238 
Psyche 
[September-December 
factorily preserved in any specimen; ordinarily that part of the 
wing is preserved near the edge of the ironstone nodule, where 
some weathering and discoloration have taken place. Hand- 
lirsch’s interpretation of the venation of the fore wing of ovalis, 
as represented in his “reconstruction” (1911, p. 360) is obviously 
incorrect in many respects. RS and M are much more extensively 
branched than he represented, and CUA has only a small distal 
fork, instead of being extensively branched as he has shown. Also, 
the anal area is somewhat longer than he assumed. Handlirsch’s 
second “reconstruction” (1920, p. 162) is even worse; the branches 
of RS are represented as arising dichotomously, not pectinately 
as he originally (and correctly) showed. However, it should be 
borne in mind that since none of the specimens that Handlirsch 
studied showed the fore wing venation clearly enough for an ac- 
curate drawing to be made, his figure was mostly conjectural. 
The cross veins in the wing are very faint at best and it is not sur- 
prising that Handlirsch made no reference to them in his descrip- 
tions; they are visible, however, in several areas of the wings in 
two specimens (Sherman W57 and Wolff 653), and in all proba- 
bility they were quite uniformly distributed over the wing sur- 
face in the living insect. 
The hind wing of ovalis is unknown except for a few terminal 
branches of RS near the wing apex. Handlirsch’s reconstruction 
Figure 7. Eucaenus ovalis. Photograph of the Levi Sherman specimen, W57, 
fore wing only, showing anal area and branching of media and cubitus, length of 
wing as shown, 15 mm. 
