Some previous work on arthropod development is insufficiently detailed or incompletely reported. Much of the published information in this area is of limited use for the general analysis of life cycles. These difficulties arise primarily because many experiments do not control fully for the strain of the material (and even its specific identity) nor for rearing conditions, do not adequately take account of the complexity of life cycles and their stages, or are restricted to only part of the life cycle. For example, 285such factors as variable numbers of instars, sexual differences, abbreviated or hidden stages and dormancies may mean that the "average durations" reported apply to an unknown mixture of developmental types. Nor are experiments always designed or results reported and analysed in a logical and transparent manner. Undefined terms may obscure what actual developmental intervals were measured. Highly derived developmental or demographic measures may obscure core data. Statistical information may be inadequate. Such pitfalls are reviewed here, suggesting ways to ensure that results on the duration of development are both valid for specific studies and more widely useful. General experimental difficulties, recommended background information that should be provided, recommended life-cycle intervals and their terminology, and recommended ways to report numerical and statistical information are briefly summarized in tabular form.
The number of larval moults, larval head capsule width and pupal weight were investigated in both direct-developing and diapausing individuals of a South-West European population of Coenonympha pamphilus. The frequency distributions of head widths of successive larval instars overlapped, partly due to variation in the number of larval moults. The larvae that entered diapause went through five instars, instead of the four reported from this species. The evidence indicates that the five instar developmental pathway represents a plastic response rather than an example of compensatory growth. This alternative growth pattern was expressed in response to short photoperiods in parallel with, or as a consequence of, larval diapause. On average, the larvae with five instars had larger heads than their normal siblings. This resulted in comparatively heavier male pupae, while the opposite trend occurred in females. It is concluded that the variation in the number of larval instars is a plastic response to diapause when temperatures remain mild and that it might have an adaptive value in areas with mild winter climates. The sexually dimorphic expression in the larval growth patterns, in terms of pupal weight, may well imply different patterns of allocation of larval resources to adult structures, although sex-dependent differences in investment into purely larval structures cannot be discounted.