (pages 151 and 155), and refers it in 

 one place to Neolophus, in the other to Caenogenes ; but the antennae are 

 serrate only towards the tip, and the male palpi are strongly recurved, so 

 that neither of these references seems admissible. 



Texas (coll, Beutenmiiller, type of quadi-ipunctellus) ; Texas, Sept. 

 20 (Belfrage); Central Missouri, Aug. 12 and 15 (coll. C. V. Riley) ; 

 Kansas (Grevecoeur) ; Georgia (coll. Beutenmiiller) ; Texas (coll. Beuten- 

 miiller, labelled "compared with type of A. mortipenella at Cambridge, 

 Mass."). 



Genus Acrolophus, Poey. 

 Poey, Cent. Lep., Cuba, 1832 ; VVals., Trans. Ent. Soc, Lond., 

 J887, 147. 



Synopsis of Species. 

 Uncus single, broad at base, the tip sharp. 



Harpes slender, concave, obliquely truncate above siinulatus. 



Uncus double. \ pluviifrontelhis. 



With supplementary lateral processes (. cervinus. 



Without such processes. 



Harpes slender, concave, uniform. 



Tips of uncus down curved, separate Texanelhis. 



Tips of uncus straight, bent only at base, more nearly 



approximate Hiilstellus. 



Harpes spoon-shaped, narrowed at base. 



Uncus with a tooth below at the base j Arizonellus. 



1 violaceellus. 

 AcrolopJms cervinus, Walsingham. 



Wals., Trans. Ent. Soc, Lond., 1887, 151; angustipetielius, Btxxi., 

 Ent. Amer., HL, 140, 1887; Smith's List Lep. Bor. Amer., No. 5049, 

 1891. 



The genitalia of this form do not differ perceptibly from those of 

 plumifrontellus, Clem. The moths are smaller, paler and less strongly 

 marked, somewhat narrower winged ; but I doubt the specific distinct- 

 ness of the form. 



