Steve, after a review of the two species in Liljeblad's monograph, I'm inclined to agree with you. See new species page for differences between the two.

Thanks for the correction!

Did you happen to take a look at the other image I thought might be suspect here? I'm wondering if it should be moved too. If not, I'm second guessing myself on this one.

I did take a long look at that one, and in the end I'm a whole lot less certain that that one is bicinctella, than this one. The strongest indication that it is not bicinctella is the pronotum, which appears to have at least some darkening toward the apical margin and down the middle (characteristic of trifasciata), while bicinctella has darkening along the base. The elytral markings do appear to favor bicinctella, although the view angle is somewhat problematic. My vote is to leave that one under trifasciata. In the end, much of this family's current "species" seem so ill-defined, (and unchallenged for decades) that I'd fully expect to eventually see many species combined and many others split further.

see