632 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. ii4 



A. arcanellus is not especially closely related to any of the other 

 species treated in this work. It may be characterized, as well as 

 distinguished from the other members of the genus, by the following 

 features: labial palpi of intermediate length, setose eyes, laminate 

 antennae, bifid uncus, and paired gnathos. It is also unique in 

 possessing a prominent tuft of lashes at the anterior margin of each eye. 

 Lastly, the characters of its genitalia are quite distinct from those of 

 its various relatives. The genital structure of arcanellus is reasonably 

 consistent throughout my large series of this moth. In general 

 appearance, this species is quite large and very robust. 



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, tabu- 

 lated the following information on this type : 



Anaphora arcanella Clemens. One type, without abdomen but otherwise in 

 good condition, Clemens' No. 12; alar exp., 29 mm. This species was transferred 

 to the new genus Pseudoanaphora by Lord Walsingham. A specimen compared 

 with the type is in the U.S. National Museum. Habitat: Eastern United States. 



Darlington, in litt., 1946, has further confirmed the presence of 

 this type at Philadelphia as follows: "arcanella Clem. Type. Only 

 partially expanded, abdomen missing, maculation distinct, sex not 

 determined." The combined information that I have been able to 

 gather in regard to arcanelliLs leaves little doubt in my mind 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 arcanellus and found them to agree with my previous concept of 

 this moth. 



Dyar (1900, p. 311) published a paragraph of distributional data for 

 arcanellus, listing it from New York, the District of Columbia, Mis- 

 souri, and Texas. 



32. Acrolophus morus (Grote) 



Figures 158-161 



Eutheca mora (9) Grote, 1881, Bull. U.S. Geol. Geogr. Surv. Terr., vol. 6, no. 2, 

 pp. 257-258, Sept. 



Sapinella (Eutheca) mora Kirby, 1892, Syn. Cat. Lep. Het., vol. 1, p. 524, Genus 

 45, sp. no. 1. — Walsingham, 1915, Biol. Centr.-Amer., pt. 12, vol. 4, p. 378. 



Pseudanaphora mora Dyar, 1895, Can. Ent., vol. 27, no. 1, p. 15. — Dyar, 1900, 

 Can. Ent., vol. 32, no. 10, p. 310 (confused with "arcanella Clem."). — Mer- 

 rick, 1901, Proc. Ent. Soc. Washington, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 40. — Dyar, 1903, 

 List North Amer. Lep., p. 579, no. 6603; 1903, Can. Ent., vol. 35, no. 3, p. 76. 



Acrolophus mora Barnes & McDunnough,: 1917, Check List Lep. Bor. Amer., 

 p. 191, no. 8195.— Forbes, 1923, Lep. New York, pp. 12, 120-121, fig. 94.— 

 McDunnough, 1939, Check List Lep. Can. & U.S. Amer., p. 104, no. 9585. 



