216 
CHRYSAUGINAE 
CHALINITIS OBLIQUATA Hy. Edw. (syn. albistrigalis B. & McD.) 
Dr. W. T. Forbes has been kind enough to send us a note on the 
venation of the species described by Hy. Edwards as Earias obliquata 
(Ent. Am. II, 9) drawn up from the type in the American Museum 
of Natural History. It turns out that this species, which has been 
omitted from Dyar’s list, is a Chrysaugid, identical, without much 
doubt, with our species as listed above. It is satisfactory to have 
located one more of those ‘“doubtfuls and unknowns’, which are the 
bane of the entomologist’s life. 
SCHOENOBIINAE 
RUPELA NIVEA WIk. 
We examined the venation of the type and found that on primaries 
veins 8, 9, and 10 were stalked whilst 11 became coincident with 12; 
the type is a rather small specimen measuring about 25 mm. in exr 
panse; we exactly matched it with a ° from Everglade, Fla. Other 
specimens in Coll. Barnes are considerably larger and have vein 11 
free, which leads us to wonder whether or not there may be two 
species associated here under one name. Our series is not however 
large enough to determine this. Our genus Storteria (type unicolor 
B. & McD.) differs from Rupela in having vein 11 of primaries free, 
a feature constant in 3 ¢’s, in Coll. Barnes; the peculiar long thoracic 
hairs are alse absent and the cubitus of secondaries is distinctly haired, 
a fact which led us to place the genus in the Crambinae; as we already 
have stated (Can. Ent. 46, 31, 1914) it appears however much better 
situated in the Schoenobiinae. For the present it would be well not 
to sink Storteria as a synonym of Rupela until further studies have 
been made in the group. 
ScIRPOPHAGA REPUGNATALIS WIk. (syn. consortalis Dyar) 
This species, described from unknown locality (1863 Cat. Lep. 
Het. XXVII, 144), proves the same as the species described by Dyar 
(1909 Proc. Wash. Ent. Soc. XI, 28) as Argyria consortalis from 
Florida; we have one of Dyar’s types, ex Coll. Merrick, before us and 
several other Florida specimens. How Dr. Dyar came to make such 
an utterly erroneous generic reference is a riddle to us; in a very fresh 
8 the cubitus of hind wings shows no traces of hairs and the species 
