193 



is probably authentic but has at some time or other received an incor- 

 rect locality label. Clcmensalis Dyar is a synonym and the form is ap- 

 parently an aberrational one of aspcratclla Clem, as placed by Dr. 

 Dyar. 



T. APLASTELLA Hist. 



The species was described and made the type of the genus Tioga 

 Hist, neither type locality, sex, nor number of specimens being given 

 but apparently only 9 's serving for the original description. In the 

 revision (Ent. Am. V, 69) Hulst has both sexes and gives Texas 

 (April) as locality; the only 'Type' we could locate is a 9 in the 

 Hulst Coll. labelled 'Colo.' which has been examined for venation and 

 appears to agree with the characterization of Tioga except that 6 of 

 primaries is not stalked with 7-9; the specimen looks like asperatella 

 Clem, but in view of the inadequate description and the great dis- 

 crepancy of labels we cannot decide as to whether the specimen is an 

 authentic type or not. 



PHYCITINAE 



Myelois obnupsella Hist. 



The localities given in the original description are Canada and 

 Florida ; the $ Type in the Hulst Coll. is from Canada and we think 

 the name should be held to this type as the Florida specimen is not 

 to be found and in any case it is doubtful if it would be conspecific. 

 The species seems common in Manitoba as we have a series from 

 Aweme (Criddle) ; the figure in Ragonot's Monograph (PI. 50, Fig. 

 7) is quite erroneous, the wings being too broad and short and show- 

 ing no trace of a transverse white band about l /$ from base of primar- 

 ies which is generally more or less distinct ; according to Ragonot's 

 figure of subtetricella (PI. V, Fig. 9), obnupsella must be very close, 

 if not identical, with Ragonot's species. A 'type' of obnupsella in the 

 Neumoegen Coll. is not a Myelois at all but Vitula edmandsi Pack. 



M. TEXANELLA Hist. 



This species and dulciella Hist, do not belong in the genus Myelois 

 as vein 2 of secondaries is quite close to the angle of cell ; they are 

 very closely related to each other according to the types in the Hulst 

 Coll. and would appear best placed for the present in the genus Taco- 

 ma; we have however seen no $ of texanella and our notes on the 

 types leave us rather in doubt as to whether the type of dulciella is a 

 $ or 9 . 



