1971] 
Kukalovd-Peck — - Dunbaria 
307 
the most extensive aggregation of Palaeodictyoptera belonging to one 
species so far known. 
To avoid confusion, I will first of all discuss several misinterpreta- 
tions of morphological features included in Tillyard’s two papers. 
With respect to the wings , Tillyard (1924, P- 205 ; 1925, p. 3 2 9) 
mentions the presence of a very delicate archedictyon extending over 
the wings. I have been unable to see any traces of this in the fossils. 
The wing membrane is very thin and is delicately wrinkled in sev- 
eral of the specimens, probably as a result of the process of preserva- 
tion; I suspect that this wrinkling was interpreted by Tillyard as 
the archedictyon. A series of strong macrotrichia was described by 
Tillyard as being present on R, Ri, and basal part of Rs, but I find 
that these macrotrichia are present on all veins, not just these few. 
With respect to the thorax , Tillyard (1924, p. 203, 205) describes 
the prothorax as being very short and as lacking prothoracic, lateral 
lobes. Actually, as shown especially well by specimen 3057 MCZ, 
the prothorax is of normal length for the Palaeodictyoptera and it 
possesses a pair of sclerotized, prothoracic lobes. In specimen 1002 
of the Peabody Museum, which was studied by Tillyard, there is a 
small fragment of a wrinkled prothoracic lobe, but this was inter- 
preted as the head (Tillyard, 1924, p. 205) and the remnant of the 
prothorax was considered its full length. So far, no representatives 
of Palaeodictyoptera have been found without prothoracic lobes. In 
highly modified species, the lobes may be reduced in size and sclero- 
tized, forming scale-like structures, as in Homalonenra lehmani Kuka- 
lova (1969, p. 182, fig. 8) belonging to the family Spilapteridae. 
With respect to the abdomen , Tillyard (1924, p. 205) mentioned 
ten visible segments but actually the eleventh vestigial segment is 
also present. Subsequently (1924, p. 207), Tillyard implied that 
males in the Palaeodictyoptera might not have the long cerci; how- 
ever, such cerci appear to be present in both sexes. The holotype 
(Peabody Museum 1001) was considered by Tillyard to be a male, 
because of having a narrower abdomen than the “female” (no. 1002) 
(1924, p. 207). However, the lateral edges of all abdominal tergites 
in the holotype are broken off so that their widths are not measur- 
able. Since the genital structures are not preserved in the fossil, the 
holotype does not provide any information about its sex. Specimen 
1002, with the complete abdomen and terminal appendages, was de- 
scribed by Tillyard as a female (1924, p. 207; 1925, p. 334, fig. 3). 
Tillyard’s conclusion was based on a misinterpretation of the male 
claspers, which he thought were the ovipositor; this is discussed more 
