556 REVISION OF AUSTRALIAN LEPIDOPTERA, V., 



only. As a rare abnormality the anastomosis with 12 may be 

 missed, while that with 10 is present, but 10 arises always sepa- 

 rately from 11, and usually from the stalk of 7, 8, 9, and this is 

 fundamentally different from the normal structure of the Acida- 

 liance. Another radical distinction is, that the common stalk of 

 7, 8, 9 arises, in the AGidaliance, from well before the upper angle 

 of the cell, widely separate from 6, which arises at the angle. 

 In the Geometritue the common stalk arises from the angle, and 

 6 is usually either closely approximated to or stalked with it; 

 though, in rare instances, the origin of 6 is displaced downward.s. 

 From these considerations it follows that the Acidaliance are not 

 derived from the Geoinetrince, as I formerly .supposed, but are a 

 collateral and independent line of development. 



The more primitive genera of the Geoinetrince differ from the 

 remainder of the group in two characters. Firstly, in the separate 

 origin of vein 10 of the fore wings from the cell, a character 

 present in the genera Protophi/ta, Heliomystis, Rhuma, and 

 Sterictopsis. Secondly, in the close approximation of vein 8 of 

 the hindwings to well beyond the middle of the cell, a character 

 found in Protophyta, Heliomystis, Rhuma, and Oenochlora. The 

 first of these characters is not uncommon in the Monocteniance 

 (Oenochromin(e), while the second is characteristic of that group. 

 If we endeavour to distinguish the two subfamilies by the point 

 of origin of vein 5 of the hindwings, we find that this is not a 

 distinction to be relied on absolutely. Vein 5 of the hindwings 

 usually arises in the Monocteniance rather nearer to 6 than to 4, 

 and in the genus Cernia the approximation is quite as strong as in 

 many Geo'inetrince. In a genus closely allied to Sarcinodes, which 

 I have from Northern Queensland, the approximation is even 

 stronger, 5 and 6 being almost connate; while in the Indian 

 genus Sarcinodes (Hmps., Moths Ind., iii., )>.315) 5 and 6 are 

 stalked. Though I am unable, at present, to separate the two 

 subfamilies by any absolute definition, I consider them geneti- 

 cally distinct. The two genera I have mentioned are not, in my 

 opinion, genetically allied in any close degree to the parent-stem 

 of the Geometrince. This group certainly arose out of the Monoc- 



