Neuroptera: Coniopterygidae): the First Neuropteran Fossil in Rovno Amber (Ukraine)

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 recorded in Rovno amber. A discussion of the systematic position of this monotypic 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

; ,

0.3 mm pllcv%

Fig. 2. Archiconiocompsa pn'sca, Rovno amber specimen 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 strongly proximad 2m—cu1. Two long crossveins basal crossveins (=subcostal veinlets) in costal between Cul, A1; lcul-al strongly curved. No space: weaker basad, rather strong distad oppo- crossvein between A1, A2. Proximal half ofA2, 28 Kupryjanowicz & Makarkin - ENTOMOL. FENNICA Vol. 19

either intraspecific variation, possible errors in the original description, or different interpreta- tions of the features. These include the following four differences. [1] The most distinct difference in venation is the position of the crossvein-like part of Sc2, which is situated opposite to the radial crossvein in the holotype, and distad that crossvein in the Rovno specimen (Fig. 3a). We interpret this as intraspecific variation. Similar variations occur within a species in the closest ex- tant genus Coniocompsa, for example in C. sil- vestriana Enderlein [=C. smithersi Meinander] (see Meinander 1972: figs 51A and 51G) widely distributed in Africa. Moreover, the position of the crossvein-like part of Sc2 in the specimen Fig. 3. Archiconiocompsa pn'sca, Rovno amber speci- 5907 is identical to that found in the Rovno specimen MZ 24667. — a., Right forewing. — b. Thorax (dor- men. [2] The Rovno specimen is larger than the sal view) and anal area of rightforewing. a2-hm, Baltic amber holotype: the holotype forewing is crossvein between A2 and hind margin. 2.4 mm long, the Rovno specimen 3.3 mm. Al- though such size difference seems great, it is not hind margin connected by rather short crossvein exceptional within the Coniopterygidae. More- nearly perpendicular to A2 (Fig. 3b). All longitu- over, specimen 5907 is even larger than the dinal veins with one row of short dense setae, Rovno specimen: the forewing ofthe former is ca. prominent particularly on Scl, Sc2. Marginal 3.7 mm long. [3] According to Enderlein (1910), fringes short. Membrane hyaline, slightly plicaturae are present on the second to fifth fuscous, without distinct colour patterning. sternites. But we guess that they actually occur on Hindwing. Length ca. 2.5 mm. Sc2 slightly the third to the sixth sternites, based on the obser- curved toward Sc 1, but notjoined. Crossvein-like vation that between most distal segment bearing part of Sc2 joins R1 much distad r1-rs. Configu- plicaturae (fifth of Enderlein, sixth in our inter- ration of Rs fork as in forewing. 2rs-m nearly at pretation) and genital segments (ninth-tenth) in wing mid-point. Stem of M, M3+4 form straight the Rovno specimen there are two segments: one line; M1+2 originates at very obtuse angle to M; relatively large (seventh) and one small (eighth) M1+2, M3+4 parallel. Other portions of hind- (Fig. 2b). Moreover, the plicaturae on the second wings obscured by forewings, venation not visi- abdominal segment in genera ofAleuropterygini ble. and Coniocompsini (to which this genus most Remarks. Although the Baltic amber speci- closely related) are usually absent, or there are at men GZG 5907 was formerly deposited in most only traces of them present (Meinander Konigsberg (judging by its label), it does not ap- 1972). [3] Enderlein (1910) stated that the third pear to be the holotype of Archiconiocompsa antennal segment is almost three times as long as prisca. Based on the original description of the wide, and is the narrowest of any segment. This holotype ofA. prisca, the size of specimen GZG segment in the Rovno specimen appears to be not 5907 is much greater than that ofthe holotype and particularly more slender than the next distal and it differs in venational details. The holotype ofA. only ca. 2.5 times longer than wide (Fig. 2a). [4] prisca was described with enough detail by Enderlein (1910: fig. 1) showed in the forewing Enderlein (1910) to confidently identify the Rov- A2 connected with the hind margin by a long no specimen as conspecific, based on almost oblique crossvein, so that it appears bifurcated. In complete morphological agreement between Rovno specimen, this crossvein is not so long, them, particularly in fine details of venation, the and it is nearly perpendicular to A2. Unfortu- antennae and the abdomen. However, there are nately, it is impossible to check the accuracy of some minor differences, which we presume to be Enderlein’ s drawing because ofloss ofthe type; it

