284 
Psyche 
[June-September 
we should consider Doter minor as a species incerti ordinis within 
the Palaeoptera, instead of trying to fit it into the Ephemeroptera. 
Order Palaeodictyoptera 
The Palaeodictyoptera were apparently already on the wane even 
by the early Permian. In terms of both species and individuals the 
members of the order are only sparsely represented in Permian 
deposits. Only three species of the order have been found in the 
Elmo beds in Kansas. Two of these, Calvertiella permiana Tillyard 
and Elmoboria piperi Carpenter, are known only by the holotypes. 
The third species, Dunbaria fasciipennis Tillyard, is represented in 
the collections of the Museum of Comparative Zoology and the 
Peabody Museum by ten specimens. 7 Only one specimen of the 
order appears to be in our collection from the Midco beds. This is 
undescribed and is a member of the family Calvertiellidae. 
Family Calvertiellidae Martynov 
This family includes three species: Calvertiella permiana, from the 
Permian of Kansas, Moravia convergens Kukalova (1964), from the 
Permian of Moravia, and Carrizoptera arroyo Kukalova-Peck 
(1976), from the late Upper Carboniferous of New Mexico. Among 
the peculiar features of this family is the presence of intercalary 
veins, which are secondary veins inserted in forks of main veins and 
which have the opposite topography of the forked veins. They are 
consistently present in the Protodonata, Odonata, and Ephemerop¬ 
tera, and occur sporadically in some other orders (e.g., Neuroptera). 
The presence of intercalary veins in insects that otherwise appeared 
to be Palaeodictyoptera was first noted in the family Syntonopteri- 
dae, which had such veins between the branches of RS, MA, MP, 
and CUA (Handlirsch, 1911; Carpenter, 1938). 8 Their occurrence 
between branches of RS and MP in Calvertiella was responsible for 
Tillyard’s placing the genus in the Protodonata. In Moravia conver- 
7 Although Permoneura lameerei Carpenter was originally described as a palaeodic- 
tyopteron (1931), it now seems preferable to assign it to the category incerti ordinis 
until more is known about the insect (see Carpenter, 1976). 
“This has led some students of the Ephemeroptera to conclude that the Syntonopteri- 
dae were mayflies, instead of Palaeodictyoptera. This question will probably not be 
settled until the mouthparts of the syntonopterids are known to be either haustellate 
as in the Palaeodictyoptera or mandibulate as in the Palaeozoic mayflies. 
