164 REVISIOX OF AVSTRALIAX LEPIDOPTEEA HTP8IDAE, ANTHELIDAE, 



Fam. ANTHELIDAE. 



Tongue absent (except in Munichryia). Antennae pectinated to apc-x in 

 botk sexes. Head, thorax, abdomen, and femora hairy. Forewings with 1 

 aljsent, 5 approximated to 4 at origin, areole very long, 7, 8, 9, 10 all arising 

 separately from areole (except that 7 and 8 are connate or stalked in Aprosiia) ; 

 a subapicaJ cross-vein connects 9 and 10 soon after their separation, and may 

 be prolonged towards or to 11. Hindwing's with basal costal projection and 

 well-marked humeral angle, frenulum weU-developed in 3, absent in ?; 1 absent, 

 5 from below angle and approximated to 4. 11 present or absent, 12 widely 

 separate or approximated to cell.* 



This is a small family of about 50 species peculiar to the Australian region. 

 At least one species is known from New Guinea, but the family is not recorded 

 elsewhere. The genus Anthela, to which belong six-sevenths of the known species, 

 is distributed fairly evenly throughout Australia, including both inland and 

 coastal regions, from Cape York to Hobart, and from Brisbane to Perth. The 

 internal classification of the family is simple. Gephyroneura and Munichryia 

 are separable by the subapical crossbar extending to 11 in the forewing, and 

 Ijy 12 of the hindwing being approximated to the cellj so that 11 is short or 

 replaced by an anastomosis. These two genera are very distinct from the rest 

 and eovdd be regarded as a subfamily. Of the remaining genera Nataxa and 

 Aprosita are simple developments of Anthela, while Pterolocera and Chelep- 

 teryx are nearly related collaterally. 



I have already (Trans. Ent. Soc, 1919, p. 415) given my reasons for 

 separating this family from the Liparldae. They differ in the structure of the 

 areole. Only in a very few genera of Liparidae, such as Redoa, is the areole 

 very long, and then it is verj' narrow, and the branch veins from it do not 

 arise separately. The subapical cross-bar is peculiar to the Anthelidae, and in 

 view of the rarity of any new structural development in any family of Lepidop- 

 tera, it is of great importance. Present in all species, it is in some individuals 

 represented only by a fold in the wing membrane. In abnormal examples of 

 some species the cross-bar between 8 and 9 fails to develop, leaving the areole 

 open ; analogous abnormalities occur in other families. In the hindwing, 12 is 

 usually widely separate from the cell; the comparative approximation in Ptero- 

 locera and C'lielepteryx is merely secondary to a narrowing of the hindwings. Only 

 in Munichryia and Gephyroneura does a true approximation or anastomosis 

 occur, strictly comparable to that characteristic of the Liparidae. We can liardly 

 suppose that the more archaic condition in the hindwings of Anthela is due to 

 a reversion, and must therefore assume that the ancestor of the group, allied to 

 Munichryia in the forewings, was nearer Anthela in the hindwings. The .absolute 

 want of any tendency to the approximation of the origins of 9 and 10 from the 

 areole, which leads to the loss of that structure in many genera of the Lipari- 

 dae, is remarkable. Certainly the antennae and absence of a tongue concur in 

 both families, but the latter character breaks down in Munichryia. The only 

 point left to connect the two families is the origin of vein 5 in both wings. 

 From tills we may conclude that, while there may be a real relationship between 

 them, it must be remote. This conclusion is strengthened by the differences in 

 the coupling-apparatus of the wings. The Anthelidae have a basal costal ex- 



*Vein 1 Is usually known as le. The subcostal in the hindwings I have 

 hitherto called 8 according to usage. In the future I propose to call it 12. 11 Is 

 the first branch of the radial In both wings. 



