Hylobittacus antiquus ( Pictet, 1854 ) Krzemiński, 2007

Krzemiński, Wieslaw, 2007, A revision of Eocene Bittacidae (Mecoptera) from Baltic amber, with the description of a new species, African Invertebrates 48 (1), pp. 153-162 : 155-157

Hylobittacus antiquus ( Pictet, 1854) , comb. n.

Fig. 3

Bittacus antiquus: Pictet 1854: 379 , fig. 26.

Bittacus antiquus: Pictet-Baraban & Hagen 1856: 92 , fig. 22.

Electrobittacus antiquus: Carpenter 1931: 410 .

Diagnosis: Separated from all species of Hylobittacus in Baltic amber by a combination of: Sc very long, ending distally far beyond fork of Rs; additional cross-veins in cells r5, r6 and sometimes m1.

Redescription (based on female MP 1/1145/188/01):

Female.

Forewing 19 mm long, uniformly light brown, pterostigma slightly darker; shape and venation as in Figs 3D and 3E ; single pterostigmal cross-vein; very long Sc reaching margin far beyond fork of Rs; crossvein sc–r at about nine times its length before end of Sc; 2 or 3 additional crossveins in cells r5, r6, m1.

Male. Unknown.

Material examined: MP 1/1145/188/01, female with head and thorax missing, most of the legs partially preserved, abdomen and three wings complete (donation of J. Serafin); MCZ 5210 (old number MCZ 5118), female, condition as in Carpenter (1954) determined as B. fossilis by Carpenter (1954).

Remarks: Carpenter reclassified this species twice. Initially, he placed it in a new, monotypic genus Electrobittacus , based on Pictet’s (1854) drawing of the head, which he found bore an abnormally short rostrum for a bittacid (Carpenter 1931). Later, he considered this genus name to be a nomen dubium and, further, synonymised the species with Bittacus fossilis , based on a comparison of with a specimen of H. antiquus of his collection (female MCZ 5210 = old number 5118; Carpenter 1954) with Pictet’s drawing. Carpenter also suggested that this drawing might illustrate a trichopteran. This does not seem plausible, since the leg of the specimen resembles that of a bittacid and not a trichopteran.

Carpenter’s procedure was incorrect for three reasons. Firstly, an improved drawing of Pictet’s specimen was published by Hagen ( Pictet-Baraban & Hagen 1856), who therefore should be regarded the first reviser of this species. Secondly, Carpenter incorrectly considered differences in venation in the specimen illustrated by Hagen to be non important and within the range of intraspecific variation of B. fossilis . And third, in his synonymy, Carpenter used a junior, instead of the senior name.

Upon examination of an additional specimen in the MP collection, the length of Sc and the presence of additional cross-veins in the apical region of the wing ( Figs 3D, 3E ) clearly conform to the drawing of H. antiquus by Hagen ( Pictet-Baraban & Hagen 1856, fig. 22, table VIII; also see Fig. 3C in this paper). This is in agreement with Hagen’s interpretation, and so H. antiquus (Pictet) is resurrected here from synonymy.

The species is now known from three specimens: the specimen which was illustrated by Hagen ( Pictet-Baraban & Hagen 1856, fig. 22; Fig. 3C , this paper), a second in the MP collection ( MP 1 /1145/188/01, Fig. 3E ), and a third examined by Carpenter and included by him in H. fossilis ( MCZ 5210 ; Figs 3A, 3B ). Although the location of the specimen described by Pictet and examined and illustrated by Hagen is unknown at present, a neotype is not designated here, assuming that it is not permanently lost nor destroyed .

Figures

Fig. 3. Hylobittacus antiquus (Pictet):(A, B) specimen MZC 5210, general appearance and details of forewing venation; (C) venation of forewing (after Pictet-Baraban & Hagen, 1856); (D, E) specimen MP 1/1145/188/01, general appearance of wing and details of venation. Scale bar = 5 mm.