25 



the Cambridge Museum, and a comparison of these with the remains of Clemens' 

 type at Philadelphia would decide the point; but for the present I should not be jus- 

 tified in attempting to correct their synonymy, and .scarcely in suggesting that either 

 of them may be identical with leberiella F. & B., which must be at least a nearly 

 allied species. 



Lithocolletis basistrigella Clem. = intermedia F. & B. 



I have authenticated specimens of basistrigella Clem., compared with the type in 

 the collection of the American Entomological Society of Philadelphia, and also of 

 intermedia F. & B., from the Zelier collection, received from Frey, and I am able to 

 say positively that these two species are the same. I have met with it also in Men- 

 docino and Siskiyou Counties, Cal., Rouge River, in Oregon, and have received it 

 from Miss Murtfeldt from Missouri. 



Lithocolletis rileyella Chamb. = tenuistrigata F. & B. 



I received from Miss Murtfeldt, in December, 1878, a Lithocolletis labeled "Tenti- 

 form mine on under side leaf of red oak." This specimen agrees precisely with Cham- 

 bers' description of L. rileyella, and is obviously that species. It is undistinguishable 

 from icnuistrigata F. & B., of which I have specimens and mines. 



Lithocolletis quercibella Chamb. = subaureola F. & B. 



I was at first disposed to think that quercibella could only be regarded as c syno- 

 nym of argentijimbriella. Chambers writes that it resembles closely his fuscocostella, 

 whbh I have shown to belong to that species; but after a careful study of his de- 

 scription by the side of a specimen of subaureola F. & B. I find that this is applicable 

 in all particulars to that species, although the first, quercibella, is described as glisten- 

 ing snowy-white, with the apical third pale golden, and the other as pale golden- 

 brown, with white markings. Chambers describes the subcostal streaks as pale 

 golden. Frey and Boll regard this as corresponding with the ground color of the wing, 

 and mention the straight, rather broad basal streak as being white, whereas Cham- 

 bers regards white as the real ground color. With a specimen before one it is easy 

 to see that the two descriptions are both accurate and precise in every detail. 



Lithocolletis clemensella Chamb. 



Another species that must be nearly allied to these is clemensella. I am induced 

 to regard this species as distinct, owing to its feeding on Acer saccharinum, and by 

 Chambers' remark that "the hinder marginal line at the base of the dorsal cilia 

 reaches to, but does not pass around, the apical spot." I find this peculiarity- well 

 marked in a figure of the species taken from a specimen in Professor Fernald's 

 collection, and I know of no allied species in which the same thing occurs. This 

 insect is omitted from the Index, although it is given in the List of Food-plants of 

 Tineina (Bull. U. S. G. G. Surv., IV, 109, 1878). 



Lithocolletis argentifhnbriePa Clem. 



= Argi/romiges quereialbrlla Fitch. 

 = Lithocolletis longestriata F. & B. 

 = Lithocolletis fuscocostella Chamb. 



In the Canadian Entomologist (Vol. 111. 57) Chambers suggests that argeniifimbri- 

 eMo Clem, may be the same species as qneroialbella Fitch, hut lie appears io have 

 never fully satisfied himself that this was f.he case owing t> the differences between 

 the descriptions of the larvae. On page Hi of th • same volume lie points out, that 



