© Entomologica Fennica. 7 March 2008 Archiconiocompsa prisca Enderlein (Neuroptera: Coniopterygidae): The first neuropteran fossil in Rovno amber (Ukraine) Janusz Kupryj anowicz & Vladimir N. Makarkin Kupryjanowicz, J. & Makarkin, V. N. 2008: Archiconiocompsaprisca Enderlein (Neuroptera: Coniopterygidae): The first neuropteran fossil in Rovno amber (Ukraine). — Entomol. Fennica 19: 25—3 1. Archiconiocompsaprisca Enderlein, previously known from Baltic amber, is re- corded in Rovno amber. A discussion of the systematic position of this mono- typic genus is provided; it is tentatively assigned to Coniocompsini (Aleuro- pteryginae). J. Kupryjanowicz, Institute ofBiology, University ofBialystok, Swierkowa 20 B, 15—950 Bialystok, and Museum ofthe Earth Polish Academy ofSciences, Al. Na Sharpie 26/2 7, 00—488 Warszawa, Poland; E—mail.‘ [email protected] V. N. Makarkin (corresponding author), Institute ofBiology and Soil Sciences, Far Eastern Branch ofthe Russian Academy ofSciences, Vladivostok, 690022, Russia; E—mail.‘ [email protected] Received 22 March 2007, accepted 19 May 2007 1. Introduction Eocene in the age (Engel & Perkovsky 2006a, Perkovsky et al. 2007). Amber and its insect inclusions from the Rovno In this paper, we report the first neuropteran Region ofUkraine is currently attracting much at- from Rovno amber, the coniopterygid species tention, and it has recently been intensively stud- Archiconiocompsa prisca Enderlein, previously ied (e.g., Dlussky 2002, Dlussky & Perkovsky known from Baltic amber, and discuss the sys- 2002, Simutnik 2002, Kononova 2003, Perkov- tematic position of the genus. sky et al. 2003a,b, 2007, Putshkov & Popov The family Coniopterygidae today is com- 2003, Fedotova & Perkovsky 2004, 2005, Per- prised ofminute insects with reduced wing vena— kovsky & Fedotova 2004, Polilov & Perkovsky tion; it has relatively few species, distributed 2004, Gumovsky & Perkovsky 2005, Tolkanitz world wide. Despite this, they are comparatively et al. 2005a,b, Engel & Perkovsky 2006a—c, Per- well studied, largely stimulated by the authorita- kovsky 2006a,b, Simutnik & Perkovsky 2006, tive monograph ofMeinander (1972). Six species Zhantiev 2006). Sixteen insect orders and about a ofthe family have been described from Baltic am- hundred families have now been reported from ber (see list in Engel 2004), belonging to five gen- Rovno amber (Perkovsky et al. 2003b, Engel & era, three of which are extinct: Archiconio— Perkovsky 2006a, Perkovsky 2006a). This in- compsa Enderlein, 1910, Archiconis Enderlein, cludes, however, no species of Neuroptera. The 1930, Heminiphetia Enderlein, 1930, all three are amber is chemically identical with Baltic amber monotypic. (Kosmowska-Ceranowicz 1999), and both are The presence of the Baltic amber Archi— considered to be roughly contemporaneous, Late coniocompsa prisca in Rovno amber is not sur- 26 Kupryjanowicz & Makarkin ° ENTOMOL. FENNICA Vol. 19 prising. Species ofDolichopodidae (Diptera) and senschaftliches Zentrum der Universitat Got- Rhinoterrnitidae (Isoptera) have been identified tingen [=Geoscience Centre of the University of in common between Rovno and Baltic ambers Gottingen], Germamy; MZ, Muzeum Ziemi (Grichanov 2000, Perkovsky et al. 2007). Fur- Polskiej Akademii Nauk [=Museum of the Earth ther, 74% of ant species and all 6 species of ofthe Polish Academy ofSciences], Warsaw, Po- Psocoptera recorded from Rovno amber were land. previously described from Baltic amber (Dlussky & Perkovsky 2002, Engel & Perkovsky 2006b,c). Such shared species in other insect 3. Systematic paleontology families are not yet known, but most of these are represented in Rovno amber by few species or 3.1. Archiconiocompsa prisca Enderlein, 1910 have not yet been closely examined. The relation- (Figs 1—4) ship between the Baltic and Rovno amber insect faunas is therefore only beginning to be evident Archiconiocompsa prisca Enderlein, 1910: 676, as the Rovno assemblage becomes better known. figs 1—4 (original description); Enderlein 1930: Nevertheless, it is currently apparent that the 101 (keyed); Meinander 1972: 34 (systematic po- Rovno amber insect assemblage is distinct from sition); Meinander 1975: 53 (taxonomic re- that of Baltic amber by differing relative abun- marks); Meinander 1979: 20, 23 (systematic po- dances oforders, families and groups within fam- sition, biogeography); Keilbach 1982: 284 ilies (Perkovsky et al. 2003a,b, Engel & Perkov- (listed); Nel 1990: 343 (listed); Spahr 1992: 71 sky 2006a, Perkovsky et al. 2007). (listed); Weitschat & Wichard 1998: 146, pl. 53, figs c, e (photographs of two additional speci- mens); Dobosz & Krzeminski 2000: 220 (listed); 2. Material and methods Engel 2004: 134 (listed, systematic position). Hololype (female): Number unknown, earlier The material examined comes from the Klesov deposited “in the collection of Professor Dr. R. locality, about 90 km NNE of Rovno in the Klebs” in Konigsberg [=Kaliningrad], now lost Rovno Region, Ukraine. The specimen was do- or possibly destroyed, not found in the part ofhis nated to the Museum of the Earth by Andrzej collection preserved in the GZG (Ch. Neumann, Wiszniewski (A.Wiszniewski collection), and M. Reich, pers. comm.). Baltic amber (precise lo- prepared for this study by Janusz Kupryjanowicz. cality collected unknown). Late Eocene. It is embedded in a translucent lump of amber Additional material (apparently females): (1) with measurements 14 x 12 x 5 mm. There are no No. 5907, deposited in the SZG, labelled “Phys. syninclusions. Photographs and measurements Oek. Ges. [=Physikalisch—Okonomischen Ge- were done using a Zeiss SV 11 microscope. sellschaft, Konigsberg]/ Nr. 9267./ 11.1. Nr. 4.”; Terminology mainly follows Meinander “5907/ Coniopterix [sic]/ 5277-8”. Baltic amber (1972). Abbreviations used in the text and figures (precise locality collected unknown); (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 cubital vein (Cu); M1+2, M3+4, branches of the [51.315N 26.907E] (Rovno amber). Late Eo- medial vein (M); R1, anterior branch ofthe radial cene. vein (R); R2+3, R3+4, branches ofthe radial sec- Description. (Rovno specimen): Body, ap- tor (Rs); Sc1, Sc2, anterior and posterior branches pendages fuscous. Head with very large eyes of the subcostal vein (Sc). Crossveins are desig- (Fig. 2a); vertex not especially prominent, cove- nated after the longitudinal veins which they con- red with rather scarce, fine hairs. Antennae short, nect, and numbered in sequence from the wing 16-segmented; scape, pedicel size similar, length base (if more than one crossvein between a vein ca. 1.5 times width, stouter than other segments; pair is present), e.g., 2m—cu1, distal crossvein 1st segment of flagellum (3rd antennal segment) connecting M and Cu1. longer than other flagellar segments, length ca. Institutional abbreviations: GZG, Geowis- 2.2 times width; flagellar segments increasingly ENTOMOL. FENNICA Vol. 19 - Archiconiocompsaprisca in Rovno amber 27 . i . I ; , vm 0.3 mm pllcv% Fig. 2. Archiconiocompsa pn'sca, Rovno amber speci- men MZ 24667. — a., Head. — b. Abdomen (lateral Fig. 1 . Archiconiocompsa pn'sca, Rovno amber speci- v to ix, — — view). mxpl, maxillary palpus; plic, plicaturae; men MZ 24667. a. Left lateral view. b. Right lateral 5th to 9th sternites. view. shorter, wider toward apex; terminal flagellomere site basal sc-r. Crossvein-like part of Sc2 meeting tapering. Antennae covered with moderately R1 distadrl-rs. Basal sc-r very short. Sc2 slightly long, dense hairs. Terminal segment ofmaxillary curved toward Scl, but apically separate. Origin palps much longer, broader than others. Structu- ofRs at proximal 1/3th ofwing length. Rs basally res of thorax poorly visible by preservation, but sinuous with distinct knee (bend, as in Meinander as evident appear normal for family (Fig. 3b). 1972) at lrs-m; division into R2+3, R4+5 shifted Legs ofusual morphology for family, slender; fe- distally, rl-rs joining Rs strongly proximad this mur of fore leg stouter than other leg segments. fork. R2+3, R4+5 rather short, broadly spaced, Femur, tibia offore leg much shorter than those of angle between them almost 90 degrees. lrs-m at mid, hind legs. All femora covered with short, knee of Rs not detected, but crossvein-like weak sparse setae; tibiae with longer, denser setae. Tar- structure visible slightly distad fork of M; 2rs-m si five-segmented, all basitarsi longest of tarso- long, nearly opposite rl-rs. M coalescent with R meres, as long as, or slightly longer than four for short distance or connecting with it by very other tarsomeres together. Abdomen covered (at short crossvein proximally (this portion not most) with microtrichia. Abdominal plicaturae clearly visible; possibly former variant in left on third to sixth sternites, most prominent on fifth wing, latter in right), deeply bifurcate distally, sternite (Fig. 2b). Seventh segment relatively with branches very long, relatively closely long, eighth segment appearing very short (indis- spaced; long setae on two large thickenings ofM. tinct preservation). Genital structures suggests lm-cul very short, connecting M, Cul slightly specimen female, but not clearly visible by clou- distal to fork of Cu; 2m—cu1 very strong, short, dy amber. slightly proximad fork of M. Cu dividing into Forewing (Fig. 3). Length 3.3 mm, maximum Cul, Cu2 close to wing base; cul-cu2 short, width 1.2 mm. Sc parallel to costal margin. Two