IOWA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. 205 



Out of the 130 berries containing pupee mentioned above we 

 secured four specimens of moths. This low per cent of adults 

 is due to the fact that a large proportion of the pupse, over 100, 

 were destroyed by a fungus, apparently quite similar to Sporo- 

 trichum, and of the remainder a number were attacked by a 

 Hymenopterous parasite {Centeterus suturalis Ash), seven of 

 which issued prior to September 24th. 



The fungus was not observed to attack healthy berries, 

 always making its appearance after the hole had been made 

 near the stem, and, while it seemed to develop in the tissues of 

 the berry, there seems scarcely any doubt but that it is a par- 

 asite of the insect. Some of the Hymenopterous parasites 

 issued from berries showing fungus growth, so that it would 

 appear possible for these to resist the fuugus, even when pup£e 

 were infected with it; that is, supposing the fungus to infest 

 primarily the Gelechia. Doubtless a parasitized larva would be 

 a more easy victim of fungus attack. 



The appearance of moths so late in the season, the impossi- 

 bility of their producing another brood, and the improbability 

 of their depositing eggs in any situation where they would 

 winter and assure the larvse access to their food plant the fol- 

 lowing spring, almost forces us to the conclusion that the 

 moths hibernate and deposit eggs when ground cherries bloom 

 the following season. This view is strengthened by the fact 

 that a specimen was captured in an office room of one the col- 

 lege buildings December 7, 1894. Nevertheless, so long an 

 existence of the adult for so delicate a lepidopterous insect 

 seems doubtful, and the possibility of some pupse hibernating 

 or of a spring brood of larvse, even in some situation different 

 from the berries of Physalis, must not be overlooked. 



This species, as already intimated, very closely resembles 

 G. quercifoliella, and it was so determined with some doubt by 

 Mr. Marlatt from specimens sent to Washington for identifica- 

 tion. The fact that it affects a totally different plant indicates 

 it to be quite distinct from that species. It is certainly differ- 

 ent from jJhysaUella as described by Chambers, and has a totally 

 different larval habit, that species being said to mine the leaves 

 of Physalis in September, to pupate in leaves and rubbish on 

 the ground, and to issue as adult in April. Still another 

 species described as physalivorella was thought possibly to 

 represent our form, though no record of its larval characters 

 or habits were accessible. Mr. Marlatt has, however, kindly 



