518 PF1TH REPORT OF THE ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMISSION. 
this tin- Texan species agrees with it. The undescribed species above mentioned, 
which is from Missouri, ami lms been bred by Professor Riley and Miss Mart- 
ft Mr from a larva feeding on Ambrosia, has the bead darker than In faginella, and 
of the same color with the thorax. ft qnercicella, according to Dr. Clemens, has the 
head ami thorax yellowish-brown (as in the Missouri specimen). /'. rcflexa, as 
described by Dr. Clemens, has the palpi as in fagimella, as to ornamentation ; but 
from the fact that Dr. Clemens separates it from qnercicella as a distinct section, 
characterized by the great length of the palpi, it is not necessary to refer to it further 
in this connection, ft faginella has the basal joint of the antenna- yellowish ocher- 
ons, except a wide blackish line, extending along its apper surface; graeroioeZZa has 
"two black stripes in front : M and the species from Texas land that from Missouri 
in this respect with qnercicella. ft faginella and also the Texas and Missouri 
specimens have the stalk of the antenna' ocherous-yellow, with two blackish 
lines extending along the upper side of the basal half, and the remainder of the stalk 
has each alternate joint blackish ; qnercicella has simply " a black line above, ter- 
minating in black spots." In qntrcicella the fore-wiugsare yellowish-brown, varied 
with blackish irregular stria-, chiefly from the costa, with a black dot on the end of 
the disk; faginella agrees with this description, except that I should call the 
ground-color of the wings dull yellowish ocherous, as they are likewise in the Mis- 
souri specimen, while in the Texas species the ground color is paler, while the trans- 
verse stripes are more distinct, showing also a tendency, to become more confluent, 
especially about the end of the disk, where they present to the naked eye some- 
thing like a faint dark fascia ; faginella has a more silky luster than the other species, 
though this may be owing to the fact that the specimens are newer. 
In the Texan specimens and in that from Missouri there is no spot at the end of the 
disk, and it is not distinct in faginella. In qnercicella u the posterior margin is tipped 
with blackish, and the cilia are yellowish-brown, containing two dark fuscous 
hinder marginal lines;" in faginella there is a row of blackish spots around the apex 
and a single faint brownish hinder marginal line in the cilia (which in the single 
specimen before me are a little injured). In the Missouri specimen there are five 
very distinct blackish spots around the apex, and behiud them in the cilia are two 
distinct brownish hinder marginal lines. Indeed, the cilia may be called brown, 
with a median, paler, hinder marginal line. Besides the five distinct spots, there are 
other very faint ones aud the brownish cilia are paler than the spots. The speci- 
mens from Texas agree in this respect with that from Missouri. One of these I sent 
to Mr. Cresson for comparison with Dr. Cieuiens's type of qnercicella in the collection 
of the entomological section of the Philadelphia Academy of Science (formerly 
American Ent. Soc). After comparing them, Mr. Cresson informs me that it "is not 
Pxilocorsis qnercicella Clem., which differs by having a rather broad distinct dusky 
border on the apical margin of the anterior wings ; otherwise they look very much 
alike/' 
The species are all of very nearly the same size — about eight to nine lines in 
expause of wings. Professor Zeller (Bei. z. Kennt., 1873, p. 40) identities specimens 
received by him from Ohio and Texas with qnercicella Clem. His Texan specimens 
were collected in the same region of the State from which I have received mine, and 
as in two collections that I have received from that region there is only one species, 
I think the probability is that qnercicella Zell. (nee Clem.) is the same species that I 
have referred to above, aud which I formerly identified with faginella, but which I 
now incline to consider distinct, and for which I suggest the name of cressonella. I, 
however do this with some hesitation, for while, with the material before me, I con- 
sider the species distinct, I recognize the probability that, with fuller collections of 
bred specimens of all the supposed species, it is not improbable that they will be 
deemed at most only phytophagic varieties of a single species. 1 am not sure but 
that the species described by me as Gelechia dnbittlla is properly referable to this 
genus. (Bull. U. S. Geol. Surv., iv, 1, p. 89.) 
