1970] 
MacLeod — Baltic Amber N europtera 
161 
and differences between Pronymphes and these living genera are, 
however, obvious. 
Thus, in the fore wing, the rather far distal separation of MA 
from Rs is a feature common to all of these genera, while Pronymphes 
shares the deep, basal fork of MP in this wing with both Nymphes 
and N esydrion. In both Nyjnphes and some of the species of 
Nesydrion this forking is distal to the separation of MA from Rs 
but in other species of Nesydrion the fork of MA is as far proximal 
as it is in Pronymphes. Austronymphes differs from the other three 
genera in having MP unforked in the fore wing. The three living 
genera show various stages in the evolution of the prominent fork 
of CuA in the fore wing, which is characteristic of all the higher 
myrmeleontoid families, with this fork nearly marginal in Nesydrion , 
just proximal to the middle of the wing in Austronymphes and far 
proximal to mid wing in Nymphes where it is closer to the base 
than the fork of MP or the separation of MA from Rs. The exact 
development of this important venational feature cannot yet be 
determined in Pronymphes , although it is obvious that if a fork of 
CuA was present it certainly was considerably more distal than in 
Nymphes and, probably, Austronymphes. The rather distal point 
of origin of Rs + MA in the hind wing of Prony?nphes is quite like 
the condition of this vein in Nesydrion and this feature contrasts 
sharply with the distinctly more basal origin of this vein in all 
other living genera of the family. Finally, in the weak, submarginal 
development of the fork of MP 2 in the hind wing, Pronymphes is 
similar to the condition found in Austrony?nphes and N esydrion and 
quite distinct from Nymphes where a deep fork is developed which 
mimics the appearance of the fork of CuA of the fore wing. 
Kruger, who was also impressed with the similarity of Pronymphes 
and Nesydrion , felt that these genera could be differentiated by the 
fact that the fork of CuA of the fore wing is at about the level of 
the separation of MA from Rs in N esydrion, while in Pronymphes 
no such fork in CuA is developed at this level. The fore wing of 
Pronymphes is preserved for only a very short distance beyond this 
region and if, with the discovery of additional specimens, a fork 
in CuA is found to be present just distal to the region preserved in 
Hagen’s specimen, I doubt if a generic distinction will be possible. 
Kruger suggested that there were additional differences to be found 
in the hind wings of Pronymphes and Nesydrion , although he did 
not stipulate what these might be. I am unable to discover any 
important differences in the hind wings of these two genera. It will 
