323 



Frey and Boll [Stett. Eat. Zelt., XXXIV, 220-1 (1873) ] described their specimens 

 of zellereUa ashavinj? the wiuj^-tip of the same color as the base. 



Zeller [Ver. Z.-b. Ges. Wieu, XXV, 147 (1875) ] refers to a specimen sent him by 

 Frey under this name and expresses a doubt whether it is truly Clemens' species ; he 

 also draws attention, for the first time, to the peculiarity of hind-wings which is also 

 the distinguishing character of latipennella Chamb. 



It is remarkable that neither Frey nor Clemens should have observed this. 



The specimen referred to by Zeller is now before me and considering the degree to 

 which the outer portion of the wing is shaded with darker scales it is possible that it 

 may be rightly identified by Frey. 



A series of six specimens, all males, received from Miss Murtfeldt and from Mon- 

 sieur Ragonot (from Boll's collection) show the peculiarity of the hind-wings in a 

 marked degree, sufficiently I think to coustitute a separate genus. The difficult ques- 

 tion, however, is to decide which of the numerous oak- feeding species described from 

 North America is the female of this form. One specimen regarded by Miss Murtfeldt 

 as hadiella Chamb., although slightly smaller and lacking the peculiar outline of the 

 hind-wings of the male, appears to me to agree in all necessary particulars ; it also 

 differs from hadiella in the absence of a dorsal spot, agreeing in this respect with 

 castanella Chamb. Chambers' remark that castanella is larger than zelleriella further 

 proves that his idea of that species was not the same as that of Frey and Boll, whose 

 specimen is a large one. It would be rash to presume that castanella is merely a, 

 synonym of zellenella — this and other allied species require further study. It is, 

 however, quite certain that the zellerella of Frey and Boll (for which they suggest 

 the name of complanoides if distinct) and of Zeller's writings is equal to latipetinella 

 Chamb., and it is probable that one of the other species, if described from females 

 only, will turn out to be the same. Frey and Boll refer to the female, but as they over- 

 looked the peculiar form of the male, little, if any, assistance can be derived from 

 tlieir brief notice. Chambers did not mention that he had both sexes of castanella. 



I shall be greatful to any one who will examine Clemens' type ^ of zelleriella and 

 let me know whether the hind-wings have an excised appearance, caused by the short- 

 ening of the cilia above the apex (see Fig. 64 6). Until I can assure myself on this 

 point zelleriella Clem, must be retained in the index as a distinct species, and Frey 

 and Boll's determination, which was questioned by Zeller, must be regarded as er- 

 roneous. 



C. complanoides has been received from Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina. 



TISCHERIA Z. 



Tischeria clemensella Chamb. 



= zelleriella Chamb. [Cin. Qr. Jr. Sc, II, 10-)-110 (1877)]. 



I am quire unable to identify this species from the material in my possession. It 

 may be possibly the true zelleriella Clem, as suggested by Chambers [Bull. U. S. G. G. 

 Surv., IV, 98-9 (1878)], in which case Frey and Boll's identification of that species 

 must be incorrect. No reference is given to this name in the Index, but a specimen 

 exists in Cambrige Museum (Mass.), received from Chambers [Hgn. (Frey) Pap., IV, 

 153 (1884)]. 



Tischeria castanella Chamb. 



I am unacquainted with this species except from the description. 

 Tischeria citrinipennella Clem. 



n. syn. =:badiella Chamb. 



This is a lemon-yellow species. The distinguishing mark noticed by Stainton 

 [Tin, N. Am., 82 (1872) J— a patch of dark scales at the anal angle— was not men- 

 tioned in the original description, but exists in a specimen in my own collection com- 



