196 Cincinnati Society of Natural History. 



countiy, and the neuratioa is sufficiently illustrated in Mr. Stainton's 

 volume before referred to. It is among- Elachistidoi that the greatest 

 number of new generic forms, or at least the greatest differences be- 

 tween closely allied forms appears in this country. In this family I 

 am by no means sure that Peremede erransella, and P. (Itkorne) vno- 

 maculella should be referred to the same genus; and while both are 

 allied closely to Laverna, I think there are differences sufficient to 

 separate them from that genus; at least these differences would be suf- 

 ficient if Zayerwa was itself a more homogeneous and better defined 

 group. Perhaps, also, if this were the case, L. gleditschiceella, and L. 

 magnatella would not be included in Laverna, while at present it may 

 be that Lencophyne tricristatella, and NecRva albella ought not to be 

 separated from it. Eurynome albella, which I have included in Elach- 

 istidoe because of its neuration, betrays in some other respects a closer 

 relation to Phillonome and Bucculatrix; and Laverna magnatella 

 (L. cenothericeella, Cham.) which, I doubt not, is Phyllocnistis magna- 

 tella, Zell), also in its external characters betrays (especially in its or- 

 namentatiou) a resemblance to P/??/7/ocw/s(^*s and Lyonetice. Thus both 

 through L. magnatella and E. albella a connection is indicated be- 

 tween the Elachistidce and Lyonetida. OEnoe hybromella is a puzzling- 

 species, with the wings of the Elachistidce, it has the head and 

 mouth parts of a Tinea nearly, and the ornamentation of Tinea 

 tapetzella. 



I have given the neuration of four species of Elachista as illustra- 

 ting the variation in this respect in species which I have included in 

 this genus. Dry ope miirtfeldtella, I include in Elachistidcv, with very 

 great doubt as to the propriety of so doing. The neuration of tbe 

 hindwings, as well as iheir form, and the trophi, exclude it from 

 Gelechidm, whilst the neuration of the forewings is almost exactly 

 that of Blastobasis. Theisoa bifasciella, Cham., is, I can hardly 

 doubt, the (Ecoj^hora constrictella of Zeller; yet the neuration 

 shows that it can not be referred to (Ecophora, or to any other 

 genus of the Gelechidce. I have given no illustration of the neu- 

 ration of the Lithocolletidce, because it contains as yet but two 

 genera, Lithocolletis and Leucanthiza, and these are already illus- 

 trated in Ins. Brit., vol. 3, and in the writings of Dr. Clemens 

 {Tin. Nor. Amer.) Leucanthiza, both in the neuration and in 

 the characters of the head and appendages, shows a relation to 

 Phyllocnistis, but through Lithocolletis ornatella is more closely i"ela- 

 ted to Lithocolletis. Jjeucanthiza indicates a connection between the 

 Lithocolletidcti and Lyonetida'. In this latter family, Acanthocnemis 



