IS09.) 287 



Imago. — Fore-wings shining, conspicuously bright, clean, rt-ddish-orange in both 

 sexes, with very few black scales anywhere except in the black apical streak. Basal 

 white streak straight, of moderate length and breadth, only occasionally dark- 

 margined along its costal edge, and rarely, if ever, showing any tendency to unite 

 with the first dorsal tooth. All the white teeth are strikingly clean and lustrous, 

 the first dorsal one being rather broad and conspicuous : they are narrowly black- 

 margined internally, and the first costal and first two dorsal teeth are also partially 

 black-margined externally. Dorsal margin rarely with any white line or spot between 

 the base and the first white tooth. Exp. al., 7.5 — 8.5 mm. Posterior tarsi strongly 

 dark-spotted above, as a rule. 



Larger and decidedly brighter and cleaner-looking than mespilella, 

 Hb., which it otherwise somewhat closely resembles. Its strikingly 

 bright ground-colour, and clean appearance, due to its having so com- 

 paratively few black scales, are sufficient to separate it from all the 

 other species under notice except cerasicoleUa, H.-S., from which it is 

 distinguished at once by the breadth of the white basal streak and of 

 the teeth, and by the ground-colour, which is brighter, being more 

 strongly reddish orange, and less rufous. 



I have failed to find any evidence of the occurrence of this 

 species in Britain. In the Stainton British collection stands a series 

 of twelve moths with Stainton's MS. label " Cydoniella " beneath it, 

 but it does not include a single genuine cydoniella, which, however, 

 is correctly represented in his continental collection. The majority 

 of the twelve specimens were caught at Lewisham, and are concomitella, 

 Bnks., while the tickets on three of the others are explained by 

 Stainton's notebook to mean ''^ Litho collet is cydoniella ? April 3, Quince, 

 Exeter. Parfitt ? :" these three, although bred, are badly set and in 

 poor condition, but appear to be mespilella, as are also some specimens 

 bred a few years ago by the Eev. C. E-. Digby from mines found on 

 quince in the Isle of Purbeck. In Ent. Wk. Int., iii, 29 (1857), Stainton, 

 under the heading " Lithocolletis Cydoniella,'^ records the finding on 

 October 16th, 1857, of several mines of a Lithocolletis on a quince 

 tree at Bideford (N. Devon), "which," he adds, " I presume will be 

 those of L. Cydoniella,^' and Parfitt {op. cit., iii, 45), following his 

 lead, states that he has found mines of " Lithocolletis Cydoniella ? " 

 on quince at Exeter. I have not seen any moths bred from quince by 

 Stainton, nor am I aware that he ever recorded anything further 

 about his supposed cydoniella, but presumably the mines found by him, 

 as well as by Parfitt who, I have no doubt, bred the three moths, 

 above alluded to, in the Stainton collection, though I do not under- 

 stand Stainton's " ? " after Parfitt's name, were those of mespilella. 



