1970] 
Kukalovd — Palaeodictyoptera 
5 
dictyon is replaced by cross veins in the subcostal and sc-r areas, the 
tarsal segments are five in number, the abdomen shorter and nar- 
rower than represented, the lateral lamellae are not present (the 
posterolateral angles of tergites projecting only slightly), and the 
cerci are robust and long. Finally, Handlirsch’s figure includes a 
combination of male and female features. His reconstruction of the 
prothoracic lobes, wings and part of the abdomen were based on 
Brongniart’s specimen 22-1, which is a female, as shown by the 
presence of an ovipositor (see Figure 50). On the other hand, 
the end of the abdomen of Handlirsch’s reconstruction was based 
upon Brongniart’s specimen 22-2, which turns out to be a male and 
which probably represents a distinct species. The male claspers, 
incidentally, were misinterpreted by Handlirsch (Lameere, 1917, 
p. 158). 
Following the significant discovery by Laurentiaux (1952) of 
the presence of the sucking beak in a previously unstudied specimen 
of Stenodictya (collection of the Institut, Paris), doubts about the 
presence of a beak in all Palaeodictyoptera have disappeared. On 
the basis of the photograph in Laurentiaux’s paper, Sharov (1966, 
p. 1 18) gave a new reconstruction of Stenodictya. However, this 
reconstruction is also incorrect, mainly because the specimen itself 
was preserved so as to show a ventral view, although this was not 
apparent from the photograph. As a result, Sharov erroneously 
interpreted several features as dorsal in position. For example, the 
prothoracic lobes, appearing from underneath the body, were inter- 
preted as a prothoracic shield ; and vague outlines of a structure 
shown on the photograph only as the result of shading (but com- 
pletely invisible in the specimen itself) is represented in the restora- 
tion as a separate small segment at the base of the beak in the place 
where, in the dorsal surface of the Palaeodictyoptera, there is the 
triangular, elongate labrum. Furthermore, the beak as represented 
in Sharov’s reconstruction, should be longer than drawn, with long 
palpi present; the wings should have cross veins in the subcostal and 
the sc-r areas, the legs should have five tarsal segments; the cerci 
should be somewhat longer and the posterolateral angles of the 
tergites less projecting. 
In the accompanying illustration (Figure 50) I am including a 
reconstruction of Stenodictya which, it should be noted, is a com- 
posite of structures present in several species of the genus, as follows: 
S. lobata Brongniart, specimen 22-1, for head, eyes, clypeus, pro- 
thoracic lobes, venation of fore and hind wings (in part), thorax, 
