SERIAL PUBLICATIONS OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

The emphasis upon publications as a means of diffusing knowledge was expressed by the first Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. In his formal plan for the Institution, Joseph Henry articulated a program that included the following statement: “It is proposed to publish a series of reports, giving an account of the new discoveries in science, and of the changes made from year to year in all branches of knowledge.” This keynote of basic research has been adhered to over the years in the issuance of thousands of titles in serial publications under the Smithsonian imprint, commencing with Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge in 1848 and continuing with the following active series:

Smithsonian Annals of Flight

Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology

Smithsonian Contributions to Astrophysics

Smithsonian Contributions to Botany

Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences

Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology

Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology

Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology

In these series, the Institution publishes original articles and monographs dealing with the research and collections of its several museums and offices and of professional colleagues at other institutions of learning. These papers report newly acquired facts, synoptic interpretations of data, or original theory in specialized fields. These publications are distributed by mailing lists to libraries, laboratories, and other interested institutions and specialists throughout the world. Individual copies may be obtained from the Smithsonian Institution Press as long as stocks are available.

S. DILLON RIPLEY       

Secretary                      

Smithsonian Institution

SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ZOOLOGY • NUMBER 148

The Type-Material of North American Clearwing Moths (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae)

W. Donald Duckworth and Thomas D. Eichlin

SIMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS

City of Washington

1973

ABSTRACT

Duckworth, W. Donald, and Eichlin, Thomas D. The Type-Material of North American Clearwing Moths (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, number 148, 34 pages, 1973.—The type-material of North American clearwing moths of the family Sesiidae is reviewed by bringing together all the available data for the 255 species group names applied to this fauna area. Of these 255 names, 72 required lectotype designations, 152 were described from single specimens, and the remaining 31 are lacking in sufficient data to determine the number of specimens included in the original type series. The names are arranged alphabetically by specific name preceded by the genus in which it was originally described. The following information sequence is presented for each name: original combination; reference to original description; pertinent comments from the original description concerning the number of specimens, sex, locality, collection, and source of the types; exact label data on types, their present location, and number of syntypes examined; and subsequent pertinent comments and actions.

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION DATE is handstamped in a limited number of initial copies and is recorded in the Institution’s annual report. Smithsonian Year. SI PRESS NUMBER 4778. SERIES COVER DESIGN: The coral Montastrea cavernosa (Linnaeus).

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Duckworth, W. Donald, 1935-

The type-material of North American clearwing months.

(Smithsonian contributions to zoology, no. 148)

1. Aegeriidae. 2. Moths—North America. 3. Lepidoptera—North America. 4. Type specimens (Natural hisrory). I. Eichlin, Thomas D., 1938– joint author. II. Title. III. Series: Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian contributions to Zoology, no. 148.

Q.L1.S54 no. 148 (QL561.A34) 591?.08s (595.7’81) 72–13542

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402

Price 65 cents, domestic postpaid; 45 cents, GPO Bookstore

The Type-Material of North American Clearwing Moths (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae)

W. Donald Duckworth and Thomas D. Eichlin

__________

W. Donald Duckworth, Thomas D. Eichlin, Department of Entomology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560.

During the course of revisionary studies currently in progress on the North American clearwing moths, it became apparent that considerable confusion existed concerning the type-material for the numerous names applied to species in this family in North America, north of Mexico. The present paper is intended to rectify this situation, insofar as possible, by bringing together all the available data for the 255 species group names applied to this faunal area. Of these 255 names, 72 required lectotype designations, 152 were described from single specimens, and the remaining 31 are lacking in sufficient data to determine the number of specimens included in the original type series.

Although the North American Sesiidae (=Aegeriidae) are best known through the revisions of Beutenmuller (1901) and Engelhardt (1946), the contributor of the largest number of names in the North American fauna was Henry Edwards. It was largely due to the difficulties encountered with the 93 Edwards names that the task of locating the types and compiling the data as a separate study was undertaken by the present authors. In studying the Edwards types many discrepancies between information provided in the original descriptions and that found on the labels of specimens presumed to be a part of the original type series were encountered. Apparently, in many instances, the specimens were labeled after the descriptions were published, sometimes incorrectly, and specimens were occasionally added to the original series or deleted from it without indication on the labels. In addition, Edwards frequently erred in determination of the sex of his specimens, and information provided in the published descriptions was not included on the specimen labels. In this study information is provided for the 52 species Edwards described from unique specimens, and lectotypes are designated for the remaining 41 species.

Through the acquisition of the Barnes collection, which included all the North American Heterocera specimens except the Sphingidae from the Oberthur collection through purchase, most of the sesiid types of Boisduval are located in the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. Lacking information to the contrary, these specimens have been considered holotypes in this study.

Thaddeus William Harris described 11 species of sesiids in the mid-nineteenth century. The type-material was deposited in the collection of the Boston Society of Natural History where, fortunately, they were examined by Engelhardt prior to the publication of his revision. Ultimately, the collections of the Boston Society were transferred to the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, but not before there was considerable loss and damage through lack of curatorial attention. The Harris types were not found in the collections of the Museum of Comparative Zoology nor was there any indication that they had been received; thus, they must be presumed destroyed or lost prior to the transfer. Of the 11 names, 10 represent well-known species, most of which are of economic importance. Engelhardt (1946) covered the names in his revision and, consequently, there is no uncertainty concerning their application.

For various reasons 38 types could not be located. A number of these, such as the Harris types mentioned above, are assumed lost or destroyed and are so indicated. The types of a number of species described by various European authors were treated by Naumann (1971), and we have followed his treatment in these instances. In a number of cases the types are listed as unknown, which simply means that we were unable to locate the specimens or any indication concerning their past or present deposition. It is possible some of these may be uncovered as a result of this publication; others undoubtedly no longer exist.

Neotypes have not been designated in the present study for types which are presumed lost or destroyed in keeping with the provisions of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Article 75 (a), which limits such designations to those instances “necessary in the interests of stability of nomenclature.” In the North American sesiids the identities of all the entities for which the types are thought to be lost or destroyed are clearly established and do not qualify under the “exceptional circumstances” defined by the Code.

The distribution of the 255 North American sesiid types along with the institutional abbreviations used in the text are as follows: National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution (NMNH), 107; American Museum of Natural History (AMNH), 83; British Museum (Natural History) (BMNH), 15; Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia (ANSP), 1; Michigan State University (MSU), 8; Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University (MCZ), 2; Field Museum of Natural History (FMNH), 1; and 38 either lost, destroyed, or unknown.

The format followed in this study is essentially that used by Todd (1968). The names are arranged alphabetically by specific name preceded by the genus in which it was originally described. The following information sequence is presented for each name: original combination; reference to original description; pertinent comments from the original description concerning the number of specimens, sex, locality, collection, and source of the types; exact label data on types, their present location, and number of syntypes examined; and subsequent pertinent comments and actions.

The authors wish to acknowledge with gratitude the cooperation and aid of the following individuals and institutions who, through their support and assistance, have contributed to the present study: Dr. Fredrick H. Rindge, American Museum of Natural History; Drs. David C. Rentz and Wayne W. Moss, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia; Mr. Michael Prokop, Field Museum of Natural History; Dr. Roland L. Fischer, Michigan State University; Dr. Klaus Sattler, British Museum (Natural History); and Dr. John M. Burns, Museum of Comparative Zoology. Special thanks are extended to our colleagues Dr. E. L. Todd, Systematic Entomology Laboratory, I.I.B.I.I. Institute, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Dr. J. F. Gates Clarke, Department of Entomology, National Museum of Natural History, the former for advice and suggestions and the latter for advice and for examining types in our behalf at the British Museum.

The authors also wish to acknowledge the assistance of Mrs. Vera Milbank, Museum Technician, for bibliographic aid and Mr. Tim Friedlander, Undergraduate Research Fellow, for numerous support activities related to the project.

1. Trochilium acericolum Germadius, 1874:57

“Last June my attention was drawn to numerous castings, similar to those of the peach tree borer (Trochilium exitiosum Say) projecting from the trunk of the soft maple trees surrounding our university yard.”

TYPE: Unknown.

DISCUSSION: The “university yard” mentioned in the original description refers to the campus of the University of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois. Both males and females were described without mention of where the types were deposited.

2. Trochilium acerni Clemens, 1860:14

“The larva bores the trunk of the maple.”

TYPE: Lost (Engelhardt, 1946).

DISCUSSION: There is one specimen in the type collection of the Academy of Natural Science, Philadelphia, which may be the type specimen for this species; however, it lacks data for confirmation. The species is very common in collections and the species concept is well established, creating no difficulty in application of the name.

3. Sylvora acerni race buscki Engelhardt, 1946:79 “Types.—U.S.N.M. No. 56836, Male, from Gainesville, Fla.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Conopia acerni buscki Engelh., ♂”; “USNM Type No. 56836, buscki Engelh.”; “Gainesville, Fla., xp. IV.14. 1929”; “Coll. Engelhardt, G. P.”

4. Synanthedon acerrubri Engelhardt, 1925a:64

“Type. Described from five males and seven females. Holotype male and Allotype in the author’s collection at the Brooklyn Museum. Co-types U.S. Nat. Mus., Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., William Barnes Collection.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Synanthedon acerrubri G. P. Engelhardt, ♂, Type”; “Coll., G. P. Engelhardt”; “Newtown, L.I., VII. 18.07.”

DISCUSSION: Engelhardt labeled only one male specimen “Type,” but labeled an “allotype” female and the remainder of the type series as “Paratype.” The specimen labeled “Type” must therefore be the holotype, and the type-locality is Newtown, L.I., New York.

5. Pyrrhotaenia achillae Hy. Edwards, 1881:203

“1 ♂. San Rafael, Califor. (H. E.) On Achillea millefolia. L.”

“Type. Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the AMNH: “Pyrrhotaenia achillae Hy. Edw., Type”; “781”; “California”; “No. 15977, Collection Hy. Edw.”

6. Sciapteron admirandus Hy. Edwards, 1882a:54

“1 ♂, Texas (J. Boll).”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the AMNH: “Sciapteron admirandus Hy. Edw., Type”; “Texas”; “No. 15802, Collection Hy. Edw.”

7. Aegeria aemula Hy. Edwards, 1883:155

“Exp. ♂ 8 mm. ♀, 10 mm.”

“Types. Coll. Prof. C. V. Riley.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 2 (both in the NMNH): (1) “Aegeria aemula Hy. Edw., ♂, Type”; “U.S.N.M. Type No. 346”; “Collection of C. V. Riley”; “3157, May 24, 83”; “Sesia scitula Harr., ♂” (male). (2) “Aegeria aemula Hy. Edw., ♀, Type”; “U.S.N.M. Type No. 346”; “Collection of C. V. Riley”; “3157, May 22, 83”; “scitula scitula Harr., ♂” (male, abdomen missing).

DISCUSSION: Due to the better condition of the first syntype listed above, the male syntype in the NMNH dated “May 24, 83” has been selected, labeled, and is presently designated as the lectotype.

8. Aegeria albicornis Hy. Edwards, 1881:201

“1 ♂. Nevada. (Morrison).”

“Type. Coll. F. Tepper.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in MSU: “Aegeria albicornis Hy. Edw., Type”; “Nevada.”

DISCUSSION: As was noted by Engelhardt (1946), the type specimen is a female, not a male as in Edwards’s description.

9. Synanthedon albociliata Engelhardt, 1925c:215

“Habitat: Kerrville, Texas, October, 1916.”

“Type, male, allotype, female, and two paratypes, females, William Barnes Collection….”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in NMNH: “Synanthedon albociliata Engelhardt ♂, Type”; “Kerrville, Texas, X.1916”; “♂ genitalia on slide, AB, Jan., 17, 1939” (right wings also on genitalia slide).

10. Thamnosphecia alleri Engelhardt, 1946:124

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56842, male. Also female allotype and 5 male and 3 female paratypes in the United States National Museum. From Chickasaw, Ala.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Conopia alleri Engelh., ♂”; “USNM Type No. 56842, alleri Engelh.”; “Coll., G. P. Engelhardt”; “Chickasaw, Ala., IX.13.31”; “Fig.”

11. Melittia amoena Hy. Edwards, 1883:54

“1 ♂, Douglas Co., Kansas, 900 feet, Prof. Snow.”

HOLOTYPE: Unknown.

12. Cissuvora ampelopsis Engelhardt, 1946:134

“Type.—U.S.N.M., No. 56843. From Victoria, Tex.”

“Remarks.—Described from male type, female allotype, 3 male and 3 female paratypes from the type locality; 4 male and 10 female paratypes from San Antonio, Tex.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Paranthrene ampelopsis Engelhardt ♂, Holotype”; “U.S.N.M. Type No. 24866,”; “from Cissus incisa”; “J. D. Mitchell, Collector”; “Victoria, Tex., 6–21–19”; “on Cissus incisa”; “Hunter, No. 3918.”

DISCUSSION: The catalog of USNM type numbers indicates that this species was entered twice. The erroneously recorded 24866 was canceled from the catalog in February, 1944.

13. Pyrrhotaenia animosa Hy. Edwards, 1883:156

“4 ♂. 2 ♀. Arizona. Coll. B. Neumoegen and G. H. French.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 2 (both in NMNH): (1) “Pyrrohotaenia animosa Hy. Ed., ♂, Type”; “Typicum specimen”; “TYPE”; “Arizona” (male). (2) “Pyrrhotaenia animosa Hy. Edw., ♀, Type”; “Typicum specimen”; “TYPE”; “Arizona” (female).

DISCUSSION: The other four specimens supposed to be in the type series were not found. The male syntype in the NMNH is in good condition and has been selected, labeled, and designated as the lectotype.

14. Sesia anthracipennis Boisduval, 1874:392

“Elle se trouve en Géorgia où, selon Abbot, elle vir dans une espece de Salix. Nous l’avons recue de John Leconte.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the NMNH: “Type, anthracipennis Bdv., a/c Hofer”; “Sesia anthracipennis Bdv., Amer. bor., Sp. G. Sphing. 392”; “Oberthur Collection”; “j’ai envoyé en Jly 1882 la peinture à M. Edwards, Ch. Ob.”; “Typicum Specimen”; “Ex Musaeo, Dris Boisduval”; “anthracipennis, Am. B.”

15. Carmenta apache Engelhardt, 1946:54

“Types.—U.S.N.M. No. 56830, female.”

“Remarks.—Described from three specimens, a perfect female and two imperfect males, the latter not designated as paratypes, in all probability representing the same species, but without knowledge of the food plant and habits the evidence is not conclusive. The three specimens are from Prescott, Ariz., the males collected by H. Dyar, August 20, 1917, and the female from the Barnes collection, dated July 1–7.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in NMNH: “Conopia apache Engel. ♀”; “Fig.”; “Type No., U.S.N.M.”; “Barnes Coll.”; “Prescott, Ariz.”; “July, 1–7.”

16. Sphinx apiformis Clerck, 1759: pl. 9, fig. 2

TYPE: Lost (Naumann, 1971).

DISCUSSION: The original description is based on a figure. Apparently the location of the specimen or series from which the drawing was made is unknown and may in fact be lost or destroyed. The species was redescribed by Linnaeus in 1761, and according to Naumann (1971), there is a syntype in the Linnean Society London labeled “apiformis” in Linne’s own handwriting.

17. Sesia arctica Beutenmuller, 1900:208

“Habitat.—Kodiak, Alaska, July 20th, 1899.”

“Type.—One male, No. 5175, Coll. U. S. Nat. Mus.; collected by Mr. Trevor Kincaid…”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Sesia arctica Beut., Type, ”; “U. S. N. M. Type No. 5175”; “ ♂ genitalia on slide, AB, Dec. 2, 1938.”

18. Sesia arizonae Beutenmuller, 1898:240

“1 ♀, Summit of Mt. Union, 9,000 feet, Arizona, July 3, 1887, flying about scrub oak (G. D. Hulst). Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

“1 ♀, Texas. Col. U. S. Nat. Mus.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 2 (1 in AMNH, 1 in NMNH): (1) “Sesia arizonae Beut., ♀, Type”; “Ariz.”; “Summit of Mt. Union, about scrub oak, July 3.87, alt. 9000 ft.”; “No. 15871, Collection Hy. Edwards”; “Genitalia mounted on slide No. 0010” (female in AMNH). (2) “Sesia arizonae Beut., ♀, Type”; “U.S.N.M. Type No. 4355”; “Tex.”; “TDE Slide No. 76033” (female in NMNH).

DISCUSSION: The female syntype in the NMNH is not conspecific with the female syntype in the AMNH, based particularly on the genitalia. The NMNH syntype is conspecific with refulgens Hy. Edwards. Therefore, the female syntype in the AMNH has been selected, labeled, and designated as the lectotype.

19. Gaea arizonesis Beutenmuller, 1916:372

“Habitat.—Pinal Mts., Arizona.”

“Described from a single female. Type: collection Dr. William Barnes.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the NMNH: “Gaea arizonensis Beutm., Type, ♀”; “TYPE” “Pinal Mts., Ariz.”

20. Albuna artemisiae Hy. Edwards, 1881:187

“1 ♂. Sier. Nev. Calif. (H. E.) on flowers of Artemisia vulgaris. L.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the AMNH: “Albuna artemisiae Hy. Ed., Type”; “5041, Sierra Nev., Cali.”; “No. 15875, Collection Hy. Edw.”; “mellinipennis Bdv., det. G. P. E.”

21. Sesia asilipennis Boisduval, 1829:496

“3a. Sa chenille, 3b. Sa crysalide.—Hab. l’Amérique septentrionale.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Type, asilipennis Bdv., a/c Hofer”; “Sesia asilipennis Bdv., Amer. bor., Sp. G. Sphing. p. 391”; “Sesia asilipennis Bdv., Sp. general, page 391”; “Oberthur Collection”; “j’ai envoyé en Jly 1882 la peinture à M. Edwards, Ch. Ob.”; “Typicum Specimen”; “Ex. Musaeo, Dris Boisduval”; “Am. B.”

22. Aegeria aureola Hy. Edwards, 1881:194

“1 ♀. Nevada. (Morrison.)”

“Type. Coll. E. L. Graef.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the NMNH: “Aegeria aureola Hy. Ed., Type”; “TYPE”; “Col., E. L. Graef”; “Nev.” (abdomen missing).

23. Aegeria aureopurpura Hy. Edwards, 1880:72 “Expanse, 0.60 inch. Texas, J. Boll.”

“Type, coll. Mus. Comp. Zool., Cambridge.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the MCZ: “Aegeria (?) aureopurpura Hy. Edw., (Type)”; “Dallas, Tex., Boll”; “Type 928.”

