378 
Psyche 
[Vol. 94 
Genus Lithoneura Carpenter, 1938, p. 446. 
Type species: L. lameerei Carpenter, 1938. Type specimen: no. 24537, Museum of 
Comparative Zoology, Harvard University. 
This genus was based on a species known only by the type, con- 
sisting of a dorso-ventral view of the insect, with its four wings 
spread (Fig. 4). It is an interesting and important specimen, since it 
shows at least portions of fore and hind wings, as well as a few 
details of body structure. The wings are well preserved, except for 
the apical areas, which are not included in the concretion. The fore 
wing (Fig. 5, upper), which is 32 mm long as preserved, has a dis- 
tinctly curved anterior margin, as least as far as the level of the 
midwing. The basal part of RS, although close to stem R, is inde- 
pendent of it. M is separate from RS basally but at about one-fourth 
the wing length from the base MA diverges anteriorly and merges 
with RS before diverging posteriorly as an independent vein; RS, 
MA, MP, and CUA have the triad, intercalary veins as in 
Syntonoptera . The hind wing (Fig. 5, lower) of lameerei has a very 
distinctive shape, being unusually broad in the anal, cubital, and 
medial areas. As in the fore wing, RS is independent of R basally. 
However, the stem of M is coalesced with the stem of CUA, and M 
divides into MA and MP, shortly after its divergence from CUA. 
M A is coalesced with RS as in the fore wing, and RS, MA, MP, and 
CUA have the intercalary, triad branches. 
The body structures preserved in the type of lameerei are very 
limited (Fig. 6). These include the general thoracic area, part of the 
abdomen, and what appear to be parts of the head. In my original 
account of this specimen (Carpenter, 1938, p. 445) I stated that 
prothoracic lobes were “present, though small.” In the light of fifty 
years of additional experience with fossil insects, I am not as confi- 
dent now as I was then that the prothoracic lobes are, in fact, 
present; a slight, local differentiation in the texture of the rock 
matrix might be misleading. 
In this connection, I should mention that Dr. Kukalova-Peck 
has published an account of her observations on the structure of the 
type of lameerei. I find that her figure (Kukalova-Peck, 1985, fig. 
1 1) is more in the nature of a reconstruction than a record of what is 
actually preserved. She states in her account: “The head is a compo- 
site impression of the dorsal and ventral head structures; the eyes 
