206 Pi'of. Frey, and some American Teneina. 



he calls L. Bos'onica, otherwise than by pointing out some minute 

 points, wherein it seems to differ from the species just mentioned ; these, 

 I think, there are not specific differences, and as to the difference of 

 size, there is something about that which is curious, though not, I 

 think, of specific value. I have frequently, both bred from the mines 

 and captured minute species of L. omatella, Cham., and L. crataigellu, 

 Clem. ; these little specimens are not more than one half as long as 

 those of the ordinary size, and differed from them only in size, and in 

 having the colors less brilliant, more deadened, so to speak. The 

 mines from which I bred them were the ordinary forms of the mines 

 of those species, both in form or size. 



The next species, L. auronittns, Frey, we are unable to recognize in 

 any American species. 



Prof. Frey then proceeds to what he calls the Acacia feeding species 

 of Lithocolletis. He must, however, use the word acacia only in a 

 very wide sense, since the European micro, L. stednensis, which he 

 seems to consider one of the group, mines leaves of Alnus (elder). 

 We know of no species feeding on acacia proper, though all the 

 species referred to feed on species of Robinla, Desmodlum, Amphi- 

 carpeoe and Lespedczia, closely related Leguminous \Aimi^, except Stetin- 

 ensis. The first species mentioned in this group, is called, by Prof. Frey, 

 L. omatella, Cham., and he states that " the mines of the Acacia have 

 caused him (the Professor) great cudgeling of his head," "while he has 

 unfortunately arrived at no definite conclusion," whilst the American 

 entomologists, as to these, find themselves in a "wonderful confusion ;'' 

 "which, however, could be ended in one summer easy." He states that 

 one species (what species ?) was left at Cambridge, and two others were 

 reared at Zurich, one of which reminds him of L. stednensis, and which, 

 from his short notes, must be L. ornetella, Cham.; and another, which is 

 clearly Parrectcpa rohinieVa, Clem., for which the Professor attempts, 

 unjustifiably, to substitute the mine Lithocolletis gemmea, Frey. Now, 

 noticing each of these points in the Professor's notice of L. ornatdla, 

 and Prohiniella, we ask why does the Professor add the [?] to the 

 noun L. omatella, Cham.? If it was because of a doubt whether it 

 really was ornatella, the slightest reference to the description of that 

 species in the Canadian Entomologist ought to have satisfied him that 

 it was the same, and if it did not, then we assure him, from his own 

 notes on the species, that it was L. ornatella, C^ham. If it was from a 

 doubt whether L. omatella, Cham., is not a synonym for the European 

 species, L. stetinensis, we can assure him that if the account and figure 

 of stetinensis, plate 5, vol. ii., of Nat. Hist. Tin., edited by Mr. Stainton, 

 Professor Frey, and others, is at 'all correct, ornatella is a very differ- 



