Prof. Frey, and some American Tcneina. 205 



reckless carelessness in comparing the descriptions. The cylindrical 

 larva and tentiform mine of Argentinotella were unknown until I pub- 

 lished them, on p. 148, Can. Ent., about the middle of the page, and 

 on tliat same page, toward the bottom, so near together that he could 

 not cast his eye upon one description without seeing the other, and 

 only separated from each other by a few lines on the species L. basistri- 

 gella, Clem., mentioning its tentiform mine and cylindrical larva, is my 

 account of L. ulmella, and its flat larva and mine, and the statement 

 that it resembled L. basistrigella, the next preceding species. Professor 

 Fi-ey got his account of ulmella, and his account of the mine and larva 

 of L. argentinotella from that source, for they have never been pub- 

 lished elsewhere, and yet he gives idmella as a synonym of Argrntino- 

 tella! Is this the sort of European natural history which American 

 naturalists are invited to follow, instead of their "brevity," "defective- 

 ness," and "confusion?" In one place the Professor expresses some 

 astonishment that he Avas not able to recognize two of his species in 

 any of our descriptions. After such work as this, the wonder would 

 seem to be that he ever succeeded in recognizing anything. 



The next species which Prof. Frey mentions, he thinks, is a varietv 

 of the European L. trifasciella, having "one more white hook" than 

 the European species has ; but he does not tell us where the white 

 hook may be found. I have already suggested the probability that 

 L. consimilella, Frey, is L. tritcenicdla, Cham., and, beside, Z'. trifasciella 

 is already too strongly marked for tritcenicdla, and as the mine of 

 consimiella is unknown, it is more likely to be iritcenicella, which mines 

 the iron wood, Oystra virginica, on the upper side of the leaf, than it is 

 to be trifasciella, which, like its European namesake, mines the leaves 

 of honeysuckles (Lonicera sempervirens). I therefore concur with 

 Professor Frey, that the species here described by him may be a 

 mere variety of the European L. trifasciella. But if so, it has, prob- 

 ably, but recently arrived in this country, and has not as vet spread 

 far, like Pieris rapce, among the butterflies ; for faithful searchings of 

 all sorts of honeysuckles, in the Middle and Southern States, has wholly 

 failed to furnish me a lepidopterous mine, though I have found a dip- 

 terous one abundant. 



The next of Prof. Fre}''s species, Avhich he calls L. ignofa, is probably 

 L. helianthisella, Cham., very similar to L. amhrosicella, Cham. I 

 think there can be little-doubt of this. L. helianthisella was bred by 

 me in the spring of 187^, and described, as one among many species , 

 in a MS. furnished early in 1873 to the editors of the Can. Ent., 

 and which has since been appearing in that periodical, as their space 

 will admit. Professor Frey does not 'describe liis next species, which 



