518 FFITH REPORT OF THE ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. 



this the Texau species agrees with it. The uudescribed species above meutioued, 

 which is from Missouri, and has been bred by Professor Riley and Miss Murt- 

 feldt from a larva feeding on AmVrosia, has the head darker than in faginella, and 

 of the same color with the thorax. C. qiiercicella, according to Dr. Clemens, has the 

 head and thorax yellowish-brown (as in the Missouri specimen). P. reflexa, as 

 described by Dr. Clemens, has the palpi as iu faginella, as to ornamentation ; but 

 from the fact that Dr. Clemens separates it from quercieeUa as a distinct section, 

 characterized by the great length of the palpi, it is not necessary to refer to it further 

 in this connection. C. faginella has the basal joint of the antenna) yellowish ocher- 

 ous, except a wide blackish line, extending along its upper surface ; quercieeUa has 

 "two black stripes in front ; " and the species from Texas and that from Missouri 

 agree in this respect with quercieeUa. C. /a^ixe^Za and also the Texas and Missouri 

 specimens have the stalk of the antenute ocherous-yellow, with two blackish 

 lines extending along the upper side of the basal half, and the remainder of the stalk 

 has each alternate joint blackish ; quercieeUa has simply " a black line above, ter- 

 minating in black spots." In quercieeUa the fore-wings are yellowish-brown, varied 

 with blackish irregular stritB, chiefly from the costa, with a black dot on the end of 

 the disk ; faginella agrees with this description, except that I should call the 

 ground-color of the wings dull yellowish ocherous, as they are likewise in the Mis- 

 souri specimen, while in the Texas species the ground color is paler, while the trans- 

 verse stripes are more distinct, showing also a tendency to become more confluent, 

 especially about the end of the disk, where they present to the naked eye some- 

 thing like a faintdark fascia ; faginella has a more silky luster than the other species, 

 though this may be owing to the fact that the specimens are newer. 



In the Texan specimens and in that from Missouri there is no spot at the end of the 

 disk, and it is not distinct in faginella. In quercieeUa " the posterior margin is tipped 

 with blackish, and the cilia are yellowish-brown, containing two dark fuscous 

 hinder marginal lines ; " in faginella there is a row of blackish spots around the apex 

 and a single faint brownish hinder marginal line iu the cilia (which iu the single 

 specimen before me are a little injured). In the Missouri specimen there are five 

 very distinct blackish spots around the apex, and behiud them in the cilia are two 

 distinct brownish hinder marginal lines. Indeed, the cilia may be called brown, 

 with a median, paler, hinder marginal line. Besides the five distinct spots, there are 

 other very faint ones and the brownish cilia are paler than the spots. The speci- 

 mens from Texas agree in this respect with that from Missouri. One of these I sent 

 to Mr. Cresson for comparison with Dr. Clemens's tj'pe of quercieeUa in the collection 

 of the entomological section of the Philadelphia Academy of Science (formerly 

 American Eut. Soc). After comparing them, Mr. Cresson informs me that it "is not 

 Psilocorsis quercieeUa Clem., which differs by having a rather broad distinct dusky 

 border on the apical margin of the anterior wings ; otherwise they look very much 

 alike." 



The species are all of very nearly the same size — about eight to nine lines in 

 expanse of wings. Professor Zeller (Bei. z. Kennt., 1873, p. 40) identifies specimens 

 received by him from Ohio and Texas with quercieeUa Clem. His Texan specimens 

 were collected in the same region of the State from which I have received mine, and 

 as in two collections that I have received from that region there is only one species, 

 I think the probability is that quercieeUa Zell. (nee Clem.) is the same species that 1 

 have referred to above, and which I formerly identified with faginella, but which I 

 DOW incline to consider distinct, and for which I snggest the name of cressonella. I, 

 however do this with some hesitation, for while, with the material before me, I con- 

 sider the species distinct, I recognize the probability that, with fuller collections of 

 bred specimens of all the supposed species, it is not improbable that they will be 

 deemed at most only phytophagic varieties of a single species. I am not sure but 

 that the species described by me as Gelechia dubitella is properly referable to this 

 genus. (Bull. U. S. Geol. Surv., iv, 1, p. 89.) 



