Archiconiocompsa prisca Enderlein (Neuroptera: Coniopterygidae): The first neuropteran fossil in Rovno amber (Ukraine)

2008·3.3 MB·

by  Janusz Kupryjanowicz

©EntomologicaFennica. 7March2008
Archiconiocompsa prisca Enderlein (Neuroptera:
Coniopterygidae): The first neuropteran fossil
in Rovno amber (Ukraine)
JanuszKupryjanowicz&VladimirN.Makarkin
Kupryjanowicz,J.&Makarkin,V.N.2008:ArchiconiocompsapriscaEnderlein
(Neuroptera: Coniopterygidae): The first neuropteran fossil in Rovno amber
(Ukraine). —Entomol. Fennica 19: 25—31.
ArchiconiocompsapriscaEnderlein,previouslyknownfromBalticamber,isre-
corded in Rovno amber. A discussion ofthe systematic position ofthis mono-
typic genus is provided; it is tentatively assigned to Coniocompsini (Aleuro-
pteryginae).
J.Kupryjanowicz,InstituteofBiology, UniversityofBialystok, Swierkowa20B,
15—950Bialystok, andMuseumoftheEarthPolishAcademyofSciences,Al.Na
Sharpie26/27, 00—488 Warszawa, Poland;E—mail.‘ [email protected]
V. N. Makarkin (correspondingauthor), Institute ofBiologyandSoilSciences,
FarEasternBranch oftheRussianAcademyofSciences, Vladivostok, 690022,
Russia;E—mail.‘ [email protected]
Received22March2007, accepted19May2007
1. Introduction Eocene in the age (Engel & Perkovsky 2006a,
Perkovskyetal. 2007).
Amber andits insect inclusions fromthe Rovno Inthis paper, we reportthe firstneuropteran
RegionofUkraineiscurrentlyattractingmuchat- from Rovno amber, the coniopterygid species
tention, andithasrecentlybeenintensivelystud- Archiconiocompsaprisca Enderlein, previously
ied (e.g., Dlussky 2002, Dlussky & Perkovsky known from Baltic amber, and discuss the sys-
2002, Simutnik 2002, Kononova 2003, Perkov- tematicpositionofthegenus.
sky et al. 2003a,b, 2007, Putshkov & Popov The family Coniopterygidae today is com-
2003, Fedotova & Perkovsky 2004, 2005, Per- prisedofminuteinsectswithreducedwingvena—
kovsky & Fedotova2004, Polilov & Perkovsky tion; it has relatively few species, distributed
2004, Gumovsky & Perkovsky 2005, Tolkanitz worldwide. Despitethis, theyarecomparatively
etal.2005a,b,Engel&Perkovsky2006a—c,Per- well studied, largely stimulatedbytheauthorita-
kovsky 2006a,b, Simutnik & Perkovsky 2006, tivemonographofMeinander(1972). Sixspecies
Zhantiev2006). Sixteeninsectordersandabouta ofthefamilyhavebeendescribedfromBalticam-
hundred families have now been reported from ber(seelistinEngel2004),belongingtofivegen-
Rovno amber (Perkovsky etal. 2003b, Engel & era, three of which are extinct: Archiconio—
Perkovsky 2006a, Perkovsky 2006a). This in- compsa Enderlein, 1910, Archiconis Enderlein,
cludes, however, no species ofNeuroptera. The 1930,HeminiphetiaEnderlein, 1930,allthreeare
amber is chemically identical with Baltic amber monotypic.
(Kosmowska-Ceranowicz 1999), and both are The presence of the Baltic amber Archi—
consideredtoberoughlycontemporaneous,Late coniocompsaprisca in Rovno amber is not sur-
26 Kupryjanowicz&Makarkin ° ENTOMOL. FENNICAVol. 19
prising. SpeciesofDolichopodidae(Diptera)and senschaftliches Zentrum der Universitat Got-
Rhinoterrnitidae (Isoptera) have been identified tingen [=Geoscience Centre oftheUniversity of
in common between Rovno and Baltic ambers Gottingen], Germamy; MZ, Muzeum Ziemi
(Grichanov 2000, Perkovsky et al. 2007). Fur- Polskiej AkademiiNauk [=MuseumoftheEarth
ther, 74% of ant species and all 6 species of ofthePolishAcademyofSciences],Warsaw,Po-
Psocoptera recorded from Rovno amber were land.
