550 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. lu 



Orient (June, July, Aug.) ; Patchogue (July) ; Richmond Hill (July) ; Roslyn (July). 

 North Carolina: Black Mountains (no date); Brevard (June, July, Aug.); 

 Connestee Falls, near Brevard (July); Hickory (July); Maxton (May, June); 

 Pineola (July); Pisgah (."Base of Mt. Pisgah," July); Raleigh (June, July, Oct.). 

 Ohio: Granville (June, July); West Lafayette (July, at light). Oklahoma: Bro- 

 ken Bow (June); Strang (June); Wyandotte (June). Pennsylvania: Cedar Top 

 (June) ; "Clarksval." (July) ; Finleyville (June, July) ; Harrisburg (July) ; Lancaster 

 (July) ; New Brighton (July) ; Oak Station, Allegheny Co. (June) ; Phoenixville 

 (no date); Pittsburgh (July, Aug., Oct.); Washington County (July). South 

 Carolina: Myrtle Beach (June, July). Tennessee: Camp Forrest (June); 

 Monteagle (June, July). Texas: Galveston (May); also, one ?, without an 

 abdomen, from the American Museum of Natural History, labeled "Tex., Chas. 

 Palm, Don. 1911." West Virginia: Williamson (July). 



Remarks. — One of the first three acrolophids described from the 

 United States, jplumijrontellus ranks second only to popeanellus in 

 extent of distribution and abundance of individuals. These three 

 factors explain its relatively large synonymy. The material repre- 

 senting Jplumijrontellus was received on loan from numerous sources. 

 Good series containing both sexes are to be found in the collections 

 of the American Museum of Natural History, the California Academy 

 of Sciences, and Cornell University. 



A. plumifrontellus is related to those acrolophids having elongate 

 labial palpi, setose eyes, laminate antennae, bifid uncus, and paired 

 gnathos. It may be easily distinguished by its harpes, each of which 

 bears a large and prominent costal process overlapping the cucullus. 

 This process, clearly observable in dried specimens, causes the cucullus 

 of the harpe to appear as a double or divided structure. The genital 

 characters of plumifrontellus are consistent throughout my large series 

 and they are quite distinct from those of all the other acrolophids 

 treated here. It is one of the largest and most robust species of 

 Acrolophus in America north of Mexico. 



I have not examined the type specimen of this species. Busck 

 (1903), in his report on Clemens' types of Tineina deposited in the 

 collection of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, stated : 



Anaphora plumifrontella Clemens. One somewhat rubbed type, Clemens' No. 

 10; alar exp., 33 mm. This type verifies the present conception of the species, as 

 defined by Walsingham, with bombycina Zeller as synonym. It belongs to the 

 genus Acrolophus Poey. A large series, collected at light by the writer at Wash- 

 ington, D.C., and compared with Clemens' type, is in the U.S. National Museum. 



Darlington (in a letter, 1946) has reported that this type is still at 

 Philadelphia: "plumifrontella Clem. Type, cf , much rubbed and not 

 distinguishable by maculation ; right wings expanded, only. Abdomen 

 gone." The combined information I have been able to gather for 

 plumifrontellus leaves no doubt as to the proper identity and correct 

 concept of this species. I have carefully checked the U.S. National 

 Museum's series of specimens determined as plumifrontellus and found 



