Permoraphidia magnifica, Béthoux, Olivier & Nel, André, 2002

Béthoux, Olivier & Nel, André, 2002, Venation pattern and revision of Orthoptera sensu nov. and sister groups. Phylogeny of Palaeozoic and Mesozoic Orthoptera sensu nov., Zootaxa 96, pp. 1-88 : 39-41

Permoraphidia magnifica sp. nov.

Material. Holotype specimen MNHN­LP­B.7519 (Inv. number of collection 1907­2).

Geological settings. Permian, Madagascar.

Etymology. After the excellent preservation of the holotype.

Note. This specimen is in a flat and elliptic nodule. No further indication about the exact origin and age of this fossil is known. There is no available record of a Permian nodule outcrop in Madagascar. As this fossil is very well preserved, new investigations on its origin should be undertaken.

Diagnosis. Differences with P. americana are as follows: CuA + CuPa with more than two branches, forewing nearly twice as long as that of P. a m e r i c a n a. It differs from P. grandis in its non sclerotized pterostigma, resembling that of P. americana . Also, the fusion of RP with MA is long, distinctly longer than in P. grandis and comparable to that of P. americana ( Carpenter, 1943) . Unfortunately, P. grandis is based on an incomplete forewing with ramifications of CuA + CuPa incompletely preserved.

Description. Print and counter print of a nearly complete body with the four wings, three legs and antennae in connection.

Body length about 13.0 mm. Antenna short 1.9 mm long. Metathoracic leg saltatorial, with the femora broadened 1.3 mm wide and 5.1 mm long, tibia 6.3 mm long, two rows of strong and stout outer tibial spines as in modern Orthoptera , tarsi 0.8 mm long; other legs more poorly preserved; two cerci probably visible but no ovipositor at the apex of the abdomen.

Forewing (figs 15a­b, 16) 16.8 mm long, 3.6 mm wide, with relatively few and spaced cross­veins; ScA short, poorly preserved; ScP slightly zigzagged, with simple, slightly curved and regularly spaced anterior branches; area between ScP and costal margin 0.7 mm wide; costal margin with a posterior concavity at the level of the distal end of ScP; area between R and ScP narrow, dark with eight or nine short cross­veins between them; pterostigma dark, but not sclerotized, with four to five faint cross­veins in it; base of RP just distal to mid length of wing, with a short but strong cross­vein between R and MA just basal of it; basal free part of RP relatively short, 1.3 mm long, without any cross­vein reaching it; fusion of RP with MA 0.8 mm long; RP with two or three distal main branches distally ramified; wing apex darkly pigmented; basal stem M + CuA diverges from R opposite to end of ScA on anterior margin; CuPa reaching M + CuA basal of origin of distal free part of CuA + CuPa, just distal to the first third of the wing; CuA + CuPa separates distally, posteriorly irregularly pectinate, with five to six branches reaching posterior wing margin; MP separating from MA close to base of CuA + CuPa; MP very distally and weakly ramified; MA with a distinct angle at the level of the cross­vein between R and MA; distal free part of MA simple (right wing) or ramified (left wing); MA not divided into MA1 and MA2; CuPa simple, separated from CuPa at about the basal third of the wing; CuPa and CuPb separated near the wing base; CuPb is a weak simple vein, very near and markedly parallel with 1A; 1A strong and simple; two other longitudinal anal veins; ends of first posterior branch of CuA + CuPa, CuPa, CuPb and 1A strongly approximate at posterior wing margin.

Hindwing (figs 15.c,d), slightly shorter than forewing, about 10.7 mm long; anal area only partly preserved; CuA + CuPa with two apical branches; MA very briefly fused with RP in left wing but separated in right wing (with short cross­vein between them); pterostigma and wing apex darkly pigmented; presence of a short secondary longitudinal vein between CuPa and CuPb; posterior wing margin angular at the distal end of CuPb.

Discussion. The presence of saltatorial metathoracic legs confirms an accurate assignment of Permoraphidia magnifica and the Permoraphidiidae to the Orthoptera , contra Tillyard (1932) (assignment in Neuroptera ).

Following the key of families of ‘Orthoptera’ proposed by Sharov (1968), this fossil falls into the family Permoraphidiidae rather than Elcanidae because its CuPa is fused with M + CuA instead of being fused with the distal free part of CuA and this fusion is well distal of the level of distal end of ScA. Carpenter (1992) indicated in his family diagnosis of the Permoraphidiidae that the hindwing MA is anastomosed with RP, which is apparently not a stable character as this is not the case on the right hindwing in our fossil. Permoraphidia magnifica sp. nov. shares with the two other Permoraphidia spp. the presence of a strong cross­vein between R and MA just basal of the origin of RP (unique character which is a synapomorphy of the family). The character ‘base of MP very close to that of CuA + CuPa ’ is also probably derived, but maybe more homoplasic as it is also present in Petrelcana and Iasvia (herein assigned to Mezenoedischiinae ).