798 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. vol xxv. 



ARISTOTELIA RUBIDELLA Clemens. 



Gelechia n/WrfeZ/r/ Clemens, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil., XII, 1860, pp. 163, 434; 



Proc. Ent. Soc. Phil., II, 1863, p. 121; Stain ton Ed. Tin. N. Am., 1872, pp. 



40, 115, 225.— Chambers, Bull. U. S. Geol. Surv., IV, 1878, p. 147.— Riley, 



Smith's List Lep. Bor. Am., No. 5471, 1891. 

 Gelechia rubensella Chambers, Can. Ent., IV, 1872, p. 193; Bull. U. S. Geol. Surv., 



IV, 1878, pp. 89, 147.— MuRTFELDT, Can. Ent, VI, 1874, p. 222; Bull. U. S. 



Dept. Agr. Div. Ent., 23, 1891, p. 54. 

 Gelechia 2nidihu7ideUa Chaubers, Can. Ent., IX, 1877, p. 23. 

 Gelechia (Ergatis) rubidella Walsingham, Trans. Am. Ent. Soc.,X, 1882, j). 180. 

 Eacatoptus ruhidella Walsingham, Proc. Soc. Zool. Lond., 1897, p. 70. 

 Aristotdia rubidella Dietz, Smith's List. Ins. N. Jersey, 1900, p. 475. — Busck, 



Dyar's List. Amer. Lep., No. 5578, 1903. 



In the U. S. National Museum are two specimens determined by 

 Lord Walsingham, one of which l)cars his bhie label. No. 1188. 

 Habitat. — Eastern United States, West Indies. (Walsingham.) 



ARISTOTELIA FUNGIVORELLA Clemens. 



Gelechia fun giror ell a Clemens, Proc. Ent. Soc. Phila., Ill, 1864, p. 507; Stainton 

 Ed. N. Am. Tin., 1872, p. 261.— Walsh, Proc. Ent. Soc. Phila., VI, 1866, p. 

 273.— Packard, Guide, 1870, p. 350.— Chambers, Bull. U. S. Geol. Surv., IV, 

 1878, pp. 122, 143.— Riley, Smith's List Lep. Bor. Am., No. 5367, 1891. 



? Gelechia mllcifungiella Clemet^s, Proc. Ent. Soc. Phila., Ill, 1864, p. 508; Stain- 

 ton, Ed. N. Am. Tin., 1872, p. 262.— Walsh, Proc. Ent. Soc. Phila., VI, 1866, 

 p. 273.— Packard, Guide, 1870, p. 350.— Chambers, Bull. U. S. Geol. Surv., 

 IV, 1878, pp. 122, 147.— Riley, Smith's List Lep. Bor. Am., No. 5475, 1891. 



AriMoieliafungivorella BvscK, Dyar's List Amer. Lep., No. 5579, 1903. 



Clemens"' tj^pes in the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences are 

 lost. In the U. S. National Museum is a specimen labeled yungivoy^ella 

 by Riley and another, identical, named l)y Lord Walsingham. 



From the mounting, the pin and the label of the Riley specimen I 

 have a strong .suspicion that it is really one of Clemens' type speci- 

 mens, or at least one of the specimens originally bred by Walsh. 

 They agree well with description. I have accidentally bred a series 

 of what I believe is this species from willow, presumably from 

 unnoticed cecidomid galls on the leaves in my cage. I have also 

 beaten this same species from willow repeatedly in the Adcinity of 

 W^ashington. 



It seems likely that salictfunglella bred at the same time also from 

 willow galls, and which, according to Clemens, has the same character 

 of markings, is only a variety of fungivorella., as Clemens himself 

 suggested. 



Careful and extensive breeding will here again enable definite con- 

 clusions to be drawn. 



Ilahitat. — Illinois (Walsh); District of Columbia (Busck). 



