1304. REVISION OF AMERICAN GELECHIID MOTHS— BUSCK. 933 



I 



ARISTOTELIA RUBIDELLA Clemens. 



Arixtotelia ruhidella BustK, Pirn-. U. .S. Nat. Mu^., XXV, p. 798. 



Clemens' type No. 72 of Geleehia ruhidelhi is an Af/yfottHa, unci cou- 

 tirnis the present conception of the species. 



ARISTOTELIA FUNGIVORELLA Clemens. 

 Aristoielldfitngirurelht Busck, Proe. U. S. Nat. Mils., XXV, p. 798. 



Clemens' type Nos. 455—1:58 of Geleehia fimgivorelhi is identical 

 with my bred specimens. 1 hav^e bred this species again last sum- 

 mer, and believe that the gall -feeding habit recorded by Clemens is 

 merely accidental and that the larva normally feeds in folded leaves 

 of willow. 



The species is entirely distinct from the following: 



ARISTOTELIA SALICIFUNGIELLA Clemens. 

 Aristoteliafimgin)re//(t Busck, Proc. V. ^. Nat. Mus., XX^^ j). 798. 



One perfect type of Geleehia salieifungiella, Clemens' No. 459 was 

 found in Philadelphia. 



Before knowing this type 1 felt warranted in regarding this species 

 as merely a variety of Aristotelia fungivorella according to Clemens' 

 own suggestion. On the discovery of the type, however, it is at once 

 evident that this assumption was erroneous. The type agrees well 

 with Clemens' description and clearly represents a distinct species, 

 easily separated from all described American species of the genus 

 Aristotelia by its bright rust red ground color. 



ARISTOTELIA GILVOLINIELLA Clemens. 

 Aristotelia gilmliniella Busck, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., XXV, p. 808. 



Clemens' type No. 1S9 of Geleehia gilvolhiiella is identical with 

 specimens regarded by the writer as this species. 



ARISTOTELIA ANGUSTIPENNELLA Clemens. 



Aristotelia kearfottella Busck, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., XXV, p. 803. 

 Geleehia angustipennella Busck, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., XXV, p. 891. 



Clemens' type No. 194 of Geleehia angustipennella proves this 

 species to l)e an Ar(><ioteUa and the species described by mo as 

 hearfottella. 



I do not feel blameworthy that I did not recognize this species from 

 Clemens' description. I compared his description repeatedly with this 

 species and believe that the fault can justl}^ be laid to the unsatisfactory 

 description. The two dark dots near the costa at the base of the wing, 

 mentioned by Clemens, are present, it is true, but are only part of the 

 general dark color laid over the wing and should not be specially men- 