previouslydescribedfromBalticamber(Dlussky
& Perkovsky 2002, Engel & Perkovsky
2006b,c). Such shared species in other insect 3. Systematic paleontology
familiesarenotyetknown,butmostoftheseare
represented in Rovno amber by few species or 3.1.ArchiconiocompsapriscaEnderlein, 1910
havenotyetbeencloselyexamined.Therelation- (Figs 1—4)
shipbetweentheBaltic andRovno amberinsect
faunas is therefore onlybeginning to be evident Archiconiocompsaprisca Enderlein, 1910: 676,
astheRovnoassemblagebecomesbetterknown. figs 1—4 (original description); Enderlein 1930:
Nevertheless, it is currently apparent that the 101 (keyed);Meinander1972:34(systematicpo-
Rovno amber insect assemblage is distinct from sition); Meinander 1975: 53 (taxonomic re-
that ofBaltic amber by differing relative abun- marks); Meinander 1979: 20, 23 (systematicpo-
dancesoforders,familiesandgroupswithinfam- sition, biogeography); Keilbach 1982: 284
ilies(Perkovskyetal. 2003a,b, Engel&Perkov- (listed); Nel 1990: 343 (listed); Spahr 1992: 71
sky2006a, Perkovskyetal. 2007). (listed); Weitschat&Wichard 1998: 146,pl. 53,
figs c, e (photographs oftwo additional speci-
mens);Dobosz&Krzeminski2000:220(listed);
2. Material and methods Engel2004: 134 (listed, systematicposition).
Hololype(female):Numberunknown,earlier
The material examined comes from the Klesov deposited “in the collection ofProfessor Dr. R.
locality, about 90 km NNE of Rovno in the Klebs” in Konigsberg [=Kaliningrad], now lost
Rovno Region, Ukraine. The specimen was do- orpossiblydestroyed,notfoundinthepartofhis
nated to the Museum of the Earth by Andrzej collectionpreservedinthe GZG (Ch. Neumann,
Wiszniewski (A.Wiszniewski collection), and M.Reich,pers.comm.).Balticamber(preciselo-
preparedforthisstudybyJanuszKupryjanowicz. calitycollectedunknown). LateEocene.
It is embedded in a translucent lump ofamber Additionalmaterial(apparentlyfemales): (1)
withmeasurements 14x 12x5mm. Thereareno No. 5907, depositedinthe SZG, labelled“Phys.
syninclusions. Photographs and measurements Oek. Ges. [=Physikalisch—Okonomischen Ge-
weredoneusing aZeiss SV 11 microscope. sellschaft, Konigsberg]/Nr. 9267./11.1. Nr. 4.”;
Terminology mainly follows Meinander “5907/ Coniopterix [sic]/ 5277-8”. Baltic amber
(1972).Abbreviationsusedinthetextandfigures (preciselocalitycollectedunknown);(2)No.MZ
are: A1, A2, 1st and 2nd anal veins (A); Cul, 24667, deposited in the MZ. Ukraine: Rovno
Cu2, anterior and posterior branches of the [=Rivne] Region: Klesov [=Klesiv] locality
cubitalvein(Cu); M1+2, M3+4, branches ofthe [51.315N 26.907E] (Rovno amber). Late Eo-
medialvein(M);R1,anteriorbranchoftheradial cene.
vein(R);R2+3,R3+4,branchesoftheradialsec- Description. (Rovno specimen): Body, ap-
tor(Rs);Sc1,Sc2,anteriorandposteriorbranches pendages fuscous. Head with very large eyes
ofthe subcostalvein (Sc). Crossveins are desig- (Fig. 2a); vertexnotespeciallyprominent, cove-
natedafterthelongitudinalveinswhichtheycon- redwithratherscarce,finehairs.Antennaeshort,
nect, and numbered in sequence from the wing 16-segmented; scape,pedicelsizesimilar, length
base (ifmorethan one crossveinbetween avein ca. 1.5 timeswidth, stouterthanother segments;
pair is present), e.g., 2m—cu1, distal crossvein 1stsegmentofflagellum(3rdantennal segment)
connectingMandCu1. longer than other flagellar segments, length ca.
