92 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



L. trifasciella Haw. 



L. Mariceella Cham., Cin. Qua?: your. Set., v. 2. A 



I am convinced that Mariceella is trifasciella, though there appear to 

 be some minute differences between them. The latter was not known to 

 me when I described the former, and strangely enough, the relationship 

 of Symphoricarpus to Lonicera did not suggest to me that the species 

 might be the same. I have never yet met with a Lithocolleiis mining 

 leaves of Honeysuckles, and have not bred this species from Symphori- 

 carpus. It was described from specimens bred from Symphoricarpus in 

 Missouri by Miss Murtfeldt. L. symphoricarpa>ella Cham, is the only 

 species that I have bred from that food plant in Kentucky. It is very 

 distinct. As stated above, I have never met with any Honeysuckle 

 species in the U. S. Prof. Riley, however, informs me that he bred a 

 species, most probably trifasciella Haw., from that plant in Illinois, and 

 Frey & Ball doubtfully refer an American Honeysuckle species to 

 trifasciella. 



L. obscuricos/ella Clem. 



L. virgin iella Cham. 



In a former Vol. of the Can. Ent. I have mentioned that there is no 

 such species as L. virginiella. It was described from a few specimens 

 bred from Ostrya leaves. The specimens were a little worn, and owing 

 to this, and to the very defective character of Dr. Clemens' description of 

 obscuricostella, which I had not then seen, they were supposed to belong 

 to a new species, to which I gave the name of virginiella. Since then I 

 have seen and have bred numerous specimens of obscuricostella, and recog- 

 nise virginiella as the same species, which probably I should never have 

 done by Dr. Clemens' description. I was also in part led into the error 

 by the mines from which virginiella was supposed to come. No mines 

 of obscuricostella were observed in the leaves, but there must have been a 

 few which escaped notice, and which produced the species. The mines 

 which were observed in the leaves, and which were supposed to be those 

 from which virginiella came (no others having been observed in the leaves) 

 prove by subsequent experience often repeated to be the mines of L. tri- 

 ixniaella Cham. A large gathering of these mines produced on that 

 occasion nothing, while a few mines of obscuricostella in the collection 

 which escaped observation produced obscuricostella, which not being recog- 

 nised in Dr. Clemens' description, and coming apparently from new mines, 



