1965] 
Carpenter — Carboniferous Insects 
77 
Metropator pusillus Handlirsch 
Figure i 
Handlirsch, 1906, Proc. U.S.N.M., 29 : 682, fig. 8; 1906, Foss. Ins. :1 12, pi. 
12, fig. 12. 
Tillyard, 1926, Amer. Journ. Sci., 11: 161, fig. 19. 
Martynova, 1962, Osnovy Paleont., Arthropoda: 286, fig. 892. 
This species is based on a unique specimen (type no. 38731, 
U.S.N.M.), consisting of an isolated wing, 7 mm. long and 3 mm. 
wide. It was collected near the Altamont Colliery, anthracite region, 
Pennsylvania (Namurian age). The preservation is fair; most of 
the main veins are clear, but the basal part of the wing is missing. 
Since this is one of about a dozen insects known from the lower part 
of the Upper Carboniferous, the oldest strata in which unquestionable 
insects have been found, its structure and affinities are of unusual 
interest. Some diversity of opinion exists about both aspects of the 
fossil. Handlirsch, who originally placed Metropator in the Palaeo- 
dictyoptera, believed that the anterior margin of the wing was 
broken away, the front edge of the wing as preserved being the sub- 
costa; he apparently reached that conclusion because he was unable 
to discern the subcosta as a submarginal vein. Tillyard in 1926, 
following his examination of the type specimen, concluded that the 
anterior margin of the wing was actually preserved and that Sc was 
discernible as a distinct vein between Ri and the wing margin. In 
his description he points out that the subcosta is very faintly indicated, 
and that he could follow it out only with care by examining the 
fossil in a good oblique light. He also described and figured the 
cubito-median “Y-vein”, this being much more strongly developed 
than most of the other veins of the wing. His conclusions were that 
Metropator was a mecopteron, closely related to the Permopanorpidae. 
I He did not discuss the detailed evidence for this, but simply asserted 
that the mecopterous affinities could readily be seen at once from the 
figures. His view of the position of Metropator has been generally 
accepted subsequently, and it is the one presented in the Osnovy 
Paleontologii (Martynova, 1962). 
The drawing included in figure 1 represents my own interpretation 
of this fossil and shows only those structures which I confidently 
believe are present. From my studies I am convinced that Tillyard 
i was correct in his conclusion that the costal margin of the wing is 
actually present in the fossil, but I am also convinced that he was 
I incorrect in his interpretation of the subcostal and cubital areas. The 
subcosta is discernible near the base of the wing, as noted by Tillyard, 
| but that is the entire length of the vein; it extends only a short 