30 Kupryjanowicz & Makarkz'n ° ENTOMOL. FENNICA Vol. 19

(the latter is possibly paraphyletic: Engel 2004). apomorphic features, which we consider to be The vast majority of fossil Aleuropteryginae be- significant. If this is correct, then the Conio- long to Fontenelleini, including 12 species (Engel compsini should include Archiconiocompsa and 2004, Nel et al. 2005). Exceptions are Archico— Coniocompsa, with the former possessesing a niocompsa and the poorly known Juraconiopte— number of plesiomorphic character states not ryx Meinander, which was tentatively assigned to shared with the latter (see above). this subfamily (Engel 2004). Archiconiocompsa surely does not belong to Fontenelleini, as its Acknowledgements. We thank Andrzej Wiszniewski (Bia- lystok) for donation of amber with inclusions, including hindwing crossvein r1 -rs joining Rs strongly pro- that examined in this study, to the Museum of the Earth; ximad the fork of Rs is distinctive. This genus Christian Neumann (Museum fiir Naturkunde, Berlin) for was to the tribe originally assigned Aleuroptery- providing information on the holotype of Archiconio- gini (Enderlein 1910). Later, it was considered as compsa prised; Mike Reich (Geowissenschaftliches having “an intermediate position between Aleu- Zentrum der Universitat Gottingen) for providing us with ropterygini and Coniocompsini” (Meinander the photographs ofthe Baltic amber Neuroptera deposited in the Zentrum; Evgeny E. Perkovsky (Schmalhausen In- 1972: 34), and subsequently was referred to Co- stitute ofZoology, Kiev), S. Bruce Archibald (Museum of niocompsini (Meinander 1979). Engel (2004) Comparative Zoology, Massachusetts); Sonja Wedmann stated the opinion that this genus has an uncertain (Institut fur Palaontology, Bonn), and an anonymous re— tribe level position within the Aleuropteryginae. viewer for helpful discussions and comments that im— proved this paper; S. Bruce Archibald and John D. Oswald If our interpretation of the plicaturae position on (Texas A&M University) for correction ofEnglish; Galina abdominal segments (third to sixth) is correct, Sinelnikova (Institute of Biology and Soil Science, then the of ofthis to probability assignment genus Vladivostok, Russia) for help with drawing. Aleuropterygini is increased, because plicaturae are unknown to occur on the sixth segment in Co- niocompsini. The structures of the female abdo- References minal apex in the Rovno specimen appear most similar to those of of species Coniocompsa (see Dlussky, G. M. 2002: Ants ofthe genus Dolichoderus (Hy— for example Meinander 1972: figs 45C, 46F, menoptera: Formicidae) from the Baltic and Rovno 51C), and therefore would associate it with the ambers. 7 Paleontol. J. 36: 50763. G. M. & E. E. 2002: Ants Coniocompsini. Venational characters are con- Dlussky, Perkovsky, (Hymenop— tera, Formicidae) from the Rovno amber. 7 Vestn. tradictory, allowing assignment to either taxon. Z001. 3 6(5): 3720. (In Russian, with English abstract). As Meinander (1972) correctly mentioned, the Dobosz, R. & Krzeminski, W. 2000: A new species of the hindwing venation is more similar to that ofAleu- Coniopterygidae (Neuroptera) from Baltic amber. 7 ropterygini than of Coniocompsini. Archiconio— P01. Pismo Entomol. 69: 2197224. G. 1910: Uber de der fossilen Co— compsa shares with Aleuropterygini all four fore- Enderlein, Beziehungen zu den recenten und fiber Archiconio- wing venational states by which Archiconio— niopterygiden compsa prisca nov. gen. nov. spec. 7 2001. Anz. 35: and are compsa Coniocompsa distinguished 6737677. These are (above). states, however, plesiomorp- Enderlein, G. 1930: Die Klassifikation der Coniopterygi- hic. On the other hand, the clearly apomorphic den aufGrund der recenten und fossilen Gattungen. 7 venational features shared by Archiconiocompsa Arch. Klassifikat. Phylogenet. Entomol. 1(2): 9871 14. M. S. 2004: The in Cretaceous Burmese and Coniocompsa (above), the 16-segmented an- Engel, dustywings amber 7 J. tennae and possible genital resemblance ofArchi— (Insecta: Neuroptera: Coniopterygidae). Syst. Palaeontol. 2: 1337136. coniocompsa to Coniocompsa, are suggestive of Engel, M. S. & Perkovsky, E.E. 2006a: An Eocene bee in the Coniocompsini. Rovno amber, Ukraine (Hymenoptera, Megachili- In summary, although an argument made by dae). 7Am. Mus. Novit. 3506: 1711. previous authors that the tribe position ofArchi— Engel, M. S. & Perkovsky, E. E. 2006b: Psocoptera (Insec— in Eocene Rovno amber 7 Vestn. Zool. coniocompsa to be rather uncertain has some ta) (Ukraine). 40: 1757179. strengths, in some respects indeed it is intermedi- Engel, M. S. & Perkovsky, E. E. 2006c: Sphaeropsocus ate between the and the Conio- Aleuropterygini 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 of these 117: 2437245. ENTOMOL. FENNICA Vol. 19 ° Archiconiocompsa prisca in Rovno amber 31

