382 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. us 



Platycentropus indistinctus (Walker) 



Limnephilus indistinctus Walker, 1852, p. 37. 



Platycentropus indistinctus. — Better and Mosely, 1940, pp. 159-161, fig. 80. [Holo- 



type figured.] 

 Hylepsyche fraternus Banks, 1943, pp. 349-350, fig. 33. [New synonymy.] 



The female type of fraternus is inseparable in any way from the 

 female of indistinctus. 



Platycentropus amicus (Hagen) 



Hallesus amicus Hagen, 1861, pp. 265-266. 



Platycentropus plectrus Ross, 1938a, pp. 169-170, fig. 111. [New synonymy.] 



The unique female type of amicus was studied and found to be the 

 female of the species more recently described as plectrus by Ross. 

 In addition to the female type of amicus and a male paratype of 

 plectrus, I have seen the following specimens: IVIanumuskin, N.J., 

 Oct. 8, 1901, 1 female; Kingston, R.I., Sept. 6, 1907, Barlow, 1 

 female; Lakehurst, N.J., Aug, 31. 1955, Anderson and Franclemont, 

 2 females; Sept. 1, 1956, Knowlton and Franclemont, 1 male. 



Family Leptoceridae 



Setodes guttatus (Banks) 



Figure 4c 

 Oecetina guttatus Banks, 1900, p. 257. 



Because no figure of the male of this species has been published, the 

 accompanying one of the type was prepared. 



Triaenodes helo Milne 



Figures 4a, 6 

 Triaenodes helo Milne, 1934, p. 12. 



The figm-es were prepared from the unique type of the species which 

 has not been figured previously. The genitalia of the type are badly 

 broken, the dorsal processes of the tenth tergum, the cerci, and the 

 aedeagus are broken off and missing, and the claspers with their attached 

 processes are dissociated from the rest of the capsule. (Tliey are 

 shown in their probable position in the accompanying figm'e.) 



Athripsodes slossonae Banks 



Athripsodcs slossonae Banks, 1938, p. 77; fig. 7 



Athripsodes ophioderus Ross, 1938a, p. 157, fig. 92. [New synonymy.] 



Athripsodes daggyi Denning, 1947, p. 254, fig. 6. [New synonymy.] 



The type of slossonae does not seem to differ significantly from the 

 descriptions of ophioderus and daggyi. The few examples seen of this 

 species all differ slightly among themselves in the exact contours of 

 the genital parts but agree closely in their general structm'e, leading 

 to the conclusion that this species is somewhat variable. 



