52 



Lithocclletis lucetiella Clem. 

 ^^ (vnirjmatella F. & B. 



I rind in Zeller's collection a specimen of (Pingmatella F. & B., received from Boll, 

 which agrees with a specimen compared with Clemens' type of lucetiella in the col- 

 lection of the Entomological Society at Philadelphia. I am therefore able to say that 

 these two names are synonyms for one species, so distinct in appearance from any 

 other known LifhocoUetis that coiifnsion is rendered impossible. 



LithocoUetis celtifoliella Chamb. 



= vonfasciella Chamb. 



^ ctltiseUa Chamb. 



= pusiUifoUeUa V. «& B. 



From actnal date of pnblication nonfasciella would take precedence, but both the 

 name and the description being founded on peculiarities which only exist in worn 

 specimens, it falls under Strickland's Rule XI : "A name whose meaning is glaringly 

 false may be changed." Chambers himself (Bull. U. S. G. G. Surv., IV., 155) says of 

 nonfasciella, "This must be dropped from the list; there is no such species. It was 

 described fiom varieties and old specimens of L. celtisella Chamb." The name non- 

 fasciella must c(msequently be treated as a synonym. Chambers's description of celii- 

 foliella diti'ersfrom that of celtisella especially in having a third fascia, but this ap- 

 pears to be very near the apex of the wing, and frequently somewhat obliterated by 

 the dark dusting. Since Chambers has admitted that he was somewhat confused in 

 the first instance by the apparently ditfereut habits of the larva?, I think we may con- 

 clude that his two species, celtifoliella and celtisella, come fairly within the range of 

 varieties noticed by Frey and Boll, In the Stett. Ent. Zeit., XXXIX, 274-5, Fi'ey and 

 Boll admit that their pusillifoliella is the same as celtisella Chamb., although in the 

 notes by Professor Frey, liublished by Dr. Hagan (Papilio IV, 15'2) we find " celtisella 

 Chb. 15 Ky. (new to me)." They confirm Chambers' observations as to the peculiarity 

 of the larva mining both sides of the leaf, and remark upriu the extreme variability of 

 the perfect insect, some specimens of which might easily be regarded as belonging to 

 a distinct form. 



In the absence of further proof to the contrary I should regard celtisella Chamb. 

 aud Jill aillifoliel la F. & B. as synonyms of celtifoliella Chamb. 



LithocoUetis morrisella Fitch. 

 = texanella Z. 



Fitch, in describing his Argyromiges morrisella, remarks that it differs from A. 

 pseudacaciella Fitch {=robiniella C]em.), in that " the inner half of the fore wings is 

 black, slightly tinged posteriorly with golden yellow, and interrupted at equal dis- 

 tances by three white spots or short bands narrowing towards their inner ends, and 

 between each of these is a less distinct white spot or cloud. Forward of the anterior 

 white spot the color is more pure and coal-black, forming an oblong square spot oc- 

 cupying the inner half of the base of the wing, which spot is bordered along its inner 

 side by a slender white stripe placed upon the middle of the wing at its base, its hind 

 end uniting with the inner end of the anterior white spot." 



Now. with the exception of the intermediate white spots or clouds, which arc not 

 recognizable in Zeller's figure, the differences described are precisely those which sep- 

 arate texanella Z. from rohiniella Clem. The dark dorsal margin is particularly notice- 

 able in Zeller's figure and specimens (his type ia now before me), and the slightest 

 abrasion of scales between the whitfe dorsal streaks jiroduces the effect of an indis- 

 tinct intermediate cloud. I am unable to resist the conclusion that Dr. Fitch had be- 

 fore him the three closely allied species wkich have since been found to feed respect- 



