1929] 
Jurassic Neuropteran of Bavaria 
193 
characteristic writing: “Nymphes verwandt, herrlich!”, 
and also printed on a label, which has been pasted to the 
rock: “Nymphes fossilis Hagen. Paleont. X. P. 108 No. 36. 
Type. Solenhofen, Dr. Krantz.” 
The generic affinities of Mesonymphes are quite obvious. 
From Nymphites it differs by the possession of an un- 
branched media in the fore wing, by a more pronounced 
development of the costal space towards the apex of the 
wing, by the more specialized termination of Rl, and 
especially in the degree of development of Cu2. In the struc- 
ture of the first three of these features the venation 
approaches that of Nymphes itself, but the cubitus is de- 
cidedly different. Cul of Mesonymphes sends off only seven 
branches while Cu2 gives rise to eleven; in Nymphes there 
are 8 branches leading from Cul, and only 5 from Cu2. 
There is a close resemblance of Mesonymphes to the Myio- 
dactylid genus Osmylops, which inhabits parts of Australia. 1 
The costal area is much broader in the recent genus and 
the terminations of Sc and Rl are somewhat different, but 
the structure of the cubitus in the fore wing is quite the 
same in both genera. Martynov has described a related 
Neuropteran from the Jurassic beds of Turkestan (1927), 
but this fossil has closer affinities with the Hemerobiidae 
than with the Nymphitidae. 
The modern aspect of Mesonymphes is of unusual inter- 
est. If a Neuropteran with the venational characteristics of 
Mesonymphes were found in the tropics at the present 
time, it would probably not arouse much comment. The 
only feature of this insect which is more primitive than 
that of Nymphes is the small number of cross-veins. For 
although Martynov in his description of the Turkestan 
form claims that the original ancestral condition of the 
Myrmeleontid types was characterized by a larger number 
of cross-veins, which have decreased from the Jurassic to 
the present, this conception is contrary to all the evidence 
that has been accumulated on the evolution of the order. 
!I do not accept Tillyard’s interpretation of the venation of this 
genus, as explained in his “Insects of Australia and New Zealand” 
(p. 321, and fig. U16). The vein which he has labeled M3+4, being 
strongly convex , is Cul, and his Cul, being strongly concave , is Cu2. 