Institutional abbreviations: GZG, Geowis- 2.2 times width; flagellar segments increasingly
ENTOMOL. FENNICAVol. 19 - Archiconiocompsaprisca inRovnoamber 27
.
. i I
,;
v%
vm
0.3mm
pllc
Fig.2.Archiconiocompsapn'sca, Rovnoamberspeci-
Fig. 1 Archiconiocompsapn'sca, Rovnoamberspeci- men MZ24667.—a., Head.—b.Abdomen(lateral
. view). mxpl,maxillarypalpus; plic, plicaturae;vtoix,
men MZ24667.—a. Leftlateralview.—b. Rightlateral
5thto9thsternites.
view.
shorter,widertowardapex;terminalflagellomere sitebasalsc-r.Crossvein-likepartofSc2meeting
tapering. Antennae covered with moderately R1 distadrl-rs.Basalsc-rveryshort. Sc2slightly
long,densehairs.Terminalsegmentofmaxillary curvedtoward Scl, butapically separate. Origin
palps much longer, broaderthanothers. Structu- ofRsatproximal1/3thofwinglength.Rsbasally
res ofthoraxpoorlyvisibleby preservation, but sinuouswithdistinctknee(bend,asinMeinander
as evident appear normal for family (Fig. 3b). 1972) at lrs-m;divisionintoR2+3, R4+5 shifted
Legsofusualmorphologyforfamily,slender;fe- distally, rl-rsjoining Rs strongly proximad this
mur offore leg stouter than other leg segments. fork. R2+3, R4+5 rather short, broadly spaced,
Femur,tibiaofforelegmuchshorterthanthoseof anglebetweenthemalmost90 degrees. lrs-mat
mid, hind legs. All femora covered with short, kneeofRs notdetected, butcrossvein-likeweak
sparsesetae;tibiaewithlonger,densersetae.Tar- structurevisible slightlydistad forkofM; 2rs-m
si five-segmented, all basitarsi longest oftarso- long, nearlyoppositerl-rs. McoalescentwithR
meres, as long as, or slightly longer than four for short distance or connecting with it by very
othertarsomeres together. Abdomencovered(at short crossvein proximally (this portion not
most) with microtrichia. Abdominal plicaturae clearly visible; possibly former variant in left
onthirdtosixthsternites,mostprominentonfifth wing, latter in right), deeply bifurcate distally,
sternite (Fig. 2b). Seventh segment relatively with branches very long, relatively closely
long,eighthsegmentappearingveryshort(indis- spaced;longsetaeontwolargethickeningsofM.
tinct preservation). Genital structures suggests lm-cul very short, connecting M, Cul slightly
specimenfemale,butnotclearlyvisiblebyclou- distal to fork ofCu; 2m—cu1 very strong, short,
dyamber. slightly proximad fork of M. Cu dividing into
Forewing(Fig.3).Length3.3mm,maximum Cul, Cu2 close to wing base; cul-cu2 short,
width 1.2 mm. Scparallelto costalmargin. Two stronglyproximad2m—cu1. Twolongcrossveins
basal crossveins (=subcostal veinlets) in costal between Cul, A1; lcul-al strongly curved. No
space: weaker basad, rather strong distad oppo- crossveinbetweenA1, A2. ProximalhalfofA2,
28 Kupryjanowicz&Makarkin - ENTOMOL. FENNICAVol. 19
either intraspecific variation, possible errors in
the original description, or different interpreta-
tionsofthefeatures.Theseincludethefollowing
fourdifferences. [1] Themostdistinctdifference
in venation is the position ofthe crossvein-like
partofSc2, which is situated opposite to thera-
dial crossvein in the holotype, and distad that
crossvein in the Rovno specimen (Fig. 3a). We
interpret this as intraspecific variation. Similar
variationsoccurwithinaspeciesintheclosestex-
tant genus Coniocompsa, for example in C. sil-
vestriana Enderlein [=C. smithersi Meinander]
(seeMeinander 1972: figs 51Aand51G)widely
distributed in Africa. Moreover, the position of
the crossvein-like part of Sc2 in the specimen
Fig.3.Archiconiocompsapn'sca, Rovnoamberspeci- 5907isidenticaltothatfoundintheRovnospeci-
men MZ24667.—a., Rightforewing.—b.Thorax(dor- men. [2] The Rovno specimen is larger than the
salview)andanalareaofrightforewing.a2-hm,
Baltic amber holotype: the holotype forewing is
crossveinbetweenA2andhind margin.
