106 
Psyche 
[Vol. 90 
equally had no abdominal arch. Because the degree of abdominal 
arching and the extension of the legs compensated for each other, 
the overall position of a male, and thus the relative positions of a 
male and female, generally differed little among the matings 1 
observed. A male’s abdomen became slightly more arched and his 
head dropped lower as copulation progressed. Some males lowered 
their heads so much during copulation that their maxillary palps 
touched the substrate. 
After a female was raised off the substrate, a male’s abdomen 
contracted more or less rhythmically. A female contracted her 
abdomen in synchrony with a male. Her paraprocts were periodi- 
cally flexed medially during copulation. 
At the beginning of copulation, the wing pairs of a male were 
usually extended high over his body, forming a small angle between 
them (Table 2, B). As copulation progressed, the angle formed by 
the wing pairs increased; the angle of the wings at the end of copula- 
tion was about 60° greater (Table 2, C). 1 found 45.7% of all males 
had both wing pairs locked at the nodus (Table 2, D). Wing pairs 
remaining free were in a position as though they were locked, and 
thus did not interfere with copulation. 
Table 2 (E and F) shows that a male’s antennae generally remained 
in a normal resting position during copulation. 
A female was lifted off the substrate until the angle formed by 
her body and the substrate was about 3 1°-60° (Table 2, G). Females 
whose bodies inclined more than 60° (7.4%) had been pushed up 
into this position when males mounted beneath them. 
A female placed her fore- and midlegs on a male when he moved 
beneath her. Table 2 (H and I) shows the distribution of the place- 
ment of a female’s fore- and midlegs, respectively. Most (41.3%) 
forelegs were placed on males’ hindwings and most (50.0%) midlegs 
were placed on males’ anterior abdominal pleura. However, as 
reflected in Table 2, the first two pairs of legs were positioned in 
many other ways. 
Table 2 (J) shows the distribution of the placement of a female’s 
hindlegs. Most (93.3%) females kept their hindlegs on the substrate. 
The rigidity of the hindlegs indicated that they were supporting 
some of a female’s weight. 
The forewing tips rested lightly on the substrate in 84.8% of the 
females (Table 2, K). This contact did not appear to support much 
of a female’s weight. 
