1969] 
Kukalovd — Palaeodictyoptera 
457 
"1 his genus was erected by Handlirsch upon Spilaptera guernei 
Brongniart, specimen 19-3, because of a simple MA and CuA but it 
was erroneously classified with the family Graphiptilidae. Later, 
Lameere (1917, p. 103) suggested that Apopappus was a transitional 
form between the Spilapteridae and Ephemeroptera. Finally the same 
author (1917, p. 42) established for this genus a separate family, 
Apopappidae. With Triplosobidae, he referred this family to the 
Protephemeroidea because he believed that in the mp area of guernei 
there is the beginning of intercalary sectors, indicating its relationship 
to the Ephemeroptera. 
The venation of Apopappus shows typical lycocercid features, such 
as the large triangular MP area, simple MA and CuA and fine 
but rather dense pattern of cross veins. The fusion of the distal 
branch of MPi with the proximal branch of MP2, considered by 
Lameere as an intercalary sector, is in all probability an individual 
variation only. 
Wing broad. Branches of main veins running parallel. Rs with 
6 pectinate branches, most of them simple; MA arising near the first 
fork of MP; MP forked 9 times. CuP with a series of 6 branches. 
Anal area unknown. Cross veins fine, not very dense, mostly regular 
and simple. 
Apopappus differs from Lycocercus in the regularly distributed 
branches of the main veins, in the very rich branches of CuP and in 
the more regular, less numerous and mostly simple cross veins. 
Species included in the Commentry shales: Apopappus guernei 
(Brongniart, 1893). 
Apopappus guernei (Brongniart) 
Figure 34 
Spilaptera guernei Brongniart, 1893: 341, pi. 19, fig. 3. 
Apopappus guernei Handlirsch, 1906: 100, pi. 11, fig. 13; Handlirsch, 1919: 
20; Lameere, 1917: 149. 
This species is monotypic, based by Brongniart upon specimen 
I 9 _ 3, which I was not able to find in the collections of the Museum. 
This account has been made from a good photograph which Dr. 
Carpenter kindly placed at my disposal and which showed the vena- 
tion very clearly. 
As in other Lycocercidae, it is difficult to recognize the fore and 
hind wing if found isolated, especially if the subcostal area is missing. 
From the more pronounced convexity of posterior margin in the 
apical third and beyond the width, I believe the wing is probably the 
fore one. 
