64 
Aspidisca lucifluella Clem. 
I have succeeded in raising this species 
from the larva, and find, as elsewhere sug- 
gested, that the captured specimens de- 
scribed by me as A. ella belong to this 
species. 
The larvae of Aspidisca, as stated by 
Dr. Clemens, are apodal, having the tho- 
racic feet represented by sucker-like discs. 
Ihave not been able as yet to determine 
whether these discs really operate as suck- 
ers, or whether there is a secretion exuded 
from them which enables the larvae to 
adhere to the surface. The anal prolegs 
are represented by small lobes, each of 
which has a recurved hook, by means of 
which the larva anchors itself inside of its 
case, which, notwithstanding the absence 
of legs, and depending only on the ‘* suck- 
ers,” it drags through grass, and over 
fences, sometimes for more than a hundred 
metres, before ‘‘ tying up” for pupation. 
These anal hooks are much more distinctly 
developed in A. splendoriferella and A. 
lucifluella, than in A. saliciella. 
I have never been able to detect any 
trace of the exuviae in the mines of any 
of the species, and am induced to believe 
that the larva moults only once — that is, 
when it passes into the pupa state. In the 
youngest larvae that I have seen, the trophi 
are of the character above referred to under 
Antispila as the second or perfect form. 
I have elsewhere followed a suggestion 
of Mr. Stainton in referring both Antispila 
and Aspidisca to the Glyphipterygides, but 
the larvae differ very decidedly from those 
of Glyphipteryx, and those of Aspidisca 
are very different in form and structure 
from those of Antispila. Dr. Clemens’ 
statement that the mature larvae of Aspi- 
PSYCHE. 
disca are flattened, is too strong; at most 
they can only be said to be a little de- 
pressed, and are much less so than are the 
larvae of Antispila. His statement, ‘*‘ these 
are not supplied with hooks,” is rather in- 
definite, but if intended to apply to the 
anal prolegs of mature larvae is certainly 
incorrect, though entirely correct when 
applied to the ventral prolegs, or rather 
to their sucker-like substitutes. 
Aecaea (Chrysopeleia) purpuriella. 
Among leaves of the black locust (2to- 
binia pseudacacia) , gathered because they 
contained mines of Lithocolletis robimella,; 
in July, several were observed in which 
there appeared to be either small white 
mines, or thin white silken webs at the 
junction of some of the veins with the 
midrib, each of which contained a small 
larva. But neither the mines nor larvae 
received anything more than a passing no- 
tice, as my attention was directed to watch- 
ing the development of the larva of L. ro- 
biniella. But from the collection I bred a 
specimen of A. purpuriella, the larva of 
which has been heretofore unknown. I 
can scarcely doubt that it came from one 
of the larvae in the small mines, as I got 
nothing else from those leaves but A. pur- 
puriella and L. robiniella; and the posi- 
tion of the mine (or web?) is exactly that 
of the mine of Aeaea ostryaeella in Ostrya 
leaves (see frontispiece to ‘‘Tineina of 
North America”), though it is much 
smaller than the latter. At the same time, 
it should be stated, the web of the very 
young larva of Gelechia pseudacaciella is 
only distinguishable, on a hasty glance, 
from the supposed mines of Aeaea purpu- 
riella, by the fact that a very slender branch 
extends from the main web for some dis- 
