Bibio lignarius Germar, 1837

Skartveit, John & Wedmann, Sonja, 2021, A Revision of fossil Bibionidae (Insecta: Diptera) from the Oligocene of Germany, Zootaxa 4909 (1), pp. 1-77 : 48

Bibio lignarius Germar, 1837 (figs. 75, 194–195)

Bibio lignarius Germar, 1837: 23 .

Localities: Orsberg

Material examined: Holotype (female, part and counterpart) STIPB A 601 (fig. 75).

Additional material: STIPB A 619 (Germar material, labeled as Tipulidae )

Description:

Female (N=2, figs. 75, 194–195):

Total length 12.5–14.5 mm (N=2). The specimens available have no pigment preservation.

Head (fig. 195): Length 1.5 mm, width 1.4 mm (N=1), nearly circular seen from above. Complex eye relatively large, occupying most of the side of head, not protruding. Ocellar tubercle small. Antenna robust, flagellum possibly 7-segmented.

Thorax (fig. 195): Length 3.0– 4.3 mm, width 2.7–3.7 mm (N=2).

Wing (fig. 194): Length 11.9 mm (N=1), width 4.7 mm (N=2), length/width = 2.5 (N=1). Veins fine but distinctive. Subcosta fine but distinctive, straight, running well clear of R in its entire length. Humeral vein fine, oblique. Pterostigma medium-sized, oval. Radial sector about four times as long as crossvein R-M. Posterior part of wing not preserved. Vein measurements given in Table 5.

Legs: Only fragments preserved, not possible to describe.

Abdomen: Oval, length 8.1–10.5 mm, width 3.1–3.9 mm (N=2).

Male unknown.

Discussion:

The type locality for this species is given in the original description as «territorii Rheni borussici» (= Prussian Rhine province), in contrast to the other bibionids decribed in that work where the locality is given as «territorii Rheni prope Bonnam» (= Rhine province near Bonn). The Prussian Rhine province in 1837 included the surroundings of Bonn, so it is difficult to be sure if the type localities for these taxa are in fact different. In the literature, the name has been used repeatedly for specimens probably not conspecific with the types, one of them (Unger (1841: Fig 5A) not even Bibionidae ( Skartveit & Krizmanić 2020) . The specimen questionably referred to this species by C. Heyden (1859: 14) is probably not identifiable at the species level.