1930 ] 
Permian Insects of Kansas 
347 
and concavities of the veins. The evidence for this will 
also be considered after the descriptions. 
The Kansan Protohymenoptera were separated by Till- 
yard into two families, Protohymenidse and Astheno- 
hymenidse, based largely on the degree of development of 
the pterostigma, the presence or absence of the radial sec- 
tor, and the relative lengths of the second anal vein. This 
classification is a convenient one and is used here, but the 
most striking difference between the families lies in the 
width of the costal space. The second of the characteristics 
mentioned by Tillyard must be omitted, for the radial sector 
is present in all forms. One change in the terminology of 
the families must be made. In 1906 Sellards described one 
of the Kansan fossils in his collection as Doter minor; 
this specimen consisted of the thorax, abdomen, two long 
cerci, and the two front wings, but the latter were so 
twisted and folded that he was unable to determine satis- 
factorily the nature of the venation. He was not sure of 
the taxonomic position of the fossil, but believed that it 
was related to the Protephemeroidea. Handlirsch (1919) 
placed it within a separate family, Doteridse, and doubt- 
fully considered it to be a Paleodictyopteran. When I ex- 
amined this type specimen in 1927 at Austin, Texas, I 
observed at once from the nature of the wing membrane 
and the venation that it belonged to the genus Astheno- 
hymen, which Tillyard had just described. From the photo- 
graph, drawings, and notes which I made at that time, I 
am now able to recognize it as the same species which 
Tillyard called A. dunbari , the commonest of all the Proto- 
hymenoptera in the Elmo limestone. Of course this iden- 
tity is not obvious from Sellards' figure of Doter minor, 
for the distortion of his fossil and the fact that the insect 
possessed an unusual type of venation prevented Sellards 
from obtaining a correct idea of the venation. This syn- 
onymy requires us to change the name of the genus from 
Asthenohymen to Doter, and the corresponding family name 
to Doteridse. It is interesting to note that Dr. Martynov 
has observed (1930, p. 85) a similarity between the vena- 
tion of Doter, as figured by Sellards, and the venation of 
Asthenohymen, and he has suggested that Doter may be a 
Protohymenopteron. Dr. Martynov deserves to be con- 
