1888.] 7. 



The synonymy will, therefore, be : — 

 Tinea decorella, Haw., Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1812, p. 338. 



Qeleelia liumeralis, Zell., Isis., 1839, p. 200; Stn., I. B., 119, 

 Man. ; 2, 336 ; H.-S., v., p. 170, fig. 477, 478 ; Frey, Lep., 120. 



Anacampsis Lyellella (Curt., MSS.), Humph, and West., Brit. 

 Moths, vol. ii, p. 190, pi. 106, fig. 10. 



Teleia humeral is, Hein., p. 276. 



Haworth's diagnosis is as follows : — "Alls anticis capitegue niveis, 

 cost a ipsa interruptim, plagague communi niveis. 



" Lep. Brit. App. inedit. Expans. alarum, 6 lin." 



As Mr. Stainton points out, this, as it stands, is nonsense ; but 

 if for the second "niveis" we read " nigris," we have an exact de- 

 scription of the specimen with Haworth's label to it, and which he 

 most probably had before him. If the description stood alone, we 

 should have no right to use the name decorella for the species to which, 

 when altered, we referred it ; but with the insect itself also bearing 

 that name, I think we need have no hesitation in admitting it. 



Stephens, 111., iv, p. 213, says of his Anacampsis decorella (to 

 which he wrongly quotes as synonymous, T. decorella, Haw.), " Alis 

 anticis nigro-fuscis, fascia basi alter ague postica albis, maculague media 

 ochracea, posticis fuscis" His fuller English description shows that 

 he had before him the insect now known as Laverna decorella. Oddly 

 enough, among these types of Haworth's is another Tinea, with a 

 label in his writing, subbistrigella, but under which stands the larger 

 label, decorella • showing that the author of these labels, whoever he 

 was, could not distinguish between Lav. decorella, with the ochreous 

 markings, and Lav. subbistrigella, which is without them. 



The label marked " lucullella,'" placed beneath Haworth's decorella, 

 may be explained in two ways : either it was simply a mis-spelling for 

 " luculella," owing to Stephens' mention of the ochreous blotch in the 

 middle (but this explanation I doubt : as the name luculella rightly 

 spelt occurs only three places afterwards, rightly placed under 

 Haworth's subrosea) ; or it may have been intended for Lyellella, 

 which would explain the double 11 in the 3rd syllable. 



Mr. Stainton, in the I. B., p. 119, quotes decorella, Haw., with a 

 query, as a synonym of liumeralis, Z. ; probably in mistrust of Stephens' 

 confusion ; he evidently has not seen this specimen with Haworth's 

 name attached. 



The last rectification also relates to a Gelechid. Under the type 

 marked by H&worih, Knockella, stands on the larger label, Aurofasciana ! 

 How the last name crept in, I cannot attempt to explain : but the 



