564 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. in 



addition, at the Museum are several slide preparations of cf genitalia, 

 labeled "popeanellus Clem.," agreeing with my figures of this species. 



Clemens apparently named this moth after Captain Pope. Wals- 

 ingham (1887, pp. 155-156) designated this species as the type of 

 Clemens' genus, Anaphora, and ten years later (1897) reported that 

 the larvae of popeanellus attack the roots of Trijolium pratense in 

 April and May, and that this insect also occurs in the West Indies 

 (Puerto Rico). 



Grote described the d' of Anaphora agrotipennella as a new species 

 in July 1872. The locality given was "Central Alabama" where Grote 

 reported the moth to be very common in June and July. An alar 

 expanse of 27 mm. was listed. 



Following the description Grote stated: 



I have only seen males of this species, in which the ornamentation of the fore 

 wings above recalls that of various species of Agrotis, such as A. jaculifera, etc. 

 I have tried to recognize in this species A. Popeanella, Clemens, from Texas, but 

 I have failed to reconcile hLs description with my specimens, which are not "luteous 

 or yellow along inner margin." In A. agrotipennella, at the extremity of the 

 median ochrey shade subterminally, are a few black scale points. These can hardly 

 be the same as the row "of dark brown spots" of Popeanella. Neither can I, from 

 the description, consider the differences of colour and ornamentation as produced 

 by any defect in the condition of Dr. Clemens' specimens. 



Grote, describing the 9 of Anaphora agrotipennella in August 1872, 

 further attempted to differentiate his species from Clemens' popeanella. 

 When Walsingham (1887) placed it as a synonym of popeanella, he 

 stated: 



An examination of my extensive series shows that both varieties belong to the 

 same species. The anal appendages do not differ, and intermediate variations 

 of colouring are noticeable. There can be no doubt that they differ only in the 

 extension of the pale colour of the fold in the direction of the dorsal margin. 



Walsingham also added that Zeller had evidently regarded the two as 

 synonymous. Since 1887, agrotipennella has been generally treated 

 by writers as a synonym of popeanellus, although Barnes & McDun- 

 nough (1917) and McDunnough (1939) maintained it as a distinct 

 and valid species in their checklists. 



I have not seen the type specimen, which is in the collection of the 

 Academy of Natural Sciences, but Darlington, in 1946, reported it to 

 be in perfect condition. 



All the specimens labeled "agrotipennellus" that I have ever seen 

 proved, upon examination of their genitalia, to be examples of 

 popeanellus. Likewise, there is no indication in Grote's descriptions 

 that his agrotipennella could not be popeanellus. In addition, there 

 is no North American species available, save popeanellus, to rep- 

 resent Grote's descriptions of agrotipennella. It thus seems best to 

 consider agrotipennellus an old synonym of popeanellus (Clemens) 

 with Walsingham receiving the credit for sinking it. 



