202 Trof. Frey^ and some American Teneina. 



L. intermedia will also prove to be only one of the million varieties of 

 this species. The apical spot and little costal streaks, near the 

 apex, identify it sufficiently. CeltiseUa is found in this vicinity by 

 thousands, and, in some places, a visit at almost any hour of every day 

 would afford a dozen specimens, from April to October. L. obsoleta, 

 Prof. Frey's next species, is much more likely to be a pale or worn 

 form of L. celtisella (like L. nonfasctella^ than L. intermedia. I have 

 seen pale and worn specimens of celtisella, to which Prof. Frey's de- 

 scription of ohsoleta might apply. But this is all guess-work, from a 

 description which does not give even the ground color, excepting by 

 reference to another European species, which it is said to resemble 

 in some respects. 



L. mirifica, the next species, may be L. ostrycefoliella, Clem., if Prof. 

 Frey has made it up from damaged specimens. The color and mark- 

 ing of the wings seem to be identical, except that osti'ycefoliella, accord- 

 ing to Clemens, has four costal streaks, Avhile mirifica has, according 

 to Frey, only three. But the fourth one in ostrycefoliella is indistinct, 

 in the cilia, and might well escape observation if the cilia at that part 

 of the wing were injured. The description of mirifica is not altogether 

 so satisfactory as it might be, and the markings of the head do not 

 agree with those of octryoefolidla so well as those of the wings, which 

 agree in a striking manner. If not the same, it is certainly a very 

 closely allied species. The description given of this species, and of 

 the preceding, are nearly the same, especially as to the wings, except 

 that, as before stated, I am rather in the dark as to the ground color 

 of obsoletella, and the description does not say whether or not it has a 

 basal streak ; all of which is allowable in a Zurich Professor ! L. 

 Sciidderella, Frey, we likewise fail to recognize in any of our species. 



L. consimilella, Frey, is tritcenicella, Cham., or some new and very 

 closely related species, though I scarcely doubt that it is tritcenicBlla. 

 My only doubt arises from the statement that the breast of consimilella 

 is of the same hue with the wing, and he gives no description of the 

 thorax. The breast in trit(£nicella is dirty whitish. Nor have we any 

 doubt that Prof. Frey properly identified some of his specimens with 

 L. argentinoteUa, Clem. But in the name of chaos and confusion what 

 has L. umella, Cham., to do with it? Why does the Professor make 

 iimella, Cham., asynonymn for argentinoteUa, Clem.? As well might he 

 make our common blue-bird (Sylvia syatis, Wilson) identical with the 

 blue-jay, (Garulus cristatus), because he might happen to find their nests 

 in the same tree. It is true ArgentinoteUa, Clem., and ulmella, Cham., 

 do happen to mine the leaves of the same tree (different kinds of elm), 

 but let us note the differences throughout their lives, and imagine, if 



