90 



THE LARVA OR NYMPH 



[CH. 



The Anal Appendages (fig. 39). 



The whole question of the complicated anal appendages of the 

 Dragonfly larva is one of some difficulty. The famous Heymons- 

 Handlirsch controversy has thrown a flood of light upon it. But, 

 while Handlirsch's original determinations were undoubtedly 

 erroneous, and Heymon's corrections of these a very great step 



Fig. 39. Anal appendages of Odonate larvae. A. Aeschna brevistyla Ramb., <J, 

 dorsal view. B. The same, lateral view. c. Dendroaeschna conspersa Tillyard, 

 cJ, dorsal view. D. The same, lateral view. E. Epitheca bimaculata Charp., <J, 

 dorsal view. p. The same, $. G. The same opened out and viewed from 

 behind. H. Agrion sp., lateral view, at metamorphosis (imaginal parts shaded), 

 j. Agrion sp., ventral view, ad appendix dorsalis; c cercus; c' cercoid; 

 k process from which inferior appendage of male imago is developed ; la lamina 

 supra-analis ; la' lamina sub-analis: n breaking- joint ; sp lateral spine of 

 segment 9; st n eleventh urosternite; tf-t^ urotergites. (A-Dx6.) A-D 

 original, E-J after Heymons. 



in advance, yet Handlirsch's Parthian shot (in which he claims 

 that Heymons' "cercoids" are only "re-developed or imaginal 

 cerci") raises a nice point which is best left to individual opinion 

 for settlement. For the purpose of clearly understanding the 

 anatomy of this region, we shall here select for study well-grown 



