82 
Psyche 
[March 
the fore wing seems, curiously enough, to be somewhat more narrow 
than that of the hind wing but no other differences are apparent. 
The most striking feature of the wings is the presence of a single 
media, which is unbranched and which is neutral in its position. 
This would seem to me, without any question, to eliminate Sypharop- 
tera entirely from the Palaeoptera, which retain the convexity or 
concavity of the branches of M to a very marked degree. On the 
other hand, this condition of M is one which occurs in various 
groups of the Neoptera; and* of course, the position of the wings is 
neopterous. What is not known, unfortunately, is whether or not the 
hind wing possessed an expanded or enlarged anal area. In the hind 
wing of the fossil (and in the fore wing also for that matter) the 
anal area is completelv missing. It seems to me, therefore, that the 
bulk of the evidence, such as it is, points to the conclusion that 
Sypharoptera is not palaeopterous as it was treated by Martynov, 
Rohdendorf and Laurentiaux, but neopterous. 
Within the great group of neopterous orders, the position of 
Sypharoptera is not at all clear on the basis of its venation; and the 
very short cerci are no real help. It seems to me, therefore, that the 
family Sypharopteridae should be placed in the category of the In- 
secta Incertae Sedis. Handlirsch’s policy of erecting new orders for 
fragmentary fossils which he could not fit into known groups has 
no justification. He indicated that he was establishing orders “pro- 
visionally” but the meaning of that term is not clear, since all 
taxonomy is provisional, in the sense that changes may be made by 
subsequent investigators. The main disadvantage of the procedure 
followed by Handlirsch is that many meaningless, ordinal names are 
introduced into the literature, thus confusing the concept of the 
really extinct and valid orders. Until something is known of the 
body structure, including the mouth-parts, and the differences in the 
fore and hind wings, I consider it useless to establish separate orders 
for fossils. Accordingly, I am placing Sypharoptera in the category 
of Insecta Incertae Sedis; the name Sypharopterodea (or Sypharop- 
teroidea as originally used by Handlirsch) remains associated with 
this insect as the nomen of a higher category, the nature of which 
will be determined after specimens have been found that provide 
enough information for definite conclusions. 
References 
Bolton, H. 
1917. On Blattoid and Other Insect Remains from the South Stafford- 
shire Coalfield. Proc. Birm. Nat. Hist. Soc. 14: 100-106. 
