8 
Psyche 
[March-June 
Chilades (see pi. 2, CON 1), still more curved, however, with a 
pronounced bulging of the outline (in lateral view) dorsally at 
the zone (above the zone and less conspicuous in Chilades ) and 
a somewhat different structure of the suprazonal portion. Su- 
prazonal sheath terminating on the ventral side in a point (which 
is not notched as it is in Chilades) with two filament-like lateral 
portions (structurally similar to the spine-like single medial 
process described by Chapman in other genera and represented 
in Chilades x ) diverging from it and rimming the vesica, the 
erected (everted) frothy membrane of which they seem to prop. 
Vesical opening (on the dorsal side) beginning just above the 
zone (thus at a more proximal point than in Chilades ). Vesica 
very simple and weak as in Chilades , Freyeria , 1 2 Lycaeides , etc. 
Alulae considerably more developed than in Chilades , forming 
two petals almost 0.3 long and resembling (or representing) 
rudiments of the peculiar element (sagum) that exists at various 
degrees of development in several other neotropical genera 
where, however, it is well differentiated from the alulae (except 
in Hemiargus) . Furca considerably smaller in relation to the 
aedeagus than in Chilades , singularly thick, pincers-like, con- 
nected at its tips with the petals of the alulae. The whole dorsum 
(falx + uncus lobe + tegumen) remarkably similar in type to 
Chilades , which type is characterised by the breadth of the 
robust and long forearm exceeding that of the long finger-shaped 
uncus lobe, 3 by the humerulus appearing to be produced (owing 
to the exiguity of the lobe) not from the base of the lobe but 
from the tegumen proper, and by the latter being smaller by 
comparison to the falx and the lobe than in other Plebejince. 
Differing from Chilades in the greater size of the falx and uncus 
lobe in relation to the rest of the armature and to the size of the 
1 One wonders whether this medial process in Chilades is not, perhaps, merely 
a lesser stage of development of the pointed part of the sheath of Parachilades, 
while the lateral processes in the latter represent a lesser stage of development in 
comparison to the latero-ventral pointed sheath portions of Chilades. I am not 
fully satisfied with my observations in regard to the aedeagus of these two genera. 
2 I fail to find in either of the two species of Freyeria ( trochilus and putli) the 
cornuti mentioned in the case of trochilus by Stempffer (1937, Bull. Soc. ent. 
France 42:215) . 
3 In fact Fruhstorfer, the only German writing author of his time who made 
any attempt to follow the British authors in the study of Lycaenid genitalia for 
systematic purposes, in an enthusiastic, but amateurish, and poorly illustrated 
paper on Chilades (1916 Zool. Meded. Leiden, 2:90-95) mistook the uncus 
lobes of lajus and cleotas for an additional pair of falces (besides confusing 
generic characters with specific ones) . 
