2;i 



STEPS TOWARDS A REVISION OF CHAMBERS' INDEX,* WITH NOTES 

 AND ]>ESCRIPTIONS OF NEW SPECIES. 



By LoKD Walsixgham. 



[ Con fiinicil from j)«;/(' 291 of ]'ol. 7.] 



LITHOCOLLBTIS Z. 



In revising the index to tlie j^onns Lithocolletis, one gronp of six snpposofl species 

 lias given nie more trouble tliaii the otiiers. Tlifse are: ulmelln Chanih., ntndcsfa F. 

 & B., cotHjlomeratcUa Z., bicolorella Ciianib., quercivorella Cbaiiib., and obhisiloba' F. 

 & I?. 



The first two are described as mining the npper side of elm leaves. The food-plant 

 of the tiiird is not known ; and the three last are npper-side miners on the leaves of 

 species of oak. 



Zeller, in describing his congJomeratcUa, mentions two varieties of that species, 

 differing chiefly in the extension of the white line along the dorsal margin of the 

 fore -wings, and Chambers uses this character to distinguish his bicolorella from 

 ulmella, with which he had at first placed it. He fnrther says that bicolorella has t)vo 

 costal streaks, while ulmella has three ; bnt in describing quercivorella, also with three 

 costal streaks, he says the third streak is a mere spot before the cilia. In short, it is 

 donbtfnl whether there are sntticient differences between the six descriptions to jus- 

 tify tlie separation of any one of these species from the others on the ground of coior 

 or markings. The evidence I have to rely upon in forming a conjecture (for it can 

 scarcely be more thiin a conjecture) as to their distinctness is as follows: 



(I) An authenticated specimen of modefita F. & B. from Boll's collection. 



(•2) A specimen received from Miss Mnrtfeldt, regarded by her as ulmella Chamb. 



{a) A figure of a specimen in the collection of the American Entomological Society 

 at Philadelphia, probably received from Chambers. 



(/>) A figure of a second specimen in the collection of the Peabody Academy of Sci- 

 ences at Salem, Mass., received from Chambers under the above name, and presumably 

 equal to his type. 



(II) A specimen of couijlomerafella referred to by Zeller in his description of that 

 species as the second of the varieties from which his description was taken. 



(4) Two specimens, unnamed, received from Miss Murtfeldt, bred from mines on the 

 upper side of the leaves of wiiite oak. 



(o) An authenticated specimen oli ohtuailobn' F. & B. from Boll's collection. 



It is most improbable that the elm and oak feeders should be the same, although 

 Miss Mnrtfeldt's specimen of the supposed ulmella is scarcely distinguishable from 

 those bred from oak, and Boll's specimen of modenfa actually bred from elm is still 

 less so. We may at once admit that there are at least two distinct but very closely 

 allied species, one on elm, the other on oak, but I think there can be no doubt what- 

 ever th.at ulmella and modesta are the same. The name ulmella takes precedence for 

 tlie elm-feeder. I fear that some years ago in naming specimens for some of nij'^ 

 American correspondents I may have been guilty of some confusion as to this species, 

 having been misled by seeing specimens o{ bicolorella distributed by Chambers under 

 the above name. We now come to the far moi'e difficult identification of the oak- 

 feeding species. 



Zidler's specimen of conglomeralella is labelled "Dallas, Tex., Boll." This differs 

 from the other specimens hero referred to only in its somewhat duller c dor, but it 

 is not in good condition, although the markings are easily visible. It agrees pre- 



* Index to the describe! Tineina of the United States and Canada. V. T. Cham- 

 bers. Bull. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Surv., IV (1), 1878. 



