34 
Psyche 
[March 
these were not removed and softened, as was done with the 
holotype, the sclerites are clearly defined. The eighth tergite 
extends further ventrally than the preceding tergites, and 
the ninth extends to the ventral surface. The eighth sternite 
is not visible externally, but is presumably reduced to scler- 
otized rods or plates encompassed by the ninth tergite. The 
tenth tergite is small and tapering, with conspicuous tricho- 
bothria near the margin of the ninth tergite. The ninth 
sternite is represented by a pair of very small plates, more 
or less fused, each bearing a minute papilla distally. These 
two plates are apparently the homologues of the psammaro- 
trum or sand-plow of the Australian ithonids. 
Holotype ( $ ) : Walters Station, California; April (J. B. 
Smith) ; in M.C.Z. 
Allotype (by present designation) : 3 mi. southwest of 
Parker Dam, San Bernardino Co., April 25, 1949 (C. M. 
MacNeill), taken at light; in collection of P. A. Adams. 
Since only one species of Oliarces is known, any diagnosis 
of the genus is probably tentative. However, considering 
the characteristics involved in the classification of other 
Neuroptera, I propose the following: the hyaline nature of 
both pairs of wings ; in the fore wing the presence of a re- 
current costal vein, of about five (probably variable) bran- 
ches of Rs, and of relatively few cross-veins in the wing as 
a whole, as well as the absence of connecting cross-veins be- 
tween costal veinlets ; in the hind wing the transverse posi- 
tion of the basal part of MA (see below) ; in the male ab- 
domen, the dorsally directed anal plates ; and in the female, 
the absence of a distinct psammarotrum. The presence of 
two nygmata in the hind wing is of doubtful generic value, 
although only one is present in the specimens which I have 
seen of Rhone, Heterithone and Varnia. 
The relationships of Oliarces with other Neuroptera have 
been very uncertain. Although originally placed by Banks 
(1908, 1913) in the family Hemerobiidae, as broadly con- 
ceived, it does not fit into the current and more restricted 
definition of that family. Tillyard, who noted this in 1916, 
suggested that a new family might be needed for it, but did 
not formally establish one. On the other hand, Brues and 
