182 
Psyche 
[June 
The venation of the wings is actually typical of that of many 
Palaeodictyoptera, especially that of some of the Spilapteridae. The 
convexities and concavities of the veins, which are well preserved, 
have been marked in figure 3 in the usual manner. Perhaps the most 
distinct feature of the venation is the reduction of CuA to a single 
vein having a marginal fork; in the Spilapteridae this vein tends to 
be somewhat more extensively developed. There is a slight difference 
between the right and left wings so far as CuP is concerned; in one, 
C11P2 is forked but in the other it is unbranched. The anal veins are 
slightly recurved, having the arched form occurring in many Palaeo- 
dictyoptera. The venation of the hind wing is very little-known but 
it appears to show no marked differences from the pattern in the fore 
wing; however, the wing itself is obviously somewhat broader than 
the fore wing. 
Although the specimen of Eubleptus in the National Museum does 
not, presumably, show as much of the apical region of the wings as 
the counterpart in the Daniel’s collection, I think there is no question 
that Handlirsch’s figure is incorrect in showing the wings as very 
broadly and bluntly rounded. In that figure the left fore wing is 
completely restored, the apex being represented by dotted lines; but 
the drawing of the right wing shows an irregularity of the apex, 
which suggests that this is not the actual margin of the wing itself. 
In all probability, the apical region of the wing was shaped like that 
of spilapterids. 
Handlirsch originally described Eubleptus in the Eubleptidae, as 
a palaeodictyopteron. However, his figure and description emphasized 
several peculiar features which actually do not exist in the fossil 
(such as the supposedly large eyes and the bluntly rounded wings). 
As a result of this, various workers on fossil insects who have not 
examined the type specimen have come to regard Eubleptus as a more 
peculiar and aberrant insect than it actually is. Martynov, in 1938, 
although placing the family Eubleptidae in the Palaeodictyoptera, 
stated that it could well belong to a distinct order; and in 1953 
Laurentiaux established the order Eubleptidodea for it. He failed to 
indicate any characteristics by which he separated the order from the 
Palaeodictyoptera, although he referred to the eyes and the absence 
of lobes on the prothorax. In the Osnovy Paleontologii, Rohdendorf 
placed the Eubleptidae in a separate order, which he termed the 
Eubleptodea, presumably accepting Laurentiaux’s ordinal status for 
the group although no reference is made to Laurentiaux’s publication 
or to the change of spelling of the name. 
However, in view of the structure of Eubleptus danlelsi, as it now 
seems to be, there is no justification for the isolation or separation of 
