Page:Fossil butterflies.djvu/53



the other) being blended. The object is so well preserved that one can see throughout the parallel series of minute punctures forming the points of insertion for the scales, outlines of the latter of which I have failed to discover.

The wing is 28.5mm. long, the tip of the cell beingdistant 15mm. from the base of the wing; the costal nervure is inflated for a distance of 6.5undefined, and the extreme width of this portion is 1mm.; the rows of punctures indicating the former insertion of the scales are 12mm. apart.

Of the body itself nothing can be predicated, unless it be that the form of the abdomen and the appearance of its tip lead us to conjecture that the specimen was a female which had deposited most of her eggs, or in which they were but partially developed.

At the anterior upper extremity of the head is a dark prominence which seems to be the terminal joint of a palpus; it extends 75mm. beyond the head and is of a nearly uniform width 2 mmmm., scarcely tapering, with a rounded tip. The basal portion of an antenna, 5mm. long, is slender and apparently begins to increase slightly and very gradually in size, as in the genus Eneis Hü bn. A finely impressed line, 7.25mm. long, appears to be the unrolled, though slightly curved tongue.

One of the hind femora projects 2.5mm. beyond the body; its tibia and tarsi are stretched in a single line, at an angle with it, but as the tip of what is apparently the other hind femur strikes them beyond the tip of their own femur, it is impossible to say whether they do not overlap, or are not overlaid by, the tibia and tarsi of the opposite side; their united length on the stone is 5.6mm.; but if both hind pairs are present, their probable length is 4.5mm. '. There are also some remnants of the other legs, but in so fragmentary and confused a state that nothing can be determined from them, nor anything surmised of the length or structure of the front pair.

In the illustration of the fore wing given in the Revue et Magazin de Zoologie (fig. B), and copied in the Geological Magazine (fig. 3), the artist neglected to mark the position of the spot upon the wing. This is given in