151 



pond to it, Psilovorsi^i must be dropped as a synonym and Machimia he retained for 

 entoriferella Clem., and others in which vein "2 of the fore- wings Is remote from vein 3. 



Cryptolechia quercicella Clem. 



FsUocorsis quercicella Clem. 

 z=:Depressaria cryptolechiella Chamb. 

 =Cryptolechia cressonella Chamb. 

 =Hagno faginella Chamb. 

 =iPsilocorsi8 dubitatelhi Z. 



Chambers himself (Bull. U. S. G. G. Surr., IV, 86) recognized the probability that 

 the first four of these forms would turn out to be varieties of one species, although a 

 specimen of his C. cressonella was sent for comparison with Clemens' type, at Phila- 

 delphia, with the following result: "Mr. Cresson informs me that it is not Psilocorsis 

 quercicella Clem., which differs by having a rather broad, distinct, dusky border on 

 the apical margin of the anterior wings, otherwise they look very similar." A good, 

 fresh specimen has the dusky border plain and visible, a worn specimen scarcely 

 shows it, but so far as I have seen, variation alone is suflScient to account for Mr. 

 Cresson's opinion. 



Specimens received from Miss Murtfeldt (presumably the same as those referred to 

 by Chambers, (1. c.,p. 84), as having been bred by Miss Murtfeldt and Professor Riley, 

 in Missouri from Ambrosia, and compared with the Texan specimen sent to Mr. 

 Cresson), are now before me and are undoubtedly Clemens' species quercicella, cor- 

 responding with my specimen compared with his type in the collection of the Amer- 

 ican Entomological Society at Philadelphia. Chambers (I.e., 85-86) thinks a speci- 

 men identified by Zeller as quercicella Clem, must be his cressonella. Zeller's specimen 

 labelled "quercicella" is in my cabinet, but it is not rightly identified; it is a dark 

 form, not separable from reflexella Clem. 



I have seen the type of Psilocorsis duhitatella Z. (Hor. Soc. Ent. Eoss., xiii, 262-3, 

 1887) in Dr. Staudinger's collection. It is a pale variety of the true quercicella Clem., 

 with a slight transverse shade beyond the middle and the double dark line on the 

 apical margin and cilia. 



Cryptolechia obsoletella Z. of which I have the type, is very like a small reflexella, 

 but shows no indication of the transverse darker striae on the fore wings. I should 

 regard it as distinct for the present. It is darker than f err uginosa Z.(of which I have 

 also the type), having none of the ochreous tint of that species, but the discal and 

 marginal dots are very similar, although somewhat more pronounced. Further in- 

 vestigation is required to clean up the life-history of these species. If one of them 

 feeds on Ambrosia it seems improbable that this can be the species bred by Clemens 

 from oak. Possibly the species I have from Miss Murtfeldt may not be the one re- 

 ferred to by Chambers. 



Cryptolechia reflexella Clem. 



Psilocorsis reflexella Clem. = Cryptolechia quercicella Z. 



Zeller's collection contains a female of this species labeled Psilocorsis quercicella 

 Clem., and it is evident that this is the specimen referred to by him (Ver. Z.-b. Gos. 

 Wieu., XXIII, 242) when in deacvih'ing obsoletella he remarks, " Viel kleiner als ^wer- 

 cicella." The species varies a good deal in size and in the distinctness of the distal 

 and marginal spots. Apart from the color of the fore wings, which is distinctly darker 

 and therefore less contrasted with the superficial speckled markings, the longer palpi, 

 the darker color of the hind wings, and its lacking the distinct double blackish line 

 in the cilia of the fore wings appear to be the chief distinguishing characters by 

 which to separate it from quercicella Clem. 



A specimen from Dr. Riley bred from Birch {Betula sp. ?) is only to be distinguished 

 from reflexella by its smaller size and shorter palpi, wherein it approaches dark varie- 

 ties of quercicella. I shall not venture to describe it as distinct. 



