Teneina of the United States. Til 



whicli is almost certainly an error, if the species is superUfrontella. 

 Dr. Clemens bred it from the witch-hazel (Hamamelis Virginiea), and 

 it has never been (so far as I have been able to ascertain), bred from 

 any thing else in this country ; and, it is exceedingly improbable, that 

 a species of this genus feeds on two plants so remote from each other 

 as the hamamelis and oak. Prof. Frey gives an account of the way 

 in which the mined leaves, gathered by Mr. Boll, were jumbled 

 together, and, no doubt, the error arose in this way. Besides, it 

 frequently happened, that the Professor was unable to tell which of 

 three or four kinds of leaves his species came from (as in the case of 

 his G. elegantella, and other species), and in, at least, one instance, 

 LithocoUetis gemmea, where the food plant is given as if it were known. 

 I shall show, presently, that he was mistaken, in all probability. 



G. eleganiella — (Frey). 



I have already he. cit stated that this i.s a synonym for G. packardella, 

 Cham. Prof. Frey, says that it may be from American oaks, or it 

 may be from the maple (^Aer. sacchainwn) . I have long known the 

 larva on the maple, and last fall succeeded in breeding G. packardella 

 from it. The mine is linear and short, and the larva soon leaves it to 

 feed on the under side of the leaf, curled down so as to make almost 

 an elongate cone, with a diameter a little greater in one direction than 

 in the other, and truncate near the top. 



G. mirabilh — (Frey). 



This is certainly Parectopa robinieUa, Clem., which I had already re- 

 ferred to Gracilaria. Had Prof. Frey, with an adequate knowledge of 

 English, examined carefully Dr. Clemens' description of P. roblniella 

 he could not have failed to recognize it. In the paper in the last July 

 number, before referred to, I did not recognize 1*. robinieUa in Prof. 

 Frey's account of mirahilis. I have now no doubt whatever of their 

 identity. Professor Frey had given Parectopa roblniella (?) Clem., as 

 a synonym for Lithocolletis gemmea, Fiey, and being misled thereby 

 and not fully understanding Prof. Frey's description of L. gemmea, 

 I believed them to be the same, and so treated them in my review of 

 Prof. Frey's paper. Now after more careful study, I am prepared to 

 say that in L. mirabilis, Prof. Frey has given a good description of P. 

 rd>iniella, and that an insect which meets the requirements of his L. 

 gemmea, can not be P. robinieUa, Clem., nor anything like it. I have 

 been unable to recognize any Teneid known to me in L. gemmea, 



