Psyche 
[June 
148 
mon and present a gratifying diversity of forms. Hagen (1856), 
completing the work of Pictet and Berendt, gave the first thorough 
account of this fauna with a description of seven species which he 
placed in five Recent genera. Although he referred these species to 
the single, all-inclusive subfamily “Hemerobiden”, his material actu- 
ally represented the currently recognized families Coniopterygidae, 
Hemerobiidae, Nymphidae, Osmylidae, and Neurorthidae. In addi- 
tion, as noted below, he described two larvae which he felt belonged 
to this order. Other than this early account, only Kruger (1923) 
has restudied these insects as a unit, although Enderlein (1910) 
described additional amber Coniopterygidae. Kruger’s unillustrated 
work dealt with most of the species described from adults by Hagen 
and he recorded, for the first time, adults of the Berothidae and 
Psychopsidae. Kruger’s account is rather disappointing since he 
considered virtually no structures other than the wing venation and 
in only a limited way did he attempt to assess the relationship of 
the amber species to the taxa of the present day. 
Based largely on the Haren Collection of Baltic amber in the 
Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, but supple- 
mented by important additional pieces from a number of European 
Museums, it has been possible to assemble a total of fifty-seven 
specimens for the present study, which represents by far the most 
extensive collection of Tertiary Neuroptera available at this time. 
This assemblage includes adult forms of the families Berothidae, 
Coniopterygidae, Hemerobiidae, Neurorthidae, Osmylidae, Psychop- 
sidae, and Sisyridae as well as larvae of the Psychopsidae and of the 
Ascalaphidae and Nymphidae. 
The only really surprising omission from the list of represented 
families is that of the Chrysopidae, 4 which I am convinced must 
certainly have been a component of the fauna of the amber forest. 
As noted below, a larval chrysopid was very likely described by 
Hagen (1856), although the present whereabouts of this specimen 
is unknown. Almost equally surprising, in view of their apparent 
4 Although recorded as known from the Baltic amber by both Handlirsch 
(1906) and Bachofen-Echt (1949), no specimen definitely referable to the 
Chrysopidae has ever been described. Handlirsch has simply repeated the 
strictly bibliographic listing of Scudder (1891), which in turn is obviously 
based on an early misidentification by Berendt (1845). Hagen (1852) 
also noted the presence of a chrysopid from the amber, but no such speci- 
men was listed or described in his works of 1854 and 1856. In all 
probability Bachofen-Echt’s erroneous notation is also derived from these 
same old sources. 
