—73— 



T. atrifascialis, Hulst, {Tetralophd), Trans. Amcr. Knto. Soc, 



XIII, i6o, 1886; {Tallula), Ento. Am., IV, 115, 1888. 

 Expands, iS to 22 mm. Pal]5i white, black at lmkIs ; l\eacl, thorax and aiitcniut 

 puie white, with some black scales intermixed ; thorax with three black spots poster- 

 iorly ; fore wings pure white, more or less heavily mixed with black scales, giving a 

 snowy cinereous aspect ; a black costal spot at base ; the first line black, broad at 

 costa, then constricted nearly or quite separated at middle, then broadening to margin, 

 following inner margin to base in a fuscous shade ; outer line white, sinuous, lined 

 within with fuscous ; a large, black, costal, apical triangle ; black points on either 

 side of outer line on inner margin ; a marginal line of black dashes ; fringe white, 

 interlined brokenly with black : hind wings light fuscous, black marginal line ; fringe 

 as fore wings ; beneath, fuscous on fore wings and anterior margin of hind wings ; 

 fringe as above. Abdomen cinereous, annulate with fuscous. 



Southern .'•^lates and Texas. October. 



On page 47, loth line from the bottom, there is an important error, 

 "coalescing of 10 and 11," should be "8 and 9." And on page 45, 

 yih line from the top, "■Oneida Iimulalis" should be '■'Yuma adulaialis.'' 



Tetralopha ejithealis, Hulst, Trans. Am. Ent. Soc, does not belong 

 here. The type is a female, and is probably a synonym of Aglossa 

 do?nalis, Guen., though very decidedly differing in shape of wings from 

 all females of that species I have seen. 



It may be that Mr. Walker has described some of our species in the 

 British Museum Catalogue. But so far, no way has presented itself by 

 which I could make reliable comparison with U'alker's types, and no- 

 thing can be determined from the descriptions, 



In the introductory part of this article I have shown that in the most 

 of respects the Epipaschmiw find correspondences among the Phycitidce. 

 The principal and almost only material point in which there seemed to 

 be a distinction w-as in the frenulum, which in the 9 *^f ^^^ Epipasch- 

 iincB is double, while in the Phycitida; it is single. I had felt certain that 

 even this was not absolute in view of the peculiar formation of the fren- 

 ulum in the 9 of the PhycitidiB, but at the time of waiting was able to 

 give no proof Among the Phycilidci' the (^ has the single heavy spine; 

 the 9 ^'s^ has one spine but it consists of two, or more generally, 3 or 

 4 joined together. This is very evident at the base where the separate 

 sockets are easily seen, and there is morever a flatness and waviness of 

 the 4)asal portion to correspond. After the examination of various spe- 

 cimens I have at last found an undoubted 9 Anerastia ietradella, Zell. , 

 in which the frenulum is divided to the base, and is therefore double as 

 in the Epipaschiituc. 



In addition I have made some comparative observations on the 

 females of the Epipaschiuue and PhycitidLC. So little has been said (if 

 anything at all) upon the genitalia of the females in any family that I 



