1970] 
Kukalova — Palaeodictyoptera 
7 
curved; MP simple or branched; CuA unbranched; CuP simple 
or having several branches. Archedictyon well developed over most 
of the wings and usually dense. 
Body structures: head with small projecting eyes and large 
clypeus. Antennae multisegmented, long. Prothoracic lobes large, 
with about eight radiating veins, often branched, and numerous, 
anastomosing cross veins; thoracic segments uniformly long, though 
the prothorax may be somewhat shorter than the others. Legs short, 
robust, tarsus 5-segmentedj with claws and arolium. Abdomen 
relatively broad and short. Cerci in females long, multisegmented. 
Ovipositor in female curved, stout, reaching beyond the end of the 
body. Males with claspers arising laterally from the subgenital 
plate, composed of homonomous, carinated plates, directed obliquely 
and touching distally. Body and wings completely and densely 
covered by deep pits. All body parts heavily sclerotized. 
The family Dictyoneuridae is related to the Eugereonidae, 
Archaemegaptilidae and Protagrionidae and is more distantly related 
to the Megaptilidae and Calvertiellidae. 
The genera included in the Commentry shales: Stenodictya 
Brongniart, Microdictya Brongniart. The following genera, also 
in the family Dictyoneuridae, are from the Stephanian of Germany: 
Dictyoneura Goldenberg, Stilbocrocis Handlirsch, Cleffia Guthorl, 
Rotundopteris Guthorl, Polioptenus Scudder, Dictyoneurula Hand- 
lirsch, Goldenbergia Scudder, Sagenoptera Handlirsch, Kallenbergia 
Guthorl and possibly Gegenemene Handlirsch. 
Genus Stenodictya Brongniart 
Scudderia Brongniart, 1885: 61; Brongniart, 1885: 277 (nomen nudum). 
Scudderia Brongniart, 1890: 5 (nec Scudderia Grote, 1873). 
Stenodictya Brongniart, 1893:383; Handlirsch, 1906:63; Handlirsch, 1919:3; 
Pruvost, 1919: 308; Crampton, 1919: 54; Lameere, 1917: 157; Lau- 
rentiaux, 1953: 419; Sharov, 1966: 118. 
Type species: Scudderia lobata Brongniart, 1890, SD Brongniart, 
t 8 93 . 
'Phis genus was based originally on two species, lobata and 
spinosa, which Brongniart subsequently (1893) and incorrectly 
merged under one species, lobata. 
In the Commentry collections in the Institut in Paris there are 
22 specimens not figured or described by previous workers. These 
are mostly isolated wings and fragments of wings. Presumably, 
the flatness of the dictyoneurid wings and the indistinct venation 
prevented Brongniart and Meunier from making satisfactory obser- 
vations on these specimens. By using glycerin, however, I was able 