24. Synanthedon auritincta Engelhardt, 1925c:216

“Habitat: Baboquivari Mts., Pima Co., Arizona, August 1–15, 1923 and 1924. O. C. Poling, collector, Described from eleven specimens, two males and nine females, kindly submitted for determination by Dr. Barnes and Mr. Benjamin.”

“Type, female; allotype, male, and six paratypes, females, William Barnes Collection; one paratype, male and two paratypes, females, Geo. P. Engelhardt Collection at the Brooklyn Museum.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the NMNH: “Synanthedon auritincta G.P.E. ♂, Type”; “Fig.”; “14”; “Baboquivari Mts., Pima Co., Ariz., 1–15 Aug. 1923, O. C. Poling, Coll.”

25. Carmenta austini Engelhardt, 1946:57

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56832.”

“Remarks.—Represented only by the types; the male holotype captured inside a window, Biological Department, University of Texas, Austin, Tex., November 4, 1922 (H. B. Park), and the female allotype collected at Ephraim, Sanpete County, Utah, September 29, 1929 (H. B. Park).”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in NMNH: “USNM Type No. 56832, austini Engelh.”; “austini, ♂ genitalia on slide, AB, Jan. 22, 1940”; “Fig.”; “Chamaesphecia austini Engelh. ”; “Chamaesphecia giliae austini Engelh. ♂”; “GPEngelhardt Coll.”; “H. B. Parks, Jr., Collector”; “Austin, Tex., 11–9-32.”

DISCUSSION: There is a discrepancy as to the date given in the publication and the date on the label. There is little doubt that the male in the NMNH is the actual type specimen, and an error in transcribing the date must have occurred at some point.

26. Alcathoe autumnalis Engelhardt, 1946:105 “Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56840. From San Antonio, Tex.”

“Remarks.—Described from the male type and 31 male and 27 female paratypes all from San Antonio, Tex.”

HOLOTYPE: Male in NMNH; “Alcathoe autumnalis Engelh. ♂, Type”; “Coll. G. P. Engelhardt”; “San Antonio, Tex., X.20.1930.”

27. Melittia barnesi Dalla Torre, 1925:138, new name pro M. superba B. & L., 1922

HOLOTYPE: Ipso facto type of superba B. & L.

28. Aegeria bassiformis Walker, 1856:39

“a. United States. Presented by E. Doubleday, Esq.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the BMNH: “64, Aegeria bassiformis”; “46.110, U.S.”; “Type.”

29. Melittia beckeri Druce, 1892:276

“Expanse 1½ inch.”

“Hab. Mexico, near Durango city (Becker).”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the BMNH: “B.C.A. Lep. Het. Beckeri Druce”; “Near Durango city, Mexico, Becker”; “Godman-Salvin Coll. 97.–52”; “Type, Sp. figured”; “Type.”

30. Pyrrohotaenia behrensii Hy. Edwards, 1882c:123

“2 ♂ Soda Springs, Shasta Co., Calif. (J. Behrens).”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 2 (both in AMNH): (1) “Pyrrhotaenia behrensii Hy. Edw. Type”; “Soda Spr., June 16”; “No. 15958, Collection Hy. Edw.” (male). (2) “Pyrrhotaenia behrensii Hy. Edw.”; “Soda Spr., June 16”; “No. 15960, Collection Hy. Edw.” (male).

DISCUSSION: The first male syntype in the AMNH listed above has been selected, labeled, and designated as the lectotype.

31. Albuna beutenmulleri Skinner, 1903:126

“ ♀ Described from one specimen taken at Stockton, Utah, May 24, 1902, by Mr. Thomas Spalding.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia; “A. beutenmulleri Skinner, TYPE”; “Stockton, Utah, V.24.02, T. Spalding”; “Type No. 7077, Albuna beutenmulleri Henry Skinner.”

32. Sesia bibionipennis Boisduval, 1869:64

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Type, bibionipennis Bdv., a/c Hofer.”; “Sesia bibionipennis, Bdv. Sp.G. Sphing, California, p.421”; “bibionipennis, Calif.”; “Oberthur Collection”; “Typicum specimen”; “Ex. Musaeo, Dris Boisduval”; “j’ai envoyé en Jly 1882, La peinture à M. Edwards, Ch. Ober.”

DISCUSSION: Engelhardt (1946) states, “The specific name bibionipennis Boisduval, 1869, has not been used in earlier check lists because of insufficient description and the supposed loss of the type. This type, however, has been found in a part of the Oberthur Collection, acquired by William Barnes, and is now at the United States National Museum.”

33. Aegeria bolli Hy. Edwards, 1881:191

“1 ♂. Texas. (J. Boll.)”

“Type. Coll. B. Neumoegen.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Aegeria bolli Hy. Edw., Type”; “TYPE”; “Typicum specimen”; “Tex.”; “bolli, Type HE, ♂ genitalia on slide, AB, Jan. 10, 1937.”

34. Aegeria bolteri Hy. Edwards, 1883:155

“1. ♂ N. Illinois. Collected by my friend, Mr. A. Bolter, to whom I dedicate the species. Type Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the AMNH: “Aegeria bolteri Hy. Edw., Type”; “N. Ill.”; “No. 15894, Collection, Hy. Edw.”

DISCUSSION: The type is a female and not a male as indicated by Edwards in the original description, an error he has made more than once.

35. Tarsa bombyciformis Walker, 1856:61

“Male.”

“a. -----?”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the BMNH: “Tarsa bombyciformis Wlk. Type, ♀”; “1., Tarsa bombyciformis”; “Type”; “F3/13.”

36. Penstemonia brevifolia Engelhardt, 1946:21

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56825. Holotype male and allotype female; one male and one female paratypes. Collected in the Green Horn Mountains, Calif.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Penstemoni brevifloris Engelh., ♂”; “USNM Type No. 56825, brevifolia Engelh.” “Out 8–28–39, ♂, 1-Greenhorn Mts., 7–9-39, P. brevifl.”; “♂ genitalia on slide, May 10, 1940, J.F.G.C., 2963.”

37. Aegeria brunneipennis Hy. Edwards, 1881:191

“1 ♀. Georgia. (Morrison.)”

“Type. Coll. F. Tepper.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in MSU: “Aegeria brunneipennis Hy. Edw., Type”; “Ga.”; “F. T.” (abdomen missing).

38. Sesia brunneri Busck, 1914:143

“Foodplant: Pinus ponderosa.”

“Habitat: Camas, Montana, Josef Brunner, collector.”

“Type: Cat. No. 18238, U.S.N.M.”

SNYTYPES EXAMINED: 2 (both in NMNH): (1) “Sesia brunneri Busck, ♀, Type”; “U.S.N.M. Type No. 18238”; “Camas, Mont., P. ponderosa”; “on Pinus ponderosa, Camas, Mont., Josef Brunner”; “11530a” (male). (2) “Sesia brunneri Busck, ♂, Type”; “U.S.N.M. Paratype No. 18238”; “reared from cambium of P. ponderosa, Camas, Mont., J. Brunner”; “11586”; “♂ genitalia on slide, Mch. 24, 1917, H., =novaroensis Hy. Ed., H.” (male).

DISCUSSION: There is an additional specimen labeled “Cotype” in the NMNH with the same data as the syntypes listed above. The better of the two specimens, the male syntype in the NMNH labeled “♀ Type,” has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

39. Trochilium californicum Neumoegen, 1891:108

“Hab.—Central California. Type ♀, coll. B. Neumoegen.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the NMNH: “Trochilium californicum Neumoegen, Type”; “TYPE”; “Typicum specimen”; “California.”

40. Aegeria candescens Hy. Edwards, 1882c:123

“1 ♂ Arizona. (H. K. Morrison.) Coll. B. Neumoegen.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the NMNH: “Aegeria candescens Hy. Ed., Type”; “TYPE”; “Typicum specimen”; “Arizona.”

DISCUSSION: Note that the sex was erroneously determined in the original description.

41. Zenodoxus canescens Hy. Edwards, 1881:205 “2 ♀. Colorado. (C. V. Riley.)”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 1 (in AMNH): “Zenodoxus canescens Hy. Edw., Type”; “Arkansas”; “No. 15997, Collection Hy. Edwards” (male).

DISCUSSION: No specimens could be found bearing Edwards’s type label from Colorado. Since labeling errors have been noted on other types of his, we are assuming that the locality, Arkansas, is erroneous and that this specimen is a syntype. Also, his original description of the species is of the male and not the female as indicated. Therefore, the male syntype in the AMNH has been selected, labeled, and is presently designated as the lectotype.

42. Zenodoxus canescens race bexari Engelhardt, 1946:200

“Type.—Male. U.S.N.M. No. 56859. From Bexar County, Tex. Described from one female and two males in imperfect condition.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Zenodoxus bexari Engelh., ♂ Type”; “Bexar Co., Tex., 10.2.1930”; “H. B. Parks Collector.”

43. Zenodoxus canescens race sidae Engelhardt, 1946:199

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56858. From Blythe, Riverside County, Calif. (C. Dammers).”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “USNM Type No. 56858, sidae Engelh.”; “♂ Coll. by C. Dammers, 2 Nov. 1936, Blythe, Riverside Co.”

44. Alcathoe carolinensis Engelhardt, 1925b:156

“Habitat. Black Mountains, N. C.”

“Foodplant. Collected by William Beutenmuller on clematis flowers in midsummer.”

“Types. Holotype male, American Museum of Natural History.”

“Described from a unique specimen kindly loaned by Mr. Frank E. Watson, of the American Museum of Natural History.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the AMNH: “Alcathoe carolinensis Engel., Holotype”; “Black Mts., N. C., W. Beutenmuller”; “Caught on Clematis flowers, midsummer, Beutenmuller.”

DISCUSSION: Engelhardt (1946) says, “The type of carolinensis lacks antennae and the long anal appendage of the male. Reexamination shows it not to be a male, as described, but a female with a short antennal stub which is orange, characteristic of that sex.” Our examination revealed that the specimen is undoubtedly a male as originally described, based on cilia on the antennal stub and the presence of a short portion of the male anal appendage and an examination of the genitalia externally.

45. Sesia castaneae Busck, 1913:102

“Type: U. S. Nat. Mus. No. 15505.”

“Bred from the trunks of chestnut by Mr. F. C. Craighead.”

“The adults emerged April 12, and May 21, 1912”.

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the NMNH: “sesia castaneae Busck, “Type”; U.S.N.M. Type No. 15505”; “Lynchburg, Va., on chestnut, bred, May 21, 1912”; “9718, Hopk. U.S.”

46. Aegeria caudata Harris, 1839:311

“Larva inhabits the stems of our indigenous currant, Ribes Floridum.” (Described both the male and the female.)

TYPES: Apparently lost or destroyed.

DISCUSSION: Refer to the pertinent statement in the “Introduction.”

47. Alcathoe caudata race annettella Engelhardt, 1946:103

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56838, male.”

“Remarks.—Represented in the United States National Museum by the type, one male and two female paratypes collected and reared on Clematis vines in the garden of Annette E. Braun, Cincinnati, Ohio, July 1, 1916.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Alcathoe caudata race annetella Engelh., Type”; “Cincinnati, O., Annette F. Braun, VII. 1. 16.”

48. Alcathoe caudatum ab. walkeri Neumoegen, 1894:331

“Type ♂ coll. B. Neumoegen. Obs. also coll. Doll and Walker.”

“Mr. I. V. D. Walker, of Jamaica, L. I., to whom dedicate this splendid aberration, was the first one to discover it about a year ago.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Alcathoe caudata ab. walkeri Neumoegen, ♂ Type”; “TYPE”; “Jamaica, L. I.=U.S.”; “Typicum specimen.”

49. Trochilium ceto Westwood, 1848:62, pl. 30: fig. 6

“Observations.—This species was communicated to me by H. G. Harrington, Esq., as a native of India. It is, I believe however (on the authority of specimens in the British Museum), a native of North America.”

TYPE: Unknown (possibly in the BMNH).

DISCUSSION: Our search of the BMNH did not uncover the type of this species.

50. Sphecia championi Druce, 1883:29

“Hab. Guatemala, near the city (Champion).”

“A male and female of this fine species were taken in copula by Mr. Champion on Psidium guava.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 2 (both in BMNH): (1) “B.C.A. Lep. Het., Sphecia championi Druce”; “Guatemala City, 5000 ft., Champion”; “Godman-Salvin, Coll. 19.-52”; “Type, Sp. figured”; “Found on Psidium guiava guava tree, ♂♀ in cop.”; “Type” (male). (2) “B.C.A. Lep. Het., Sphecia championi Druce,” “Guatemala City, 5000 ft., Champion”; “Godman-Salvin, Coll. 19.-52”; “Type, Sp. figured”; “Type” (female).

DISCUSSION: Since it is our policy to select the male whenever possible, the male syntype in the BMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

51. Sesia chrysidipennis Boisduval, 1869:64

“Elle a le port de notre Chrysidiformis.”

“Prise sur les fleurs à Los Angelos.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Type, ‘chrysidipennis’ Bdv., a/c Hofer”; “Sesia Chrysidipennis Bdv., Sp. G. Sphing., California, p. 403”; “Oberthur Collection”; “j’ai envoyé en Jly 1882, La peinture à M. Edwards, Ch. Ober.”; “chrysidipennis, Calif.”; “♂ genitalia on slide, AB, Apr. 8, 1939.”

52. Ramosia chrysidipennis race wallowa Engelhardt, 1946:30

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56826. Holotype male, allotype female, six male and four female paratypes. Collected in the ‘Elk Mountains, Oregon.’”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Chamaesphecia tacoma race wallowa ♂ Engelh.”; “USNM Type No. 56826, wallowa Engelh.”; “Fig.”; “Elk Horn Mts., 5000 ft, E. Ore., VII.31.1938.”

53. Penstemonia clarkei Engelhardt, 1946:18

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56823. Collected at The Dalles, Oreg. Holotype male, allotype female, and 12 paratypes.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Penstemoni clarkei Engelh., ♂”; “U.S.N.M. Type No. 56823, clarkei Engelh”; “Fig.”; “Reared from Penstemon richardsoni”; “The Dalles, Ore., E 5–VIII–38, G. P. Engelhardt.”

54. Pyrrhotaenia coccinea Beutenmuller, 1898:241

“1 ♀, Albuquerque, New Mexico. (Cockerell.) Type, Coll. U. S. Nat. Mus.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the NMNH: “Pyrrhotaenia coccinea Beut., Type”; “U.S.N.M. Type No. 4356”; “Ckll. 3206, Albuquerque.”

55. Pyrrhotaenia coloradensis Beutenmuller, 1893: 25

“One female, Custer County, Colorado (Cockerell). Sept. Coll. Hy. Edwards, Am. Mus. Nat. Hist.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the AMNH; “Pyrrhotaenia coloradensis Beut., Type”; “At Bigelovia flowers, Sept., Custer Co., Colo.”; “No. 15987, Collection Hy. Edwards.”

DISCUSSION: Note, the sex is male and not female as indicated in the description.

56. Albuna coloradensis Hy. Edwards, 1881:189

“1 ♀. Colorado. (H. K. Morrison.)”

“Type. Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the AMNH: “Albuna coloradensis Hy. Ed., Type”; “Colorado”; “No. 15860, Collection, Hy. Edw.”

57. Podosesia comes Heinrich, 1920:79

“Habitat.—Brush Corral, Arizona. (Edmonston and Hofer.)”

“Food Plant.—Quercus, species. Two moths (male and female) reared under Hopk. U.S. No. 12182a, from the woody Cynipid galls on white oak …”

“Type.—Cat. No. 21814, U.S.N.M.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Podosesia comes Heinrich, Type, ♂”; “U.S.N.M. Type No. 21814”; “White oak”; “Bush Corral, Ariz.”; “Geo. Hofer, Colr.”; “Edmonston WD, Colr.”; “Reared May 11.15”; “12182a, Hopk. U.S.”; “Conopia querci Hy. Edw., ♂”; “Fig.”; “comes Hein., ♂ genitalia on slide, AB, Oct. 27, 1939.”

58. Aegeria consimilis Hy. Edwards, 1881:194

“1 ♂ Dorchester, Mass. (P. S. Sprague.)”

“Type. Coll. Boston Soc. Natl. History, No. 1345.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the AMNH: “Aegeria consimilis Hy. Ed., Type”; “Dorchester, Mass.”; “No. 15905, Collection Fly. Edw.”

59. Aegeria corni Hy. Edwards, 1881:190

“1 ♂. On Cornus sericea L. Purgatory Swamp, Mass.”

“Type. Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the AMNH: “Aegeria corni Hy. Ed., Type”; “Purgatory Swamp, Massachusetts”; “No. 15924, Collection, Hy. Edw.”

60. Aegeria corusca Hy. Edwards, 1881:193

“1 ♂. Texas. (Belfrage.)”

“Type. Col. Hy. Edwards.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the AMNH: “Aegeria corusca Hy. Ed., Type”; “Tex.”; “No. 15928, Collection, Hy. Edw.”

61. Sphinx crabroriiformis Denis & Schiffermuller, 1775:305

TYPES: Destroyed (Naumann, 1971).

62. Aegeria cucurbitae Harris, 1828:33

“The above brief description will serve to identify the female, and the specific name will indicate the genus of plants on which the larva feeds.”

TYPE: Apparently lost or destroyed.

DISCUSSION: Refer to the pertinent statement in the “Introduction.”

63. Sphinx culiciformis Linnaeus, 1758:493

“Habitat in Europa.”

TYPES: Lost (Naumann, 1971, “befindet sich nicht in der Linne’ schen Sammlung, Linnean Society, London”).

64. Sesia culiciformis var. americana Beutenmuller, 1896:136

“Habitat: Nevada and British Columbia.”

“This form was first recorded by me as occurring in this country from a specimen in the collection of Mr. Charles Palm, from the Cascade Mountains, British Columbia.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 4 (all in AMNH): (1) “Sesia culiciformis var. americana Beut., Type”; “Nev.”; “No. 15936, Collection Hy. Edwards” (male). (2) “Sesia culiciformis var. americana Beut., Type”; “Nev.”; “No. 15937, Collection Hy. Edwards” (female). (3) “Sesia culiciformis var. americana Beut., Type”; “Nev.”; “No. 15938, Collection Hy. Edwards” (female). (4) “Sesia culiciformis var. americana Beut., Type”; “Nev.”; “No. 15939, Collection Hy. Edwards” (female).

DISCUSSION: There is no indication from the original description as to how many specimens were in the type series. The above listed syntypes were the only specimens bearing the “type” label that could be found and are considered here as part of the type series of Beutenmuller. The male syntype in the AMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

65. Sciapteron cupressi Hy. Edwards, 1881:183

“1 ♂. Colorado. (I. Doll.)”

