10 
Psyche 
[March 
Brongniart, it differs in having its wings broadest just beyond the 
base, narrower in the apical third, and by having the costal area 
broader, C, Sc and R more curved towards the base, MP and CuP 
usually simple, the anal area larger, the hind wing broader and of 
triangular shape. From all other genera it differs in its simplified 
venation with unbranched MP and CuP. 
Species included in Commentry shales: Stenodictya lobata 
(Brongniart, 1885); S. spinosa (Brongniart, 1885); S. agnita 
(Meunier, 1908); S. pygmaea (Meunier, 1911); S. grandissima 
(Meunier, 1911); S. oustaleti (Brongniart, 1893); S. arnaudi 
(Brongniart, 1893) ; S. klebsi (Meunier, 1908) ; S. laurentiauxi 
spec. nov. ; S . parisiana spec. nov. 
Stenodictya lobata (Brongniart) 
Figures 50, 51, 52 
Scudderia lobata Brongniart, 1890: pi. II, fig. 2, 3. 
Stenodictya lobata Brongniart, 1893: 386, pi. 22, fig. 1; Handlirsch, 1906: 64, 
pi. 8, fig. 20; Handlirsch, 1911: 181, pi. 6, fig. 1 (reconstruction); 
Handlirsch, 1913: 513 (reconstruction); Handlirsch, 1921: 129, fig. 54 
(reconstruction); Handlirsch, 1919: 3; Pruvost, 1919: 98, fig. 24; 
Laurentiaux, 1952: 237; Sharov, 1966: 118, fig. 52 (reconstruction). 
The type specimen of this species was first figured by Brongniart 
in 1890 (pi. 2, fig. 2, 3) as Scudderia lobata ; in 1893 it was illus- 
trated with the name Stenodictya lobata (22-1). The specimen 
which Brongniart figured in his latter paper (pi. 22-2) as lobata 
was the one on which he previously (1890) based spinosa. As stated 
in the footnote on page 386 of the 1893 work, he considered spinosa 
to be a synonym of lobata. However, I believe that Brongniart 
was in error in this conclusion and I am convinced that spinosa is 
a distinct species. In all figures, Brongniart showed lobata (speci- 
men 22-1) as having the incompletely preserved claspers similar to 
those of spinosa (specimen 22-2). This is not correct, however, the 
end of the abdomen on specimen 22-1 being distorted and showing 
on the left side bases of the cerci and on the right side the base of 
the ovipositor. 
Some confusion has existed in the literature about the lateral 
portions of the tergites. Lameere (1917, p. 158) correctly noted 
that the lateral parts of the tergites have the same surface texture 
and sclerotization as the median part of the tergites and that they 
are not separated by any suture from the rest of the tergites. The 
transverse ridge, running near and parallel to the anterior margin 
of the abdominal segments, Lameere considered to be a suture 
