Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 May 2012
Lameere (1917), in a paper dealing with the evolution of mayflies recognizes the moult between subimago and imago as a mere delamination of the outer layer of cuticle resulting in a lighter more fragile imago. Needham (1935) agrees with this contention and states that the subimago “does not represent a growth period and is therefore not a true instar.” Further, “It is only a casting of the delaminated, hairy outer cuticle.” This is a recent view and at variance with the more conventional one that both the subimago and imago represent separate insttars.