“Type. Coll. B. Neumoegen.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the NMNH: “Sciapteron cupressi Hy. Edw., Type”; “Typicum specimen”; “Col.”; “Genitalia Slide, By T. D. Eichlin, USNM 75799.”

DISCUSSION: The supposed male could not be found in the AMNH. Engelhardt (1946) writes, “Type.—Male. In the American Museum of Natural History. Female allotype in United States National Museum.” Under “Remarks” he states, “The male type is in fine condition and well illustrated by Beutenmuller; the allotype is a dwarfed, imperfect specimen.” Apparently, the male in the AMNH to which Engelhardt refers as the type is a specimen from Arizona and therefore cannot be the type. Edwards must have described the female, since he made no mention of the very obvious sexual character, the “hair pencils” of the anal tuft, which are unique to the males. He simply states, “Caudal tuft, dull orange.” Because the Neumoegen material is in the NMNH, the specimen described was a female and not a male as originally indicated, and the only specimen labeled type is the female in the NMNH, the latter is considered to be the holotype.

66. Penstemonia dammersi Engelhardt, 1946:19

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56824. Holotype male, allotype female, and 20 paratypes. Collected on Mount Wilson, Calif.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Conopia dammersi Engelh., ♂”; “U.S.N.M. Type No. 56824, dammersi Engelh.”; “Fig.”; “Reared from Penstemon”; “Mt. Wilson, Calif., 6000 ft., 9–IX–36, G. P. Engelhardt.”

67. Aegeria deceptiva Beutenmuller, 1894:93

“Type: One male, from Colorado, Coll. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. Collected and presented by Mr. David Bruce.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the AMNH: “Aegeria deceptiva Beut., Type”; “Colo., Bruce”; “No. 15877, Collection Hy. Edwards.”

68. Aegeria decipiens Hy. Edwards, 1881:197

“1. ♂. Colorado. (Morrison.)”

“Type. Coll. E. L. Graef.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the AMNH: “Aegeria decipiens Hy. Ed., ♂, Type”; “Col.”; “No. 15945, Collection Hy. Edw.”

69. Albuna denotata Hy. Edwards, 1882a:55

“1 ♂ 2 ♀. Montana Terr. H. K. Morrison.”

“Types. Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 3 (all in AMNH): (1) “Albuna denotata Hy. Edw., Type”; “Mont”; “No. 15779, Collection Hy. Edw.” (male). (2) “Mont.”; “No. 15780, Collection Hy. Edw.” (female). (3) “Albuna denotata Hy. Edw., Type”; “Mont.”; “No. 15781, Collection Hy. Edw.” (female).

DISCUSSION: Engelhardt (1946) referred to the male type in the AMNH, and to avoid future confusion, the male syntype in the AMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

70. Trochilium denudatum Harris, 1839:310

“Expands from one inch and a quarter to more than one inch and a half.”

TYPES: Apparently lost or destroyed.

DISCUSSION: Refer to the pertinent statement in the “Introduction.”

71. Sciapteron dollii Neumoegen, 1894:330

“Hab.—Vicinity of New York City. Types ♂ and ♀ coll. B. Neumoegen. Obs. also coll. J. Doll.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 3 (All NMNH): (1) “Sciapteron dollii Neumoegen, ♂ Type”; “TYPE”; “Typicum specimen”; “N.Y.” (The abdomen of a female has been glued on.) (2) “Sciapteron dollii Neumoegen, ♀ Type”; “TYPE”; “Typicum specimen”; “N.Y.” (The abdomen is missing.) (3) “Sciapteron dollii Neumoegen, ♀ Type”; “TYPE”; “Typicum specimen”; “N.Y.” (The abdomen is missing.)

DISCUSSION: Engelhardt (1946) states, “Type.—Male. In the United States National Museum.” He did not refer to the male specimen as a lectotype, so, to avoid possible confusion in the future, the male syntype in the NMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

72. Sciapteron dollii var. castaneum Beutenmuller, 1897:213

“One female from Texas. Coll. B. Neumoegen. Two males from Kentucky, No. 15778, Coll. Hy. Edwards, A. M. N. H.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 3 (2 in AMNH, 1 in NMNH): (1) “Sciapteron dollii var. castaneum Beut., Type” “Kentucky”; “No. 15778, Collection Hy. Edwards” (male, AMNH). (2) “No. 15778, Collection Hy. Edwards” (male, AMNH). (3) “Sciapteron dollii var. castaneum Beut., ♀ Type”; “Sciapteron castaneum Hy. Ed., Type”; “Tex.”; “Typicum specimen” (female, NMNH).

DISCUSSION: Since Beutenmuller lists the female from Texas first, and the specimen is in good condition, the female syntype from the NMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

73. Paranthrene dollii form fasciventris Engelhardt, 1946:142

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56845.”

“Described from male type, female allotype, four male and three female paratypes from Chicago (May and June), and three male and three female paratypes from Cicero, Ill.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Paranthrene dollii Neum., sub-species fasciventris, ♂ Holotype”; “Coll. G. P. Engelhardt”; “Fig.”; “Chicago, Ill., VI-12–1920, Cicero, A. Kwiat., ex Poplar.”

74. Aegeria edwardsii Beutenmuller, 1894:92

“One female, Denver, Colorado. Collected by Mr. D. Bruce. Type: Coll. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the AMNH: “Aegeria edwardsii Beut., ♀, Type”; “Colo., Bruce”; “No. 15940, Collection Hy. Edw.”

75. Pyrrhotaenia elda Hy. Edwards, 1885:49

“P. Elda … is described from 2 9 taken in Siskiyou Co, California, by Mr. James Behrens.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 2 (both in the AMNH): (1) “Pyrrhotaenia elda Hy. Edw., Type”; “Siskiyou, Aug. 15”; “No. 15956, Collection Hy. Edw.” (female). (2) “Pyrrhotaenia elda Hy. Edw.”; “Siskiyou, Aug. 10”; “No. 15955, Collection Hy. Edw.”; “P. elda=behrensii Hy. Edw.” (female).

DISCUSSION: The first female syntype listed above from the AMNH with a type label has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

76. Aegeria emphytiformis Walker, 1856:43

“a, b. United States. Presented by E. Doubleday, Esq.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 1 (in BMNH): “Aegeria emphytiformis, Type, ♂”; “46.110, U.S.”; “72, Aegeria emphytiformis”; “Type” (male).

OTHER MATERIAL EXAMINED: 2 (1 in BMNH, 1 in AMNH): (1) “235”; “46.110, U.S.”; “Cotype” (female). (2) “Bembecia emphytiformis Wlk, Cotype, ♀”; “56.110, U.S.”; “No. 15775, Collection Hy. Edwards” (female).

DISCUSSION: No other syntypes could be found, and it is impossible to determine if one of the above listed cotypes is the other syntype mentioned in the original description. The male syntype in the BMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

77. Pyrrhotaenia eremocarpi Hy. Edwards, 1881: 203

“1 ♂. Sier. Nevada, Calif. (T. L. Mead.).”

“Type. Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the AMNH: “Pyrrhotaenia eremocarpi Hy. Edw., Type”; “V.8.78”; “Sier. Nev., Calif.”; “No. 15976, Collection Hy. Edw.”

78. Aegeria eupatorii Hy. Edwards, 1881:195

“2 ♀. Long Island, N.Y. In stems of Eupatorium purpureum L. Mr. S. L. Elliot.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 2 (both in the AMNH): (1) “Aegeria eupatori Hy. Ed., Type”; “Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., Dept. Invert. Zool., No. 23828”; “Long Island, N.Y., ♀, per Original Descript” (female). (2) “Aegeria eupatori Hy. Ed., Type (2)”; “New York”; “No. 15904, Collection Hy. Edw.” (male).

DISCUSSION: The female syntype in the AMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

79. Aegeria exitiosa Say, 1823:216

(James Worth forwarded the specimens to Say for description. Say described the male and female, pupa, and egg, but gave no clues as to the disposition of the types.)

TYPES: Lost (Engelhardt, 1946).

80. Sanninoidea exitiosa var. edwardsii Beutenmuller, 1899b:160

“I herewith propose the varietal name edwardsii for the female which has both the fourth and fifth segments banded with orange, and the space between the inner veins wholly or partly scaled with blue-black.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 2 (both in AMNH): (1) “Sanninoidea exitiosa var. edwardsii Beut., Type”; “20 July 36”; “C.U. Exp. No. 312, Sub.” (female). (2) “Sanninoidea exitiosa var. edwardsii Beut.”; “2 Aug. 35”; “C.U. Exp. No. 312, Sub.” (female).

DISCUSSION: Beutenmuller mentions that he reared the specimens but does not state how many represented the type series. The female syntype labeled “type” in the AMNH has been selected, labled, and is designated as the lectotype.

81. Aegeria exitiosa var. fitchii Hy. Edwards, 1882a:55

“I apply this name to the form of the ♀…”

“In roots of wild cherry. Tallahassee, Florida. (A. Koebele.) W. Virginia. (T. L. Mead.)”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 1 (in AMNH): “Aegeria exitiosa var. fitchii Hy. Edw., Type”; “Tallahassee, Florida”; “No. 15832, Collection Hy. Edwards” (female).

DISCUSSION: No specimens from West Virginia could be located that could be considered as part of the original series. The female syntype from the AMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

82. Sannina exitiosa var. luminosa Neumoegen, 1894:331

“Types (males), coll. B. Neumoegen. Obs. also coll. J. Doll.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 2 (both in NMNH): (1) “Sannina exitiosa v. luminosa Neumoegen, ♂ Type”; “TYPE”; “Glendale, L. I., VI.21”; “Typicum specimen” (male). (2) “Sannina exitiosa y. luminosa Neumoegen, Type”; “TYPE”; “Glendale, L. I., VI.5”; “Typicum specimen” (male).

DISCUSSION: The first male syntype listed from the NMNH and dated VI.21 is in better condition and has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

83. Synanthedon fatifera Hodges, 1962:139

“Types.—Holotype: male, Mentor, Ohio, emerged at Geneva, N.Y., July 13, 1961, Viburnum; E.H.S. 1–61; R.W.H. ♂ genitalia slide No. 2001 [U.S.N.M. Type No. 66024]. Paratypes: 1 ♂, 2 ♀, same locality as type, July 17–23, 1961 [U.S.N.M.]”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “R. W. Hodges, HOLOTYPE, Synanthedon fatifera”; “Viburnum, 7/13/61, Geneva, N.Y.”; “EHS-1–61”; “Photo”; “♂ genitalia on slide, 1962, R.W.H., 2001.”

84. Paranthrene fenestratus Barnes and Lindsey, 1922:122

“Holotype ♀, Chiricahau Mts., Cohise Co., Ariz., June 8–15, in coll. Barnes.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the NMNH: “Memythrus fenestratus B. & L., Holotype ♀”; “Fig.”; “Chiricacua Mts., Ariz., Cochise Co.”; “June 8–15.”

85. Sesia flavipes Hulst, 1881:76

“Two specimens, ♂ and ♀, taken on different days, each at rest on blackberry leaves, late in September, in Brooklyn, N.Y.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 2 (both in AMNH): (1) “Bembecia flavipes Hulst, Type”; “No. 15815, Collection Hy. Edwards” (male). (2) “Bembecia flavipes Hulst, Type”; “No. 15816, Collection Hy. Edwards” (female).

DISCUSSION: The male syntype in the AMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

86. Melittia flavitibia Walker, 1856:67, new name pro Trochilium tibiale Harris, 1839

TYPE: Ipso facto type of tibiale Harris.

87. Pyrrhotaenia floridensis Grote, 1875:174

“♂ … The antennae are heavy, lengthily pilose, brush-like” (indicates that it was a ♂ specimen). “Enterprise, Fla., May 29.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the AMNH: “Pyrrhotaenia floridensis Grote, Type”; “Enterprise, Fla., May 29”; “No. 15967, Collection Hy. Edwards.”

88. Sesia florissantella Cockerell, 1908:330

“Hab.—Florissant, Colorado, June 25, 1908, in a very dry place (Cockerell)” (describes a male specimen).

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Sesia florissantella Ckil., Type”; “Florissant, Colo., (Cril.), June 25”; “♂ genitalia on slide, AB, Aug. 29.39.”

89. Pyrrhotaenia fragariae Hy. Edwards, 1881:202

“1 ♂ 1 ♀. Colorado. (Morrison.)”

“Types. Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 1 (in AMNH): “Pyrrhotaenia fragariae Hy. Ed., Type”; “Colorado”; “No. 15966, Collection Hy. Edw.” (female).

DISCUSSION: The male type could not be found. Therefore, the female syntype in the AMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

90. Sesia fragariae var. semipraestans Cockerell, 1908:329

“♀.”

“Hab.—Florissant, Colorado, prox. 8,000 ft., June 21, 1908, flying rapidly over very dry and barren ground (Cockerell).”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the NMNH: “Sesia fragariae v. semipraestans Ckll., TYPE”; “Florrisant, Colo., June 21, 1908 (Ckll.)”

91. Carmenta fraxini Hy. Edwards, 1881:185

“1 ♂. Washington, D. C. (C. V. Riley.)”

HOLOTYPE: Could not be located.

DISCUSSION: The following specimen was examined from the AMNH: “Carmenta fraxini Hy. Edw., ♀, Type”; “Harmonia morrisonii Hy. Edw., ♀”; “Missouri.” The specimen is a male and not a female as labeled. It is doubtful that this specimen is the holotype.

92. Trochilium fraxini Lugger, 1891:109

“Length of body 15 mm. Exp. of wings 30 mm” (apparently describing a single specimen).

HOLOTYPE: Unknown.

93. Albuna fraxini form vitriosa Engelhardt, 1946: 169

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56848. From Chicago, Ill.”

“Remarks.—Described from male type, female allotype, …; all in the United States National Museum.”

HOLOTYPE: Male in NMNH; “Memythrus fraxini vitriosa Engelhardt ♂ Holotype”; “Coll. G. P. Engelhardt”; “Chicago, Ill., VII.14.1921.”

94. Aegeria fulvipes Harris, 1839:312

“Expands thirteen lines.”

TYPES: Apparently lost or destroyed.

DISCUSSION: Refer to the pertinent statement in the “Introduction.”

95. Trochilium gallivorum Westwood, 1854:757

“On looking at some galls on the American Quercus palustris, then recently received from North America …”

“It measures 8 lines in expanse of the fore wings, and 5 lines in the length of the body.”

TYPE: Unknown.

96. Aegeria geliformis Walker, 1856:46

“Male.”

“a. United States. Presented by E. Doubleday, Esq.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the BMNH: “Aegeria geliformis, Type, ♂”; “79, Aegeria Geliformis”; “46.110, U.S.”; “Type.”

97. Aegeria giliae Hy. Edwards, 1881:200

“1 ♀, Colorado. (Morrison.)”

“Type. Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the AMNH: “Aegeria giliae Hy. Ed., Type”; “Colorado”; “No. 15879, Collection, Hy. Edw.”

98. Carmenta giliae race woodgatei Engelhardt, 1946:61

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56833, male. Collected at Fort Wingate, N. Mex.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “USNM Type No. 56833, woodgatei Engelh.”; “giliae”; “mimuli, Comp. with Type Coll. Hy Edw.”; “Fort Wingate, New Mex.”; “Aug. 1–7.”

99. Melittia gloriosa Hy. Edwards, 1880:71

“Secondaries dull orange …” (This indicates that the specimen being described is a female, since the secondaries of the male are mostly hyaline.) “I first took this remarkable insect in San Leandro, Cal., in 1872.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the AMNH: “Melittia gloriosa Hy. Ed., Type”; “5040 Califor.”; “No. 15773. Collection, Hy. Edw.”

100. Sciapteron graefi Hy. Edwards, 1881:183

“1 ♂ 2 ♀. Nevada (Morrison.)”

“Type. Coll. E. L. Graef, from whom I have received many courtesies, and to whom I dedicate this singular species.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 3 (2 in MSU, 1 in NMNH): (1) “Sciapteron graefi Hy. Edw., Type”; “F. T.”; “Nevada” (female, MSU). (2) “Sciapteron graefi Hy. Edw., Type”; “Nevada” (female, MSU). (3) “Sciapteron gradi Hy. Edw., Type”; “TYPE”; “Col., E. L. Graef.”; “Nev.” (female, NMNH).

DISCUSSION: Thongh a male labeled type was not found, we believe the above three syntypes represent the type series in the original description, since Edwards often misidentified the sex of his specimens. The female specimen mentioned by Engelhardt (1946) as being in the AMNH could not be found and is assumed to be one of the two syntypes at MSU listed above. The female syntype in the NMNH, because it alone has the E. L. Graef collection label, has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

101. Sanninoidea graefi var. barnesii Beutenmuller, 1901:272

“Habitat.—Colorado.”

“Type: One female. Coll. Dr. W. Barnes, Decatur, Illinois.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the NMNH: “Sanninoidea graefii var. Barnsii Beut., ♀ Type”; “Barnes Collection”; “2 Clear Creek Canon, Colo.”

102. Trochilium grande Strecker, 1881:156

“… expanding 1¾ inches.”

“Hab. Texas.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, FMNH: “Trochilium grande Streck.”; “Texas”; “Orig. Type”; “J. Boll.”

103. Melittia grandis var. hermosa Engelhardt, 1946:186

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56853, female. Described from two females from Arizona.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the NMNH: “Melittia grandis var. hermosa Engelh., ♀ Type”; “Arizona”; “U.S.N.M. Type.”

104. Carmenta helenis Engelhardt, 1946:50

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56828, male. Collected at Earl Grey, Saskatchewan. Also allotype female, one male paratype, and one female paratype. In the United States National Museum.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in NMNH: “Compositicola helenis Engelh. ♂”; “holotype”; “USNM Type No. 56828, helenis Engelh.”; “GPEngelhardt Coll.”; “Earl Grey, Sask., 4.VII.1926, J. D. Ritchie”; “♂ genitalia on slide 75966, T. D. Eichlin.”

105. Pyrrhotaenia helianthi Hy. Edwards, 1881:203

“1 ♂ 1 ♀. Virginia City, Nevada. (H. E.) On Helianthus, sp.”

“Types. Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 1 (in MSU): “Pyrrhotaenia helianthi Hy. Edw.”; “Nevada”; “F. T.” (female).

OTHER MATERIAL EXAMINED: 2 (in AMNH): (1) “Soda Sp., June 16”; “Pyrrhotaenia helianthi Hy. Edw., Type”; “No. 15957, Collection Hy. Edwards” (female). (2) “Pyrrhotaenia helianthi Hy. Edw.”; “Soda Sprgs., Siskiyou, June 30”; “No. 15959, Collection Hy. Edwards” (male).

