53 



ively upon Robinia, Amorpha, and Amplticarpcea, and are Lest known under the names 

 of robiniella Clem., amorphajella Chamb., and texanella Z. There can he no doubt as 

 to the precedence in nomenclature as between morrisella and texanella, if my theory 

 is correct, the name morrisella having been published many years before Zeller's 

 paper. 



Lithocolletis uhlerella, Fitch. 

 = amorphaeella, Chamb. 

 = amorphce, F. & B. 



Fitch's description of Argyromiges uhlerella, although brief, applies with sufficient 

 precision to the Amorpha-mimng Lithocolletis, described by Chambers as amorphaeella, 

 a nd by Frey and Boll as amorphce. Fitch states that "it resembles pseudacaciella 

 (= robiniella Clem.), but it is throughout of paler colors, its forewings being golden- 

 grey" (rather than " uniform brilliant golden") and " the black dot on the tip of the 

 wings is replaced by a short black stripe thrice as long as wide." This precisely de- 

 scribes the differences that separate amorpJiceella from robiniella, and we may at once 

 give precedence to Fitch's name uhlerella for this species. 



Lithocolletis ostensackenella, Fitch. 

 == ornatella, Chamb. 



Another species of which the description is clear and absolutely unmistakable is 

 Argyromiges ostensackenella, Fitch. Specimens of ornatella, Chamb., are now before 

 me, and I can see no reason to doubt that this was the species from which Dr. Fitch 

 wrote his description, although I have not had an opportunity of seeing his type. 



Lithocolletis gemmea, F. & B. 



"When describing this species Frey and Boll were doubtful whether it were distinct 

 from Parectopa robiniella Clem., not haviug properly recognized the latter species at 

 that time, and Chambers asserts positively (Cin. Qr. Jr. Sc. I, 209-10) that L. gemmea 

 F. & B. = Parectopa robiniella Clem. I am at a loss to understand how he could have 

 made such a mistake. I have a specimen of the insect from the Zeller collection col- 

 lected by Boll which agrees precisely with the description of gemmea and is so labeled. 

 It would be utterly impossible to apply to it the description of Parectopa robiniella, 

 which does not possess a transverse fascia and is of a totally different color. I ob- 

 serve that Chambers subsequently discovered his mistake and recanted (Can. Ent. XI, 

 of 144-5). 



L. gemmea is a true Lithocolletis and apparently a good and distinct species. 



Lithocolletis ostryeefoliella, Clem. 

 = mirifica, F. & B. 



Chambers suggests (Cin. Qr. Jr. Sc, I, 202) that mirifica may be the same as ostry- 

 OBfoliella. I am inclined to agree with him. 



Lithocolletis tritaeniella, Chamb. 

 = consimilella, F. &, B. 



On the same page Chambers expresses his opinion that Frey and Boll have rede- 

 scribed tritamiella under the name consimilella. I have a figure of a specimen of tri- 

 tauiiella, named by Chambers himself, and presented by him to thePeabody Academy 

 of Sciences, Salem, Mass., and an authenticated specimen of consimilella from the 

 Zeller collection. There is, I think, no doubt that these two names apply to the 

 same species. 



Lithocolletis guttifinitella, Clem 



Chambers (Can. Ent., Ill, 111) describes cesculisella as a variety of guttifinitella, but 

 notices that the larva differs decidedly from that of the type. It seems impossible to 



