SOME MOTHS, GENUS ACLERIS — OBRAZTSOV 231 



semiannula is maple (McDunnough, 1934) and that the moths reared 

 from this plant always have elongate forewings, the short-winged 

 form from birch might receive a separate name. 



Acleris iinplexana (Walker), new combination 



Plate 10 (fig. 34) 



Sciaphila iinplexana Walker, 1863, List of the specimens of lepidopterous insects 



in the British Museum, pt. 28, p. 338. 

 Acleris heindelana Fernald, 1905, Amer. Nat., vol. 39, p. 870. New synonym. 

 Peronea heindelana. — Meyrick, 1912, in Wagner, Lepidopterorura catalogus, 



pt. 10, p. 64; 1913, in Wytsman, Genera insectorum, fasc. 149, p. 63. — 



Barnes and McDunnough, 1917, Check list of the Lepidoptera of Boreal 



America, p. 178, no. 7429. 

 Peronea heindeliana [sic]. — Forbes, [1924], Cornell Univ. Agr, Exp. Stat. Mem. 



68, p. 483, 1923. 

 Peronea gallicolana form heindelana. — McDunnough, 1934, Canadian Journ. 



Res., vol. 11, p. 323; 1939, Mem. Southern Cahfornia Acad. Sci., vol. 2, p. 



59, no. 7515. 

 Peronea hudsoniana (in part). — McDunnough, 1934, Canadian Journ. Res., 



vol. 11, p. 312; 1939, Mem. Southern California Acad. Sci., vol. 2, p. 59, no. 



7500. 



A genitalia examination of the type specimen of ^'Sciaphila" 

 implexana in the British Museum showed definitely that this species 

 has nothing in common with A. hudsoniana (Walker) with which 

 McDunnough (1934) placed it as a synonym. There is no doubt 

 that implexana is the same species which McDunnough called 

 gallicolana. 



McDunnough treated heindelana as a form of gallicolana Clemens. 

 The female lectotype of heindelana in the United States National 

 Museum corresponds well to the type of implexana. Unfortunately, 

 no indubitable proof of what the true gallicolana is can be cited, because 

 the type specimen lacks an abdomen. A specimen in Fernald's collec- 

 tion (USNM), labeled "Teras gallicolana CI. Comp[are]d with Rob[in]- 

 s[on] type," might seem to disaffirm McDunnough's conception of this 

 species. The genitalia of this specimen correspond to those of the 

 species described by McDunnough as hraunana. There is, however, 

 no reason to give any preference to Fernald's identification of 

 gallicolana over McDunnough's conception of this species. Fernald 

 based his "homotype" on its superficial similarit}^ to the tj^pe of 

 gallicolana; McDunnough came to his conclusion on the basis of the 

 original description of this species. Both authors might be equally 

 right or mistaken, because ihcy did not compare the genitalia of their 

 specimens with those of the type of gallicolana. But, because this 

 comparison cannot be done and there are no other ways to prove the 

 identity of the tj^pe of gallicolana, the present author is inclined to 

 follow McDunnough's conception of this species, the more so because 



