1964] 
Carpenter — Dictyoptilus 
109 
Meunier’s figure of this fossil (1910, p. 236) is unbelievably in- 
accurate. Handlirsch’s illustration (1919, p. 12), although not so 
crudely done as Meunier’s, is erroneous in several major respects,- — 
i.e., short Sc, and the absence of the divergence on CuA. Lauren- 
tiaux’s figure (1953, p. 423) is accurate in all important aspects, but 
shows a fork on the penultimate branch of Rs, instead of the terminal 
one. 
As noted above, this species is very close to renaulti, but the dif- 
ference in size is sufficient to retain the species as distinct. 
Dictyoptilus peromapteroides Meunier 
Plate 13, Fig. B 
Cocker ellia peromapteroides Meunier, 1908, Ann. Soc. Sci. Brux., 3 2:154; 
Meunier, 1907, Mus. Hist. Natur., Bull., 14:36, fig. 2. 
Cockerelliella peromapteroides, Meunier, 1909, Ann. Paleont., 4:132, pi. 1, 
fig. 3. 
Dictyoptilus peromapteroides, Lameere, 1917, Mus. Nat. Hist. Natur., Bull., 
23 : 1 5 9. 
This species is based on a single specimen consisting of a nearly 
complete fore wing and the basal half of a hind wing; the preserva- 
tion is satisfactory, although not so good as that of the type of sepultus. 
The fore wing as preserved is 130 mm. long and has a maximum 
width of 22 mm. ; the complete length of the wing was probably about 
140 mm. The venation of the fore wing seems to be very close to that 
of sepultus ; in fact, it is difficult to find differences. The cross veins 
appear to be a little closer together than those of sepultus and the 
reticulation formed by the cross veins a little finer. The fore wing is 
about 25 mm. longer than that of sepultus and 30 mm. shorter than 
that of renaulti. 
The type specimen of peromapteroides is especially interesting be- 
cause of the presence of the hind wing, which is otherwise unknown 
in Dictyoptilus. Meunier’s figure of the hind wing (1908, p. 36) is 
very misleading. Handlirsch’s figure (1919, fig. 13), which was made 
by a tracing from Meunier’s published photograph of the fossil, is 
better than Meunier’s but misses many of the important features 
noted below. Lameere (1917) in his brief notes on peromapteroides 
makes no comment on the peculiarities of the venation of the hind 
wing. 
The hind wing is preserved only to about the level of the middle 
of the fore wing; at this point it is clearly broken away. There is no 
indication that the hind wings were substantially shorter than the 
fore wing, as shown in Handlirsch’s figure (1919) ; the distal part 
of the fragment of the hind wing measures 20 mm. in width, which 
is only 2 mm. less than the fore wing at that position. So far as is 
