360 
Psyche 
[September-December 
some uncertainty. The problem of Permembia results from lack 
of venational details in the unique specimen of delicatula, the spe- 
cies on which the genus was based. The difficulty is determining 
the actual, as opposed to the possible, characteristics of the genus 
and the family. 
Dr. Kukalova experienced this in connection with her study of 
the Delopteridae and other Miomoptera from the Permian of Mo- 
ravia (1963). Using a photograph of the type of delicatula that I 
had sent her, she concluded that Tillyard had incorrectly described 
and interpreted the venation, which she considered more like that 
of the Delopteridae than Tillyard thought. She also placed in the 
Permembiidae two new genera of Miomoptera ( Permonika and 
Permonia) from Moravia. 
I have given much thought to the problem of Permembia since 
its original description and have repeatedly studied the type of 
delicatula at the Peabody Museum, Yale University, with the hope 
of finding some useful details previously overlooked. Only recently 
have I come to the conclusion that specimens of this insect are 
present in the Harvard collection also, though they are identifiable 
mainly on the basis of body structures, the venation in all speci- 
mens being more poorly preserved than that of the type. Our 
interpretation of the relationships of Permembia must therefore 
continue to rest for the time being on the venation of that speci- 
men. From my examination of it, I am now convinced that Till- 
yard’s interpretation of the venation was correct in all but minor 
details and that the genus Permembia (and of course the family 
Permembiidae) cannot logically be assigned to the order Mio- 
moptera. 
The type of delicatula (no. YPM5403, Peabody Museum) con- 
sists of a nearly complete insect, as shown in figure 14A. One fore 
wing is spread out but the other three wings afal folded or twisted 
in such a manner that their venation is not discernible. The head 
is relatively large and distinctly triangular in shape, markedly 
broad posteriorly, not globular as figured and described by Till- 
yard. The compound eyes are protuberant and situated posteri- 
orly, as shown in the photograph. I certainly do not discern the 
three ocelli shown by Tillyard. The mandibles and palpi are not 
distinctive but the antennae are surprisingly thick and robust; the 
segments, numbering about 13, are as broad as long and subequal. 
