THE AFFINITIES OF EOMEROPE AND DINOPANORPA ( MECOPTERA ) *

The two ossil Mecoptera discussed below were originally described by T. D. A. Co.ckerell many years ago. One of them, Eomerope tortriciformis, was obtained in the Oligocene shales at Florissant, Colorado; and the other, Dinopanorpa megarche, was collected in a Miocene deposit near the’ Amagu River in eastern Siberia. Study of the type specimens or the present paper was made possible by the courtesy ot the authorities o the Peabody Museum at Yale University, tor Eomerope, and of the U. S. National Museum, for Dinopanorpa. Eomerope was assigned by Cockerell (19o.9) to the mecopterous family Meropeidae, which, at that time, was a monotypic tamily, represented by Merope tuber Newman, a little-known species infrequently collected in the eastern part o the United States. However, a second species, Austromerope poultoni, rom Western Australia, was described by Killington in I933. These two genera, although having obvious differences in acies, are closely related, as indicated by the similar structure of the male genitalia. In his account of Eomerope, Cockerell made no reference to another mecopteron, Notiothauma reedi MacLachlan (I877), which occurs in part of Chile and which is the only known representative of the t:amily Notiothaumidae. In all probability, Cockerell was not aware o( this insect, since its existence was not generally made knovn until the publication of Esben-Petersen’s monograph o the Mecoptera in I92I. From my study of the type of Eomerope and comparisons with specimens of Merope and Notiothauma, I am convinced that Eomerope belongs to the amily Notiothaumidae instead of the Meropeidae. The reasons or this conclusion are given below, following the account of the genus and species.

Australia, was described by Killington in I933. These two genera, although having obvious differences in acies, are closely related, as indicated by the similar structure of the male genitalia. In his account of Eomerope, Cockerell made no reference to another mecopteron, Notiothauma reedi MacLachlan (I877), which occurs in part of Chile and which is the only known representative of the t:amily Notiothaumidae. In all probability, Cockerell was not aware o( this insect, since its existence was not generally made knovn until the publication of Esben-Petersen's monograph o the Mecoptera in I92I. From my study of the type of Eomerope and comparisons with specimens of Merope and Notiothauma, I am convinced that Eomerope belongs to the amily Notiothaumidae instead of the Meropeidae. The reasons or this conclusion are given below, following the account of the genus and species. Family Notiothaumidae Esben-Petersen Genus E, omerope Cockerell Eomerope Coekerell, 1909, p. 381 Wing venation as in Notiothauma but with fewer cross veins, the *Partial financial support of this research is acknowledged to the National  Cockerell, 1909, p. 381 Length of fore wing, 14 mm. length of body, I3 mm. The wing expanse of the insect was about 32 mm., some IO  The specimen shows the whole insect (see tgure 5). The wings are almost symmetrically arranged, with a pair on each side slightly overlapped; the veins in the apical and posterior regions of both pairs are not discernible. The legs are long and unusually spinose, as in Notiothauma. The specimen, obviously a male, has the oth abdominal segment forming a characteristic genital bulb, comparable to that in Notiothauma (see Crampton,I93I ), The preserved part of the venation of the fore wing is shown in figure I. At the base of the wing is a cluster of heavy setae, as in Notiothauma. The costal area is abruptly narrowed basally. Sc is a distinct vein, as in Notiothauma; with a series of irregular veinlets arising anteriorly trom its basal branch. RI arises from Rs, as in Notiothauma, by diverging anteriorly, Rs continuing the. straight line of R; only a few of the basal branches of Rs are preserved; A and 2A are represented only by their curved basal portions that strongly resemble the curved base3 of Notiothauma. The venation of the anterior-basal part of the hind wing is like that of the fore wing.
The similiarity of the venatio.n of Eomerope to. that of Notiothauma is at once obvious by comparing tgure with figure 2, which shows the basal part of the wing o,f Notiothauma. The venational pattern is essentially the same, the only notable difference being the smaller number of cross veins and cellules in Eomerope. The differ-     Killington; drawing of proximal part of fore wing (after Killington, 1933). Genus Dinopanorpa Cockerell Dinopanorpa Cockerell, 1924, p. 2 Hind wing" costal space relatively broad (for a hind wing), with 5 strong veinlets to margin; stem of Cu somewhat closer to A than to M. Type species: Dinopanorpa megarche Cockerell.
Dinopanorpa megarche Cockerell Figs. 6 and 9 Dinopanorpa megarche Cockerell, 1924, p. 2 Length of hind wing, 3o mm.; maximum width, o mm.; estimated wing expan.e, 65 mm. Other specific characteristics are difficult to designate, in the absence of the fore wing and body; however, the number and arrangement of cross veins would almost certainly   As preserved, the wing is dark brown, with several white spots and bands (figure 9), as frequently seen in existing panorpids. Type: No. 6973, U. S. National Museum; collected by A. Kuznetzov, "on the Amagu River, Maritime Province, coast of Siberia., opposite the southern end of Sakhalin Island." Rohdendorf (I957) records the locality as in the Lower Amursk Region of the USSR, on the bank of the Kudya River, a tributary of the Amagu River, and indicates its age as Lower Miocene. Cockerell states (1924) that the flora of the deposit, including such genera as Ginko, Cornus, Taxodium, and Quercus, indicates a warm-temperate climate.
The type specimen co.nsists ot a very well-preserved hind wing, lacking only a part of the apical-posterior region (figure 9).
Cockerell placed Dinopanorpa in the family Panorpidae, Tillyard (1933, p. 26) transferred it to the extinct family Orthophlebiidae (otherwise known only trom the Triassic and Jurassic periods) and Martynova (1962, p. 29 I) considered it a synonym of Orthophlebia in the same family. Actually, as noted by Cockerell, Dinopanorpa presents, in the hind wing, a remarkable combination of characters. The presence of 5 strong veinlets between Sc and the costal margin is a feature that does not occur in the Orthophlebiidae or Panorpidae, although it is seen in some of the Permian and Triassic genera of other families. The form o.f R I, extending nearly to the wing apex and directed posteriorly in the apical region, is unique in the known Mecoptera, extinct and Recent, as noted by Cockerell; in other members of the order, R is much shorter and is curved anteriorly at its termination. Cross veins are at least twice as numerous, in Dinopanorpa as in the Panorpidae and Orthophlebiidae. Another peculiar feature, also noted by Cockerell, is the long and oblique m-cu cross vein (figure 6), although it could be an abnormality in this particular wing. In contrast, the structure of Cu, including its stem, the nature of its branching and the coalescence of CuA and CuP (with M and A respectively), is virtually identical with that in the Panorpidae (figure 7) but, incidentally, quite unlike that of Orthophlebia (figure 8). The extensive branching of Rs, with at least 8 terminal branches, is totally unlike the condition in the Panorpidae, with 5 branches to Rs. Dinopanorpa also has a 5branched YI, although that vein is rarely more than 4-branched in Panorpidae.
In view of the differences and peculiarities noted above, assignment of Dinopanorpa to either Orthophlebiidae or Panorpidae seems un-justified. The position of the Dinopanorpidae in the mecopteran phylogeny will remain obscure until the fore wing and body structures are known. However, it can ha.rdly be considered intermediate between the Panorpidae and Orthophlebiidae because o the peculiar form of R and Rs and the presence of costal veinlets. More likely, it is a specialized derivative of some early Mesozoic stock, close to the Orthophlebiidae.