Prof. Frcy, and some American Teneina. 209 



although the imago has not been bi'ed from either of the hist named 

 larvae, yet there is no confusion about them, and the whole matter is 

 understood, and the life history has been given of all the described 

 species. The only other species which mine the leaves of the above 

 mentioned plants are the Parrectopa rohiniclla, Clem., and F. 

 Icsjjedeztcfoliella, Clem. Prof. Frey, by giving a new description and 

 a new name, tries to throw some doubts over the question, whether 

 an insect bred by him from locust leaves was the P. rohiniella, Clem. 

 But to every one familiar with the insect and its habits it is evidentlv 

 the same, and LithocoUetis gemynea, Frey, can not supplant Parrectopa 

 rohiniella, Clem. There is not the slightest confusion about the insect, 

 it is all about the name. Prof. Frey calls it L. geonmca, because of there 

 being already one L. robiniella. If this insect is transferred to Lithocol- 

 letis, it must drop its specific name, rohiniella, and Prof. Frey gives it 

 a new one, viz. : LithocoUetis gemmea, Frey. If Dr. Clemens was 

 right in creating a new genus for it, then the name that he gave it 

 stands Parrectopa rohiniella, Clem. If, as I think, the insect belongs 

 to Gracilaria, then it is properly Gracilaria rohiniella, Clem. To us 

 it seems to have no very great relationship to LithocoUetis, for the fol- 

 lowing reasons : Dr. Clemens, as well as myself, was well acquainted 

 with the mind, larvse and imago, and it never occurred to either of us 

 that it was with any projiriety a LithocoUetis. Prof. Frey does not 

 know the mine or larva. Dr. Clemens, seeing that it would not be 

 placed in LithocoUetis, and that it did not belong in Gracilaria, as he 

 seems to have restricted that genus, viz., to Zeller's section A of it, 

 found no alternative but to erect a new genus, Parrectopa, for it — limit- 

 ing Gracilaria to Zeller's section A, but receiving it, as it is generallv 

 understood (a not altogether homogenous genus which the time had 

 not yet come to divide into other genera), I saw no imp]'opriety in 

 placing it in that genus, from many of the smaller species of which it 

 does not difter generically. The same characters which show that it 

 does not belong in LithocoUetis, show that it does belong in Gracila- 

 ria (unrestricted, though not in the Gracilaria of Dr. Clemens, that 

 is section A of Zeller). Now, the fact is, that there is scarcely any- 

 thing in common between this species (and P. lespedezwfoliella must go 

 with it) and a true LithocoUetis. The mine is unlike that of any Litho- 

 coUetis, so is the larvae, which is much more like that of a Gracilaria. 

 It has a habit, like some Gracilaria, of retreating and hiding along the 

 midriff of the leaf, so that the mine seems to be empty. It has the 

 habit, like many Gracilaria, and like no LithocoUetis (unless Dr. 

 Clemens' suggestion about L. crata'gella, Clem., is correct) of leaving 

 an old mine and making a new one in another leaf, and unlike all 



