44 HEVISIOX OF AUSTRALIAN LEPI DumOIJA, 



and fairl}' so in North America, Europe and India. Sir George 

 Hampson, in his 'Moths of India,' enumerates 113 species 

 (excluding Ci/phanfd). In Australia it is but poorly represented, 

 only some 30 species being at present known. This number is 

 doubtless destined to be increased, as the moths are usually of very 

 retired habits, and onh' readily obtained hy rearing the larvae; 

 but the family will never be very prominent in our fauna. 



The internal classification of the family is a matter of consider- 

 able difficulty owing to the variability of certain details of the 

 venation. For instance, in a series of seven specimens of De^toJnda 

 lineaUi, Wlk., vein 6 of the forewings arises in four specimens 

 from the areole, and in three specimens from the upper angle of 

 the cell. In a series of eight specimens of the European Fhahra 

 hitcephala, Linn., vein 10 of the forewings arises either from the 

 areole,* or from 8 + 9 beyond the areole, and veins 3 and 4 of the 

 hindwings may be either separate, connate, or stalked. Facts of 

 this kind deprive the tabulation given in the ' Moths of India ' 

 (Vol. i., p. 124) of much of its value; and I have had in fact to 

 create several new genera which may ultimately jDrove to be 

 synonyms, when the Indian and Australian genera undergo 

 systematic revision. 



Among the Australian genera, Hyleora, Neola, Sorama, GEno- 

 sanda, Danima and DiscojMehia appear to be endemic. Teleclita 

 (probably), SjKitnlia, Cenira, PhaJera and Gargetta are found in 

 India, some of them ranging also to Europe and even to America. 

 Of Pheressaces, Pheraspis, Themerastis. Gallaha, Osica and Co.scera 

 it would be premature, in the present state of our knowledge, to 

 make any statement. 



* The areole may be, and is by diffeient authors, regarded as being formed 

 either by an independent bar developed between veins 10 and 8 + 9, or by 

 vein 9 arising from 10 and anastomosing with S. Which view may be correct 

 is a nice morphological problem. This discrepancy is apt to cause confusion 

 in the descriptions, and I think it is more convenient to write of the veins 

 as arising from or beyond the areole, as the case may be. This can give rise 

 to no misconception if it be borne in mind that, strictly speaking, the areole 

 is formed by the connection of the proximal portions of the veins. 



