REVISION OF MOTHS OF PRODOXINAE 3 



Review of the Literature 



One of the first written accounts of a member of this subfamily 

 appeared in September 1872 as an anonymous report of the American 

 Association for the Advancement of Science meetings of August 21-27, 

 1872. In that paper, Riley's description (1872a) of a new genus and 

 species, Pronuha yuccasella, and its behavior as a pollinator of Yucca 

 were briefly outlined. Other naturahsts (e.g., Engelmann, 1872a, b) 

 may have observed the general Hfe history of this species prior to 

 1872, but theh findings were pubUshed either contemporaneously with 

 Riley's first account or at some later date. Until Riley's death in 

 1895, the abundant literature which quickly appeared on these 

 insects was primarily the result of this one man. A total of 13 

 species were described by him as members of this subfamily; two are 

 known now to be synonjons, and one, "Prodoxus" reticulatus, has 

 been transferred to the Incurvariinae. 



Having been the first to thoroughly investigate the unusual associa- 

 tion between the yucca plant and its pollinator, RUey naturally was 

 extremely interested in any subsequent observations that other 

 naturahsts might contribute to this special subject. Consequently, 

 if he found the published results of others to disagree with his own, 

 Riley would be unusually prompt in replying and probably at times 

 was more severe in his criticism than was necessary. Such enthusiasm 

 on Riley's part eventually produced some complaint from a few of 

 his coUeagues. Chambers (1878a, p. 141), in an attempt to right 

 himself after one barrage of criticism from Riley, made the following 

 observation concerning his critic: 



". . . he is the founder of the very interesting genus and species, 

 Pronuha yuccasella, and naturally enough seems to feel a sort of 

 paternal sohcitude for his scientific progeny; and woe betide the 

 unlucky wight who ventiu-es to trespass on this, his own pecuhar 

 demesne, as others beside I, and notably Prof. Zeller and poor Mr. 

 Boll, have feehngly discovered .... Indeed, in consideration of 

 the punishment meted out to Prof. Zeller and Mr. Boll, I ought, 

 perhaps, to thank Mr. Riley for lettmg me off with simply, as it 

 were, an admonitory spank." 



What probably disturbed Chambers (and others) more than being 

 the recipient of such barbed remarks, however, was the fact that 

 Riley was usually correct in his arguments. 



In 1880a, Riley described another new genus and species, Prodoxm 

 decipiensy which he recognized as being related to Tegeticula yuc- 

 casella, but which differed greatly in its life history. Riley (1880a) 

 origmaUy had suspected that P. decipiens was a junior synonym of 

 an earUer species, quinguepunctella, which Chambers (1875) had 



