AMERICAN MOTHS OF THE StTBFAMILT PHTdTrNAE 



303 



Ttpe localities: Germany (elutella, type lost); Eng- 

 land (semirufa, type lost; rufa and roxburghii, in BM); 

 Malatia, Asia Minor (unicolorella, in Mus. Univ. Ber- 

 lin); Australia (sericarium, in BM); Kalso, Kootenai 

 District, British Columbia (amarella), in USNM). 



Food: Dried fruits, seeds, nuts, chocolate, cocoa, 

 tobacco, and a munber of other dried vegetable prod- 

 ucts. Feeding records based on larval identifications 

 should be accepted with extreme caution ; for the larvae 

 of elutella, are often impossible to distinguish from 

 those of cautella, and have been frequently confused 

 with them. The so-called characters given in literature 

 for separation of the larvae of the two species are not 

 constant and should not be depended upon for specific 

 identification. In both Europe and the United States 

 elutella seems to breed out-of-doors to some extent but 

 has been noticed as a pest only in storage houses, in 

 England chiefiy on stored cocoa and in America on 

 tobacco. In our economic hterature it is known as 

 "the tobacco moth." Aside from its depredations in 

 tobacco warehouses it appears to be only a minor and 

 occasional pest on other stored products in the United 

 States. 



Distribution: Practically cosmopolitan, but appar- 

 ently less numerous and not so generally distributed as 

 either Plodia interpunctella or Ephestia cautella. 



The moths are easily separable from the other two 

 species found here {cautella and figulUella) and from 

 other truly congeneric European species by the short 

 stalking of veins 3 and 5 of hind wing. In other true 

 Ephestia these veins are always approximate at base. 

 They should be examined in every instance where 

 specific identification is of any importance. 



The above synonymy gives only the more important 

 references. Some Old World references cited by 

 Eichards and Thomson (1932) and Hulst (1903) have 

 been omitted and, except for a few essential articles, 

 no attempt has been made to cover the economic 

 literature, which is both extensive and repetitious. 



Genus Ephestia, Species 624 and 625: E. cautella 

 and E. figulUella 



[Hind wing with veins 2 and 5 approximate at base; harpe with 

 digitate projection from middle or near middle of costa.] 



624. Ephestia cautella (Walker) 

 Figures 125, 629, 1121 



Pempelia cautella Walker, List, vol. 27, p. 73, 1863. 



Cadra defectella Walker, List, vol. 30, p. 962, 1864. 



Nephopteryx desuelella Walker, List, vol. 35, p. 1719, 1866. 



Ephestia cahiritella Zeller, Stettiner, Ent. Zeit., vol. 28, p. 384, 

 1867.— South, Entomologist, vol. 23, p. 304, 1890.— Van 

 Deventer, Tijdschr. voor Ent., vol. 40, p. 80, 1904. — 

 Barrett, Lepidoptera of the British Islands, vol. 10, p. 56, 

 1905. 



Ephestia passulella Barrett, Ent. Monthly Mag., vol. 11, p. 271, 

 1875. — Ragonot, Ent. Monthly Mag., vol. 22, p. 24, 1885. 



Salebria cautella (Walker) Cotes and Swinhoe, Catalogue of the 

 moths of India, pt. 6, p. 675, 1889. 



Ephestia cautella (Walker) Hampson, Moths, vol. 4, p.'^66, 1896i 

 in Blanford, Fauna of British India. — Ragonot, Monograph, 

 pt. 2, p. 292, 1901.— Hulst, U. S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 52, p. 434, 

 1903. — Spuler, Die Schmetterlinge Europas, vol. 2, p. 202, 

 1910.— Chittenden, U. S. Dep. Agr. Bur. Ent. BuU. 104, 

 40 pp., 1911.— Dyar, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 47, p. 345, 

 1914.— Forbes, Cornell Mem, 68, p. 635, 1923.— Curran, 

 Sci. Agr., vol. 6, p. 386, 1926.— Meyrick, Revised Handbook 

 of British Lepidoptera, p. 388, 1928. — Shibuya, Journ. 

 Faculty Agric. Hokkaido Imperial Univ., Sapporo, vol. 22, 

 p. 77, 1298.— Richards and Herford, Ann. Appl. Biol., vol. 

 17, p. 380, 1930.— Noyes, Bull. Ent. Res., p. 80, 1930.— 

 Simmons, Reed, and McGregor, U. S. Dep. Agr. Cir. 157, 

 p. 36, 1931.— Keifer, Monthly Bull. Dep. Agr. California, 

 vol. 20, p. 619, 1931. — Richards and Thomson, Trans. Ent. 

 Soc. London, vol. 80, p. 197, 1932. — Bovingdon, Empire 

 Marketing Board, No. 67, pp. 1-88, 1933.— Norris, Proc. 

 Zool. Soc. London, 1934, pp. 333-360, 1934.— Dickins, 

 Trans. Ent. Soc. London, vol. 85, p. 342, 1936. — Lehmensick 

 and Liebers, Zeitschr. angew. Ent., Berlin, vol 24, p. 443, 

 1937. — Pierce and Metcalfe, Genitalia of the British Pyrales, 

 p. 7, 1938.— McDunnough, Check list, No. 6403, 1939.— 

 Hinton, Bull. Ent. Res., vol. 34, p. 193, 1943.— Corbet 

 and Tams, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, vol. 113, ser. b, p. 64, 

 1943. 



Cryptoblabes formosella Wileman and South (cT), Entomologist, 

 vol. 51, p. 219, 1918. — Shibuya, Journ. Faculty Agric. 

 Hokkaido Imperial Univ., Sapporo, vol. 22, pp. 17, 88, 1928. 



Color and markings similar to those of elutella and as 

 variable, expecially on the females. On the average 

 the antemedial line is less oblique in both cautella and 

 figvlilella than in elutella, but this difference does not 

 hold for aU specimens. E. cautella is distinguished by 

 its genitalia, both male and female. They are quite 

 distinct from those of any other phycitid. 



Alar expanse, 11-18 mm. 



Male genitalia with prongs of apical process of 

 gnathos forming a broad U, widely spaced. Harpe 

 with a short, digitate projection from near middle of 

 costa. TranstiUa with a broad fusion at middle and 

 prominent, round, flattened, lateral lobes. 



Female genitalia with ductus bursae bearing a longi- 

 tudinal row of strongly sclerotized and pigmented 

 ridges, the latter forming a narrow, fluted band some- 

 what over half as long as the ductus. Bursa copulatrix 

 rather coarsely spined over about half its surface. 



Type localities: Ceylon, India {cautella and de- 

 fectella, in BM); Moreton Bay, Queensland, Australia 

 {desuetella, in BM); Cairo, Egypt {cahiritella, in BM); 

 England {passulella, in BM); Takow, Formosa {Jor- 

 mosella, in BM). 



Food: All lands of dried, stored vegetable products. 



Distribution: Cosmopolitan. 



This species is as abundant, and probably as destruc- 

 tive to dry fruits, grains, nuts, and other stored vege- 

 table products, as Plodia interpunctella. Surprisingly 

 enough it has fewer economic references than either 

 elutella orfigulella though it appears to be more widely 

 distributed and more of a general nuisance than either 

 of them. In the list of common names approved by 

 the American Association of Economic Entomologists 

 it is known as the "almond moth." In economic litera- 

 ture generally it has also been referred to as the "dried 

 currant moth" and the "fig moth." 



