Lophophaena witjazii (Petrushevskaya, 1971) n. comb.

Plate 25, Figs. 5A–B.

Lophophaena cf. capito Ehrenberg, Benson, 1966, pl. 24, figs. 22–23, pl. 25, fig. 1.

Lophophaenoma witjazii n. sp., Petrushevskaya, 1971, pl. 62, figs. 3–7.

Lithomelissa horrida (Popofsky), Petrushevskaya, 1971, pl. 57, fig. 8.

Lophophaenoma witjazii Petrushevskaya, Poluzzi, 1982, pl. 22, figs. 1–3.

Lithomelissa sp. A, Nishimura, 1990, figs. 14.6–8, 15.1–4c.

Lophophaena witjazii Petrushevskaya, Van de Paverd, 1995, pl. 66, figs. 1–3, 5a–b.

Lophophaenoma witjazii Petrushevskaya, Chen and Tan, 1996, pl. 30, figs. 7–10, pl. 51, figs. 8–9.

Lophophaenoma witjazii Petrushevskaya, Tan and Su, 2003, pl. 5, fig. 14; pl. 17, figs. 5–6; pl. 21, fig. 12.

Lophophaena witjazii Petrushevskaya, Trubovitz et al., 2020, supplementary data 7.

Remarks. Generic names for this species have been used inconsistently in the literature. The basionym of this species is Lophophaenoma witjazii (Petrushevskaya, 1971), but Petrushevskaya (1981) later determined this genus to be a junior subjective synonym of Arachnocorys . She also noted that some of the species formerly placed in Lophophaenoma should actually belong to Lophophaena and Peromelissa rather than Arachnocorys . However, Petrushevskaya did not officially transfer L. witjazii to Arachnocorys, Lophophaena, or Peromelissa . Van de Paverd (1995) listed this species as Lophophaena witjazii, as did Renaudie and Lazarus (2016). We follow these authors’ precedent here, because this species fits the criteria for Lophophaena better than any other lophophaenid genera we are aware of. The specimen illustrated by Petrushevskaya (1971) as Lithomelissa horrida (Popofsky) is included in our synonymy because we consider it a better match for L. witjazii due to its lack of pronounced feet. Van de Paverd (1995) also included this specimen in his synonymy for L. witjazii .

Range. Late Miocene—Recent, EEP (Table 1).