2.4 mm long, the Rovno specimen 3.3 mm. Al-
thoughsuchsizedifference seemsgreat, itisnot
hindmarginconnectedbyrather shortcrossvein exceptional within the Coniopterygidae. More-
nearlyperpendiculartoA2(Fig.3b).Alllongitu- over, specimen 5907 is even larger than the
dinal veins with one row ofshort dense setae, Rovnospecimen:theforewingoftheformerisca.
prominent particularly on Scl, Sc2. Marginal 3.7mmlong. [3]AccordingtoEnderlein(1910),
fringes short. Membrane hyaline, slightly plicaturae are present on the second to fifth
fuscous, withoutdistinctcolourpatterning. sternites.Butweguessthattheyactuallyoccuron
Hindwing. Length ca. 2.5 mm. Sc2 slightly thethirdtothesixthsternites,basedontheobser-
curvedtowardSc1,butnotjoined.Crossvein-like vationthatbetween mostdistal segmentbearing
partofSc2joinsR1 muchdistadr1-rs. Configu- plicaturae (fifth ofEnderlein, sixth in our inter-
rationofRs forkas in forewing. 2rs-mnearly at pretation) and genital segments (ninth-tenth) in
wingmid-point. StemofM, M3+4 formstraight theRovnospecimentherearetwosegments: one
line; M1+2 originates atveryobtuseangletoM; relatively large (seventh) and one small (eighth)
M1+2, M3+4 parallel. Other portions ofhind- (Fig.2b).Moreover,theplicaturaeonthesecond
wings obscuredby forewings, venationnotvisi- abdominalsegmentingeneraofAleuropterygini
ble. and Coniocompsini (to which this genus most
Remarks. Although the Baltic amber speci- closelyrelated) areusuallyabsent,orthereareat
men GZG 5907 was formerly deposited in most only traces of them present (Meinander
Konigsberg(judgingbyits label), itdoesnotap- 1972). [3] Enderlein (1910) stated that the third
pear to be the holotype of Archiconiocompsa antennalsegmentisalmostthreetimesaslongas
prisca. Based on the original description ofthe wide, and is the narrowestofany segment. This
holotypeofA.prisca, thesizeofspecimenGZG segmentintheRovnospecimenappearstobenot
5907ismuchgreaterthanthatoftheholotypeand particularlymoreslenderthanthenextdistaland
itdiffersinvenationaldetails. TheholotypeofA. onlyca. 2.5 times longerthanwide (Fig. 2a). [4]
prisca was described with enough detail by Enderlein (1910: fig. 1) showed in the forewing
Enderlein(1910)toconfidentlyidentifytheRov- A2 connected with the hind margin by a long
no specimen as conspecific, based on almost obliquecrossvein,sothatitappearsbifurcated.In
complete morphological agreement between Rovno specimen, this crossvein is not so long,
them, particularly in finedetails ofvenation, the and it is nearly perpendicular to A2. Unfortu-
antennae and the abdomen. However, there are nately, it is impossible to checkthe accuracy of
someminordifferences,whichwepresumetobe Enderlein’sdrawingbecauseoflossofthetype;it

30 Kupryjanowicz&Makarkz'n ° ENTOMOL. FENNICAVol. 19
(the latter ispossiblyparaphyletic: Engel2004). apomorphic features, which we consider to be
Thevastmajority offossilAleuropteryginaebe- significant. If this is correct, then the Conio-
longtoFontenelleini,including12species(Engel compsini should includeArchiconiocompsa and
2004, Nel et al. 2005). Exceptions areArchico— Coniocompsa, with the former possessesing a
niocompsa andthepoorlyknownJuraconiopte— number of plesiomorphic character states not
ryxMeinander,whichwastentativelyassignedto sharedwiththelatter(seeabove).