DISCUSSION: Only the one specimen in the MSU Collection could be found from Nevada. Beutenmuller (1893) mentions the female labeled type in the Edwards Collection but stated that it could not be a type since it is from Soda Springs, California. It is possible that Edwards decided to make the latter specimen the type subsequent to writing the description. The female syntype from MSU has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

106. Aegeria hemizoniae Hy. Edwards, 1881:198

“2 ♂. 1 ♀. Nevada. On Hemizonia luzulifolia. D. C. (H. E.)”

“Type. Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 2 (1 in AMNH, 1 in NMNH): (1) “Nevada”; “No. 15920, Collection Hy. Edw.” (female, AMNH). (2) “Aegeria Hemizoniae Hy. Ed., ♀ Type”; “TYPE”; “rutilans Hy. Edw., Comp. with Type Coll. Hy. Edw., W. B.”; “Typicum specimen”; “Nevada” (head and abdomen missing, NMNH).

DISCUSSION: A female with a type label is in the AMNH, but it is from California and cannot be part of the type series. The female syntype in the NMNH is in such poor condition that consequently the female syntype in the AMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype. The two males mentioned in the original description were not found.

107. Penstemonia hennei Engelhardt, 1946:16

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56822. Holotype male, allotype female, two male and three female paratypes. Collected in San Bernardino County, Calif.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Penstemoni henni Engelh., ♂”; “Fig.”; “Out 8–28–38, ♂, P. Mill Cr., 38.”

108. Aegeria henshawii Hy. Edwards, 1882a:56

“1 ♀. Mingan Island, Labrador, Mr. S. H. Henshaw …”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the AMNH: “Aegeria henshawi Hy. Ed., Type”; “Mingan Island, Labrador, July 20, 1881, L. Henshaw”; “No. 15887, Collection Hy. Edw.”

109. Zenodoxus heucherae Hy. Edwards, 1881:205

“6 ♂ 2 ♀. H. E. On flowers of Heuchera rubescens Torr. Lake Tahoe, Calif.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 4 (3 in AMNH, 1 in NMNH): (1) “Zenodoxus heucherae Hy. Edw., Type”; “3492, Sierra Nev., Cal.”; “No. 15990, Collection Hy. Edw.” (male, AMNH). (2) “3492 Sierra Nev., Cal.”; “No. 15991, Collection Hy. Edw.” (male, AMNH). (3) “3492, Sierra Nev., Cal.”; “No. 15992, Collection Hy. Edw.” (male, AMNH). (4) “3492, Sierra Nev., Cal”; “No. 15989, Collection Hy. Edwards” (male, NMNH).

DISCUSSION: Two females and two males said to be part of the type series could not be found. The first male syntype listed above from the AMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

110. Euhagena hirsuta Engelhardt, 1946:172

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56851.”

“Remarks.—The male type and only example …”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH; “Euhagena hirsuta Engelh., ♂”; “USNM Type No. 56851, hirsuta Engelh.”; “Fig.”; “for illustration”; “Davis Mts., Tex., 5000 ft, X.17 1928, O. C. Poling.”

111. Trochilium hospes Walsh, 1866:270

“One ♂, bred June 2 from the Coleopterous Pseudogall S. inornata n. sp.; ♀ unknown.”

TYPE: Unknown.

112. Sesia hylaeiformis Laspeyres, 1801:14

“Habitat in Germaniae australis hortis, rarius. A Dno Hubner Augusta Vindelicorum ad me missa. Larva uncialis, solitaria, albida, subpubescens, capite fuscescente. Habitat in Rubi Idaei ramulis.”

TYPES: Lost (Naumann, 1971).

113. Aegeria hylotomiformis Walker, 1856:43

“Female.”

“a. Nova Scotia. From Lieut. Redman’s collection.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the BMNH: “Aegeria hylotomiformis Wkr., Type ♀”; “73. Aegeria Hylotomiformis.”; “Type”; “31”; “Nova Scotia, Redman.”

114. Aegeria hyperici Hy. Edwards, 1881:195

“2 ♀ West Virginia. T. L. Mead.”

“Types. Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 1 (in AMNH): “Aegeria hyperici Hy. Edw., Type”; “West Virginia”; “No. 15865, Collection Hy. Edw.” (male).

DISCUSSION: Only one of the syntypes could be found. The above male syntype in the AMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype. The sex was erroneously recorded as female by Edwards.

115. Aegeria imitata Hy. Edwards, 1881:196

“1 ♂. Pennsylvania.”

“Type. Col. B. Neumoegen.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the NMNH: “Aegeria imitata Hy. Ed., Type”; “Type”; “Typicum specimen.”

DISCUSSION: The type is a female and not a male as indicated in the original description.

116. Aegeria imperfecta Hy. Edwards, 1881:198

“1 ♂. Colorado. (Morrison)”

“Type. Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the AMNH: “Aegeria imperfecta Hy. Ed., Type”; “Colorado”; “No. 15945, Collection Hy. Edw.”

DISCUSSION: Note that the sex was misidentified by Edwards in the original description.

117. Aegeria impropria Hy. Edwards, 1881:193

“2 ♂ Marin Co. and Sier. Nev. Cal. (H. E.) 1 ♀. Washington Ter. (Morrison.)”

“Types Coll. Hy. Edwards. B. Neumoegen.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 1 (in the NMNH): “Aegeria impropria Hy. Edw., ♂, Type”; “TYPE”; “Typicum Specimen”; “B. N.”; “Was. T.” (female, abdomen fell off while handling and was placed in gelatin capsul).

DISCUSSION: The two male specimens mentioned in the description could not be found, so the female in the NMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

118. Aegeria infirma Hy. Edwards, 1881:195

“1 ♂. Long Island, N.Y. (S. L. Elliot.)”

“Type. Coll. S. L. Elliot.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the AMNH: “Aegeria infirma Hy. Edw., ♀, Type”; “Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. Dept. Invert. Zool., No. 23827”; “This is probably the ♂ of Ae. cupatorii”; “Long Island, N.Y., ♂, per Original Descript.” (very worn specimen).

DISCUSSION: The type is a female, not a male as indicated in the description.

119. Aegeria inusitata Hy. Edwards, 1881:201

“White Mts. N. H. (Morrison.) Andover, Mass. (F. G. Sanborn.)”

“Types. Coll. F. Tepper. Bost. Soc. Natural History.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 2 (1 in AMNH, 1 in MSU): (1) “Aegeria inusitata Hy. Ed., Type”; “Andover, Mass., F. G. Sanborn”; “No. 16013, Collection Hy. Edw.” (female, AMNH). (2) “Aegeria inusitata Hy. Edw. ♀, Type”; “W. Mts., N. H.” (female, MSU).

DISCUSSION: Engelhardt writes, “Type of Aegeria inusitata, female, in the American Museum of Natural History.” The sex was incorrectly determined by Edwards as a male. To avoid possible confusion in the future, the female syntype in the AMNH has been selected, labeled and is designated as the lectotype.

120. Sesia ithacae Beutenmuller, 1897:215

“Habitat: Ithaca, New York. One male and one female, No. 16755, Coll. Hy. Edwards, A. M. N. H.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 2 (both in AMNH): (1) “Sesia ithacae Beut., ♂, Type”; “Ithaca, N.Y., 26 July”; “No. 16755, Collection, Hy. Edwards” (male, lacks a head and most legs). (2) “Sesia ithacae Beut., ♀, Type”; “Ithaca, N.Y., 23 June 87”; “No. 16755, Collection, Hy. Edwards” (female, lacks head, mesothorax and wing, which may be in the pinning box with the specimen).

DISCUSSION: The better of the two syntypes is the male. Therefore, the male syntype in the AMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

121. Aegeria koebelei Hy. Edwards, 1881:196 “1 ♂. Tallahassee, Florida. (A. Koebele.)”

“Type. Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the AMNH: “Aegeria koebelei Hy. Edw., Type”; “No. 15932, Collection Hy. Edw.”; “Genitalia mounted on slide no. 0012 T.D.E.”

DISCUSSION: The above specimen lacks a locality label and appears to be very similar to a species known only from western Canada.

122. Melittia lindseyi Barnes and Benjamin, 1925: 14, new name pro M. superba B. & L., 1922

HOLOTYPE: Ipso facto type of superba B. & L.

123. Grotea longipes Möschler, 1876:313

“Flugelspannung 33 mm. Vorderflugelbreite 3.5 mm. ♂ ♀ Vereinegte Staaten.”

TYPE: Probably lost (Naumann, 1971).

124. Trochilium luggeri Hy. Edwards, 1891:108

“Length of body 20 mm. Exp. of wings 35 mm.” (apparently describing a single specimen).

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the AMNH: “Trochilium luggeri Hy. Edw., Type”; “July 6/90”; “No. 15791, Collection Hy. Edw.”

DISCUSSION: This description was part of an article by Otto Lugger concerning lepidopterous borers in trees near St. Anthony Park, Minnesota, which is the type-locality for this species.

125. Aegeria lupini Hy. Edwards, 1881:192

“2 ♂ 1 ♀. Marin & Mendocino Cos., Calif. (H.E. and O. Baron.)”

“Type Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 3 (all in the AMNH): (1) “Aegeria lupini Hy. Ed., Type”; “Marin Co., California”; “No. 15907, Collection Hy. Edw.” (male). (2) “Mendocino Co., Calif.”; “No. 15908, Collection Hy. Edw.” (male). (3) “797”; “California”; “No. 15909, Collection Hy. Edw.” (male).

DISCUSSION: It is our opinion that the above specimens represent the original type species even though the last two lack type labels and none is a female. Edwards often misidentified the sex. The first male syntype listed above from the AMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

126. Trochilium lustrans Grote, 1880:213

“Dayton, O., Mr. G. R. Pilate.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the AMNH: “Trochilium lustrans Grote, Type”; “Ohio, Pilate”; “No. 15897, Collection Hy. Edwards.”

127. Zenodoxus maculipes Grote and Robinson, 1868:184

“Habitat.—Texas. (Belfrage).”

“Two specimens offer no perceptible difference except that of size …” (mentions both sexes, presumably had one of each sex on hand).

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 1 (in AMNH): “Zenodoxus maculipes G. & R., Type 2/”; “Tex.”; “No. 15998, Collection Hy. Edwards” (male).

DISCUSSION: An additional female from the MCZ was seen having the following labels: “Zenodoxus maculipes G. & R.”; “Dallas, Tex., Boll”; “Type 929.” It was collected by Boll instead of Belfrage, as in the original description, and therefore cannot be considered as a syntype. The male syntype from the AMNH listed above as Type 2/ has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

128. Aegeria madariae Hy. Edwards, 1881:201

“3 ♂2 ♀. On Madaria elegans Don. Saucelito, Calif., (H. E.)”

“Types. Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 3 (2 in AMNH, 1 in NMNH): (1) “Aegeria madariae Hy. Ed., Type”; “Saucelito, California”; “No. 15953, Collection Hy. Edw.” (female, AMNH). (2) “Saucelito, California”; “No. 15954, Collection Hy. Edw.” (female, AMNH). (3) “Aegeria madariae Hy. Edw., Type”; “TYPE”; “Aegeria madariae Hy. Edw., Type”; “Typicum specimen”; “Saucelito, California” (female, NMNH, abdomen glued on).

DISCUSSION: Two males from the original series could not be found. Since the abdomen was glued on, the male syntype in the NMNH leaves some doubt as to its correct association. The female syntype in the AMNH labeled “Type” has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

129. Melittia magnifica Beutenmuller, 1899a:151 “Habitat: Austin, Texas.”

“Described from one female, collected by Mr. Joseph Mattes.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the AMNH: “Melittia magnifica Beuter., Type”; “Austin, Tex.”

130. Trochilium marginatum Harris, 1839:309

“This insect was taken in New-Hampshire, and presented to me by the Rev. L. W. Leonard.”

TYPE: Apparently lost or destroyed.

DISCUSSION: Refer to the pertinent statement in the “Introduction.”

131. Bembecia marginata var. albicoma Hulst, 1883:9

“This variety I would call Bembecia Albicoma. Of it I took 2 ♂ ♂ and 1 ♀, in Brooklyn, N.Y.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 2 (both in AMNH): (1) “Bembecia marginata var. albicoma Hulst, Type”; “No. 15789, Collection Hy. Edwards”; “A.M.N.H. Type No.” (male). (2) “Bembecia marginata var. albicoma Hulst, Type”; “L. I.”; “Collection, G. D. Hulst” (female).

DISCUSSION: The second syntype listed above has more accurate labeling; therefore, the female syntype from the AMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

132. Sesia marica Beutenmuller, 1899c:254

“Habitat: Punta Gorda, Florida.”

“Type, Coll. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist.”

“Described from a perfect male collected by Mrs. A. T. Slosson.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in AMNH: “Sesia marica Beut., ♂, Type”; “Florida.”

133. Sesia mariona Beutenmuller, 1901:308

“Habitat.—Trimble and Pagossa Springs, and Durango, Colorado, July 6th, 19th and 30th, 1899.”

“Type: Two females, Coll. Dr. William Barnes, Decatur, Illinois. One female. Col. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist.”

“Described from three females.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 3 (2 in NMNH, 1 in AMNH): (1) “Sesia mariona Beuten., ♀, Type”; “Fig.”; “Trimble Spgs., Col., 6/19/99” (female, NMNH). (2) “Sesia mariona Beuten., ♀, Type”; “Pagossa Spgs., Col., 6/30/99” (female, NMNH). (3) “Sesia mariona Beuten., ♀, Type”; “Durango, Col., 6/6/99” (female, AMNH).

DISCUSSION: The female syntype in the NMNH from Trimbel Spgs., Col. has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype, because it best represents the species as described originally.

134. Pyrrhotaenia meadii Hy. Edwards, 1881:204

“3 ♂. Lake Tahoe, Califor. (T. L. Mead)”

“Types. Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 2 (both in AMNH): (1)

“Pyrrhotaenia meadii Hy. Ed., Type”; “Lake Tahoe, Califor.”; “No. 15972, Collection Hy. Edw.” (male). (2) “Lake Tahoe, California”; “No. 15791, Collection Hy. Edw.” (male).

DISCUSSION: The third male of the type series could not be found. The first male syntype in the AMNH having the handwritten type label has been selected, labeled; and is designated as the lectotype.

135. Sesia mellinipennis Boisduval, 1836: pl. 14; fig. 12

“Amerique septentrionale.”

TYPES: Apparently lost or destroyed.

DISCUSSION: Engelhardt (1946) states, “Cotypes.—R. mellinipennis, two males, lost but figured by Boisduval.” We were unable to find any of the types and therefore assume they are lost.

136. Zenodoxus mexicanus Beutenmuller, 1897:216

“Habitat: New Mexico. One male, No. 16756, Coll. A. M. N. H. Received from Prof. J. B. Smith.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the AMNH: “Zenodoxus mexicanus Beut., Type”; “Collection, G. D. Hulst”; “No. 16756, Collection, Hy. Edwards”; “N. Mex.”

137. Trochilium minimum Neumoegen, 1891:108

“Hab.—Denver, Col. Type ♂, coll. B. Neumoegen.”

“Mr. D. Bruce caught this specimen, and informs me that its larva feeds on willow.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Trochilium minimum Neumoegen, Type”; “TYPE”; “Typicum specimen”; “Denver, Colo., D. Bruce.”

138. Aegeria mimuli Hy. Edwards, 1881:200

“1 ♂. Colorado. (Morrison)”

“Type. Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the AMNH: “Aegeria mimuli Hy. Edw., Type”; “Colorado”; “No. 15870, Collection Hy. Edw.”; “ ♂ genitalia on slide, AB, Jan. 17, 1940.”

139. Carmenta minuta Hy. Edwards, 1881:185

“1 ♂ Georgia. (Morrison)”

“Type. Coll. F. Tepper.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in MSU: “minuta Hy. Ed.”; “Type”; “Georgia” (right forewing and abdomen missing).

DISCUSSION: The sex of the type had been misidentified by Edwards and is in fact a female.

140. Albuna modesta Kellicott, 1892a:46

“I propose this name for a species taken on the University campus at Columbus in August last, resting on foliage” (describes a female).

TYPE: Unknown.

141. Albuna montana Hy. Edwards, 1881:188

“21 Examples. ♂. ♀.”

“White Mountains, N. H. (Morrison. Grote.) Nevada, Colorado. (Morrison.) Anticosti Isld. (Couper.) Sier. Nevada, Cal. (H.E.)”

“Colls. Tepper, Graef, Neumoegen, W. Grey, Dr. Bailey, Hy. Edwards, etc., etc.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 3 (2 in the AMNH, 1 in MSU): (1) “Albuna montana Hy. Edw., Type”; “Colorado”; “No. 15840, Collection, Hy. Edw.” (female, AMNH). (2) “Albuna montana Hy. Edw., Type”; “Colorado”; “No. 15842, Collection, Hy. Edw.” (female, AMNH). (3) “W. Mts., N. H.”; “F. T.”; “Type” (female, MSU).

DISCUSSION: Also examined were the following specimens from the Tepper-Morrison Collection at MSU: 2 ♂ ♂, 1 ♀, W. Mts., N. H., F. T.; 1 ♂ Mt. Hood; 1 ♂, Anticosti. Another ♀ in the AMNH from Colorado is No. 15841 in the Hy. Edwards Collection. These specimens are probably part of the original type series but lack Edwards’ “type” labels. Apparently, Edwards in several instances labeled the type series of various species subsequent to writing the description; thus, all specimens of a series were not always labeled as a type, or specimens not in the series from which the description was written were later affixed with a type label. Engelhardt (1946) simply states, “Type.—Female. In the American Museum of Natural History.” Since most of the Edwards types are in the AMNH, the female syntype from Colorado in the AMNH with Collection No. 15840 has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

142. Harmonia morrisoni Hy. Edwards, 1882a:55

“1 ♂, Montana Terr. Mr. H. K. Morrison, to whom I have much pleasure in dedicating the species.”

“Type. Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the AMNH: “Harmonia morrisoni Hy. Edw., Type”; “Mont.”; “No. 15805, Collection Hy. Edw.”

143. Aegeria morula Hy. Edwards, 1881:196

“1 ♂. Texas. (J. Boll.)”

“Type. Coll. B. Neumoegen.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Aegeria morula Hy. Edw. Type”; “Typicum specimen”; “Tex.”

144. Euhagena nebraskae Hy. Edwards, 1881:181

“1 ♂. Nebraska. (Mr. Austin).”

“Type. Coll. Cambridge Museum.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the MCZ: “Euhagena nebraskae Hy. Edw., Type”; “Nebraska, Austin”; “Type 930.”

