t Whe 
rey, ad 
Structure of some Australian Lepidoptera Homoneura. 601 
Palaeoses, and J believe it is in this way that they have 
evolved. I can detect no internal veins in the hind-wing, 
but as this part of the wing is very difficult to observe in 
my solitary example, I cannot say whether any are present 
or not. 
In Anomoses the antennae, which are very short (4), 
are primitive with whorls of fine bristles. The labial 
palpi are rather long, and covered with long hairs. The 
posterior tibiae have two pairs of long spurs; the middle 
tibiae, which are densely scaled, have a pair of rather 
short terminal spurs. I can discover no mandibles, but 
it is impossible to say that they may not be concealed by 
hairs. In my original description (Turner, p. 391) I 
‘A Ci Gh, 1G 
Fic. 8.—Fraiis crocea Luc. Fore- and Hind-Wings. 
stated that the maxillary palpi were “long, folded.” 1 
can detect what may be not long, but rather short maxillary. 
palpi concealed by hairs, but am not sure of their existence. 
We are now in a position to discuss the affinities of 
Anomoses and Palaeoses. We will commence with the 
former. In spite of the presence of tibial spurs and the 
structure of the antennae, both Micropterygid characters, 
the neuration shows that it has closer affinities with the 
Hepialidae. This may be understood by a comparison 
with the neuration of Fraiis crocea Luc. (Fig. 8). No stress 
can be laid on the forking of the fore-wing subcostal, as 
this, though rare in the Hepialidae, occurs in Sthenopis 
(Comstock, p. 329); nor on the absence of any forking 
of R1 in the fore-wing, as this vein is single in Micropteryz. 
The Hepialid characters are (1) the absence of the inter- 
radial and consequently of the areole: (2) the dorsad 
