THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 75 



L. speculella, by Dr. Clemens, and three, Z. alniella, L. apicistrigella and 

 Z. gracilella, by me. Of these speculello, and alniella are certainly distinct 

 species, and so the others appear to me to be. But considering the 

 amount of variation which is found so commonly in the extent and 

 intensity of the fuscous markings of the known species of the genus, and 

 the fact that two or more of the fuscous marks may by spreading and con- 

 fluence unite into a larger patch, or may surround a white spot, or may 

 be connected by streaks, etc., it is not impossible that Z. apicistrigella 

 may prove to be a variety of speculello. or of gracilella, or even all three 

 may prove to be varieties of one species. The truth about this can only 

 be satisfactorily determined by breeding them from the larva, and as yet 

 alniella, of Colorado, is the only species the larva of which is known. In 

 the description of that species I alluded to the range of variation in its 

 ornamentation. I have taken in Kentucky two specimens which I incline 

 to refer to apicistrigella, though they differ somewhat from the typical 

 specimens, having the whole fore wings pale fuscous and the markings 

 only deeper than the remainder of the wings ; but even these deeper 

 markings do not agree accurately with those of typical specimens of the 

 species. I have now before me a specimen which I feel bound to refer 

 to Z. speculella Clem., though not agreeing at all accurately with it ; and 

 I have also before me a specimen which I refer to gracilella, though it 

 differs from it to about the same extent that the other specimen differs 

 from speculella. This specimen (of gracilella), indeed, seems only to 

 differ from Lithocolletis uidijicausella Packard (Guide, plate 8, figs. 19 and 

 19a) by the absence of the spots and shading on the basal half of the 

 dorsal margin of the fore wings, and such a difference in this genus would 

 not be of specific value. The figures above referred to leave no doubt 

 that nidificausella is properly referable to Lyonetia instead of Lithocolletis. 

 The mode of pupation there indicated is that of all the known species 

 of Lyonetia, and not of any species of Lithocolletis. 



It may be proper to add that the figure i$c loc. cit., given as repre- 

 senting the mine of Lithocolletis geminatella, is not like any of the multi- 

 tude of known Lithocolletis mines, and may possibly be that of a Lyonetia, 

 but is much more probably that of a Nepticula. 



Should gracilella prove on breeding it to be identical with nidficausella, 

 the latter name has priority. 