DISCUSSION: The type is in very bad condition, having come off the verdigris coated pin and been broken in several pieces in transit. What was left has been placed in a gelatin capsule.

145. Euhagena nebraskae form intensa Engelhardt, 1946:172

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56850, female.”

“Remarks.—For this unique and strikingly colored example, I am indebted to my good friend C. M. Dammers, of Riverside, Calif., who collected the specimen in the mountains at Barnwell, San Bernardino County, on October 12, 1936.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the NMNH: “Euhagena nebraskae intensa Engelh., ♀”; “U.S.N.M. Type No. 56850, E. nebraskae intensa Engl.”; “Fig.”; “♀ Coll. by C. Dammers, 12 Oct. 1936, Barnwell, S. Bernardino Co.”

146. Aegeria neglecta Hy. Edwards, 1881:197

“1 ♂. Olympia, Washington Ter. (H. E.)”

“Type. Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the AMNH: “Aegeria neglecta Hy. Ed., Type”; “Washington, Ter., Jan.”; “No. 15950, Collection Hy. Edw.”

DISCUSSION: The type is a female and not a male as indicated in the original description.

147. Euhagena nebraskae form mormoni Engelhardt, 1946:171

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56849.”

“Remarks.—Only two male examples of this striking form of nebraskae are known. They are labeled ‘Logan, Utah, September 20, 1923, W. W. Henderson, collector’.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Euhagena mormonis Engelh., ♂”; “USNM Type No. 56849, mormoni Engelh.”; “Fig.”; “For illustration”; “Coll. Engelhardt, G. P.”; “Logan, Ut., Sept. 20, 1923”; “W. W. Henderson, Collector.”

148. Aegeria nicotianae Hy. Edwards, 1881:202 “1 ♂. 1 ♀. Texas. (J. Boll.)”

“Types. Coll. B. Neumoegen.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 2 (both in NMNH): (1) “Aegeria nicotianae Hy. Edw., ♀, Type”; “TYPE”; “Typicum specimen”; “Tex.” (male). (2) “Aegeria nicotianae Hy. Edw.”; “Boll, from gall on Q. nigra. inquilinous—Bred Apr.”; “J. Boll, Texas”; “nicotianae, ♂ genitalia on slide, AB, May 12, 1939” (male).

DISCUSSION: There is another male in the AMNH labeled “Tex.”; “No. 15946, Collection Hy. Edw.”, but lacks a type label as does the second syntype listed above. The first syntype listed above is a male and not a female as indicated on the label, and since it is the only specimen found labeled “Type,” this male syntype in the NMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

149. Sesia nigella Hulst, 1881:75

“Two specimens, ♂ and ♀, taken in coitu on a leaf of the swamp button-bush near Fairport, Western New York. The ♀, which was soon after by accident lost …”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 1 (in the AMNH): “Sesia nigella Hulst, Type”; “No. 15983, Collection Hy. Edwards” (male).

DISCUSSION: Since Hulst states that the female was lost, the male syntype in the AMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

150. Carmenta nigra Beutenmuller, 1894:96

“Type: One female from Utah. Coll. Chas. Palm.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the AMNH: “Carmenta nigra Beut., ♀, Type”; “Utah”; “No. 15934, Collection, Hy. Edwards.”

151. Sesia nomadaepennis Boisduval, 1869:63

“Trouvée sur les fleurs.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Type, S. nomadeipennis Bdv., a/c Hofer”; “Sesia nomadaepennis Bdv., California, Sp.G. Sphing. p. 399”; “Sessia nomadaepennis, Calif.”; “Oberthur Collection”; “j’ai envoyé en Jly 1882 la peinture à M. Edwards, Ch. Ob.”; “Albuna pyramidalis var. montana Hy. Edw., ♂”; “Typicum Specimen”; “Ex. Musaeo, Dris Boisduval.”

152. Aegeria novaroensis Hy. Edwards, 1881:199

“1 ♀. Soda Springs, Siskiyou Co., Cal. J. Behrens.”

“1 ♀. Novaro, Mendocino Co., Cal. J. Behrens.”

“Types. Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 2 (both in AMNH): (1) “Aegeria novaroensis Behrens, Type”; “Soda Springs, California”; “No. 15888, Collection Hy. Edw.” (female). (2) “Aegeria novaroensis Behrens, 9, Type”; “Novarro, June, 76”; “No. 15889, Collection Hy. Edw.” (female).

DISCUSSION: The first syntype was erroneously determined as a male in the original description. Because the second specimen has the date of capture, this female syntype from Novarro in the AMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

153. Aegeria odyneripennis Walker, 1856:42

“Female.”

“a. Nova Scotia. Presented by E. Doubleday, Esq.”

“b--d. Nova Scotia. From Lieut. Redman’s collection.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 4 (all in BMNH): (1) “71, Aegeria odyneripennis”; “R”; “N. Scotia, Redman”; “Type” (female). (2) “R”; “N. Scotia, Redman” (female). (3) “R”; “N. Scotia, Redman” (female). (4) “N. Scotia” (male).

DISCUSSION: Due to the more complete labeling, the first female syntype in the BMNH listed above has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

154. Carmenta ogalala Engelhardt, 1946:73

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56834. Described from male holotype from Durango, Colo. (Oslar) … all in the United States National Museum.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in NMNH: “Conopia ogalala Engelh. ♂”; “USNM Type No.”; “Coll. G. P. Engelhardt”; “Oslar, Durango, Col.”

155. Aegeria opalescens Hy. Edwards, 1881:199

“3 ♂. Virginia City, Nevada. (H. E.)”

“1 ♀. Colorado. (Morrison.)”

“Type. Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 2 (1 in NMNH, 1 in AMNH): (1) “Aegeria opalescens Hy. Edw., Type”; “TYPE”; “Typicum specimen”; “Nev.” (male, NMNH). (2) “Aegeria opalescens Hy. Edw., Type”; “Colorado”; “No. 15834, Collection Hy. Edw.” (male, AMNH).

DISCUSSION: Two additional males labeled “Nevada” and “F. T.” are in the collection at MSU but lack the handwritten “type” labels, as does a male in the E. L. Graef Collection at the NMNH also labeled “Nev.” It is impossible to say which of these males were part of the original type series. It is probably correct to assume that the male syntype from Colorado is in fact the female eluded to in the description, the sex being incorrectly determined. The male syntype in the NMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

156. Pyrrhotaenia orthocarpi Hy. Edwards, 1881: 204

“3 ♂. 1 ♀. On Orthocarpus luteus. Nutt. Washoe Lake, Nevada, (H. E.)”

“Types Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 3 (all in AMNH): (1) “Pyrrhotaenia orthocarpi Hy. Edw., Type”; “Nevada”; “5049”; “No. 15961, Collection Hy. Edw.” (male). (2) “Nevada”; “5049”; “No. 15962, Collection Hy. Edw.” (male). (3) “Nevada”; “5049”; “No. 15963, Collection Hy. Edw.” (male).

DISCUSSION: The female of the type series could not be found. Three additional males labeled “Nevada” are at MSU, but like the second and third syntypes listed above, all lack a type label. The first male syntype in the AMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

157. Sannina pacifica Riley, 1891:393

(Described both males and females from California.)

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 9 (all in NMNH): (1) “Sannina pacifica Riley”; “U.S.N.M. Type No. 345”; “Santa Clara Co., Cal.”; “June”; “417” (female). (2) “pacifica Riley”; “Santa Clara Co., Cal.”; “July”; “417”; “Coll. G. P. Engelhardt” (female). (3) “Santa Clara Co., Cal.”; “July”; “Barnes Collection” (female). (4) “Santa Clara Co., Cal”; “417”; “Synanthedon opalescens pacifica Riley, ♀”; “opalescens v. pacifica R., ♀ genitalia on slide, AB, Dec. 10, 1936” (female). (5) “Santa Clara Co., Cal.”; “417”; “Synanthedon opalescens pacifica Riley, ♂”; “opalescens v. pacifica R., ♂ genitalia on slide, AB, Dec. 10, 1936” (male). (6) “Santa Clara Co., Cal”; “May”; “417”; “Aegeria in roots of peach”; “Sanninoidea opalescens Hy. Edw., ♂” (male). (7) “Santa Clara Co., Cal”; “July”; “417” (male). (8) “Santa Clara Co., Cal.”; “July”; “417” (male). (9) “Santa Clara Co., Cal.”; “June”; “417”; “Barnes Collection” (male).

DISCUSSION: Since no reference was made to any one type in the original description, all of the above specimens in NMNH are treated as syntypes. The first female listed above in the NMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

158. Trochilium pacificum Hy. Edwards, 1881:180

“1 ♂. Washington Ter. (Morrison), 1 ♀. California, (R. H. Stretch).”

“Types. Coll. B. Neumoegen. J. Akhurst.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 3 (2 in AMNH, 1 in NMNH): (1) “Trochilium pacificum Hy. Edw. ♂; Type”; “Sta. Barbara, California”; “No. 15820, Collection, Hy. Edw.” (male, AMNH). (2) “Trochilium pacificum Hy. Edw., ♀, Type”; “S. Bernardino, California”; “No. 15822, Collection, Hy. Edw.” (female, AMNH). (3) “Trochilium pacificum Hy. Edw., Type”; “U.S.N.M. Type”; “Typicum specimen”; “Wash. Terr.” (female, NMNH).

DISCUSSION: Engelhardt (1946) states, “Type.—Female. In the United States National Museum. Remarks.—Hy. Edwards’ description of Trochilium pacificum is based on a female (Washington Territory). He had two specimens, stated to be male and female, but both are females….” This interpretation is probably correct; therefore, the female syntype from Washington Territory in the NMNH has been selected, labeled, and designated as the lectotype.

159. Paranthrene palmiana Dalla Torre, 1925:160, new name pro Larunda palmii Neumoegen, 1891.

LECTOTYPE: Ipso facto type of palmii Neumogen.

160. Sesia palmii Beutenmuller, 1902:126

“Habitat.—Phoenix, Arizona.”

“Described from two males. Types, Collection Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., and Charles Palm.”

LECTOTYPE: Female, in the NMNH; “Sesia palmii Beutm., Type”; “U.S.N.M. Lectotype, G. P. Engelhardt”; “Type”; “Phoenix, Ariz.”

DISCUSSION: Engelhardt (1946) designated the lectotype stating, “Remarks.—Beutenmuller’s description of this remarkable species is not based on the male, as stated, but on the female. The identity of the very dissimilar sexes was established many years after the description of the female in 1902. Of the three known female types from the original lot collected by Kuntze at Phoenix, Ariz., one is in the collection of the United States National Museum, bearing Beutenmuller’s label and designation as type. It has been made the lectotype.”

161. Fatua palmii Hy. Edwards, 1887:145

“1 ♀. Enterprise, Florida. Taken by Mr. C. Palm, to whom I dedicate the species.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the AMNH: “Fatua palmii Hy. Edw., Type”; “Florida”; “No. 15792, Collection Hy. Edw.”

162. Larunda palmii Neumoegen, 1891:108

“Hab.—South Arizona. Types, three males and one female; coll. Charles Palm and B. Neumoegen.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 4 (2 in AMNH, 2 in NMNH): (1) “Larunda palmii Neumoegen, ♂, Type”; “Ariz.”; “Collection Chas. Palm” (male, AMNH). (2) “Larunda palmii Neumoegen, ♂, Type” (label appears to be in different handwriting than above male specimen); “Ariz.”; “No. 16757, Collection Hy. Edw.” (male, AMNH). (3) “Larunda palmii Neumoegen, ♀, Type”; “Ariz.”; “TYPE”; “Typicum specimen” (female, NMNH). (4) “TYPE”; “Typicum specimen”; “Ariz.” (male, NMNH).

DISCUSSION: Engelhardt states, “Type.—Male. In the United States National Museum …” However, the male listed above from the NMNH is poorly labeled and does not have a handwritten type label as on the other three syntypes. Since it is fairly certain that the first syntype listed from the Palm Collection was used in the original description, this male syntype from the AMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

163. Zenodoxus palmii race incanae Engelhardt, 1946:198

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56857. From Yuma, Ariz.”

“Food plant.—Sphaeralcea incana.”

“Remarks.—Described from male type …”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “USNM Type No. 56857, incanae Engelh.”; “Yuma, Ariz., x pupa VI.15.35”; “root borer, Sphaeralcea incana”; “near Zenodoxus palmii, G.P.E.”; “♂ genitalia on slide, AB, Nov. 23, 1935”.

164. Zenodoxus palmii race sphaeralceae Engelhardt, 1946:198

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56856. From Snake River, Whitman County, Wash., opposite Clarkson.”

“Remarks.—Described from male type …”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “USNM Type No. 56856, sphaeralceae Engelh.”; “Snake River, Whitman Co., Wn., opp. Clarkston, E. 4–IX–37, J.F.G. Clarke”; “reared from Sphaeralcea munroana.”

165. Paranthrene pepsidiformis Hubner, 1825:32, figs. 533, 534

“Heimath: Georgien in Nordamerika.”

TYPE: Unknown.

166. Alcathoe pepsioides Engelhardt, 1946:103

“Type.—Male, in the United States National Museum.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Alcathoe pepsioides Engelhardt, Holotype, ♂”; “5302, on Clematis ligusticifolia, Durango, Col., iss, Jun. 7.99”; “♂ genitalia on slide no. 75941, T.D. Eichlin.”

167. Alcathoe pepsioides atra Engelhardt, 1925b: 158

“Types. Holotype male and allotype female, collection G. P. Engelhardt, Brooklyn Museum.”

“Described from three specimens collected by J. Woodgate in the mountains near Jemez Springs, N.M., at altitude of 7,000 feet.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Alcathoe pepsioides subsp. atra Engelhardt, Holotype, ♂”; “Aug. 8, 7000”; “Jemez Sprgs., N. M., Woodgate.”

168. Alcathoe pepsioides ferrugata Engelhardt, 1946:105

“Types.—U.S.N.M. No. 56839. From Rifle, Colo.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Alcathoe pepsioides race ferrugata Engelh., Type, ♂”; “Rifle, Colo., xp. VIII.28. 1927”; “Coll. G. P. Engelhardt.”

169. Memythrus perlucida Busck, 1915:80

“Type: Cat. No. 19223, U.S.N.M.”

“Reared by Mr. Brunner from Populus trichocapa.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the NMNH: “Memythrus perlucida Busck, ♀ Type”; “Populus trichocarpa”; “Missoula, Mont., J. Brunner, Colr.”; “Jun. 5/14, reared”; “12339, Hopk. U.S.”; “Genitalia Slide, By T. D. Eichlin, USNM 75999.”

DISCUSSION: In addition to the female specimen labeled “Type” in the NMNH, there are two males and one female labeled “Cotype”, all with Cat. No. 19223.

170. Aegeria perplexa Hy. Edwards, 1881:192

“1 ♂. Texas. (J. Boll.)”

“Type. Coll. B. Neumoegen.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Aegeria perplexa Hy. Edw., Type”; “TYPE”; “Typicum specimen”; “B. N.”; “Tex.”

171. Apis persica Thomas, 1824:37

“Wings violet blue.”

“Abdomen blue, with one interrupted yellow band.”

TYPE: Unknown.

DISCUSSION: There is no mention of the number of specimens upon which the description was written or where the series was kept, if it was kept at all. The species was reared from peach trees in Baltimore, Maryland, and the description is obviously of a female of the peach tree borer, Sanninoidea exitiosa (Say), even though the author considered it to be a hymenopteran.

172. Carmenta phoradendri Engelhardt, 1946:51

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56829, male. Collected at San Antonio, Tex.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in NMNH: “Conopia phoradendri Engelh. ”; “U.S.N.M. Type No”; “Coll., G. P. Engelhardt”; “San Antonio, Tex., IV.15. 1928.”

173. Parharmonia piceae Dyar, 1904:106

“Three specimens, Hoquiam, Wash. (H. E. Burke), bred on Picea sitchensis; Keyport, Wash. (C. V. Piper).”

“Type.—No. 7837, U.S. National Museum.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 3 (all in NMNH): (1) “Parharmonia (Sesia) piceae Dyar, Type”; “U.S.N.M. Type No. 7837”; “Picea sitchensis”; “Burke Colr., Hoquiam, Wn.”; “2454a, Hopk.U.S.” (male, abdomen has been glued on). (2) “Keyport, Wash.”; “U.S.N.M. Type No. 7837” (female, abdomen missing). (3) “Keyport, Wash.”; “U.S.N.M. Type No. 7837” (female, abdomen missing).

DISCUSSION: Due to the relatively better condition of the specimen and the exactness of the label data, the male syntype in the NMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

174. Aegeria pictipes Grote and Robinson, 1868: 182

“Habitat.—Atlantic District, (Penna.).”

TYPES: Lost (Engelhardt, 1946).

DISCUSSION: Grote and Robinson describe both the male and female. The male is figured on pl. 2: fig. 64.

175. Aegeria pini Kellicott, 1881:5

“During the past summer I succeeded in getting the moth of one of them…” “The moth (female) expands 1.2 inch.” “The male not seen.”

TYPE: Unknown.

DISCUSSION: Engelhardt (1946) states, “Type.— Male, In the collection of D. S. Kellicott.”. The type was not found.

176. Aegeria pinorum Behrens, 1889:163

The description appeared in an article by G. H. French, Carbondale, Illinois, in which he writes, “It comes from Monterey, in Pinus insignis, from which larvae have been obtained. From these larvae he bred one specimen from which the drawing was made.”

“Mr. Behrens did not state whether the specimen was a male or a female, but I think from the drawing it was a male.”

HOLOTYPE: Unknown.

DISCUSSION: It is not clear whether Behrens or French retained the specimen, but it was probably the former since the drawing and brief description had been forwarded to French and not the specimen itself.

177. Aegeria pleciaeformis Walker, 1856:40

“Male.”

“a. Nova Scotia. From Lieut. Redman’s collection.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the BMNH: “66, Aegeria pleciaeformis”; “N. Scotia”; “Type.”

178. Aegeria polistiformis Harris, 1854:216

“The roots of cultivated grape vines in the Southeastern States have been observed, by Dr. F. J. Kron, of Albermarle, North Carolina, to be so much injured by borers as to prevent the ripening of the fruit, and finally to cause the decay and death of the vines.” “He has also favored me with samples of injured vine-roots, and specimens of the insects in all their stages, together with an account of his observations and experiments upon them.”

TYPES: Apparently lost or destroyed.

DISCUSSION: Refer to the pertinent statement in the “Introduction.”

