THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 11 



o 



Dr. Clemens gave names to several species which were known to him 

 only by the food plant, larval case or larva. Among these he mentions a 

 species feeding on Hickory leaves under the name of caryaefoliella. He 

 also describes a captured imago under the name of cretaticostella, but the 

 description is so very brief and insufficient that without seeing his speci- 

 men I cannot be altogether certain that it is identical with that bred by 

 me from larvae feeding on Hickory leaves. His description, however, of 

 cretaticostella, such as it is, is applicable to the Hickory-feeding species 

 bred by me. I know three species feeding on Hickory leaves, but have 

 only succeeded in rearing the imago from one, and as that one agrees in 

 the characters of the case and larva with the case and larva mentioned by 

 Clemens, I adopt the name suggested by him. His species cretaticostella 

 was described in January, i860, and his mention of the larva and case of 

 caryaefoliella under that name was in 1 861, so that the former name would 

 be entitled to priority ; but as there may be doubt whether the species are 

 the same, and as the description of cretaticostella is so imperfect, and as, on 

 account of the ease with which bred species may be identified, it is always 

 desirable that the specific name should be derived from the food plant, I 

 adopt caryaefoliella for this species. 



C. rufoluteella Cham, is known only from captured specimens. I have 

 always found it in abundance about the middle of July, resting upon 

 palings in Linden Grove Cemetery, in Covington, Ky., a mile away from 

 any Hickory trees. There it always makes its appearance suddenly and 

 in considerable numbers, so that I have always supposed it to be a feeder 

 on some species of plant found in the cemetery enclosure. I am, how- 

 ever, utterly unable to distinguish it from specimens bred by me in the 

 latter part of June from larval cases found feeding on Hickory leaves in 

 the manner described by Dr. Clemens for caryaefoliella, and I believe it to 

 be the same species. 



The species of this genus pass by such gentle gradations from those 

 having the antennae densely clothed with scales, or the basal joint of it 

 tufted or greatly enlarged, and with the second joint of the palpi distinctly 

 tufted, to those in which both antennae and palpi are simple, that these 

 characters afford little assistance in subdividing the genus. It is sometimes 

 difficult to determine whether we should say "the basal joint of the 

 antennae tufted," or only " enlarged," and so as to the palpi. Thus for- 

 merly (Can. Ent., v. 6) I placed rufoluteella in the secticn " basal joint 

 of antennae with a small tuft, palpi simple." But it now seems to me that 



