346 
Psyche 
[December 
that in the group ancestral to the Hymenoptera we must 
inevitably find some remains of hairs, similar to those 
which exist, for example, in the wings of the fossil Mecop- 
tera. Thanks to the kindness of Professor Schuchert . . . 
I examined the excellent remains of both Protohymen and 
Permohymen, but I could not perceive any hairs on their 
wings. The wing of the new genus Aspidohymen from 
Tikhie Gory also does not show any traces of hairs. Thus, 
such a character of the wing membrane manifests also 
that this order is very far removed from the order Hymen- 
optera, as well as from the remaining Holometabola, and 
is allied rather to the order Odonata, etc., i. e., belongs to 
the division Paleoptera.” (1930, p. 79.) 
In 1927, one year previous to Martynov’s discovery of 
the Russian specimens, I was fortunate enough to secure 
fifty-five representatives of the Protohymenoptera in the 
limestone at Elmo, Kansas. At that time it was already 
clear that a knowledge of the structure of the body of these 
insects would help us immensely in determining their affini- 
ties. Since the Yale specimens consisted only of wings, 
the chief aim of our collecting trip was to obtain specimens 
of Protohymenoptera with the body preserved. In this 
respect we were most successful ; several fossils show por- 
tions of the bodies, and one specimen includes nearly the 
whole body, with the minutest details perfectly preserved. 
Through the kindness of Professor Dunbar I have been 
able to examine the twenty-three specimens of Protohymen- 
optera in the Yale collection, including Tillyard’s types; 
and I have also found four additional fossils in Dr. Sel- 
lards’ collection. From my study of all these representa- 
tives of the group, totaling eighty-two, I am convinced 
that Handlirsch and Martynov were correct in their as- 
sumption that the Protohymenoptera were megasecop- 
terous. The evidence which leads me to this conclusion will 
be presented after the description of the fossils. 
It will be observed in these descriptions that I have 
employed an interpretation of the venation which differs 
from that used by Tillyard, as well as from that offered 
by Martynov. These changes in the nomenclature of the 
veins are necessary because both of these authors have 
been mislead by an erroneous conception of the convexities 