179. Vitacea polistiformis form huron Engelhardt, 1946:154

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56847. Described from male type from Pentwater, Mich., and female paratype from Miller, Ind.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Paranthrene polistiformis huron, Engelh., ♂”; “Pentwater, Mich., VII.20.20”; “Col. by E. Liljeblad”; “Coll., Engelhardt, G. P.”

180. Pyrrhotaenia polygoni Hy. Edwards, 1881:202

“ ♂. San Miguel, Calif. (H. E.) On Polygonum maritium. L.”

“Type. Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the AMNH: “Pyrrhotaenia polygoni Hy. Edw., Type”; “S. Miquel, California”; “No. 15970, Collection Hy. Edw.”

DISCUSSION: The specimen Edwards described was a female and not a male as indicated.

181. Zenodoxus potentillae Hy. Edwards, 1881:205

“1 ♂. 2 ♀. Lake Tahoe, Cal. San Rafael, Cal. (H. E.) With Z. heucherae.”

“Type. Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 3 (all in AMNH): (1) “Zenodoxus potentillae Hy. Edw., Type”; “Sierra Nev., Cal.”; “No. 15993, Collection Hy. Edw.” (female). (2) “5051, Sierra Nev., Cal.”; “No. 15996, Collection Hy. Edw.” (badly damaged, sex undetermined). (3) “California”; “1278”; “No. 15995, Collection Hy. Edw.” (male).

DISCUSSION: One additional specimen in the NMNH labeled, “5051, Sierra Nev., Cal.”; “No. 15994, Collection Hy. Edwards”, may be part of the material from which this species was described, but only three specimens were mentioned in the original description. The first female syntype listed above from the AMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

182. Sciapteron praecedens Hy. Edwards 1883:155

“1. ♀ N. Carolina. Coll. B. Neumoegen.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the NMNH: “Sciapteron praecedens Hy. Edw., ♀ Type”; “Type” “Typicum specimen”; “N. C.”; “Genitalia Slide, By T. D. Eichlin, USNM 75900.”

183. Aegeria praestans Hy. Edwards, 1882b:98

“1 ♂. Washington Ter. (H. K. Morrison).”

“Type, Coll. B. Neumoegen.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Aegeria praestans Hy. Ed., Type”; “Pyrrhotaenia praestans Hy. Edw.”; “TYPE”; “Typicum specimen”; “Was. T.”

184. Aegeria prosopis Hy. Edwards, 1882b:99

“Arizona. 1 ♂. Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

“This singular species was raised from a gall on the Mesquit. (Prosopis juliflora, D.C.)”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the AMNH: “Aegeria prosopis Hy. Ed., Type”; “from galls of Mesquit, Ft. Grant, Ariz., May.82”; “No. 15943, Collection, Hy. Edw.”

185. Aegeria proxima Hy. Edwards, 1881:201

“White Mts. N. H. (Morrison.)”

“Type. Coll. F. Tepper.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in MSU: “Aegeria proxima Hy. Edw., Type”; “White Mts., N. H.”; “F. T.”

186. Aegeria pyralidiformis Walker; 1856:44

“Female.”

“a. United States. Presented by E. Doubleday. Esq.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the BMNH: “Aegeria pyralidiformis, Type, ♀”; “74, Aegeria pyralidiformis”; “46.110, U.S.”; “Type”; “F3/10.”

187. Carmenta pyralidiformis var. aurantis Engelhardt, 1946:47

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56827, male. Also female allotype, 32 male and 28 female paratypes. Collected at Mobile, Ala. In the United States National Museum.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Synanthedon pyralidiformis sub sp. aurantis Engelhardt, ♂ Type”; “Coll. G. P. Engelhardt”; “Mobile, Ala., IX.19.13, Dukes.”

188. Aegeria pyramidalis Walker, 1856:40

“a--e. St. Martin’s Falls, Albany River, Hudson’s Bay. Presented by Dr. Barnston” (described only the male).

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 1 (in BMNH): “Sesia pyramidalis, no. 229, 514 (very difficult to read, could be 915)”; “… (unreadable)”; “Type, ♂”; “F.317”; “Type” (male).

DISCUSSION: One other specimen, a female, with very similar labeling was seen in the BMNH but had the label, “N. Scotia, Redman” and, therefore, could not be considered as a syntype. No other syntypes could be found, so the above mentioned male syntype in the BMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

189. Aegeria pyri Harris, 1830:2

“There is an insect which has lately been discovered in the trunks of the pear tree, feeding beneath the bark.”

“Mr. Downer furnished me with some of these insects …”

TYPES: Apparently lost or destroyed.

DISCUSSION: Refer to the pertinent statement in the “Introduction.”

190. Aegeria querci Hy. Edwards, 1882a:48

“From galls of ‘Live oak,’ Arizona.”

“Type. Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the AMNH: “Aegeria querci Hy. Ed., Type”; “from galls of live oak, St. Grnad, Ariz., April.1882”; “No. 15942, Collection, Hy. Edw.”

191. Aegeria? quinque-caudata Ridings, 1862:277

“Obs. This remarkable species was captured by myself in Middletown, Frederick County, Virginia, and is now in the collection of the Entomological Society of Philadelphia.”

(He described and figured a male specimen.)

TYPE: Unknown.

192. Aegeria refulgens Hy. Edwards, 1881:199

“1 ♂. Georgia. (Morrison.)”

“Type. Coll. F. Tepper.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in MSU: “Type”; “F. T.”; “Georgia.”

DISCUSSION: Note that the sex of the type is a female and not a male as indicated erroneously by Edwards.

193. Albuna resplendens Hy. Edwards, 1881:186

“1 ♂. Soda Springs, Siskiyou county, Cal. (I. Behrens.) 2 ♂. Sierra Nevada, Cal. (S. Brannan.)”

“Type. Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 1 (in AMNH): “Albuna resplendens Hy. Edw., Type”; “Soda Springs, California”; “No. 15872, Collection Hy. Edw.”; “Genitalia mounted on slide no. 0011 T.D.E.” (female).

DISCUSSION: Engelhardt (1946) says, “Type.—Female. Collected in Siskiyou County, Calif. In the United States National Museum.” This specimen could not be found. Also, the two females from Sierra Nevada, California, were not found. The above listed specimen labeled “Type” is thought to be the specimen from Soda Springs mentioned in the original description, but Edwards had misidentified the sex. The female syntype in the AMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

194. Sesia rhododendri Beutenmuller, 1909:82

“Habitat.—Cheltenham, Pa.”

“Described from twenty-five specimens kindly sent to me by Prof. H. A. Surface, the economic zoologist of Pennsylvania.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 19 (12 NMNH, 4 AMNH, 1 MCZ, 2 ANSP): (1) “Sesia rhododrendri Beut.”; “COTYPE No., A.M.N.H.”; “Bred Spem, V–26”; “Cheltenham, Pa., V–2”; “9025b” (male, NMNH). (2) “Sesia rhododrendri Beut.”; “COTYPE No., A.M.N.H.”; “Bred Spem, V–24”; “Cheltenham, Pa., V–2”; “9025b” (male, NMNH). (3) “Sesia rhododrendri Beut.”; “COTYPE No., A.M.N.H.”; “Bred Speri, V–21”; “Cheltenham, Pa., V-2”; “9025b” (male, NMNH). (4) “Sesia rhododrendri Beut., ♂”; “COTYPE No., A.M.N.H.”; “U.S.N.M. Cotype No. 12204”; “Bred Spem, VI–29”; “Cheltenham, Pa., V–2”; “9025b” (male, NMNH). (5) “rhododendri Beut., ♂”; “COTYPE No., A.M.N.H.”; “Bred Spem, VI-16”; “Cheltenham, Pa., V-2”; “9025b”; “♂ genitalia on slide, June 4, 1940, J.F.G.C. 3003” (male, NMNH). (6) “Sesia rhododendri Beutm., ♂”; “Synanthedon rhododendri Beuten., ♂”; “COTYPE No.”; “Bred Spem, V♂28”; “Cheltenham, Pa., V–2” (male, NMNH). (7) “Synanthedon rhododendri Beuten., ♀”; “COTYPE No., A.M.N.H.”; “Bred Spem, V-28”; “Cheltenham, Pa., V-2”; “9025b” (male, NMNH). (8) “Sesia rhododendri Beutm., ♂”; “COTYPE No.”; “Bred Spem, V-28”; “Cheltenham, Pa., V-2” (male, NMNH). (9) “Sesia rhododendri Beut., ♀”; “COTYPE No. A.M.N.H.”; “U.S.N.M. Cotype No.”; “Bred Spem, V-30”; “Cheltenham, Pa., V-2”; “9025b” (female, NMNH). (10) “Sesta rhododendri Beut., ♀”; “COTYPE No. A.M.N.H.”; “Bred Spem, VI-2”; “Cheltenham, Pa., V-2”; “9025b” (female, NMNH). (11) “Sesia rhododendri Beutm., ♀”; “COTYPE”; “Bred Spem, V1–13”; “Cheltenham, Pa., V-2” (female, NMNH). (12) “COTYPE No. A.M.N.H.”; “Bred Spem, V1–21”; “Cheltenham, Pa., V-2”; “9025b” (female, NMNH). (13) “Sesia rhododendri Beut.”; “Bred Spem, V-26”; “Cheltenham, Pa., V-2”; “9025b” (male, AMNH). (14) “Sesia rhododendri Beut.”; “Bred Spem, V-28”; “Cheltenham, Pa., V-2”; “9025b” (male, AMNH). (15) “Sesia rhododendri Beut.”; “Bred Spem, VI-6”; “Cheltenham, Pa., V-2”; “9025b” (female, AMNH). (16) “Sesia rhododendri Beut.”; “Bred Spem, VI-2”; “Cheltenham, Pa., V-2”; “9025b” (female, AMNH). (17) “Sesia rhododendri Beutm., Type ♂”; “Bred Spem, VI-18”; “Cheltenham, Pa., V-2”; “9025b”; “TYPE”; “M.C.Z. Paratype 25570” (female, MCZ). (18) “Sesia rhododendri Beut.”; “Bred Spem, VI-4”; “Cheltenham, Pa., V-2”; “9025b”; Co-TYPE, A.M.N.H.”; “Type No. 5000.1” (male, ANSP). (19) “Sesia rhododendri Beut.”; “Bred Spem, VI-4”; “Cheltenham, Pa., V-2”; “9025b”; “Co-TYPE, A.M.N.H.”; “Type No. 5000.2” (female, ANSP).

DISCUSSION: The remaining six syntypes could not be located. Most of the specimens of the type series were not spread. The male syntype listed above as (8) from the NMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

195. Conopia richardsi Engelhardt, 1946:87

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56837, male. Allotype female and two male and two female paratypes also in the United States National Museum.”

“Remarks.—Holotype, allotype, and one male and one female paratype were collected on flowers in moist meadows along a river in Clarke County, Ga., June 15, 1928 (A. Glenn Richards).”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “richardsi Engelh., ♂”; “USNM Type No. 56837, richardsi Engelh.”; “Coll., G. P. Engelhardt”; “Clarke Co., Georgia, Jun. 15, 1928, Richards.”

196. Albuna rileyana Hy. Edwards, 1881:187

“1 ♀. Cadet, Missouri. (Prof. C. V. Riley.)”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the AMNH: “Albuna rileyana Hy. Edw., ♀, Type”; “Cadet, Mo., Aug. 25/77”; “No. 15867, Collection Hy. Edw.”

DISCUSSION: Engelhardt (1946) writes, “United States National Museum records: Cadet, Mo., female type, August 25, 1877? (Riley) …” This specimen could not be found in the NMNH and probably refers to the type in the AMNH. There is a female labeled in the NMNH “… Type 2”; “Col.”, but is in fact not conspecific with rileyana.

197. Sciapteron robiniae Hy. Edwards, 1880:72

“2 ♂, 3 ♀. Contra Costa County, Cal.; Virginia City, Nev.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 4 (all in AMNH): (1) “Sciapteron robiniae Hy. Edw., Type”; “3496, Nevada”; “No. 15786, Collection Hy. Edw.” (male). (2) “Sciapteron robiniae Hy. Edw., Type”; “3496, Califor.” (female). (3) “3496, Nevada”; “No. 15787, Collection Hy. Edw.” (female). (4) “3496, Nevada”; “No. 15788, Collection Hy. Edw.” (female).

DISCUSSION: The other male specimen mentioned in the original description could not be found. Engelhardt (1946) simply states, “Type.—Male. In the American Museum of Natural History.” To avoid any possible confusion in the future, the male syntype in the AMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

198. Paranthrene robiniae form palescens Engelhardt, 1946:144

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56846. From Palm Springs, Calif.”

“Described from female type and female paratype from the type locality.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the NMNH: “Paranthrene robiniae palescens Engelh., ♀”; “USNM Type No. 56846, palescens Engelh.” “Fig.”; “Palm Spg. Canyon, VI.24.1921 (?), Calif.”

199. Zenodoxus rubens Engelhardt, 1946:200

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56860.”

“Remarks.—Described from male holotype, female allotype, 4 male and 3 female paratypes from Davis Mountains, and one male paratype from Globe, Ariz.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Zenodoxus rubens Engelhardt, ♂ Holotype”; “for illustration”; “Davis Mts., Tex., X.10–15.1928, 5000 ft., O. C. Poling.”

200. Sesia rubescens Hulst, 1881:76

“One specimen from Colorado.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the AMNH: “Sesia rubescens Hulst Type”; “Col.”; “No. 15856, Collection, Hy. Edwards.”

201. Aegeria rubi Riley, 1874:111

“Described from 6 ♂’s, 6 ♀’s, bred from Rubus.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 7 (all in NMNH): (1) “Trochilium rubi Riley”; “9589, Trochilium rubi, iss: Sept. 26/72”; “Type No. 344, U.S.N.M.” (female). (2) “Type No. 344, U.S.N.M.” (male). (3) “9589, Trochilium rubi, iss: Sept. 20/78”; “Type No. 344, U.S.N.M.” (female). (4) “9589, iss: Oct. 14/78” (male). (5) “9589, iss: Oct. 18/78” (female). (6) “9589, iss: Oct. 21/78” (male). (7) “On blackberry, Sept. 20/78” (male).

DISCUSSION: The year 72 on the label of the first syntype appears at first glance to read 78, but the 8 on closer examination turns out to be a poorly written 2. The remaining syntypes were apparently labeled subsequently, and 78 was erroneously carried over. None of the syntypes are in very good shape and the best male specimen lacks label data. The first female syntype in the NMNH listed above has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

202. Sesia rubicincta Beutenmuller, 1909:84

“Habitat. — Palmerlee, Cochise County, Ariz. August.”

“Type, one female, collection of Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences, collected by Jacob Doll.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the NMNH; “Sesia rubricincta Beut., Type”; “TYPE”; “Type No.”; “Fig.”; “C. Shaeffer”; “Palmerly, Cochise Co., Ariz., VIII.”

203. Aegeria rubristigma Kellocott, 1892b:211

“One male and one female obtained.”

“Obtained from Cynips gall on twigs of Quercus palustris, collected by my friend, E. E. Bogue, at Sugar Grove, Ohio, and by myself at Central College, Ohio. One imago appeared June 10 and one July 15.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 1 (male, in AMNH): “Aegeria rubristigma Kellicott, Type”; “Ohio”; “No. 15944, Collection Hy. Edwards.”

DISCUSSION: Since the female of the type series could not be found, the male syntype above in the AMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

204. Aegeria rubofascia Hy. Edwards, 1881:191

“1 ♂ Georgia. (Morrison.)”

“Type. Coll. E. L. Graef.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the AMNH: “Aegeria rubrofascia Hy. Ed., Type”; “No. 15893, Collection Hy. Edw.”; “Ga.”

205. Carmenta ruficornis Hy. Edwards, 1881:184

“1 ♂. Georgia. (Morrison.)”

“Type. Coll. E. L. Graef.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Carmenta ruficornis Hy. Ed.”; “Col., E. L. Graef”; “TYPE”; “Ga.”

206. Albuna rutilans Hy. Edwards, 1881:186

“1 ♀. Virginia City, Nevada. (H. E.)”

“Type. Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the AMNH: “Aegeria rutilans Hy. Edw., Type”; “Nevada”; “5048”; “No. 15915, Collection Hy. Edw.”

207. Carmenta sanborni Hy. Edwards, 1881:185

“2 ♂. 1 ♀. Andover, Mass. (F. G. Sanborn.)”

“Types. Coll. Boston Soc. Natural History.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 1 (in AMNH): “Carmenta sanborni Hy. Ed., Type”; “Andover, Mass.”; “No. 15933, Collection, Hy. Edw.” (female).

DISCUSSION: Engelhardt (1946) states, “Types.—Female. In the Boston Society of Natural History. Remarks.—The original description of sanborni, said to be based on two females and one male, applies to the female alone. It is doubtful whether Hy. Edwards had male examples of the species, as sexual dissimilarities would have made their recognition unavoidable. The types are two females.” Since the type-material from the Boston Society of Natural History has to date not been located and may be lost or destroyed, the female syntype from the AMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

208. Aegeria sapygaeformis Walker, 1856:45–46 “Male.”

“a. United States. Presented by E. Doubleday, Esq.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the BMNH: “Aegeria sapygaeformis, Type, ♂”; “78, Aegeria sapygaeformis”; “46.110, U.S.”; “237”; “Type.”

209. Aegeria saxifragae Hy. Edwards, 1881:190

“1 ♂. Colorado. (Morrison.)”

“Type. Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the AMNH: “Aegeria saxifragae Hy. Edw., ♂, Type”; “Colorado”; “No. 15885, Collection Hy. Edw.”

210. Sciapteron scepsiformis Hy. Edwards, 1881:183

“1 ♂. 1 ♀. Texas. (J. Boll.)”

“Type. Coll. B. Neumoegen.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 1 (NMNH): “TYPE, Holo.”; “Sciapteron scepsiformis Hy. Edw., Type”; “Typicum specimen”; “Tex.” (female).

DISCUSSION: The male syntype mentioned by Edwards could not be found; therefore, the female syntype in the NMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

211. Aegeria scitula Harris, 1839:313

“Expands about eight lines.”

TYPES: Apparently lost or destroyed.

DISCUSSION: Refer to the pertinent statement in the “Introduction.”

212. Sesia seminole Beutenmuller, 1899c:255

“Habitat: Lake Worth, Florida.”

“Collected by Mrs, A. T. Slosson. Types Coll Am. Mus. Nat. Hist.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 4 (3 in AMNH, 1 in NMNH): (1) “Sesia seminole Beut., ♂, Type”; “Florida”; “Seminole B., ♂ genitalia on slide, AB, Jan. 16, 1940” (male, AMNH). (2) “Sesia seminole Beut., ♂, Type”; “Florida” (female, AMNH). (3) “Sesia seminole Beut., ♀, Type”; “Florida” (female, AMNH). (4) “Sesia seminole Beut., ♀, Type”; “Lake Worth, Fla.” (female, NMNH).

