50 
Psyche 
[Vol. 90 
Discussion 
Recognition of the Protorthoptera has had a varied and unsettled 
history. Despite the unquestioned importance of the order in the 
evolution of the higher Insecta (as ancestors to extant Orthoptera 
and possibly to the Holometabola) there is as yet little agreement 
about affinities within the group. Our understanding of relation- 
ships within the order is still rudimentary. This is well documented 
by the present study in which the families Sthenaropodidae and 
Geraridae (previously assigned to two distinct orders) are synony- 
mized. Many attempts have been made to separate the Paleozoic 
Orthopteroidea into more “natural lineages,” but it is currently pro- 
posed (Carpenter, 1966) that recognition of one order Protorthop- 
tera {sensu lato) is preferable until a better understanding of the 
group’s true phylogeny emerges. While this forces acknowledgement 
of the Protorthoptera as a “taxonomic wastebasket” and the group 
“as thus constituted is almost certainly polyphyletic” (Carpenter, 
1966), adoption of a presumably phylogenetic classification would, 
at this time, only misrepresent the actual evolutionary relationships 
of these insects. 1 believe that previous work on the Protorthoptera 
(particularly the Sthenaropodidae) is a good example of how such 
misrepresentation can occur as the result of inadequate study of a 
given fossil group. 
The Protorthoptera were first recognized in 1906 when Hand- 
lirsch split the Paleozoic orthopteroids into three orders: the Protor- 
thoptera, Protoblattodea, and Protorthoptera vel Protoblattodea 
(for species that seemed to merge the characteristics of the first two). 
In 1938 the Soviet scholar Martynov made an alternative sugges- 
tion: that the fossil Orthopteroidea be divided into the two orders 
Protorthoptera and Paraplecoptera according to whether they pos- 
sessed saltatorial legs, as in the Protorthoptera, or cursorial ones, as 
in the Paraplecoptera. The Geraridae were placed at this time in the 
Paraplecoptera, and Martynov considered them, on the basis of size 
and cursorial legs, to be typical representatives of that order. Sharov 
(1960, 1962) originally suggested that these orders be reorganized 
into the Protorthoptera, Paraplecoptera, and Protoblattodea, but 
later (1968) expressed agreement with Carpenter that the Paraple- 
coptera and Protoblattodea cannot be recognized as distinct orders. 
