i8o 
Psyche 
[June 
of the hind wings prevents more definite determination of the affinities, 
but all available evidence indicates that this is a group which fits 
readily within the Palaeodictyoptera ; eventually the family may turn 
out to be inseparable from the Spilaptaridae. 
Genus Eubleptus Handlirsch 
Handlirsch, 1906, Proc. U.S.N.M., 29 : 680 
Fore wing: Rs arising slightly beyond mid-wing; M forked before 
the origin of Rs, and Cu forked even nearer the wing base ; Rs forked 
and each of its branches forked; iA simple, 2A forked. Type-species: 
Eubleptus danielsi Handlirsch. 
Eubleptus danielsi Handlirsch 
Figure 3 
Handlirsch, 1906, Proc. U.S.N.M., 29 : 680 
Length of fore wing, as preserved 13 mm.; estimated total length 
17 or 18 mm.; width of fore wing, 4 mm.; maximum width of hind 
wing (as preserved), 4.8 mm. Type no. 35576, U.S.N.M., collected 
near Morris, vicinity of Mazon Creek, Illinois (Westphalian age). 
This species was originally based by Handlirsch on a single speci- 
men consisting of obverse and reverse ; the obverse specimen, according 
to Handlirsch’s description, was contained in the Daniel’s collection 
and the reverse in the U. S. National Museum. The counterpart in 
the National Museum has been studied in connection with the present 
account and is depicted in figure 3 ; the specimen in the Daniel’s 
collection has not been found. 
Handlirsch’s figure, which has been reproduced many times • in 
subsequent publications and which has been the basis for all discus- 
sions of the relationships of this fossil, was probably based to some 
extent on the counterpart in the Daniel’s collection; at any rate the 
position of the body in Handlirsch’s figure is the reverse of that in 
the counterpart in the National Museum. The Daniel’s specimen 
presumably showed parts of the cerci, which are entirely missing in 
the National Museum fossil; also the Daniel’s specimen probably 
showed a little more of the apical regions of the fore wings than 
the reverse half. The venation in the National Museum fossil is 
distinctly preserved and can be brought out even more clearly by the 
use of ammonium chloride. As shown in figure 3, it is only slightly 
different from that given in Handlirsch’s figure; there are some 
differences in the positions of branches of the veins, but in general 
the patterns are very similar. Handlirsch apparently did not observe 
the basal connection between CuA and C11P, although this is clearly 
distinguishable in the National Museum specimen. His figure of the 
