51 



STEPS TOWARDS A REVISION OF CHAMBERS' INDEX,* WITH 

 NOTES AND DESCRIPTIONS OF NEW SPECIES. 



By Lord Walsingham. 



[Continued from page 26 o/ Vol. //.] 



Lithocolletis fragilella F. & B. 



The introduction of the name trifasciella Hw. into the North American lists rests 

 first on the authority of Frey and Boll, who regarded specimens bred by them from 

 Lonicera seinjjervirens as a form of this species. This was subsequently confirmed by 

 Cliambers, who, however, confused the species with his mariweJla bred from a nearly 

 allied plant — Sym2)horicar2)a. I subsequently pointed out that mariccella was quite 

 distinct from trifasciella, but confirmed the occurrence of trifasciella in America on 

 the authority of a specimen, received from Dr. Riley, bred '• from leaves of honey- 

 suckle." I am no w in a position to make further corrections. Frey and Boll in their last 

 paper (Stett. Eut. Zeit., XXXIX, 270-271), descrihei frag ilella from larvie feeding on 

 leaves of Lonicera albida, and specimens of this are now before me, together with a 

 leaf mined by the larvie. Notwithstanding the remarks of these authors that this 

 species is not nearly allied to any European form, I find it is so close to trifasciella 

 Hw. as to be almost undisfinguishable from it. It differs from that species precisely 

 in the same peculiarity as Frey and Boll pointed out to distinguish their supposed 

 variety from! the European form, viz, in the different markings towards the apes of 

 the wing including one extra small, white, costal streak. I have little doubt that this 

 species is the one originally regarded by them as a variety of trifasciella. On again 

 referring to the specimen received from Dr. Riley I find it to be the same asfragilella 

 F. & B. ; the close affinity of this species with trifasciella may be sufficient excuse 

 for my previous error, as at that time I was unacquainted with Frey & Boll's species. 

 Under these circumstances trifasciella must be erased from the American lists. The 

 most noticeable characters by which fragilella may be distinguished from it are, first, 

 the presence of an extra small, whitish, costal streak, beyond the interrupted third 

 fascia, and secondly the absence of a subcostal shade of dark fuscous scaling, which 

 in trifasciella commences at the base of the wing and reaches to the first fascia. In 

 fragilella this fascia is densely dark-margined on the inner-side but in no one of the 

 five specimens now before me does the dark dusting reach to the base of the wing. 



Lithocolletis consimilella F. & B. and affiiiis F. & B. 



Frey and Boll described Consimilella in 1873, bred from mixed mines, and in 1876 

 affinis from a red-fruited Lonicera. I have authentic specimens of both these from 

 Boll's collection ; consimilella from Zeller's cabinet, and affinis from Monsr. Ragonot, 

 named by Boll, and although there is a slight difference in their size, they are 

 scarcely distinguishable from each other. In affinis, the smaller of the two sjiecies, 

 the frontal tuft is of a darker and more reddish-saffron, and the whole costal iiortion 

 of the third fascia is decidedly more triangular and more conspicuous than in consi- 

 milella, in which it is confined to a very narrow line, scarcely wider than the black 

 marginal dusting which precedes it. Moreover, at the base of the cilia, below the 

 apex, there is no trace in affinis of the dusting of dark scales which is to be seen in 

 consimilella, and the whole Insect is also distinguished by a somewhat brighter and 

 more glistening appearance, both of the ground-color and also of the silvery mark- 

 ings. The larva of consimilella being at present unknown, I hope to promote its dis- 

 covery by pointing out these distinguishing differences. 



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

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



