1965] 
Carpenter — Carboniferous Insects 
1 8 1 
abdomen is about as I have observed it, although this seems somewhat 
broader in the fossil than his drawing shows. As noted above, the 
National Museum specimen does not include the end of the abdomen 
and therefore lacks the cerci. Handlirsch’s representation of the meso- 
and metothoracic segments is in agreement with mine; of course, 
considerable distortion undoubtedly occurred in the fossil and only 
the general form is indicated. The major difference between Hand- 
lirsch’s figure and mine is in the structures which are anterior to the 
mesothoracic segment. Handlirsch was of the opinion that two large 
globular eyes could be distinguished, these being separated from the 
mesothorax by a structure which he interpreted as the prothorax. His 
figure in this area is slightly out of proportion ; the structures which 
he shows as eyes are actually much closer to the mesothorax than 
indicated in his drawing. Furthermore the structures themselves do 
not have the regular, globular appearance which he depicts and they 
do not give any indication of being compound eyes. On the other 
hand, there are clearly visible radiating lines similar to those which 
occur on the paranotal lobes of many Palaeodictyoptera. The location 
of these structures and their details have convinced me that they are 
in fact small paranotal lobes. Between them and the mesothorax is 
a short segmented appendage, almost certainly a part of one of the 
legs; this is shown also in Handlirsch’s figure. 
| 
Figure 3. Eubleptus danielsi Handlirsch. Drawing of holotype, no. 35576, 
U.S.N.M. (original), p, paranotal lobes; other lettering as in figure 1. 
