Where to move it?

I'd wholeheartedly welcome your contribution!

It looks like this is the way to go. One advantage would be that once we have a guide page we could add some information on Paleodictyoptera from the Tree of Life, Wikipedia, etc.

but I didn't find much on Protorthoptera which seems to be the now more correct placement.

but if not: Prothorthoptera are considered a polyphyletic stem group in Protorthoptera. They had "chewing mouthparts and must have fed on external foliage..., or they consumed spores and pollen..."(Grimaldi & Engel; (1). I've omitted the references given in Grimaldi & Engel, but can send them to you in case you don't have access to that tome.
Here's a reference (on a new Geraridae from Spain) that can be downloaded as PDF.

As a note I have posted some more indepth information on the image itself and will repost it here:

I did some quick research and here's what I found. The species is Gerarus vetus (Scudder S.H., 1885) and is the type species for the entire family.

It should also be noted that the family Geraridae is now placed in the order Protorthoptera.

The locality can be narrowed down to the "Mazon Creek" localities, Francis Creek Formation, near Morris, Grundy Co., IL. with an age of 305-308 mya. This places the fossil from the Moscovian division, Pennsylvanian subsystem, Carboniferous.

I am very happy to add references if guide pages are added, and in-fact have Bruce's Dinopanorpidae paper on my desk right now.

Make it two votes. Very interesting material.

my vote for this also!

the taxonomic information that could be supplied about these images. But we're not sure that we would want to see that information posted in the form of guide pages for each extinct family, genus, and species posted. We would be happy to see these images posted to the correct extinct order page with the detailed information attached to each image. If we get more than a couple of dozen images eventually posted to an order, then we could consider breaking that order into a couple smaller pieces.

The difficulty we see with the proposal for genus and species pages for each image is that we would assume this is a group of images that we're not likely to collect great numbers of from a large number of contributors. That means our extinct taxa taxonomic tree would necessarily likely be very sketchy and we would likely end up with each family maybe having only one genus page and each genus having one species page and each species page having one image, or something close to that. All those pages would, in our opinion, provide unnecessary clutter to the guide.

So our suggestion is to collect multiple images on an extinct order page until the number of those images suggests that the page should be broken into two or three smaller subgroups. Does that make any sense?

We weren't referring to this particular image, but just talking in general. We probably should have said "extinct family" either way. Our point was simply that if a particular extinct family only has a couple of images, then it should be sufficent just to place images there. To make species page for a species that has one image in a genus that has one image in a subfamily that has one image in a family that has one image just doesn't seem very useful to us.

On the other hand, we would say that the consensus from the comments here is just the opposite of our thoughts. People seem to want genus and species pages for those individual images, so we think it is safe to say that you can just ignore our comments completely!! :-)

We too are enjoying the images. It is amazing to see a syrphid fly that looks just like one we saw this summer and discover that it is 49 million years old!

it is amazing to see finely preserved details of insects.
If no one objects, for starters I'll make a page for Dinopanorpidae , also Dinokanaga , with its five spp.

I vote for creating the new family page. (I guess that genus and species pages would be OK too). But no blank pages for species that are not in the guide, please! Blank pages (fossil or otherwise) can be terribly frustrating when you are searching. Have you visited Discover Life recently? It kills me.
Is there a way to add the symbol for extinct next to the taxon?

though I'm not aware of a symbol for 'extinct'. How about stating 'extinct' under 'preferred common name', or just 'extinct' after the scientific name?
Or do you mean this - † ?
Here's a useful page for special characters in html code: http://www.avenue-it.com/html/extracharacters.html

"extinct order". Mecoptera is a very much extant order, and at bugguide we currently have four families. I don't see clutter in adding one or two more families, and their subsets where applicable. Once you create a page, doesn't that automatically generate an information page which could then be filled with the pertinent information?

Bugguide may, nevertheless, remain poor in fossil images, though perhaps others might want to contribute in the future. Fossil images give a sense of evolutionary continuity; our present insect fauna has come from somewhere. A good start to understanding both the present and past insect fauna is Grimaldi & Engel ((1)), which also includes a brief discussion of the Eocene Okanagan Highlands with mention of the Klondike Mtn. Fm.

I just noticed an earlier discussion on how to handle images of fossil arthropods (see here:1 ). Already described taxa could just be integrated on whatever taxonomic level described. This seems to be the sense of the contributions on that page by Beatriz, also John & Jane Balaban.
Another fossil page ( 2 ) shows the interest in fossil images, and Martin Hauser mentions that he has fossil insect photos from the U.S.
Yet, I don't favor a parallel bugguide section for fossils. Best to find them at their known taxonomic level.
By linking the other two pages I hope we get some more thoughts on this topic.

Aside from the references to extinct orders, as there have been none found at Fossil site, I think what you are suggesting would be to put the images as far into the existing tree and add the details somewhere there?

For perspective, regarding Mecoptera from the site, there are two extinct families represented, Dinopanorpidae and Cimbrophlebia. The Dinopanorpids are represented by one genus, Dinokanaga, which has 5 total species, three of which are found at Republic. This translates to , right now, ~5 specimens I have acces to for photographing.

The Cimbrophlebids are currently on lone to Dr. Bruce Archibald and are being described. This means I do not have access to them but I know there are 2 specimens.

This does not look at the Neuroptera, Orthoptera, and Hymenoptera bruce is describing.

The other orders , Coleoptera, Diptera, etc.. have not been described so they are likly to sit at family level for the near future.