25 



tbo Canibiidge Museum, and .a comparison of these with the remains of Clemens' 

 typo at Phihidelphia wouhl decide the point; but for the present I should not bo jus- 

 tified in attempting to correct their synonymy, and scarcely in suggesting that either 

 of them may be identical with lebertella F. & B., which must be at least a nearly 

 allied species. 



Lithocolletis basistrigella Clem. = intermedia F. & B. 



I have authenticated specimens of hasistrigeJla Clem., compared with the type in 

 the collection of the American Entomological Society of Philadelphia, and also of 

 intenncclia V. »fe B., from the Zeller collection, received from Frey, and I am able to 

 a^ay positively that these two species are the same. I have met with it also in Men- 

 docino and Siskiyou Counties, Cal., Rouge River, in Oregon, and have received it 

 from Miss Murtfeldt from Missouri. 



Lithocolletis rileyella Chamb. = tenuistrigata F. it B. 



I received from Miss Murtfeldt, in December, 1878, a Liihocollefis labeled "Tenti- 

 form mine on under side leaf of red oak." This specimen agrees precisely with Cham- 

 bers' description of L. rileyella, and is obviously that species. It is undistinguishable 

 from tenuistrigata F. &. B., of w^hich I have specimens and mines. 



Lithocolletis quercibella Chamb. = subaureola F. & B. 



I was at first disposed to think that qnerciheUa could only be regarded as r.. syno- 

 nym oi: argctiiijimhriella. Chambers writes that it resembles closely his fmcocostella, 

 whi^h I have shown to belong to that species; but after a careful study of his de- 

 scription by the side of a specimen of subaureola F. & B. I find that this is applicable 

 in all particulars to that species, although the first, quercibella, is described as glisten- 

 ing snowy-white, with the apical third pale golden, and the other as pale golden- 

 brown, with white markings. Chambers describes the subcostal streaks as pale 

 golden. Frey and Boll regard this as corresponding with the ground color of the wing, 

 and mention the straight, rather broad basal streak as being wiiite, whereas Cham- 

 bers regards white as the real ground color. With a specimen before one it is easy 

 to see that the two descriptions are both accurate and precise in every detail. 



Lithocolletis clemensella Chamb. 



Another species that must be nearly allied to these is clemensella. I am induced 

 to regard this species as distinct, owing to its feeding on Jeer saccharhium, iim\ hy 

 Chambers' remark that "the hinder marginal line at the base of the dorsal cilia 

 reaches to, but does not pass around, the apical spot." I find this peculiarity well 

 marked in a figure of the species taken from a specimen in Professor Fernald's 

 collection, and I know of no allied species in which the same thing occurs. This 

 insect is omitted from the Index, although it is given in tlio List of Food-plants of 

 Tineina (Bull. U. S. G. G. Surv., IV, 109, 1878). 



Lithocolletis argentifiinbrieUa Clem, 



:= Argyromiges quercialbella Fitch. 

 := Lithocolletis longestriata V. & B. 

 = Lithocolletis fuscocostcl la Chamb. 



In the Canadian Entomologist (Vol. Ill, .''»7) Chambers suggests that argenlifimbri- 

 ella Clem, may be the same species as quercialhella Fitch, but hi5 appears lo ha\'e 

 never fully satisfied himself that this was tlie case owing 1 1 the differences between 

 the descriptions of the larv;e. Oa page ISi of th;', same voliiau^ he points out that 



