( 391 ) 



XVIII. A New Micropterygid from Australia. By A. 

 Jeffekies Turner, M.D., F.E.S. 



[Read October 6th, 1915.] 



Hitherto the only species of the family Micropterygidae 

 recorded from Australia is Sabatinca (Palaeomicra) calli- 

 placa described by Mr. Meyrick in the Entomologists' 

 Monthly Magazine, vol. 38, p. 60 (1902). I first discovered 

 this pretty little species on Momit Tambourine, settled 

 in large numbers on the flowers of a small shrub. Since 

 then I have taken it freely, flying during the day in shady 

 places like a Glyphipteryx in the same locality, and also 

 at Montville (1500 feet), sixty miles north of Brisbane. I 

 have also received several examples taken at Kuranda 

 near Cairns by Mr. F. P. Dodd. Structurally it is identical 

 with New Zealand species of Sabatinca, but I am unable 

 to distinguish any mandibles. Any addition to our 

 knowledge of this the most primitive family of Lepidoptera, 

 especially when it constitutes a new genus with complex 

 relationship to those hitherto known and to the Hepialidae, 

 is of special interest. 



On the 12th of October 1902, as I was beating the under- 

 growth along a track through the jungle on Mount Tam- 

 bourine (1800 feet, thirty-five miles south of Brisbane) in 

 Southern Queensland, a small moth darted out and settled 

 on my coat, from which I boxed it. Had it settled else- 

 where I doubt whether I should have seen it. At the time 

 I took it for a small Hepialid, to which family it would 

 undoubtedly be ascribed from its general appearance. 

 Its neuration is almost identical with Frails, Wlk., and even 

 the presence of four well-developed spurs on the posterior 

 tibiae did not seem sufficient by itself to distinguish it 

 from this group. I was, however, struck by the curious 

 structure of the antennae, and on mentioning this to the 

 late Mr. Ambrose Quail, who had been paying special 

 attention to the antennae of the Hepialidae and Micro- 

 pterygidae, he at once referred the species to the latter 

 group. Looking into the matter myself I agreed with 

 him, and, if there had been any doubt the discovery of 



TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1915. — PARTS III, IV. (jUNE) 



