372 
Psyche 
[December 
accept Tillyard’s theory that the Protohymenoptera were 
the ancestors of the Hymenoptera, we must reject his inter- 
pretation of the hymenopterous venation based upon that 
association and substitute another one founded upon the 
corrected interpretation of the protohymenopterous wings 
advanced in this paper. Conversely, if his system of hymen- 
opterous venation is the correct one, we must reject his 
doctrine of the origin of the Hymenoptera. 
As I have mentioned above there are a few structures 
in the Hymenoptera (such as the polynephric Malphigian 
system) which isolate the group slightly from the other 
holometabolous insects; but so many other features are 
identical in the Hymenoptera and panorpoid orders that 
we can safely say that the comparative morphology of all 
these insects, especially in the developmental stages, dem- 
onstrates satisfactorily that the Hymenoptera arose in com- 
mon with the other holometabolous forms (see Crampton, 
1927, etc.). It is true that the venation of the Hymen- 
optera, as interpreted by Comstock, MacGillivary, and Till- 
yard, is not in complete agreement with that of the Mecop- 
tera and allies ; but Dr. Martynov, after an extensive study 
of the wings of the Hymenoptera, has concluded (1930) 
that the “venation in the Hymenoptera, though very spe- 
cialized, shows many features of similarity with that of the 
Megaloptera and Mecoptera, thus proving that the Hymen- 
optera evolved from ancestors somewhat intermediate be- 
tween the Megaloptera, Raphidioptera, and Mecoptera. 
The resemblance of the wings of the Megasecoptera, or 
the Protohymenoptera to those of the Hymenoptera (and 
Mecoptera) is purely superficial. 5 ” Although Martynov's 
paper is still in the process of publication, it seems already 
certain that the Protohymenoptera and the rest of the 
Megasecoptera have nothing in common with the Hymen- 
optera. 
5 Martynov has suggested that since the name “Protohymenoptera” 
is not appropriate for these fossils, it should be changed; and he 
proposes “Synsecoptera.” This procedure does not seem practicable 
to me, for we already have other “Proto” orders (as Protodonata) 
which are no longer regarded as ancestral to the recent order con- 
cerned. This policy also means that investigators with diverse views 
on the affinities of the fossil would refer to the order under different 
names. 
