174 

 PHYCITINAE 



MiNEOLA CALIGINELLA Hlst. 



The so-called type in Rutgers College Coll. is labelled "California" 

 and is probably spurious ; there is however a 9 from Arizona in the 

 series with Hulst's label caliginella and this is so close to a San Diego 

 specimen of caliginoidella Dyar that we should hesitate to separate 

 the two; both Ragonot and Hulst in their revisions list comptella 

 Rag. from Calif, as a synonym, the former mentioning the fact that 

 the $ (presumably of comptella) shows a strong tooth at the base 

 of the antenna ; this of course separates the species structurally from 

 caliginoidella Dyar which is without a tooth ; if we regard this Arizona 

 V as the true type it remains to be seen whether comptella is really 

 a synonym of caliginella or whether we have two species represented, 

 with the possibility of caliginoidella being a synonym of Hulst's species. 

 Until Ragonot's type has been carefully examined and a series of both 

 sexes of caliginella from Arizona has been obtained we must leave 

 the matter in abeyance. 



PiNIPESTIS ALBOVITELLA Hlst. 



The type locality given in the original description is Hot Springs, 

 N. Mex. (Aug.), but the type in the Hulst Coll. bears the label "Colo. 

 (Bruce)"; it agrees well with Hampson's figure in Ragonot's Mono- 

 graph (PI. 50, Fig. 3) and also with the description, so we suppose it 

 is another case of careless labelling and that the specimen may be 

 accepted as the original type. 



Tacoma texanella Hlst. 



We have already noted (Contr. HI, (3) 193) that the type of 

 this species and that of dulciella Hlst. showed great similarity ; a fur- 

 ther examination leads us to the belief that the two names refer to but 

 one species, texanella having priority. 



HOMOEOSOMA impressale Hlst. 



Attention has already been called (Contr. HI (3) 200) to the 

 mix-up in the types of this species ; the true type from Nevada is 

 probably a specimen in the Hulst collection labelled uncanalis; it 

 agrees in markings and locality label with the original description 

 and is the species figured by Ragonot as uncanale on PI. XXXHI, 

 Fig. 18, of his Monograph ; of course it cannot possibly be imcanale, 



