54 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 244 



with a diameter of 5 mm. ; the general surface is rather smooth with 

 a few projecting fragments of Hchens. 



Type. — In the British Musemn. 



Type locality.^ — ^West Indies. 



Recorded hosts. — None. Guilding mentions that the larvae 

 hved among the old branches and trunks of trees. 



Distribution.- — This species is represented only by the type speci- 

 men, which bears no locality data, but originally it was reported from 

 the West Indies. 



Discussion. — The original description of C. macleayi is lacking in 

 many details that would have helped to prevent the considerable con- 

 fusion associated with this insect for over a hundred years. Since 

 the nomenclatural history has been discussed adequately by Jones 

 (1945) and later by Betrem (1952), many of their comments will not 

 be mentioned here. Because of the historical importance, however, 

 it should be restated, that most of the confusion centering around the 

 originally monobasic genus Cryptothelea and its type species macleayi 

 was initiated by Walker in 1855. At that time he reported from 

 Austraha two specimens of '^ Psyche macleayi," which were described 

 as having the "hind tibiae without spurs" (p. 955) ; thus they definitely 

 were not true macleayi as presently recognized and they probably 

 were not even congeneric with Guildmg's species. 



Since 1855 macleayi has been involved in a nomenclatural tangle 

 with such genera as Clania, Eumeta, Lansdownia, and Eurycyttarus; 

 consequently, the genus Cryptothelea has been misapphed to several 

 Old World species. At the present, no evidence supports a behef 

 that C. macleayi originated in the Old World, and thus, the original 

 locality as given by Guilding ("India Occidentahs") should not be 

 seriously doubted. The possible origin of the two species Guilding 

 originally described in the genus Oiketicus has been mentioned earlier 

 by both Jones (1945) and Betrem (1952), and it is also discussed 

 briefly in this paper under 0. kirhyi. 



A unique specimen, which was designated the holotype of 

 C. macleayi by W. H. T. Tams, has provided the basis for the specific 

 description, even though the identity of this moth may be somewhat 

 questionable. Such a decision should be accepted because the true 

 identity of this specimen and of C. macleayi itself probably will never 

 be decided for certain. Additional collecting on the island of St. 

 Vincent or on adjacent islands may prove of very little value, especially 

 if more than one species of Cryptothelea (e.g., watsoni and true macleayi) 

 is found. 



All available evidence, what little there is, indicates that the 

 specimen selected by Tams as the holotype of C. macleayi very prob- 

 ably represents the species. The specimen, which is deposited in the 



