1960] 
Carpenter — Protodonata 
109 
long et 2 centimetres de large. Sa forme, sa nervation et sa reticula- 
tion rappellent beaucoup celle des Odonates actuels. II y a cependant 
d’assez notables differences.” 
Since this was the first mention of the genus Protagrion in the 
literature anywhere and since there was no mention of any species in 
the genus, the name Protagrion was a nomen nudum. This use of the 
term Protodonata did not, therefore, establish a precedent or policy 
with respect to use of the name. The next use of the term Protodonata, 
again for a family, was by Brongniart in 1894 (P* 394)- At the be- 
ginning of Chapter V, entitled “Protodonata”, there was a discussion 
of the characteristics of the Protodonata based almost entirely on 
Meganeura ; the genus Protagrion was not even mentioned there. 
In the descriptive part of the work, the first genus considered was 
Meganeura , which was fully described, along with two species in the 
genus, monyi and selysii. The other genera also assigned in the 
“family Protodonata” in chronological order were: Paralogus , Titan- 
ophasma , Protagrion , Campyloptera , and Brodia. Protagrion was, 
therefore, fourth in the series of genera placed in the “family Pro- 
todonata”. From this I think it is clear that there is no basis for Dr. 
Fraser’s statement that the Order Protodonata “must take the charac- 
ters of Protagrion 
Since the first definition of the Protodonata as an order (Hand- 
lirsch, 1906b) was based mainly on the Meganeuridae, and since 
Rrongniart’s first valid use (1894) of the term Protodonata for a 
“family” was based almost exclusively on Meganeura , I do not accept 
the removal of the Meganeuridae from the Protodonata and the 
erection of another order ( Meganisoptera) for that family. In my 
opinion the Order Meganisoptera is identical with the Order Pro- 
todonata. 
Whether the Protodonata should be considered a separate order or 
a suborder of the Odonata is largely a matter of personal choice. 
Fraser (1957, p. 24) considers the group (Meganisoptera) to be a 
suborder, whereas Martynov (1932b, p. 43; 1938, p. 62) treated it 
as a distinct order. I strongly support its ordinal rank; the absence 
of a nodus, a pterostigma and a true arculus places these insects outside 
the phylogenetic complex of the Odonata. 
