Hylobittacus picteti, Krzemiński, 2007
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.7910107 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7910810 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C7C359-FFA8-D21C-FE03-FB8F5137048F |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Hylobittacus picteti |
status |
sp. nov. |
Hylobittacus picteti sp. n.
Etymology: The specific epithet is a patronym formed from the surname of F.J. Pictet, author of the first description of Bittacus from Baltic amber over 150 years ago.
Diagnosis: Separated from all species of Hylobittacus in Baltic amber by a combination of: Sc ending just behind fork of Rs, epiandrial lobe broad and slightly narrowed apically, basistylus broad and large.
Description: Antenna most likely 16-segmented; palp 5-segmented ( Fig. 6D View Fig ).
Forewing ( Figs 6A–C View Fig ) 15–17 mm long; Sc ending just behind fork of Rs; sc–r before fork of Rs, opposite 2/3 of Rs length, and at four times its length before end of Sc; fork of Mb distinctly before fork of Rs; cubital cross-vein opposite fork of Mb; no additional cross-veins in distal radial and medial cells.
Male genitalia ( Figs 6E, 6F View Fig , 7D View Fig ): epiandrial lobe broad, only a little narrowed distally; basistyle very broad, with terminal portion incised, forming a small lobe.
Holotype: DEIM 674 /1, well preserved male, only distal portion of costal field in right forewing missing (Bitterfeld amber; Hoffeins coll.).
Other material examined: DEIM 1150/2, female without head, portion of thorax, legs and two wings (Hoffeins coll.); MP 1/797/188/01, almost complete female surrounded by milky cloud and with wings partially damaged (donation of J. Serafin).
Remarks: H. picteti sp. n. resembles H. fossilis in wing venation, but differs significantly from the latter in epiandrial lobe morphology ( Figs 6E, 6F View Fig , 7D View Fig ).
The holotype is from the Saxonian (or Bitterfeld) amber from Saxonia, Germany. Although Saxonian amber has been found in younger sediments, Weitschat and Wichard (2002) state that this is most likely Baltic amber, which was re-deposited several times .
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |