1969] 
Kukalova — Palaeodictyoptera 
451 
Although the differences in venation might conceivably be considered 
as due to individual variability and although the cross venation and 
color markings are almost identical, there is a marked difference in 
the length of the legs and probably also of the beak. 
In Lycocercus the hind wings are like the fore wings in shape but 
are narrower. This assertion is based on specimen 21-2, in which 
the wings are preserved in their natural positions. If found isolated, 
a fore or hind wing can be recognized only by the width of the 
proximal part of the subcostal area, which is broader in the fore 
wings. 
Fore wings unusually broad in the proximal half, shaped as hind 
wings. Hind wings similar but somewhat narrower. Ri simple; 
Rs with six branches, first of them forked; MP forked 10-20 times. 
Number of CuP branches variable; about 8 anal veins, mostly forked. 
Cross veins dense, irregular, often connected. 
Body structures: beak short or long. Legs stout but not very 
short. 
Lycocercus differs from Apopappus in less regular anastomosing 
of cross veins, smaller CuP area and in the larger number of short 
branches of Rs and CuP. As a whole, the venation of Lycocercus 
is much less regular. From Polycreagra Handlirsch (Westphalian, 
Illinois) it differs in the less densely branched and less obliquely 
oriented branches of main veins. 
Species included in the Commentry shales: Lycocercus goldenbergi 
Brongniart, 1893; Lycocercus pictus Handlirsch, 1919. 
Occurrences in other deposits: Lycocercus bouckcterti (Lauren- 
tiaux, 1958) of Namurian B, Germany. 
Lycocercus goldenbergi (Brongniart) 
Figures 32, 33, 35 
Dictyoneura goldenbergi Brongniart, 1883: 265 (for additional references 
see Handlirsch, 1922: 39). 
Lithomantis goldenbergi, Brongniart, 1893: 369, pi. 21, fig. 1, 2. 
Lycocercus goldenbergi, Handlirsch, 1906: 89, pi. 10, fig. 20; Handlirsch, 
1921: 138, fig. 60; Handlirsch, 1919: 15, 16; Lameere, 1917: 101; 
Lameere, 1917: 153; Demoulin, 1960: 1-4, pi. 1. 
Lycocercus brongniarti Handlirsch, 1906: 90, pi. 10, fig. 21; Handlirsch, 
1919: 15, fig. 17. 
This species was based by Brongniart on specimen 21-1, one of 
the most remarkable Palaeodictyoptera known, and on specimen 21-2, 
a fragment of fore and hind wing in natural positions. Handlirsch 
(1922) designated specimen 21-1 as the type; specimen 21-2, which 
is important for showing the wing shapes, was referred by Hand- 
