THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 231 



Gelechia disco-ocdclla Cham. Holocera '^lamiulella Riley, 



" roseo-suffuscUa Clem., Bucculatrix pojnifolicUa Clem., 



Hiigno fagifir/ia Ch^wn., Hamadryas Basettella " 



Of these ten species, G. roseo-snffusclla^ judging from the number of 

 •specimens in the collection, appears to be by far the more numerous, 

 though it may turn out that some of the specimens do not belong to this 

 species, l)ut to a very closely allied and undescribed one ; and all the 

 -specimens are of a darker hue than those from the Northern States. This 

 species appears to be distributed nearly all over the United States, and is 

 perhaps the most common species of the genus. 



G. cercerisella Mas originalh- placed by me in Depressaria, and I was 

 led to do this by giving too much importance to the neuration of the 

 wings. It is, howe\er, properly referable to Gelechia. The specimens — 

 thirteen in number— beloni^ to a verv well marked \arietv. In all the 



• <D ml * 



specimens (a great many) that I have heretofore examined, the fore wings 

 are marked just within the middle of the dorsal margin by some faint, 

 short, ochreous streaks, only discernible distinctly under a lens. In these 

 thirteen specimens these ochreous streaks_ are not present, and their 

 place is occupied by a larger snow white spot, like those on the margins 

 of the wings. 



G. ceqiuvpiih'ella is well represented in the collection, but there appears 

 to be some variation in the shade of the ground color and in the density 

 of the dusting. 



I'he single specimen of Holocera glandulella differs from Mr. Riley's 

 description as follows : there is a single discal spot behind the angulated 

 line, and two others at the end of the cell, instead of " two discal spots,"' as 

 stated bv Mr. Riley ; besides, " three tolerably distinct, dusky marks 

 around the discal spots '' are wanting. Unfortunately I ha\-e now no 

 typical specimens of this species, with which to compare it. but I doubt 

 not it is the same. 



Hamadryas Bassettdla was described by Dr. Clemens from specimens 

 sent to him from Connecticut. He states that it appears to be congeneric 

 with a portion of Gelechia. The remark is applicable to almost every 

 species of the family GelechidcB. Dr. C. does not seem to ha\ e observed 

 its verv close relationship to Dasycera, nor, perhaps, its still closer relation- 

 ship to. or e^•en identity with the genus Pancalia. The antennae in 

 Bassettdla are stout, and the ciliation is microscopic, quite distinct in this 

 respect from species of Dasycera. The wings of Basseticlla are narrower 



