117 



when, so far as one can ju'luc iVdiii tlic ratlicr (louhlful data at 

 hand, the C'arboniferons was (h'cidcclly nearer to onr times than 

 it was to tlie Canil)rian, wliieh of eonrse was not nearly "the 

 dawn of life." The worhl was ah'eady iK'coniiui;' mi(hne-aiied, 

 or at least had lost the freshness of yonth, when I'rosholc and 

 Scyt inapt era were living. 



The statns of Eiujcrcon is qnite another matter. 



irandlirsch gives fonr photogra])hs of this insect in sitn, and 

 some restorations, bnt Dohrn's iignres (186G, Palaeontogr. 

 XIIL, PI. 41) seem mnch more like the photographs than do 

 Handlirsch's restorations. 



What the insect really is I am not pre ])repared to say, hut I 

 am cjuite convinced that it is not, in any sense of the word, a 

 Hemipteron. 



The characters Ilandlirsch gives are: an enormously long 

 lahrum. quite unlike anything known now, a pair of unjointed 

 mandilnilar setse, a pair of 5-6-jointed appendages which Iland- 

 lirsch declares to be the equivalent of the labium (rostrum), and 

 a pair of unjointed maxillary setic (whicli other authors take for 

 antenna^). 



After a very careful study of the drawings, photographs and 

 restorations, I cannot admit that Handlirsch's interpretation is 

 correct, nor that we have here a Ilemipterous, nor even a Ileniip- 

 teroid insect. I think that Eugereon is a l^^europteroid insect of 

 a kind that has no representatives in modern times, that has 

 become extinct, forming an Order or Suborder of its own. 



In his interpretations of some of the Mesozoic Insects, I do 

 not think that Handlirsch is much happier. 



Dijsmorphoptila might be anything!; Arcliegocimex cannot 

 be placed near the "Pentatomida*" (Cimicida?), for the clavns 

 is verv broad apically, the posterior margin of the scutellum be- 

 ing remote from the basal angle of the membrane, a condition 

 never found in the Cimicid^; the same remarks apply to Pro- 

 gonoci)ncx. Of the rest I will only say that in my opinion Iland- 

 lirsch has made a number of families on no characters at all, 

 these families being snperfluous. 



In the Homoptera, Procercopis is very likely an Issine (as 

 regards alutacea, which may not be congeneric with the others). 



Turning to Handlirsch's "trees" of the modern families, I 

 do not think that he is any nearer the truth. He seems to me to 



