1970] MacLeod — Baltic Amber Neuroptera 1 5 1 
the notations of Burmeister and Hope being obviously secondary 
sources. Such a larva was, curiously, not mentioned by Hagen and, 
aside from the later bibliograhic compilations of Scudder (1886, 
1891), which do not note that the earlier references pertained to a 
larva, this larval type was not mentioned again until 1910. In that 
year Klebs, again without formal description, mentioned the exist- 
ence of this type of larva in his extensive personal collection and, 
without reaching any final conclusions, discussed the opinions of 
several persons whom he had contacted as to whether it was an 
ascalaphid or a myrmeleontid. Klebs’ collection was subsequently 
acquired by Albertus University, Konigsberg (Andree, 1937), while, 
as noted above, portions of Berendt’s collection are now located in 
Berlin; however, a recent search of the remains of these collections 
has failed to produce any specimens on which these records might 
have been based. Both Handlirsch (1906, 1925) and Bachofen-Echt 
(1949), again apparently misled by the earlier references of the 
nineteenth century, have also dutifully recorded the existence of a 
myrmeleontid from the amber. 5 
Weidner (1958) has finally given a formal description of a 
myrmeleontoid larva and his specimen has been available to me for 
restudy. In addition, a magnificent specimen of an ascalaphid larva 
from the Haren Collection of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 
will also be described. As noted below, it is possible that this latter 
specimen is the one which was once owned by Klebs. 
Family ASCALAPHIDAE Schneider, 1845 
The present distribution of this small family includes all major 
zoogeographic regions, although there is a pronounced concentration 
of the major taxa in the tropical and subtropical regions of the 
New and, particularly, the Old World. Two fossil ascalaphids, 
both adults, have been described from Tertiary deposits of Europe: 
Ascalaphus proavus Hagen (1858), from the brown coal near Linz, 
West Germany, and A. edwardsi Oustalet (1870) from Saint- 
Tike Scudder, the listings of both Handlirsch and Bachofen-Echt suggest 
that they are based on adult fossils. Handlirsch, however, is clearly citing 
the old reports of Berendt (1830, 1845) and Burmeister (1832) which deal 
with a larval specimen. Handlirsch and Bachofen-Echt have introduced 
additional confusion by claiming not one myrmeleontid species from the 
amber, but three. The three “species” of Handlirsch’s account trace back 
to the three early papers just noted, all of which deal with a single (larval) 
specimen. Bachofen-Echt has simply repeated Handlirsch’s error. 
