92 . Journal New York Entomological Society. [Voi. x. 



Chambers had made a mistake in his original description, the more so 

 as not only does the specific description of Helice palliJochrella fit 

 those "types," but even the description of the venation might be 

 construed so as to fit very nearly, as will be seen by comparing it with 

 my delineation, made from the U. S. National Museum type no. 454 

 (PI. XII, Fig. 2). 



Happily I had the opportunity in May, 1900, to go to the Museum 

 of Comparative Zoology at Cambridge, Mass. , for the purpose of study- 

 ing Chambers' and Zeller's types. There I found twenty-four speci- 

 mens, labeled in Chambers' handwriting : Helice paUidochrelUi. 



Of these, which all seem to be alike superficially, fifteen are true 

 Gelechiid^e and unquestionably represent Chambers' Helice pallida- 

 chrella. The others are the same as the " types " in the United States 

 National Museum and Professor Fernald's (Miss Murtfeldt's) collection 

 and represent an undescribed Elachistid species, forming a new genus, 

 erected for it below. 



The genus Helice then must be retained as a good genus in the 

 family Gelechiid^ with the following interesting venation : Fore wing : 

 II veins, 5 absent, 7 and 8 out of 6, 3 and 4 stalked. Hind wing 

 under I, apex produced, termen emarginate, anal angle rounded, 6 

 veins, 5 and 6 absent, 3 and 4 stalked. (Plate XII, Fig. i.) 



True types of this are found only in the Cambridge Museum and 

 in the United States National Museum (type no. 6257), which has 

 obtained one through the courtesy of Mr. Samuel Henshaw. The 

 supposed types in Professor Fernald's collection and in Cambridge 

 may be regarded as cotypes of a new genus and species, Cacelice per- 

 molestella, described below, the type of which is in the United States 

 National Museum (No. 454), hitherto supposed to represent Cham- 

 bers' species. 



An examination of the figures i and 2 on Plate XII will explain the 

 very natural confusion of these strangely similar insects, belonging to 

 two different families. A similarity, so marked as to tempt the stu- 

 dent to infer one being a development from or another sex of the 

 other, while they in reality have an entirely different origin. The 

 similarity may be a result of common surroundings, food plants, ene- 

 mies, or other more subtle reasons. 



Nothing definitely is known of the larval history of these two 

 species, but Chambers found them on honey locust ( Gleditschia tri- 

 canthos^ and supposed that his species fed in some way on this tree, 



I 



