S. H. SCUDDER ON PALAEOZOIC COCKROACHES. 91 



chosen for illustration and principal description, as probably delineated with greater accu- 

 racy, is a left wing exhibiting the upper surface. 



Hind wing. Portions of both hind wings are preserved in connection with the fore 

 wings, but show no outline of their form, but only some branching veins ; which from their 

 close resemblance to the scapular and externomedian veins of the front wing, as to the 

 mode and position of their forks, probably belong to these veins ; their branching appears 

 to be a little further from the base than in the front wing. 



The single specimen known, is, with the possible exception of Etobl. insignia, the most 

 perfectly preserved of all palaeozoic cockroaches ; for, besides the wings, we have the head, 

 thorax, a part of the body and the legs. It is, therefore, to be hoped that Dr. Geinitz will 

 give a fuller account of it at an early period. The abdomen is probably ill preserved, as it 

 is not represented on the plate, but is said by Geinitz to be 40 mm. long, and about 10 mm. 

 broad, the narrowness of which he remarks. Of the head he makes no special mention ; it 

 projects a little beyond the thorax as a transversely oval body, 2 mm. long, and 5 mm. 

 broad. The pronotal shield is longitudinally oval, broadest apparently in front of the middle, 

 its front border well rounded, the sides convex, and the hind border apparently rather 

 straighter than the front, its length 15 mm., and its breadth 10 mm. The two hinder pair 

 of legs are well preserved, apparently shaped much as in modern tj'pes; no mention is made 

 of spines ; the legs are short, particularly the hind pair, where the whole leg is about 

 35 mm. long, the femora and tarsi of about equal length, while the tibiae are a little longer ; 

 measuring his figure, we have the length of the former, 12 mm. ; its breadth, 3 mm. ; length 

 of tibia, 14 mm. ; its breadth, 2 mm. ; length of tarsi, 10.5 mm.; their breadth, 1.25 mm. 



The wing is larger than in any other European species, excepting Anthr. spectabilis, 

 from which it is readily distinguished by the more arched costal margin, the longer medias- 

 tinal area, and the earlier division of the scapular vein. It is related to Anthr. porrecta 

 by the extent of the mediastinal area, but the distribution of the branches and the extent 

 of the other areas differ considerably. Geinitz considers it identical with Etoblatt. didyma 

 with which he says it closely agrees, sj^ecifying, indeed, the illustration of Germar 

 copied in our PI. 2, fig. 13. He mentions, however, certain differences, such as the greater 

 simplicity and number of the anal veins. But there are much more important differences 

 than these, and such as leave no doubt whatever of the specific, not to say generic, dis- 

 tinction, although there is unquestionably a general resemblance between the two. The 

 shape of the wing is very different from that of Etobl. didyma. principally on account of 

 the greater convexity of the costal margin in Anth. sopita and the greater median breadth 

 of the wing, as compared with the extremities ; in A. sojnta again the mediastinal area 

 is considerably longer, the scapular area very much narrower, as compared to the breadth 

 of the wing, and its branches longitudinal, instead of oblique, and similar to those of the 

 mediastinal area ; the distribution of the veins of the externomedian area is totally differ- 

 ent, the branches being mostly simple and inferior in Anthr. sopjita, while the branches are 

 superior and the uppermost unusually compound in Etobl. didyma, and all together cover 

 an extensive area at the apex of the wing, instead of a very narrow one as in Anthr. 

 sopita. No differences of importance exist in the internomedian and anal areas. 



The single specimen comes from Weissig, Saxony. Lower Dyas. 



