158 
Psyche 
[June 
associated larva which I have seen from Tanzania), or perhaps as 
the small tubercles anterior to the main scoli on abdominal seg- 
ments III-VII (as in Ascaloptynx and several unassociated forms 
from Central and South America which I have studied). Other 
than these general observations, I do not believe that the inadequate 
state of our knowledge of the larvae of this family permits any 
more definite taxonomic assignment of N. protae at this time. 
Family NYMPH IDAE Rambur, 1842 7 
This phylogenetically important family is presently confined to 
the Australian Region where a small number of species, classified 
into six genera, are known. The group is obviously of great antiquity 
as the very closely related Nymphitidae is known from Triassic 
strata of Russia (Martynova, 1949) and the species Mesonymphes 
hageni Carpenter from the Bavarian Jurassic is already so similar 
to the living forms that Adams (1958) concluded that it should 
be included in the Nymphidae itself. 
The only apparent Tertiary record of the family 8 has been an 
adult specimen described from the Baltic amber by Hagen (1856) 
as Nymphes mengeanus and redescribed as representing a new genus, 
Pronymphes , by Kruger (1923). This specimen, originally from 
Menge’s collection, retained only the basal portion of the wings 
and was missing its abdomen. Kruger’s reexamination of the speci- 
men provided a few additional details and corrected several minor 
errors in Hagen’s drawing of the wings. Kruger noted that the 
specimen was at that time contained in the collections of the 
Danzig Provincial Museum and, as it has proven impossible to 
locate, it may not have survived World War II. My redescription 
of the genus Pronymphes is, then, derived from the accounts of 
Hagen and Kruger and may require future corrections. 
I will also here redescribe the larval specimen which Weidner 
(1958) has treated as a member of the Ascalaphidae. For reasons 
to be given shortly, I am convinced that the specimen is actually 
a nymphid, which I will tentatively refer to Prony?nphes. 
7 In my treatment of this family I am tentatively following the conclusions 
of Adams (1958) who presented important reasons against the separation 
of the Myiodactylidae from their close relatives in the Nymphidae. I have 
previously suggested (1964 and MS in preparation) that a fuller knowl- 
edge of the structure and ecology of the larvae of this group may force 
a reevaluation of this idea. 
8 Bachofen-Echt (1949) notes seven species as having been described from 
the Baltic amber. I am unable to determine the origin of this error. 
