102 
Dr. T. A. <^Phpman on Callophrys avis. 
the eggshell of C. avis showing the inicropylar area, and 
showing also the effect of pressure in Farrant’s medium 
in destroying the meshwork of the surrounding area, and 
in the example of C. rnli (Plate XXVII, fig. 1) it appears 
unaltered by this treatment, except a little distortion by 
pressure and some blurring due to the high magnification 
( X 350) making its thickness too great for being in focus 
tluoughout. Though Mr. Clark says there are no pores 
visible, I think I detect them in the preparations from 
which Plate XXVII, fig. 2 {avis) and same Plate, fig. 1 {ruli) 
are taken. They have probably become more evident by 
lapse of time, as often happens to objects in Farrant’s 
medium. In Plate XXVI, fig. 2, there are five cells to the 
inicropylar rosette (four and six respectively in the other 
two figures of C. avis), and apparently five pores; but it is 
also the case that in the specimen of C. rwii! (Plate XXVII, 
fig. 1), which has seven cells to the rosette, there are 
equally five pores, arranged most regularly in the centre. 
The breaking down of the adventitious coat, especially in 
Plate XXVi, fig. 2, and Plate XXVII, fig. 2, in G. avis 
makes the distinction between the cells of the microiiylar 
area (without adventitia) anA those surrounding it very dis¬ 
tinct, and shows that two rows with a few odd ones surround 
the rosette. Though the demarcation is not so fully 
demonstrated in the preparation of C. rubi, it is neverthe¬ 
less very obvious, and more so in the actual preparation 
than in the photograph, that there are about four rows of 
cells round the rosette in that species, and that as the 
cells do not differ much in size, the area (or “depres¬ 
sion ”) is larger in C. ridn than in C. avis. In dealing 
Avith the details of hairs, lenticles, etc., of the larva at 
different stages, I may refer to my notes on C. rubi in 
Tutt’s “British Lepidoptera,” vol. ix, p. 104 ct seq., 
which are fairly full, and also to the photographs by Mr. 
F. N. Clark, accompanjdng this paper, from specimens I 
have prepared. This will save much verbosity. 
In comparing the larvae in the first instar, C. avis 
(Plate XXVIII) seems smaller and more delicate (though 
the egg seemed, if anything, larger), certainly it has a smaller 
head, and certain hairs, present in C. rahi (Plate XXIX), 
are wanting and others less developed. The most notable 
of the absent hairs are those (ill ?) between the sub¬ 
dorsal lenticles and the spiracle. Of these C. ridn has two in 
each of the abdominal segments one to seven. They are 
