Teneina of the United States. 231 



within the limits of species, and that some of their species are perhaps 

 only varieties. Usually, when specimens are bred from different food 

 plants, or where there are small differences of larval habits, a mark or 

 two, more or less, in the imago is usually considered sufficient to found 

 a new species upon. Examples of this may be found in most of the 

 little leaf-mining genera as Nepticula, LithocoUetis, Phtjllocniitis Tmherm 

 and in Butalis and others. This impression has been made upon me 

 not by inspection of specimens of European species (for the number 

 of these that I have seen is not great) but by a study of the writings 

 of European Micro-lepidopterists. Therefore I may be wrong, and an 

 inspection of specimens of some species, the validity of which I have 

 been inclined to doubt, might convince me that my doubts were 

 unreasonable. Following what I conceive to be the example of these 

 Micro-lepidopterists, I have sometimes described as distinct species, 

 insects as to which great doubt existed in my own mind whether they 

 should be so treated Some of our species of LithocoUetis, PhyUocnistis, 

 Aspidisca, Butalis and others, I regard as only doubtfully entitled to 

 specific value, though I doubt not they would be regarded as distinct 

 by most Micro-lepidopterists of Em-ope, because certainly 'species' do 

 pass current there which are no more distinctly separate than those as 

 to which I entertain doubts as above stated. Some American species 

 which have been described in Europe as distinct, 1 am fully satisfied 

 are not so. And as to the species mentioned and described below I 

 certainly entertain doubts. If Cosmopteryx orichakea is distinct from 

 C. hierochloce, and C. Clemensella from C. cjemmifereUa, then the species 

 here described as C. pidchrimella is entitled to specific rank. But Dr. 

 Clemens did not consider clemensella and gemmiferella distinct when he 

 sent them to Mr. Stainton; and as to orichalcea and hierochloce Mr. 

 Stainton writes: "specimens of C. orichalcea do occur with the apical 

 streak interrupted, and when that is the case I am quite unable to 

 point out how the insect can be distinguished from C. hierochloce" {St. 

 ed. Clem. p. 100, and Nat. Hi^s. Tin, v. 12, p. 24.) I submit that the 

 difterence thus indicated is not of specific value even if it were constant. 

 However, it is the old question what constitutes a species, as to 

 which every naturalist has his own 'notions'; about which nan est dispii- 

 tandum. For myself, I am much inclined to consider orichalcea and 

 hierochloce, as synonyms; and gemmiferelki, Clemensella, and the insect 

 described below, as belonging to the same species. 



C. pukhrimella, n. sp. (?). 



Rich dark brown, with a faint greenish tinge, not discernible in all 

 lights. (Dr. Clemens says that gemmiferella is ' dark greenish-brown," 