DISCUSSION: Engelhardt (1946) writes, “Male.—The unique type was figured by Beutenmuller. Through the courtesy of the American Museum of Natural History it was possible to prepare a slide of the genitalia of the type.” Undoubtedly, he refers to the male syntype listed above. However, since the specimen was not labeled holotype and was not designated as a lectotype, to avoid possible confusion in the future, the male syntype in the AMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

213. Sciapteron seminole Neumoegen, 1894:330

“Hab.—Florida. Type ♀ coll. B. Neumoegen.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the NMNH: “Sciapteron seminole Neumoegen, Type, ♀”; “Typicum specimen”; “Fla.”

214. Aegeria seneciodes Hy. Edwards, 1881:198

“1 ♂. California. On Senecio Douglassii. D. C. (H. E.)”

“1 ♀. Nevada. (H. K. Morrison.)”

“Types. Coll. Hy. Edwards. F. Tepper.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 2 (1 in AMNH, 1 in MSU): (1) “Aegeria senecioides Hy. Ed., Type”; “7982”; “California”; “No. 15975, Collection Hy. Edw.”; “seneciodes, ♂ genitalia on slide, AB, Jan. 18, 1910.” (2) “Aegeria senecioides Hy. Edw.”; “Nevada”; “F. T.” (female, MSU).

DISCUSSION: Since the male syntype from AMNH has a type label and a slide prepared of the genitalia, it has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

215. Bembecia sequoiae Hy. Edwards, 1881:181

“8 ♂. 6 ♀. Mendocino Co., Calif. (O. Baron).”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 6 (4, AMNH, 2, NMNH): (1) “Bembecia sequoiae Hy. Ed., ♂”; “Mendicino Co., California”; “No. 15811, Collection Hy. Edw.” (male, AMNH). (2) “Bembecia sequoiae Hy. Ed., ♀”; “Medicino Co., California”; “No. 15811, Collection Hy. Edw.” (female, AMNH). (3) “Mendicino Co., California”; “No. 15811, Collection Hy. Edw.” (male, AMNH). (4) “Mendicino Co., California”; “No. 15811, Collection Hy. Edw.” (female, AMNH). (5) “Bembecia sequoiae Hy. Edw., Cala., Coll. Edw. L. Graef.”. “Mendicino Co., California” (female, NMNH). (6) “Bembecia sequoiae Hy. Edw.”; “Bembecia sequoiae Hy. Edw., Amer. Bor.”; “Oberthur Collection”; “Mendicino Co., California” (female, NMNH, abdomen and head missing).

DISCUSSION: Only 6 of 14 specimens mentioned by Edwards in the original description could be located. It should be noted that none of the syntypes listed above had a type label, and it is assumed that no type labels in Edwards’s handwriting were made for the type series. The first male syntype listed above from the AMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

216. Aegeria sexfasciata Hy. Edwards, 1881:193

“2 ♂ Texas. (J. Boll. Belfrage.)”

“Types Coll. Hy. Edwards, B. Neumoegen.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 2 (1 in the AMNH, 1 in the NMNH): (1) “Aegeria sexfasciata Hy. Edw., Type”; “Dallas, Tex., Boll”; “No. 15903, Collection Hy. Edw.”; “agrees with type of S. bollii Hy. Edw.” (male, AMNH). (2) “Aegeria sexfasciata Hy. Ed.”; “TYPE”; “Typicum specimen”; “Tex.” (male, NMNH).

DISCUSSION: Another specimen in the NMNH labeled “… Type” cannot be part of the type series since it is from “N. C.” The male syntype from the AMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

217. Zenodoxus sidalceae Engelhardt, 1946:196

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56855.”

“Remarks.—Described from male type, female, allotype, 5 male and 4 female paratypes from Pullman, Wash., and reared by J. F. Gates Clarke …”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Zenodoxus sidalceae Engelh., ♂, Type”; “5847”; “Collection, J. F. Clarke”; “reared from Sidalcea nervata”; “Pullman, Wa., J. F. Clarke, 29.VII.34.”

218. Sesia sigmoidea Beutenmuller, 1897:214

“Habitat: Walpole, Mass. One female, No. 15948, Coll. Hy. Edwards, A. M. N. H.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the AMNH: “Sesia sigmoidea Beut., ♀, Type”; “from Willow, Miss C. Guild, Walpole, Mas.”; “No. 15948, Collection Hy. Edwards”; “Aegeria asiliformis Rott.”

219. Trochilium simulans Grote, 1881:78

“Illinois, Algonquin. Collected by Dr. Nason, June 27th.” Grote: “ (my type is in perfect condition).”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the AMNH: “Trochilium simulans Grote, Type”; “N. Ill.”; “June 27, Algon.”; “No. 15790, Collection Hy. Edwards.”

220. Melittia snowii Hy. Edwards, 1882a:53

“2 ♂, Kansas, Prof. Snow, to whom I regardfully dedicate this very interesting species.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 1 (in the AMNH): “Melittia snowii Hy. Edw., Type”; “Kan., Snow”; “No. 15769, Collection Hy. Edwards” (Male).

DISCUSSION: Edwards mentions two specimens in the type series, but only the above syntype could be found. Therefore. the male syntype in the AMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

221. Larunda solituda Hy. Edwards, 1881:182

“ ♂. ♀. Texas (J. Boll.) (Coll. B. Neumoegen.) Kansas (H. Brous.) (Coll. C. V. Riley.)”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 1 (in NMNH): “Larunda solituda Hy. Edw., Type”; “Larunda solituda Hy. Edw., Type”; “Typicum specimen”; “Tex.” (male).

DISCUSSION: Though at least three specimens were indicated by Edwards in his description, only one male could be found. Therefore, the male syntype in the NMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

222. Pyrrhotaenia subaerea Hy. Edwards, 1883:156

“♂ … I example. Arizona. Coll. B. Neumoegen.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Pyrrhotaenia subaerea Hy. Edw., Type”; “TYPE”; “Typicum specimen”; “Arizona”; “subaerea, ♂ genitalia on slide, AB, May 24, 1939.”

223. Carmenta suffusata Engelhardt, 1946:74

“Type.—Only three rather worn examples are at hand. The type from McAlester, Pittsburg County, Okla., is labeled ‘bred from root,’ April 19 (C. E. Hood). The name of the plant is lacking. The paratypes, two females, come from Wichita National Forest, Comanche, Okla., July 14, 1931 (R. H. Painter), and from Sharon Springs, Wallace County, Kans. (A. B. Klots).”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 2 (both in NMNH): (1) “Chamaesphecia suffusata Engelh., ♂”; “Fig.”; “C. E. Hood, Collector”; “bred from root”; “emerged on 4/19”; “McAlester, Okl., 4/5” (male). (2) “Chamaesphecia suffusata Engelh. ♂”; “C. E. Hood Collector”; “bred from root”; “emerged on 4/19”; “McAlester, Okl., 4/15”; “♂ genitalia on slide, AB, Mar. 27, 1939” (male).

DISCUSSION: Engelhardt mentions three examples from three different localities. His collection at the NMNH contains three specimens, two labeled as above, and one female, his paratype from Comanche, Oklahoma. The other female paratype which he mentions from Kansas is not in the NMNH collection. Since none of the specimens were labeled type or had a USNM number, and two have the data described for the type, a lectotype should be designated. Therefore, the first syntype in the NMNH, being in the best condition, has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

224. Melittia superba Barnes and Lindsey, 1922: 122 (preocc., see M. lindseyi B. and B.)

“Described from six specimens taken in Seward Co., Kansas. Holotype ♂ … in coll. Barnes.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Melittia superba B. & L., Holotype, ♂”; “Seward Co., Kansas.”

225. Bembecia superba Hy. Edwards, 1881:181

“1 ♀. Washington Terr. (Morrison).”

“Type. Coll. E. L. Graef.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the NMNH: “Bembecia superba Hy. Ed., Type”; “TYPE”; “Col., E. L. Graef”; “Was. T.”

226. Aegeria syringae Harris, 1839:331

“Expands one inch and two lines. Larva lives in the trunks of Syringa vulgaris, the common lilac.”

TYPES: Apparently lost or destroyed.

DISCUSSION: Refer to the pertinent statement in the “Introduction.”

227. Sphinx tabaniformis Rottenburg, 1775:110

TYPES: Lost (Naumann, 1971).

228. Sesia tacoma Beutenmuller, 1898:240

“Habitat: 1 ♂, Big Horn Mts., Wyoming, July 11, 1896 (R. P. Currie), Type, U.S. National Museum.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Sesia tacoma Beuten., ♂, Type”; “U.S.N.M. Type No. 4358”; “RPCurrie, Collector”; “Big Hn. Mts., Wyo., Jul. 11, 96”; “tacoma Beut., ♂ genitalia on slide, AB, Nov. 8, 1939.”

229. Albuna tanaceti Hy. Edwards, 1881:188

“Several examples ♂. ♀. Colorado, (H. K. Morrison.) Mt. Hood, Oregon, (Morrison.) Califor., Sier. Nev., Cal., Vancouver Isld. (H. E.)”

“Colls. Neumoegen, Graef, Tepper, Hy. Edwards.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 4 (all in AMNH): (1) “Albuna tanaceti Hy. Edw., Type”; “Colorado”; “No. 15850, Collection Hy. Edw.” (female). (2) Albuna tanaceti Hy. Edw., Type”; “5042, Sierra Nev., Cal.,” “No. 15851, Collection Hy. Edw.” (female). (3) “Albuna tanaceti Hy. Edw., Type”; “Vancouver Island”; “No. 15843, Collection Hy. Edw.” (female). (4) “Albuna tanaceti Hy. Edw., Type”; “Vancouver Island”; “No. 15844, Collection Hy. Edw.” (female).

DISCUSSION: Only four females and no males could be found which could be associated with the type series as described. The second female syntype listed above from the AMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype, because it has an original Hy. Edwards number on the label.

230. Aegeria tecta Hy. Edwards, 1882a:56

“2 ♂. Prescott, Arizona. J. Doll.”

“Types, Coll. B. Neumoegen.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 1 (in NMNH): “Aegeria tecta Hy. Edw., Type”; “Typicum specimen”; “Prescott, Arizona”; “tecta H. Ed., ♂ genitalia on slide, AB, May 22, 1939” (male).

DISCUSSION: Only one of the male syntypes could be found. The above male syntype in the NMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

231. Pyrrhotaenia tepperi Hy. Edwards, 1881:203

“1 ♂. Georgia, (Morrison.)”

“Type. Coll. F. Tepper. to whom I regardfully dedicate this exquisite species.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in MSU: “Pyrrhotaenia tepperi Hy. Edw., Type”; “Georgia.”

DISCUSSION: Note that the holotype is a female, not a male as indicated by Edwards.

232. Pyrrhotaenia texana Hy. Edwards, 1881: 204

“2 ♀. Texas. (J. Boll.)”

“Type. Coll. B. Neumoegen.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 2 (both in NMNH): (1) “Pyrrhotaenia texana Hy. Edw., Type”; “TYPE”; “Typicum specimen”; “Tex.” (female). (2) “TYPE”; “Typicum specimen”; “B. N.”; “Tex.” (female).

DISCUSSION: The second syntype is badly worn and lacks the left pair of wings. The first listed female syntype in the NMNH with the Hy. Edwards type label has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

233. Trochilium tibiale Harris, 1839:309

“Found in New-Hampshire on the Populus candicans, and presented to me by Mr. Leonard.”

TYPES: Apparently lost or destroyed.

DISCUSSION: Refer to the pertinent statement in the “Introduction.”

234. Aegeria tibialis var. anonyma Strand, 1925:124

“♀”.

HOLOTYPE: Unknown.

235. Aegeria tibialis var. dyari Cockerell, 1908:330

“♀”

“Hab—Las Vegas, New Mexico, July 3, 1900 (Cockerell).”

“… my type is in the U. S. Nat. Museum.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the NMNH: “Aegeria tibialis dyari Ckll.”; “U.S.N.M. Type”; “Las Vegas, N.M., July 3, Ckll.”

236. Aegeria tibialis var. melanoformis Engelhardt, 1946: 178

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56852. From Adirondack Mountains.”

“Remarks.—The male and female types and allotype were collected in copulation by Howard Natman in Keene Valley, Adirondacks, N.Y., July 29, 1911.”

HOLOTYPE: Male in NMNH: “melanoformis Engelh., USNM Type No. 56852”; “fig.”; “used for illustration”; “Aegeria tibialis Harris ♂, det. G.P.E.”; “G. P. Engelhardt Coll.”; “Keene Valley, 29 July 1911”; “471 2 L.H.”

237. Sphinx tipuliformis Clerck, 1759, pl. 9: figs. 1, 2

(Description consists of two drawings only. Linneaus in 1761 redescribed this species stating, “Habitat in Lucis & Hortis.”)

TYPES: Unknown.

238. Carmenta torrancia Engelhardt, 1946:56

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56831. Female. Collected in Torrance County, N. Mex.”

“Remarks.—Only the type and three female paratypes in the United States National Museum …”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the NMNH: “Chamaesphecia torrancia Engelh. ♀”; “U.S.N.M. Type No. 56831, torrancia Engel.”; “Fig.”; “R. H. Painter, Collector”; “Elevation 6000’”; “Torrance Co., N. Mex., 28.VI.1929”; “torrancia Eng., ♀ genitalia on slide, AB, Mar. 2, 1943.”

239. Albuna torva Hy. Edwards, 1881:189

“3 ♀ Glen. Mt. Washington, N. H. Vancouver Isld. (H.E.) Colorado, (Morrison.)”

“Types. Coll. Bost. Soc. Natl. Hist. Hy. Edwards.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 1 (in the AMNH): “Albuna torva Hy. Edw., Type”; “Vancouver Island”; “No. 15858, Collection Hy. Edw.” (female).

DISCUSSION: The other two females could not be located; therefore, the above female syntype in the AMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

240. Aegeria tricincta Harris, 1839:310

“The sexes were captured together upon the common tansy.”

TYPES: Apparently lost or destroyed.

DISCUSSION: Refer to the pertinent statement in the “Introduction.”

241. Paranthrene tricincta form oslari Engelhardt, 1946:140

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 26844. Described from female from Bear Creek, Morrison County, Colo. (Oslar) …”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Paranthrene tricinctus oslari Engelh., ”; “USNM Type No. 56844, oslari Engelh.”; “Oslar, Bear Creek, Morrison, Col.”; “Coll. Engelhardt, G. P.”; “for illustration”; “oslari Engelh., genitalia on slide, AB Jan. 12, 1937.”

DISCUSSION: The specimen from Bear Creek, Colorado, is a male, which was indicated on the label but erroneously referred to as a female in the description. Also, the correct number is 56844 as on the specimen label.

242. Sannina uroceriformis Walker, 1856:64

“a--c. United States. Presented by E. Doubleday Esq.” (He described both male and female, with “?” after female.)

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 1 (in BMNH): “Sannina uroceriformis, Type, ♂”; “369”; “46.110, U.S.”; “♀ of exitiosa Harris”; “Type”; “F3/14” (female).

DISCUSSION: Three specimens are indicated in the original description, but only one could be located. Walker questioned himself as to whether or not he was describing the female of the species. It appears as though Walker was in reality describing the female of uroceriformis under the male heading. The female description is of exitiosa Say and not uroceriformis. To avoid possible future confusion, the female syntype in the BMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

243. Saunina uroceripennis Boisduval, 1874:465, new name pro S. uroceriformis Walker, 1856.

TYPE: Ipso facto type of uroceriformis Walker.

244. Sesia utahensis Beutenmuller, 1909:83

“Habitat.—St. George, Washington County, Utah, June.”

“Described from a single female collected by Mr. Engelhardt on an expedition to Utah for the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the NMNH: “Sesia utahensis Beut., Type”; “TYPE”; “St. George, Wshgtn. Co., Utah, VI”; “G. P. Engelhardt Coll.”

245. Albuna vancouverensis Hy. Edwards, 1881:188

“7 examples. ♂. ♀. Vancouver Isld. (H. E.) Colorado, (Morrison.)”

“Type. Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 7 (all in the AMNH): (1) “Albuna vancouverensis Hy. Edw., Type”; “Vancouver Island”; “No. 15838, Collection Hy. Edw.” (male). (2) “Albuna vancouverensis Hy. Edw., Type”; “Vancouver Island”; “No. 15839, Collection Hy. Edw.” (male). (3) “Albuna vancouverensis Hy. Edw., ♂, Type”; “Colorado”; “No. 15854, Collection Hy. Edw.” (female). (4) “Albuna vancouverensis Hy. Edw., ♀, Type”; “Colorado”; “No. 15859, Collection Hy. Edw.” (female). (5) “Albuna vancouverensis Hy. Edw., ♂, Type”; “Colorado”; No. 15861, Collection Hy. Edw.” (male). (6) “Albuna vancouverensis Hy. Edw., ♂, Type”; “Colorado”; “No. 15837, Collection Hy. Edw.” (male). (7) “Albuna vancouverensis Hy. Edw., ♂, Type”; “Colorado”; “No. 15836, Collection Hy. Edw.” (male).

DISCUSSION: Since Vancouver Island was listed first as a locality in the original description and the second listed specimen is in good condition, this male syntype in the AMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

246. Aegeria verecunda Hy. Edwards, 1881:190

“1 ♂. 2 ♀. Colorado. (Morrison.)”

“Type. Coll. Hy. Edwards. F. Tepper.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 2 (1 in AMNH, 1 in MSU (1) “Aegeria verecunda Hy. Ed., Type”; “Colorado”; “No. 15906, Collection, Hy. Edw.” (female in AMNH). (2) “Aegeria verecundo Hy. Ed., Type”; “Colo.”; “F. T.” (female in MSU).

DISCUSSION: Engelhardt states, “Type.—Female. In the American Museum of Natural History. Remarks.—Hy. Edwards’s description of verecunda, based on three examples, one male and two females from Colorado (Morrison), does not discriminate between the sexes, which are dissimilar. The male type, if existing, cannot be located. Two females, labeled type, are at the American Museum of Natural History.” It is our opinion that the two females listed above as syntypes are from the type series, and the male, if it exists, could not be located. The female syntype in MSU has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype, because it is in better condition.

247. Sannina verrugo Druce, 1884:34

“Hab. Mexico, Esperanza (Hoege).”

