250 Colonel C. Swinhoe on the Geographical 
XXXILI.—On the Geographical Distribution of the Genus 
Anomis, Hiibner (Lineopalpa auctorum), a Noctuid of the 
Family Gonopteride. By Colonel C. Swinnon, M.A., 
F.L.S., &e. 
[Plates IX‘—XIT. ] 
THIS paper is in continuation of my paper on the geographical 
distribution of the subgenus Cosmophila, a section of the 
genus Anomis. ; 
In £ Moths of India,’ vol. ii. p. 409 (1894), Hampson puts 
involuta, Walker=basalis, Walker=colligaia, Walker, all 
three from Ceylon, and propingua, Butler, from Aden, as 
synonyms to subulifera, Guenée, from Abyssinia. 
He puts metazantha, Walker (type without locality), com- 
binans, Walker =guttanervis, Walker, both types from Cey- 
lon ; commoda, Butler, from Japan, privata, Walker, from 
Shanghai, vevocans, Walker, from Moreton Bay, Australia, 
vulpina, Butler, from Venna Levu, Figi Isl., cnducens, 
Walker, from Java, simulatriz, Walker, from Sierra Leone, 
albitibia, Walker=nigritarsis, Walker, from Ceylon, all 
under fulvida, Guenée, locality erroneously stated to be 
N. America. 
Seitz, in his ‘ Palearctic Noctuids,’ 1914, pp. 359, 360, 
puts fulvida into the genus Rusicada, Walker, and puts under 
it combinans, inducens, nigritarsis, revocans, privata, and 
commoda, and describes two subspecies—subfulvida and 
griseolineata—from China and Japan, unknown to me. 
Guenée’s habitat for fulvida is N. America, but this is 
evidently an error; it is a common Eastern form; Walker’s 
type of metaxantha has no locality—this is also a common 
Indian form. . 
Sir George Hampson has pointed out to me that Hiibner’s 
genus Anomis, type ewacta, from America, is congeneric with 
Guenée’s genus Lineopalpa; Anomis was erected in 1827 
and Guenée’s in 1852, therefore the former has precedence. 
I am very much indebted to the Rev. C. R. N. Burrows, 
the well-known genitalia expert, for the great care and trouble 
he has taken in the dissection and examination of numerous 
examples of Anomzs I have sent him from many localities, 
and the notes that follow are all entirely due to him. 
The differences in the genitalia of some of the forms 
from widely separated localities is generally very great, but 
in some cases it is slight, as, for instance, between sabulifera 
