December, 1907.1 265 



TINEA FLAYESCENTELLA, Hw. (nkc Stn.), 



N. SYN., = TINEA *MERDELLA, Stn. (nec Z.). 



BY THE RIGHT HON. LORD WALSINGHAM, M.A., LL.D.. F.R S., &c. 



An examination of the type of Tinea merdella, 7i., which was 

 figured by Herri ch-Schiiflfer (Tin. 635), shows that it cannot be the 

 same species as *merdeUa, Stn., &c., which has been sunk by Meyrick 

 and others as a synonym of Tinea pellionella, L. The type, collected 

 at Constantinople by Lowe, is still the unique ex])onent of the species. 

 A most careful examination under a microscope has failed to reveal 

 the Slightest trace of maxillary palpi or haustellum. The genus 

 TineoJa, HS., is found to possess short, but not folded, maxillaries, 

 but in spite of this objection I would suggest that it should be 

 referred, at least provisionally, to Tineola, rather than to Myrmecozela, 

 Z., which differs conspicuously in the median joint of the palpi being 

 densely clothed with projecting scales, rather than sparsely bristled. 

 Herrich-Schaffer's figure emphasises tlie difference in marking which 

 should also at once serve to separate merdella, Z., from the British 

 species {*merdella, Stn.; nec Z.). The outer spot, so far as I can 

 judge, invariably single among our British specimens, is distinctly 

 reduplicated in the figure, as in the type ; moreover the inner spots, 

 represented in English specimens as a pair, equidistant from the base, 

 but not reaching the dorsum, are, in the true ^nert^eZZo, better described 

 as one spot, with a diffused streak of similar dark scales arising from 

 the dorsum below and nearly reaching it. This also is well shown in 

 the figure, but is rather more clearly defined than in the specimen 

 itself. My British Collection contains a good series of *merdella, 

 Stn., from various sources, including some from Hodgkinson, Douglas, 

 and Mason ; certainly these are all true Tineae with folded maxillaries. 

 The presumption at least is that the true merdella does not occur in 

 England, but this is of course open to correction in the event 

 of any one finding in his cabinet a British specimen, resembling 

 that which has been so-called in our collections, but without folded 

 maxillary palpi. 



We are left to consider whether the species, erroneously referred 

 to merdella by Stainton, has or has not been described. It cannot be 

 pallescentella, Stn. (= nigrifoldella, Grgsn.). It cannot be *flaves- 

 centella, Stn. {nec Hw.), which is the ochreous and distinctly irrorated 

 form of fuscipunctella, Hw., as obviously suggested by Doubleday 

 (Syn. List 27). It cannot be dubiella, Stn., which Stainton himself 

 (Ent. Ann. 1874. 3) was unable to separate from pellionella, L., 



