BAGWORM MOTHS OF THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE 55 



collections of the British Museum, was purchased originally along 

 with the Lansdown Guilding collection. A circular specimen label 

 that bears certain catalog numbers of the museum indicates the 

 source of the acquisition; further, the wing expanse of C. macleayi as 

 originally given (17 mm.) is the same, or nearly so, as that of the 

 presently recognized holotype. Guilding's drawings of the adult 

 male and larval case of macleayi suggest a species of Platoeceticus ; 

 one would suspect that this genus and Cryptothelea were congeneric. 



In 1854, Westwood redescribed macleayi as 0. macleaii, basing his 

 description on what he considered to be "a typical specimen" in the 

 collections of the British Museum. His description and drawing of 

 the forewing agrees in all important respects with that of the left 

 forewing of the presently accepted type, except for the median vein, 

 which was figured as being divided within the discal cell. Assuming 

 that the specimen described by Westwood and the one currently 

 known as C. macleayi are the same, however, it should be emphasized 

 that he did not examine a cleared wing and, thus, he was unable 

 clearly to see the veins in the cell. Westwood evidently failed also 

 to notice the discrepancy in venation between the right and left 

 forewings. A similar error was made by Jones (1945) in examining 

 the same specimen; he counted the veins in the right wing and con- 

 cluded that 11 veins were present and not 10 as Westwood had 

 reported. The present writer believes that both reports were correct, 

 although incomplete, and that the unique specimen presently identi- 

 fied as C. macleayi is the same moth previously described by West- 

 wood. 



Meyrick and Lower (1907), misled by Walker's reference to macleayi, 

 included this species in their "Revision of the Australian Psychidae"; 

 however, in contrast to Walker's description, their reference is 

 based actually upon C. macleayi and not upon Walker's two Australian 

 specimens. These two authors repeated Westwood's description and 

 further stated that " The tyj^e is unique, and is in the British Museum." 



Two important factors create some doubt concerning the acceptance 

 of this moth as the holotype of C. macleayi. First, the specimen is 

 completely devoid of labels that provide either an original determina- 

 tion or the source "India Occidentalis." A more significant point is 

 found in Guilding's description of this moth: "Tertia species ni fallor 

 mox decubenda." Conceivably the specimen presently considered 

 as C. macleayi actually represents this third, undescribed species, and 

 this "tertia species" of Guilding is specifically distinct from true 

 C. macleayi. Strong possibilities also exist, however, that Guilding's 

 undescribed moth either was conspecific with C. macleayi or was far 

 removed from the genus Cryptothelea, perhaps not even a member of the 

 Psychidae. 