this subfamily (Engel 2004). Archiconiocompsa
surely does not belong to Fontenelleini, as its Acknowledgements.WethankAndrzejWiszniewski(Bia-
hindwingcrossveinr1-rsjoiningRsstronglypro- lystok) for donation ofamberwith inclusions, including
thatexaminedinthis study, to theMuseumoftheEarth;
ximad the fork ofRs is distinctive. This genus
ChristianNeumann(MuseumfiirNaturkunde,Berlin)for
was originallyassignedto thetribeAleuroptery- providing information on the holotype ofArchiconio-
gini(Enderlein 1910).Later,itwasconsideredas compsa prised; Mike Reich (Geowissenschaftliches
having “an intermediatepositionbetweenAleu- ZentrumderUniversitatGottingen)forprovidinguswith
ropterygini and Coniocompsini” (Meinander thephotographsoftheBalticamberNeuropteradeposited
intheZentrum;EvgenyE. Perkovsky(SchmalhausenIn-
1972: 34), andsubsequentlywas referredto Co-
stituteofZoology,Kiev),S.BruceArchibald(Museumof
niocompsini (Meinander 1979). Engel (2004)
Comparative Zoology, Massachusetts); Sonja Wedmann
statedtheopinionthatthisgenushasanuncertain (InstitutfurPalaontology, Bonn), andananonymous re—
tribe levelpositionwithintheAleuropteryginae. viewer for helpful discussions and comments that im—
Ifourinterpretationoftheplicaturaepositionon provedthispaper;S.BruceArchibaldandJohnD.Oswald
(TexasA&MUniversity)forcorrectionofEnglish;Galina
abdominal segments (third to sixth) is correct,
Sinelnikova (Institute of Biology and Soil Science,
thentheprobabilityofassignmentofthisgenusto Vladivostok,Russia)forhelpwithdrawing.
Aleuropterygini is increased, because plicaturae
areunknowntooccuronthesixthsegmentinCo-
niocompsini. The structures ofthe female abdo- References
minal apex in the Rovno specimen appear most
similar to those ofspecies ofConiocompsa (see Dlussky,G.M.2002:AntsofthegenusDolichoderus(Hy—
for example Meinander 1972: figs 45C, 46F, menoptera: Formicidae) from the Baltic and Rovno
51C), and therefore would associate it with the ambers.7Paleontol.J. 36: 50763.
Coniocompsini. Venational characters are con- Dlussky,G.M.&Perkovsky,E.E.2002:Ants(Hymenop—
tradictory, allowing assignment to either taxon. tera, Formicidae) from the Rovno amber. 7 Vestn.
Z001.36(5):3720.(InRussian,withEnglishabstract).
As Meinander (1972) correctly mentioned, the
Dobosz,R. &Krzeminski,W.2000:Anewspeciesofthe
hindwingvenationismoresimilartothatofAleu- Coniopterygidae(Neuroptera)fromBalticamber.7
ropterygini than ofConiocompsini. Archiconio— P01. PismoEntomol. 69: 2197224.
compsashareswithAleuropteryginiallfourfore- Enderlein,G. 1910:UberdeBeziehungenderfossilenCo—
wing venational states by which Archiconio— niopterygidenzudenrecentenundfiberArchiconio-
compsa and Coniocompsa are distinguished compsapriscanov.gen.nov.spec.72001.Anz. 35:
6737677.
(above). These states, however, are plesiomorp- Enderlein, G. 1930: DieKlassifikationderConiopterygi-
hic. On the other hand, the clearly apomorphic denaufGrundderrecentenundfossilenGattungen.7
venationalfeatures sharedbyArchiconiocompsa Arch.Klassifikat.Phylogenet.Entomol. 1(2):987114.
andConiocompsa(above),the 16-segmentedan- Engel,M.S.2004:ThedustywingsinCretaceousBurmese
tennaeandpossiblegenitalresemblanceofArchi— amber (Insecta: Neuroptera: Coniopterygidae). 7J.