Fedotova, Z. A. & Perkovsky, E. E. 2004: New gall midges amber: subfamily Lestremiinae, tribes Micromyiini (Diptera, Cecidomyiidae) from the Rovno amber: sub— and Peromyiini. 7 Paleontol. J. 38: 3967106. family Lestremiinae, tribes Strobliellini and Campylo- Perkovsky, E. E., Zosimovich, V. Yu. & Vlaskin, A. Yu. myzini; subfamily Porricondylinae, tribes Diadocidii- 2003a: Rovno amber fauna: a preliminary report. 7 ni and Asynaptini. 7 Paleontol. J. 38: 5187547. Acta 2001. Cracov. 46 (suppl. “Fossil Insects”): 4237 Fedotova, Z. A., & Perkovsky, E. E. 2005: New gall mid— 430. ges (Diptera, Cecidomyiidae) from the Rovno amber: Perkovsky, E. E., Zosimovich, V. Yu. & Vlaskin, A. Yu. subfamily Porrycondylinae (tribes Bryocryptini and 2003b: Rovno amber insects: first results of analysis.

Winnertziini) and subfamily Lasiopterinae (tribes 7 Russ. Entomol. J. 12: 1197126.

7 Brachyneurini and Oligotrophini). Paleontol. J. 39: Perkovsky, E. E., Rasnitsyn, A. P., Vlaskin, A. P. & Tara- 41751. schuk, M. V. 2007: A comparative analysis ofthe Bal- Grichanov, I. Ya. 2000: Notes on Dolichopodidae (Dipte— tic and Rovno amber arthropod faunas: representative

7 ra) from Ukrainian and Baltic amber. Int. J. Dipter. samples. 7 Afr. Invertebr. 47: 2297245. Res. 11: 1297131. Polilov A. A. & Perkovsky, E. E. 2004: New Species of A. V. & E. E. 2005: Taxonomic no- Gumovsky Perkovsky Late Eocene feather-winged beetles (Coleoptera, Pti- tes on Tetracampidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) liidae) from the Rovno and Baltic amber. 7Paleontol. with of a new fossil of description species Diprico- J. 38: 6647668. from Rovno amber. 7 Entomol. Probl. 35: campe Putshkov P. V. & Popov Yu. A. 2003: The first find ofMi— 1237130. crophysidae from the Rovno amber (Heteroptera, Ci- R. 1982: und Liste der Arten tieri- Keilbach, Bibliographie 7 micomorpha). Ann. Up. Sil. Mus. (Entomol.) 12: scher Einschlusse in fossilen Harzen sowie ihrer Auf- 81786. bewahrungsorte. Teil 1. 7 Dtsche. Entomol. Z. 29: Simutnik S. A. 2002: A new genus of encyrtid wasps (Hy— 1297286. menoptera, Chalcidoidea, Encyrtidae) from Late Eo- S. V. 2003: New of Kononova, species egg7parasitizing 7 cene Rovno amber (Ukraine). Vestn. 2001. 36(4): wasps of the genus Idris (Scelionidae, Proctotrupoi— 997102. Russian, with

