NO. 1304. REVISION OF AMERICAN GELECIIIID MOTHS— BUSCK. 927 



The type of this species is in the Cambridge Museum of Compara- 

 tive Zoology, but it is in so miserable a condition that it can not be 

 identified specifically. It is, however, a true YpsoloDhu.^, as the 

 description would indicate. 



YPSOLOPHUS GRISSEELLUS Chambers. 



Nothris gri.tsceUa Chambers, Can. Ent, VI, 1874, p. 245; Bull. U. S. Geol. Surv., 



IV, 1878, p. 158.— Riley, Smith's List Lep. Bor. Am., No. 5537, 1891. 

 Yj)x(ilo2^hus grisseehi-'^ BvfiCK, Dyar's List Amer. Lep., No. 5691, 1902. 



Described from a single specimen liow not in existence. 

 I have not recognized the species from the description, and it must 

 remain at present as a doubtful species. 



YPSOLOPHUS RUSTICUS Walsingham. 



Ypsolophus ruKtinix WALSiNGiiAir, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1891, p. 525; 1897, p. 

 86.— BuscK, Dyar's List Amer. Lep., No. 5692, 1902. 

 This species was described from St. Vincent Island, West Indies, und 

 I was recorded by Lord Walsingham from Texas. 



The slight diti'erences, which Lord Walsingham pointed out, fi'om 

 Y2Jsolo2)hus touceyeUus {Ana?'sia trlniaculellus Chambers), to which 

 species Walsingham originally had referred his specimen, do hardly 

 seem to hold, and likely it will be found sjmonymous with that species. 

 Until large bred series of Chambers' species is obtained and defi- 

 \ nite proof found to the opposite, rustlcus must however be retained as a 

 separate species. 



Mr. J. Hardley Durrant wrote me (letter of Ma}^ 10, iJtOl) ubout 

 this species as follows: 



We have one specimen named Anarsla trimaculella Chambers. It is in poor condi- 

 tion and is extremely similar to Ypsolophus rusticus. It appears, however, to belong 

 I to the genus Bego'e Cham.hers= Malacotricha Zeller. I might have thought that it 

 was rusticus, with denuded palpi, but the shape of the wings seems different, and 

 the male genitalia strongly suggest Bego'e. The whole question hinges on whether 

 the differences are constant. I gather that you [the writer] have not sufficient 

 material to decide this, nor have we. It would therefore be wiser to leave them 

 as distinct, with a note under each that if they varied they should be united, Avhen 

 naturally rustievs will stand. Meanwhile your new name for trimaculeUus Chambers, 

 is unobjectionable. 



It seems highly probable that Lord Walsingham's supposed speci- 

 men of Afiars'ia trimaculella is the very similar GelecMa trimaculella 

 Chambers, which is a Triclwtajphe (Begoe) (p. 914), and not the present 

 species, and consequently still more reasonable that rusticus is equal 

 touceyelhis {trimaculella Chambers), which name it eventuall}' must 

 suppress. But to avoid more confusion it is safest to retain the two 

 names until comparison of specimens can be olitaiued. 



