Baissopteridae Martynova, 1961

Makarkin, Vladimir N. & Archibald, S. Bruce, 2014, A revision of the late Eocene snakeflies (Raphidioptera) of the Florissant Formation, Colorado, with special reference to the wing venation of the Raphidiomorpha, Zootaxa 3784 (4), pp. 401-444 : 409-410

Family Baissopteridae Martynova, 1961

Diagnostic character states of venation. Pterostigma usually with crossvein closing it proximally, with at least one incorporated branch of RA. Forewing: rich venation with 3–5 branches of RP, many crossveins: 3–5 ra-pr, 5– 15 ir, 4–7 r-m, 3–5 im, 2–3 icu.

Hind wing: many crossveins: 4–5 ra-pr, 5–14 ir, 4–6 r-m, 2–4 m-cu.

Composition. Five genera from the Cretaceous and Eocene: Cretoraphidiopsis Engel, 2002 (monotypic) from Hauterivian/Aptian of Bon-Tsagaan, Mongolia; Lugala Willmann, 1994 (monotypic) from the Early Cretaceous of Bayan-Tsagaan, Mongolia; Baissoptera Martynova, 1961 (twelve species) from pre-Barremian/early Barremian of Baissa, Transbaikalian Russia; Barremian/Aptian of Huangbanjigou, Yixian Formation, China; late Albian of Spanish amber (Peñacerrada I); late Aptian of the Crato Formation of Brazil; Cretoraphidia (four species) from Baissa and Neocomian of Romanovka, Transbaikalian Russia; Austroraphidia Willmann, 1994 (monotypic) from the Crato Formation of Brazil; Dictyoraphidia (monotypic) from the late Eocene of Florissant.

Comments on characters. The venation of Baissopteridae is in general similar to that of those Mesoraphidiidae (s.l.) that have a similar structure of the pterostigma (e.g., the Cretaceous genus Siboptera Ponomarenko, 1993 ); it differs from these in possessing more branches of longitudinal veins and an enriched crossvenation. Therefore, the differences between this and other families are mainly numerical. The enriched venation of Baissopteridae is certainly secondary; Jurassic taxa of Raphidiomorpha (Metaraphidiidae and Mesoraphidiidae s.l.) have simpler venation.

Remarks. We base our comments on examination of a single (Cretaceous) specimen of a species assigned to this family and published descriptions and figures of the others. We agree with Bechly & Wolf-Schwenninger (2011) that some of these published descriptions and figures appear problematic, and therefore our conclusions (diagnosis and family composition) are preliminary pending extensive revision of these taxa.

The family is sometimes considered to be paraphyletic (e.g., Willmann 1994; Bechly & Wolf-Schwenninger 2011), as it is not defined by any distinct synapomorphies. We did not find these as well. It is unknown yet if this group of genera with enriched venation constitutes a monophyletic taxon or not, perhaps within a paraphyletic Mesoraphidiidae (s.l.). Both families are in strong need of detailed revision, but this is beyond of the scope of this paper.