BY R. .1. TILLYARD. 



11!) 



Further, lie states that tlie missing vein is No. 1 1, i.e , R r This 

 is obviously wrong, as may be seen at once from Meyrick's own 

 figure, and the one here given of the allied species M. hamadelpha. 

 Other specialisations are : the great reduction in the size of the 

 jugal lobe and the frenulum (in some specimens, it is not at all 

 easy to see that either of them exists); the position of the cubital 

 fork very close to the base in both wings, and the consequent 

 reduction in the size of the posterior arculus; the great reduction 

 in 2 A in the forewings, so that it loops up with 1A very close 

 to the base: and the reduction of Cu„ and the anal veins through 

 the narrowing of the base of the hindwing. 



JR. 



Text-fig. 9. 

 Wings of Mnesarchcea hamadelpha Meyr. ( x 20). Note ,M, entirely cap- 

 tured by Rs in the hindwing. 



In M. hamadelpha Meyr.. (Text-fig. 9) there is a further special- 

 isation (at least, in the two specimens examined by me) in that 

 R 6 has completely captured Mj in the hindwing, the original 

 connection with M 2 being completely lost. As this is exactly 

 similar to the condition shown by Meyrick for the forewing of 

 M. paracosma, it is possible that this particular specialisation 

 occurs fairly frequently in either wing of either species, when a 

 sufficient number of individuals is examined. 



From the above remarks, it will be seen at once that Mnesar- 