Syst. Palaeontol. 2: 1337136.
coniocompsato Coniocompsa, are suggestiveof
Engel,M. S.&Perkovsky,E.E.2006a:AnEocenebeein
theConiocompsini.
Rovno amber, Ukraine (Hymenoptera, Megachili-
In summary, although an argumentmade by dae).7Am. Mus.Novit. 3506: 1711.
previous authors thatthetribeposition ofArchi— Engel,M.S.&Perkovsky,E.E.2006b:Psocoptera(Insec—
coniocompsa to be rather uncertain has some ta)inEoceneRovnoamber(Ukraine).7Vestn.Zool.
40: 1757179.
strengths,insomerespectsindeeditisintermedi-
Engel, M. S. &Perkovsky, E. E. 2006c: Sphaeropsocus
ate between the Aleuropterygini andthe Conio-
kuenowii Hagen in Rovno amber from the Ukraine
compsini, still, we tentatively assigned it to the (Psocoptera: Sphaeropsocidae). 7 Entomol. News
Coniocompsini, based on the presence ofthese 117: 2437245.
ENTOMOL. FENNICAVol. 19 ° Archiconiocompsaprisca inRovnoamber 31
Fedotova,Z.A.&Perkovsky,E.E.2004:Newgallmidges amber: subfamily Lestremiinae, tribes Micromyiini
(Diptera,Cecidomyiidae)fromtheRovnoamber:sub— andPeromyiini.7Paleontol. J. 38: 3967106.
familyLestremiinae,tribesStroblielliniandCampylo- Perkovsky,E. E.,Zosimovich,V. Yu. &Vlaskin,A. Yu.
myzini;subfamilyPorricondylinae,tribesDiadocidii- 2003a: Rovno amberfauna: apreliminaryreport. 7
niandAsynaptini.7Paleontol. J. 38: 5187547. Acta2001. Cracov.46(suppl. “FossilInsects”):4237
Fedotova,Z.A.,&Perkovsky,E.E.2005:Newgallmid— 430.
ges(Diptera,Cecidomyiidae)fromtheRovnoamber: Perkovsky,E. E.,Zosimovich,V. Yu. &Vlaskin,A. Yu.
subfamily Porrycondylinae (tribes Bryocryptini and 2003b: Rovnoamberinsects: firstresultsofanalysis.
Winnertziini) and subfamily Lasiopterinae (tribes 7Russ. Entomol.J. 12: 1197126.
BrachyneuriniandOligotrophini).7Paleontol.J.39: Perkovsky,E.E.,Rasnitsyn,A.P.,Vlaskin,A.P.&Tara-
41751. schuk,M.V.2007:AcomparativeanalysisoftheBal-
Grichanov,I.Ya.2000:NotesonDolichopodidae(Dipte— ticandRovnoamberarthropodfaunas:representative
ra)fromUkrainianandBalticamber.7Int.J.Dipter. samples.7Afr. Invertebr. 47:2297245.
Res. 11: 1297131. PolilovA. A. &Perkovsky, E. E. 2004: New Species of
GumovskyA.V.&PerkovskyE.E.2005:Taxonomicno- LateEocenefeather-wingedbeetles(Coleoptera,Pti-
tes on Tetracampidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) liidae)fromtheRovnoandBalticamber.7Paleontol.
with description ofa new fossil species ofDiprico- J. 38: 6647668.
campe from Rovno amber. 7 Entomol. Probl. 35: PutshkovP.V.&PopovYu.A.2003:ThefirstfindofMi—
1237130.
crophysidaefromtheRovnoamber(Heteroptera, Ci-
Keilbach,R. 1982:BibliographieundListederArtentieri-
micomorpha). 7Ann. Up. Sil. Mus. (Entomol.) 12:
scherEinschlusseinfossilenHarzensowieihrerAuf-
81786.
bewahrungsorte. Teil 1. 7Dtsche. Entomol. Z. 29: SimutnikS.A.2002:Anewgenusofencyrtidwasps(Hy—
1297286.
