054 THE PANORPOID COMPLEX, iii. , 



in it. It will be seen, however, in the course of the present 

 research, that both my previous paper and Dr. Turner's came 

 to certain conclusions which were unwarranted; in my own case, 

 owing to lack of prolonged study of the Order, in Dr. Turner's, 

 inevitably because he confined himself entirely to the imaginal 

 wing-venation, by means of which it is practically impossible to 

 arrive at the truth with regard to certain points. Dr. Turner's 

 paper is of the utmost value, not only because of the detailed 

 comparison of the venations of all the known genera within the 

 Cossidae, but also because of the extension of the same method 

 to selected types from all the older families, and because of 

 his definition of the hypothetical ancestors of the Heteroneura, 

 which he calls the family Protocossidae, — a name which I shall 

 adopt here. It will therefore not be necessary for me to pass 

 in review a large number of genera, but simply to deal, as far 

 as possible, with those in which I have been able to study the 

 pupal traeheation, and then to compare my results with those 

 obtained by Dr. Turner, by his comparative study of the 

 imaginal venations only. 



Family PAL^EONTINIDJE (Fossils only). 



In Text-fig. 84, 1 have reproduced from Handlirsch (2, Atlas, 

 plates xlix., 1.) a number of his figures of the best preserved 

 of these fossils. The first of these Jurassic insects to be dis- 

 covered, and one of the oldest in actual horizon, was Palaeontina 

 uulitica Butler (Text-fig. 84, /'), of which, unfortunately, oidy 

 the forewing is known. Another interesting type known only 

 from its forewing is Palaeocossus jura$sicus Opp. (Text-fig. 

 84, a) . Besides these, I have figured four genera in which the 

 fore and hindwings are both fairly well p reserved. Whether 

 Handlirsch's restorations, which I have reproduced herewith, 

 are correct in every detail, may be a matter of individiial 

 opinion. I can only say that, after examining the photographs 

 of the fossils which he also publishes, I cannot see any definite 

 errors in the restorations, though it is perhaps doubtful how 

 far he is justified in restoring the subcosta and radius of the 

 forewings of some of the types on the somewhat abnormal plan 

 that he has sometimes adopted. What is absolutely certain is 

 that those fossils in which the hindwing is preserved were most 

 certainly not Homoneura. The hindwings are reduced in size 

 to a level rarely attained, even in highly specialised Hetero- 