“Only a single example of this fine insect was sent. It is allied to S. uroceriformis, Walk., from North America.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the BMNH: “B. C. A. Lep. Het., Sannina verugo Druce”; “Esperanza, Mexico, Hoege”; “Godman-Salvin, Coll. 97.-52”; “Type, Sp. figured”; “Type.”

248. Alcathoe verrugo corvinus Engelhardt, 1946: 107

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56841. From Arroyo Seco, Los Angeles, Calif.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Alcathoe verrugo color var. corvinus Engelh., Type, ♂”; “Arroyo Seco, S. Pasadena, Calif., VII.17.1931”; “Coll. G. P. Engelhardt.”

249. Trochilium vespipenne Herrich-Schaeffer, 1854:57, Fig 217

“vespipenne H-S. f. 217.—China.” (Description consists of a figure.)

TYPE: Unknown.

250. Synanthedon viburni Engelhardt, 1925a:65

“Habitat. Woodhaven South Long Island, N.Y. IV. 19.1919, V.10.1921.”

“Types. Male and female, in the author’s collection at the Brooklyn Museum, Co-type male U.S.N.M., Co-type female William Barnes Collection.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 5 (all in NMNH): (1) “Synanthedon viburni G.P.E., ♂, Type”; “Coll. G. P. Engelhardt”; “Woodhaven, L. I., V.28.20.” (2) “Synanthedon viburni G.P.E., ♀, Allotype”; “Coll., G. P. Engelhardt”; “Flatbush, L. I., V.14.20” (abdomen, ring forewing and both antennae missing). (3) “Synanthedon viburni G.P.E., ♂, Paratype”; “Coll., G. P. Engelhardt”; “Woodhaven, L.I., VI.7.20” (abdomen and hindwings missing). (4) “Synanthedon viburni Engelhardt, ♂, Paratype”; “U.S.N.M. Paratype No. 24–869”; “Coll., G. P. Engelhardt”; “Woodhaven, L. I., V.28.20” (abdomen and antennae missing). (5) “U.S.N.M. Paratype No. 24–869”; “under bark, Viburnum”; “Coll., G. P. Engelhardt”; “Flatbush, L.I., V.24.20” (abdomen, antennae and right pair of wings missing).

DISCUSSION: Engelhardt (1946:96) states, “Type.—Male, from Woodhaven, N.Y. In the United States National Museum.” The date on the specimen labeled “type” does not correspond to the dates listed in the original description, nor do any specimens in the Engelhardt Collection carry the latter dates. We are assuming that an error occurred in transposing the dates. In the 1946 revision, Engelhardt uses type, allotype, and paratype for a type series, dropping the use of male and female type and cotype. The above syntypes must have been labeled sometime after the 1925 publication. To avoid possible confusion in the future, the syntype labeled “Type” in the NMNH has been selected, labeled, and is designated as the lectotype.

251. Albuna vitrina Neumoegen, 1891:109

“Hab.—Ft. Calgary, N. W. Territory. Type ♂, coll. B. Neumoegen.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH; “Albuna vitrina Neumoegen, Type”; “TYPE”; “Ft. Calgary, N. W. Brit. Columbia.”

DISCUSSION: Note the error in recording the type-locality in Neumoegen’s original description.

252. Aegeria washingtonia Hy. Edwards, 1881:197

“1 ♂. Washington Terr. (Morrison.)”

“Type. Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the AMNH: “Aegeria washingtonia Hy. Ed., Type”; “Washington, Terr.”; “No. 15910, Collection Hy. Edw.”

253. Zenodoxus wissadulae Engelhardt, 1946:195

“Type.—U.S.N.M. No. 56854. From Brownsville, Tex.”

“Remarks.—Described from male type, female allotype, 6 male and 5 female paratypes, reared by the late Emerson Liscum Diven …”

HOLOTYPE: Male, in the NMNH: “Zenodoxus wissadulae Engelh., ♂, Type” “Wissadula lozani”; “Brownsville, Tex.”; “Diven, Colr.”; “reared, May 7/19”; “Diven, 41, F.H.B., rearing.”

254. Pyrrhotaenia wittfeldii Hy. Edwards, 1883:156

“2. ♂ Indian River, Florida. Dr. Wittfield.”

“Type. Coll. Hy. Edwards.”

SYNTYPES EXAMINED: 2 (both in AMNH): (1) “Pyrrhotaenia wittfeldii Hy. Edw., Type”; “Indian River, Florida”; “No. 15985, Collection Hy. Edw.” (female). (2) “Pyrrhotaenia wittfeldii Hy. Edw.”; “Indian River, Florida”; “No. 15986, Collection Hy. Edw.” (female).

DISCUSSION: It is assumed here that Edwards erred in the determination of the sex of the types. The first female syntype in the AMNH labeled type has been selected, labeled, and is presently designated as the lectotype.

255. Sesia xiphiaeformis Boisduval, 1874:409

“Nous avons recu cette remarquable Sesie de feu John Leconte, sans aucune indication sur la localité qu’elle habite aux États-Unis.”

HOLOTYPE: Female, in the NMNH: “Type xiphiaeformis Bdv., a/c Hofer”; “Sesia xiphiaepennis Bdv., Amer. bor., Sp. G. Sphing. p. 409”; “Oberthur Collection”; “j’ai envoyé en Jly 1882 la peinture à M. Edwards, Ch. Ob.”; “Typicum Specimen”; “Ex Musaeo, Dris Boisduval”; “xiphiaeformis Bdv., Am. B.”; “Barnes Collection”; “Synanthedon exitiosa Say, ♀, det. G.P.E.”

Literature Cited

Barnes, Wm., and F. H. Benjamin

1925. Change of a Preoccupied Name (Lepidoptera: Aegeriidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 27 (1):14.

Barnes, Wm., and A. W. Lindsey

1922. Descriptions of Two New Species of Aegeriidae (Lep.). Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological Society, 18 (4):122–123.

Behrens, James

1889. In French, Some Texas, Arizona and California Moths. Canadian Entomologist, 21(9):161–163.

Beutenmüller, William

1893. Notes on Some North American Moths, with Descriptions of New Species. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 5:19–26.

1894. Studies of Some Species of North American Moths. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 6:87–89.

1896. Critical Review of the Sesiidae Found in Amerca, North of Mexico. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 8:111–148.

1897. Notes on Some Species of North American Moths. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 9:213–216.

1898. Three New Species of Sesiidae. Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 6(4):240–241.

1899a. Synopsis of the Species of Melittia of America, North of Mexico, with Description of a New Species. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 12:149–151.

1899b. On Some Species of North American Lepidoptera. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 12:157–160.

1899c. Notes on and Descriptions of Some New Species of North American Lepidoptera. Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 7(4):254–256.

1900. A New Sesiid from Alaska. Canadian Entomologist, 32(7):208.

1901. Monograph of the Sesiidae of America, North of Mexico. Memoirs of the American Museum Natural History, 1:217–315.

1902, Description of a New Sesia. Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 10(2):126.

1909. Descriptions of Three New Sesiidae. Entomological News, 20:82–84.

1916. Description of a New Sesiid. Canadian Entomologist, 48(11):372.

Boisduval, Jean Alphonse

1829–1844. In Guerin-Ménéville, Iconographie du Régne Animal de G. Cuvier, … 3(6) (Insects): 496.

1836. Histoire naturelle des Insectes. Spécies, géneral, des Lépidoptéres. Suites à Buffon, Tom I. xii + 690 pages, 24 plates. Paris.

1869. Lépidoptéres de la Californie. Annales Société Entomologique de Belgique, 12:1–94.

1874, Species général des Lépidoptères Hét`rocères. Suites à Buffon. iv + 568 pages, 11 plates. Paris.

Busck, August

1913. Two Microlepidoptera Injurious to Chestnut. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 15(3):102–104.

1914. Descriptions of New Microlepidoptera of Forest Trees. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 16:145–150.

1915. Descriptions of New North American Microlepidoptera. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 17(2):79–94.

Clerck, Carl Alexander

1759–1764. Icones Insectorum rariorum cum nominibus eorum trivialibus, locisque e C. Linnaei … Systema Naturae allegatis. Holmiae.

Clemens, Brackenridge

1860. Contributions to American Lepidopterology, No. 3. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 12:4–15.

Cockerell, T. D. A.

1908. New Sesiid Moths. Canadian Entomologist 40:329–331.

Dalla-Torre, K., and E. Strand

1925. Lepidopterorum Catalogus, Aegeriidae, 31:1–202.

Denis, M., and Ignaz Schiffenmüller

1775. Ankündung eines systematischen Werkes von den Schmetterlingen der Wienergegend, 1775:1–322.

Druce, Herbert

1881–1900. Lepiodoptera-Heterocera. In Godman and Salvin, Biologia Centrali-Americana, 1:1–xxxii, 1–490, pls. 1–41. London: Taylor & Francis. (Aegeriidae: pp. 28–32, 1883; pp. 33–34, 1884.)

1892. Description of a New Genus and Some New Species of Heterocera from Central America. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, series 6, 9:275–279.

Dyar, Harrison G.

1904. Additions So the List of North American Lepidoptera, No. 2. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 6(2):103–119.

Edwards, Henry

1880. Descriptions of Some New Forms of Aegeridae. Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological Society, 3(8):71–72.

1881. New Genera and Species of the Family Aegeridae. Papilio, 1(10):179–208.

1882a. Notes on North American Aegeridae, with Descriptions of New Forms. Papilio, 2(4):52–57.

1882b. Further Notes and Description of North American Aegeriadae. Papilio, 2(6):96–99.

1882c. Descriptions of New Species of N. Am. Heterocera. Papilio, 2(8):123–130.

1883. New Species of Aegeriadae. Papilio, 3(7–10):155–157.

1885. New Species of Californian Moths. Entomologica Americana, 1(3):49–50.

1887. Descriptions of New Species of North American Heterocera, with Notes. Canadian Entomologist, 19(8):145–147.

Engelhardt, George P.

1925a. Studies in North American Aegeriidae (Lepidoptera). I. Descriptions and Corrections of Species from Long Island, New York. Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological Society, 20 (2):61–69.

1925b. Studies of North American Aegeriidae (Lepidoptera). III. Clematis Root Borers of America North of Mexico. Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological Society, 20 (4):153–158.

1925c. Studies of North American Aegeriidae (Lepidoptera) II. Descriptions of Two New Western Species. Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological Society, 20 (5):215–2I7.

1946. The North American Clear-Wing Moths of the Family Aegeriidae. Smithsonian Institution, United States National Museum Bulletin, 190: 222 pages.

Germadius, P.

1874. A New Aegerian Maple Borer, American Naturalist, 8:57–58.

Grote, A. R.

1875. On Certain Species of Moths from Florida. Canadian Entomologist, 7 (9):173–176.

1880. New Species of North American Moths. Canadian Entomologist, 12(10):213–220.

1881. A New Species of N. American Aegeriadae. Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological Society, 3(9):78–79.

Grote, A. R., and C. T. Robinson

1868. Descriptions of American Lepidoptera of North America, No. 4. Transactions of the American Entomological Society, 2:179–206.

Harris, Thaddeus William

1828. Insects. New England Farmer, 7(5):33–34.

1830. Insects. New England Farmer, 9:1–2.

1839. Descriptive Catalogue of North American Insects, belonging to the Linnean Genus Sphinx, etc. American Journal of Arts and Science, 36:282–320.

1854. Report on Some of the Diseases and Insects affecting Trees and Vines. Proceedings, American Pomological Society Congress, 1854:197–217.

Heinrich, Carl

1920. On Some Forest Lepidoptera with Descriptions of New Species, Larvae and Pupae. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 57:53–96.

Herrich-Schaeffer, Gottlieb A. W.

1854. Systematisches Verzeichniss der im diesem Werke gelieferten Arten, Sammlung neuer order wenig bekannter aussereuropaischer Schmetterlinge. Pages 53–84.

Hodges, R. W.

1962. A New Species of Synanthedon from Ohio (Lepidoptera: Aegeriidae). Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological Society, 57(5):139–141.

Hubner, Jacob

1825. Zuträge zur Sammlung Exotischer Schmetterlinge. Vol. 3. Augsburg.

Hulst, George D.

1881. Description of Some New Species of North American Lepidoptera. Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological Society, 3(9):75–77.

1883. Notes on Some Sesiidae. Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological Society, 6:8–10.

Kellicott, D. S.

1881. Observations on Several Species of Aegeriadae Inhabiting the Vicinity of Buffalo, N.Y. Canadian Entomologist, 13(1):3–8.

1892a. Notes on the Aegeriadae of Central Ohio.-I. Canadian Entomologist, 24(2):42–47.

1892b. Notes on the Aegeriadae of Central Ohio.-II. Canadian Entomologist, 24(9):209–212.

Laspeyres, J. H.

1801. Sesiae Europae, inconibus et descriptionibus illustratae. Pages 1–31. Berolini.

Linnaeus, Caroli

1758. Systema Naturae. 10th Edition. Holmiae.

Lugger, Otto

1891. Two New Lepidopterous Borers. Psyche, 6(183):108–109.

Möschler, H. B.

1876. Exotisches. Entomologische Zeitung zu Stettin, 37:293–316.

Naumann, C. M.

1971. Untersuchungen zur Systematik und Phylogenese der Holarktischen Sisiiden (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Bonner Zoologische Monographien no. 1, Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum Koenig. Bonn, West Germany.

Neumoegen, Berthold

1891. Some New and Beautiful Aegeriadae. Entomological News, 2(6):107–109.

1894. Some Beautiful New Forms of North American Aegeridae. Entomological News, 5(10):330–331.

Ridings, James

1862. Descriptions of a Supposed New Species of Aegeridae from Virginia, and Observations upon Papilio daunus Boids. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Philadelphia, 1:277–278.

Riley, C. V.

1874. The Raspberry Root-borer—Aegeria rubi: N. sp.-Sixth Report on the Noxious, Beneficial, and Other Insects of the State of Missouri, etc. 9th Annual Report of the State Board of Agriculture (1873):111–113.

1891. Extracts from Correspondence. Insect Life, 3:391–419.

Rottenburg, S. A. von

1775. Anner Kungen zu den Hufnagelischen Tabellen der Schmetterlinge. Der Naturforscher, 6:105–111.

Say, Thomas

1823. In Worth, An Account of the Insect so Destructive to the Peach Tree. Journal of the Academy of Natural Science, Philadelphia, 3:216–221.

Skinner, Henry

1903. A New Sesiid. Entomological News, 14(4):126.

Strecker, H.

1881. Description of a New Species of Trochilium. Canadian Entomologist, 13(7):156.

Thomas, Evan

1824. On the Observation of Peach Trees. American Farmer, 6(5):37.

Todd, E. L.

1968. Selection of Lectotypes for Some Species of Euxoa Hübner Described by J. B. Smith (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 70(3):263–280.

Walker, Francis

1856. List of the Specimens of Lepidopterous Insects in the Collection of the British Museum, 8:1–71.

Walsh, Benjamin D.

1866. On the Insects, Colopterous, Hymenopterous and Dipterous. Inhabiting the Galls of Certain Species of Willows. Part 2nd and Last. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Philadelphia, 6:223–288.

Westwood, John O.

1848. The Cabinet of Oriental Entomology. Pages 1–88. London.

1854. The American Oak-gall Clear-Winged Sphinx. Gardener’s Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette, 47: 757–758.

Publication in Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology

Manuscripts for serial publications are accepted by the Smithsonian Institution Press, subject to substantive review, only through departments of the various Smithsonian museums. Non-Smithsonian authors should address inquiries to the appropriate department. If submission is invited, the following format requirements of the Press will govern the preparation of copy.

Copy must be typewritten, double-spaced, on one side of standard white bond paper, with 1½″ top and left margins, submitted in ribbon copy with a carbon or duplicate, and accompanied by the original artwork. Duplicate copies of all material, including illustrations, should be retained by the author. There may be several paragraphs to a page, but each page should begin with a new paragraph. Number consecutively all pages, including title page, abstract, text, literature cited, legends, and tables. The minimum length is 30 pages, including typescript and illustrations.

The title should be complete and clear for easy indexing by abstracting services. Taxonomic titles will carry a final line indicating the higher categories to which the taxon is referable: “(Hymenoptera: Sphecidae).” Include an abstract as an introductory part of the text. Identify the author on the first page of text with an unnumbered footnote that includes his professional mailing address. A table of contents is optional. An index, if required, may be supplied by the author when he returns page proof.

Two headings are used: (1) text heads (boldface in print) for major sections and chapters and (2) paragraph sideheads (caps and small caps in print) for subdivisions. Further headings may be worked out with the editor.

In taxonomic keys, number only the first item of each couplet; if there is only one couplet, omit the number. For easy reference, number also the taxa and their corresponding headings throughout the text; do not incorporate page references in the key.

In synonymy, use the short form (taxon, author, date: page) with a full reference at the end of the paper under “Literature Cited.” Begin each taxon at the left margin with subsequent lines indented about three spaces. Within an entry, use a period-dash (.—) to separate each reference. Enclose with square brackets any annotation in, or at the end of, the entry. For references within the text, use the author-date system: “(Jones, 1910)” and “Jones (1910).” If the reference is expanded, abbreviate the data: “Jones (1910:122, pl. 20: fig. 1).”

Simple tabulations in the text (e.g., columns of data) may carry headings or not, but they should not contain rules. Formal tables must be submitted as pages separate from the text, and each table, no matter how large, should be pasted up as a single sheet of copy.

Use the metric system instead of, or in addition to, the English system.

Illustrations (line drawings, maps, photographs, shaded drawings) can be intermixed throughout the printed text. They will be termed Figures and should be numbered consecutively; however, if a group of figures is treated as a single figure, the components should be indicated by lowercase italic letters on the illustration, in the legend, and in text references: “Figure 9b.” If illustrations (usually tone photographs) are printed separately from the text as full pages on a different stock of paper, they will be termed Plates, and individual components should be lettered (Plate 9b) but may be numbered (Plate 9: figure 2). Never combine the numbering system of text illustrations with that of plate illustrations. Submit all legends on pages separate from the text and not attached to the artwork. An instruction booklet for the preparation of illustrations is available from the Press on request.

In the bibliography (usually called “Literature Cited”), spell out book, journal, and article titles, using initial caps with all words except minor terms such as “and, of, the.” For capitalization of titles in foreign languages, follow the national practice of each language. Underscore (for italics) book and journal titles. Use the colon-parentheses system for volume, number, and page citations: “10(2):5–9.” Spell out such words as “figures,” “plates,” “pages.”

For free copies of his own paper, a Smithsonian author should indicate his requirements on “Form 36” (submitted to the Press with the manuscript). A non-Smithsonian author will receive 50 free copies; order forms for quantities above this amount with instructions for payment will be supplied when page proof is forwarded.