menoptera, Chalcidoidea, Encyrtidae) fromLateEo-
Kononova, S. V. 2003: New species ofegg7parasitizing
wasps ofthe genusIdris (Scelionidae, Proctotrupoi— c9e9n7e10R2o.v(nInoRaumsbseiarn(,UwkritahinEen).g7lishVaebsstntr.ac2t0).01. 36(4):
dea) ofthe Rovno amber. 7Paleontol. J. 37: 2757 Simutnik,S.A.&Perkovsky,E.E.2006:Adescriptionof
279.
the encyrtid male (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea, En-
Kosmowska—Ceranowicz, B. 1999: Succinite and some
cyrtidae) with archaic structure of metasoma from
other fossil resins in Poland and Europe (deposits,
f1nds,featuresanddifferencesinIRS).7Estud.Mus. Rovnoamber.7Vestn. Zool. 40:2837286.
Cienc.Nat.Alava 14(num. espec. 2): 737117. Spahr, U. 1992: Erganzungen und Berichtigungen zu
R.Keilbachs Bibliographie und Liste der Bemstein-
Meinander,M. 1972:ArevisionofthefamilyConioptery-
gidae(Planipennia).7Acta2001.Fenn. 136: 17357. fossilien7KlasseInsecta [Ausgenomen: “Apterygo—
ta”, Hemipteroidea, Coleoptera, Hymenoptera, Me-
Meinander, M. 1975: Fossil Coniopterygidae (Neuropte—
ra).7Not. Entomol. 55: 53757. copteroidea]. 7 Stuttg. Beitr. Natkd. Ser. B (Geol.
Palaeontol.) 182: 17102.
Meinander, M. 1979: The phylogeny and geographical
distributionoftheAleuropteryginae(Neuroptera,Co— SZiraki,G. 1998:ZoogeographicrelationsofSouthAsian
niopterygidae).7Ann.Entomol. Fenn. 45: 16723. coniopterygids (Neuroptera, Coniopterygidae). 7
Nel, A. 1990 [1991]. Nouveaux insectes neuroptero'1'des Acta2001.Fenn. 209:2497254.
fossilesdel’OligocenedeFrance(NeuropteraetMe— Tolkanitz,V.I.,Narolsky,N.B.&Perkovsky,E.E.2005a:
galoptera).7Bull.Mus.Natl.Hist.Nat.(Paris).Sect. A new species ofparasitic wasp ofthe genusPher-
C(Sci. Terre)(4) 12: 3277349. hombus (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Pherhombi—
Nel, A., Perrichot, V. &Azar, D. 2005: Newandpoorly nae)fromtheRovnoamber.7Paleontol.J.39:5117
knownfossilConiopterygidaeinCretaceousandCe— 513.
nozoic ambers (Insecta: Neuroptera). 7Ann. 2001. Tolkanitz,V.I.,Narolsky,N.B.&Perkovsky,E.E.2005b:
(Wars.)55: 177. NewdataoffossilichneumonwaspPherhombusdoli-
Perkovsky,E.E.2006a:Occurrenceofant(Hymenoptera, ni (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Pherhombinae)
Formicidae) and aphid (Homoptera, Aphidinea) sy- from Rovno and Bitterfeld amber. 7 Vestn. 2001.
ninclusionsinSaxonianandRovnoambers.7Pale- 39(5): 78. (InRussian,withEnglishsummary).
ontol. J. 40: 1907192. Weitschat, W. & Wichard, W. 1998: Atlas derPflanzen
Perkovsky,E. E. 2006b: Firstoccurrenceofsyninclusion undTiere imBaltischenBernstein. 7Dr. Friedrich
ofantsCtenobethylusgoepperti(Mayr) (Hymenopte- Pfeil Verlag, Munchen. 256 pp. [English edition:
ra.‘Formicidae)andmatsucoccids(Homoptera:Mat- 2002:AtlasofplantsandanimalsinBalticamber.7
sucoccidae)inRovnoamber.7Russ.Entomol.J. I5: Dr. FriedrichPfeilVerlag,Munchen].
4197420. ZhantievR.D.2006.NewspeciesofLateEocenedermes—
Perkovsky,E. E. &Fedotova,Z.A.2004:Newspeciesof tidbeetles(Coleoptera,Dermestidae)fromtheRovno
gall midges (Diptera, Cecidomyiidae) from Rovno andBalticambers.Paleontol. J. 40: 5607563.