7 (In English abstract). dea) of the Rovno amber. Paleontol. J. 37: 2757 S. A. & E. E. 2006: A of 279. Simutnik, Perkovsky, description 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, 7 Rovno amber. Vestn. Zool. 40: 2837286. f1nds, features and differences in IRS). 7 Estud. Mus. Spahr, U. 1992: Erganzungen und Berichtigungen zu Cienc. Nat. Alava 14 (num. espec. 2): 737117. R.Keilbachs und Liste der Bemstein- Meinander, M. 1972: A revision ofthe family Conioptery- Bibliographie fossilien 7 Klasse Insecta gidae (Planipennia). 7Acta 2001. Fenn. 136: 17357. [Ausgenomen: “Apterygo— ta”, Me- Meinander, M. 1975: Fossil Coniopterygidae (Neuropte— Hemipteroidea, Coleoptera, Hymenoptera, 7 Beitr. Natkd. Ser. B ra). 7 Not. Entomol. 55: 53757. copteroidea]. Stuttg. (Geol. 182: 17102. Meinander, M. 1979: The phylogeny and geographical Palaeontol.) G. 1998: relations of South Asian distribution ofthe Aleuropteryginae (Neuroptera, Co— SZiraki, Zoogeographic

7 niopterygidae). 7 Ann. Entomol. Fenn. 45: 16723. coniopterygids (Neuroptera, Coniopterygidae). Acta 2001. Fenn. 209: 2497254. Nel, A. 1990 [1991]. Nouveaux insectes neuroptero'1'des fossiles de l’Oligocene de France (Neuroptera et Me— Tolkanitz, V. I., Narolsky, N. B. & Perkovsky, E.E. 2005a: galoptera). 7Bull. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat. (Paris). Sect. A new species of parasitic wasp of the genus Pher- C (Sci. Terre) (4) 12: 3277349. hombus (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Pherhombi—

7 Nel, A., Perrichot, V. & Azar, D. 2005: New and poorly nae) from the Rovno amber. Paleontol. J. 39: 51 17 known fossil Coniopterygidae in Cretaceous and Ce— 5 13. nozoic ambers (Insecta: Neuroptera). 7 Ann. 2001. Tolkanitz, V.I., Narolsky, N. B. & Perkovsky, E. E. 2005b: (Wars.) 55: 177. New data offossil ichneumon wasp Pherhombus doli- Perkovsky, E. E. 2006a: Occurrence ofant (Hymenoptera, ni (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Pherhombinae) from Rovno and Bitterfeld amber. 7 Vestn. 2001. Formicidae) and aphid (Homoptera, Aphidinea) sy-

ninclusions in Saxonian and Rovno ambers. 7 Pale- 39(5): 78. (In Russian, with English summary). ontol. J. 40: 1907192. Weitschat, W. & Wichard, W. 1998: Atlas der Pflanzen Perkovsky, E. E. 2006b: First occurrence of syninclusion und Tiere im Baltischen Bernstein. 7 Dr. Friedrich of ants Ctenobethylus goepperti (Mayr) (Hymenopte- Pfeil Verlag, Munchen. 256 pp. [English edition: ra.‘ Formicidae) and matsucoccids (Homoptera: Mat- 2002: Atlas of plants and animals in Baltic amber. 7 sucoccidae) in Rovno amber. 7 Russ. Entomol. J. I 5: Dr. Friedrich Pfeil Verlag, Munchen]. 4197420. Zhantiev R. D. 2006. New species ofLate Eocene dermes— Perkovsky, E. E. & Fedotova, Z.A. 2004: New species of tid beetles (Coleoptera, Dermestidae) from the Rovno gall midges (Diptera, Cecidomyiidae) from Rovno and Baltic ambers. Paleontol. J. 40: 5607563.