o2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM VOL. 120 
Harpe with basal pair of spines on dorsal margin of sacculus of equal 
length, or ventral spine slightly longer than dorsal. 
FrmA.e (fig. 158)—Alar expanse 16-20 mm. Usually somewhat 
darker than male but otherwise similar in color and maculation. 
Genitalia (fig. 95) similar to those of rantalis but with dorsum of 
ductus bursae between collarlike structure and ostium without a 
platelike sclerotization, or if discernible, obsolescent and nonscobinate. 
Typrs.— U.S. National Museum: similalis, male, USNM 67626, 
genitalia slide HWC 7754; garalis, male, USNM 9624, genitalia slide 
HWC 10,032. British Museum (Nat. Hist.): ferruginea, male. 
TyYPxE-LOCALITIES.— Probably Montevideo, Uruguay: similalis (see 
discussion under rantalis). Coquimbo, Chile: ferruginea. Sao Paulo, 
Brazil: garalis. 
Food plant and larval stage unknown. 
DIsTRIBUTION.— BRAZIL: Rio Grande do Sul: Pelotas, Guarani; 
Mato Grosso: Corumba; Minas Gerais: Lassance; Sd40 Paulo: Rio de 
Janeiro, Campinas; Castro Parana. uruguay: Montevideo. PARA- 
Guay: Villarica. ARGENTINA: Santa Fe: San Cristobal; Tucuman: 
Tucuman, Los Vasquez; Cordoba: Pilar; Jujuy: Ledesma; La Rioja: 
La Rioja. CHILE: Santiago, Cajon Rio Maipo; Malleco: Angol. 
PERU: no additional locality. Boxtvra: no additional locality. 
ECUADOR: Loja. 
SPECIMENS EXAMINED.— 109. 
In riiagutT.—January to December. 
Remarks.—In addition to the differences in genitalic structures, 
the distributions of simdlalis and rantalis are different, the former 
being restricted to South America and the latter to the United States, 
Mexico, and the West Indies. 
Schaus’ Pyralis garalis agrees with similalis in both maculation and 
genitalia and is definitely conspecific. J am indebted to Mr. Whalley 
of the British Museum for comparing material with the type of Tritea 
ferruginea, which also agrees with similalis in maculation and genitalia 
and is doubtless conspecific. 
Although similalis replaces rantalis in South America and appears 
to be common, it has not attracted attention as a pest there; this may 
be due to some confusion of its larvae with those of Lowxostege bifidalis 
(Fabricius), which has been reported as a pest of considerable im- 
portance. 
Loxostege bifidalis (Fabricius) 
Fiaures 54, 98, 164, 165 
Phalaena bifidalis Fabricius, 1794, Ent. Syst., vol. 3, pt. 2, p. 232. 
Phlyctaenodes inornatalis Walker, 1865, List of the lepidopterous insects in the 
British Museum (Nat. Hist.), pt. 34, p. 1456. 
