NORTH AMERICAN EUCOSMINAE. 195 



4. Panoplia Hiibner. Genotype. — Plmlaena Tortrix cruciana 

 Linnaeus. 



5. Steganoptycha Stephens. Genotype. — Tinea nisella Clerck. 



6. Pdedisca Treitschke. Genotype. — Tortrix Mluana Haworth. 



7. Phlaeodes Guenee. Genotype. — Tortrix t etr aquetr ana 

 Haworth. 



8. Pamplusia Guenee. Genotype. — Tortrix mercuriana Hiibner 

 (= TTionticolana Duponchel). 



9. Proteopteryx Walsingham. Genotype. — Proteopteryx emar- 

 ginanu Walsingham. 



10. Catastega Clemens. Genotype. — Catastega timidella Clemens. 

 Fore wing smooth (or but slightly rough scaled) ; termen straight, 



(?oncave between veins 2 and 6 or with a decided notch between 

 veins 3 and 5 ; 12 veins ; 7 and 8 approximate, rarely connate or short 

 stalked; 10 from about midway between 9 and 11; 11 from before 

 middle of cell; upper internal vein of cell from between 10 and 11; 

 3, 4, and 5 separate or approximate at termen, closely approximate 

 when termen is notched; 2 straight or slightly bent near termen; 

 apex of wing blunt ; costal fold of male present or absent. 



Hind wing with 8 veins; 6 and 7 approximate toward base; 3 

 and 4 stalked. 



Male genitalia with harpe simple; cucuUus variously shaped, 

 sharply defined ; neck incurvation usually narrow and much reduced, 

 when wide, neck not heavily haired or spined; sacculus with dense 

 cluster of heavy short spines near neck incurvation or densely 

 clothed with long slender spines. Uncus usually well developed 

 and strong; simple or bifid; if reduced bifid and no broader than 

 long. Socii greatly developed; if slender, strongly chitinized; nor- 

 mally broadly triangular and densely haired, Gnathos reduced and 

 partially fused with socii. Aedoeagus moderately long; straight; 

 stout or slender but not needle like; comuti a cluster of elongate 

 spines. 



The second large stem of the subfamily. Like Eucosma^ some- 

 thing of a lump. The costal fold can not be used here except to 

 divide the genus artificially, for its disappearance is so gradual that 

 it is difficult in some cases to say whether it is or is not present. 

 Furthermore there are no correlating characters in the genitalia to 

 justif}' such a separation. It may be possible to hold Proteopteryx 

 on the character of the notched fore wing but here also the genitalia 

 seem to forbid such a splitting. My separation of the genus into 

 two groups is simply a matter of convenience to enable easier placing 

 and identification of the species and does not correspond to any 

 natural division. 



