276 
Psyche 
[June-September 
the fossil nymphs than in existing ones. It is possible that the greater 
amount of fluting, which presumably strengthened the wing-pad, 
may have been correlated with the limited attachment of the pad to 
the thorax. In this connection it is pertinent to note that wing-pads 
of the nymphs of the Palaeodictyoptera and Megasecoptera, which 
also had the limited attachment to the thorax, show a strong fluting. 
A second feature of interest is the marked difference in the fossil 
nymphs between the convex and concave veins. The convex veins 
are preserved as dark brown, thick lines, whereas the concave veins 
are almost without pigment and appear as fine lines. Even the cross 
veins (see figure 7) are more obvious than the concave veins. If our 
inference is correct that these wing-pads represent the cast cuticle of 
the nymphs, then the dark lines seem to have been pigmented thick¬ 
enings on the cuticle that was cast off in molting. I have no explana¬ 
tion for the difference in appearance of the convex and concave 
veins. The pattern of difference is the same in both obverse and 
reverse halves of the fossils. This eliminates the possible inference 
that the pattern might have been different on the dorsal as opposed 
to the ventral surface of the wing-pads. 
Family Misthodotidae Tillyard 
Misthodotidae Tillyard, 1932: 260 
Eudoteridae Demoulin, 1954: 561. New synonymy. 
The misthodotid adults were of moderate size and generally much 
smaller than the protereismatids. The wings were broadly oval, usu¬ 
ally with maculations, and the hind wings were similar to the fore 
wings in form and venation, but distinctly broader and with a 
strongly curved posterior margin. The costal margin was serrate (at 
least in Misthodotes). The costal brace, although distinct, was 
weaker than in the Protereismatidae. The venation was basically 
like that of the protereismatids, except that CUA was unbranched 
and therefore lacked the triad. Cross veins were somewhat less 
numerous than in the protereismatids. The body structure is not 
well known. The antennae were like those of the protereismatids 
and the mandibles were similarly developed. The legs, however, 
were apparently much shorter and apparently heteronomous, the 
fore legs being shorter than the others. The tarsi included four 
segments (at least in Misthodotes), the 2nd and 3rd being the shor¬ 
test. The cerci and median caudal filament were very long. 4 
This family was originally described from the Elmo beds in Kan¬ 
sas. Tschernova (1965) has described adults of two species of Mis- 
